Stephen Hawking Latest Theory

[hazelm]

JM Jones, forgive me for straying a bit from the topic but I want to be sure I reach you with this. You mention MIchio Kaku in a way that says how you feel about him. I am guessing that you have little respect for his works.   Please tell me what it is that you object to.  Is it that he is inaccurate?  Or is it only that he is over-simplified in his writings?  I ask because, as a novice, I read a number of his books and found them quite helpful.    Now I notice - and you are not the first - that scientists seem to wholly disapprove of his writings.  I realize they are far too primary to be of much use to advanced  scientists but is there another, more serious charge that even a novice should be aware of?  Thank you for an explanation.

[Moronium]

Quantum mechanics shows this claim to be false, because inherent in reality is a measure of chance.  So, regardless of how well we measure the current state, and regardless of how well we describe how things change, we can not fully predict the future state and we can not fully infer the previous state.  God, if such a thing could be shown to exist, only plays dice.

 

"Inherent in reality," eh?

 

Elsewhere you say, with respect to weather predictions:

 

the best we can do is make a statistical prediction.

 

 

Is there any difference between "the best we can do," in terms of predictions, and "reality," ya figure?

 

Elsewhere in this thread, you say:

 

You probably wouldn't even understand the concept of galaxies, since your entire observable universe consisted of the galaxy you are trapped in.  However, your failure to test for the existence of additional galaxies does not change the fact that these galaxies could exist.

 

 

Would those other galaxies which "could exist" be "inherent in reality," if they did exist?  If "reality" is confined to what we can predict, on what basis would we predict those other galaxies?

Edited May 12, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

 

 

 If "reality" is confined to what we can predict

  You have made an assertion that we cannot, by definition, know to be accurate.  This is precisely the crux of the problem.  Go chase your aether.

[JMJones0424]

hazelm- I am not at all even remotely qualified to assess Michio Kaku's works.  In hindsight, I shouldn't have even mentioned him.  I have not read any of his books, and I have not read and likely wouldn't understand any of his papers.  My problem with him stems from the popular science television shows that I have seen that he has appeared in as a "futurist".  Rather than citing him as a bad example of a theoretical physicist, I should have just contradicted the claim that Hawking had made no testable or useful additions to physics, which is objectively false.

[Moronium]

  You have made an assertion that we cannot, by definition, know to be accurate.  This is precisely the crux of the problem.  Go chase your aether.

 

 

You have made a very naive statement about what is "inherent in reality" and what is "shown to be false."  You have nothing to back that claim. And you simultaneously make other claims that suggest the existence of a deterministic "reality."  What's up with that?

[JMJones0424]

What's up with that is that I do not claim that measurably false explanations of reality that were shown to be false more than a hundred years ago are true.  I do understand that there is a difference between that which we can show to be true and that which is true.

 

Go chase your aether.  Every test we've made and every bit of modern technology shows that there is no aether, but you claim it exists.  There is a word that describes those that claim a statement is true when it has shown to be false.  That word is liar.

Edited May 13, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

What's up with that is that I do not claim that measurably false explanations of reality that were shown to be false more than a hundred years ago are true.  I do understand that there is a difference between that which we can show to be true and that which is true.

 

Go chase your aether.  Every test we've made and every bit of modern technology shows that there is no aether, but you claim it exists.  There is a word that describes those that claim a statement is true when it has shown to be false.  That word is liar.

 

 

Heh.  There are words for anyone who would make that post, JM.  Words such as "naive, ignorant, and dogmatic" ya know?  Of course everything is quite simple for simpletons.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Where is evidence for your aether, moron?  You can call me whatever name you wish, however, what you claim to exist has been shown to be non-existent for more than a century, and you can't provide a single bit of evidence that it does exist.  You also can't provide a good reason why it should exist, as if it did, then quite a bit of measurements that we make on a daily basis would be inaccurate.  My claims are not the problem here.  You are the liar.

Edited May 13, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

Where is evidence for your aether, moron?  You can call me whatever name you wish, however, what you claim to exist has been shown to be non-existent for more than a century, and you can't provide a single bit of evidence that it does exist.  You also can't provide a good reason why it should exist, as if it did, then quite a bit of measurements that we make on a daily basis would be inaccurate.  My claims are not the problem here.  You are the liar.

 

1.  I have never claimed there is an aether (although I have noted that Lorentz did).  Although Lorentz's aether would provide a natural "preferred frame" for a theory of motion, it is by no means required.  I have made a number of posts indicating this, such as post 39 in this thread:  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30719-time-is-not-a-physical-entity/page-3?do=findComment&comment=356592

 

2.  As Karl Popper (and many others have) noted, one need not be able to detect a preferred frame in order to conclude that all empirical evidence and consistent theory implies that there is one.  See post 51 in this thread: 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30719-time-is-not-a-physical-entity/page-3?do=findComment&comment=356592

 

For more elaboration on Popper's arguments and views, see this book:  https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Schism-Physics-Postscript/dp/0415091128

 

As the synopsis notes:

 

Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics is one of the three volumes of Karl Popper’s Postscript to the Logic of scientific Discovery. The Postscript is the culmination of Popper’s work in the philosophy of physics and a new famous attack on subjectivist approaches to philosophy of science.

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

If you didn't then you were too stupid to know that you were claiming that aether exists.  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30976-the-twin-paradox-made-simple/?p=356268

 

 

 

1. Take any two clocks which keep accurate time.

 

2.  Synchronize them

 

3.  Now move them round any number of times, at any speed, in any direction(s), have them both moving, have one at rest for awhile, then the other, for as long as you want, whatever.

 

Now, apriori, you know two things will be true, when you finally bring them back together.

 

A.  Each clock will show ONLY one time, 9:00 A.M. EST, March 10, 2020, for example.

 

B.  Whatever the two readings are, whatever you can conceive of them to be, both clocks will NOT display a time which is earlier than the other one does.  Only one can possibly be "earlier," even if both somehow went backwards in time.

 

Ergo, there is, and can be, no "reciprocal time dilation."

 

You don't need an experiment to prove this.

 

This is demonstrably false.  It can be shown to be false every time anyone makes a location determination due to GPS, as GPS requires the accurate measurement of the speed of light over a distance amongst different satelites.  It can be shown to be false by the Hafele-Keating experiment.

 

For your claims to be true, there would need to be a universal frame by which one could measure time, otherwise known as an aether.  Every experiment we have made for the last century has shown this to be false.  Aether does not exist, your claims are false.  You continue to assert that they are true, therefore you are a liar.

Edited May 14, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

If you didn't then you were too stupid to know that you were claiming that aether exists.  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30976-the-twin-paradox-made-simple/?p=356268

 

 

 

 

This is demonstrably false.  It can be shown to be false every time anyone makes a location determination due to GPS, as GPS requires the accurate measurement of the speed of light over a distance amongst different satelites.  It can be shown to be false by the Hafele-Keating experiment.

 

For your claims to be true, there would need to be a universal frame by which one could measure time, otherwise known as an aether.  Every experiment we have made for the last century has shown this to be false.  Aether does not exist, your claims are false.  You continue to assert that they are true, therefore you are a liar.

 

I've made my positions, and the facts, reasoning and authoritative support for them, clear all along, JM.  I'm not going to repeat them all in some futile attempt to correct your complete misunderstanding of the issues involved and your misunderstanding of virtually any statement made by anyone else (other than you) either in support or rebuttal of the arguments generated by those issues.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Thanks

[hazelm]

hazelm- I am not at all even remotely qualified to assess Michio Kaku's works.  In hindsight, I shouldn't have even mentioned him.  I have not read any of his books, and I have not read and likely wouldn't understand any of his papers.  My problem with him stems from the popular science television shows that I have seen that he has appeared in as a "futurist".  Rather than citing him as a bad example of a theoretical physicist, I should have just contradicted the claim that Hawking had made no testable or useful additions to physics, which is objectively false.

No problem, JM.  I really would like to feel that he is not writing anything that we know to be wrong.  Although, in science, isn't that something pretty hard to be sure of?  That said, others have also objected to him, never explaining why.  Yes I suppose he is a futurist but you know what.  I rather like the idea of multiverses or a universe that split off our universe.  I guess, if I could write scifi, I'd go for that last.  And I can "see" the possibility of it connecting to the Big Bang.  But all that is my imagination.   And I promise to never air it as science.  There is nothing scientific about it. 

 

One thing about the authors who write overly simply, a novice does learn new vocabulary - science vocabulary. 

 

Take care. 

[JMJones0424]

I really should not have even mentioned him.  If I could go back in time, I would remove his name from my reply.

 

However, I did claim to not respect Michio Kaku.  I think a lot of that has to do with the speculative nature of the claims I have seen him make in televison programs, but I don't want to be responsible for causing you to doubt his claims because I am not capable of supporting my position one way or the other.  I could point to other popular physicists, but honestly, the problem I have with Kaku is his "futurist" standpoints, not his physics.  I really should read a few of his books.  I am an idiot in this realm, please don't take my recommendation for or against him as having any value.

[hazelm]

I really should not have even mentioned him.  If I could go back in time, I would remove his name from my reply.

 

However, I did claim to not respect Michio Kaku.  I think a lot of that has to do with the speculative nature of the claims I have seen him make in televison programs, but I don't want to be responsible for causing you to doubt his claims because I am not capable of supporting my position one way or the other.  I could point to other popular physicists, but honestly, the problem I have with Kaku is his "futurist" standpoints, not his physics.  I really should read a few of his books.  I am an idiot in this realm, please don't take my recommendation for or against him as having any value.

Hush.  You're not an idiot.  You have too much technical information to qualify for that level.  And I don't read to believe so much as I read to learn the many different theories.  I like the way he writes but I doubt you would unless you just want to see his style.  One thing I have learned about science is to not take all the theories too seriously.  There is too much debating (quarreling?) over half of them and I do not understand the other half. 

 

Two others that I enjoy are Neil deGrasse Tyson and Antonio Damasio.  Oh, there are a lot of good writers out there.  But the real texts - especially in physics - are too far over my head.  I leave the PhD math to the professionals.  I truly enjoy watching people speculate on what might be.  Imagination is a wonderful gift.

 

I think I am rattling and leaving Stephen Hawking far behind.  Time to stop.  Thanks again.