SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
8 shocking things we learned from Stephen Hawking's book
The book covers major questions about the nature and origin of the universe.
Thu, Nov 04 2010 at 11:03 AM
Related Topics:
Photo: Robert Gendler/NASA
From the idea that our universe is one among many, to the revelation that mathematician Pythagoras didn't actually invent the Pythagorean theorem, here are eight shocking things we learned from reading physicist Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," written with fellow physicist Leonard Mlodinow of Caltech.
The book, covering major questions about the nature and origin of the universe, was released Sept. 7 by its publisher, Bantam.
1. The past is possibility
According to Hawking and Mlodinow, one consequence of the theory of quantum mechanics is that events in the past that were not directly observed did not happen in a definite way. Instead they happened in all possible ways. This is related to the probabilistic nature of matter and energy revealed by quantum mechanics: Unless forced to choose a particular state by direct interference from an outside observation, things will hover in a state of uncertainty.
According to Hawking and Mlodinow, one consequence of the theory of quantum mechanics is that events in the past that were not directly observed did not happen in a definite way. Instead they happened in all possible ways. This is related to the probabilistic nature of matter and energy revealed by quantum mechanics: Unless forced to choose a particular state by direct interference from an outside observation, things will hover in a state of uncertainty.
For example, if all we know is that a particle traveled from point A to point B, then it is not true that the particle took a definite path and we just don't know what it is. Rather, that particle simultaneously took every possible path connecting the two points.
Yeah, we're still trying to wrap our brains around this.
The authors sum up: "No matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities."
2. The power of light
This fun fact: A 1-watt night-light emits a billion billion photons each second.
Photons are the little packets that light comes in. Confusingly, they, like all particles, behave as both a particle and a wave.
3. Theory of everything
If there is any "theory of everything" that can describe the whole universe, it is M theory, according to Hawking and Mlodinow. This model is a version of string theory, which posits that at the tiniest levels all particles are fundamentally little loops of string that vibrate at different frequencies. And, if true, all matter and energy would follow rules derived from the nature of these strings.
"M theory is the only model that has all the properties we think the final theory ought to have," the authors write.
One consequence of this theory is that our universe is not the only one – untold numbers of cousin universes exist with different physical laws and properties.
4. General relativity
If most people think of general relativity at all, they assume this high-minded idea of Einstein's applies only to super-large objects completely outside the realm of normal life, such as galaxies and black holes.
But actually, the warping of space-time does affect things we know and use, the authors point out.
"If general relativity were not taken into account in GPS satellite navigation systems, errors in global positions would accumulate at a rate of about ten kilometers each day," the book states. That's because general relativity describes how time flows slower the closer an object is to a large mass. Thus, depending on satellites' distances from Earth, their onboard clocks will run at slightly different speeds, which could offset position calculations unless this effect is taken into account."
5. Oppressed fish
A few years ago, the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved bowls. This law was meant to protect the poor fish from a distorted nature of reality, since bent light might show them an odd portrayal of their surroundings.
Hawking and Mlodinow bring up the incident to make the point that it is impossible to know the true nature of reality. We think we have an accurate picture of what's going on, but how would we know if we were metaphorically living in a giant fishbowl of our own, since we would never be able to see outside our own point of view to compare?
6. Pythagoras stole the credit
In passing, the authors casually assert that the famous Greek mathematician Pythagoras did not actually discover the Pythagorean theorem.
A little digging suggests the formula (a2 + b2 = c2, which describes the relationship between the three sides of a right triangle) was actually known earlier. The Babylonians, for example, seem to have documented the basic idea in ancient mathematical tablets before Pythagoras came on the scene in 570 B.C.
7. Quarks are never lonely
Quarks, the adorably named building blocks of protons and neutrons, come only in groups, never alone. Apparently, the force that binds quarks together increases with distance, so the farther one tries to pry a lone quark away, the harder it will pull back. Therefore, free quarks never exist in nature.
Protons and neutrons are both made of three quarks. (Protons contain two "up"-flavored quarks and one "down," while neutrons have two downs and one up.)
8. The universe is its own creator
One of the most talked-about assertions in the whole book is that we don't need the idea of God to explain what sparked the creation of the universe.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going," Hawking and Mlodinow write.
Instead, the laws of science alone can explain why the universe began. Our modern understanding of time suggests that it is just another dimension, like space. Thus it doesn't have a beginning.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," they write. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
This article was reprinted with permission from LiveScience.
Related on LiveScience:
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- What causes tornadoes?
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- Sweden runs out of garbage, forced to import from Norway
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- 5 mind-bending facts about dreams
- A solar-powered plug that sticks to windows and out from the crowd
- 20 ways to reuse coffee grounds, tea leaves
- Stone Age people may have battled against a zombie apocalypse
- 30 things you should never compost or recycle
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
Even if I didn't believe in God, "the universe just began on its own cause thats the way it works" isn't a very satisfying explanation for me.
Then create your Gods to be satisfied with something you can't understand, but please don't force your God on me
You know what is way less satisfying? That an intelligent being capable of creating a universe "just existed" and then created the universe. You see, by invoking god you create a much larger problem then the one you are attempting to solve. Its just a really lazy way of thinking.
yeah it seems counterintuitive and anticlimactic, but just because you cannot understand something does not mean it cannot exist.
So if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear, it both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound.
"Jake 06/21/2012 23:12 PM
So if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear, it both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound."
No, it makes a sound. Humans are not needed for the universe to exist.
It doesn't make a sound... it may make waves, but without a receptor, like your inner ear, to pick up those waves and label them as sounds, there is none. You, the receptor, are the one who makes the sound, if you were there.
Sound is waves moving through matter. It happens whether or not a human observes it.
Humans are not needed for the universe to exist.
No. It makes a sound.
according to the theory, it both makes a sound and doesn't but it also falls and doesn't fall and all other possiblities until definetly proved.
it's just another example of the Schrödinger's cat paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
They are saying that the universe is created out of nothing but that is no thing physical, it may well be the non-physical reality that they are not wanting to accept because it challenges their paradigm.
I don't know high level physics, but I'd be damned if I don't believe in God after all that had happened in my life.. It's a beautiful story..I don't need scientific explanation, I just know He exists
All these ideas have been posited and discussed at length in the Seth books by Jane Roberts. Scientific ideas are beginning to catch up with the true nature of existence. We can see outside our immediate perception in sleep and meditation. And to begin to understand you have to leave time out of the picture. No time.
We are all living in the Matrix. This place isnt even real.
We are batteries for robots
#5 puts #8 into question
If we want to logically find out how the universe came to be, we must start with the simplest explanation and go through the process of trial and error. It is ridiculous to start with a theory as complex and ancient as mystical beliefs that become increasingly less plausible by the hour.
"we don't need the idea of God to explain what sparked the creation of the universe. "Instead, the laws of science alone can explain why the universe began." NOPE only how it began...The very fact that there are scientific laws points out the fact that there is a LAW-GIVER!!! GOD, MAYBE?
GOD DEFINITELY!!!!
Sigh...
Just as a scientific "theory" is almost the opposite of the casual use of "theory", the scientific use of "law" is nothing like the casual use of "law".
A scientific law is nothing more than a very careful description of the way that a certain part of the universe behaves. That is all.
There is no need for a "law-giver". Scientific laws can be as simple as "When I hold up a rock and let go of it...it falls". That is a very simple description of observed reality.
Gods are not needed.
A belief in something outside yourself is characteristic of most societies. If we are gifted with imagination, then it is something we can and probably should use. In fact, the use of imagination is what gives fizz to life. The problem is people start wanting to control this idea, and so control people.
Makes sense to me. Easier to understand than to think everything is from trial and error and chance.
Common sense is almost always wrong when describing the intricacies of the universe, that’s why ancient peoples with no science but only common sense where so often wrong. See flat earth and the sun orbiting the earth. Also what is easier to comprehend has no bearing on what’s right so it really doesn't matter what makes sense to you or what is easier.
Pages