Prof. Stephen Hawking: Great Scientist, Bad Gambler

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.'"

Comments

It's OK

[aglider]

As long as it goes to science advancements!

Re:It's OK

[Joce640k]

Maybe he plays to lose just to goad the other guy into finishing his research.

Re:It's OK

[DanTheStone]

http://xkcd.com/955/

Re:It's OK

[Brucelet]

Actually my recollection is that he often deliberately bets against his favored hypotheses so that in case he's wrong he still gets some reward. Hedging his bets with the universe, as it were.

Re:It's OK

[alendit]

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."

Re:It's OK

[tnk1]

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.

Don't feel bad...

[Black Parrot]

The Higgs boson was also wrong in its view that Stephen Hawkings doesn't exist.

FTA

[MyLongNickName]

Hawking honed-in on the question “why something rather than nothing?” reasserting his point of view that a supernatural “god” is not needed to create the universe — quantum fluctuations helped shape our evolving universe at the Big Bang, adding the conditions were “just right” for life (and therefore us) to be asking these profound questions.

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

[Joce640k]

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:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

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 reach the pinnacle of human understanding. You don't have to agree with them but a little more respect might suit you.

Re:FTA

[MozeeToby]

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.

The Controversial Side

[invid]

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 ) he gets stuff named after him.

Re:The Controversial Side

[Dcnjoe60]

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 ) 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:Gambler?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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.

His "bad" bets spark innovation

[Quick Reply]

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:His "bad" bets spark innovation

[Daithi_c]

I have to agree with this comment.

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 enjoyed his appearance on the show and it would be great to see him as a guest star again.

Just As Well

[Greyfox]

It'd suck having to put up with trash talk from Stephen Hawking after he won a bet with you.

Obligatory STTNG clip:

[BForrester]

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

Re:and so the argument continues to circle...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the beginning, God said "let there be light," and there was light.

Happy?

Obligatory XKCD

[nephilimsd]

http://xkcd.com/955/

Truth simply is

[gottabeme]

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.