For a second I just couldn't believe this was real. Stephen Hawking was one of those people that inspired me towards a career in science, as well as a pursuit of discovering what mysteries of the universe I could uncover within my (cosmically short) lifetime. He did this not through some major life-altering speech I heard from him (although his talks and lectures were quite interesting), or through some grand quote that I read online, but rather through the fact that he carried with him the enthusiasm that comes with looking up, seeing a vast universe looming all around us, and finding that inner spirit--that inner sense of wonder--that drives us forward in an attempt to make sense of it all. Rest in peace Stephen Hawking; you will be missed.
Who will take his place? Who will be the Stephen Hawking of my children's generation?
As a society we should work hard to find, celebrate and give a platform to the Stephen Hawking-s and the Carl Sagan-s of tomorrow. The impact of such "celebrity scientists" (I do not use that term pejoratively) is far greater than the measure of the work they have done. It is how they inspire an entire generation to seek out knowledge, understanding and fill us all with a sense of humility, awe and wonder.
Neil Degrasse Tyson is clearly vying for the slot but seems to make science seem more elitist, more pedantic (read literally any of his tweets) and thus appears to miss the point entirely
Tyson doesn't have the academic credentials that Hawking or someone like Richard Feynman does. The power of Hawking and Feynman is that they both were at the top of their fields, but took the time to make the foundations of their science accessible to the common man. Tyson has done great things, but he's not quite there.
I thought Tyson's COSMOS was really well done but doesn't hit its stride until the 4th episode or so. I loved it almost as much as Sagan's COSMOS. The only "problem" with it was that the original was so good, and such a first of its kind, it's virtually impossible to top. I think Tyson's version was as good as it could be.
I feel like this might have more to do with modern social media and celebrity culture, especially Twitter culture, than with Tyson himself. It's toxic. It's really hard to move in that realm with out adopting some of its sensibilities and tone.
In Tyson's defense, the new Cosmos was damn near perfect and had none of the elitism that I detected. Just a love of knowledge and history.
Tyson is intellectually underwhelming and doesn't seem to understand the limitations of his own knowledge. He's made his fame for speaking with the mannerisms of a preacher; and for remaking (in science a necessity) the Carl Sagan classic. He's already being forgotten by mainstream culture, which is not worse for it.
He may not have been a great researcher, but his ability to explain to the common person (impromptu) is a lot better than Hawking's. Other than Sagan, I cannot think of anyone that good. Their styles are different, but both are/were great.
The new Cosmos had way too much animation. Hopefully season 2 is without Seth McFarlane so we can get some inspiring science without cartoons (which detracts from the inspiring quality, imo).
I think Neil Degrasse Tyson is overall net-positive, but I'm definitely not liking his style.
Elitism is overall fine as long as it doesn't get in the way or make you look like an asshole. And unfortunately, Neil Degrasse Tyson seems to be leaning towards the "asshole elite".
Still, he's a good speaker, there are tons of people who are inspired by his style. I think a kinder, gentler, less pedantic (exactly the right word) person needs to become the next "science champion".
Stephen Hawking was a good balance of inspiration, and expertise. He was "elite" without quite being pedantic or asshole-ish.
> Nye was always an entertainer first, science teacher second.
That's true, but I don't really see why it's a problem. As long as he's not spreading misinformation or anything, being entertaining is a skill, and he's using it towards constructive ends.
How many HN articles are published every week about how people-skills are undervalued?
I think the problem is this trait mentioned by the parent post has carried through to what Nye's been doing now, and I'll personally add that current content produced by Nye doesn't seem productive in any way, whatsoever. In fact, I think Nye has gotten to a point where he actively shuns anybody with an argument against his beliefs, regardless of whichever side is correct. He'll even push his own agenda for certain topics unnecessarily, which is pretty ridiculous.
I honestly do not like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Go to his twitter feed. See how very smart he is. See how he comments on everything as if he has some magical scientific insight to the banal that transcends what "the average joe" thinks about. See his ego swell when confronted with an obviously impaired Katy Perry. See his patronizing outlook on life and realize he will never measure up to the man who sincerely wanted to bring universal discoveries to the average man, who sincerely believed the average man was capable of understanding if it weren't for all the pre-requisite mathematics and it's symbolic alienness.
I think Mr. Tyson is a phony. He does not deserve, nor does he know how, to bring science to the "masses".
I work at CERN, so Brian Cox is an obvious choice as far as I'm concerned. Tangentially, Adam Steltzner (the engineer who lead the Entry Descent and Landing of Curiosity) is another one of those "used to be a rockstar" types.
As scientific progress becomes increasingly interdisciplinary, communication becomes increasingly valuable both within teams and with the greater public.
I would be perfectly happy seeing tens of enthusiastic and brilliant physicists stepping up to become the celebrity scientists of the upcoming generation, rather than just one or two.
Until they surface, however, the responsibility falls upon each and every one of us to stoke the fires of passion and wonder in our fellow humans.
I started watching Niel deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos reboot the other day, and the first episode is definitely worth a watch for everyone reading this thread. It was also covered in Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/inspiring-story-young-neil-de...
You don't need a platform or a massive following to ignite a spark of curiosity in another person. Small acts of kindness and encouragement can last a lifetime.
Jim Al-Khalili is an awesome science communicator - his BBC documentaries are inspiring and his enthusiasm contagious. The BBC in general has much more engaging science communicators than the US does. (Of course, Feynman lectures are still wonderful, and Phillip Morrison had some documentaries in the 80s that I remember fondly.)
What the world needs now is someone in that role for climate change who can capture an interpretation of that body of science the way that Hawking and Sagan captured the public attention around the big bang and other highly complex abstract concepts in the physics of Astronomy & Cosmology.
I mean, I'm a lukewarmist, not a denier, but since the 90s people have been saying "science advocacy" when they mean "advocacy for my politics". Everyone's (correctly) for Darwinism and contra modern creationism but no one seems to be in favor of IQ advocacy.
And I mean advocacy for the low IQ cohorts that are being technologied out of a social role. But hey, you would have to admit IQ exists.
I don't think you're going to get another Hawking. His story is hard to match because the guy basically shrugged off ALS and flourished for 50 years. The MC Hawking jokes are funny because they're true.
But while I think the people like Nye and Tyson are important, someone more in Hawking's mold needs to be a genuinely novel contributor. I'd put Leonard Susskind's name in the hat.
> Who will take his place? Who will be the Stephen Hawking of my children's generation?
I nominate Brian Greene from Columbia University! Rhodes Scholar, mind-bending types of work in theoretical physics, cofounder of the World Science Festival, frequent appearances on fancy-schmancy podcasts and television shows. Definitely all the makings of a science hero.
If there is not one person who will be it, then we must make our own. You don't need to inspire all people everywhere in one go, so you don't need 12 million followers to do that.
You just need to look around, and then do your best: volunteer at school or uni, post Kerbal Space Program let's plays, or use a top to explain angular momentum to a 2nd grader.
We can't rely on one or two celebrities and then sit on our hands. We take our telescope across Africa and inspire a few kids at a time, all the time.
I am not very optimistic about another Stephen Hawking or an Einstein. How many of the best minds of our generation are attracted to Physics or Mathematics or Astronomy especially graduate level / Phds ? Some of the folks are getting into computer science but that doesnt help discoveries in cosmology.
It's worth reading the popsci works of Steve Weinberg. He's older than Hawking, so not in the junuior generations. But he's still alive, a gifted expositor, and a genuinely first rate physicist. He's basically the person who assembled the Standard Model.
That man was my hero. If I achieve a fraction of what he accomplished in his life, I will be incredibly proud.
Against all odds, he lived a full and amazing life. It somehow feels even more painful to lose a man who cheated death. It just gives you that feeling that they can somehow live forever, until the moment when the illusion is shattered.
And underneath it all is that unshakable feeling. Memento mori. Slowly my childhood heroes will drift away until there's none left. Then it will be my turn to drift away.
I miss him already. The world is always going to be a little sadder without him. Though, maybe I can still make it to his party.
A RECEPTION FOR TIME TRAVELLERS
Hosted by
PROFESSOR STEPHEN HAWKING
To be held in the past, at
THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Gonville & Caius College, Trinity Street, Cambridge
Location: 52˚ 12' 21" N, 0˚ 7' 4.7" E
12:00 UT 28 JUNE 2009
NO RSVP REQUIRED
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." -John Donne
I'll miss him and his wonderful stories of the cosmos.
I've been long familiar with that poem, but for the first time today I realize that its connected to our nature in how we're brought into the world. The long succession of mother and fathers springing forth new life. No human has ever just sprung up independent from prior human life or some lesser organism.
“We do not "come into" this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean "waves," the universe "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe.” - Alan Watts, I highly recommend his talks
It was both Professor Hawking and Carl Sagan that tought me how brief and unlikely our lives truly are. It was their cosmic perspective that helped me end my fear of death. While we want more time and see the death of others as tragic, I do feel less afraid of that time coming knowing how fortunate I have been to live.
I do not fear non-existence. For most of the history of the universe, I did not exist. I have considerable experience with that. Dying appears to be unpleasant, though.
In the context of your existing self, non-existing before and after existing are quite different thoughts.
The first one is like you don’t remember it, like you don’t remember a lot in your life that you know happened. With the second one you’ll never have the experience of feeling you don’t remember it and you know that.
It’s akin to the difference between one day you realising you forgot most of your life, and you now discovering you have Alzheimer’s and will never again hold a moment in memory. To your present self the former is not scary, but the latter is.
> For most of the history of the universe, I did not exist. I have considerable experience with that.
On the contrary, you have zero experience with not existing because experience implies an impression was made, even if you don’t consciously realise it. Not existing has made (and will make) no difference to you whatsoever, and as such provides no experience, preparation, or comfort.
It is the thought of not existing that makes a difference. It won’t by the time I don’t exist, but it does now.
---
As a side note, if someone can recommend some good philosophy books on this, I’d appreciate it. I thought the branch that studies it might’ve been ontology, but I’ve read a bit of Sartre’s Being and Nothingness and realised what he’s talking about it not exactly what I’m looking for.
I have a lecture to recommend: Shelly Kagan on Death by Yale. It's amazing and probably the most important course for anyone willing to open up to ideas around the notion of self and existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2J7wSuFRl8&list=PLEA18FAF1A...
For most of the universe’s history you did exist, but were dead, scattered into atoms all across space.
The thing is, after a mere billions of years, you managed to consolidate into a form and became alive. Not a bad deal.
But to be dead, is to wait a trillion years for something to happen, only for it to turn out at the end you have to wait a trillion years more, and then you have to continue this forever.
Are we talking about atoms when we are talking about ourselves? I don't think so. I am not the same collection of atoms from moment to moment. There may not be an atom in my entire body that is original to my body; and there are vastly more atoms in my body now than then. When I say "me" I don't really mean my body or even my brain, even if that's where "me" is. We are really talking about our consciousness.
It's been awhile since I read it, but ... In The Zen of Physics, David J. Darling argues that if some other collection of atoms has a consciousness like our own, that is no different than ourselves. (His idea of consciousness is something like patterns in the brain, which is distinct, if reliant, from a collection of atoms.) We would have no memory of our past experiences, but in a real sense we would be alive again. His arguments are a bit more elegant than I have presented here. And there is some question to whether an identical consciousness with different memories is really you or me, but it would mean that waiting for trillions of years isn't necessarily the case.
This, of course, assumes that consciousness is an emergent phenomena. It is possible that consciousness is not emergent from brain processes, but is a fundamental property of the universe that the brain has somehow harnessed because it is an evolutionary advantage. (Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the Meaning of Life by Evan Harris Walker is a fun read on this idea.) In which case, in some form you would exist as long as the universe exists, and always have.
As an aside, for those without consciousness (i.e. the dead and the unborn) time does not exist, so both "to wait" and "forever" are impossible. :)
> Darling argues that if some other collection of atoms has a consciousness like our own, that is no different than ourselves.
So if I cloned you, you would fully consider the other clone as "yourself" and "me"? I doubt it. The metaphysics are really complex here. A better attempt (if any can be made) is that the 'self' is both an evolving bodily mass AND an evolving sense of memories and perceptions. Ultimately there's good rational that self/me is just a non-real tool that allows you to operate in the world. You can not 'not believe' in self as you're human brain requires it, and animals do just fine without thinking of self (driven by nature). A better strategy is to minimize the view of self in order to reduce confusions caused by 'staring too intently in the mirror', but yet it's also useful to evaluate oneself as a separate actor.
Also I think you can have Consciousness without having a notion of defined self though, like a collective consciousness or a dolphin/octopus/crow form of awareness.
Regarding your first paragraph, I don't think that necessarily implies consciousness as an additional thing (not that consciousness doesn't require some explanation that is not forthcoming). You could be talking about a configuration of matter. Not an exact configuration, but one that would be recognizable to a powerful pattern matcher.
This is a common sentiment that fails to take into account the fact that, once you DO exist, you have a desire to continue existing which you did not have prior to your existence.
I would like to live indefinitely, but I do not want to. The cost to human society and our natural resources of a species of immortals is too much.
I want human society to include births, children, growing up, dating, marriage and raising families. I want my children and our species generally to have a dynamic, continuously renewing culture. I just don’t see how those things are compatible with immortality. Just don’t see how I can weigh personal immortality against the lives of perhaps millions of people that could live in my place, choose myself over them and maintain any sort of moral credibility.
If you're immortal, then the "climb on a starship for 1000 years" deal starts looking a lot better. That would open up a lot of new resources to turn in to living people with lives to experience.
(P.S. we're not anywhere near close to using our current resources completely or efficiently, so please stick around and help us get a little closer!)
Your starship would have to be something similar to Rama[1] for me to even consider it. A thousand years on anything similar to an upscaled contemporary spacecraft sounds like torture.
Our existing lifespans are arbitrary. They are largely based on the length of time needed to procreate and ensure a successful subsequent generation or two; and on our ability to overcome that limitation. Saying, "I would not take immortality treatments if they were available" is different from "I will not accept medical help for my heart condition" only by a matter of scale. Having more humans on the planet and for longer does come with challenges, including resource usage issues, but it also comes with the tools to conquer those challenges and other benefits besides.
The cost of mortality is having Albert Einstein around for a meager 76 years, instead of hundreds or thousands. Multiplied by all the other great minds our species has produced, this is an incredible cost that, in my opinion, vastly outweighs your assumptions about the cost of immortality.
In my opinion, culture can only be threatened by homogeneity, but even print, radio, television, film, and internet haven't managed to kill it. Immortality will necessitate and possibly facilitate cultural change. First, because our culture will have to adapt to accepting immortality. Second, because immortal beings will likely become bored. We really have no indication that culture will stagnate or die. I suspect it will slow, but I suspect most things will slow when we are no longer so bound by time. And, due to resource issues, immortality will likely require (and possibly result in) a great diaspora of humanity. More humans, living in more places, having more experiences, and being more separated, means a more diverse culture, even if a lot of those humans are the same humans.
Finally, immortal humans will likely be far better caretakers of resources. They will have personal incentives to make sure there are enough resources, that those resources are renewed, and that they are used in a way that preserves the planet. Humans have a very difficult time even conceptualizing what the world may be like for their great-great-grandchildren (and modifying their behavior accordingly), but they understand fear for their personal safety far better.
If Einstein lived forever and society reorganized around sustaining the elderly instead of having children, there would be no Hawking.
That’s the point—there are dozens of Einsteins born every year, and growing up as children amidst the new theories actually makes them stronger than 130 year old Einstein would be.
If you are really concerned about Einstein’s immortal embodiment, you would see that he is alive, and he is 10 years old and he lives in an abusive household in a bad school district. Go find him (her?) and get her into a good physics classroom and make sure she has a safe place to eat dinner and do her homework.
Keeping Hawking alive is both harder and less valuable.
"When one tries to rise above Nature one is liable to fall below it... Consider, Watson, that the material, the sensual, the worldly would all prolong their worthless lives. The spiritual would not avoid the call to something higher. It would be the survival of the least fit. What sort of cesspool may not our poor world become?"
— Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Creeping Man
None of that precludes the case in which you’re the one immortal in existence, and you are immortal by chance and not choice[1]. And you could live in a way that has zero impact on the natural resources of the planet[2], or even a positive one.
Right now the only thing that somewhat limits the accumulation of wealth by the wealthiest in our society is that they eventually die. Even if they pass it on to their offspring, those offspring are often ill-equipped to run their parent's business empire. Eventually the dynastic wealth fades away and others can take their place. If people could live forever there would be no limits on how much wealth individuals could concentrate in their hands. It would be like the meths in Altered Carbon. I don't want to live in a world where Jeff Bezos possesses more wealth than the bottom 90% of the planet.
Our laws and economic system currently lead to extreme inequality. That would have to seriously change to allow for immortality.
Ultimately, we should just have a redistributive, progressive wealth tax with a basic income and optional state provision of staples like Healthcare. It's the only longterm stable system that sets incentives correctly. We should also completely ban negative things that cause feedback loops, like high net worth individuals subverting the political process via money.
But if Steve Jobs clone 2.0 is 400 years old and still turning over his $200b at 10% per year, and 9% of that is getting redistributed while the average person is generating 1% then that's still ultimately better for humanity. The reason it needs to be a progressive wealth tax is to limit power accumulation.
That is part of the solution, but you're dreaming if you think you can tax people at 90% and expect them to continue to produce. I've packed up and relocated for less. I've also turned down work that I otherwise would have accepted, just because I know the government will take half. There would have been no Steve Jobs (at least not in the US) at 90% marginal tax rates.
And we need better international coordination. In this future scenario the super rich that take their marbles and go home will be banned from travelling into the countries that co-operate. The super rich act like they gain nothing of value from our social safety nets, but they do. Happy liberal cities cost money. I don't want a world where the Koch Brothers can leisurely enjoy a city like Toronto, Paris, or Tokyo without contributing a dime to the others around them that made them rich.
The other huge check on older wealthy players is “the world moves on”. Often the latter phase of their life they are collecting rent on outdated business models. That is profitable for many years, but not forever. Later generations often switch to a forward thinking competitor.
Combined with cognitive decline, that makes it hard for 150 year old tycoons to grow new revenue...
Although under capitalism (property law) rent-based revenues will typically grow large scale holdings even without smart development.
Sure, but you have to balance the potential bad with the fact that humans have an inborn drive to continue existing, and that death has profoundly negative effects that induce unnecessary suffering. If Jeff Bezos was your son and he was afflicted with a terminal disease, you'd have a very different outlook on his potential death, no matter what views you held at a high level societal perspective.
Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?
Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, “The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.” What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!
However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by
everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.
A reminder he stated he was an atheist, so I take his words on god with a grain of salt.
“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.” (Hawking)
To an atheist physicist God probably means the universe or the forces that govern the universe. They share many of the same properties, like being all powerful†, outside of time and space and being creators, not the created.
I agree, though to be clear - the difference between religion and science is that religion affords god with cognitive intent. I'd be surprised to hear if Hawking believed that the force that we might describe as god has qualities of compassion and judgement as well as having set forth the rules that govern atomic motion.
That's a tougher one, but maybe the universe has such an intent also. Take the principle of least action. It seems like systems take the path from A -> C that's shortest in total even if the chosen A -> B and B -> C are both longer than alternatives.
Maybe there is even a sense of "thinking" ahead to understand which path will be shorter before making the choice.
> Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist.
Causality is an artefact of the universe. From a philosophical standpoint we would need to establish that why is the key question or we are chasing a socks theory of feet. And that is assuming that why is about causality rather than intention. To paraphrase this abstract's ending, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then the mind of God would be knowable.
If we do come up with a grand unified theory that spawns the existence of everything that's completely self contained and self describing, and it ends up being something like x + y = z, what does that really explain? Why? It's because x + y = z, that's why! Once we boil it down to that why becomes meaningless. Everything ultimately has the same reason why.
I have a feeling that the deeper we get, the more physics will be based on “magical numbers”. We have already come across some. But yes, it is extraordinary how the most pure and simple physics with numbers from quantum randomness can create something like this. Very weird to me.
And why does it matter if everything has a root cause or not?
Whether the universe is ultimately deterministic and computable, or uncomputable, or not deterministic at all?
It is our imagination that gives facts like math equations meaning.
Did anyone start reading this comment expecting the usual downvotes and controversy?
And then realized after a few paragraphs that this is Stephen Hawking writing it? Be honest.
I just think there has been such a transition from books to online comments and forums that everything is picked apart and commented by a far larger group of people than in the past.
The man was a legend. His books were inspiring. Can today's blog posts and tweets be the same going forward? Just some thoughts I had while I read that.
Reading the first sentences I thought that'd become that weird semi-philosophical speech on death which you hear from some people in funerals. Internet is too big to digest, and in a blog or comment there is not much things which can prove you that the writer has some authority on what he's saying, whereas the name of a known scientist on an actual paper book that costs money to print is authority.
"There is certainly a scientific approach to art. In science, endeavors often require as much or more creativity as they do logic. All this stands to reason; art and science are not the same, but both serve to advance us forward, each on their own, and in service to each other." - Unknown [1]
Growing up in the middle of nowhere, Canada in the 1980s, the library didn't have many good science books. When Hawking's book got published, it was the only thing available like that anywhere around. Remember, this is before you could get any book in existence within one month via Amazon. There was no Amazon.
I got A Brief History of Time and read it, and it's almost cliche to say so, but it changed the course of my life. It's not the only book that affected me, but it was pivotal. George Gamow's little book also was available, and some good Asimov stuff, but otherwise nothing really.
So I went to university in the big city (Saskatoon!) and studied physics, and they had a whole library of physics books! You'd think it was like heaven, but a lot of those books were crap or hard to read. Hawking showed how one can aim for a book that's interesting-and-good and actually achieve it. A few others managed to do the same. There are probably 20 actually-good and readable physics books in the whole world, and his books are a few of them.
A Brief History of Time changed my life too. My dad gave it to me when I was about 13 years old. It taught me 2 big things that I had not yet realized:
1) That science was graspable, even by me, given enough time to reflect (and a good teacher helps).
2) That science requires sparks of creativity, in addition to all of its methodology, and that being a scientist can involve being creative.
> it was the only thing available like that anywhere around. Remember, this is before you could get any book in existence within one month via Amazon
This seems to still be the case, I recently spent some time visiting my moms place in a small town in Ontario, Canada and visited the old library. I was looking at the biography section of the local library and outside of the usual mob or famous actors selection the three choices among the "great minds" were bios of: Isaac Newton, Hypatia, and Stephen Hawking.
Even if his ideas may only be poorly grasped by the general population he still ranks among the greatest and most accessible minds in history wherever you may live, and we're all better off thanks to him.
'A short history of nearly everything' is extremely readable. Written by a comedic writer. It surveys much of scientific knowledge roughly narrated as a history of scientific discovery and the development of science.
'Elegant universe' is a little denser. It's about as accessible as string theory gets, and that's surprisingly accessible. It also surveys a lot of scientific knowledge. For example, it has a very intuitive explanation of how knowing about the constant speed of light (Einstein) makes time travel possible. Also, it explains open questions that string theory is trying to solve, which are the big, TOE questions in physics currently.
Hard to beat Hawkins though. He heavily influenced and inspired these guys, an proved that hard science is interesting for everyone. Goodbye Professor. You will be missed.
> 'A short history of nearly everything' is extremely readable. Written by a comedic writer.
Bill Bryson normally writes travel books, so the way this book is written is not your standard science approach. This book in particular is very entertaining since the topic is out of the authors comfort zone.
A Short History of Nearly Everything is actually my favourite book to read while travelling, funnily enough.
I've been told that Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality is awesome if you already know enough math. If you're an engineer, for example, you shouldn't have problems. Unfortunately, my personal level of mathematical maturity is too low and I've never made it past the first ten chapters. Maybe some day with more effort. :/
Second that. It's an awesome book that explains pretty much everything when it comes to physics. As for the math, it's true that they're hard but you should really give it another try since the second part of the book has less equations and more text.
Feynmann's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" is a popular science book which contains a small amount of approachable mathematics. It's a good choice if you want something a little more meaty.
I really liked Kip Thorne's Black Holes & Time Warps. Some overlap with Brief History of Time in content, but much bigger and detailed but still reasonably accessible (I thought).
There's a very good book called E=mc^2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation written by David Bodanis. I think I read it at about 16 and it was very approachable.
The others are suggesting Bill Bryson, Brian Greene, Lee Smolin and Leonard Susskind books but they came quite a bit later. Good suggestions though.
What stands out that I could read in the 1980s? I mentioned George Gamow's little book: One Two Three . . . Infinity: Facts and Speculations of Science.
Many Carl Sagan books were available by then. Ask Google.
Isaac Asimov wrote about everything, but his monthly essays in the Fantasy & Science Fiction (magazine) often covered some physics topic. I love how he tells the story: Always about the person, the time, the ideas, the meanings of the words, good analogies. He made it all seem so simple, but I know now that he was a master and loved it (and bragged about it too). Those essays were often collected into paperback collections, and my high school library got them.
Asimov also wrote a History of Physics book. Really thick and long. I read it for a book report for English class, because I was a total nerd and it seemed like a fun project. Most others read a comic book because those passed as "non-fiction" (for real).
One of the better textbooks is Introduction to Electrodynamics by David J. Griffiths. That one stands out in my mind.
"An Introduction to the Meaning and Structure of Physics", by Leon N Cooper, also another Nobel laureate in Physics. Filled my mind with wonder when I read it some 15 years ago.
Many of Lee Smolin's books are phenomenal, and despite being very indepth into their subject matter, are easy and enjoyable to read. Trouble With Physics is my favorite.
“I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.”
I had the honor of attending one of his lectures at CWRU in undergrad.
Two things forever stick out in my memory.
#1 - That he told jokes during his lecture. To be wheelchair bound, facing a degenerative condition... and still have humor. Inspiring.
#2 - The respectful silence. At least at the lecture I attended, he live keyed his entire speech. This meant the synthesizer would speak, followed by 20 or 30 seconds of absolute silence as he buffered the next few sentences. I remember not a soul spoke in that time above a whisper.
"At least at the lecture I attended, he live keyed his entire speech. This meant the synthesizer would speak, followed by 20 or 30 seconds of absolute silence as he buffered the next few sentences."
He was "typing" one bit at a time?
How can he type the entire sentence so quickly?
Yes. Here's some info on his setup. It tracked the motion of his cheek, which he could still control, to stop on a letter. It scanned through the alphabet and he had to pull it up at the right time.
“I can also give lectures. I write the lecture beforehand then save it to disk. I can then use a part of the ACAT software called Lecture Manager to send it to the speech synthesiser a paragraph at a time. It works quite well and I can try out the lecture and polish it before I give it.”
Oddly, this news struck me harder than other recent deaths of celebrity musicians that I was huge fans of. I guess Professor Hawking always had that aura of timelessness around him, and everyone just knew he was doing important work that would change humanity's understanding of the universe and our place in it.
It seems somehow unfair to have him taken away in the middle of all that.
EDIT: Fond memories of walking around Cambridge University two decades ago with my cousin, and she casually pointed to a building and said "Oh, Stephen Hawking works in there". Seemed so mundane to think that such important works were going on in some nondescript building that I just happened to be walking past. I always envisaged him working on a totally different plane from the rest of us mere peons.
He was 76, for a man not expected to make it out of his 20's I think he did okay.
It's a sad loss for science, but he's also now freed from a body he was becoming increasingly locked in, with less and less ability to communicate over time.
His passing is perhaps more humane - I don't know though, humaneness is in the eye of the person living it.
First, when their body stops functioning. Second, when their body is buried (or cremated). And the third and final death is when their name is uttered for the very last time in human history.
I am fairly confident Stephen Hawking will have only died two deaths.
I guess that a man that was self-declared atheist would not appreciate the religious concept of "all good people go to heaven when die". I can understand that is a comforting social convention in any case.
In before or instead of Sagan possibly? I was not particularly aware of Sagan before the internet, whereas I imagine Hawking has been a household name in much of the world for decades?
Sagan is a special case. Will be remembered (mainly) as a very good science communicator. Not so many people connect it with a famous and top-class scientist woman. The work of his first wife, Lynn Margulis, changed forever the concept of evolution.
If we put Sagan with Darwin we should not forget to add Margulis to this list also.
Aside: My first encounter with Margulis’s Serial Endosymbiosis Theory blew my mind.
I’d go so far as to say that SET changed my worldview. I’d always looked at evolution solely through the cold, brütal lens of selective pressure and competition.
SET showed us, however, that symbiosis (i.e. fundamental cooperation) is right up there with competition... kind of a countervailing force within the story of evolution.
I don’t know why, but I take great emotional comfort in that. Perhaps, being non-religious, it allows me to see something humane(?) encoded in the rulesets that govern change.
Few have accomplished as much while overcoming so little compared to Hawkings. Hawkings is and will always be a hero.
To think when he started out black holes were just a myth. He got to witness not only their acceptance and his own vindication but actual gravitational waves as well!
>> Few have accomplished as much while overcoming so little
It's weird; I individually understood both achievements but never thought about their combination that seriously until it was worded like this. Very well put.
Perhaps just as shocking to me as this news was the fact that he was 76! Given his accomplishments and youthful demeanor in his recent communications this totally caught me off guard. That, and the fact that he lived way longer that expected, given his circumstances. Objectively a triumph. In addition to his obvious, scientific exploits, hopefully the money raised in 2014 for ALS will ensure future scientists won't have to endure such hardship.
“What do Sheldon Cooper and a black hole have in common?” Hawking asked the fictional Caltech physicist whose IQ comfortably outstrips his social skills.
After a pause, the answer came: “They both suck.”
Stephen's sense of humor has always cracked me up.
An inspiring role model in so many aspects, RIP to one of the greatest minds. I strongly believe that his perseverance through his circumstances is even more admirable than his research. It's so easy to become bitter and jaded when a shocking event like that occurs. At the best, you make peace and live as happy a life as you can...but to stand tall and rebuke Fate, defy all odds and even banish almost certain Death for decades through sheer willpower and passion for knowledge is something else. And to hold that tiny, bright flame against an unrelenting torrent for 55 years, always curious, always following his passion...the world lost one of the greats tonight.
I was at a conference at Caltech. Someone set up boxes of food for lunch. Someone at my table grabbed one and started to eat. I noticed that it said "Stephen Hawking Lunch Gluten Free / Vegan" on it - it was already half-eaten, and I figured it'd be too good an opportunity to pass on, so I decided to eat some of stephen hawking's lunch, literally.
It turns out that despite his physical limitations he actually did eat normal solid foods. This was in 2011.
Hawking's condition worsened steadily throughout his life. While he was wheelchair-bound by the end of the 1960s, he was still capable of speaking until the 1980s. In the 1970s, he was already an accomplished scientist and would probably have been capable of eating a normal lunch.
The timing would even work for the incident to involve the real Richard Feynman. Though, I can't find anything to suggest the story is true.
Sometimes the RNG of the Universe creates people with intelligence, innovation and insight that are one in a billion that make the world better than it was before in immense ways, Stephen Hawking is one of those mountain movers.
People like Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Nikola Tesla and even Elon Musk today, that make us look up, innovate and think way out there, bring us together and remind us we are all on this planet together and can do amazing things if we choose to put our energy towards it.
Serious question, why is Elon Musk lumped in with Tesla, Hawking, and Sagan? Musk's achievements are assisted by the fact that he has tens of thousands of engineers
at his companies and he gets credit for every one of their ideas, all their work, and all the life they give up for his dreams. He didn't found Paypal (his company merged with it), he didn't found Tesla (kicked out one of the original founders), and he didn't come up with the idea
for the Hyperloop either. So, why is a CEO who benefits and takes credit for the effort of others lumped in with individuals?
Because Musk is a self-made man who gathered a huge amount of wealth, and then multiple times risked it all in attempts to further the species, instead of just continuing to hoard wealth at the expense of the rest of us.
Tesla, Hawking, and Sagan are lumped together because they were brilliant scientists who's work furthered humanity. Those are attributes that we wish for others to emulate, so we put them on a pedestal.
Over the last few decades our society (usa) has been shifting slowly slightly further towards an everyone-for-themselves (and unequal) type of culture. So Elon's story, as described above, is another example of intelligence used in pursuit of human furtherment, that many would want similarly put on a pedestal for emulation.
For what it's worth Musk doesn't seem to claim that he knows or does anything. He talks about his companies and what awesome things they will do, large teams of motivated and inspired scientists and engineers that share the dreams he does and for once have the money and mandate to go and make them happen.
He may not be a scientist, engineer or inventor but he inspires and empowers scientists and inventors so that counts for something.
Even if his ego should potentially have cosmic objects orbiting it.
Maybe I should have said Feynman but Musk definitely has done great things and is making people think that Mars travel might be a reality. He is making us look up, making people dream and working to make it a reality.
The booster rockets returning to Earth in unison and on the barge originally, both were amazing moments that were almost as impactful as the space race accomplishments during the Apollo program. Definitely exciting that it is a reality that is happening not just hope, Musk has amazing teams and funding but he is using all that to accomplish these things instead of just getting richer, risking his personal wealth many times over for these goals.
Sagan would probably be thrilled with SpaceX.
Then you have Tesla electric cards rocking the electric car / battery industry and making it business ready today.
Nikola Tesla would be thrilled with Tesla and battery power to lessen reliance on the electric grid.
Then you got solar homes and batteries along with the SpaceX accomplishments in rocketry, that you can start to put together and see the uses for interstellar travel and harsh planet settlement.
Hawking would be thrilled at the interstellar travel part as he has been warning humans to look for other places for years and thinks we must be interstellar within hundreds of years to survive.
Musk is more of a business focused guy but he is making people look up and is accomplishing these tasks by challenging big competitors and ultimately his products will be good for Earth. That is amazing in my book.
Feynman liked making everyone interested in science and talked to people with the aims of understanding not just being smart, he'd be thrilled that Musk is bringing amazing scientific achievement to regular people's lives.
Musk is an incredible self-promoter. He talks about how he is going to save the world, critics just don’t understand or just want to see him fail, and his words bounce around an ideological echo chamber where the facts of his claims don’t matter.
IMO, the google founders have had a far larger impact on the world than Elon, however, they don’t promote themselves endlessly.
Without Elon Musk, do you think humanity would currently be in possession of reusable rocket boosters? (Regardless of Page and Brin's accomplishments.)
Can you link to a specific rocket booster that was reused? Doesn't count if it's a retrorocket helping slow down some capsule that also has a parachute.
People who "make us look up, innovate and think way out there, bring us together and remind us we are all on this planet together and can do amazing things if we choose to put our energy towards it."
Musk is definitely one of those, just in a different way.
I also don't think Musk should be lumped in with those other luminaries, but Musk isn't the one doing that categorization, so nothing against him. It's just people and their penchant for hero worship
I read A brief history of time when I was 11. Since then every single time I have reread the book I have found something new. I waited every Monday night for his show into the universe with Stephan Hawkins. He was the reason I became more curious and skeptical about nature of things. My hats off to this amazing conscious being made from stardust.
In ALS and other degenerative neuromuscular disorders one loses the ability to swallow effectively and protect against aspiration along with the inability to speak. People affected by this, like my grandfather, will usually require a feeding tube to allow enough calories without risking aspiration. However, even with this, we are constantly relying on our epligottis and swallowing reflexes to prevent microaspirations of saliva and oral bacteria. Because of this, people with ALS are at extremely high risk for pneumonia, which would be my first guess as being most likely. His was lucky in that his ALS was a subtype that didn't progress as rapidly as most do.
I think you don't deserve the downvoting you are getting even though the timing of your question is not great, you're still trying to understand what the natural progression of ALS is.
Nobody "just dies". Most "natural deaths" are still heart failure. The rest are other kinds of organ failure.
For a lot of people that die natural deaths they could have lived longer if they had kept fit. It just gets really hard to either do or justify when everything hurts and gets harder to do year over year. Or when you are confined to a wheelchair since your early 20s, were told you would only live two years, and then beat that prognosis 27 times over.
But if you are able, even small amounts of cardio exercise could dramatically extend your health and lifespans in old age.
It's true that an autopsy will show a cause of death for anyone. In that sense, you don't "just die".
But after a certain point, that cause of death starts looking pretty meaningless. Everything is failing at once; if you hadn't died of your actual cause of death, you would have died shortly afterwards from another one. In that sense, you do "just die" of old age.
I'm sure we'll find out more in due course. Right now, it's 4am and all we have is a statement from the family. I'm sure they have much better things to be doing right now.
That said, his original prognosis was that he wouldn't reach his 25th birthday, so he hasn't really done too bad.
What a beautiful mind. He played a big role in who I am today - I majored in Physics and later in engineering because of his book. He inspired me to understand science and use it to improve the world.
My lowest points are when life becomes too easy. When I start to miss the point of living.
I quit my job and moved to a new country because I was becoming complacent, repeating the same thing every day.
It's the moments closest to death when we are truely alive. Whether it's being struck by a disease, as Stephen Hawking tragically was all those many years ago, or climbing a mountain (and in my cause, getting stuck).
Pre-prepared is exactly how most obituaries are written. Newspapers keep such pre-prepared obituaries of famous people on-hand so that they can publish them instantly if that person happens to die.
Any newspapers who don't do this will lose the all-important race for publication to newspapers that do.
On at least one occasion that I can recall, an obituary for Steve Jobs was published prematurely. As you can imagine, this caused a minor panic before retraction.
> Pre-prepared is exactly how most obituaries are written
They are often written many years in advance. As an example, the Guardian's obituary for Billy Graham [1] was published ten years after its writer died.
