Slashdot Mirror
High Table at Cambridge with Stephen Hawking
bughunter writes "Accomplished astrophysicist and SF author Gregory Benford shares a personal account of his recent conversation with Stephen Hawking at Reason Online. As usual, Benford's style is engaging and informal, and this doesn't read like a typical interview. Although the article is short on jargon, Benford and Hawking share insights on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, as such minds are want to do. We even get a glimpse of Cambridge tunnel hacking. Of course, there's also a plug for Hawking's new book, The Universe in a Nutshell."
Okay ... this comment is off-topic, but I think it would be hillariously funny is CmdrTaco's post got downvoted to -1 as a troll.
but is it published by O'Reilly?
He wasn't born that way, Commander Idiot. And most males are physically capable of reproduction at 13 years of age.
Hawking was in his 20's before the disease started to afflict him.
"You can't get there from here."
I was disappointed to find out that it wasn't an O'Reilly book.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Einstein is well known for opposing theories of black holes and quantum physics (his famous quote about deities not throwing dice comes immediately to mind), and Hawking has spent the greater part of the second half of the twentieth century and now the twenty first century exploring black holes.
But of course Hawking might be making the same mistake Einstein made in opposing black hole theory, this time regarding gravistar theory. The jury is still out on gravistars, but the potential for undoing all the "discoveries" Hawking has spent his life pursuing is real.
It's a cautionary note, and one Hawking would be loathe to ignore. Certainly, we remember Einstein for his theories of relativity, but how many remember anything he accomplished in the second half of his career? The short answer is he accomplished very little, spending his days sailing his little boat around instead of charting new scientific milestones.
Hawking has the very real potential to be relegated to the dustbin of history as a great scientific mind led astray on fruitless theoretical paths. It'd be a shame, but there it is. Let's hope that unlike Einstein, Hawking is better prepared to adapt to whatever the future holds.
Never mind.
How much of this actually took place in the conversation, and how much is just the author attempting to summarize current interesting stuff in the world of physics using a conversation with Stephen Hawking as a framing device?
:)
I mean, it really feels like the latter. I find it hard to believe that Hawking, talking to another physisist, would bother, for example, going into detail explaining what planck time is.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, and it was an interesting read. But it was kind of irritating and clumsy the way that the story seemed like nothing more than a framing device to the author (Did anyone else read A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius?), and everything they discussed seemed smoothed out and dumbed down and simplified to its bare essentials so that people like, well.. so that people like me could understand it. Kind of like the way that the author describes hawking's new book.
I guess i shouldn't complain, since it was better than i could have done, but i wish he'd just repeated stuff and then explained on the side, subtitle style, instead of inserting the layman's explanations into the conversation (assuming, of course, that this was actually what he did..)
Can anyone recommend something i could read if i'm a casual observer curious about what's going on in physics, but who would like a little more depth than this? Like, just so that things aren't so skimmed over that they just seem like crackpot, randomly selected theories with no basis in anything (which of course it seems this way if you don't mention why, mathematically, they came to these conclusions...). I mean, if i want shallow summaries of the physics community, i always have Discover
...but "wont". As such minds are WONT to do.
want: nt Pronunciation Key (wnt, wônt)
v. wanted, wanting, wants
v. tr.
1.
a.To desire greatly; wish for: They want to leave. She wants a glass of water. See
Synonyms at desire.
b.To desire (someone to do something): I want you to clean your room.
2.
a.To request the presence or assistance of: You are wanted by your office.
b.To seek with intent to capture: The fugitive is wanted by the police.
3.To have an inclination toward; like: Say what you want, but be tactful.
4.Informal. To be obliged (to do something): You want to be careful on the ice.
5.To be without; lack. See Synonyms at lack.
6.To be in need of; require: "'Your hair wants cutting,' said the Hatter" (Lewis Carroll).
wont: Accustomed or used: "The poor man is wont to complain that this is a cold world" (Henry
David Thoreau).
2.Likely: chaotic as holidays are wont to be.
At the risk of appearing like a slashdot poster, I will have to correct the original poster's useage of "want." He, of course, should have used "wont."
Tony
Ah, but isn't mankind's (technological) ability to get past these limitations a form of evolution in itself? If intelligence such as is present in Hawking were to be passed on, it could continue to overcome any physical limitations, such as the ones that Dr. Hawking now overcomes.
In any case, I'm not sure if ALS is passed on as a genetic disease. I believe it is, but I could be mistaken. However, some complications have resulted with Dr. Hawking due to a car accident later in life, although ALS seems to be the source of most of his physical limitations.
In any case, I gladly look forward to his new book. "Brief History of Time" is one of the greatest physics books ever written, esp. the 10th Anniversary and Illustrated editions. I'm currently part-way through my second reading, and I am amazed at how clearly Hawking can explain extraordinarily complex topics. I can't wait to see what he has next.
There's nothing you have that they can't take away: Absolute zero, Gentle Jack, bottom line.
After that, it becomes a game of bluffing and applied psychology. Physicists, as a class, do not have the upper hand in a game like that. (Not saying they're handicapped, just that they're not better players simply because they can do math.)
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
Ahh - yes - good point.
...
Tis too early in the morning
...he's not the original.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
If you've never heard Hawking's musical efforts (I kid you not), now is the time. Check out www.mchawking.com and prepare to bust a gut laughing. This is not to be missed.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3123/hawkingexo.html
Steven Hawking Builds Robotic Exoskeleton
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
"You and your... third dimension."
"Oh, what about it?"
"Oh, nothing. It's cute. We have five."
"...thousand."
"Yes, five thousand!"
"Don't question it!"
Every so often I see Prof. Hawking in the CMS building while running between classes or eating lunch, always with a nurse or "graduate assistant" (more of a student nurse) nearby. Some days I tell myself that he doesn't look so bad, but other days I just can't bring myself to look at him. It's hard to read interviews with him where he seems so vibrant, with his grinning photograph usually nearby, and then jump to seeing him in person - immutable and motionless, and almost falling apart. It's almost like he's a completely different person.
A very interesting read. I have read A Brief history of Time on a flight from Perth to Sydney once and I found it very interesting, although my mind drifted alot as it did get a bit hard for me to understand specially when he went into some detail of his theories. I wonder how the Universe in a Nutshell compares to A Brief History of Time.
None-the-less, I think Hawkins is an amazing person. (does anyone know if he's knighted?) To be afflicted like him, survive this long and be such an influential person is an inspiration. I wonder what he thinks of euthanasia.
hawking.org.uk to learn more on the interviewee
There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling!
" In the cool night Stephen recalled some of his favorite science fiction stories."
It's a shame he doesn't mention specific science fiction titles that Stephen Hawking liked. I would love to join his book of the month club! Ever since Oprah's club closed, i've been lost at Border's... Anyone know any cool SciFi book discussion web sites?
Pity about the pop-ups, overs, unders, and throughs, though.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The only time I've been around Hawking in recent memory was at Penrose's 65th birthday party (wow, was that really 5 years ago already?). He seemed pleasant, and thanked Roger for the nice party at the end of the evening.
I will have to agree with Taco's comments though on the fragility of his exterior, but at the same time I feel that it plays into the character that Hawking has become. I can only imagine what being forced to develop one's theories on the world for 30+ years can do to someone's perception of reality. Some of the ideas that Hawking has contributed to the math world couldn't have come from anyone else, and I wonder how much of a result this is from his condition.
Now if only twistor theory would win over super string theory. But that's another issue.
"I remarked that to me the book was like a French Impressionist painting of a cow, meant to give a glancing essence, not the real, smelly animal. Few would care to savor the details."
Now that's the author's way of saying he had a cosmorgasm during the conversation.
Serious though, nice to see Benford having a sense of humor.
"Benford and Hawking share insights on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything."
Um we knoe the answer to this question alredy it is 42!
Mirror of conversation with Stephen Hawking
As far as many, if not all, of my teachers have been concerned I've been on imaginary time since day one.
What, if anything, distinguishes conclusions we might arrive at while passing thru a process from those we might arrive at after having mapped the process. Gregory Bateson in his work 'Mind and Nature' played with the zig zag interplay of process and mapping. Whenever I face the wording of the more recent theories of Physics I'm tugged back to a passage from Robert Graves book the 'White Goddess' wherein he states true insight comes only by way of a skewered glance at the world of facts. Bertrand Russell once commented that to the best of his knowledge there had never been a philosopher-poet, perhaps this is the amalgam we wait upon. The few mathematician-poet's I've read have been obviously deficient in one practise or the other.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Together in Electric Dreams
The thing I don't get about this guy is that he divorced his wife and then got a girlfriend. Jesus Christ! The man's nearly a vegetable and he still picks up! Just remember that all you lonely programmers - a guy in a wheelchair who can barely chew his own food gets more tail than you!
"Benford and Hawking share insights on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything..."
I know it's not always easy to come up with all new topics for an interview, but I think we already know Hawking's views on the meaning of life. His philosphy is revealed fairly clearly:
"I'm just chillin' yo, no place to be.
I take another pull off my 40z.
I'm thinking about spinning a fatass tree, a B to the L to the U-N-T."
Or perhaps:
"Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority, because kicking their punk asses be my paramount priority.
Them wackass bitches say evolution's just a theory. They best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me."
I pissed my pants. I'm not ashamed.
An argument for or against natural selection?
You mean should it happen or does it?
Keep in mind, if he dosen't have any kids if he has relatives and passes a few million dollars ( or fame or whatever) on to them then they can be more reproductivly successful. Of course, on average, more intelligent people (or at least those with advanced degrees anyways) have fewer kids. Intelligence is not evolutionarily evolutionarily beneficial in modern society, it seems.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
My first Hawking book was "A Brief History of Time". After reading that one book, i knew that Hawking would be my favorite science non-fiction writer of all time, mainly because of his ability to state in simple, plain words explanations to the complexities of the physical universe we live in and the laws that make the universe tick. I'm no math wizard, but that book gave me a good understanding of the laws of physics without my having to break out a mental sweat over complex math. For those who haven't read that book, i highly recommend it.
>> I'm pretty sure a quantum singularity of any
>> size will have a mass a little bit heavier
>> than that of any mountain.
No, you're wrong. True, singularities formed from the collapse of stars would have masses greater than that of our sun, but singularities formed by other means, such as shortly after the big bang, can have far less mass.
I'm sure that when the author mentioned "singularities the size of a mountain" he meant this to indicate they were rather small. The particles that black holes radiate (called Hawking radiation) are produced faster for smaller black holes. Hence a black hole formed from a star would radiate very little, a mountain sized one would radiate much more, and a very tiny black hole would disapear very quickly in a burst of Hawking radiation.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Wont is the word you wanted, not want. Look it up!
Edith Keeler Must Die
I've often wondered what I would do if I were given the opportunity to spend some time with a person like Hawking. I suspect that I would feel the same, and would end up just slinking quietly out of his office, embarrassed that I had wasted a moment of the time he might have spent moving human knowledge a bit further ahead.
i'm not trying to be confrontational here, i would just like to know what the point of theorizing about bubbling sub-universes which are unobservable (?) and form completely isolated space-time. surely there are some observable consequences of these things for people (scientists) to talk about them? anybody conversant in quantum GR care to elaborate?
-- p
Photoshop in a Nutshell
WebMaster in a Nutshell, Deluxe Edition
Java in a Nutshell
Windows 95 in a Nutshell
I love these "Nutshell" books!
My father had Lou Gehrig's Disease, and died in 1975. I remember that while my dad was still alive there was mention of this ultra-genius scientist who was still alive, although unwell, and had been struggling with the disease since 1963, the year I was born.
He's had ALS for longer than I have been alive. Frankly it's miraculous that he's lived so long. It seems like Whatever's Out There still has big plans for him. His best work might not be behind him yet.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Stephen Hawking spends his life trying to come up with a history of everything that makes sense to his mind. He purports that other universes exist, but that there is no way to prove their existance--and he even admits that there is no scientific way to prove these theories.
I say now that Hawking does not practice science, but rather the religion of science. Be he priest, prophet, or simple thelogian, he is no more a scientist than I am.
Any imaginative author or deluded "holy man" can define the universe and then find details and create a history that is logically consistent, and can adapt such a theory to any and all data that might refute it. I say that Hawking and his theories are no more scientific than religion, and the fact that his work inspires true, falsifiable science is nothing more than a happy coincidence.
If you do not agree with what I say, then please formulate a reply and refute me. Science--real science--is not bound by a chosen notion of God's existance or nonexistance and does not deal with things that cannot be tested in reality.
I say that Science says nothing that is not proven fact, and that to brand one ascetic dream "science" and another "religion" is a disservice to both and an obstruction to the search of Reality that real Science seeks.
All replies are welcome, and replies with answers are asked for.
There's a funny bit on Hawking's site where he describes his speech synthesizer.
He says, "One's voice is very important. If you have a slurred voice, people are likely to treat you as mentally deficient: Does he take sugar? This synthesiser 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."
http://www.talknerdy.org
I've never understood how anyone could be at a loss for something to read. It seems like every one book I read leads to three more that I want to. Right now i'm in the middle of:
Joseph Campbell "The Hero with a Thousand Faces"
Jeremy Yudkin "Music in medieval europe"
The complete poems of Emily Dickenson
RH Blyth, Haiku (4 volumes)
The complete fairy tales of Hans Christian Anderson
Sklansky, "The theory of poker"
Just finished:
Hunter S Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"
Warhol, "The philosophy of Andy Warhol" (a hoot!)
Cordingly, "Under the Black Flag" A (really engaging) history of real pirates, you know the ones who loot, pillage and murder (as opposed to the ones who click and drag a mouse).
Can't wait to start:
Hemingway, "A farewell to arms"
Nabokov, "Lolita"
Burgess, "A Clockwork Orange"
Russian Fairy Tales (Baba Yaga, Koschei the Deathless, aw yeah)
that William Gibson one (Neuromancer, is it?)
Stephen King's "The Stand" (and The Shining while i'm at it)
of course, Hawking's books!
I have to note, I adamantly (snikt?) refuse to read any more (I read the first two) Harry Potter books until I get a British language edition.
And will probably reread soon:
all my Salinger
Raymond Chandler, "The Big Sleep"
Hammett, "The Maltese Falcon"
all my Raymond Carver
some Douglas Adams
Okay, i kinda got carried away, but you get my point. I wish I had more sci-fi to recommend, but it generally tends to be less engaging for me (though I remember absolutely loving "Dune" when I read it years ago, and I'm sure you're aware of Stephenson). Oh, almost forgot about Robert Anton Wilson's "Prometheus Rising." Not so much sci-fi as philosophy, but amazing nonetheless. I guess I have to echo your statement--It'd be nice to see a list of sci-fi recommendations by Hawking (or anyone else for that matter), but my wallet is glad there isn't one. The only thing I'm at a loss for when I go into Borders is information about how I'm going to pay for all the books I picked up. But I definitely gotta recommend those hard-boiled dective novels (Chandler or Hammett); they're damn fun to read and amazingly well-written too.
c-hack.com |
This brings to mind a recent article on the radio here in the UK about encouraging families to discuss 'deep shit' over supper, while on holidays, and at every conceivable opportunity.
/.ers ponder these issues? Are we more likely to delve deeper where it matters - not just when legislation threatens the wares trade. A poll??
Apparently relatively few people have any form of deep thought during the average week. For instance - with all the middle east conflict at the moment the majority response is along the lines of "I wish they'd just stop" rather than "I can understand why a Jewish state is an important thing post-holocaust, but there has to be something wrong with bombing the palestinians in the 21st Century - or ever".
Or at easter. "OOOhhhh Chocolate" rather than "How am I supposed to accespt that the baby Jeesus was resurected"
Question: How often, and how deeply, do
[Teddy KGB]: Hawkeng, you're einto me for 30 deimes. The juice hias bieen running iat 5 points a veek for a month. I miake thiat over 36 large. I'm going to hiave to break your legs.
[Hawking]: Okay.
[Teddy KGB]: Errr, I'm going to break your thumbs then.
[Hawking]: Go ahead.
[Teddy KGB]: Eahhh! (scuttles off in frustration)
c-hack.com |
Just because it's the Size of a mountain, that doesn't mean it has the Mass of a mountain.
I studied as an undergrad 10ish years ago in DAMTP (Dept of Applied Maths & Theoretical Physics) at Cambridge. Stephen was often seen trundling around in his wheelchair. He was lethal in it (& probably still is) - you had to get out of the way quick or you got run-over!!
From going to one or two of his lectures, the one question that always got asked at the end is whether he believes in God. His answers were usually rather ambiguous, but the impression he gave was probably not. After reading this article, it looks like nothings changed. It is obviously a question he has thought about deeply, and whether his works allows us to see into the mind of God (if such a being exists).
He is, without doubt, a brilliant man and has achieved an unbelieveable level of fame for a mathematician. However, most of that fame seems to derive from a book that a lot of people bought but few actually read, his physical condition, and that he works in a trendy area of mathematics. I think this sometimes obscures the real quality of his academic work.
And he has been on The Simpsons And Futurama. I there is some mention about it on his homepage but I'n not sure
I had learned a good deal from those few days, I realized, and most of it was not at all about cosmology.
The real story here isn't all the math and science. It's about life and living it fully people. Gregory Benford stated pretty clearly there. Thought I mention that in case anyone skimmed or didn't read the article.
It was worth reading because it's really a story about how two people who live half way around the world can enjoy each other's company. They're both scientists, but it's no different than "they are wearing pants."
D00d, I'm deep like the ocean! I mean, check this out. So I'm chillin' @ easter with the
'rents and the super 'rents (thats grandparents to you un-initiated) and we're giving Roman catholicism a right bashing (thats what we roman catholics do!) while having some banging shrimp coctail, then the discussion turns to personality/game theory with specific applications to one's boss; how to placate and stroke and read 'em to get what you want.
And then I bust it out:
"Hey guys, what if C-A-T, really spelled DOG?"
A hush fell over the table. Genius has that effect on people.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
It very much seems like all this is based on Faith. Makes you wonder if the Unified thoery is Faith altogether. Faith in ourselves, Faith in God, Faith in the Big Bang, Faith in thoeries.
Faith that the plane wont crash. Simply put, it seems that this universe is based on FAITH.
No this is not a "religious" statement, but a Faith observation.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
Benford and Hawking share insights on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, as such minds are want to do.
Too bad all their mind are belong to us.
4-bit adder: A snake made of 1's and 0's
Hemos needs a grammar checker.
Careful, you're talking about border collies. They could read your comment, track you down, and herd your into busy traffic.
And he has been on The Simpsons And Futurama
and don't forget about the Dilbert TV show.
Bloody geeks.
Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
#3321228 gets a 2 Informative and I get 0: Redundant.
This is such a troll but if you're not willnig to moderate properly, do the /. community a favor and DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?