Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: M-Theory and Hawking.

  1. #1 M-Theory and Hawking. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    60
    Hawking claimed M-theory can be used to predict the universe emerges out of nothingness into its current state.

    Can any prove this?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Can you provide a specific reference to where Hawking asserts this, and we will address the point.

    Surely you do realize that M-Theory is a purely hypothetical construct, don't you ? There is a possibility that it contains valid physics, but at the moment no one knows for sure.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Can you provide a specific reference to where Hawking asserts this, and we will address the point.

    Surely you do realize that M-Theory is a purely hypothetical construct, don't you ? There is a possibility that it contains valid physics, but at the moment no one knows for sure.
    Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

    "Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt.

    Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe - CNN.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    In other words you CAN'T provide a specific reference to where Hawking asserts this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    In other words you CAN'T provide a specific reference to where Hawking asserts this.
    Hawking was speaking at Cal Tech and the cnn article sums some of what he said.

    So, no you are wrong.

    Read the link above if you can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Right, because second-hand reports are always spot on, aren't they?
    Understood.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Let's say it is shown that Hawking did say that.

    What difference does it make? Post number two still applies.

    So- what- the human man made an assertion about how he thinks things are. Not every scientist is quoted to make purely scientific statements at every moment. I'm quite sure he farted, too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Right, because second-hand reports are always spot on, aren't they?
    Understood.
    Well then, you can prove it is false, no?

    I provided a link and there are many others.

    Learn to give up when you are wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Let's say it is shown that Hawking did say that.

    What difference does it make? Post number two still applies.

    So- what- the human man made an assertion about how he thinks things are. Not every scientist is quoted to make purely scientific statements at every moment. I'm quite sure he farted, too.
    Hawking did say that and I am asking for this forum to prove that something can emerge from absolute nothing as Hawking claimed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWisp View Post
    Well then, you can prove it is false, no?
    Keep trying.

    I provided a link and there are many others.
    Then provide a link directly FROM Hawking, not second-hand reportage, that may or not have skipped important points.

    Learn to give up when you are wrong.
    Unlike you that's something I have learned.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWisp View Post
    Hawking did say that and I am asking for this forum to prove that something can emerge from absolute nothing as Hawking claimed.
    Um, since you claim Hawking said it why are you asking US rather than him?
    Read this, for one example.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWisp View Post
    Hawking did say that and I am asking for this forum to prove that something can emerge from absolute nothing as Hawking claimed.
    Take it up with Hawking.

    This thread is a waste of space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    60
    I was confident no one here could support Hawking's assertion that the universe could spontaneously emerge from nothing.

    I also note no one can refute that Hawking made this claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWisp View Post
    I was confident no one here could support Hawking's assertion that the universe could spontaneously emerge from nothing.

    I also note no one can refute that Hawking made this claim.
    Good enough. So what? You have a bitter edge due to some ideas conflicting with God or something?

    No, Hawkings assertion, if he made it, cannot be supported at this time. Agreed? Settled?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    I don't see the point. The fact that no one here is competent to support an assertion made by Stephen Hawking means nothing.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    The quote is from page 144 of his book "The Grand Design", and reads as follows in its entirety ( quote ) :

    "Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globallyunstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by
    the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes.
    Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the
    manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than
    nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue
    touch paper and set the universe going."

    Now, I am neither able nor willing to support this assertion by Hawking. I greatly respect Prof Hawking as one of the most brilliant minds in recent history, and I would take much of what he says simply on good faith, but not this bit. If one digs deeper, much of his detailed reasoning is based on preliminary maths derived from M-Theory, and, as I had mentioned before, M-Theory is not yet established physics. It is a hypothesis at best, and we simply don't know whether it contains any valid physics or not. Heck, we can't even define exactly what M-Theory is in mathematically rigorous terms ! It is certainly a worthwhile avenue of ongoing research, but saying that "spontaneous creation" is inevitable as a result of it, and presenting it in the above manner ( which is basically asserting it as fact ) is, in my mind, questionable.

    You all know me as a staunch representative of established physics, so the above might surprise you. However, I wish to point out that M-Theory, even though definitely an interesting and fascinating hypothesis, is not established physics. It is just one among many attempts for a model which unifies all force and particles, but it has yet to prove its physical value. While it is certainly possible that it will yield such a unification model, it is just as possible that it will turn out to be without physical meaning. We simply don't know yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    ..., given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," ... .
    I ain't completely confused, but I am working on it.

    IF there was no-thing, wherefrom then could we have gravity?
    Is not gravity a force existing between 2(or more) bodies of something rather than existing on it's own?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    ..., given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," ... .
    I ain't completely confused, but I am working on it.

    IF there was no-thing, wherefrom then could we have gravity?
    Is not gravity a force existing between 2(or more) bodies of something rather than existing on it's own?
    I could not agree with you more from your above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    I think people struggle with concepts of nothing, time, causality, we all do, however, the best mathematical models suggest that the big bang happened, of course talking about what was 'before' the BB is nonsensical, and I suspect that even the words 'big bang' and 'happened' are not really appropriate and lead people into wrong assumptions/ideas. Maybe even talking about 'what' and 'how', although entirely natural, simply does not make sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. General relativity theory, Quantum theory, Sting theory, Whatever theory, True theory
    By painwithoutlove in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2013, 09:40 PM
  2. Stephen Hawking
    By D231988 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 18th, 2006, 12:34 AM
  3. Anyone know the new theory from Stephen Hawking?
    By hokhay in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 12th, 2006, 03:21 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •