Stephen Hawking died today

[Vort]

A loss for theoretical physics. Plus, it leaves Murray Gell-Mann as probably the most famous living uberphysicist. I didn't find Gell-Mann to be particularly charming or engaging when he spent a week at our grad school, so I'm somewhat less than excited. But when Gell-Mann dies (he's 88 now), what other superfamous physicist is there? Seriously, who? Can you name one? (The execrable Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't count. He's no uberphysicist, just a less charming and personable version -- hard though that may be to believe -- of Carl Sagan.)

[Fether]

Everyone knows Bill Nye has the greatest mind ever

[Vort]

Bill Nye is literally less qualified to talk about science than I am.

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

Bill Nye is literally less qualified to talk about science than I am.

That's the proper use of of the word literally.

[anatess2]

As a tribute to Stephen Hawking - he's the guy that opened my eyes to the fact that paraplegic condition doesn't mean your genitals are paralyzed.

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm stunned he lived as long as he did with such a horrible condition. Amazing technology that we have in 2018, that's for sure. 100 years ago he would have died 30 years earlier. 

RIP

[Just_A_Guy]

“There is no afterlife.”  

—Stephen Hawking

 

”Well, there’s still a Stephen Hawking.”  

—The Afterlife

Edited March 14, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

But when Gell-Mann dies (he's 88 now), what other superfamous physicist is there? Seriously, who? Can you name one?

Well, I hadn't even heard of Gell-Mann, so...

I don't see why there is a need to have a "superfamous" physicist.  What would that accomplish?  Is the credibility of science based on the brain of a single man?  Thank heavens, no.  So, while his celebrity makes his death newsworthy, I don't see how this impacts the world.

[zil]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I hadn't even heard of Gell-Mann, so...

I don't see why there is a need to have a "superfamous" physicist.  What would that accomplish?  Is the credibility of science based on the brain of a single man?  Thank heavens, no.  So, while his celebrity makes his death newsworthy, I don't see how this impacts the world.

Perhaps @Vort is suggesting either that we have no really intelligent folk working in this area any more, or that we as a population don't value having really intelligent folk working in this area, and that that (whichever that that is, if it is) is kinda sad.

(I was really going for incomprehensible pronouns there at the end.  Please let me know if I succeeded.)

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

Perhaps @Vort is suggesting either that we have no really intelligent folk working in this area any more, or that we as a population don't value having really intelligent folk working in this area, and that that (whichever that that is, if it is) is kinda sad.

(I was really going for incomprehensible pronouns there at the end.  Please let me know if I succeeded.)

Place a space between "Ham" and "and" and "and" and "eggs". 

I don't think society has valued intelligence for almost 70 years -- nearly as old as Hawking was.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Guest

[NeuroTypical]

Hawking was the only person able to help me crowbar an understanding of the theory of general relativity into my thick skull.  Tennis balls on a train - who knew?

Bill Nye is a good actor.  His on-screen persona and kid's show, helped spark my kid's interest in good things, and helped them learn.  These days, he's using his talents in front of a camera (or others are using him) to push various random agendas.  Some dumb, some vile, some not.  If I ever stand next to Vort, enough of his brain thinks would slough off on to me and I'd be at least equal in opinion relevance to Nye.

[beefche]

I wonder what Big Bang Theory is going to do with the death of Hawking.

(you can see how science minded I am.....I get my science from BBT).

[SilentOne]

9 hours ago, beefche said:

I wonder what Big Bang Theory is going to do with the death of Hawking.

(you can see how science minded I am.....I get my science from BBT).

Is that still going? Huh. Somehow I'd gotten the impression it ended a year or so ago.

[Vort]

13 hours ago, zil said:

Perhaps @Vort is suggesting either that we have no really intelligent folk working in this area any more, or that we as a population don't value having really intelligent folk working in this area, and that that (whichever that that is, if it is) is kinda sad.

Actually, I only wish I were making clever social commentary. I was born some years after Albert Einstein died, and throughout most of my life his has been the face of the Super-Scientist. But still, there were many scientists from the Manhattan Project who were very well-known in their own right. Even as recently as the late 1980s, we had the immensely intelligent (and immensely entertaining) Richard Feynmann, another Manhattan Project-er. Upon his death, the super-famous physicist pool seemed small indeed. But Hawking's star was rising, and Murray Gell-Mann wasn't going anywhere. I'm likely forgetting someone (or several people), but since the late '80s, those two are the only two super-famous physicist names I have been able to recall. For some reason, physicists aren't rock stars any more*, like they were in the mid-20th century.

*Note that "any more" comprises two words. "Anymore" is a non-existent made-up word -- or if it exists, it exists only as an American aberration. Don't quote dictionaries to me; I don't care**. The dictionaries are wrong and I am right.

**By the way, "everyday" is indeed a word, but it's only an adjective, not a noun. Please observe a modicum of respect for our mother tongue.***

***Did you know that "tongue" is an artificial spelling? It was more or less intentionally changed from "tounge", probably to keep it from being rhymed with "lounge".

[Vort]

For the record, I'm something of a fan (or at least an admirer) of Michio Kaku, who is pretty much what Carl Sagan wanted to be and what Neil deGrasse Tyson will never approach. Perhaps Kaku has an ego every bit as immense as Tyson, but if so, he doesn't let it dominate Every Single Conversation He Ever Holds. That said, he's a physics populizer, not a Super-Physicist.

Who's left? Freeman Dyson, maybe, and there is no doubt he's super-duper-intelligent and has made important and relevant contributions to the field. But I don't associate him with some Monster Breakthrough; his most famous association is with science fiction concepts like the Dyson sphere. And he is approximately 177 years old.

Steven Weinberg certainly fits the mold. But has anyone outside a physics graduate seminar ever heard of him? And he's 85.

There's the string theory guy, Edward Witten -- but he's only a super-duper-star if you're a string theory fanatic. Like the (Bowdlerized) joke goes: A string theorist is kissing his secretary when his wife walks in. As she storms away, the string theorist calls after her, "Wait! I can explain everything!" Yes, indeed he can, but how convincing are his explanations?

Peter Higgs of Higgs boson fame is still around. His "Higgs Mechanism" is a small but important part of particle physics' Standard Model. Which is pretty darned important -- but really, compare the Higgs mechanism with quantum chromodynamics or gravitational singularities, and his work (brilliant and important though it may be) starts looking less like earthshaking breakthroughs and more like elaborations on other people's earthshaking breakthroughs.

Alan Guth, who developed the idea of cosmic inflation, might yet be the Super-Physicist. Only so far, his theory is just that, without any solid substantiation.

There are still lots of smart people in physics doing amazing work. But the cult of personality surrounding superstar physicists seems to be ebbing. Maybe it's all for the better; I know I get pretty tired of people parading Einstein's philosophies around like they're something special just because Einstein believed them.

[pam]

My first thought when hearing of his death was, "I guess he knows there is a God now."

[NeuroTypical]

Well Vort, with the personality landscape being what it is, looks like you are needed to step up and assume the mantle.  I expect to hear some poor cnn technology reporter fumbling through trying to pronounce stuff out of your paper soon.  And please back it up with a free eBook "Doeeyedanium Particles for Dummies" to help us poor smaller-brained folk.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, pam said:

My first thought when hearing of his death was, "I guess he knows there is a God now."

My first thought was "We are going to see a ton of people claim to love him when two days ago they didn't know what science he was an expert in."  

[Jedi_Nephite]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

There's the string theory guy, Edward Witten --

 

I thought that was Sam Beckett.

[lostinwater]

He had a very hard life.  i guess to an extent we all create/adopt beliefs to explain the various versions of hell that happen to us.  His particular version was pretty bad.  i hope he was pleasantly surprised - i tend to think he will be.   i wonder sometimes what kind of tradeoffs God is willing to make - in terms of our flaws - for what we add to the world.  Maybe Hawking never would have discovered what he did without ALS/atheistic beliefs.

The movie 'Theory of Everything' is definitely interesting.  Lots of things that one might disagree with, but i suppose that is true for all of us - and famous people just just have a harder time covering up their dirty laundry.  You watch that kind of movie, or read a biography on Einstein or others like him, and realize they were people who struggled just like the rest of us.  Einstein fathered an illegitimate child, tried to cover it up, and struggled (probably mostly not succeeding) to be active in her life until he died.  

[askandanswer]

I think these guys are pretty good - not in the same league as Hawking (probably no one is) - who I expect is now currently revising some of his ideas - but they share some characteristics in common with Hawking: excellent communicators about physics, do a lot of work in the field of astronomy and have made significant contributions to the field:

Paul Davies, formerly of the University of Adelaide, in South Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

Brian Cox, who paid a visit to my city, and several other places in Australia, last August https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)

Brian Schmidt, currently serving as the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, winner of the Nobel Prize I think in the mid 90's for discovering that the rate of expansion of the university is increasing

 

[Sally_Sermont]

 

On 3/15/2018 at 2:08 PM, pam said:

My first thought when hearing of his death was, "I guess he knows there is a God now."

Although we believe that there is a God, do you not think is is disrespectful to make such a statement about someone who has just died? I think it is disparaging to the memory of Stephen Hawking, who did not believe in an afterlife, to make posthumous statements about what he may be experiencing, especially given that he cannot answer to those statements. If we have respect for someone who has died, we should imagine them as they would like to be imagined--based on what we know about how they lived on this earth, not based on our own beliefs.

[NeuroTypical]

I don't think it's disrespectful.  Or disparaging.  

Plenty of stuff to be offended about in the universe, but Christians expressing happiness that good things are happening to someone?  I pass.

Edited March 16, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

Well, at least we have Tony Stark and Reed Richards to look up to.

[Just_A_Guy]

55 minutes ago, Sally_Sermont said:

Although we believe that there is a God, do you not think is is disrespectful to make such a statement about someone who has just died? I think it is disparaging to the memory of Stephen Hawking, who did not believe in an afterlife, to make posthumous statements about what he may be experiencing, especially given that he cannot answer to those statements. If we have respect for someone who has died, we should imagine them as they would like to be imagined--based on what we know about how they lived on this earth, not based on our own beliefs.

If Hawking was right, what does he care now for how much respect he does or doesn’t get?  What does he care how we honor his memory?  “Respect for the dead” in our modern culture is merely inertia from the very theist idea that humanity was designated by a Creator to be fundamentally distinct from the rest of creation—otherwise Hawking’s “memory” and “wishes” are of no more import than those of the dead skunk I saw on the side of the road during my morning commute.  Someone may, of course, find him worth honoring in a particular way; but that could only be based on a wholly subjective individual judgment, and a person has no right to chastise someone else for failing to abide by some nonexistent objective standard.

The irony to all this is that when some goon shoots up a school, we’re now supposed to accept that it’s never “too soon” to utilize those deaths in the service of a pet political agenda.  But heaven forbid we should suggest—whether now or in a hundred years—that a dead atheist might be experiencing a paradigm shift!  Why, that’s just disrespectful!

Edited March 16, 2018 by Just_A_Guy