Hawking's work "not good enough"

[sjastro]

Peter Higgs has never been an admirer of Hawking. This is an article from 2008.
In fact many Cosmologists and Particle Physicists share the same opinion.



Regards

Steven

[bojan]

:fight:

[CraigS]

I have never … and I mean … never, ever seen emoticons from Mr Bojan !!

I am purely shocked !!

Cheers

[bojan]

:whistle:
:D;):drink::cheers:

[CraigS]

Apart from the politics resulting from the dash-for-the-cash prize, the following is a real eye-opener ..



Must have been some paper !!
I'd say Hawking wasn't one of the peer-reviewers for that one !
Quantum Physics has always been a problem for Hawking. I guess only because of his quest to glue it together with GR.

I notice in his new book, he's advocating M-Theory as the way forward. (Mind you, there was only a couple of paragraphs about it, right at the end).

From that, I conclude that Sir Ed (Witten) is being handed the reins by Hawking. … Safe bet, that one !! ;)

Cheers

[sasup]

the nobel price is bring out the politics, I would think.

[GeoffW1]

Hi,

Theoretical physics, or more narrowly astrophysics, has always been a joust like this.

I reckon Higgs is being a bit cranky and severe on Hawking, who at least agrees that there is a good chance either one is wrong.

I am rather glad that I will probably see an outcome of some sort from the LHC in my lifetime, and I hope Higgs and Hawking do too.

All that aside, have you seen Ed Witten on the telly? He has a most interesting screen persona, sort of a cross between Robin Williams and Henry Kissinger :)

Cheers

[xelasnave]

I think it is interesting how even at the level these chaps operate they can become entrenched in their view being the only one:).

Clearly CERN would not have got off the ground without strong support for the quest for the HB and in such a context perhaps Peter Higgs sees Hawking as not being serious in his comments.

And even if the HB is not found that is not to say there is not a particle that effectively does the job Peter Higgs sees being done by the HB.

The space set aside for the HB may well occupied by a number of smaller particles that together does what a single HB should do..this means they would be even harder to isolate. Once there were no quarks but once established the family of quarks grew ..uppers and downers plus a range of colours to describe what once was a concept of a single unit (partcile).

I have been checking Ed Witten on utube and he certainly has a delightful manner and given his incredible intellect I thought he shows a very humble approach.

Well spoken and quietly spoken are attributes to be admired.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Hard to be humble when you are great:eyepop:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CavKKA2JP_o&feature=related

If Peter Higgs saw this one could understand getting a little upset.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Is not utube wonderful.

I saw this some time ago and probably many here have seen it but if you have not please take the time to take a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw0iRW2hoC4&feature=related

alex

[sjastro]

Hawking has been able to introduce curved space-time into Quantum Field theory (QFT), one prediction for the theory being Hawking radiation of Black Holes.

An application of curved space time to QFT is seen as a first step to a Quantum gravity theory but there has been little progress in this area.

There is no use for curved space time in the Standard Model of Particle Physics where QFT uses flat space time.

It's understandle why particle physicists are uncomfortable with Hawking. They much prefer to see developments in Quantum gravity theories based on gravitons as a particle of interaction which is consistant as a QFT mechanism, or as String Theories which have evolved from QFT.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

This came from 2002.

A classic comment "Physics is full of vindictive, nasty people but Higgs is not one of them," one scientist said.



Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Ha …

I read in Wikipedia once. that Hawking was not liked by his peers.

The article went on with many quotes about the quality of his written papers (as being quite average).

The article disappeared a couple of days later .. I guess I must have done the lookup before the downside of what they had published was noticed.

Hawking is on the Pontifical Academy of Sciences list isn't he ?

I mean, once you're there you've made it, right ?

Ed's there. Is Higgs ?

:lol::)

Cheers

[sjastro]

Higgs is a rampant atheist. He wasn't impressed by the Higg's boson being referred to as the God particle.

Obviously the Pope needs to be careful in appointing out of control atheists. Probably explains why Dawkins isn't a member either.:):):)

Regards

Steven

[avandonk]

Higgs is quite correct. Any physicist that mentions god in relation to his work has just committed the sin of leaving the bit he does not understand to some mythical sky being. This is a total cop out!

Although if you are after the Tempelton Prize it could be rather rewarding financially. It is more cash than a Nobel Prize.

Bert

[higginsdj]

Not all believe that a reference to 'God' means a 'mythical sky being' - a statement perhaps revealing a bit of narrow mindedness? I'm agnostic, so reference to God in my view simply means 'the unknown'..... When communicating with the public, one needs to communicate in a way that the public understands.

Cheers

David

[sjastro]

This thread is becoming too serious.

Needs an injection of humour.

Steven

[marki]

This sort of bickering does Science more harm than good. We cry from the rooftops "we are totally impartial and the evidence will support the most reliable theory" yet here we have two eminant Scientists engaging in childish personal attacks based on jealousy. Critique the work of your rival but do not attack the person. Easier said then done I suppose as human nature is quite fickel but to personally attack another over what is largely a differing of ideology is almost religous fanatic behaviour.


Mark

[avandonk]

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural being that is outside reality. By definition the supernatural is outside reality.
Replacing ignorance with superstition is not a solution. If the public is ignorant then it is even more important to enlighten them not pander to their ignorance.
When supposedly top scientists are 'bickering ' as you call it Mark I am sure they are being quoted totally out of context as the reporters are just not up to speed and only 'report' the bits they vaguely understand.

I will not comment on the phenomena of 'nice' scientists being more believable than 'nasty' scientists.

You only have to see the reporting on so called celebrities and the vacuous pap that passes for news.

When the MSM do a thorough analysis of peer reviewed papers by these so called combatants. Then maybe you can begin to get to the truth of the matter.

The way I see this pap is that it is the ignorant unable to comprehend reporting to the even more ignorant.

If this is not a serious problem, then what is?

Bert

[marki]

Bert it is fine to attack sloppy or falsified science, I say go for it and show no mercy. But to say he is more famous then us so everyone is going to believe what he says and not us.....well thats personal in my view and would definately call it bickering. It may very well be media hype who knows but where there is smoke there is usually a fire at its root. Personally I think time will show they are all wrong and their rantings will forever pass down through the S bend of stupid ideas :P;):D.

Mark

[OICURMT]

99% of Hawkings videos on YouTube is not actually Hawkings... but someone else using his "persona"...

[renormalised]

Ah...the wonders of the ego!!! :):P