Hawking: God not necessary

[Towlie]

Huh? Ignoring the God controversy, this particular claim is a non sequitur...

That would mean that "it does not follow" from Hawking's work. What specific errors have you discovered in his work?

Actually, I don't know what Latin term you were really looking for but I suspect that it translates as "it does not fit my personal view."

 

[lomiller]

edit
ignore hw did this end up in this thread lol

 

[!Kaggen]

I haven't read the book.

But one of the theoretical developments Hawking is known for was finding a certain mathematical solution that might be interpreted as governing the creation of a universe from nothing (this interpretation is problematic for several good reasoms, but never mind). The universe that gets created is spatially closed; that is, at any given time it has finite volume and the topology of a 3-sphere (a "hypersphere").

It turns out that according to general relativity, the total energy of such a universe is always exactly zero. Crudely speaking the negative gravitational potential energy cancels the positive energy in matter and radiation.

Why? Well, remember that gravitational potential energy is always negative - or to be more precise, it's always monotonically decreasing as you move in from infinity - because gravity is attractive. But on a sphere (and think of the surface of the sphere, not its interior) there is no infinity. The farthest away you can get is the antipode. Work through the math, and you discover that this forces the energy to always sum up to zero.

It's very similar to the reason that the net charge on such a space must always be zero. The flux lines have no infinity to escape to.

I am very interested in the reasons why Hawkings mathematical solution you mentioned above is problematic.
Could you please share this with us in layman's terms?

 

[sol invictus]

I am very interested in the reasons why Hawkings mathematical solution you mentioned above is problematic.
Could you please share this with us in layman's terms?

The solution is analogous in many ways to a class of solutions that represent the creation of virtual particle/anti-particle pairs from the vacuum. We understand that process quite well - the "vacuum" of a quantum field theory is never truly empty due to random fluctuations of the fields.

To make an analogy, think of a field as something like air - it fills all space. There's a field corresponding to each species of particle (electrons, quarks, photons, etc.). Localized "sound" pulses (wavepackets) in the "air" (field) are particles. So the state with zero particles is a state where the field is completely homogeneous and constant. But quantum mechanical uncertainties and zero-point energies mean that at any moment there are always going to be some insuppressible little ripples propagating around - so if you make a sufficiently precise measurement, you'll detect some particles even in what you thought was a perfect vacuum.

(Incidentally, the creation and annihilation of these particles conserves energy for a very similar reason that Hawking's solution - and the resulting universe - does.)

So what's the problem? The problem is that for particles there is a classical vacuum - a state with zero particles - on top of which there are these quantum fluctuations (states with more than zero particles). But we don't know what the analogue of the vacuum is for universes. We don't understand how to formulate a theory in which the number of universes can vary, with a zero-universe vacuum plus fluctuations (technically such a structure would be called a Fock space of universes).

Because we don't understand that basic piece of the theory, any interpretation of Hawking's solution as representing the creation of a universe from nothing is speculation. It's not completely unfounded, because the analogy to particle creation is mathematically fairly precise, but it remains speculation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The solution is analogous in many ways to a class of solutions that represent the creation of virtual particle/anti-particle pairs from the vacuum. We understand that process quite well - the "vacuum" of a quantum field theory is never truly empty due to random fluctuations of the fields.

To make an analogy, think of a field as something like air - it fills all space. There's a field corresponding to each species of particle (electrons, quarks, photons, etc.). Localized "sound" pulses (wavepackets) in the "air" (field) are particles. So the state with zero particles is a state where the field is completely homogeneous and constant. But quantum mechanical uncertainties and zero-point energies mean that at any moment there are always going to be some insuppressible little ripples propagating around - so if you make a sufficiently precise measurement, you'll detect some particles even in what you thought was a perfect vacuum.

(Incidentally, the creation and annihilation of these particles conserves energy for a very similar reason that Hawking's solution - and the resulting universe - does.)

So what's the problem? The problem is that for particles there is a classical vacuum - a state with zero particles - on top of which there are these quantum fluctuations (states with more than zero particles). But we don't know what the analogue of the vacuum is for universes. We don't understand how to formulate a theory in which the number of universes can vary, with a zero-universe vacuum plus fluctuations (technically such a structure would be called a Fock space of universes).

Because we don't understand that basic piece of the theory, any interpretation of Hawking's solution as representing the creation of a universe from nothing is speculation. It's not completely unfounded, because the analogy to particle creation is mathematically fairly precise, but it remains speculation.

I would add that it's also a violation of the the laws of physics in the end. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only "change forms". The universe has always had a "positive energy' state to our knowledge. It's much more likely that energy has always existed, and highly unlikely that something came from nothing.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I haven't read the book.

But one of the theoretical developments Hawking is known for was finding a certain mathematical solution that might be interpreted as governing the creation of a universe from nothing (this interpretation is problematic for several good reasoms, but never mind). The universe that gets created is spatially closed; that is, at any given time it has finite volume and the topology of a 3-sphere (a "hypersphere").

It turns out that according to general relativity, the total energy of such a universe is always exactly zero. Crudely speaking the negative gravitational potential energy cancels the positive energy in matter and radiation.

Why? Well, remember that gravitational potential energy is always negative - or to be more precise, it's always monotonically decreasing as you move in from infinity - because gravity is attractive. But on a sphere (and think of the surface of the sphere, not its interior) there is no infinity. The farthest away you can get is the antipode. Work through the math, and you discover that this forces the energy to always sum up to zero.

It's very similar to the reason that the net charge on such a space must always be zero. The flux lines have no infinity to escape to.

Have there been any calculations made based on observations that might confirm that the universe may have zero net energy? I note that the Wikipedia article LINK refers to this but includes no actual calculations:

A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density.

Could one take a piece of the observable universe and do some mathematics to demonstrate zero net energy?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Have there been any calculations made based on observations that might confirm that the universe may have zero net energy? I note in the Wikipedia article LINK refers to this but includes no actual calculations:

Could one take a piece of the observable universe and do some mathematics to demonstrate zero net energy?

Go stand in the sunshine PS. You'll see and feel the net positive energy in the universe. Gravity isn't going to "remove" that energy.

 

[Philosaur]

I would add that it's also a violation of the the laws of physics in the end. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only "change forms". The universe has always had a "positive energy' state to our knowledge. It's much more likely that energy has always existed, and highly unlikely that something came from nothing.

There are at least these two explanations for the difficulty here:

1) Hawking made a totally rookie mistake and forgot or overlooked the laws of conservation of energy and matter, or

2) You misunderstand Hawking, or physics, or both, and so you are wrong.

Is there some compelling reason we should believe you over Hawking?

(BTW, appeal to authority is perfectly rational where there's no evidence for either side.)

 

[zooterkin]

Go stand in the sunshine PS. You'll see and feel the net positive energy in the universe.

And if you go out at night, and it's cold?

 

[!Kaggen]

The solution is analogous in many ways to a class of solutions that represent the creation of virtual particle/anti-particle pairs from the vacuum. We understand that process quite well - the "vacuum" of a quantum field theory is never truly empty due to random fluctuations of the fields.

To make an analogy, think of a field as something like air - it fills all space. There's a field corresponding to each species of particle (electrons, quarks, photons, etc.). Localized "sound" pulses (wavepackets) in the "air" (field) are particles. So the state with zero particles is a state where the field is completely homogeneous and constant. But quantum mechanical uncertainties and zero-point energies mean that at any moment there are always going to be some insuppressible little ripples propagating around - so if you make a sufficiently precise measurement, you'll detect some particles even in what you thought was a perfect vacuum.

(Incidentally, the creation and annihilation of these particles conserves energy for a very similar reason that Hawking's solution - and the resulting universe - does.)

So what's the problem? The problem is that for particles there is a classical vacuum - a state with zero particles - on top of which there are these quantum fluctuations (states with more than zero particles). But we don't know what the analogue of the vacuum is for universes. We don't understand how to formulate a theory in which the number of universes can vary, with a zero-universe vacuum plus fluctuations (technically such a structure would be called a Fock space of universes).

Because we don't understand that basic piece of the theory, any interpretation of Hawking's solution as representing the creation of a universe from nothing is speculation. It's not completely unfounded, because the analogy to particle creation is mathematically fairly precise, but it remains speculation.

Hmm... give me a few days to work through this abstraction, at least there is no math well done

 

[!Kaggen]

And if you go out at night, and it's cold?

Not as cold as 10km above your head

 

[alfaniner]

It is painful to read the comments on those stories on the news web pages (especially FN).

 

[Michael Mozina]

There are at least these two explanations for the difficulty here:

1) Hawking made a totally rookie mistake and forgot or overlooked the laws of conservation of energy and matter, or

2) You misunderstand Hawking, or physics, or both, and so you are wrong.

Is there some compelling reason we should believe you over Hawking?

(BTW, appeal to authority is perfectly rational where there's no evidence for either side.)

When you can enlighten me on how gravity causes even a single gamma rays to exist, and what offsets is "energy state" back to zero, I'll be happy to consider your ideas. Until then it sounds remarkably like a non-sequitur to me. FYI, it wouldn't be the first time he's blown it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6151-hawking-cracks-black-hole-paradox.html

 

[rjh01]

When you can enlighten me on how gravity causes even a single gamma rays to exist, and what offsets is "energy state" back to zero, I'll be happy to consider your ideas. Until then it sounds remarkably like a non-sequitur to me. FYI, it wouldn't be the first time he's blown it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6151-hawking-cracks-black-hole-paradox.html

From my experience the difference between ordinary and outstanding people is that outstanding people make bigger mistakes than ordinary people.

 

[Furcifer]

When you can enlighten me on how gravity causes even a single gamma rays to exist, and what offsets is "energy state" back to zero, I'll be happy to consider your ideas. Until then it sounds remarkably like a non-sequitur to me. FYI, it wouldn't be the first time he's blown it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6151-hawking-cracks-black-hole-paradox.html

Gravity doesn't "cause" gamma rays to exist. The basic idea is there is negative energy (gravity) and then there's positive energy. The net sum of which is zero.

This isn't a new theory and it isn't Hawking's either.

 

[Beth]

From my experience the difference between ordinary and outstanding people is that outstanding people make bigger mistakes than ordinary people.

Wow! I've been outstanding all my life then.

 

[bikerdruid]

i posted this article on survivalist boards and received a 30 day ban for my efforts.
some christians are afraid to hear anything contrary to their beliefs.

 

[tankgrrl]

As another poster pointed out earlier, the "nothing" Canard (in "something out of nothing", not Hawking's book) is a non-sequitur and most likely borne out of a zealous attempts to oversimplify for explanation or create an analogy. The Singularity was not "nothing", just a 'something' that we have a hard time wrapping our squishy grey bits around.

The sum total of the energy of the universe is a constant. The total energy existing now is the same amount as that at the Singularity. The form that energy takes may change, but its sum total never will and never can. I'm fairly confident that when Hawking says "nothing" he's talking about the universe we understand and inhabit, not the decoherence [for lack of a better concept, since there isn't one as we never talk of destroying energy] of all energy in the universe into 'nothingness'.

My 2 cents. IANAP, I just live amongst a bunch of them.

 

[noreligion]

Go stand in the sunshine PS. You'll see and feel the net positive energy in the universe. Gravity isn't going to "remove" that energy.

There are certain localities with a net positive. What are you trying to say, spit it out.

 

[Roadtoad]

Haven't read the books, (swamped with other stuff at the moment), and haven't read the article, so this will be lacking, but given the mechanistic view of most scientists, why is this a surprise? The only surprise for me with the minuscule bit I know is that Hawking leaves the door open, and even that isn't much of one.