Steven Hawking Considering Move To Canada

thepacketmaster learned of "...the possibility of Steven Hawking moving to Waterloo in Canada: 'A report out of Britain suggests Stephen Hawking is considering an invitation to come work at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics....But he's also being encouraged to move to Ontario by his University of Cambridge colleague Neil Turok, the mathematical physicist who will take over as Perimeter's executive director on Oct. 1. Perimeter confirmed last night that it has made a standing offer to Hawking...Turok is leaving Cambridge after failing to persuade university authorities, research councils and sponsors to spend $40 million...By comparison, Waterloo's Perimeter Institute has about $600 million in funding...The addition of Hawking to Perimeter's staff of top physicists would be a major coup for the research institute, founded in 1999 by Mike Lazaridis, founder and co-CEO of Research In Motion, which makes the BlackBerry.'"

Comments

Didn't...

[clonan]

all the top phycisits start leaving Germany when things started going downhill?

yes but there was a difference.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some were Jewish and others didn't want to work for a corrupt regime.

I don't think our situation is that bad yet. Yet.

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[Opportunist]

The difference is that the US' corrupt regime don't give a rats ass of your religion.

Two words: Intelligent Design.

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[KillerBob]

You laugh... but I've known people who live in Maine that couldn't find Canada on a map. I could understand from the deep south, where Canada is a mythical land of igloos and Eskimos, but Maine?!? There's parts of Canada that are further south than Maine, and there was a time when that state was part of Canada, for crying out loud....

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[onkelonkel]

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby"

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[Jason Earl]

Historically, Muslim regimes have been very favorable to the science. That's no so much the case today, but blaming current Muslim regimes on the Koran is like blaming the industrial revolution on Christianity. It's a stretch, at best.

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say roughly 50% of the American population really is that dumb. They're just usually not in direct contact with you or they've become reasonably skilled at hiding their ignorance.

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[Opportunist]

Not collecting stamps gives you time for a real hobby, just like atheism gives you time to do real science.

Now, I don't say you can't be religious as a scientist. Actually I know quite a few very good scientists that believe in God. Usually, though, they take the Bible as a guideline for being a "good person", not a book telling you how the scientific parts of the world work. They understand the Bible as a guideline to live a good life, and quite frankly, it is a good book as such. Don't kill, don't steal, take a day off per week so you don't run into a burnout, and generally don't do what you wouldn't want others to do to you. That's a pretty good guideline to work with, if you ask me.

Frankly, I wonder how many of those that want to take the Bible all literally and insist in it being the all encompassing truth really want to use it to live a better life (for themselves, but even more for those around them), and how many just want to use it as a tool to wield power over others. It's been used for that purpose far too often. I'd say, more often than for the "better person" goals...

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[Thaelon]

They understand the Bible as a guideline to live a good life, and quite frankly, it is a good book as such.

Only if you ignore the parts that say you should stone people, and eradicate whole villages if one of the members doesn't believe in the Bible's god, retain slaves, and that giving up your virgin daughter to a rape gang is preferable to turning over a foreign man to them. Those are just a few examples...

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[ChromeAeonium]

True enough, but be honest with yourself. If there's are books about not collecting stamps, organizations dedicated to not collecting stamps, and websites all about how to not collect stamps, and movements to preach the greatness of not collecting stamps, guess what not collecting stamps has become?

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, and since I don't avoid black cats and don't fear walking under ladders or breaking mirrors I'm just otherly-superstitious. Oh the joys of abusing the language.

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[mpeskett]

I find the argument that lack of proof on either side means we can't draw a conclusion particularly facetious. Consider the claim "there's an invisible, intangible, silent, odourless, rabbit living inside your computer"

You can't demonstrate this to be false, I can't demonstrate it to be true, so I guess to be logical we'll have to both be agnostic about the rabbit.

Sound like a heap of bullshit to you? Yeah, that's what you sound like.

There is no sensible way to differentiate a world in which the rabbit I described exists from one where it does not, this renders the claim meaningless. By analogy, "There is a God" becomes a meaningless claim at around the point when you realise there is no possible evidence that would convince a theist that they are wrong.

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[ashitaka]

In reality the argument is asinine. "Look, you Atheists are just a religious as us!" is what seems to be the point. The reality is a bit deeper than that. As another post pointed out, an overwhelming lack of evidence of the positive existence of something requires that you default to "that thing does not exist".

The requirement that it *might* exist derives completely from the person making the positive proposition. You say that you believe a "God" exists. You have no proof of course, or at least none that would stand up as scientific proof that would truly establish the positive existence. You have defined the physical and/or metaphysical aspects of that "God" yourself or have accepted what you have been taught they are. Now you are expecting people to prove that an idea you came up with or chose to believe doesn't exist?

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[dontmakemethink]

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby"

But you can't mail yourself to heaven.

But seriously, an atheist is someone who subscribes to a belief that there are no gods. There are religions, Wicca for example, that do not worship any god. Atheism is also practiced in organized groups much like congregations with "intelligent design". I would argue the only reason atheism is not considered a religion is that atheists don't want us to.

Granted, someone who rejects religion and does not engage in organized atheist practices would also be called an atheist. But you'd have to be pretty serious about not collecting stamps to be compared to actively organized atheists.

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[Citizen of Earth]

You'll find lots of books, lectures, and web sites about physics and social psychology. I guess you believe that physics and social psychology are religions.

Re:yes but there was a difference.

[morcego]

What is "simpler" ?

Your are basing your assumption that #3 is simpler because it is simpler given your frame of reference. A lot of people will think #2 is simpler. You will even find some wakos that will think #1 is simpler.

What is it called when you try to adapt facts to your (mine, theirs) theory ? There is a word for it, but I forgot.

I find it interesting that you are trying to proof that god doesn't exist to an agnostic. How often have you tried doing that before ? (Trying to prove god doesn't exist to an atheist is much more common).

I also find it odd the way some people treat science like most theists treat religion. It is not necessarily your case, but you reminded me of it.

In any case, can you agree with me that there is no coherent definition of god ? Is your definition of god the same of ... lets say, the pope ? If the definition is not the same, how can you prove that god (as defined by the pope) doesn't exist, if your definition is different ?

The thing I admire the most about science is the willingness to admit it might be wrong. We know a lot of theorems, models and such. Even Newton's "laws" are not laws per se, they are theorems (and yes, I believe in them). Even Occam's Razor is a theorem (proved to be right in 99.9999% of the cases, or something like that). Using it is a good idea.

Is there a way to prove Newton's "laws" are the absolute truth ? Everywhere ? We know it doesn't hold true inside a black hole.

Working under the assumption that there is no god, and thus science must strive to explain things is very wise. God's non-existence is a good theorem as any. If science can't explain a fact, you probably got your facts wrong. Or is working under some other wrong assumption. I agree with all that.

What I don't agree is for a person to categorically state the God's non-existance is the absolute truth. I also don't agree with someone saying the oposite. Thus, I'm an agnostic.

Re:who in their right mind

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, really, the university isn't even the best in Ontario, let alone the country

For math and physics it sure is the best, especially with the perimeter institute there now. Sounds like they sent you a nice rejection letter :)

Re:who in their right mind

[vajaradakini]

Actually, I refused to apply there because they pay female grad students in physics and astronomy $2000 more than their male peers and I don't think it's fair that I should get paid more for doing the same work, nor do I support an institution that would do such a thing. Also, they didn't have any profs with research that particularly interested me.

Re:who in their right mind

[robotoperasinger]

Waterloo has the best or at least second best computer science, mathematics and engineering programs in Ontario. I'm not sure where you gathered your information. Maybe if you are talking about arts degrees, but that is not what Waterloo is known for. I also don't think that Hawkings is hankering to get a fine arts degree, either.

Re:NOOoOOOO!!!

[gnuman99]

Your ideas are shaped not just by your capabilities, but the ideas and interactions you came up with when you were growing up.

I believe that there is a significant percentage of population (probably around 10%) that could be just as bright as the top people in sciences, but they just took a different path. They didn't get the encouragements, or maybe they just didn't meet a friend in the 5th grade that had the same interest as them.

There is more to whom we become than some political structure. The ultimate you is shaped MUCH closer to your personal life than even the city hall.

Waterloo is getting there...

[technienerd]

As a Computer Science major at the University of Waterloo, I'm proud to hear that the Waterloo region and it's research and higher education institutes are attracting top minds to the area. Arguably, the university is already the top undergrad tech school in Canada and competitive with the top in the U.S. as well, but currently only on the undergraduate level. However, huge amounts of funding have been recently pouring into UW's graduate programs, and associated research institutes. Some Waterloo folks like to label the university "MIT of the north" but unfortunately, I'd argue that's currently only true on the undergraduate level. Its co-op program makes Waterloo grads among the most employable new grads in the world. With this kind of exposure I'm sure Waterloo will reach its goal of being competitive with the top U.S. tech schools in all areas within the next 5 to 10 years. Maybe they'll start making movies with references to Waterloo as well.:P Then again, most movies are made/produced in the U.S...

Re:Its our

[Sockatume]

Because they don't have that in the UK. Hang on...

Re:who in their right mind

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a grad student in physics at waterloo (phd) and my female counterparts do not get paid anymore than me from the uni. Where the heck did you hear this?

Are you sure that you aren't just talking about 3rd party scholarships that are only available to women? The amount from you get from the actual university is the same for men and women.

Re:who in their right mind

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely understand that not having a research area you are interested being a deciding factor; and you're while, as a grad student, you are obviously very intelligent your other deciding factor does not seem very wise.

First off - to clear up a possible misunderstanding before it arises- women aren't accepted to the grad program because they are women, but because of their previous academic efforts.

Some schools offer extra money to particular female grad students because they are trying to attract and/or retain more young women in certain undergrad programs. A university having female TA's and RA's in grad level programs is one of many tools used to increase female undergrad science/engineering retention.

It's fairly simple, the younger women see you as an accomplished (in their eyes) grad student and, often unconsciously, think "I can do it too"

Don't like being an example/positive role model/ideal --- to bad, you're a grad student you just became one! That's true of almost all grad students by the way.

As I have advised other young women - consider the extra money as payment for having to put up with the, hopefully occasional, old boys network and it's assorted stupidity.

If that doesn't work for you; then please realize that women often work for less than men in similar positions - why not try the reverse occasionally, earn more for similar work.

Re:One reason:

[blincoln]

BTW, Canadian taxes are actually a little lower than ours, and they get free healthcare! taxes in Canada.

No, they're not. Assuming the author of that page is correct, their federal income tax is (slightly) lower than what the US has.

However, Canada also has federal sales tax, provincial income tax, and provincial sales tax. The US has no federal sales tax, and state taxes vary widely (no sales tax in Oregon, no income tax in Washington, etc).

I lived in Canada for three years, and I paid something like 20% combined sales tax alone.

I do think that their healthcare system is slightly preferable to ours, but they both have big problems IMO.

Re:NOOoOOOO!!!

[rrohbeck]

The same could be said for countries as a whole. One would expect to find a greater proportion of scientists in an industrialized country over an agrarian one, or over a nation that has only recently industrialized.

Or that has over 50% people with a nonscientific worldview?

</flamebait> :)