Steven talks black holes
February 11, 2016 11:18 AM Subscribe
Prof. Steven Hawking gives the 2016 Reith Lectures
And, of course, his topic is black holes.
Only two relatively brief (by Reith standards) lectures. Wide-ranging audience Q&A with Steven following each lecture.
Podcast subscription and individual lecture downloads can be found here.
Reith Lectures previously.
And, of course, his topic is black holes.
Only two relatively brief (by Reith standards) lectures. Wide-ranging audience Q&A with Steven following each lecture.
Podcast subscription and individual lecture downloads can be found here.
Reith Lectures previously.
That bet he was talking about? He may have won it.
Scientists detect gravitational waves.
I don't know how Steve celebrates, but I'll have one of those.
posted by adept256 at 2:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Scientists detect gravitational waves.
I don't know how Steve celebrates, but I'll have one of those.
posted by adept256 at 2:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'll add, my favourite part is the question taken from the audience by the secondary students. The petulant 'Uh, yeah I understood that'. Teenagers!
posted by adept256 at 2:12 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by adept256 at 2:12 PM on February 11, 2016
Huh. I wonder what he thinks the laws of nature are? I mean, not the specific details of the laws but what the character of a law of nature is, such that it would even make sense to talk about breaking one or such that there is necessarily an incompatibility between a deity intervening in the world and the laws of nature being broken. If, for example, he thinks (with Mill, Ramsey, and Lewis) that a law of nature is just a very good description of what happens in the world (where we need to fill in the details of "very good"), then it is just incoherent to talk about an activity that breaks the law. But it could easily be that laws of nature simply record the actions of a deity intervening on the world. I think that's basically the view that Ian Hutchinson takes in this (mostly) interesting debate with Lawrence Krauss on the question, "Does Science Refute God?"
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 5:00 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 5:00 PM on February 11, 2016
I wonder what he thinks the laws of nature are?
Huh, indeed. I'm certain he's thought about it. Religionists may have their debates. Doesn't change the science.
posted by adept256 at 5:49 PM on February 11, 2016
Huh, indeed. I'm certain he's thought about it. Religionists may have their debates. Doesn't change the science.
posted by adept256 at 5:49 PM on February 11, 2016
That bet he was talking about? He may have won it.
Scientists detect gravitational waves.
The bet is about a completely different problem though. Gravitational waves are based on fairly uncontroversial physics (indeed, their existence is a prediction of general relativity), whereas the physics around Hawking's bet was (and I dare say, still is) a bit more speculative.
Hawking conceded the bet after the development of the AdS/CFT correspondence. The consensus nowadays is that it solves the black hole information loss paradox, but there is still some controversy. Most famously the AMPS firewall paradox introduced in 2012 seems to point to some inconsistencies in the argument. Hawking's idea of super-translations, to which he gives a nod near the end of the second lecture, is one of the many proposals to solve the paradox. (So he might end up winning the bet, but it doesn't seem like he himself believes in it.)
posted by maskd at 4:37 AM on February 12, 2016
Scientists detect gravitational waves.
The bet is about a completely different problem though. Gravitational waves are based on fairly uncontroversial physics (indeed, their existence is a prediction of general relativity), whereas the physics around Hawking's bet was (and I dare say, still is) a bit more speculative.
Hawking conceded the bet after the development of the AdS/CFT correspondence. The consensus nowadays is that it solves the black hole information loss paradox, but there is still some controversy. Most famously the AMPS firewall paradox introduced in 2012 seems to point to some inconsistencies in the argument. Hawking's idea of super-translations, to which he gives a nod near the end of the second lecture, is one of the many proposals to solve the paradox. (So he might end up winning the bet, but it doesn't seem like he himself believes in it.)
posted by maskd at 4:37 AM on February 12, 2016
« Older The Demon In The Dark | By Donnie Wahlberg Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"For more than 200 years we have believed in Scientific Determinism. That is that the laws of science determined the evolution of the universe.
This was formulated by Pierre-Simon Laplace, who said that if we know the state of the universe at one time, the laws of science will determine it at all future and past times.
Napoleon is said to have asked Laplace how God fitted into this picture. Laplace replied "Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis." I don’t think that Laplace was claiming that God didn't exist.
It is just that he doesn't intervene to break the laws of science.
That must be the position of every scientist: A scientific law is not a scientific law if it only holds when some supernatural being decides to let things run and not intervene."
-Prof Stephen Hawking
I dunno. That really struck me as poignant, along with most of the lecture which is really wonderful so thanks for posting, as something eerily analogous to the Hippocratic oath but for scientists who are conflicted about how science [doesn't] play nice with their religious inclinations or predispositions.
Stephen Hawking is a treasure.
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:55 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]