How can Stephen Hawking say that he can prove that the universe can be explained by science?
How can he say that the universe can be fully explained by science without being able to create one?
I thought proving something means something you can actually show how to do..?
-------------------------------------------------------
answers:
William say: He said it through a specially designed device which allowed him to "talk" by signaling letters and syllables through limited muscular control due to motor neurone disease.
-
Craig say: One day people will be masters of time and space and will be able to do pretty much anything
-
Jeffrey K say: I can explain how a car works, but I can't actually build one.
Hawking means that the laws of nature that govern the universe can be understood and explained by reason and logic. Nothing supernatural is required.
-
Ronald 7 say: It can
But the more we learn, the more we need to find out
That is why we keep searching
RIP Steven
-
Raymond say: I can scientifically prove that 18 is an even number without having to create a new number 18.
Proving something simply means showing how something is the way it is, using means that are apparent to everybody else.
For example, we can prove that influenza (the flu) is caused by a virus without having to create our own influenza virus (nature already provides a sufficient variety... every year).
-
tham153 say: Hawking died last year, so he is not saying anything
-
YKhan say: Because science has a history of figuring things out over the past few centuries.
-
say: Stephen Hawking can't say anything - he's dead. Despite whatever your fairy tale tells you about dead people, they cannot logically communicate. Funny thing is none of you idiot theists can prove how gods were created.
-
xtynn say: kjnkapnt
-
Anon say: Let’s say there is some sort of cosmic wizard out there....who or what created him?
-
Heather say: Scientifically, the universe should not exist given the amount of time since the "Big Boom" initiated and the impossibility of anything in the universe to develop. How can something be created from nothing? There are only two scientifically sound theories that can explain the creation of this universe; the first being the multiverse and the second the existence of a divine being.
-
JG say: Because he was an anti-Christian intellectual, that's why. I remember when he claimed he was "finding God" like that was supposed to mean something deep and profound. He was on obvious agnostic/atheist- in his last books he put out he wrote that God doesn't exist.
He thought he could prove the universe could be explained scientifically without God''s involvement.
According to:
https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/08/stephen-hawking-squares-off-with-god-again-says-universe-still-creating-itself.php
"Stephen Hawking says God had nothing to do with creating the universe and that the “laws of science” explain how the universe created itself from nothing."
That's a very dangerous and crazy thing to say.
-
say: Physics. of everything. Ask Sheldon Cooper
-
Adullah M say: To prove that the first life on earth being created by GOD not by accident.
GOD create the first energy that can perform work, then turn it into mass, through Big Bang and then fill its up in space by expanding ,from that on GOD melted these three entities in to Time ,in such a way that ,each entity can not exist with out one another. Then set it as a rule that, energy can not be created nor destroyed by no one except HIM.
-
neb say: I doubt he ever said he could prove it.
Hawking argued from two main points of physics
1) the energy-time version of the uncertainty principle
2) the existence of the gravitational field
The uncertainty principle is a staple of modern quantum physics. It allows matter/energy to fluctuate into existence from ‘nothing’ or at least the closest to ‘nothing’ that can exist - the quantum vacuum. The amount of energy that can fluctuate out of ‘nothing’ is inversely proportional to the amount of time that it can exist. The greater the energy, the shorter the time it can exist. The smaller the energy, the longer the time that it can exist.
The universe starting as a fluctuation as described above has an obvious problem. The universe seems to have a tremendous amount of matter/energy so if it started via the uncertainty principle, it would exist for only an infinitesimal amount of time. This is where gravity comes into save the day.
Gravity has a negative potential energy which can easily be understood by an object falling in a gravitational field. Energy must be conserved. But, an object gains positive kinetic energy when it falls so the gravitational potential must be increasingly negative toward the source in order to conserve energy. So, Hawking (and others) will claim that the universe has zero or near zero total energy. All of the positive contributions to energy (mass, kinetic energy, electromagnetism, etc) are exactly balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. This would allow the universe to exist indefinitely according to the uncertainty principle.
The above is certainly not a proof and I seriously doubt Hawking would have considered it a proof. It is an interesting proposal but still leaves a number of things unexplained.
-
Fred say: He can't as he is dead now.
-
hoarseman say: I think Occam' s razor is applicable here -- science is the best explanation we have, by far.
-
John P say: Actually he cannot say anything now, since he died recently.
-
spot a say: He can't say anything now. Theoretical physicists like him think too much. For example, his idea of pocket handkerchief sized probes propelled to Alpha Centaurai by earth-based lasers is really stupid. A laser beam expands to about 4km at the distance of the moon. Imagine the beam's diameter and its push at the orbit of Pluto. Also a high power laser would incinerate the pocket handkerchief
-
geezer say: You think it would be a good idea to "re-create" the Big Bang ?
Being able to explain how something happened doesn't mean that it would be a good idea to demonstrate it !!
-
Jim say: By scientific laws that were decreed by God.
-
wandycakes say: He said it via a very sophisticated computer programme, using the only muscle he could move. His right facial muscle.
-
JORGE N say: When a mind can turn the universe into a small unit of expanding gas rising in an ocean of dark matter it is not hard to imagine what else it can and probably has done. He is more than likely back in his lab watching it all rise to see where it leads. He may have something here and then he may not.
-
ILM say: He's dead....
-
ngc7331 say: He cant, he died. So there's no real way for him to prove anything to you or anyone else.
-
The_Doc_Man say: The issue is that science can explain the parts using mathematical models and formulas for which parts can be tested. Building an entire universe MIGHT take a bit longer.
Religion can't explain squat. All THEY do is say "Goddidit" and then stick their fingers in their ears.
-
Lord Bacon say: Science is the name we give to proven, established techniques of measurement and calculation by which we achieve repeatable outcomes that provide objective insight into the universe and everything in it.
The APPLICATION of science, scientific findings and technology can enable us to make some things (e.g. plastics, drugs, mobile phones, space vessels, televisions, artificial hearts).
The UNDERSTANDING that science gives us of natural phenomena does not mean it is possible to recreate them. Take the Sun for example. The sun is just a minuscule part of the universe. How and where do you imagine we could recreate it? Science has enabled us to understand the universe and provided robust theories of its origin but that doesn't mean we can make it.
-
Grundoon say: He can't. He's dead
-
John say: Through a medium?
But then you have to believe in that superstitious nonsense!
-
Petter say: Yeah, well... I think I can create a universe as well, but my problem is that I need virtually endless of material and about ten billions of years in time...
-
Nikki say: "This is a math-fiction that has zero experimental evidence speaking for it," Sabine Hossenfelder, a physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany.
theoretical proofs, historical-doctrinal proofs, and actual proofs are three ways to prove the validity of an idea.
the math used in historical-physics and other new math-theories do not offer proof; look at the world around you, this is the actual visible proof that the universe exists; the same as looking into a mirror.
we are part of the universe, not separate from it.
only "math-majors" care about theory-in-math.
-
Henry say: All of the above, because it's prior art. Hawking proved there's an objective reality in an infinite multitude of universes, all connected. Though he didn't believe in God they buried him in Westminster Abby.
-
Who say: I would keep away from "thinking" if I were you, cos you aint very good at it
-
CarolOklaNola say: You are VERY confused. Stephen Hawking is NOT the person who came up with the Big Bang theory. That was Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest who became a monseignor. He's dead too.
Stephen Hawking was black holes.
-