Stephen Hawking suggests 'theory of everything'

Ilus_Unistus

Registered Member
#2
Though I do not believe the explanations of what religion says about the creation of the universe by an almighty God, I also have seen many unproven theories about what science offers about the universe and I think this is only another to add to the stack that already exist. I do think however, the theories modern science offers is at least along the more correct lines as to how the Universe came to be.

Do I believe this "M" theory? No more than the rest of the scientific theories about how the Universe came to be, but I do think we are very close to having the capability to solving mans greatest mystery, my concern is will governments/politics allow the findings when it happens to be published or just keep us wondering in the name of Religion?
 
Last edited:

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#3
I think the idea can be summed up in the following:
We have absolutely no clue about the big questions of life.......but we are absolutely sure it wasn't God.

The idea that there are 10x500^x universes with different laws built on top of each other is just ridiculous. What it really all comes down to is even with modern labs and the best technology, there is no way to get around the abiogenesis problem so really bright people end up writing really silly books.
 

PhoenixOverdrive

Registered Member
#4
Who cares?

Science is just another thing that's right until it's wrong.

Dark matter was supposed to make up over 80% of the universe, but we never found any.

Einstein theorized the speed of light to be a constant. We can now make light slow down perceptibly, or speed up faster than, well, light.

We thought it was absolutely impossible to (insert technological feat here), and we did it.

We still don't understand, in this age, what light actually is, what makes magnets attract/repel, or how electricity works. And don't give me this "free-floating electrons in a current" crap. I've compiled it and it doesn't add up.

Eventually people will realize the Bohr model for the atom is ludicrous and inconsistent. I'll stop banging my head against the proverbial wall then.

Everything we think we know about the universe we'll eventually realize was total bullshit. We've done it a thousand times over already. Stephen Hawking's theory might help theoretical physicists find solutions to their problems, but it's going to hit a snag eventually and we'll be stuck for possibly another couple decades until something completely different comes up... Again.

I think Hawking is a little nuts nowadays. Telling people to avoid communicating with aliens... And claiming to have scientific answers to philosophical questions is going a bit far. The reason we were born on this earth is whatever you come up that works for you. Me it's to help people in need where I can help them, and develop skills to be able to help everyone I can. It's also to have a great time while I live.

Scientists will one day learn they have to be much more flexible about how they view the world, keep their theories simple, and for god's sake stop patching a theory with another one and another and another, in order to keep up.

I've got a lot to say about theoretical physics, so common wisdom dictates I should stop. All in all it's A step in A direction. I suppose that's good.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
#5
I think the idea can be summed up in the following:
We have absolutely no clue about the big questions of life.......but we are absolutely sure it wasn't God.
This statement could not be more incorrect. I could just as easily flip it to say "We have no idea what lightning is, what the laws of planetary motion are or how we got here...it must be god!" The universal theory of everything has nothing to do with atheism, or any form of religion.

The idea that there are 10x500^x universes with different laws built on top of each other is just ridiculous.
If you actually examine the evidence in physics, this statement gets more and more rational.

What it really all comes down to is even with modern labs and the best technology, there is no way to get around the abiogenesis problem so really bright people end up writing really silly books.
I could flip this statement to stand against religion just as easily. There is no "abiogenesis problem." There is simply the lack of a definite answer at this time.

Not so long ago (120 years), people immediately dismissed evidence for germs because the idea sounded silly and every "rational person" "knew" that evil spirits and god caused disease.
------
Science is just another thing that's right until it's wrong.
Not at all. Real science is not like this.

Dark matter was supposed to make up over 80% of the universe, but we never found any.
Says one theory, and there is good evidence for it. However, "Science" does not say this, or anything at all actually.

Einstein theorized the speed of light to be a constant. We can now make light slow down perceptibly, or speed up faster than, well, light.
The speed of light is constant. The effects of red shifts, blue shifts and gravity change the perception of light and distance of space.

We thought it was absolutely impossible to (insert technological feat here), and we did it.
This is scientists, not "science."

We still don't understand, in this age, what light actually is, what makes magnets attract/repel, or how electricity works. And don't give me this "free-floating electrons in a current" crap. I've compiled it and it doesn't add up.
There is a much better understand than before. Scientific advancement is cumulative.

Eventually people will realize the Bohr model for the atom is ludicrous and inconsistent. I'll stop banging my head against the proverbial wall then.
An incomplete theory is not the same as a wrong theory. For example, Newtonian Physics wasn't wrong, just incomplete.
 
Last edited:

PhoenixOverdrive

Registered Member
#6
Not at all. Real science is not like this.
It's the entire history of science. We thought something up, it made sense, we learn something new and it doesn't anymore, we come up with something else. That's the reason you can now get a warm meal in minutes. It's not a bad thing, by any means. Also, don't be afraid to use more words.

Says one theory, and there is good evidence for it. However, "Science" does not say this, or anything at all actually.

The speed of light is constant. The effects of red shifts, blue shifts and gravity change the perception of light and distance of space.
If you're going to argue without so much as a thought process, at least stay current. Dark matter is now a subject of hilarity in the scientific community, and now even the Higgs boson has been all but discarded. As for light, here is something for you to read. February 18th, 1999. There have been countless experiments like this since.

This is scientists, not "science."
Most of these feats were calculated by physicists and mathematicians. With the knowledge at hand at the time, they were thought to be impossible. With new technologies born of new theories and advances, we've made the physically impossible possible.

There is a much better understand than before. Scientific advancement is cumulative.
I said we STILL don't know. I obviously stay on track a lot more than you do. Do some research, it might help. Also scientific advancement is sporadic, and sometimes needs an overhaul. Theoretical physics is mostly always in a rut until someone comes up with a new revelation that explodes the field forward.

An incomplete theory is not the same as a wrong theory. For example, Newtonian Physics wasn't wrong, just incomplete.
They're completely wrong outside of a setting where classical physics don't hold up. If you look at particles (the very small) or planetary and star systems (the very big), then they simply do not work. It's only a small part of the picture.

But if you state things like "if you push something it’ll keep moving until you stop it", "the harder you push it the faster it accelerates" and "if you shove it, it will shove you back", you're very unlikely to be wrong. Sounds a lot like cold reading and bogus psychic work to me. (Kudos to Steve Grand for the quotes)

If you're going to reply at all, please either have some material, reasoning, or knowledge at hand.
 

Boredie

In need of Entertainment
#7
from the article said:
"According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god," the book says. "Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law."
Those who believe in God believe that nature came from God, therefore what is quoted above about God and nature isn't a contradiction, to those who believe in God.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#8
This statement could not be more incorrect. I could just as easily flip it to say "We have no idea what lightning is, what the laws of planetary motion are or how we got here...it must be god!" The universal theory of everything has nothing to do with atheism, or any form of religion.
Then the new Hawkins book is a piece of trash because that's what the quote that AP pulled said.


If you actually examine the evidence in physics, this statement gets more and more rational.
I could just as easily flip that and say the same thing about creation science.


I could flip this statement to stand against religion just as easily. There is no "abiogenesis problem." There is simply the lack of a definite answer at this time.
If science cannot recreate in in 2010 that seems to say an intelligence above our own did it the first time.
Not so long ago (120 years), people immediately dismissed evidence for germs because the idea sounded silly and every "rational person" "knew" that evil spirits and god caused disease.
Maybe they should have read the Bible better. Some germ prevention medical procedures found in the Torah:
  • Wash bodies and clothes in running water if bodily discharge, or if in contact with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human or animal carcass
  • Wash any uncovered vessels that were in the vicinity of a dead body, and if a dead carcass touched a vessel it was to be destroyed
  • Bury human waste outside of camp
  • Burn the waste of animals
  • Quarantine to prevent the spread of leprosy
 

Gavik

Registered Member
#9
Then the new Hawkins book is a piece of trash because that's what the quote that AP pulled said.
The story said no such thing. If you'd like to present some evidence against Hawking's argument rather than dismiss it because it sounds weird, then please do.

I could just as easily flip that and say the same thing about creation science.
Yes, you could say such a thing. But the evidence wouldn't be there.

If science cannot recreate in in 2010 that seems to say an intelligence above our own did it the first time.
What's so special about 2010? It took humanity 90,000 years to develop agriculture, and another 8,000 before we even began to understand the atom. Why should we be expected to be able to create an entire universe in such a short time span?

Maybe they should have read the Bible better. Some germ prevention medical procedures found in the Torah:
  • Wash bodies and clothes in running water if bodily discharge, or if in contact with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human or animal carcass
  • Wash any uncovered vessels that were in the vicinity of a dead body, and if a dead carcass touched a vessel it was to be destroyed
  • Bury human waste outside of camp
  • Burn the waste of animals
  • Quarantine to prevent the spread of leprosy
Yet there's not a single mention of germs, viruses or bacteria in any of that.

I'm not saying M theory is perfect. I won't even say it's the correct theory of everything. I lack the qualifications to do that, so I remain a skeptical observer. It remains a hypothesis. Within the next 10 years, particle accelerator technology will give us a better understanding of it, but I doubt humanity will develop a comprehensive theory of everything within the next 100 years. M theory could be a good candidate for that theory, but for now we can't say anything for sure.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#10
Your argument sounds familiar.

The story said no such thing. If you'd like to present some evidence against Hawking's argument rather than dismiss it because it sounds weird, then please do.
...
What's so special about 2010? It took humanity 90,000 years to develop agriculture, and another 8,000 before we even began to understand the atom. Why should we be expected to be able to create an entire universe in such a short time span?
...
I'm not saying M theory is perfect. I won't even say it's the correct theory of everything. I lack the qualifications to do that, so I remain a skeptical observer. It remains a hypothesis. Within the next 10 years, particle accelerator technology will give us a better understanding of it, but I doubt humanity will develop a comprehensive theory of everything within the next 100 years. M theory could be a good candidate for that theory, but for now we can't say anything for sure.
We have absolutely no clue about the big questions of life.....


Yes, you could say such a thing. But the evidence wouldn't be there.
...
Yet there's not a single mention of germs, viruses or bacteria in any of that.
..but we are absolutely sure it wasn't God.