Prof. Stephen Hawking: Great Scientist, Bad Gambler 231
astroengine writes "World-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has announced that he was likely wrong about his view that the Higgs boson doesn't exist — an outcome he doesn't find very exciting — conceding that he lost a $100 wager. Speaking at the Beckman Auditorium in Caltech, Pasadena, Calif., on Tuesday (April 16), the British physicist gave a public lecture on 'The Origins of the Universe,' summarizing new revelations in modern astrophysics and cosmology. After the lecture, Caltech physicist and colleague John Preskill commented on Hawking's fondness for placing bets when faced with conflicts of physics ideas. Hawking lost a famous wager to Preskill in 2004 in a debate over whether or not black holes destroy information (theory suggests they do not, opposing Hawking's argument). 'To love Stephen Hawking is to not always agree with Stephen Hawking,' Preskill quipped. 'He's usually right, but he's not always right. Sometimes we haven't been able to resolve our differences and we've resorted to making bets it's sad to say that although Stephen Hawking is without doubt a great scientist, he's a bad gambler.'"
Re:It's OK (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe he plays to lose just to goad the other guy into finishing his research.
His "bad" bets spark innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
He isn't offering the money as a token to indicate how strongly he believes in an idea. $100 isn't going to break the bank for him.
What is he really doing is offering the chance to boast "I won a bet against Stephen Hawking" (You know... The guy who is regarded by most people to be the smartest person in the world) as the prize for some very extreme research.
He is giving the encouragement to push the boundaries of what we know about science in the quest of knowledge, and this is exactly what science is about.
So even when he "loses" the bet, he wins, because he has helped science go further by challenging everything that we know, instead of just following what the "smartest" people think,
Re:FTA (Score:3, Interesting)
This is what I don't understand about these intelligent people. They answer why there is something rather than nothing by talking about how quantum fluctuations work. The existence of quantum fluctuations results from energy existing in the first place. So we have a rather circular argument being made.
He's not arguing that 'something' exists because of quantum fluctuations, he's merely asserting that they replace the need for an intelligent design to explain our existence.
Essentially it boils down to "there is something because there was something".
There are only two possibilities: 1) there has always been something 2) there wasn't always something. Neither can be true, ergo we don't exist.
Besides being a gross (and I mean huge) oversimplication of the facts I fail to see why 'Neither can be true'.
All in all I don't know what you're trying to prove but whatever it is you aren't quite there yet.
Oh, and 'these intelligent people' as you so disparagingly call them are extremely dedicated people that have worked years to reach the pinnacle of human understanding. You don't have to agree with them but a little more respect might suit you.
Re:FTA (Score:5, Interesting)
Quantum fluctuations are energy neutral, they don't require there to be existing energy to create, at least not beyond the vacuum energy. Of course, then the argument becomes where did the vacuum come from? Where did the laws of physics come from? But what Hawking is saying is that given an empty universe, the laws of physics, and lots and lots and lots of time (though in an empty universe time is pretty meaningless) quantum fluctuations will eventually produce a full universe.
Re:It's OK (Score:2, Interesting)
He also has a view that God does not exist.
Re:His "bad" bets spark innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
It may be wrong, but didn't Albert Einstein challenge people who questioned his ideas to go ahead and prove him wrong, just to get people working on finding stuff out rather than simply challenging some theory that was proposed.
Kudos to Prof. Hawking for stimulating research, and having some fun at the same time!
Perhaps the writers of The Big Bang Theory could use the idea to have Prof. Hawking make a bet with Sheldon Cooper about a particular theory. I heard he really enjoyed his appearance on the show and it would be great to see him as a guest star again.
Re:It's OK (Score:2, Interesting)
God can be omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent: Select two, in order to have what most people see as God.
If he's all three, there's a paradox of an omnibenevolent God who wants the best for everyone, yet for some reason allows suffering and evil.
Rather than "We need those so we understand Good and Happiness" or whatever, I point out that God is omnipotent, and therefore could simply allow us to understand how good we have it without needing the suffering. If he didn't think of this, then he's not omniscient. If he can't do it, he's not omnipotent, and if he doesn't want to, he's not omnibenevolent.
Given the behavior assigned to God in the Old Testament and the overlap of omnipotence and omniscience, I suspect the explanation is a lack of omnibenevolence. (Were I omniscient, I would know how to make myself omnipotent. Were I omnipotent, I could simply will myself to be omniscient. Neither of those prescribe morality, however.)
I'd love to hear about alternatives that make logical sense.
Re:and so the argument continues to circle... (Score:4, Interesting)
In the beginning, God said "let there be light," and there was light.
Happy?