Stephen Hawking makes perhaps one of the dumbest forays by a scientist into philosophy that I have ever seen:
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. 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.
Well that settles it. Something spontaneously arose out of nothing. No need for an explanation of that. Move on people, nothing mysterious here, stop asking questions. The blue touch paper lit itself, and there is something called “nothingness” which contains that blue torch paper as well as laws governing it. Perhaps this is all, in some Deepak Chopra sense, true. But it is not “the answer of modern science.” It is purely speculative, and whether we want to use the word “God” to describe the mystery of spontaneous generation or leave it at a nothing containing the seed of spontaneous generation seems to be a semantic distinction, with the latter in no way naturalizing or demystifying the former.
Of course, when Stephen Hawking makes such a pronouncement, it widely covered by the media as if a scientific Moses has descended from the mount with a single, definitive commandment: nothing. The face of the tablet is pristine, smooth. The worshipers are usually not familiar enough with the (actually irrelevant) cosmology that seems to support this claim, not to mention the (actually relevant) philosophy that would help them evaluate it. But they can take it as a matter of faith, if that’s the faith to which they happen to belong. And so the matter reeks of anti-intellectualism (as an attempt to foreclose on deeper, less sophomoric philosophical inquiry about the subject), and is fundamentally bad science, worse philosophy, and entirely anti-rational, even as it marches under the opposite banner.
By: Wes Alwan
Five Stars after 100+ iTunes Ratings.
#1 by burl on September 7, 2010 - 2:18 pm
Well, I’ve already shown today that my understanding of QM is f**ked, so I have little choice other than to acquiesce to a spontaneous apparition theory of matter…
Didn’t Suskind win the argument over Hawking’s claim that material entering black holes disappears from the universe?
Perhaps spontaneous creation of matter is Hawking’s way to win the argument from the opposite direction.
#2 by E.C. Gach on September 10, 2010 - 10:38 am
I’ll preface by noting that I love the podcasts and really appreciate all the work done here at Partially Examined Life, so there is no malicious intent behind me suggesting that while Hawking most likely is not well versed in philosophy, a two year crash-course could probably catch him up. His understanding of QM, Relativity, and the mathematics underlying science’s best descriptions of the universe to date, however, would probably not be so easily acquired by the majority of us.
“Well that settles it. Something spontaneously arose out of nothing. No need for an explanation of that. Move on people, nothing mysterious here, stop asking questions.”
The above seems to be the same ill-informed invasion into scientific territory for which you criticize Hawking of executing upon philosophy.
#3 by Wes Alwan on September 10, 2010 - 2:09 pm
E.C. — thanks for the compliment, keep listening; Mark and Seth will keep me in check.
Regarding Hawking etc.: You’d have to show me how this is ill-informed and what role God and Nothing can play in a physical theory. I have some familiarity with cosmology, and worked at the Naval Research Laboratory to calibrate the satellite instruments that collect gamma ray and other data in support of the field. We expected these to detect a variation in cosmic background radiation indicating the effects of the big bang. I was surprised to see in the newspapers later on, once that variation was indeed detected, a major physicist quoted as saying that he had “seen the face of God.” Apparently the face of God looks much like TV fuzz.
You can call something in your theory “God” if you like and something “Nothingness” and something spontaneous creation. But I’d like to see how they are mathematically expressed, what’s observed, and what’s predicted. If “God” turns out to be background radiation and “Nothing” turns out — as I suspect it would — to be nothing at all, then I’m not going to be very happy.
But one need not have any familiarity with science to observe the phenomenon of wide disagreement among scientists themselves. Many would reject not only Hawking’s speculations concerning God and Nothingness and spontaneous generation of universes, but the very speculative cosmological theories on which he bases them. These theories –such as string theory — are fought over tooth-and-nail by cosmologists, because they are currently not falsifiable, testable in any way, and have no predictive power. In fact, string theory has been ridiculed by some physicists. Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow is a famous skeptic. The criticism is that these sorts of theories are just fancy math unhinged from reality.
Only this month did physicists at the Imperial College London and Stanford University come up with a theory-related-to-string theory that is testable. (Google News it). Even if these tests are performed and are positive (for the idea that string theory might model an aspect of quantum entanglement) — they won’t test string theory as a theory-of-everything that reconciles general relativity and quantum mechanics. And then there are some physicists and mathematicians who object that such experiments wouldn’t even test it as a theory relevant to quantum entanglement. One has called the very hypothesis “absurd” and sees a basic feature of math cropping up in both string theory and quantum entanglement without any essential relationship. So again, you see how math may get unhinged when it becomes unhinged from something testable and predictive.
So Hawking is making a) unwarranted philosophical speculations based on b) a theory that is currently untestable, non-predictive, and not widely agreed upon by scientists. He bases his speculations on M-Theory, which adds one more dimension to string theory’s 10. And if his bad philosophical speculations actually did follow from these untestable, non-predictive theories, it would simply be a decisive factor against them.
Incidentally, Hawking in the past has popularized ideas — such as the “Big Crunch” — that are now universally rejected by cosmologists (including himself).
One more thing — I didn’t mean to give the impression that we should blindly defer to experts in their fields. We can critically engage areas in which we don’t have the time to be professionals, and there are all sorts of epistemic clues — internal consistency, for example — which make this possible even before we get the textbooks out. Like I said, the debate among physicists themselves is another such clue. Naturally, we have to use such clues all the time to accept or reject claims over which we have no direct evidence. I’ll never directly verify whether there really was a Christopher Columbus, but it does seem psychologically implausible that he is a historical hoax foisted upon us by some conspiracy. There are lots of good reasons to believe that there was a Christopher Columbus, but direct verification is not one of them. At the point where someone in some field uses their reputation and expertise to ask us to abdicate such standards — including especially that of internal consistency — we should know that something is up.
#4 by E.C. Gach on September 11, 2010 - 1:32 pm
Thanks for the thorough response. I don’t think I would disagree with any of it.
I guess the whole, ““Well that settles it. Something spontaneously arose out of nothing. No need for an explanation of that. Move on people, nothing mysterious here, stop asking questions,” comment left me thinking maybe there was something more to his arguments then their apparent ridiculousness.
How would you distinguish a scientific claim from a philosophical one? I’m curious what criteria you would use.
#5 by Wes Alwan on September 11, 2010 - 11:10 pm
@E.C. — Thanks; I think the basic distinction is that in the hard sciences the data come from the senses, and so are “empirical.” That despite the fact that observations may be indirect and models highly abstract. (And so, I might draw conclusions about the chemistry of stars — the kinds of elements they contain — from the kind of light they’re emitting; or create a model of an atom that I’ll never be able to observe but which is predictive of other observable phenomena). And so such models (as hypotheses) are falsifiable.
I take a philosophical claim to be one of two sorts: the first is a more modest, higher level reflection on some existing domain of inquiry. So while science busies itself with observable phenomena, philosophy of science makes its datum science itself. This datum is not strictly speaking “observable” in the sense that a philosopher of science will think about the nature of scientific explanation, theory, and causality. These are abstract rather than empirically observable entities.
I’m not someone who thinks that philosophy of science will change the way science is done, nor that it needs to in order to be worthwhile. And if science didn’t help us better our lives via technology, I still think it would be worthwhile (and of course there are lots of scientists who devote themselves to branches with little practical bearing on anything, including cosmology). And the question of utility of course could be broadened: if William James is right, the pleasure I get out of the pursuit of truth is just as legitimate a pragmatic consideration as curing cancer.
Incidentally, philosophy is not the only branch of non-empirical inquiry: mathematics and logic are two examples. Claims about the necessity of empirical observation to inquiry fail to take this into account. And these branches of inquiry are highly relevant to philosophy one of philosophy’s roles is dialectical: that is, to find inconsistencies within a body of commonly accepted beliefs. Thrasymachus may find out — via Socrates — that his idea that might makes right is entirely inconsistent with some of his other beliefs. Incidentally, I think the field of psychology is a borderline case — it cannot be empirical in the same sense as the hard sciences, and so falls in between philosophical reflection and empirical science.
So while I think there are data for philosophy, and philosophical theories can be put to various sorts of tests, those data are abstract and those tests are dialectical: the best you might hope for in arguing out a philosophical disagreement is to tease that basic underlying assumptions about which you and an interlocutor agree. But in my view, coming to terms with those assumptions means learning something new and worthwhile, and could disabuse one of some cherished belief that on reflection doesn’t make any sense.
#6 by Simon on September 12, 2010 - 10:38 pm
Wow great thinking…you guys have amazing talent for analyzing a problem and provide clear explanations. If everyone took the time to express their ideas like this, life would be awesome.
#7 by Wes Alwan on September 13, 2010 - 3:53 am
@Simon — thanks very much.
#8 by Daniel Horne on September 20, 2010 - 4:28 pm
Friendly suggestion re: “How would you distinguish a scientific claim from a philosophical one? I’m curious what criteria you would use.”
When I was reading about Hawking’s latest proclamation — and E.C.’s entirely fair question above — I couldn’t help but think of Karl Popper: “Scientific theories, if they are not falsified, forever remain hypotheses or conjectures.”
The problem with many public declarations of scientists lately is that they are treated by the media not as intelligent theories (i.e., the best explanation available to date, but subject to possible future revision), so much as incontrovertible statements of “the law.” Cue Pee Wee Herman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5s9lMzMhAU&feature=related
Even Hawking’s reference to the “laws of gravity” as opposed to the “theories of gravity” give me pause. Einstein proved Newton’s “laws of gravity” almost 100 years ago, which kinda makes reference to them as “laws” laughable. And who knows if Einstein’s own “law” of gravity will hold up 500 years from now? But it’s precisely the flip use of terms like “laws” (the “laws of quantum theory”? really?) that enable certain scientists to monopolize popular debate on Big Questions.
Though Wes’s response was right on point, I think E.C.’s question would be an excellent opportunity to conduct an episode on Karl Popper. I think Popper’s coming more into vogue now, thanks to Nassim Taleb’s rising star, and NT’s outspoken praise for Popper’s theories re: empiricism.
Wes, you strike me as particularly well-read (or at least well-spoken) on the philosophy of science. Whaddayathink re: a Popper episode?
#9 by Wes Alwan on September 20, 2010 - 6:27 pm
Daniel– would love to do a popper episode.
#10 by Hardev Singh on September 27, 2010 - 12:43 pm
‘God ,Nothingness And Stephen Hawkins’
Hardev Singh, Jammu
Few weeks ago, Stephen Hawkins, making the headlines of the news sheets, told the world that this universe did not require God for its creation. Rather, in contrast, he says: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” Stephen made above statement depicting the theme of his forthcoming book ‘Grand Design’. Undoubtly, he is a great scientist. However, even the most brilliant scientist is bound to talk in terms of philosophy where scientific analysis ceases to proceed. He becomes hypothetical and subjective and some of his efforts may be far-fetched.
No doubt, Stephen Hawkins has produced this hypothesis comparing scientific laws with some religious conceptions which had been attempting to explain the ‘nature of God’ and His relation with the creation. But does Stephen is familiar with the philosophy of Guru Nanak on this aspect? This question is important and interesting as well. Beyond any doubt, Stephen has never been to the philosophy of Guru Nanak. He is not at fault as he does not know about it. This is our own lack of understanding as we could not reach out to the world with this treasure. However, this is pertinent for any physicist to understand, that there may be something somewhere in the realm of philosophy pointing towards the existence of God differently in a logical way. Nanak brought the ‘nature of God’ out of prototypes Hawkins appears to be contending upon.
The understanding about God is not something to understand apart from the ‘forms of God’. God is an understanding, about His ‘formless’ existence to all ‘forms’ created by Him. He is not apart but omnipresent. He is not aloof from the physics, the law of gravitation and their effects but all these laws are within Him. This is the depth of the philosophy of Guru Nanak. If Stephen Hawkins could know this, surely, he would have gone interested to think upon it.
The ‘Grand Design’ is not released so far but Stephen Hawkins is found to be saying; “universe can and will create itself from nothing”.
Let’s proceed with this ‘nothingness’. Sunn (Nothingness) is an important word used in the hymns of Guru Granth Sahib which means ‘nothingness’ or ‘celestial void’. It is used in different contexts. But here, in this discussion, we will try to analyze it in the context of a particular situation when the universe was not yet in existence. Meaning thereby, a situation of complete nonexistence of matter and anything related to it such as gravity.
Guru Nanak says:-
“In the celestial Void (Nothingness), the Infinite Lord assumed His Power. He Himself is unattached, infinite and incomparable. He Himself exercised His Creative Power, and He gazes upon His creation; from the celestial Void, He formed the mind soul.” ||1|| ( Guru Nanak, Rag Maru,Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
In the same hymns Guru Nanak wrote further:-
“From this celestial Void (Nothingness), the earth and the skies were created. He supports them without any visible support, by exercising His True Power. He fashioned the three worlds, and the rope of Maya; He Himself creates and destroys. ||6|| From this Void, came the four sources of creation, and the power of speech. They were created from the Void, and they will merge into the Void.” ( Guru Nanak, Rag Maru,Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
Scientific discoveries have proved many of religious faiths as superfluous. By telling that sun does not revolve around the earth, the ‘logic’ has proved that the claim made about it was wrong. Thus one of the ignorance, related to the religion, got vanished. But a rational religious person, while accepting this logic, understands that within the law of nature, earth revolves around the sun and that is the arrangement of God. Earth revolving around the sun does not mean that God is not there. Rather such things make us to understand what God is and what ‘He’ is not.
Atheism is old. However, Hawkins’s name may brandish some old arguments in a new fashion. But rejoicing minds need to contemplate that some illogical definitions of God and religion do not necessarily mean what they are. Whether it is religion, economics or politics, all are useful and also exposed to go abusive. The struggle of mankind is to make good use of all these notions and not to deport them from human mind. We know with certainty that, most of miseries are primarily inflicted on the civilizations by economics and polity using religion as a tool. Even though, we can not imagine of a world without economics and political systems. There we all talk of reforms. But why some rationalists are not ready to accept a reformative understanding of religion? They need introspection.
Scientists tell us that the universe began to come into being about 15 billions years ago. The beginning, necessarily refers towards a situation of ‘not being’. For example, beginning of my existence establishes that at a point of time I did not exist. Yes, of course, there were the elements which caused my existence. The scientists are agreeing that the universe is expending. If the proofs of the expansion of the universe are based on the scientific conclusions then, beyond any doubt, expanding universe itself is an unchallengeable proof that it had a definite beginning. If, logically, we reverse the process of this expansion, then it will appear coming back to a point of the beginning. It would also reveal about the reality that, once upon a time, even this point did not exist. There comes the ‘nothingness’ where Hawkins has reached. Then, definitely, the cause of this ‘beginning point’ was the ‘first one’ of the chain of the cause and effects. Meaning thereby, a ‘cause’ which was ‘Self-Existent’. Evolution of the entire existence is a part or form of this ‘Self-Existent cause’ and it is continued. This evolution is not the evolution of everything. Rather this evolution includes the devolution of many things. This is natural, positive and negative as well. This is something which is not to be supposed otherwise.
The attempts to investigate this ever expanding universe have accepted the theories of ‘Big Bang’ and ‘Black Holes’. Such theories are put forward by scientists. But investigation of the existence of Black Holes also demands the answer to the question that: the matter which caused the existence of the black holes was not the predecessor of the black holes? The scientists should contemplate on this question for logical scientific scrutiny. These investigations are still at the level of hypothesis but the human mind, while looking into the formation and existence of black holes and thinking of possible big bang would definitely go to the idea of a situation before the black holes. And when it happens, logic points towards a situation which is referred in Guru Granth Sahib as Sunn i.e nothingness or celestial void. Means complete non existence of anything like matter. Neither matter, time nor space.Here space means the distances among the things. In this context, during his philosophical discourses with Sidhas (Learned Ones) Guru Nanak explained some important things while answering to their questions during philosophical discourses (Sidh Ghost)
Question of Sidhas regarding the creation of the universe:-
“What can you tell us about the beginning? In what home did the absolute void dwell then?” ( Page 940, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
Reply of the Guru Nanak:-
“We can only express a sense of wonder about the beginning. The absolute void abided endlessly deep within Himself then.” ( Page 940, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
And
From His state of absolute existence, He assumed the immaculate form; from formless, He assumed the supreme form. ( Page 940, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
There is need to understand the matter, time and space. Guru Nanak has pointed towards the existence of God before matter, time and space (distances). No doubt, our understanding about the beginning of time and space (distances) is related to the beginning of the creation universe i.e. a point from where the scientists like Stephen Hawkins contemplate about the creation of the universe on the basis of available forms, scientific facts and ideas.
But when mind, logically, thinks of an ambience, when there was nothing like universe, it finds itself standing within a ‘time’ and an empty ‘space’. In a time, where there is no reference to go back further in the time and, in a space, where there is no existence for any reference of matter. Here the space does not mean distance. This is a ‘timeless’ and ‘non-existent’ situation. At that time, entire forms of existence we see or imagine, appear to be like the needles of smaller watches moving within a ‘great timeless and amazing watch’ and expressions of the moments occurring within a timeless and uncalculated situation. When scientists prove that the universe started coming into being 15 billions years ago, then they appear to be talking about a time span and things within a timeless set of circumstances. But if we talk about the situation like 30 billions years ago, then the time, being not associated with any reference of existence, appears to be timeless because we don’t find anything as reference for the investigation or analysis of that timeless situation. This set of circumstances is referred by Nanak as Sunn. This is continuous because this is the only which is beyond the time. This Sunn, being timeless and formless is conducive to produce the time and forms. This capacity has a cause, a first cause. Meaning thereby, the cause of the all other subsequent causes and their effects. This cause is revealed as God and His Hukam (Order) by Guru Nanak.
Guru Nanak says:-
“You yourself are the Cause of causes, You Yourself are the Creator.” ( Page 563, Adi Guru Granth Sahib) And:
“You are wonderful! Your creative potency is amazing!” ( Page 563, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
When there was nothing there was Sunn (Nothingness). A complete celestial void! But we need to contemplate about the ‘capability’ which had the capacity to produce something like universe within the womb of nothingness. Science is not able to establish anything firmly about this nothingness because, as discussed before, it has no base in its hands conduct a scientific investigation to determine about celestial void. Here comes the point, where science itself requires a philosophy, based on logic, which may keep it alive to analyze the secrets which are yet beyond human understanding. Logic is the father of science. We talk about God. Even atheist talk about God. To abandon the quest for God after reaching to a state of nothingness and logic of its capacity to produce ‘existence ‘would be like the declaration of ‘death of science’. Would Stephen Hawkins like to write its obituary?
Besides this, if the matter was self existent in some form, was there a consciousness within that form of matter which kicked off the process of evolution of universe? Talking in terms of hypothetical ‘faith’ in pure materialism a materialist needs a deep contemplation on the question that; is the behavior of chaotic matter was not the basic consciousness of matter? Isn’t this the ‘seed’ of non evolved consciousness which, after reaching its zenith, had assumed the evolution of human mind? Certainly, we can not deny the behavior of matter. Atom itself is bound within a specific behavior. Obviously, it is the behavior of matter which becomes the necessary precondition for integration and disintegration to hold them together with in a universal system. Then the questions, behavior preceded or the matter places new challenge before us. Here the contention that matter precedes or gravitational force needs the answer. Was it the gravitational force which did all or God’s hand allowed all this to happen by way of matter and its gravitational force?
No doubt, the achievement of a stage of like human mind is possible only through body. Body is the base of such a realization. But what is the base of the behavior of atom? A possible answer to this tedious question can be the argument that the atom and its behavior are dependent on each other. Meaning thereby, if there is no behavior there is no atom and vise-versa. Apparently, reply appears to be having an answer to this complex question. But referring matter as self existent, a materialist appears to be dropping his weapon of cause and effect used by him against the existence of God.
But philosophical leads of Nanak make us towards strong logic to analyze this complication. Thereby, we find a situation like Sunn when there was no existence of matter as we see. But, on the other hand, definitely, there was something as consciousness within the womb of that celestial void. This consciousness was outside the matter and it had the capacity to produce matter out of nothingness or what we may call celestial void. Sunn and the consciousness was a formless stage falling out side the realm of time which starts only from our understanding with reference to the matter and its forms. That is why this is timeless. Logically, we can be aware of it, but we can never have the information of its beginning. We can only identify it by means of forms created by this consciousness and accept the proof of its existence. And we can definitely accept the philosophy of Nanak when he says:-
“You are wonderful! Your creative potency is amazing!”( Page 563, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
Here the logical conclusion points towards a One Timeless, Formless and Super Conscious Existence. This is beyond birth and death but able to reflect and run within all forms. Here Nanak does not describe God in slices. He talks about the nature of God in His entirety.
Nanak says:-
From His state of absolute existence, He assumed the immaculate form; from formless He assumed the supreme form. (Page 563, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
This is nothing but the existence of God whose form has been described, by Nanak, as a proof of His existence:-
“O Nanak, the True One is the Giver of all; He is to be identified through His All-powerful Creative Nature. ||8||”( Page 141, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
God exists and Identity of His existence is this entire Nature which produces brings up and destroys. Can Stephen Hawkins deny above identification? No doubt, he can not!
This is the proof of God as described in the Sikh Philosophy. God being present in every form transcends beyond every form. We can only feel His consciousness which has provided the capacity, within the empty womb of nothingness, to produce the existence (Universe)
On this issue, further dialogue may take place after ‘Grand Design’ of Stephen Hawkins and his ‘associate’ surfaces.
#11 by eli on December 12, 2010 - 11:16 am
“God” IS a theological concept, regardless of how some scientists and religious people uses it – an embarrasing fact for any scientist who include it in their theorizing reasoning. This shows us how even the most eminent scientist is as human as anyone, thus subjected to historically and socio-cultural formed worldview, which in this case can be understood with the quotes: “Equating etymology with epistemology they have disregarded the possibility of change in the referent ["God"] itself, and therefore in the meaning and human understanding of the concept.”
…or:
“both fundamentalists and liberal-sceptical cynicism [Hawking etc.] SHARE a basic underlying feature: For both of them, religious statements are quasi-empirical statements of direct knowledge: fundamentalists accept them as such, while skeptical cynics mock them.” (Zizek)
in other words: Hawking is here a fantastic example of not distinguishing, and not being aware difference of: cultural-ideological beliefs (that are part of the secular modernity) so firmly internalized in his view, from: the natural science’s METHOD of explaning the natural and material world.
#12 by Jason Tannery on August 26, 2011 - 6:50 pm
Refer to the website address at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy pertaining to dark energy.
The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’:
According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.
As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.
The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’:
The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect..
E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since 0 is multiplied by c2 always equal to 0. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance. Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy could exist even though there could not be any matter existed prior to the formation of the universe.
Refer to the website address at: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html pertaining to the law of universal gravitation. The following is the extract of the definition of law of universal gravitation:
Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)//r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant. From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing.
#13 by Jason Tannery on September 17, 2011 - 7:46 pm
Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos.
Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle. It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change. Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.
If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc. However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work. If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle? Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.
Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here? What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it? For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive. Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly put quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.
#14 by Jason Tannery on September 19, 2011 - 8:32 am
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity, pertaining to general relativity. It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘’Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time. As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing. Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.
Refer to the above website 17th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity. It is mentioned that general relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity such as, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity of time known as gravitational time dilation. Let’s examine all these factors, i.e. gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation below:
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave, pertaining to gravitational waves. It is mentioned in this website 10th line after the title of ‘Gravitational wave’ that the existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it. The phrase, Lorentz invariance of general relativity…brings… the physical interactions…, here gives the implication that gravitational waves have to be dealt with physical interactions or masses. As gravitational masses have to be dealt with masses, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which Hawking mentioned that gravitational wave could exist at the presence of substances or masses prior to the formation of this universe. As gravitational waves have to be dealt with substances or masses, it is irrational for Stephen Hawking to use it to support that gravity or dark energy could exist at the absence of masses so as to create something out of nothing.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing, pertaining to the gravitational lens. It is mentioned that a gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. The phrase, a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, gives a strong proof for a must to have matters or substances in order to activate a gravitational lens. Thus, gravitational lens in general relativity needs to rely on masses or substances in order to be generated and this opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist at the absence of substance to create something out of nothing.
Refer to website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation, pertaining to gravitational time dilation. It is mentioned that gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential, under the sub-title of ‘Potential energy’ pertaining to gravitational potential. The following is the extract of the formula of gravitational potential:
The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
U = mV
where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity
From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object). If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0. Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.
Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.