Slashdot Mirror

Science says "there was a point in time when nothing existed, and then everything existed."

Not quite. There was a point, an infinitesimal speck, that contained everything. The concept of time had no meaning with the universe in this state. Some guy named Stephen Hawking wrote about it.

everything evolved from something.

That's not clear at all. I suggest you read Lawrence M. Krauss' excellent book "A Universe From Nothing" for an easy read about this topic.

And also read a bit more about time. It's hard for us to conceptualize a beginning of time itself, as we always think there must be something before that. But the word "before" (and your "from something") implies that time is ticking, which was not necessarily the case at the Big Bang.

For all you know, the lack of one's awareness of time's existence has little to do with its genuineness.

For all we know, there might be a bearded guy who created the universe because he loves us and wants most of us to burn in hell for eternity. But the evidence doesn't point that way either.
From what we can tell, time does not have the properties we normally think, but is a local phenomenon that expands and contracts depending on acceleration (including gravity, a special case of acceleration). As we approach big bang, the flow of time asymptotically approaches zero. Time itself doesn't flow. It becomes as meaningless as asking what was at the other side of the singularity that created the universe. The four dimensions need to unfold before measuring them makes any sense.

For what it's worth, Stephen Hawking believes that time didn't exist at the start of the universe.

Or hawking video collections about introductory astronomy.

Do you mean these? http://www.hawking.org.uk/vide...

They are quite good, I must say. :-p

At least credit the source Hawking (or earlier).

But for every equation or citation in my post, I lose half my audience.

Hawking (or earlier).

Yes, good points about the importance of good nutrition for recovery (although now might not be the best time to focus on cleaning out sequestered toxins, although a good long-term goal). Most mainstream medicine pays at best lip service to nutrition. Omega 3 fatty acids might help rebuild the brain, given the brain is mostly fat. Eggs have some as you say, but there are probably better choices. This is worthy of lot of further research to learn all that is needed. Don't count on a typical MD including even a brain specialist to know much about this.

Bear in mind there are different kinds of strokes which might need somewhat different nutrition depending on the causes and other complications. Specifically, clogged arteries causing one kind of stroke probably need a somewhat different approach than rebuilding damaged arteries that caused a different kind of bleeding stroke, since there is a balance of processes going on to strengthen or tear down the walls of arteries. But in either case, the body can't do the right thing without the needed building blocks and the control of inflammation caused by poor nutrition.

Places to start from my searching just now, but do a lot of research yourself (a long path for most US Americans to learn about eating healthy despite all the misinformaiton out there...):
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/...
(Different stroke type, but maybe some overlap:) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.stroke.org/site/Doc...
http://www.strokeassociation.o...

Other things can help too to reduce inflammation and then physical therapy: http://healyourbrain.wordpress...

Check her vitamin D level regularly as that is involved with inflammation management. Here is a good standard to work towards:
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...

I've posted lots of other general nutrition links in the past, especially by Dr. Fuhrman. But again do your own research on what is best since a lot of his general diet advice is more for people with clogged arteries and at risk of ischemic stroke than for those with weakened arteries as he focuses on salt-restriction instead to minimize the risk of hemorrhagic stroke. There are processes in the body that both tear down and build up arteries, and they probably must be kept in balance to avoid both kinds of strokes, even though most US Americans are far more at risk of strokes from clogged arteries of the building up process going too far (from both inflammation and bad fats). Links about stroke from him though:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disea...
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...

I see a whole bunch of books on Amazon on "Stroke Recovery". Probably all sorts of good stuff there.

I agree with Richo's comment here that it is too soon to focus on fancy communications gear and you need to focus on just the basics (like yes. no, pain, thirsty, etc.):
http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

That said, here is what Hawking uses:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-...

Also other tools discussed previously on Slashdot may be helpful in the long term:

According to many including Hawking (and what does he know?), this is known as Laplace's Demon but why spoil a good mention of Newton? Usually when this is quoted, it starts with "according to Newton's Laws" so perhaps therein lies the answer...

No need to guess [so much] the info about the system is online http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/disability/thecomputer ... looks like the website needs some serious updating though, particularly as it doesn't validate and they're showing validation links.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/

Here is a list showing the criteria required for the "Technical Assistant to Stephen Hawking" position; the disparate qualifying skills are definitely a mixed bag: mechanically inclined (including automotive maintenance), Electrical/Electronic background, Computer Technologist, Media Coordinator, Speaker and Travel Agent. Also, there are references to a lack of documentation, including a comment about "Black Box" technology--which I could be misinterpreting as a security issue creating additional maintenance complications. (Fortunately, nothing seemed to vaguely imply additional responsibilities in personal care, but that may be there in the small print, as mentioned in a previous post.) There aren't going to be a lot of people meeting all of these requirements--the successful applicant will most likely be someone with very good BS skills.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/

Here is a list showing the criteria required for the "Technical Assistant to Stephen Hawking" position; the disparate qualifying skills are definitely a mixed bag: mechanically inclined (including automotive maintenance), Electrical/Electronic background, Computer Technologist, Media Coordinator, Speaker and Travel Agent. Also, there are references to a lack of documentation, including a comment about "Black Box" technology--which I could be misinterpreting as a security issue creating additional maintenance complications. (Fortunately, nothing seemed to vaguely imply additional responsibilities in personal care, but that may be there in the small print, as mentioned in a previous post.) There aren't going to be a lot of people meeting all of these requirements--the successful applicant will most likely be someone with very good BS skills.

That salary is peanuts.

The salary is for a "Graduate Assistant to Stephen Hawking".

Most Graduate Assistants don't make 38k...

You wouldn't know this, since neither TFA nor TFS bothered to link to the actual post, but most Graduate assistants also don't have to "Expect to spend around 3 months per year abroad", or all the other things on this page. You not only have to maintain his gear, but also have to be his travel agent, his press agent, his web designer, and his auto mechanic.

The summary actually overstated the technical aspects, the actual job advert states that maintaining the speech system is only part of the position.

Managing national and international travel for Prof. Hawking and his care team. Expect to spend around 3 months per year abroad! Development and maintenance of Professor Hawking's communication and speech systems Procurement and maintenance of his wheelchairs and accessible van Preparation of lecture graphics and public speaking Dealing with the media and press Answering inquiries from the public and maintaining the website

1. 2012-2013 - Personal assistant to STEPHEN W. HAWKING

Um, if I were eligible I'd be making them KNOW I was their man!

http://www.hawking.org.uk/

Einstein was also famously distrustful of quantum mechanics because he was convinced that God "does not throw dice". Did he allow his particular conception of God to cloud his scientific judgment?

Stephen Hawking picked up the question in a lecture:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/64

it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

Any programmer who can't easily cope with any indention between 1 and 8, in other words whatever the the project coding standard is, is not competent.

Yes, and someone who can't speak normally is stupid...
Sorry dude, but with that once sentence you just proven yourself to be very short-sighted and lost all your credibility.

As far as I understand, according to general relativity (and we know something is wrong with GR), time has to start at the singularity of the Big Bang.
I don't have a good reference for the source of my info on this -- different talks in different places, but this seems to have a good summary:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/62

But I realized now that I mixed up a pet peeve of mine with something that doesn't have to do with it.

The problem I had was with people who answer to the statement: "time started at the big bang" with the question: "but what was before that"?
Since our experience states that there must be something before anything.

And, general relativity states that time started at the big bang. So I just followed he logic saying that if time started at the big bang, then the question of what was before the big bang has no meaning.

But, general relativity doesn't have exclusivity on the big bang. A better theory might say that the universe expanded from something that was not a singularity, or maybe was a singularity through which timelines can pass, or something else that I/we don't understand yet, and then there would be a meaning to the question what was before the big bang.

I was wrong. An observation might tell us about the structure of the big bang, to cause us to conclude that there was indeed something before the big bang.

(So only according to GR there is no meaning to the question)

Sigh, I'll bite with some weak logic
Stephen Hawking, citing Godel's Theorems, asserts that the laws of physics will always be incomplete. This implies phenomena will exist that cannot be predicted by any complete and consistent definition of "natural." Therefore, any description adhering to the laws of physics for an omniscient and omnipresent being ["God"], will be either incomplete (allowing for supernaturality), inconsistent, or both (like most religions).

Why do people get so caught up in a steadfast answer to the existence of "God" and what he does? Apart from philosophical debate, we should treat it as a utilitarian device just like other conjectures. We can choose whether or not to use it depending on how suitable it is for a specific discussion.
In this approach it doesn't matter whether creationism or evolution is "truth." What's important is evolution theory provides a more useful understanding of biological mechanisms. Conversely the concept of "God," regardless of its existence, has been useful in the development of social interaction and structures.

More accurate news at his website

There is no way Stephen Hawking had to go to a surplus store to get a Centrino Pentium M, running XP, made by Intel for him repaired.

And the software "Equalizer" was ported to XP for him.

In short, I call BS.

If gambling is a sin, how come God plays dice?

Uh, cite?

Sure. Here it is from Hawking's own site, emphasis added:

Since we can't change the way the universe began, the question of whether time travel is possible, is one of whether we can subsequently make space-time so warped, that one can go back to the past. I think this is an important subject for research, but one has to be careful not to be labeled a crank. If one made a research grant application to work on time travel, it would be dismissed immediately. No government agency could afford to be seen to be spending public money, on anything as way out as time travel. Instead, one has to use technical terms, like closed time like curves, which are code for time travel. Although this lecture is partly about time travel, I felt I had to give it the scientifically more respectable title, Space and Time warps. Yet, it is a very serious question. Since General Relativity can permit time travel, does it allow it in our universe? And if not, why not.

As any relativist worth his/her Phd can tell you, GR does not permit time travel. Why? Because spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. Why? Because time cannot change by definition and simple logic. IOW, Hawking is full of shit. He does not understand the very theory he's supposed to be an expert in. Why should we take the crackpot's word about his other crap, black holes, etc.

Oh, and BTW... Stephen Hawking is so often right and others wrong that if he believes in the possibility of time travel I'm willing to take his word for it in the absence of contrary evidence.

The evidence is right in your face but you are too stupid to see it. Here goes, ahahaha... You are a fucking moron, a gutless ass kisser, a boot licker, a sycophant, a believer in Star-trek voodoo physics and a Hawking dingleberry. ahahaha... You deserve every piece of crap that comes out of Hawking's asshole. How about that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Steven Hawking might as well be Paris Hilton. He believes that time travel is possible because (he claims) it is not contradicted by Einstein's General Relativity and yet, it is well known that nothing can move in spacetime because time is not a variable.

There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle.

From "Relativity from A to B" by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago

Note also that Sir Karl Popper compared spacetime to Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations

In other words, contrary to what Steven Hawking claims, there is no time travel and general relativity does not allow it. Steven is a true blue crackpot, a little con artist in a wheelchair whose ex-wife felt that her duty as Hawking's wife was to remind him every day that he was not God. I'll say. It's hard to be God when you're making shit up that don't exist while you're all crumpled up in a wheelchair. If you even believe in the possibility of time travel, you are a crackpot. Steven is a full-blown time travel crackpot among other things. ahahaha....

Nothing Can Move in Spacetime

Because Einstein was infallible. Just like how he was correct about God playing dice. Or the cosmological constant (which he later changed his mind about, though its still uncertain which answer to that one is correct).

Don't get me wrong, Einstein surely was a bright cookie, and came up with some very accurate results, but he was a man afterall - can't be expected to have *everything* right first go.

OK. Name one thing that Stephen Hawking has invented that created any wealth other than the sales of his books and related articles.

Isn't Stephen Hawking the guy who, like Carl Sagan, David Deutsch, Kip Thorne and many others, believes that Einstein's GR does not forbid time travel? Yep. It remains that nothing can move in spacetime by definition. Surprise! This is the reason that Sir Karl Popper (or falsification fame) compared spacetime to "Einstein's block universe in which nothing ever happens". It is also the reason that Robert Geroch wrote the following in his book "Relativity from A to B":

There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle.

Isn't it Hawking's job to understand and know these things? Read Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics to learn the truth about spacetime physics and time travel crackpots. It is time we stopped putting fallible humans on a pedestal and turn them into the superior gods that they are not.

As once Dr. Hawking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking once said: "Meeting a more advanced civilization, at our present stage, might be a bit like the original inhabitants of America meeting Columbus. I don't think they were better off for it."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html

We may be their new appetizer. I hope that this "Alexander Zaitsev" guy would be first on their menu...

Isn't the universe supposed to collapse sooner than that? If scientists are currently saying that the universe is 10-20 billion years old, why the hell would anyone assume the "Big Crunch" won't happen by then?

I'd be much more interesting if someone had a theory about what the universe looked like before the Big Bang, assuming that isn't a bunch of bullshit too.

Right now, Hindu creation mythology is looking less silly than theoretical astrophysics. I'll be waiting for Kalki to come destroy the universe and start a new cycle before I'll believe any speculation about what will happen in the way, way future, 150X as long away as the speculated age of our universe. That's like making predictions about the 3000th birthday of a 20 year old person.

The universe only gets created once; there will be no big crunch. Only 1 Creation is identified in the Holy Bible (although there are 2 variations). Your curiousity about wanting to see the universe before the Big Bang doesn't make sense from the point of view that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Nothing. I view science (all forms) as constantly finding signs of Creation and God rather than evolution and chance. The only difference is that the people who have faith view the evidence differently compared to those who don't have faith. Those who have faith welcome the scientists to prove their faith even if the scientists don't see it the same way. There are a few things that scientists come up with that don't make sense or are just completely false but the majority of their theories and discoveries actually back up the fact that God created everything in existence. Studying chemistry, physics, etc. allows us to see what he designed.

I believe there are a minority of scientists who do believe in God, a minority of them are probably too scared to admit it to their co-workers for fear of being ostracized (just like meteorologists (with impeccable credentials) who have death threats made against them for opposing global warming). Hawking and Einstein have made references to God and there is the Higgs particle that has been nicknamed the "God particle". For those who don't know what the Higgs particle is, it is the object that particle physicists believe gives mass to objects. It is predicted to exist based on the Standard Model.

All of this tells me that respect for the Creator and His Creation is not totally dead. Those who disagree with that viewpoint (or anything I said above) are free to do so however that shouldn't include berating and belittling people like me who hold those views just because it differs from others', nor should it include silencing people like me because my views differ. From my point of view, their views are the ones outside the norm of mine but I don't make attempts to silence them. Our views should not impede on one another's freedom despite what the faithless think.

The genesis book claimed several thousand years ago that the universe had a beginning. This, along with some other claims, has been proved . I would also be very careful when claiming the existence of God is nonsense, as S. Hawking in "A history of time" recognizes that the existence of God is a valid hypothesis.

From Hawking's home page: "This synthesizer is by far the best I have heard, because it varies the intonation, and doesn't speak like a Dalek. The only trouble is that it gives me an American accent."

The scientific issues, however, remain much less settled than Dr. Hawking's celebrated wager on the question.

Um, I think he's a Professor.

Apparently you've never heard of Stephen Hawking?

more importantly, is it true, or is it a myth that s/he plays dice ?

While I'm not an astrophysicist or a biologist, I'm fairly certain their's a lot of evidence and math behind supporting those theories (they are the very dominant in their fields after all, so any fundamental flaws would have been pointed out a long time ago).

That being said. You're post is the epitomy of the misunderstaing people have with science. Evolution and big bang are not observations and are not fact. They are theories, the ID people are right about that (although completely wrong about what that means).

However, big bang and evolution are our best attempts to explain the observations and predict further observations, not observations in and of themselves. I mean, no one's seen the big bang. More importantly, no one's seen evolution either. It's impossible for either. Their abstract concepts and cannot be directly observed - no theories could. Not to mention that proof by observation in science is considered flawed in principle, thus the need for repeatability and falsifiability. Repeatability so that one innacurate or flawed expirement doesn't support/disprove a theory, falsifiability so that the theory explains something useful.

On a sidenote, a very interesting lecture by Hawking on life (mainly evolution, big bang, and religion).

> Albert Einstein comes to mind. Isaac Newton. While
> not religious in the traditional sense, both had
> belief in God (not that certain about Einstein,
> but for sure Newton).

One of the most famous quotes from Einstein is "God does not play dice" and drastically modified his equations to conform to his particuar theology. See the Stephen Hawking lecture on this subject:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html

The popular belief among scientists used to be that if you had enough information, nothing would be random (for example, if you knew the position and speed of every particle in the universe for a specific instant in time, you would be able to predict it for all other instances - in the future and in the past). However, as of late that has changed, because scientists have realized that information in the universe is actually lost. A good article to read on this topic is "Does God Play Dice?" by Stephen Hawking.

Yes, he does talk funny. His speech synthesizer gives him an American accent.

As I recall from a late 1990s lecture by Hawking, some matter can exceed "the speed of light" and in doing so, escape a black hole. At an event horizon exactly, that border at which matter including light either escapes a black hole or not, the position of particles is known with complete precision. As such, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle dictates that the speed of the particles cannot be known as precisely. Photons at the event horizon of a black hole are allowed, by a tiny quantity, some Scotty Factor in their speed because their position is certain. In plain words, these are the mathematics of the matter :) Some leptonic matter, in only such a particular position, can be slightly faster than "the speed of light."

As theorized, Hawking's predictions that black holes might leak have, I understand, been observed as radiation from what are as-yet assumed to be black holes. Anyone knowing more than I do about this particular phenomenon is (un?)certainly welcome to add more. The explanation Hawking made was directed at interested and able nonprofessionals; he put forward some mathematics around but not specifically deriving the surprising conclusions. Made sense to me, anyhow. I believe the matter discussed here, blasers measured at .999999... of light's speed, is the fastest measured "directly." But I do not believe this is the fastest known matter, if you allow that "knowing" the speed of the matter Hawking discussed (observed as radiation) was theoretical and later indirectly measured.

BG

Real physicists like Stephen Hawking... are very cool!

The great physicist Richard Feynman once said that he didn't see any theoretical reason why cold fusion would not work.
And the great physicist Einstein objected to quantum mechanics on the basis that "God does not play dice". He was wrong. Being a great scientist does not preclude being completely wrong about something.

I wonder if it would "cheapen" our view of Newton by releasing these documents

Newton would be considered a crackpot and a nut by the scientific community if he were alive today. And who inherited Newton's chair? A believer in time travel. I wonder who is the greater crackpot.

No wonder. This is the guy who believes in time travel. Here's an excerpt from his site:

Since we can't change the way the universe began, the question of whether time travel is possible, is one of whether we can subsequently make space-time so warped, that one can go back to the past. I think this is an important subject for research, but one has to be careful not to be labeled a crank. If one made a research grant application to work on time travel, it would be dismissed immediately. No government agency could afford to be seen to be spending public money, on anything as way out as time travel. Instead, one has to use technical terms, like closed time like curves, which are code for time travel. Although this lecture is partly about time travel, I felt I had to give it the scientifically more respectable title, Space and Time warps. Yet, it is a very serious question. Since General relativity can permit time travel, does it allow it in our universe? And if not, why not.

The truth is that relativity does not allow time travel for the simple reason that nothing can move in spacetime by definition. Talk about crackpottery! And the guy is the most celebrated living physicist in the world! And sitting in Newton's chair no less. Go figure.

Uh, this is the proper link

Steven Hawking could soon be 'back on his feet' again with this technology.

The pictures prove it.

I love you, Stephen Hawking.

how about Steven Hawking's?

Depending on your view of Malthus' theories, you absolutely do. Much as we do today. Better to let the weak and sick die, then have the herd consume all resources and wipe itself out. Any advance that skews things one way or the other (resources vs. population) can be an item of concern.


Who's gonna decide who's weak and sick? You're gonna look at physical condition and let people die? Ever heard of Stephen Hawking? /Me thinks he's at least as valuable to humanity as any other person, yet he has ALS.

You think it's a choice of either letting the weak and sick die, or have the herd consume all resources?

There's a million other possibilities.

Depending on your view of Malthus' theories, you absolutely do. Much as we do today. Better to let the weak and sick die, then have the herd consume all resources and wipe itself out. Any advance that skews things one way or the other (resources vs. population) can be an item of concern.


Who's gonna decide who's weak and sick? You're gonna look at physical condition and let people die? Ever heard of Stephen Hawking? /Me thinks he's at least as valuable to humanity as any other person, yet he has ALS.

You think it's a choice of either letting the weak and sick die, or have the herd consume all resources?

There's a million other possibilities.

This isn't new at all.. Here's some gangsta rap done entirely with speech synthesis.

Experience the lyrical terror of Stephen Hawking!

* Unless he's set against the idea#, could a gang of volunteers upgrade that Speak'n'Spell voice that he uses? I've got a stand-alone TTS card that does inflections better than that, and it's old (late '70's tech). I'm sure that there are any number of people at Cambridge who'd help out (and probably do). Kudos to Walt Woltosz and David Mason who provided the current works with the tech of the day.

# A voice is personal thing, and if he's happy with it, and it works, end of story, 'nuff said.