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.
Quote:
Professor Peter Higgs, the scientist who gave his name to the Higgs boson, the particle at the centre of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment, launched a withering attack on Professor Stephen Hawking, saying his work was “not good enough”.
Professor Higgs dismissed the views on the £2.6 billion project of the man generally considered to be the greatest physicist of his time, and said that no other particle physicist would view his approach as “correct”.
Both men are contenders for the Nobel prize — depending on the outcome of the experiment — and their spat is likely to send shockwaves through the scientific Establishment.
Professor Higgs, who faced a press conference in Edinburgh yesterday, was reacting to an interview in which Professor Hawking jokingly suggested that it would be “more exciting” if the experiment at CERN on the Franco-Swiss border did not find the “God particle” it has been set up to identify.
“That will show something is wrong,” he said, “and we will need to think again.”
Professor Hawking once placed a $100 bet that the particle does not exist and continues to argue that there are more interesting outcomes to be drawn from the LHC than the discovery of the Higgs boson.
Professor Higgs, who first postulated the existence of the particle 44 years ago, reacted with visible irritation. “I have to confess I haven’t read the paper in which Stephen Hawking makes this claim,” he said. “But I have read one he wrote, which I think is the basis for the kind of calculation he does. And frankly I don’t think the way he does it is good enough.
“My understanding is he puts together theories in particle physics with gravity . . . in a way which no theoretical particle physicist would believe is the correct theory.
“From a particle physics, quantum theory point of view, you have to put a lot more than just gravity into the theory to have a consistent theory and I don’t think Stephen has done that. I am very doubtful about his calculations.” Other members of the panel moved swiftly to cut off the discussion, suggesting that he had taken Professor Hawking’s views out of context.
But it was clear that Professor Higgs did not rate his rival’s view that the LHC would be more likely to reveal a number of “partner” particles than the boson. Earlier Professor Higgs had recalled the day when he first conceived the idea that would evolve, 44 years later, into the most expensive experiment in the history of science.
It was Thursday, July 16, 1964, and he was sitting in the departmental library at the University of Edinburgh, reading an article with which he profoundly disagreed.
It contained a theory that challenged his own work head-on. An idea “began to evolve,” and by the following Monday morning, as he walked to his university office, he had perfected in his own mind the theory of how particles acquire mass.
In the course of the next fortnight, he would write the two papers that have become the foundation of modern particle physics.
“I solved that theoretical problem to show how it could be done, and could see what the consequence was,” he said. “I discovered how to turn something which was like a massless particle into a massive particle. That was slightly surprising, but it was important,” said Professor Higgs.
In the days that followed Professor Higgs wrote a short mathematical proof of his theory, describing what would become known as the Higgs boson particle. Then, after an abortive camping holiday, he returned to Edinburgh to dash off his second article, “which became known as the theory”.
In the summer of 1964, his paper was rejected by the editor of the European Journal of Physics Letters, who, ironically, was based at CERN.
Professor Higgs was annoyed: “I hadn’t said enough to convince anybody that this was really important physics. So I added on some extra paragraphs.” The revised article – still less than two sides of A4 paper — was accepted by an American journal, the Physical Review Letters at the end of August.
Higgs boson would become part of the Standard Model, the framework of theoretical physics that for nearly four decades has described how fundamental particles interact.
Since he retired nearly 20 years ago, Professor Higgs, 79, has gradually detached himself from his academic world, preferring to read novels and play with his two grandchildren. He has, however, stayed in touch closely enough to pour scorn on the views of Professor Hawking and on scientists who predicted that the LHC might bring the end of the world.
“Some of the people who have tried to get injunctions to stop the LHC should really know better,” he said. Although it could still take up to three years for the LHC to prove him right, Prof Higgs has a bottle of champagne ready. “I will be very surprised and disappointed if it turns out not to be so. But I’m pretty confident,” he said.
Apart from the politics resulting from the dash-for-the-cash prize, the following is a real eye-opener ..
Quote:
The revised article – still less than two sides of A4 paper — was accepted by an American journal, the Physical Review Letters at the end of August.
Higgs boson would become part of the Standard Model, the framework of theoretical physics that for nearly four decades has described how fundamental particles interact.
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 !!
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
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.
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.
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.
A classic comment "Physics is full of vindictive, nasty people but Higgs is not one of them," one scientist said.
Quote:
"It is very difficult to engage him [Hawking] in discussion, and so he has got away with pronouncements in a way that other people would not," Professor Higgs is quoted as saying. "His celebrity status gives him instant credibility that others do not have."
The bone of contention between the two men appears to centre on the Higgs boson itself. Professor Higgs predicted the existence of such a sub- atomic particle in the 1960s and scientists have since spent millions trying to find it, using huge atom-smashing machines called particle accelerators.
Professor Hawking, who is known for waging bets with colleagues, put money on particle physicists failing to discover the Higgs with the Large Electron Positron (LEP) particle accelerator at the Cern nuclear laboratory in Geneva.
Much to the disappointment of particle physicists, the LEP finally closed down last year without finding the elusive boson. Professor Hawking may have won his bet, but in his triumph he failed to win many friends among the disgruntled fraternity of particle physicists.
The rivalry between particle physicists and cosmologists may seem odd, given that it is difficult to think of two academic disciplines whose worlds are so different.
Cosmologists such as Professor Hawking work in the ultimate arena of massive objects – stars, galaxies and the universe itself – whereas particle physicists work in the Lilliputian world of sub-atomic particles with names such as quark, lepton and gluon.
One of these particles is the Higgs boson, which is supposed to explain why objects have weight. The American Nobel prize-winner Leon Lederman went as far as to call it the "God particle" because he believed it to be so fundamental to a unified "theory of everything".
But although the two disciplines work at opposite ends of the cosmic scale, they overlap considerably in terms of trying to understand the fundamental forces that bind and repel matter. The centrepiece of modern physics is the Standard Model, the culmination of 100 years of effort by some of the best minds in science. The model reduces the universe's fundamental building blocks to a set of rules basic enough to fit on a T-shirt – cosmologists such as Professor Hawking love encapsulating their thoughts on T-shirts.
The trouble with the Standard Model, however, is that it predicts the existence of the Higgs boson because without it everything would be weightless. There would be no stars, planets or people because all matter would be flying through space at the speed of light.
Finding the Higgs boson, therefore, was seen as one of the greatest contributions that particle physics could make to understanding the universe. Unfortunately, after spending many years and a small fortune, the LEP scientists in Geneva failed to prove its existence.
Whether Professor Higgs himself is rattled by the failure is anyone's guess – he was unavailable yesterday – but his comments over a glass or two of wine at a restaurant just off Edinburgh's Royal Mile suggest he might be.
The dinner was arranged (and paid for) by the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council to celebrate a play at the Edinburgh Festival based on the work of Paul Dirac, an eminent English physicist who won a Nobel prize in 1933 for his work on relativity and quantum mechanics.
Professor Higgs was speaking for many when he suggested Professor Hawking had hogged the limelight. Although particle physicists may have cause to feel aggrieved by Hawking's apparent arrogance, the feeling is in fact shared in private by many cosmologists, who get exasperated by the media's constant reference to him as the greatest scientist since Einstein or Newton.
"Paul Dirac made a far bigger contribution to physics than Hawking yet the public has never heard of him," said one scientist. But it is a criticism that dare not speak its name. "To criticise Hawking is a bit like criticising Princess Diana – you just don't do it in public," said another cosmologist.
As the wine flowed in the Edinburgh restaurant, so presumably did the conversation. Professor Higgs only said what many other scientists say about Professor Hawking in private, but its prominence in a newspaper article makes it appear a planned, personal attack, which is clearly not what Professor Higgs intended.
"To be honest, I was surprised to see Higgs' comments. It's not his style at all. Physics is full of vindictive, nasty people but Higgs is not one of them," one scientist said.
As for Professor Hawking, there were no signs yesterday of his famous sense of humour. "I am surprised by the depth of feeling in Higgs' remarks. I would hope one could discuss scientific issues without personal attacks," he told The Independent.
Meanwhile, scientists are continuing their quest to find the holy grail of physics. In five years, a far more powerful machine at Cern called the Large Hadron Collider is due to begin the search afresh. The higher energy levels of this new machine cannot fail to find the Higgs, say the optimists. It will be a final vindication of the many millions of pounds spent on some of the most expensive experiments ever undertaken.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 .
