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.'"
It's OK (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's OK (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe he plays to lose just to goad the other guy into finishing his research.
Re:It's OK (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's OK (Score:5, Informative)
From "A Brief History of Time":
"This was a form of insurance policy for me. I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. But in that case, I would have the consolation of winning my bet, which would win me four years of the magazine Private Eye. If black holes do exist, Kip will get one year of Penthouse. When we made the bet in 1975, we were 80% certain that Cygnus was a black hole. By now, I would say that we are about 95% certain, but the bet has yet to be settled."
Obligatory XKCD (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, that may be the inspiration for this: xkcd.com/955 [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't surprise me.
He even made a bet saying that black holes didn't exist. It was a hedge because it would've blown up a bunch of his own research if he had won. I rather enjoy that he doesn't take himself too seriously when it comes to these bets.
Re: (Score:2)
He actually tends to bet *against* what he thinks the more interesting possibility is. That way, either he wins the bet, or he has some exciting new science going on. He wins either way.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He also has a view that God does not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would very much like to see a valid scientific experiment that proves that a Creator entity is statistically impossible. Then I would like to see your solution of some nagging physics problems that I have been having trouble with... like Quantum Gravity and the Theory of Everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are arguing that humans cannot fully accurately conceive of the "Creator entity," as the GP referred to "God." Ok, fine. Couldn't I make the *exact same argument* about basically all of science? How can humans, as non-creators, actually fully accurately understand any physics? So I guess we should pretty much throw out all science, because, after all, if we're not 100% certain that it is 100% accurate, then the entire thing is worthless.
Or perhaps it's possible to have a "reasonably accurate" con
Re: (Score:3)
OK, Pastor Einstein. Go ahead and tell us everything you know about God.
As far as the statistically impossible part, it is simple. Pick a concept of God. Out of the infinite possibilities, what are the chances that you picked the right one?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not the one claiming the statistically impossible (or, in my case, statistically certain) part.
So... pick a concept of reality. Out of the infinite possibilities, what are the chances you picked the right one?
Can't this sort of epistemology game go on more or less forever on any given topic?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pick a concept of computer. Out of the infinte possible concepts of computer, what are the chances that yours is correct regarding how to connect to the internet and post on slashdot?
Your argument makes no sense, it attempts to use hypotheticals to disprove reality. If God exists, and he has communicated what he is like, Id say theres a pretty good chance that those he communicated to got it right; yet in that circumstance your argument would still insist that it could not be so.
Re: (Score:3)
If you mean that I am unable to pick out the exact characteristics of a deity myself, and get them all right... sure, I suppose you're right. Considering that there are actually orthodoxies out there, however, I'd say that for the most part a lot of people can agree on the broader outlines. There are actually a lot fewer choices out there than you think. And I mean *serious* choices, not just theoretical thought problems where the characteristics of a god can be put in a hopper. People may develop Flyin
Re: (Score:2)
Even if everyone agrees that the world is flat, it is still spherical. I'm sorry you are having trouble understanding this simple concept. OTOH, I'm not about to waste more time trying to explain it to you, so HANL.
Re: (Score:3)
The spherical shape of the Earth is a falsifiable hypothesis within the realm of the scientific method. Thus, it can be tested and it's factual basis established objectively which allows it to stand against consensus. The existence of a deity is not falsifiable, and therefore normal scientific inquiry is not sufficient. Popular agreement doesn't make it true either, but it certainly doesn't make it false.
In any case the point I was addressing is that you're stating that everyone is wrong about God. And
Re: (Score:2)
It is unlikely that your concept of any entity - even yourself - is entirely accurate, so your argument seems rather like splitting hairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth just is (Score:2)
Your reasoning is fundamentally illogical, yet you tout it as provable. How ironic and sad that someone would insist on his infallible logic when it's fundamentally flawed.
1. You are presupposing you know what others mean when they use the term "God." What you're actually doing is reasoning based on your own conception of God.
2. God is, by definition, above and beyond and outside of us and our universe. Statistics is a human-created field. It cannot prove anything which is by definition outside its re
Re: (Score:2)
And yet I can easily deduce you think it's a "him", thereby making you a pretty serious moron.
Re: (Score:2)
My experience is that those who insist that something they have done or concieved of is perfect, it usually is not.
In fact, most maxims about "wisdom" I have ever seen or read tend to indicate that wisdom consists in large part of recognizing your flaws, rather than engaging in hubris.
Actually, no... (Score:2)
1. You are presupposing you know what others mean when they use the term "God." What you're actually doing is reasoning based on your own conception of God.
"God" [wikipedia.org] is pretty well defined. Really. Some people out there have been doing nothing but that for millennia now.
You seem to be confusing "God" for a "deity". Now THAT [wikipedia.org] can mean a lot of different things.
2. God is, by definition, above and beyond and outside of us and our universe. Statistics is a human-created field. It cannot prove anything which is by definition outside its realm.
By definition, "God" is exactly opposite of that.
He is inside all of us and everything else in the universe, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omni- everything else.
You seem to be confusing a "God" with a mere "Creator" or "Experimenter".
Which is akin to defining Superman as "a man wearing red underwear
Re: (Score:2)
He also has a view that God does not exist.
Did he wager $100 on that, too? From the article, he is wrong more often than he is right.
Re: (Score:2)
He also has a view that God does not exist.
Chanting every morning with my head in an arbitrary direction:There is no god and Richard Dawkins is his prophet!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, which one would that be?
Re: (Score:2)
Gods were invented* for keeping the population in place. Gods that are nice to people are not really good for this.
*: This is, in my opinion, most likely not true. I believe that gods were invented because people did not know how to explain natural phenomena. (e. g. "Why does the Sun rise every day?" "Someone carries it"). However, they quickly became used as justification of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Some day we will be gods. At some point we will create a micro universe that to us will expand and collapse in a split seconds or less.
Maybe this has already happened, and we are living in one of these micro-universes. Logically, this is almost certainly true: There is only one top-level "real" universe, but over time there may be billions of simulated universes. So the odds of our reality being the "real" universe are pretty low.
Re: (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 omni
Re:It's OK (Score:5, Insightful)
The Problem of Evil is only really a problem in the sense that you or I would not be able to understand how the world could exist in such a way, but still have both the best possible outcome, and also allow free will.
The fact that humans don't understand something, however, is simply a statement of our own ignorance, and not so much an actual indictment of the idea of an all powerful, all knowing, all benevolent entity. Needless to say, having all the knowledge and all the power would probably provide an understanding of the best possible scenario that we would probably not have any conception of at our level of understanding.
In short, you're assuming you know what true omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence looks like. Logic would indicate that actually, you'd need those characteristics to really make a judgement. We still don't even understand things that should be much easier to understand like Quantum Gravity, for instance, but we feel qualified to pronounce on omniscience? I just don't see how that follows.
Truth simply is (Score:5, Insightful)
Your reasoning is based on several presuppositions:
1. That you know what omnibenevolence actually is, from a universal, absolute perspective. We humans have such limited perspectives. What may seem benevolent to us might actually be harmful in ways we aren't aware of or can't comprehend. Helping one person with a problem might end up hurting many more people.
2. That you know what is actually good for anyone. This is not the same as the previous item. We humans often think we know what we need, what is good for us, but quite often we are wrong, and we do things that are not good for us. How could we make this judgment for others if we can't even make it for ourselves?
3. That you know what it would be like to be omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. Frankly, this is absurd. It's easy to say, "I'd know everything and could do everything!" But you've no idea what knowing everything would actually be like. To see how every single minute particle is connected, how the tiniest action leads to another and another, to see and understand time, to understand at once the enormity of the universe and the smallest subatomic particle, to see inside people's hearts and minds... To actually understand what that would be like is incomprehensible to us, because we are markedly finite. Therefore, to say what you would do if you were any of these things is equally absurd.
You think you're being logical, but your logic is founded on unprovable assumptions. While you criticize others for making God in their image, you are doing the same thing, constructing a God that you can comprehend. This is exactly why people throughout history have made idols and worshipped them: it's easier to comprehend something you can see and touch, something made by human hands. But in so doing, one is simply worshipping an artificial construct, which is by definition more limited than the one who created it, i.e. even lower than humans. And any God that is wholly comprehensible by humans is by definition not God. There is a fundamental arrogance in believing that nothing is beyond one's own understanding, but this is precisely what people do when they delineate God's boundaries according to their limited perceptions. In the end, this results in idol worship in the form of self-worship, believing that we can reason our way to all truth, while in reality many things are simply beyond our reach.
Truth is truth whether or not we believe it, understand it, or agree with it. If God is real, then he is real and he is who he is, regardless of what we think, feel, or believe about him.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what I meant. I meant that, to assume that we can reason our way to understanding the nature of God, the nature of what he is and how he created the universe, is arrogant in that it fails to recognize our finiteness--this is a form of self-worship, as it places oneself at the highest level of understanding.
We should certainly use reason! But doing so includes recognizing our limitations and the limitations of reason, given our limitations.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not just talking about the limitations of reason, you're rejecting it. There's a real contradiction between the usual descriptions of God and the perceived world. This isn't a case of somebody taking reason too far, but trying to apply it at all to a very obvious issue.
I don't understand you at all. I'm not rejecting reason. I'm simply saying that there are some questions which we cannot answer by simply thinking and speculating. We cannot prove whether there is an afterlife; we cannot prove there is a spiritual realm.
Who cares what the "usual descriptions of God" are? What if the usual descriptions are wrong? A theory or belief is not correct because of how popular it is.
You know what? You're right: there is a real contradiction between the usual descriptions of Go
Re: (Score:2)
If God is real, then he is real and he is who he is
Popeye is God?
I get what you're saying, but there are some things which are REALLY good bets. I mean, 1+1=2. PROBABLY. Boil it down [wikipedia.org], and it depends on things like the null set axiom [wikipedia.org]. But, on a philosophical level, you're right. If 1+1=42, then that's the way it is and we have to accept that. It also means that we have to accept that all of mathematics is built on a lie and most of our understanding of physics is balls-to-the-walls wrong.
Mathematical axioms, like our views of omni-fillintheblank, are unprova
Re: (Score:2)
Who said that our history represents a cosmos which is the best of all possibilities? Who said it's guided--implying that it is to the extent of being directly controlled--by an omnipotent being? These are presuppositions that may not be true. If you submit to these presuppositions, you limit your reasoning to that which they do not exclude. If these presuppositions are false, you have prevented yourself from arriving at the truth.
I don't propose that those are true--that is, I don't propose that God di
Re: (Score:2)
But in so doing, one is simply worshipping an artificial construct, which is by definition more limited than the one who created it, i.e. even lower than humans.
You argue for a universe of progressively diminishing complexity. That pretty much throws evolution (as we understand it) out the window, since according to your definitions, new life forms must be more limited than their ancestors. By your logic, we "devolved" from gods.
No, you misunderstand me, or you conflate two separate matters. If we assume for a moment that God created the universe we see, and also that evolution is a real process that exists in our world, then they are two separate processes; God creating from nothingness is completely orthogonal to a self-sustaining biological process within the universe which does not create from nothingness but alters what already exists. The former creates matter and energy and the nature of existence out of nothingness, while
Re: (Score:2)
How about able to look into the future and know things, but choosing to sit back and let things play out at times.
Re: (Score:2)
Were I omnipotent, I could simply will myself to be omniscient. Neither of those prescribe morality, however.)
Are you sure god isn't just impotent and pissed off because he can't get any?
Re: (Score:2)
Historically?
No, not really.
Re: (Score:2)
So you choose to disbelieve in the idea of God, because your limited view on religions, doesn't align with your moral value.
A typical straw-man argument from atheist.
Religions are a philosophy to try to understand God. All religions can be wrong, but still have a God.
There is no solid proof the God does or doesn't exist. God can just be a human made construct to make us feel less isolated in the universe, and as a way to deal with some of the randomness in the universe. Or God can exist outside nature, thu
Re:It's OK (Score:5, Funny)
Don't feel bad... (Score:5, Funny)
The Higgs boson was also wrong in its view that Stephen Hawkings doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The Higgs boson was also wrong in its view that Stephen Hawkings doesn't exist.
Interesting bet. The only way to win is not to wager.
FTA (Score:4, Insightful)
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. 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.
Re:FTA (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Things can change form, eg. energy->matter.
All you need to create all the matter in the universe is a single photon with a wavelength of 10^95Hz, then convert energy->matter.
Re:and so the argument continues to circle... (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
That photon would be the actual God particle then.
Re: (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 reac
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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.
And that would make him rather stupid then wouldn't it? Why do the quantum fluctuations exist, what do they exist in, what created them? Now we're right back where we started aren't we? This is one of those examples of people worshiping a scientist like he himself is a god. You've got some sort of ignorant blind faith in him for no logical reason as even his logic ... well, isn't.
He doesn't seem to be able to understand the question in the first place judging by his answers. He is too focused on whats
Re: (Score:2)
Why do the quantum fluctuations exist, what do they exist in, what created them?
Implicit in your argument is the assumption that if something exists, then it must have been created. If that assumption is correct, then if the Universe exists, it must have been created. What created the Universe? Some people, perhaps including you, would answer that God created the Universe. Does God exist? If so, what created created God? Now you have the problem of an infinite regress.
If, however, the assumption is incorrect, then the Universe can exist without having been created. If the Universe can
Re: (Score:2)
Implicit in your argument is the assumption that if something exists, then it must have been created. If that assumption is correct, then if the Universe exists, it must have been created. What created the Universe? Some people, perhaps including you, would answer that God created the Universe. Does God exist? If so, what created created God? Now you have the problem of an infinite regress.
This is only a problem if you make it one. If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it, and it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in a realm outside of and above our own.
If, instead, you admit that some questions are not answerable in this realm, then such problems cease to be problems, and you can move on to relevant questions.
Re: (Score:2)
"What caused God?" This is an irrelevant question. If God is real, and if he is God, then, given that we don't even know how the universe--what we can directly see--was created, how could we possibly understand how or if God--what we cannot directly see--was created? It's a question that is impossible for us to answer scientifically or empirically. All the question does is distract us from more important, actually relevant questions--such as, "Is God real?"
Quantum fluctuations are a more satisfactory explanation. They're extremely simple; it's more likely that something simple can be uncaused and can just exist, and have always existed, than that the same is true for something complex, like a god. And this simple thing explains how more complex things can jump into existence by random chance.
Uncaused? This is a meaningless, made-up word.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a circular argument, inasmuch as the fields that fluctuate to allow a big bang to happen are not the fields that exist after the bang. They've moved the issue back one stage further in time, and in doing so created an intellectual space in which one might begin to address the validity of various models.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the big bang theory, there has been "something" as long as there was "time" and "space". This means it would actually be accurate to say that there has always been something. Talking about things before the big bang makes about as much sense as asking what is east of the north pole.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Time, as we know it, seems to have begun at the Big Bang. Hence, "always" does not really mean anything useful. Of course it is likely that the current understanding is very incomplete.
Re: (Score:2)
Gambler? (Score:3)
Re:Gambler? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares if he is a great scientist or poor gambler? At least he makes the topic amusing by betting on it. That raises interest in the general public about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And I'd think everyone would realize that a $100 bet for Stephen Hawking is not an "all in" proposition, meant to force a weak position.
It's obviously just the sort of more-or-less inconsequential thing they do for giggles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
scientist are wrong all the time and argue all the time
Exactly. You don't learn new things when you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't learn new things when you're right.
What? If you're right about a future particle, you learned something.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're right, you simply gain verification. Great. If you're wrong, well, it's back to the drawing board because it means there's something off with your model, and sort of like the ancient mystery of how a bumblebee flies, it probably opens opportunities to do something amazing.
It's sort of like how you tell the difference between a bad scientist as a good one. Expose the former to 'real magic', something physics breaking, and they'll be pissed(and ignore it, degenerate it, etc...). A good scientist
Re: (Score:3)
That would explain his popularity with the general public but it hardly accounts for the huge esteem with which his work is held in cosmology. You can bullshit your fans but you can't bullshit your colleagues.
The Controversial Side (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Controversial Side (Score:4, Insightful)
Hawking tends to bet on the more controversial side of a scientific debate, and thus the less likely side. He does not play it safe. Of course, statistically he's going to lose. But when he wins ( Hawking Radiation [wikipedia.org]) he gets stuff named after him.
Out of curiosity, why is he going to lose statistically? He isn't picking one side of an argument or another just for the sake of picking. He does his research and forms his hypotheses others do theirs. One may be right or they all may be wrong, but it's not like flipping a coin. Where does statistics come into play?
What is missed in all of this is why he doubted the Higgs boson -- because, as has now been shown, it is incompatible with our current understanding of how particles formed after the big bang. So, if what we now know or think we know about the Higgs boson is correct, we now have to go back to the drawing board on how matter formed in the very early universe. When Hawking made his $100 bet, that theory was well accepted, now it is wrong and another is needed to account for HB.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I recall that at least one of his bets was an insurance policy against the possibility that his favourite theory was false. If it was disproven, at least he'd have the consolation of (IIRC) a year's supply of Playboy magazine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bet only counts if you find someone to bet against you. Good luck with that in your case!
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: (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 enj
Re: (Score:2)
100 is a lot cheaper than paying a researcher to write a paper. he should be making a lot more bets.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those 50 are still living?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a nice thought, and likely a side effect of his wagers, but is it really his intent?
I attended a guest lecture by Kip Thorne several years ago, and he made it seem that one of the early bets between him and Hawking (on the existence of black holes) was just a friendly wager between colleagues, the way you might bet a coworker a beer on the outcome of the Super Bowl, not some open challenge to all comers. The bet with Preskill regarding information loss in black holes seems similar - the prize was a
Re: (Score:2)
in essence he's supporting the scientific ideal of "question everything, even me".
you may (even likely) be wrong...but you may be right.
and if you are, oh how interesting it is to pursue a brand new avenue of research that turns all of "accepted" science on its head.
Just As Well (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It'd suck having to put up with trash talk from Stephen Hawking after he won a bet with you.
Like this from Big Bang Theory: "Professor Hawking: What do Sheldon Cooper and the black hole have in common? They both suck."
MC Hawking, trash talking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It'd suck having to put up with trash talk from Stephen Hawking after he won a bet with you.
Yeah, he's pretty good at the trash talk, especially in rhyme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MC_Hawking [wikipedia.org]
Depends on point of view surely (Score:2)
Obligatory STTNG clip: (Score:5, Funny)
He's a better gambler than two other famous physicists and an AI from the 24th century
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg8_cKxJZJY [youtube.com]
He does give in easy (Score:2)
Of course, this is a way of concentrating people's minds, and getting attention to the subject. He is a theoritician, not an experimentalist, so he gives in fairly easily.
The theory that made him give in is "M-theory," which has absolutely no experimental evidence in favor of it. He decided he lost the wager; the debate itself is very much
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.. now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I have a later edition (or I'm thinking of a different book) but I recall him writing about Kip Thorne's wife's reaction to the payment of the bet.