Did he by chance explain why the big bang happened?Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe
By Brandon Specktor, Senior Writer | October 17, 2018 04:23pm ET
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe
In a new book that was published posthumously, Stephen Hawking, who died in March, wrote that it is impossible for God to exist in our universe.
From his desk at Cambridge University and beyond, Stephen Hawking sent his mind spiraling into the deepest depths of black holes, radiating across the endless cosmos and swirling back billions of years to witness time's first breath. He viewed creation as a scientist, and when he was called to discuss creation's biggest puzzles — Where do we come from? What is our purpose? Are we alone? — he answered as a scientist, often to the chagrin of religious critics.
In Stephen Hawking's final book "Brief Answers to Big Questions," published Tuesday (Oct. 16) by Bantam Books, the professor begins a series of 10 intergalactic essays by addressing life's oldest and most religiously fraught question of all: Is there a God? [Big Bang to Civilization: 10 Amazing Origin Events]
Hawking's answer — compiled from decades of prior interviews, essays and speeches with the help of his family, colleagues and the Steven Hawking Estate — should come as no surprise to readers who have followed his work, er, religiously.
Credit: Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images
"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom. From this speck emerged all the matter, energy and empty space that the universe would ever contain, and all that raw material evolved into the cosmos we perceive today by following a strict set of scientific laws. To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.
"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.
With the universe running on a scientifically guided autopilot, the only role for an all-powerful deity might be setting the initial conditions of the universe so that those laws could take shape — a divine creator who caused the Big Bang to bang, then stepped back to behold His work.
"Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."
Hawking's explanation begins with quantum mechanics, which explains how subatomic particles behave. In quantum studies, it's common to see subatomic particles like protons and electrons seemingly appear out of nowhere, stick around for a while and then disappear again to a completely different location. Because the universe was once the size of a subatomic particle itself, it's plausible that it behaved similarly during the Big Bang, Hawking wrote.
"The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature," he wrote.
That still doesn't explain away the possibility that God created that proton-size singularity, then flipped the quantum- mechanical switch that allowed it to pop. But Hawking says science has an explanation here, too. To illustrate, he points to the physics of black holes — collapsed stars that are so dense, nothing, including light, can escape their pull.
Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.
Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."
"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
This argument will do little to persuade theistic believers, but that was never Hawking's intent. As a scientist with a near-religious devotion to understanding the cosmos, Hawking sought to "know the mind of God" by learning everything he could about the self-sufficient universe around us. While his view of the universe might render a divine creator and the laws of nature incompatible, it still leaves ample space for faith, hope, wonder and, especially, gratitude.
"We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe," Hawking concludes the first chapter of his final book, "and for that I am extremely grateful."
Originally published on Live Science.
cc James Comey
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe
- Thread starter Kiranga
- Start date
Mtangoo
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 25, 2012
- 6,167
- 5,613
Jaribu basi kuvunja Law of Non contradiction.
hearly
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 19, 2014
- 45,678
- 63,304
Sisi tukitoa hiyo mifano tupo sawa kwa sababu hatuamini ukuu wa huyo mungu ambao majaribu kutueleza hapa. ....
Mungu muweza wa yote/mjuzi wa yote --Ambaye alishindwa kuutumia uweza/ujuzi wake ili kujua kwamba shetani anayetaka kumuumba ipo siku atakuja kumsaliti na kuwa adui yake mkuu. ...Hahah uweza/ujuzi wake wa yote upo wapi hapo? ....Kwetu sisi mungu hayupo wala hana ukuu wowote so hatukosei pindi tunapo mfananisha na chochote. .....
Ila nyinyi mnapo jaribu kutufananisha na chochote wakati mnatueleza kuwa mungu wenu hana madhaifu hapo ndio huwa mnatushangaza
Mungu muweza wa yote/mjuzi wa yote --Ambaye alishindwa kuutumia uweza/ujuzi wake ili kujua kwamba shetani anayetaka kumuumba ipo siku atakuja kumsaliti na kuwa adui yake mkuu. ...Hahah uweza/ujuzi wake wa yote upo wapi hapo? ....Kwetu sisi mungu hayupo wala hana ukuu wowote so hatukosei pindi tunapo mfananisha na chochote. .....
Ila nyinyi mnapo jaribu kutufananisha na chochote wakati mnatueleza kuwa mungu wenu hana madhaifu hapo ndio huwa mnatushangaza
Scars
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 8, 2017
- 48,055
- 116,512
Kwanza tukubaliane
Andiko hilo lipo kwenye kuran au nimelitunga tu na halipo kwenye quran?
Tz mbongo
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 12, 2015
- 13,332
- 7,351
Mbona kama unaenda mbele na kurudi nyuma.
Utofauti wa mafundisho ndipo lilipo tatizo hata mafundisho ya ukristo juu ya Yehova ni tofauti na mafundisho ya uislamu juu ya Allah. Hata sasa kadri siku zinavyoenda tunaona mafundisho mapya mbalimbali,hivyo ni kweli kuna tofauti ila kote jina Mungu lipo bila kujari ni wengi au mmoja.
Tz mbongo
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 12, 2015
- 13,332
- 7,351
Andiko linalosema kuwa jua huwa linazama kwenye matope?
Scars
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 8, 2017
- 48,055
- 116,512
Sijasema urudie swali
Habari nzima ya jua kuzama kwenye matope ipo kwenye quran au nimeitunga mimi?
Tz mbongo
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 12, 2015
- 13,332
- 7,351
Hapa hatuzungumzii wewe unaamini vp na ndiyo maana kuna watu humu wanaamini Mungu mmoja na ndiyo muumba ila hawaamini vitabu vya dini na wengine hawaamini Mungu kabisa,tunaangalia kinachojadiliwa na sio imani binafsi ya mtu. Ndiyo maana hiyo Kiranga wako kuna uzi mtu anauliza peponi ni wapi yeye kaja kueleza Mungu hayupo wakati mleta mada anataka kujua peponi ni wapi?
Tz mbongo
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 12, 2015
- 13,332
- 7,351
Nimeuliza vizuri ili nijibu kiusahihi nisijibu kisha baadaye nikaja kukataa nilichojibu.
Unauliza kuhusu andiko linalosema kuwa jua huwa linazama kwenye matope?
Nimmfuata huko huko upande wake na amesahindwa kuthibitisha kwamba big bang theory haitokani na Mungu.
Anataka Mungu amwambie methodology alizotmuia kufanya uumbaji. tutakesha. Yaani anataka Munug asememe process aliyotumia kuumba ulimwengu kuanzia nyota, black hole , galaxy na vingine beyond?
sandpiper
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 27, 2018
- 208
- 184
Mbona ameshindwa kufafanua kuhusu black holes! how they get their magnetic field force . The more we know about science, then GOD presence is seen. Hao wanaosema hakuna MUNGU huwa wanatamani kumuona alafu wanashindwa hapo wanaishia kusema hakuna MUNGU. Wanatumia mbinu hii ili ajionyeshe kwao kwamba yupo, wanapotea . Kuna njia za kumuona MUNGU ukizifuata hakika utamuona wala hakuna shaka kwenye hilo.
Kiranga
Platinum Member
- Jan 29, 2009
- 78,790
- 128,275
- Thread starter
- #1,633
Wapi ameshindwa kufafanua kuhusu black holes and how they get their "magnetic force"?
Unaweza kupanukuu tusome na kujadili kwa kina?
Ameshindwa kufafanua au wewe umeshindwa kuelewa?
Wewe unaweza kumfafanua huyo Mungu unayesema yupo ukathibitisha yupo kweli?
Nundu_Tanzania
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 19, 2019
- 811
- 349
In one of your writing, you stated that, understand this is A is understand what makes A. Further, you continue adding that, you cannot define this is A without understanding A. But one thing you misconception is that understanding what is A is not understanding what makes A. Here is an example to show what I mean between understanding "what is" and "what makes science".
I hope you understand what is a car. But a car as one cycle came into that form and you understand it as a car due to different materials that perform different functions. So, understanding a car as one cycle does not means understanding materials that makes a car and how they work.
From this simple example there will help to understand that, science as a knowledge does not depends only on understanding what is science, but also other knowledge that makes science such as psychology, philosophy and theology.
Scars
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 8, 2017
- 48,055
- 116,512
Kwani mimi nauliza kuhusu habari gani hapa??
Ulivyokua unasema habari hiyo si ya kweli ulikua unazungumzia habari gani????
sandpiper
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 27, 2018
- 208
- 184
In 1981, Hawking argued that within black holes are other virtual black holes that flash in and out of existence very quickly and that they erase the information about matter subsumed by the holes.
His theory led to the “Black Hole War,” according to theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind in his 2008 book by the same name. For a quarter century, Susskind and Hawking and other renowned theoretical physicists had competing notions about lost information. Not everyone agreed with Hawking’s idea that matter could be lost.
Betting matters
In 2004, Hawking decided that he was wrong and that information might not be lost after all. In 2007, he paid off a $1 bet made in 1980 with physicist Don Page. Hawking’s concession was humorous. “I concede in light of the weakness of the dollar,” he wrote on April 23, 2007.
But the problem presented by the information paradox wasn’t solved: It still wasn’t clear what happened to matter subsumed by black holes. But an answer might lie in entropy, the original measurement Hawking proposed to better understand black holes in 1974.
In 2016, Hawking, a Cambridge colleague Malcolm Perry, and Harvard University’s Andrew Strominger published a paper providing a tentative explanation. They argued that mass less particles, or photons, called “soft hair,” could surround black holes and preserve information.
The physicists worked on the paper with Hawking during his final days. It argues that Hawking’s original 1974 calculation of black-hole entropy corresponds to their calculations of soft hair entropy. They believe that at a black hole’s event horizon, or the point at which light can’t escape gravitation pull, soft hair holds the traces of information about matter that seems to disappear into the black hole.
The riddle’s still not solved, however. Scientists don’t know if soft hairs store all the information that was once thought lost to black holes, or only a part, and the paper makes assumptions that still have to be proven valid. “We don’t know that Hawking entropy accounts for everything you could possibly throw at a black hole, so this is really a step along the way,” Perry tells the Guardian. “We think it’s a pretty good step, but there is a lot more work to be done.”
Bado haujarizika pia nafikiri unamjua vizuri Mwanafizikia Don Page !!!!
sandpiper
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 27, 2018
- 208
- 184
Alikuwa hata hajui angeelezea vip? refer to DEEP astronomy articles
Whether they exist around refrigerator magnets or black holes, magnetic fields are invisible. To study the ones connected to Sagittarius A*, researchers relied on SOFIA, which is a modified Boeing 747SP aircraft. Specifically, they employed SOFIA's newest instrument, the High-resolution Airborne Wideband Camera-Plus (HAWC+), to track polarized far-infrared light emitted by dust particles.
Because dust grains line up perpendicular to magnetic fields, astronomers were able to map the shape and infer the strength of the magnetic field around the black hole. Combining the new map with mid- and far-infrared images of Sagittarius A* revealed the direction of the magnetic field.
Sijui ni wapi hauelewi