Impressions of her expectation at the premiere of the film based on the life of Stephen Hawking, or at least the part of his life witnessed by his first wife Jane
Next week the movie "The Theory of Everything" is going to be released, I was invited along with many journalists to the premiere. I usually don't come to events of this kind but this time we received an invitation, it was impossible to refuse Stephen Hawking.
Since I am not a film expert, I can count on the world critics and Hawking himself who praised the film, I will dwell here on some things that caught my eye during the film.
The movie "The Theory of Everything" describes the life of the world famous scientist, Stephen Hawking, from the time he met his wife when he was still healthy and even rode a bicycle, through his dealings with the disease and with physics. One of the layers that the director of the film emphasized was Hawking's being an atheist. Theological debates are interwoven throughout the film starting from the beginning in the first meeting with his wife Jane who went to church every Sunday, through conversations with his wife over the years to the theological discussion with the conductor of the church choir, a childless widower named Jonathan, who would later become Jane's second husband .
God was there when he developed the theory of the professor he admired and who also chaired the committee that gave him an excellent mark for his doctoral thesis, Roger Penrose, on the singularity of black holes, and therefore concluded that there was a moment when the universe began with a big bang that is kind of one big black hole , and God was also there in the lecture he gave on Hawking radiation in which he proved that a black hole also evaporates and therefore the Big Bang was not a singular event but another event on the continuum, only that it is impossible to know what was before it. When Jonathan thought that the big bang theory proved God, Hawking told him that he is now working on a theory that refutes what he wrote in his doctorate and leaves no room for God (in whom he did not believe from the beginning of the film to the end).
The movie "The Theory of Everything" is based on a book written by Jane Hawking about their lives, so it starts with their first meeting and ends with the divorce more or less.
Hawking's science is more or less present in the seam between the scenes when he had to skip a few years and move to the next episode. By the way, it is presented in a simple way so that anyone can understand it. Even Jane who tried to explain to one of the guests the problem of the lack of connection between the quantum theory dealing with the small orders of magnitude which was represented by peas and Einstein's theory of relativity which was represented by a potato. And to sum up: Einstein didn't like peas, excuse me, quantum theory".
The actors, Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones accompany the history of the Hawking couple realistically (probably thanks to the make-up department). Even Hawking himself said in a television interview that a quote from him was broadcast on Channel 2 news, that he could not distinguish Redmayne from himself, because it imitated him so well "I thought it was me". Throughout the film, they were portrayed as a couple that attracts attention, is funny, fights when necessary and shows bravery. Writer Anthony McCarten managed to recreate the two's love as it grew stronger during his time as a student and loosened as Hawking devoted more and more of his time to his theories.
Besides God and physical theories, we learn how Hawking found out about his illness, when he lost his voice and how the computer system helped him talk to the world and write his book "A Brief History of Time". You should go to the movie and understand exactly what it is about.
It won't be a spoiler if I reveal that Hawking failed to find the theory of everything, just as Einstein, who devoted the last thirty years of his life to this search, failed to develop a theory unifying quantum theory and relativity (I think he was the one who coined the term 'theory of everything') so Hawking too, and in fact this still remains an unsolved puzzle.
In 2006 Hawking (the real one) visited Israel. Among other things, he gave a speech about the beginning of the universe, where we came from and where we are going. The transcript of the lecture was translated by me and published in real time on the knowledge site.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
55 תגובות
Yes, there are scientific revolutions and there is nonsense in tomato juice.
Just because there are scientific revolutions does not mean that any nonsense that contradicts science may be true. I'm sure if you have a power outage at home, you don't open a Kabbalah book to say spells to bring back the light. You go to an electrical cabinet and check the circuit breaker, right? So you also rule out the option that the power outage was caused by an imbalance in reception.
And the Ministry of Education also rules out the option that the world is flat, and the weather forecasters also rule out the option of predicting weather with the help of skipping letters in your alphabet.
If you are not ruling anything out then everything is equally true and false with the same information. I don't think it's scientific.
Mr. G
Not that I'm justifying the guy who calls himself Dory, but a perception, an approach, a paradigm really needs to die, be crushed in order to make room for a new perception.
Like the transition between Ptolemaic astrology and Newtonian concepts. Thus today a concept that may resemble mysticism may replace the existing paradigms.
As long as the? As long as it is empirical.
Scientific revolutions, which lead to the replacement of one theory by another, bear the character of a thought revolution.
I'm not claiming that what Dori is trying to convey is true, but that we are renewing ourselves from that field that we don't know that we don't know about.
You will believe, but don't deny either.
Don't accept but don't reject either.
Do not forget that all the discoveries were accompanied by strong objections. And whose? Precisely of those who supposedly had a hold on advanced theories.
food for thought…
Not afraid to say they *don't* know what it's made of,
Dory, you're not serious. What are you a politician? They ask you a question, and you answer something completely different, and you also tell me "if you are not afraid".
Why are you afraid to say "I have no idea and the receipt doesn't say anything about it". If physicists who study dark matter are not afraid to say they know what it is made of, why are you afraid? And who are you trying to deceive with these "clues"? If these "clues" were worth anything long ago you would have had a Nobel Prize in your hand and orphans and widows would have matzah on the table.
Dori Rechnitz
I'm glad I made you laugh.
But, please explain to me. What are you doing on this site? Were you not taught that the first sin in the Torah is the sin of curiosity? It really interests me - did you come to be a missionary, or are you really interested in getting to know our world?
G
What is dark matter?
I can't write about it, what's more, in order to understand something, you have to give a number of introductions here that won't be allowed to enter as a response.
But at the same time I will try to hint at something through a number of passages from the introduction to Sefer Zohar (Rabbi Yehuda A.S. XNUMX) and if you delve into the things and are not afraid of breaking the habits and conventions of both what you were taught and of your own perception, maybe a door will open in your heart and through it you will somehow be able to try to understand this wisdom .
I am sending letters XNUMX, XNUMX and XNUMX and I hope that you will understand the clues found in these letters.
"H) And besides what has been said, there is a very important hint in this parable of the four colors. Because the upper lights are called a book, as a book (in the Book of Genesis, Chapter XNUMX, Subsection XNUMX), and He created his world in three books, a book, a writer, and a story. And XNUMX and his revelation as the book of heaven (Isaiah XNUMX). And here is the revelation of the wisdom in each book, not in the white in it, but only in the colors, that is, in the ink, from which the letter of the letters in the book come in the wisdom clusters to the spring, which usually, in these books, there are three types of ink, red, green and black. Likewise, the world of nobility, which is wisdom, which is all divine, is in the examination of the white in the book, that is, we have no grasp of it at all, but the entire revelation in the book of heaven, is in the sefirots of wisdom, glory, and kingdom, which are the XNUMXrd worlds of the Bible, being the examination of the ink in the book of heaven, That the letters and their conjunctions are revealed in the two types of ink mentioned, and only by them is the divine light revealed to the receivers. And at the same time it must be distinguished. As the white in the book is the main theme of the book. And the letters are all "married" to the white in the book, and without the white, no reality for the letters, and all the revelation of wisdom in them, would be possible. Yes, the world of nobility, which is the counting of wisdom, is the main theme of the discovery of the wisdom that is revealed through the worlds of the Bible. And all of them wisely you did.
XNUMX) And he is what we said above in the fence of the third, that the zahar does not speak in the world of nobility when he is to himself, and he, on account of his being like the white man in the book. But according to his enlightenment in the XNUMXrd of the worlds in the XNUMXth, and it is on behalf of their being in the examination of the ink, and the letters and their combinations in the book. And we were in B. Opanis, or C. the worlds in B. E. receive the illumination of the world of nobility in their own place, then the light diminishes much for them on the way past the horseshoe below the world of nobility, until we are examined only for the illumination of noble vessels. Or on the upper path of the worlds XNUMX above Persa, to the place of the sefirot between the XNUMXth and the kingdoms of Datsilot, and are found wearing the world of nobility, i.e. those who receive the light instead of its illumination. Kmash at the opening from XNUMX kana onwards.
J) Admittedly, the parable is not completely similar to the parable. Because the book of wisdom in this world, both the white and the ink in its letters, have no spirit of life in them, and the revelation of the wisdom in them is not in their essence but outside them, that is, in the mind of the one who springs from it. The fourth worlds, which are the book of heaven, all the brains in the spiritual and physical reality are in them and are drawn from them. And therefore you will be wise, the white in which is the subject of the book, is itself the wise man in the book, and the colors of the ink, which explain this wise man.
good week.
God
Lol
Miracles, if you were so smart, you wouldn't be so transparent.
Keep writing comments on the site (isn't that your job), but please, at least do it with some sophistication.
good week
God
Dori Rechnitz
What are you doing on this site? Apart from making excuses you don't say anything 🙂 “No …. The meaning is that... Sure, light is not light, time is not time.
You want to convince me to believe in your nonsense - your full right! But come on, not on a site of smart people….
Write whatever you want, as long as the heart is directed towards love.
Happy holiday.
happy holiday to everyone, especially to the widows and orphans whose reception was once again a disappointment. Maybe next year
God does not play with dice
Everything makes sense and is connected.
How connected is it? To what extent are both global and private processes related to each other?
We find that out today
https://www.themarker.com/markerweek/1.3014535
To what extent do those visible and hidden connections have a purpose?
We haven't found that out yet...
Last chance! I donate my Nobel money to widows and orphans. If you learned from the Kabbalah about the structure of dark matter and you don't tell us - that's already cruel!
miracles miracles
Reporter:
The second line "was a simple upper light filling all reality." – Light was created hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang, so this line is already wrong. –
*** Note what Harry writes about simple light. He does not write that it is light as you describe but something that is unattainable, has no steps, has no differences but is all equal in one comparison.
But you - take the things and interpret them according to your abilities and your level of understanding.
Let's continue.
You wrote: "After that he talks about moving to the middle... but that has no meaning in the ancient universe, as in the modern universe. Even when the universe was primordial - it was infinite. Small...but infinite.
***Miracles, meaning: creatures do not feel the light itself and do not know what it is. The light itself is outside the creature. The bones of the light are referred to in the Kabbalistic writings as "his bones". The effect of light on man arouses admiration in him, known as "light". Kabbalah wisdom does not discuss light itself and its bones, but only the effect of light on man.
You also wrote: "Everything else... just a jumble of words. So what did we have? Two facts are wrong and the rest are embellishments."
*** Miracles, know that everything that disqualifies Momo disqualifies. Your inability to go deeper due to a lack of templates and appropriate tools. It is like a person passing by a perfume shop but he is distracted and unable to notice the beauty and uniqueness of the things.
And to finish you wrote: Again - give me one prediction from religion. What religion do you want? This is how wisdom is tested. The job of our brain is to anticipate the future. What do you need religion for?
So I'm ready to give you a prediction:
Every form of research we know deals with tests and manipulations (with the tests of empirical science we mean objectivity, reliability, etc.) on an external object. That is, we take an external object and with our limited tools we make observations, manipulations and in essence the experiment deals with investigating an external subject with the tools we have which are limited, even if they are upgraded such as microscopes, waves and more.
My prediction:
The future research will move from an experiment with an external theme, to an internal experiment.
We were the researched field, the importance will not focus on what is outside of us but rather on what is inside us.
We also found that by changing our tools, the results will change.
Therefore, the most sophisticated laboratory will not be built of sophisticated microscopes, concave glasses, plasmas and the like.
The most sophisticated laboratory will be man himself.
Man will discover that by changing his will, his interiority, by changing his tools, his reality will change.
Happy holiday
God
Israel
An explanation is good if it explains many existing observations, and also - predicts many things that do correlate.
I am guessing that Israel will not take the World Cup this year.
Really what?
Israel
upside down …. There was one very smart man, his name was Albert Einstein. He offered an interesting explanation for this observation. This explanation foresaw all kinds of fascinating things: like the pulsation of Mercury, like the bending of light and like the slowing down of time in a gravitational field.
Guess what?
OK, but why did they conclude from the expansion of the galaxies that the universe is also expanding? If a hand grenade explodes in some remote corner of the universe and its fragments are all I see, does that have anything to do with the universe? Maybe this is the universe for me, but it is not the infinite universe around.
Likewise for the galaxies. For those of us who see nothing else, this is the universe, but there is no way that beyond it, at a distance of trillions of light years, there were additional compensators that created countless other universes.
Israel
I guess they invented all kinds of explanations for what happened "in the beginning". The explanations provide predictions, and look for those predictions. One of the predictions of one of the explanations is the cosmic background radiation.
Guess what?
Is there any cop here who understands that he can explain why the Abel discovery is interpreted as if the universe had a beginning at some particular time in the past, namely the big bang?
OK, so the galaxies are moving away from each other and they were all once together 13.7 billion years ago. So what?
Even if we detonate a grenade, its 26 fragments will scatter in all directions and if we follow the fragments and apply some mathematics, we can calculate where and when all the fragments were together. So does that mean this is the point and moment the universe began?
It just means that this is the point and moment when the grenade exploded. So why not apply the same principle to our "universe"?
Dori Rechnitz
The second line "was a simple upper light filling all reality." – Light was created hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang, so this line is already wrong.
After that he talks about moving to the middle... but that has no meaning in the ancient universe, as in the modern universe. Even when the universe was primordial - it was infinite. Small...but infinite.
Everything else .. just a jumble of words. So what did we have? Two facts are wrong and the rest is embellishment.
2000 years before that - the Greeks talked about atoms, measured the size of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun, and even gave us paradoxes that have not been resolved to this day.
In general - it has already been said that all Western philosophy is a collection of footnotes to Plato.
Again - give me one prediction from religion. What religion do you want? This is how wisdom is tested. The job of our brain is to anticipate the future. What do you need religion for?
I asked a simple question Dori.. What is dark matter made of? Tell us!
And below is Ari's full poem
Song - The Tree of Life
Know that before the nobles were ennobled and the creatures were created,
There was a simple supreme light that fills all reality.
And there was no free space in terms of empty air and space,
But everything was full of the light of that simple infinity.
And he had neither a head exam nor a final exam,
but all was one light simply equal in one comparison,
And it is called "endless light".
And when he arose in his simple desire to create the worlds and ennoble the nobles,
to publish the completeness of his actions, names and nicknames,
That this was the reason for the creation of the worlds.
Here then reduce itself to infinity at the middle point,
which is in the very middle,
and dimmed that light,
and move away to around the sides of the middle point.
Then there is a free space left, air and empty space
From the very middle point.
And here this reduction was in one comparison
Around that empty middle point.
in such a way that the place of that space
It was round from all its surroundings in perfect comparison.
And here is the reduction,
Which then remains the place of space and the air is free and empty
In the middle of infinite light,
There was already a place here,
That the nobles, and the creatures, and the creatures, and the creatures could be there.
Then one line of his continued from the endless light from top to bottom,
which dangles and descends within that space.
And through that noble line, and created, created, and made
all worlds all
First these four worlds
There was one infinity and one name in wonderful and vanishing unity,
that there is no power even in the angels closest to him
and they have no end in sight,
Because there is no created mind that can achieve it,
Because it has no place, no limit, and no name.
Nissim and G
You wrote: "Proving something in retrospect is not wisdom"
Until the 20th century it was accepted that the existence of the universe is eternal, and in the second half of the 20s of the 20th century, a researcher named Edwin Abel discovered that the different galaxies are moving away from each other, and hence the universe is expanding. And if so, then it should have a primary point in space and time, from which the expansion began. The beginning of expansion is called the Big Bang.
In 1927, the Belgian priest and astronomer Georges Lemaitre, relying on the theory of general relativity, claimed that the universe began as a "primordial atom" that gradually expanded; This was the first description of the Big Bang.
Rabbi Yitzchak Luria Ashkenazi, whose nickname is derived from the first letter of the divine words Rabbi Yitzchak, was born in 1,534 in Jerusalem.
So what does it mean in retrospect?
I don't want to be defiant, but try to check the depth of the song he wrote (the so-called Give a Chance). Although there is no complete agreement between the scientists and what Harry wrote, see how similar what Harry wrote to the scientists' conclusions regarding the way in which creation was created.
And if there is someone you know who lived before this year (1534), and wrote in such a way about creation, I would love to meet him.
Dory
G is absolutely right. It is not wise to find connections in retrospect. Benjamin Hoff found all Western philosophy in Winnie the Pooh.
With a little effort - you can find the entire story of creation in any book. Take Moby Dick: Melville begins the book with "Call me Ishmael." I mean" listen! I am your God!" After that "many years ago - it doesn't matter how many -..." Here you already understand that he is talking about a very ancient story, and wisely he does not indicate the exact time, because then there was no time! And so on and so on….
Dori - religion is wise in "explaining" only what was in the past. She is not able to say whether it will rain tomorrow or not....
Dory, what's the simple? If the Kabbalah knows physics so well, just tell us what dark matter is made of. I promise to share the Nobel Prize with you 50-50.
Proving something in retrospect is not wisdom. It's like saying "I told you so" only after something happens without really saying before..
The Big Bang according to Hawking, the beginning of creation according to Ari and a taste of the concept of time.
(I am aware of the difficulty in digesting what I wrote, but I decided to send it as a response anyway)
This is how he begins his poem The Tree of Life accepted by the name of the Ari (Rabbi Yitzchak ben Shlomo Luria):
"Know that before the nobles were ennobled and the creatures were created
There was a simple supreme light that fills all reality.
And there was no free space in terms of empty air and space,
But everything was full of the light of that simple infinity.
And he had neither a head exam nor a final exam,
but all was one light simply equal in one comparison,
And it is called "endless light".
Why is this so interesting?
Why is there any point in putting huge scientists like Stephen Hawking and others with a Kabbalist like Ari?
Some time ago, in what was probably his last interview, he was asked on the show
Star Talk what was before the big bang and explained that there was nothing there, because time itself also started with the big bang.
Hawking's claims is that: "There was simply nothing, but that doesn't mean there was nothing."
"The boundary condition of the universe... is that it has no boundaries," Hawking believes. According to him, in order to understand this theory better, you need to grab the "remote control" of the universe and start rewinding. As we know today, the universe is constantly expanding; As we move back in time, the universe shrinks. If you go back far enough (about 13.8 billion years), the entire universe shrinks to the size of one atom, explains Hawking.
This subatomic point, which contains everything from everything, is known as a "gravitational singularity". Inside this tiny and very dense point of heat and energy - the laws of physics and time basically cease to exist.
Hawking's point is that there was no time before time began, but time has always been there in some form, even if completely different.
Other scientists tell us that before the explosion there was no space, energy or matter.
From zero size space began to develop and expand rapidly to an enormous size.
And if this did not happen then gravity would have shrunk the space to the same "nothing" from which it came.
The expansion was faster than the speed of light and is also called Inflation
Protons and neutrons got their structure from those quark clusters that got rearranged.
And now let's see what Ari writes to us and how he achieved what is called the big bang.
Ari writes in his poem Tree of Life:
"Know that before the nobles were ennobled and the creatures were created" - that is, before creation. Before the worlds were created. Here Harry is talking about a world before it was created called the world of nobility and a world called the world of creation.
"There was an upper light simply filling all of reality" - that is, what Hawking calls that there was nothing, but that does not mean that there was nothing. Denominator Hari in the name of Upper Light fills all reality.
And if there was no reality, then what supreme light exists in it?
By the term "simple light" the Ari means that there is a reality of which we have no perception.
It simply means - that there is no distinction between steps and sides. That is, a simple light is a light that includes the tool without distinguishing between the light and the tool.
What is meant by? I will try to explain in the simplest language in order to try to convey the concept.
There are two components that build our ability to grasp, achieve, enjoy and they are:
A. the pleasure factor. You can call it filling, abundance, and in the language of Kabbalah we will call it: Light.
B. The receiving tool that receives the pleasure. We were the hunger and desire for pleasure.
For example: the filling/light/abundance = juicy steak
The receiving tool = the hunger and longing to receive the steak.
We will try to describe a situation where the light/pleasure is a billion times greater than the vessel. In this state, the vessel has no possibility to handle or feel it. (Try to imagine it). What happens in such a situation? In this state the tool i.e. the will, the drawback is canceled out by the light/abundance. He is swallowed up in it and cannot himself long for it. You can try to describe it as the situation of a fetus in its mother's womb in a situation where it receives all the nourishment in a way that it is not independent, it has no craving of its own, but as far as it is concerned it is in an infinite state.
The Ari continues and writes: "And there was no free space in terms of empty air and space" - what does this mean?
Meaning there was no downside. But everything was canceled in the simple light.
Explanation: A spiritual vessel exists when there is a noble and a noble. In other words, there is the longing for the pleasure which is called noble, and there is the abundance itself. And the greatness of the noble is measured by his desire to receive abundance.
So the Ari writes to us that at the point before creation it did not exist!
"But everything was full of the light of that simple infinity" - that is, there are no steps of small and large in it, but everything was equal.
"And he had neither beginning nor end" - there was no beginning and root and no end. Head = roots of vessels that are not considered finished vessels suitable for finishing the dressing of the light.
End = end and end.
But everything was one simple light equal in one comparison"
And it is called "endless light". - That is, all these differences, changes, beginnings and endings did not exist, but rather all these differences were supposedly null for the light called simple light.
And how can you explain that there was no time?
Let's think about what time actually is for us
Let's think (and try to activate the imagination since this thing does not exist in the reality we know), what does it mean that time does not exist.
Does the dimension of time exist for a fetus in its mother's womb? To those who are in the same situation where they receive infinite pleasure, does time exist? Is there a place for him?
Let's say he was able to speak. Could he talk about time? And why do I claim that time and place did not exist for him?
So what is time?
According to the wisdom of Kabbalah, time is a certain amount of exams, which hang from each other in order of cause and effect.
That is? That is, a situation where there is movement
That is? That is, a situation where there is a lack/tool/longing followed by a filling/light/abundance.
So wait, what happens if the disadvantage is canceled out within the fill/light/pleasure. Or in other words what will be the result if there are no proportions between the two and the desire/instrument/disadvantage is small compared to the light/pleasure. And the desire/deficiency is swallowed up or canceled out within the light/pleasure/fulfilment
Answer: So time does not exist.
And in other words? Time is what happens between what is wanted and what is found. I want something and I get something. I suffer from something, and I feel the gap between my disadvantage and desire and the situation I expect. In such a situation, time is felt as long.
But - if it is not desired and found? If the existing fulfills the desired and the desired is canceled in it?
Answer: So there is no movement.
It's hard to imagine it because we don't know it from our world but let's try to imagine: there is a desired thing (there is a desire/deficiency/tool) and since the entire deficiency is canceled by filling/light/abundance then there is no craving. Because the abundance already exists and covers the deficiency.
That is, the desire or longing for something to happen does not exist because the abundance is already there. So basically there is no movement.
And what else won't be there?
The dimension of time will not exist there.
And is this spirituality? True, abstracted from all physical circumstances, namely time, place, imagination and movement.
Just one
It's just nonsense...
The theory of everything is the sun, explanation: the sun heats up and heats up, when the sun heats up it produces its own core and builds up pressure inside it, and when the sun heats up it releases this pressure from the core to the mantle. These stages are called heat pulses, our heart makes heat pulses, the engines make heat pulses, the lamps make heat pulses and the batteries make heat pulses! This is also the reason why we see the core and shell that the sun produces everywhere in nature, for example: when we throw a stone into a lake, then wherever we threw it we see the shape of a core and shell in the water. Also the form of the living creatures is a core (heart) and a shell (skin). The shape of the plant is both a nucleus (nucleus of the plant's seed) and a shell (the shell of the fruit or the stem leaves of the flower).
Oh miracles miracles..., you found yourself a private idol to worship, huh?
one who is savvy
Here is a quote from your first comment – ” Another arrogant infantile who also happens to be a talented scientist. Coincidentally or not coincidentally, he also looks like a ragged floor rag..."
Are you aware that Hawking invests his time in meetings with children with disabilities all over the world? Do you do things like that too?
You say he made a mistake and admitted his mistakes - how much of a scientist should he apologize for a mistake?!?
I have no doubt that Stephen Hawking contributed infinitely more to the world than you. You didn't even contribute to the discussion here. Who talks about rags….
Albanzo, you filled the Saa. I said mine, and certainly not from the position of a student. I disagree with you on access to science and access to scientists, but I have no interest in wrestling with you in the mud about it. A blessing
1. You insist on a completely unscientific approach to quantum gravity. True, there are no laboratory measurements that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this or that model works. But there is theoretical evidence, and there are many advances in understanding. There is even consistent quantum gravity, just not for any arbitrary order in perturbation theory (you can read works by Gia Dvali on simple quantization to first order. The problem is of course in normalization for any order: if you do a truncation to the number of loops, there is no problem to get a quantum theory of general relativity) . You're just digging yourself a hole. We have never seen an electron either. Perhaps you would like to argue that we do not hold an electromagnetic theory, and that we do not know how far we are from such? I do not claim that the level of certainty and progress of works in the field of gravity approach those in the field of electromagnetism, but the approach is the same, and dismissing/underestimating the works is no less than dismissing the scientific effort.
2. Of course I fully respect your decision to remain anonymous, as I expect you to respect mine. But kill me if I understand why it prevents you from writing in what areas you understand or are interested. Calling yourself "one who is knowledgeable" and explicitly writing that you know the relevant fields, but refusing to reveal what you really know or in which field you work/worked is a delusional decision at best, and cowardly and dishonest at worst.
3. Are you talking about the Coleman-Mandula theorem, the theorem that is probably the most important in the field of quantum symmetry? The sentence that the whole idea of supersymmetry is based solely on (and remind you today about 90% of the research in high energy physics is done in supersymmetric systems)? Passa, you said? You make a strong impression of someone who is starting a master's degree, and knows enough to do name dropping but doesn't understand the meaning of his words. And regarding the quote - I did not say that what has many quotes is the final and absolute truth. But in the way science works - in small steps - citations indicate how much a certain work advances the thought processes in the community. Today we know that the Newtonian teachings are nonsense, but we needed them for hundreds of years to move on to better teachings. A work with many citations, even if it turns out to be a complete mistake, is certainly a scientific asset for generations, if only because it stimulated the minds of hundreds and thousands of physicists to think about certain topics. For years now the hottest topic in the study of gravity at high energies is the information paradox in black holes and its consequences, a paradox that you remember discovered and formulated by Stephen Hawking. Even if his views are proven to be completely wrong, the mere identification of the question by him advanced science in a phenomenal way.
How to finish? Let's finish by recalling that you wrote that "his works... are not ground-breaking - and the only one that might leave a mark is the one related to Hawking radiation", and since then you have openly admitted several times that you are not familiar with his works and you do not know the fields in which they are expected (or not) to leave a mark .
albenza,
Now the obvious question is where to end and not where to begin
We probably remain a little divided in our approaches.
Regarding gravity: in my humble opinion we do not have quantum gravity. There is a lot of blessed work, it's true. Lots of achievements and insights, this is also true. And yet in my opinion no one can say whether the different results are related to the real thing. In my humble opinion, no one can say how *far* we are from quantum gravity. But let's face it, you can hold the opposite opinion to mine and you may be right.
And on personal matters: although I am not familiar with most of his works, I still believe that Hawking is not Feynman. He is not one of his generation, except perhaps in the aspect of overcoming his objective difficulties due to his illness. I believe this based on what I do know, and am aware of the fact that I may change my mind if I know more. In my opinion, there are tens if not hundreds of string players (for example) who are at least as talented as him with achievements whose importance is no less than the importance of his achievements. Since we chose to remain anonymous, I won't go into the directions I like, but I'm sure you can judge their value, even if you come from a different direction. This is not the case for a brilliant mathematician and chemist.
And after all, the quote is not the vision of all things. One example out of dozens: Coleman and Mandola had a shocking result on Amot Siffs, and it has been cited countless times. Almost all of this has passed today. Which work is important and which is not, which results are really interesting and which are not - we only know this in hindsight, with historical evidence.
Come on... where to start?
The fact that we still don't have a closed quantum gravity theory is, in your eyes, the same as "no one knows about quantum gravity"? say, are you ok Have you ever heard of science? You know, we are progressing step by step... the fact that the subject is not closed and that the number of open questions is large does not mean that there are not mountains upon mountains of achievements, understandings, and works in the field. There are people who are very knowledgeable in this field - whether you are among them or not. The bottom line is that without Hawking, the study of quantum gravity would be nowhere near what it is today, and how far we are from a full quantum theory of gravity is nothing compared to how far we were before Hawking. And this is of course without mentioning his works in the other fields.
You claim that you are knowledgeable and that you have worked in the relevant fields, but not in quantum gravity and only a little in field theory in curved space. I would love to hear, if you would like to tell, in which fields you have worked and you are knowledgeable. I can't imagine what fields you could work in that on the one hand define you as "savvy" in the field enough to judge Hawking's works, and on the other hand do not include quantum gravity or extensive field theory work in curved space.
There is no arrogance here. I didn't claim to know everything or like everything, and I didn't claim that you don't know or like enough. All I was saying is that if the things you know don't count Hawking's groundbreaking work, you're in no position to say he's not groundbreaking. Would it be arrogant in your opinion to say that a brilliant mathematician who knows nothing and a half about chemistry, for example, cannot appreciate the degree of pioneering and importance of this or that chemist?
I have never met a physicist who claims that the works of Rubly or Smolin are not phenomenal *without knowing how to justify it*. The right to dismiss something without having to study it is reserved for commenters on the science site who are not scientists. In the institution where I work today, and also in the institution where I did my doctorate, there were people who were interested in LQG, so I got to participate in many debates regarding its validity against other teachings (and also participate: I am, after all, a Stringai). I have never heard any physicist say that the work in the field is "not phenomenal" or "not groundbreaking" without explaining why.
You go round and round. The facts on the ground are that you stated that Hawking's works are not groundbreaking and that apart from the work on Hawking radiation, none of his works will leave a mark, while admitting that you do not know the field of the vast majority of his works at all. You got examples of his works that were definitely groundbreaking and have been cited frequently for 40 years.
albenza,
Many strive to formulate quantum gravity and different directions. You wrote "ask any person in the relevant fields..." I also worked "in the relevant fields" and therefore I can ask myself... at the end of the day, since there is no quantum gravity yet, it is impossible to say that I, you, Hawking or anyone else is knowledgeable about quantum gravity '. When there is such a thing, if there is, we will be able to say who worked on quantum gravity (if at all) and who played around with mathematical physics. As I already wrote, I know part of his work in field theory on curved space, almost certainly a small part. Also knows other jobs. Sorry, he's not my cup of gravitational tea. And one more small thing: let's not be arrogant. Not everyone knows or likes everything. Example: very few (relatively) like LQG. They have no reason to delve into it and for them the works of the "oracle" Carlo Rubelli (for example) are not phenomenal.
Ok, so in order not to waste words, let's summarize briefly: you are one who is knowledgeable, but not in the fields that Hawking worked in (quantum gravity). So your area of expertise doesn't put you in a position to judge his works. Ask anyone in the fields relevant to Hawking's work and you will see that there is a consensus regarding phenomenal work and extraordinary influence in the field.
albenza,
You'll forgive me, but I really don't have the patience to sit for hours and explain on this platform at a professional level why I hold my opinion. You are right that ad hominem claims have no place in a judgment related to a scientific contribution, here I agree with you but in a framed article and for the sake of full disclosure I am only saying that in my opinion his positions on subjects that are outside of science indicate that he is not immune to superficiality and pomposity. I still hold the opinion that Hawking is indeed a talented physicist but not prominently in relation to his environment - unlike Feynman. Feynman was surrounded by very, very talented people and yet - although I think he was an arrogant fool - he had a rare combination of intuition and talent even in relation to his environment.
Field theory in curved space is a very beautiful thing, but it is not quantum gravity and nothing close, just like Bohr's model of the atom is not quantum mechanics. I do not know quantum gravity that works and issues predictions and it seems to me that no one knows such a thing. There are a lot of ideas, I'm not sure that Hawking's are the most beautiful and promising. Important disclosure: I am not familiar with the title "Euclidean quantum gravity" and I am not familiar with quantum entanglement at all, so I cannot express an opinion in these directions. It is possible that in these fields (whatever they are) Hawking is an elevation. Judging by the areas in which I am actually well versed, he is not. But as mentioned, this is just my personal opinion.
1. The fact that Hawking was not the only one working in a certain field means that he is not brilliant or groundbreaking? Feynman was also not the only one who wrote in the field of field theory, and not even the only one who won a Nobel Prize in the field. So, according to you, Feynman is also not something special? There were many people who worked on general relativity, and quite a few who worked on the Causal structure, but Hawking's works in the field stand out. Not only his, there are other brilliant ones. But their existence does not diminish the importance of his works. Anyone can do name dropping...
2. You ignored the rest of the things I wrote. What about laying down the foundations of field theory in curved space? What about the pioneering work in Euclidean quantum gravity? What about the organ of the tongue named after him which today we understand is the connection between gravity and interweaving? All these pioneering and brilliant works do not count in your eyes?
3. None of Hawking's (or anyone else's) statements outside the scientific framework are clearly relevant to his being a groundbreaking scientist or not. John Nash thought the CIA was after him. So he's a bad mathematician? Who cares how many decades Hawking thought it would take to find a unified Torah? When your arguments about a person's scientific abilities are based on his opinions and popular quotes instead of his scientific works, what can you even say?
4. Your exact quote was "His works are good - not groundbreaking - and the only one that might leave a mark is the one related to Hawking radiation". I gave examples of another unlimited number of works, all of them groundbreaking, and all of them have already left a very significant mark in the field of gravity. Nothing will help you - no appeal to the character of the person, or a stock of names of scientists from the field. If you were savvy, you would know the works and recognize their importance. If you claim that they are not important for one reason or another, I would love to hear why.
albenza,
In the field of the causal structure of space-time, Hawking is just one of a number of English researchers who published a host of interesting results while working together and exchanging opinions. You mentioned Gary Gibbons, but of course there is also Penrose Ellis Linda Warner Chern Wheeler Rindler and dozens if not hundreds of others who have dealt with it and are still dealing with it. Hawking (in my opinion) is no exception. He has nice achievements, but so do others even though they are less photogenic than him...
On the other hand, Hawking is unusual in a number of statements of the type "within a decade we will find the long-awaited theory of unification" (said two decades ago), chatter about the existence or non-existence of God, and more and more...
I do not deny the fact that the man is quite talented, but there are many talented people. The wise among them don't brag about knowing as much as he does and out of self-confidence that in most cases has no basis.
Bottom line: maybe talented but certainly not one of his generation and certainly not a master figure. At least not in my opinion.
If you're knowledgeable, you're probably familiar with Hawking's work not only in the field of radiation and entropy of black holes (the famous information paradox), but also in the field of the causal structure of space-time, the language organ in relativity (the Gibbons-Hawking action), and the pioneering work in quantum gravity By the method of orbital integrals on gravitational operations (what is called Euclidean Quantum Gravity). All of them are groundbreaking works, all of them are brilliant, and all of them are still cited today in the best articles in the field of gravity.
So... why exactly do you claim that "his works are good - not groundbreaking - and the only one that might leave a mark is the one related to Hawking radiation"?
albenza,
Definitely savvy. But apparently even the knowledgeable sometimes disagree about the subjects they are knowledgeable about. Get a boost for the Sisyphean work you do here, although I really don't understand why you take on Sisyphean tasks.
one who is savvy
Your comment is embarrassing, ask my father to remove it...
Eyal
I agree with everything you said, both about Hawking (from whom I expected more) and about the God fiction.
one who knows
you are clueless
In my opinion, Hawking is not a "great" scientist and never was one. Hawking is an ordinary talented physicist (there are thousands of them). His works are good - not groundbreaking - and the only one that might leave a mark is the one related to Hawking radiation. What is worth appreciating is his ability to continue working despite his severe limitations. His bombastic statements made in the context of science and philosophy are unfortunate. More than once he had to admit that he was wrong and made a mistake, but he never apologized for it. His boycott of Israel is ridiculous and in this respect he can go to hell. Not worthy of reference and not worth shaping. Another arrogant infantile who also happens to be a talented scientist. Coincidentally or not coincidentally, he also looks like a ragged floor rag...
Vigdor Rechnitz, there is nothing intriguing or deep here, God is an invention of humans (like many other beliefs invented over the ages) and there is no question mark on the subject, the fact that people insist on believing nonsense is only their problem.
Excluding the boycott of Israel, it's amazing how the question of God, the purpose of this world (depending on who you ask), preoccupies and will preoccupy humanity. Maybe there is no, it is still the most intriguing and profound difficulty that do we have the tools or do we not have the tools to get an answer to the question, that's how I believe time will "tell"...
If we filter out all the anti-Semites or those who do not like Israel, we will filter out a large part if not most of the scientists in the world.
Are we in the status of a power that we can filter? I don't think so.
When I send articles (as a student) for publication, unfortunately I don't filter them, but if they do, they filter me maybe on a non-related background. One of the ways to fight the unofficial boycott of Israel is to delete the resume if it is not required from the article until after its acceptance is confirmed, and to delete any mention of Israel: grant giver, university, equipment, etc. I had two cases where I reached an Arab editor, even a Palestinian one, and with a resume from Israel an article accepted in the next newspaper by a non-Arab editor was rejected and the mention of Israel was omitted.
The academic boycott at different levels exists. It is measurable. Not all of it has to be formal.
If the disqualification is allegedly on academic grounds, but the reviewers accepted the article and the editor rejected it - how would you know.
Act according to the feeling, and the feeling is of disqualification due to a boycott, unprovable and not worth investing time, simply move on to the next newspaper.
Israeli scientists are struggling with creative ways to circumvent it. Israeli scientists are accepted in larger percentages when submitting research proposals, because of the good name of the academy. But in newspapers where the editor is Arab, it cannot be proven, in my estimation some of the editors have a prejudice.
Jewish scientists and Jewish thinkers and musicians in all generations, excelled and advanced thanks to the correctness of their work.
Nissim I didn't understand, do you agree or disagree with my words?
Eyal
Absolutely right. You expect more than that from an intelligent person.
Scientists who participated in the holocaust or Wagner - everyone has a conscience to boycott. Mangala was a sadist, not sure a scientist.
A very large part of the pathology of the 20th century, the first half, originates from work in the camps.
Scientists who did not participate in the Holocaust, I separate for myself otherwise I filter everyone. For example classical composers on the basis of antisemitism I have to boycott many of the best. Scientists as above - Werner Heisenberg from quantum theory, Daniel Birnbaum from classical music, Werner von Braun, father of the Apollo rockets, and more.
A deer and what if you are inside it, inside the black hole.
And there is another thing that the particle that goes back in time can come out statistically, and sometimes it is recognized in the fluctuations of the vacuum that a particle detaches from its own anti-particle that moves back in time at the end of the hole. Sincerely
Unfortunately, for all scientists except Wagner and scientists who took part in the Holocaust such as Dr. Alfred Rosenberg Mengele and more, we must separate between a person's scientific skills and his opinions.
"There was a moment when the universe started with a big bang which is like one big black hole"
I don't think this description is really correct, if the singular point was a type of "massive black hole" then it could not erupt and expand as happened in the big bang... because as we know, even light cannot escape from a black hole, certainly not matter.
With all due respect for being a great scientist and his great scientific achievements, I have a really bad taste for him after he joined the academic boycott against the State of Israel:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/467/822.html
This is not what I expect from people of his caliber, it's a shame that he uses the great intelligence he has only in physical/scientific issues and not in political issues either.