Did Death Cheat Stephen Hawking of a Nobel Prize? (msn.com) 60
"Did death cheat Stephen Hawking of a Nobel Prize?" asks the New York Times:
When the iconic physicist died on March 14, 2018, data was already in hand that could confirm an ominous and far-reaching prediction he had made more than four decades before. Dr. Hawking had posited that black holes, those maws of gravitational doom, could only grow larger, never smaller — swallowing information as they went and so threatening our ability to trace the history of the universe. That data was obtained in 2015 when the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO, recorded signals from two massive black holes that had collided and created an even more massive black hole. Dr. Hawking's prediction was a first crucial step in a series of insights about black holes that have transformed modern physics. At stake is whether Einsteinian gravity, which shapes the larger universe, plays by the same rules as quantum mechanics, the paradoxical rules that prevail inside the atom.
A confirmation of Dr. Hawking's prediction was published this summer in Physical Review Letters. A team led by Maximiliano Isi, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his colleagues had spent years digging into the details of the LIGO results, and in July they finally announced that Dr. Hawking was right, at least for this particular black hole collision. "It's an exciting test because it's a long-desired result that cannot be achieved in a lab on Earth," Matthew Giesler, a researcher at Cornell University and part of Dr. Isi's team, said in an email. "This test required studying the merger of two black holes over a billion light years away and simply could not be accomplished without LIGO and its unprecedented detectors."
Nobody claims to know the mind of the Nobel Prize committee, and the names of people nominated for the prize are held secret for another 50 years. But many scientists agree that Dr. Isi's confirmation of Dr. Hawking's prediction could have made Dr. Hawking — and his co-authors on a definitive paper about it — eligible for a Nobel Prize.
But the Nobel Prize cannot be awarded posthumously. Dr. Isi's result came too late.
A confirmation of Dr. Hawking's prediction was published this summer in Physical Review Letters. A team led by Maximiliano Isi, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his colleagues had spent years digging into the details of the LIGO results, and in July they finally announced that Dr. Hawking was right, at least for this particular black hole collision. "It's an exciting test because it's a long-desired result that cannot be achieved in a lab on Earth," Matthew Giesler, a researcher at Cornell University and part of Dr. Isi's team, said in an email. "This test required studying the merger of two black holes over a billion light years away and simply could not be accomplished without LIGO and its unprecedented detectors."
Nobody claims to know the mind of the Nobel Prize committee, and the names of people nominated for the prize are held secret for another 50 years. But many scientists agree that Dr. Isi's confirmation of Dr. Hawking's prediction could have made Dr. Hawking — and his co-authors on a definitive paper about it — eligible for a Nobel Prize.
But the Nobel Prize cannot be awarded posthumously. Dr. Isi's result came too late.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, I don't want that. 80-100 years is plenty already.
The problem is that so many of those years are useless because either you're too immature for too long (because we treat being childish like it's a good thing), or we're too destroyed by the many illnesses that we falsely call "age-related" but almost always are just due to us eating manufactured crap.
The quickest way to prolong your life, is to eat food that's less modified and less processed. As a rule of thumb: Only process it if it is strictly n
School conditions you, while work⦠(Score:3)
It is that simple. People eat bad food and breathe harmful petrochemicals on a daily basis because we collectively created and upheld a system with a goal of providing adequate employment rather than adequate health. The saddest part is we keep voting for politicians which promise to prioritise the economy and jobs over public health, so we get what we all deserve really.
Until we collectively decide differently, if you as an individual want to live a longer and better life, then actually
Re: (Score:2)
Breaks you.
Well, there are a lot of really lazy people who believe the same thing. But in reality, I kinda doubt it, unless the idea of work is so anathema to you that work stresses you.
Until we collectively decide differently, if you as an individual want to live a longer and better life, then actually listen to your body and rest when it tells you to, eat only when it tells you to, keep it hydrated and do not overwork it in the name of so-called productivity. Otherwise, you will wear yourself out early by making the same mistakes your elders did. Learn from them.
So under your system where people only do what they feel like doing - how long do you figure we'll all live?
I think your idea that people should avoid stress (i'd say severe stress) is really good. Stress is bad health wise, and definitely not a position to be happy.
But the individual who finds work really stressful needs to gain
Re: School conditions you, while work⦠(Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is that most modern job roles can be heavily automated and many hours of unnecessary labour eliminated. Yet, we have politicians talking about implementing robot taxes and other stupid ideas in the name of preserving a broken system where a lot of people do very meaningless, pointless tasks simply because it is how things have always been.
And here's an uncomfortable truth. Assuming we don't self destruct civilization, the automation simply will happen. This will not stop.
Yes, a lot of people won't need to work at all. In fact, they won't need to exist at all. There lies the issue. We have a few different directions to go. Will we turn into an interesting world where everyone follows their dreams? Or will we turn into a world attempting to sustain 10 billion people with nothing to do, and having to adjust to an almost medieval livestyle, w
Re: (Score:2)
Citation(s)?
What, exactly, do you mean by "eating manufactured crap" that is causing illnesses that look "age-related"? And what evidence is there that avoiding "eating manufactured crap" will allow one to live much longer than we live now? Note, for the record, that average life expectancy these days is longer than it's been since we started keeping records of tha
Re: (Score:2)
In this country-the United States-55 percent of adults are overweight and 23 percent are obese. (Definitions of obesity and overweight are not arbitrary, but are based on the internationally accepted standards. See map, pages 30-31.) The medical expenses and lost wages caused by obesity cost the country an estimated $118 billion each year, the equivalent of 12 percent of the annual health budget. Being overweight and obese are major risk factors in coronary heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes. Together these diseases are the leading killers in the United States, accounting for half of all deaths. https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
The US food industry hires chemical engineers to make their products as addictive as possible, the same tactic that the tobacco industry famously used in the 1970s & 80s. Obesity & malnutrition make a lot of money for the food & pharmaceutical industries. I'm sure they didn't set out to cause it but I bet once the money started rolling in, they just couldn't stop themselves, much like their obese customers/patients.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation(s)?
What, exactly, do you mean by "eating manufactured crap" that is causing illnesses that look "age-related"? And what evidence is there that avoiding "eating manufactured crap" will allow one to live much longer than we live now? Note, for the record, that average life expectancy these days is longer than it's been since we started keeping records of that sort of thing....
Getting citations is the tough part. When I was a kid - people were saying the same thing. Same with my grandparents. Same with their grandparents. Back in the 1800's people had health guru's like Kellogg promoting health and longevity via eating.
It's all a long sordid history of people wanting to assign blame to often random illnesses on the person suffering from the illness.
It can get to the point of being pretty cruel.
There are activities that are bad for a person's health, like morbid obesity, an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I don't want that. 80-100 years is plenty already.
Good God, this!
It's almost all Genetics anyway, and although we've been able to allow more people to live to fairly ripe old age, we aren't extending the lifespan. There aren't any 200 year old people running around.
And looking at the 100 year olds when they wheel them out, the last thing I think is "I wanna get some of that life".
Eating good, exercise, and healthy living are good and all. But seeing as how the men in my family tend to live healthy to around 85, then die (unless killed in war or acc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem when you're 100 years old is that all your peers and friends are dead already. Unless you're really well connected into your family, it's a pretty lonely existence, and even other "old people" are twenty years younger than you.
I always thought the nastiest insult ever was to tell a person "My you live a hundred years more than those you love" I've never used it though - just seemed too mean.
But Hawkings cheated death first! (Score:2)
That's the joke I was looking for. (The new Subject, not the AC drivel FP.)
Hold on.. (Score:4, Informative)
Didn't his prediction/discovery of Hawking Radiation state that over time black holes evaporate?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the smaller they are, the faster they do.
That is the reason the LHC didn't eat up Earth, and neither do the about four tiny black holes that enter our atmosphere each (I think) year.
At least that's what the theories said, and we have no observation to disagree with them, but also not exactly observation to agree with it, which is probably why he didn't get that prize. )
Re: (Score:2)
four tiny black holes that enter our atmosphere
There is zero evidence that tiny BHs exist, and plenty of evidence that they do not.
The smallest known BH is 3.3 solar masses. There is no known mechanism for the creation of a BH smaller than that.
If they were out there, we would see their effects, such as gravitational lensing. We don't.
Re: (Score:2)
four tiny black holes that enter our atmosphere
There is zero evidence that tiny BHs exist, and plenty of evidence that they do not.
The smallest known BH is 3.3 solar masses. There is no known mechanism for the creation of a BH smaller than that.
Start with a big one and let it evaporate?
Re: (Score:2)
Start with a big one and let it evaporate?
A BH the mass of the sun will take 1.16e67 years to evaporate.
It will radiate the mass of one hydrogen atom every trillion years.
The rate of evaporation is proportional to the cube of the mass, so a 3.3 solar mass BH, will last 36 times as long.
There is no way for a small BH to have been created from a big BH during the current lifetime of the universe.
Hawking Radiation Calculator [vttoth.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Start with a big one and let it evaporate?
A BH the mass of the sun will take 1.16e67 years to evaporate.
But that's at room temperature, right?
Re: (Score:2)
They do (well we think they do, it hasn't been observed experimentally), but decent sized black holes evaporate slower than they increase in size from absorbing the cosmic microwave background (much much much slower, for black holes this size). The question here is if two black holes after a merger follow this area law, independently of evaporation. It's a reasonable question to ask, because the black holes together have lower mass than they do separately (with much of the extra mass going into gravitationa
Re: (Score:2)
The rate of evaporation by Hawking Radiation is very slow. It would not overcome the accumulation of matter when there is still matter to accumulate. I believe Hawking Radiation could cause microscopic black holes to evaporate, but nobody has ever observed a microscopic black hole. It is not certain whether such entities exist. I am not sure how you would detect microscopic black holes.
Entitled to a prize? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"There are many people who have done work to earn the Nobel prize. No one can be cheated out the prize because no one inherently deserves it"
Exactly, Stephen would have spent everything on blow and chicks anyway.
In picture (Score:4, Funny)
Not even sure myself why i did a google image search for that but this came up and I thought it was amusing in this context https://i2.wp.com/maggiemcneil... [wp.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
You made my day.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even sure myself why i did a google image search for that but this came up and I thought it was amusing in this context https://i2.wp.com/maggiemcneil... [wp.com] .
=)))
Re: Entitled to a prize? (Score:2)
What do you mean no one inherently deserves it? In any field, there are people who are better than others in it. Are you saying there is no fastest 100 meter sprinter in the world? If superiority is true of athletics, why not intellect?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean no one inherently deserves it? In any field, there are people who are better than others in it. Are you saying there is no fastest 100 meter sprinter in the world? If superiority is true of athletics, why not intellect?
He's just pissed off that he's never going to win.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean no one inherently deserves it? In any field, there are people who are better than others in it. Are you saying there is no fastest 100 meter sprinter in the world? If superiority is true of athletics, why not intellect?
Intellect is not quantifiable though. And it goes much deeper than that.
There is a small skirmish going on about Rosalind Franklin, with people claiming she was cheated out of a Nobel prize - wait for it - because she possessed a vagina.
So while the hundred yard dash winner might be easily measurable, other factors come into play in science today. Not the least is agitprops for Nobel prizes for new qualifications, like gender or sex, but even the standard old school ones like professional jealousy, p
Re: (Score:2)
Not unusual actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Not unusual actually. Women scientists were not treated as scientists - science was not considered a ladies profession. That's why Curie was a bit unusual. But there was huge gender discrimination back then so yes, having a vagina would be an instant disqualification because it went against the custom of women can't be scientists.
We live in a funny age, where women are obtaining degrees at a 2:1 ratio, obtaining jobs at the top of the ladder, and yet - they are still victims.
There is a present day example of the patriarchy discriminating against women I'll share. Hedy Lamarr of Hollywood fame, is being given credit for the Invention of Spread spectrum technology. She was indeed a brilliant lady. But the patriarchy kept her down, as the patriarchy does. She was posthumously awarded a spot in the inventors hall of fame, with a sad
Does anyone honestly think he cares? (Score:3)
Looking at the dude's life, one has to suspect that he's not going to give much of a fuck if some committee somewhere has an appropriate level of respect for his work. I mean, he was Stephen Fucking Hawking. How many actual living Nobel Prize winners can your average person name?
Re: (Score:2)
By that standard, the most amazing person ever must be Oprah Winfrey.
Re: (Score:1)
Seconded, I can name quite a few scientists, and can not tell who of those got the Nobel prize. It's just a stupid badge anyway. What are we? Thirteen?
Re: (Score:3)
I can name quite a few scientists, and can not tell who of those got the Nobel prize.
You can't name Einstein?
Seriously, you should know that Newton also got a Nobel prize (in 2134 for time travel).
Re: (Score:2)
Wide parts of the media adored Hawking and included him in various shows as himself, or as an animated character, or played by an actor, making him part of popular culture for generations X,Y, and Z at least.
His name and contributions won't be forgotten so quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a fair criteria. Few are awarded the prize these days until old enough to drop like flies.
Prizes awarded since my own birth is another story.
Reminds me of a funny story.
"More than four decades before" (Score:3)
Y'know, the Nobel is supposed to be awarded for work the recipient did in the previous year. Yeah, most of the time these days, it's not, but that's how it's supposed to work.
Re: (Score:2)
It was tried. But it lead to awards for work whch proved to be deeply flawed or inconsequential, It takes time to recognize the truly foundational - transformative - works in the arts anc sciences.
Re: (Score:2)
A long and interesting life was enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Doctors expected Stephen Hawking to die within a few years at best, after the diagnosis of motor neuron disease in his twenties. I am not sure why Dr Hawking lasted so long, whereas other motor neuron disease patients do just die, as expected.
I am speculating on the mind over matter thing here, but I suspect that Dr Hawking had two things going for him: an ability to live happily inside his own head, and a particularly strong will that things needed to be done, so dying was not an option. The fact that the things that needed to be done were all thinking meant that the severe physical disability caused by the disease did not hinder the work.
Prizes are nice, but the real reward is people recognising the value of your work, by referring to it, and developing it. I presume Dr Hawking was adequately rewarded in that respect, so I hope he died a happy man.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, cheated him out of more Star Trek spots (Score:2)
Article title is incorrect (Score:2)
The bigger elephant (Score:2)
I'm not sure if death cheated Stephen Hawking out of a Nobel prize, but I'm damn sure that sexism and racism have cheated dozens of women and Black people out of a Nobel prize.
Who cares? (Score:2)
Nobel prizes are political, awarded by people, based on intramural politics in each field. It's not some innate feature of nature.
Power Point (Score:1)
All he needed to do is come up with a powerpoint presentation. It could be total BS. Worked for Al Gore. He cheated a woman that really deserved it from getting it. He should return his prize. Clearly he didn't deserve it. So should Barack Obama. He didn't even have a powerpoint presentation. He did nothing, literally.
In a way I think it's better he didn't get one. The organization is clearly corrupt leftists. He was a real scientists up there with Newton and Einstein.