10 ms·
Hawking Hawking
- basedgod 6y agoso basically Hawking was a Frederick Hallam who bullied others into thinking he was important?
- modzu 6y ago"We now live in an environment where the idea that there may be a deeper, more unified theory has become completely discredited" how so? can anybody elaborate on this for a non physicist? how can we have multiple incompatible theories?
- zuzun 6y agoHe's probably having the string theory landscape in mind. In string theory the properties of most things are explained by the shape of the extra dimensions, but there are so many possible shapes that string theorists believe all of them exist and we find ourselves in one that is compatible with life.
- thejohnconway 6y agoSounds like a unifying theory to me. Just not a very testable one.
- gowld 6y agoIt's not unified, is the point. It's a bunch of theories written down next to each other in one book.
- disgruntled101 6y agoIt feels good to tear down others in order to boost your personal brand, especially if the others are dead. Doesn't it?
- timkam 6y agoI think the author is tearing down the brand rather than the person. And I think it's good. For sure, Hawking's individual productivity was limited in later years, as was his control of what would be associated with this name. For sure, Cambridge tried to profit from Hawking's name in ways that are only remotely related to his research. For sure, other, similarly talented researchers contributed to many of Hawking's achievements. IMHO, it is important that somebody discusses these issues, because we should not glorify the intellect of individuals to such an extreme extent. Woit might hold some research-/community-related grudges, but I don't think this makes his post less relevant.
- ragnese 6y agoHawking and his "brand" did immeasurable good for humanity, though. First of all, as the author acknowledges, his work actual scientific work brought huge steps (leaps, even) in the field of cosmology. To say he doesn't stand up to Einstein is probably wrong from both directions: that Einstein was an untouchable intellect, himself; but also that Hawking wasn't as brilliant, which I think is clearly debatable. Second, Hawking's "brand" inspired generations of people to go into science. I have no doubt in my mind that we'd have fewer people in hard science if it weren't for him, his inspiring personal story, those books, and even his pop culture appearances. What was the author's point here? That Hawking may have written less of those books than we think? That he wasn't the top theoretical physicist in the world at the end of his life? Sounds like this guy just wants to hawk someone's book.
- gowld 6y agoIndeed. It's absurd to say that Hawking was overly branded by way of a comparison to Einstein who is an absolute meme.
- macando 6y agoHe would have lost that one, too. It was hubris—but it sold, and it is part of his legacy. He showed younger colleagues how to chase grand theories and best-selling books. Hawking is not the only physicist guilty of hawking. The theory of everything is a false idol. Why should the universe, which grows more gloriously complex the more we see, be reducible to one set of equations and formulae? The point of science is not the holy grail but the quest—the searching and the asking. Let us hope there will never be a final theory. Can't understand why people hope there won't be a final theory. Sounds demotivating and grim. Solving that puzzle will help with other puzzles.
- telesilla 6y agoBecause a theory of everything, that encapsulates change within itself, would be a paradox?
- sgt101 6y agoI don't think so because it would be written in a system that would not be the thing. It would necessarily be an abstraction of reality because physics is not the universe.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> The theory of everything is a false idol. Why should the universe, which grows more gloriously complex the more we see, be reducible to one set of equations and formulae? This is a pretty staggering mistake. The only way for the universe not to be reducible to one set of formulae would be to involve a meddling supernatural and ineffable force. (If it's not ineffable, it's just more formulae.) The goal of a unified theory is to have a single formula.
- plutonorm 6y agoWould it? As a counter point - consider a universe where all possible things exist. We know from algorithmic information theory that most things are incompressible. Who is to say we don't live in an area within the totality of all possible things that happens to be in part entirely incompressible?
- koalala 6y agoi got into physics because of a copy of a brief history of time my grandmother gave to me. whoever wrote it, i am grateful.