Very true, I think the author of the piece has problems understanding humour. Professor Hawking's audience clearly understood the remark for what it was, and the author is insulting their intelligence.
@@Declan-pg8cg Then why do you say they have a problem understanding humour? They recognised an arrogant remark, framed as a joke, and called it how they see it.
The decisions of the Nobel Prize Committee have had a history of political and other biases. The only reason they are respected is because of their self-promotion and the money, like the Oscars. The work of scientists is impossible to judge objectively. To make it a beauty contest where one group wins each year in several categories seems silly.
@@pattheplanter Absolute proof that Mr. Frank DiMeglio is the greatest scientist/physicist who has ever lived: Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual (IN BALANCE). So, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Therefore, invisible AND visible SPACE in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium AND balance IS the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent WITH/AS what is fundamentally balanced GRAVITATIONAL/ELECTROMAGNETIC force/energy; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or balanced with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/energy; as this balances AND unifies ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This explains F=ma AND E=mc2, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity.) ACCORDINGLY, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! A PHOTON may be placed at the center of the Sun (as a point, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. So, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves that electromagnetism/energy is gravity. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Touch AND feeling BLEND, as GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND balanced; as gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND balanced IN AND OUT of SPACE AND TIME, as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This is entirely proven by the mathematical unification of Maxwell's equations AND Einstein's equations (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension). Indeed, this explains why Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is either expanding or contracting. Moreover, this is why Einstein's equations allow for (or predict) "black holes". Balance and completeness go hand in hand. Einstein's equations are NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL. Notice the term c4. GREAT !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. I have provided top down, true, and overwhelming mathematical proof AS WELL that gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. So, It is now abundantly and quite clear that Einstein never nearly understood gravity AND physics/physical experience. (Obviously, E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma.) Sir Isaac Newton now ranks second. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. In fact, the ROTATION of the moon does MATCH it's REVOLUTION. ACCORDINGLY, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. SO, a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent WITH F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Therefore, GRAVITATIONAL force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. So, "mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent WITH what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=mc2 IS F=ma.) It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. By Frank DiMeglio
Even if wasn't joking, I don't think it's arrogant to acknowledge his contributions to physics. If he believed himself better than other physicists, then sure. But he also accepted the flaws with his theories and was logical about it. Humility is an admirable trait, but pride in a measured amount should be admirable as well.
@@orangestapler8729 Just reading "A Brief History of Time" (which I purchased years ago), watching videos by and about him, etc, over a period of many years (I am a fairly old guy). He "may" have been correct on a few things, but more like when a broken clock is correct twice a day. Listening to Sabine is the exact opposite of listening to Hawking IMO, like a veil is lifted over the gobbledygook of theoretical physics, and the BS gets exposed for what is.
@@mark9118 This is partly because of the fact that at Hawking's time people needed to hear some fringer opinions with intelligent confidence and same can be said about String Theory people or opinions like holographic principle. Attention was required and publicly known scientist were trying to grab that attention, inform about possibilities, broaden the view. Now, they have some attention on theoritical physics, ideas are floating, people started to understand the importance and began to get the concepts, had to chance to explore with the help of internet, partial freedom of knowledge and so forth. Dear Sabine (because I really like and respect her) and similar science communicators help on getting our feet on the ground. I would highly recommend to consider time and circumstances and not to compare apples with bananas.
He wasn’t arrogant. He had a tremendous sense of humor. Eric Idle once got him to pretend to run over Brian Cox in his wheelchair - a clear sign that he never took himself too seriously.
I was very critical of Philip Ball presentations on the Ri channel, and I find that he considers Hawking arrogant for stating the obvious beyond weird. :P If I was Sheldon, I would be exclaiming "Strike two!".
Stphen Hawking is among a remarkably small group of scientists whose names are recognised by a very large number of people. There are not too many Nobel Laureates in this group.
@@herbetrono4373 Einstein, Curie, Crick & Watson, and Pauling jump to my mind immediately, but probably those names are not recognized by a large number of people, even Einstein’s.
Yes but that's because Stephen Hawking is the most overrated scientist in history whereas most Nobel Laureates are underrated among the general public. Stephen Hawking was a great scientist and he may well have deserved to win the Noble prize for his singularity theorems. Penrose and Hawking discovered a mathematical fact about the Einstein equations, which in turn had the consequence of making the idea of black holes more plausible among other scientists. It could be argued that once there was enough evidence for the existence of black holes, then those who made the most convincing argument for their existence should have won a Noble prize. Nonetheless, Stephen Hawking would not make it on a list of the top ten scientists of the past century. His popularity is due much more to his disease and his ability to sell books rather than his calibre as a scientist.
I doubt he wants to be remembered for that. He got irritated at people who tried to clumsily ‘help’ him. He used his condition mostly to defend the NHS and thus advocate for people with disabilities. It would be a disservice to his work and his character to give weight to his condition. He didn’t like pity parties.
@@elmersbalm5219 I understand where you're coming from, but ultimately I think you're missing Tuna Free Dolphin Meat's point. And I should say, only on RUclips can you [at least reasonably] expect to have a serious, interesting, intellectual and philosophical discussion with someone presenting themselves to the world as "Tuna Free Dolphin Meat". But what we're talking about here isn't _pity,_ or anything close to it. What we're talking about is the effect he had (and will continue to have) on other people. There are a few different things I could say in response to your point, but I want to hone in on just one. And that is, I strongly believe that you're doing, ironically, exactly what (in my opinion, and it's just that) you misinterpreted others who wrote or engaged with this particular comment as doing, but not for a lack of good intentions, I sincerely believe you had the best of intentions. How Hawking felt about his condition from start to finish, and how he felt he was being perceived by, and _wanted to_ be perceived by others throughout his life in regards to the condition, was his battle to have, and his alone. The reality was, as is hidden right there within your answer, his progressive disabilities were never a burden on anyone else; people weren't ever seeing him as any less of a person, or any less of an intellect. It wasn't a bother for people, or a definition of his character to them, they wanted to do whatever they could to *lift him up,* because _people cared, man._ The best of humanity is how we care for, and build one another up. There was never an ounce of pity going around, and there certainly isn't today for the man in our memories. There's one distinction I ultimately think needs to be made, and it regards how millions of people then and now knew Stephen Hawking, and will remember Stephen Hawking. His physical condition never defined his character. It really didn't. But before long, it had damn well *demonstrated* his character. Specifically, it was how he responded, practically immediately to his diagnosis (and a god awful prognosis at that time), that demonstrated to the world _who Stephen Hawking REALLY was._ He could have succumbed to his worsening condition and passed away very shortly after that diagnosis, and nothing about how we will remember him would've changed. It was the displaying of his character in the face of the worst possible news a human being could get (which would've frankly completely ruined most people who got the same news, and to that point, it might very well have been why Stephen Hawking _didn't_ meet the short fate that appeared in the cards for him) that told people exactly the kind of person he was, and continues to inspire them to this day. The fact that he was THEN able to go on, REALLY get into his work, learn and absorb new concepts, and just _contribute to science_ for decades to come, is genuinely one of those miracles of life that we just get to be thankful for after the fact. And at the end of the day, or even the beginning of the day, who cares whether he got a Nobel Prize? Hawking will be remembered among all of humanity for who he was, and what he did. He might've felt like that had something to do with the fact that he developed that condition, or that people were only going to remember him out of pity, but he would've been dead wrong about it from the very beginning, and I hope he overcame feelings like that. That's what I meant when I said that was his battle alone to fight, because nobody else ever saw it that way.
@@hankrearden20 whenever I hear him speak or host an event, it becomes instantly clear he's gotten to where he is through politics and networking (obviously he's also very smart, just not brilliant).
He was a person. The public likes personalities and he communicated his work in a funny way. He played himself on shows and did funny skits and bits. I think this drew in people into physics for sure
Stephen Hawking was just another of the rich, powerful, literary that enjoyed the fruits on the island of Jeffrey Epstein. So I am going with, HELL NO!
I loved Prof H's line in The Big Bang Theory, when Sheldon said "But Professor you did not get a Nobel Prize". The Professor said "Ah, but I was on the Simpsons.
@@ThomasJr Yes, that's true but I like that Sabine has less BS than the majority of theoretical physicists so I value her courageousness in bucking the myopic and often mythical bureaucratic self perpetuating theoretical community of physicists to some extent.
@@uldissprogis5138 Yes, but again, she's fallible too, she makes mistakes. Even more when she goes against a team, because a lot of heads think exponentially better than one. However even when she chooses to go against established ideas, it's very useful for us to learn because it exposes her thought process, and it's usually very good. In the case of her criticism of the GW detector for example, she pointed out some of the problems with their experiment. A strong argument was the fact they had discarded 8 alerts out of 41. However, she perhaps forgot that glitches usually only occur in one of the detectors, not in both at the same time, which is possible but more unlikely, unless it's a GW. Perhaps she also failed to acknowledge the neutron star merger that was accompanied by visible light observation, though I am not sure. Time will tell if she was right.
@@ThomasJr Of course, human perfection is not possible and everyone makes some mistakes in an entire lifetime. It is really excellence that we are taking about and not human perfection where we all fall short of the mark or standard.
Hawking's opinion on the England soccer team and World Cup penalty shootouts: 'As we say in science, England couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo'. Great sense of humour.
I met Dennis Sciama, who was Hawking's supervisor, when I studied in Trieste. I remember him as a nice, English gentleman with a lot of humour. Seems to me that many English scientists are a bit eccentric, with great personalities. That of course includes Hawking.
Dear Sabine, just discovered your channel by accident! Where have I been, right? Amazing presentation, great sense of fashion, funny and humores as hell, "smart" is an understatement, and love your accent. So glad to know they're humans like you! Congrats!
@@davidbrisbane7206 Exactly right. The more outlandish, unprovable and speculative the proposed theory, the more likely a physicist is to receive lucrative grants and be lavished with attention.
@@chuckschillingvideos If anything, String theory might advance mathematics, but if it called itself mathematical research, it would not get nearly as much funding as it currenly gets.
@@davidbrisbane7206 Funding a theoretical physicist is a matter of a salary and a budget for paper and pencils. Times three or four and add a few chalkboards and a chalk budget and you have a “department”. They don’t need a ton of expensive equipment. You’re barking up the wrong tree if you’re looking for a good way to save money. Of course, the same goes for experimentalists on a national level.
@@Markle2k Lots of string theorists who should be applying for jobs in the mathematics department 🤣😂🤣😂. The reason they are a waste of time is that theoretical physics attract lots of first class minds into a field that is going nowhere. I.e. a loss of human potential.
AMLS is one horrible disease & Hawking handled it well. Everyone with half a brain knows that he was kidding when he made that remark. His genius will always be remembered & speaks for itself, no Nobel Prize needed! Thanks for this video Sabine. 👍👍
@illuminOz I know all about the disease. So, what's your point? I think it best that you yourself apply some "critical thinking" rather made snide remarks to other commenters.
Keep in mind that the great Einstein himself won a Nobel not for his groundbreaking work on Special and General relativity but for the photoelectric effect. I don't really care for awards, I just want to understand.
feynstein 100. - Ever since AVITAR lost out in 2010 Best Picture to a mediocre film because of Hollywood politics I quit watching that circus as I did years earlier in the Miss America Contest. - Never gave much thought to Nobel prize since none was granted for Relativity. - Its funny but I read some where not too long ago that Einstein's explanation for the cause of Brownain motion was recently discredited in Lab tests. So go figure.
Einstein did not receive a Nobel price for the theory of general relativity. He received one for his work on the photoelectric effect but surely if the Nobel committee gives general relativity, which must be one of the crowning achievements of physics, a pass, it not recognising other work has little meaning.
It was much to early too give a Nobel for GR at the time Einstein received his as the theory was only verified observationally in a couple of limited contexts (ie precession of Mercury's orbit and the solar eclipse data which was still a bit sketchy).
Stephen Hawking was a great scientist and he may well have deserved to win the Noble prize for his singularity theorems. Penrose and Hawking discovered a mathematical fact about the Einstein equations, which in turn had the consequence of making the idea of black holes more plausible among other scientists. It could be argued that once there was enough evidence for the existence of black holes, then those who made the most convincing argument for their existence should have won a Noble prize. Nonetheless, Stephen Hawking would not make it on a list of the top ten scientists of the past century. His popularity is due much more to his disease and his ability to sell books rather than his calibre as a scientist, so he is more deserving of an award for the most overrated scientist in history than the Nobel prize. If the existence of Hawking radiation due to black holes is ever experimentally confirmed then at that point he would certainly be deserving of both these awards.
@@zetacrucis681 That’s not why. They didn’t give it to him because they were anti Semitic. These are the people that tried to give hitler the Nobel peace prize.
I find it very plausible that Hawking actually won the nobel price during his lifetime. He was an important and well respected member of the science community, and made groundbreaking work despite his physical condition. It makes sense that he won the price. Now to make this plausible, I only need few extra dimensions here and here and here....
'Or maybe the Nobel Prize committee just waited for Hawking to die, so they would not have to think about just how to disentangle Hawking's work from Penrose's work? We'll never know.' [Sabine shrugs] Woah, Sabine spits Hell Fire until your monitor cracks, your glasses break, and your clothes burn, while you scream 'mooore'
Fantastic video, Sabine. I come away with just a little more cosmological understanding (and more string theory skepticism) with every one of your explanations. Thank you.
For every famous scientist there are at hundreds of scientists at least as smart that are not famous at all. Hawkings contribution to science I cannot judge, he certainly seems to be cited a lot. Hawkings contribution to the public is making scientific discourse seem fun, with bets and all, and showing us that the mind can overcome immense limitations of our bodies. I hope he will be remembered for generations.
every generation has good scientists who do a lot to popularize science. there's quite a lot now, as it's much easier to get mass exposure. sagan did a lot to popularize science, and is responsible for the bulk of our knowledge of mars before we actually put landers on the surface. einstein, who's look, accent, and mannerisms are ingrained on the entire world's popular culture as the epitome of "genius." you could write an entire novel of single sentences listing but a name and the mark the person left, and have enough left over for a sequel. hawking is immortal. he'll be remembered with honor so long as records persist. this is possibly the greatest achievement a single human could ever hope to accomplish.
The rules and conventions of the Nobel foundation apply to everyone equally. Nobel prizes require experimental evidence and so far there is none for Hawking radiation. For the same reason there haven't been any Nobel prizes given for String theory. It wouldn't be right to hand out prizes for purely theoretical achievements, as this would also create a wrong incentive to come up with speculative theories just to angle for a prize.
I remember reading the Philip Ball's piece. Maybe he was too harsh with Hawking, but admiteddly, there was a lot of selfpromotion in their public acts, and their papers were more philosophical than Physics in the end. Respect the Nobel Prize, well, other scientists get peeved for not getting it("Losing the Nobel Prize"). Hawking at least got the Principe de Asturias from Spain as consolation prize!
If not a Nobel Prize in physics, a Nobel Prize of owning up and not letting life circumstances destroy you. He fought his disease head on, fought it with tooth and nail, and accomplished more in that wheel chair than most people ever do in their lives... he did it with wit, humor, and with a sense of wonderment that he captivated audiences into wanting to learn more about theoretical physics. A Brief History In Time changed my life. Prior to reading it I though the Big Bang, quantum theory, and a plethora of other sciences were ridiculous notions as a teenager. After reading it... it made so much sense I pursued a career in science.
Hawking did need a short course in critical philosophy though. Did you read his 2010 or 11 book The Grand Design? He started by asking a few philosophical questions like "Why are we here?" and "Why is there something instead of nothing?" his answer was uncomprehending of what science can do. He stated that these questions once were answered by philosophy, but philosophy hasn't kept up with physics and was dead. Philosophy is dead? He apparently did not know that was a philosophical and a self stultifying assertion, it counters itself, it is like saying I'm absolutely certain that there are no absolutes. At the end of the book he summarized what he was writing about by by stating, "Because there is a Law of Gravity the Universe can and will create itself." It contains 3 contradictions and is impossible. Firstly Gravity is not nothing, or not anything it is something. 2nd contradiction is assigning causal agency to the Law of Gravity, a description of gravity is just that a concept with no physical attribute and cannot do anything. The final contradiction is the Universe creating itself, means it would have to BE before it WAS. I was really disappointed with this book by Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (a theoretical physicist) and I have no idea who wrote what, but if you're going to engage in philosophy at least have a cursory knowledge of it. It had a lot of good things in it, but was heavy into M Theory (string theory) which I think has some credence to it, but it is missing something and I am a biologist/engineer so I won't go deep into it. I have read A Brief History Of Time and enjoyed it for the most part, I thought some of his concepts a bit high for your average reader, but it has been 20 years since I last read it. Roger Penrose wrote a review of The Grand Design and he wasn't as sure about M Theory as Hawking was. Link to his review. www.ft.com/content/bdf3ae28-b6e9-11df-b3dd-00144feabdc0
I miss Hawking, even though I don't understand much about physics - I imagine a lot of people miss him too, which is the best prize. Sabine is one of the few who has ever enabled me to at least scratch the surface on this stuff, which is kind of amazing too - and a cool feeling.
You are so cool, Sabine! Your talk about the merits of Hawking’s work is fascinating, clear, and witty. If I ever met you in person I’d be enthralled by your conversation; fortunately for you, having your posts saves you from having to endure such a one sided conversation with my only contribution being a repeated exclamation of “Wow! That’s so amazing!!!” 😆
His name and ideas will survive long after the names of these humorless scientists names that have been given a prize have long been forgotten forgotten....
I visited Cambridge once, one day while traveling to the UK. I was walking along a sidewalk and who goes rolling by the other way right past me but Stephen Hawking! What struck me was his face was bigger than I imagined. Couldn’t believe it.
I think your conclusion is a very reasonable and admirable one. The best person to hand out awards to is an *underrated* scientists. I feel that simply being smaller and less well known makes you *inherently* more deserving of anything that elevates your status - because status (and wealth) is non-linear. (This is why I'm subscribed to your patreon - you deserve the exposure and money far more than a channel that already has millions of subscribers!)
Chien-Shiung Wu, is one of those people who has certainly been "cheated" out of a Nobel Prize. It is very sad that they do not give a Nobel Prize to people who died, because she really deserves one.
Rosalind Franklin yes, Waston's account of her in his book showed her frustration. She is inextricably linked to the discovery of DNA structure and deserves the Nobel maybe more than Watson.
Thank you for the clear explanations, Sabine. I think that Steven should also be remembered for his example for everyone of us. Despite what he went through, he kept working and living.
I once attended a public lecture by Hawking, and he certainly had a great sense of humor about himself. At that lecture, he didn't actually mention the Nobel. Maybe because it was attended by the general public, and not just other physicists, the accomplishment he wanted to promote was his Star Trek cameo. It turns out, he's the only person (so far) who has ever appeared on Star Trek as himself.
Definitely a superstar for science, while he didn't necessarily need it, it's one of those things you would just assume he already had if you didn't know.
Bottom-up Thought Experiment... Constraints: As few base forces and particles as possible to form a coherent, integrated 4D multi/universe model -- Subspace Field: Positive cells (fuzz ball, quanta, +1) held close together by negative gas. Matter-energy field conserves momentum Matter-Energy: Matter is focused energy.. Energy is mobile matter.. Momentum conserves velocity.. Force changes velocity and/or direction Positron/Up Quark/Graviton (p+): Free, mobile out of place cell warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres at C + 6 DC spin loops Electron/Down Quark (e-): Hole left behind warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres of opposite phase at C + 6 DC spin loops Noton/Dark Matter (n+-): Exactly opposite phase close p+ and e- annihilate (ie. entangled pair created together (e_p) ), else a noton forms Nucleons: Proton: P=pep.. Neutron: N=P_e=pep_e.. Beta-: N-e>>P+e.. Beta+: P+e_p>>N+p.. Alpha: A=PNPN=PeP_PeP=(pep_e_pep)_(pep_e_pep) Heavier Fermions: Larger holes and chunks of subspace field rapidly disintegrate to p+s, e-s, n+-s and/or annihilate to regular = empty field Electrostatic Force: Recoiling blip spheres propagate. Opposite direction + and - blips form a vibrating AC bond, same sign = phase repel Instant-Off Long Force: AC (longitudinally blipping) subspace 'flux tube' as thin as 1 cell wide. Each cell and its -ve gas move in contrary motion Spin: e-s and p+s pull in the 12 surrounding cells, or -ve gas that pulls cells, that then bounce out, stabilising as a torus of 6 in/out (N/S) DC loops Strong Force: Spin loops merge forming flowing DC circuits between e-s and p+s, and/or nucleus' steep gravitational -ve gas density rise gradient Mass: Sum of the lengths of all strong force bonds + near electric field. Notons have compact strong force bonds, Protons' are long as 2 p+s repel Magnetism: Some spin-aligned atoms' p+s and e-s' strong bonds join in a shorter straight path. Energy conservation results in external force circuits Left Hand Rule: Magnetic circuit cells squeeze between field cells causing short range, lateral, perpendicular electrostatic blips Weak Force: Geometric structural charge balance instability. Possibly noton hits statistically tipping the balance Photon: Charged particles moving up and down (transmitter, atomic electron) form a radiating transverse wave blip pattern Double Slit: Laser light / particle centre's preceding, extended subspace distortion diffracts, interferes, forming wave guides observation destroys Dark Gravity: p+ traps 1 quantum of -ve gas so void cell size/gap grows (and matter's shrinks?) forming a macro -ve gas density gradient Bang Expansion: Loss of -ve gas to the multiverse?.. Bang ejector velocity petered out, magnified in time by outward momentum conservation Gravity Wave: Longitudinal wave where the entire field in a large region is effected in unison for a duration Big Ping: A dark crystal universe collisions' intense gravity wave forms e- & p+ pairs inwardly at C that annihilate or form notons, Protons, Neutrons Big Bang: Ping wave collides centrally? Field blast forms matter + a large hole (then Big/Dark Refill)? Fast -ve gas loss? Noton crystal exploded? Black Hole: Absorbs matter and energy. Noton crystal (with a core returning to empty field)? Large hole in the field traps anything entering? Frame Dragging: Entire sphere of subspace cells rotating around a point in unison Time: Cell to cell blips take a constant time. Gravity shrinks cells so light slows but locally measures C as circuits lengthen in space & time, adding mass -- This is not an aether theory, it's a matter-energy field, a quantised, relativisitic subspace medium. Forces and matter emerge from and are part of the field -- Makes more sense than making up bosons to carry force and mass, quarks that don't solve the anti-matter and dark matter problem, (anti) neutrinos, loads of fundamental fields, extra spatial and temporal dimensions etc, that ultimately don't tie relativity and quantum mechanics together properly or well... They should at least be honest and call their 'spatial dimensions' geometric/field dimensions or something.. Magic Space is not my cup of tea.
That was typical of him. Basing a thesis on something from mathematics. It's like promoting String theory, mathematics. He was great for science in my opinion for all sorts of reasons, a great scientist, not so sure.
He won a higher price than a Nobel. There is hundred of Nobel Prices we don't know his name ... now ask anybody: who Stephen Hawking was?, that's the real Price
Hawking is a legend. Observing a probability may not warrant a Nobel prize necessarily. He argued against the tipler cylinder working with the theory of general relativity which is true. Looking past general relativity Tipler cylinder is congruent with an observer, just as his ideas would not exist without one.
Completely agree with you. Had Hawking lived, I think he definitely would have shared the Prize with Penrose. I could never understand why it even took so long for singularity theorems to be considered for a Nobel Prize.
Nobel Prizes are not given for "theorems". Those theorems belong to mathematical physics, which is a part of mathematics really, not the physics itself (same like the "string theory" now). If Hawking deserves a Nobel Prize, it is only for the same thing he did together with Roger Penrose: "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity". The existence of black holes themselves was never confirmed actually, but the astronomical objects looking very similar to black holes were found indeed. And such a certainty has appeared only quite recently, just a few years ago. The Nobel Prize that Penrose received was shared by two other people: Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez "for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the centre of our galaxy". Stephen Hawking would be apparently the fourth contender/laureat here. Unfortunately, he died two years earlier. Concerning his arguably the most important (and independent) work about the black hole radiation, it still remains highly speculative with little chance to be proved experimentally in any observable future.
The one I hear the most is Obama, I haven’t fully looked into it but I’ve seen people say he got his based on promises of things he would do as president, which he ultimately didn’t fulfill. The massive civilian body count of his drone strikes in the Middle East kind of makes me agree a “peace” prize might not be something he’s deserving of.
@@Sanakudou The Peace Prize is a political tool given out by a political body, a committee nominated by the Norwegian parliament. The body count of conventional airstrikes would be higher.
Stephen Hawking was a great scientist and he may well have deserved to win the Noble prize for his singularity theorems. Penrose and Hawking discovered a mathematical fact about the Einstein equations, which in turn had the consequence of making the idea of black holes more plausible among other scientists. It could be argued that once there was enough evidence for the existence of black holes, then those who made the most convincing argument for their existence should have won a Noble prize. Nonetheless, Stephen Hawking would not make it on a list of the top ten scientists of the past century. His popularity is due much more to his disease and his ability to sell books rather than his calibre as a scientist, so he is more deserving of an award for the most overrated scientist in history than the Nobel prize.
Nobel Prize is not the only parameter to recognize and appreciate a man's intellect and wisdom. The true intellectual is independent of awards and recognition. It's about pure exploration of both mind and the Universe.
Thanks, your content is always engaging and well presented That said, I miss your content challenging/questioning/exploring the foundation of physics and the related series of quantuum mechanics. Also hoped for a series on how foundations of detectors how/why they work, how the data is collected, stored and analyzed -- sort of a sibling of the theoretical measurement problem.
He should've been awarded it posthumously. His mind/theories changed physics. I know everyone will remember him, but I think science's greatest honor should acknowledge this for the sake of history.
I sometimes think it’s better to have a prize/medal named after you like J Bell Burnell or Fred Hoyle both deserving non recipients. Or even an exclusive club as with G Marks.
Joking or not, wanting and getting recognition for remarkable work is not something to be ashamed of. Regular people want recognition even for doing house chores. And to be fair, while not worth a Nobel prize, one can really appreciate a tidy place.
Sabine, you make me feel sane. I admit to being befuddled by all the deep math, but I can understand (most) of your lectures. Thanks. You keep me engaged.
The fact that "Hawking Radiation" is named after Stephen Hawking is a MUCH bigger honor than receiving a Nobel Prize. He was an amazing honorable person for numerous reasons and he will never be forgotten.
I would for fun have liked to have asked Stephen Hawking at a lecture - "Say a hypothetical mental fist fight develops between yourself ( Stephen Hawking ) and Jacob Bronowski, who would win?" Laughs and the occasional cough in the audience. He'd then say - "That is a very silly question!" Claps and more laughs and occasional coughs "Obviously ( he may go on to say ) Bronowski would lay me in one theory ( rapturous applause, laughs, and occasional coughs ), I greatly admired Jacob Bronowski, and I loved his series 'The Ascent of Man'. He had a wonderful gift of communication!" Generous applause, and occasional coughs.
The career in particle physics. If if if, maybe maybe maybe, (insert more grant money here) if if if, maybe maybe maybe, perhaps could be, possibility, speculation, (insert more grant money here) we've got to keep our jobs, must publish something, Really don't have any idea, (insert more grant money here).
More thoughts from the boundary: Witten got a Fields Medal. I don't know if Penrose has one for his maths of the the tribar; or his work on tiling [ aperiodic and self-similar ] and sheaf bundles on the manifold in cohomology and non-orientable spaces...which takes us into the 2-torus, the Mobius strip and HyperKlein bottle homology. In fact in-out geometry is fundamental in cell division [ after 4 divisions, I think. ] I resist the temptatation to come up with a GUT. I just look at biology...and see Santelli's Iso-Euclidian geometry in shells; honeycomb structure in nature, like the Giant's Causeway; and in the spongy mesophyll, organized according to simple allometric scaling rules at the cellular level, with an emergent topological motif of an irregular honeycomb that obeys Euler’s Law of space filling at the tissue level and minimizes cellular investment... THE PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ACTION, also called more correctly the STATIONARY action principle. Draw your own dots.
First of all, just get on with studying what you are interested in. Having your name on an equation, a theorem, an effect, some inequalities, some radiation or whatever else is appropriate is the most prestigious thing that can be achieved. There's quite a few of these prizes that can be won nowadays, and it's a bit of a lottery. In Britain we also have knighthoods and peerages as well as FRS, OM and KG. It can help not to die too young. James Clerk Maxwell won few of these prizes and is buried in an obscure churchyard in Parton on Loch Ken. I don't think he would be too bothered. I can quickly think of three things he is noted for, some equations, a distribution and some relations.
He died at the age of 48, and didn't even get a knighthood. There are a few Maxwell buildings in Britain and a telescope in Hawaii. I have never seen him on a British postage stamp or a banknote (Scotland has three banks which issue their own notes). I missed off a demon and a colour wheel.
It's official now, Brian Greene It's a meme!!lol And anticipating the rants about people that didn' get the Nobel, I will mention Vera Rubin(et al.), who discovered the galaxies don't follow our gravity laws!
Nobel has become irrelevant. An American President was awarded the Nobel peace prize, yet said, "we have the force and will not hesitate to use it", yet Albert Einstein said, peace cannot be attained by force of any kind, only by understanding". Nothing Noble about the Nobel anymore, rather, is an appeasement to and for righteousness.
I suspect the Nobel prize is like many awards, particularly knighthoods, some thoroughly deserve it, some so so? Your final comment is perfectly apt. As for me, yes, Steven Hawking will be remembered far above many nobel laureates, and that is quite some legacy, and yes, I believe deservedly so.
He certainly earned a medal for being such a character being a scientist to the end despite all the difficulties. I find this very inspiring.
Very true, I think the author of the piece has problems understanding humour. Professor Hawking's audience clearly understood the remark for what it was, and the author is insulting their intelligence.
@@Declan-pg8cg You seem to be implying that humour completely negates the possibility of arrogance.
@@yt.personal.identification Well no, it doesn't, and I'm not.
@@Declan-pg8cg Then why do you say they have a problem understanding humour?
They recognised an arrogant remark, framed as a joke, and called it how they see it.
He made the greatest discovery in theoretical physics since Max Planck's time. Hawking's work is the only reason we understand quantum gravity today.
Best sentence: Hawking didn't need the Nobel Prize, he'll be remembered without it.
The decisions of the Nobel Prize Committee have had a history of political and other biases. The only reason they are respected is because of their self-promotion and the money, like the Oscars. The work of scientists is impossible to judge objectively. To make it a beauty contest where one group wins each year in several categories seems silly.
@@pattheplanter true
Doesn't change the fact he deserved to win
@@pattheplanter *obama* COUGH COUGH
@@pattheplanter Absolute proof that Mr. Frank DiMeglio is the greatest scientist/physicist who has ever lived:
Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual (IN BALANCE). So, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Therefore, invisible AND visible SPACE in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium AND balance IS the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent WITH/AS what is fundamentally balanced GRAVITATIONAL/ELECTROMAGNETIC force/energy; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or balanced with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/energy; as this balances AND unifies ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This explains F=ma AND E=mc2, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity.) ACCORDINGLY, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! A PHOTON may be placed at the center of the Sun (as a point, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. So, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves that electromagnetism/energy is gravity. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience.
BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Touch AND feeling BLEND, as GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND balanced; as gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND balanced IN AND OUT of SPACE AND TIME, as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This is entirely proven by the mathematical unification of Maxwell's equations AND Einstein's equations (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension). Indeed, this explains why Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is either expanding or contracting. Moreover, this is why Einstein's equations allow for (or predict) "black holes". Balance and completeness go hand in hand. Einstein's equations are NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL. Notice the term c4. GREAT !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. I have provided top down, true, and overwhelming mathematical proof AS WELL that gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. So, It is now abundantly and quite clear that Einstein never nearly understood gravity AND physics/physical experience. (Obviously, E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma.) Sir Isaac Newton now ranks second.
Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.
In fact, the ROTATION of the moon does MATCH it's REVOLUTION. ACCORDINGLY, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. SO, a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent WITH F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Therefore, GRAVITATIONAL force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. So, "mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent WITH what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=mc2 IS F=ma.) It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great.
By Frank DiMeglio
He wasn't arrogant, he had sense of humour.
Even if wasn't joking, I don't think it's arrogant to acknowledge his contributions to physics. If he believed himself better than other physicists, then sure. But he also accepted the flaws with his theories and was logical about it.
Humility is an admirable trait, but pride in a measured amount should be admirable as well.
Yah, that title "Black hole explosion?" is a solid RUclips clickbait. That shows that he had an excellent sense of humor.
yea...talk about overreaction, that was clearly a joke
both
exactly, try to express nuances with such a speech device! at least he didn't feel confined by it.
RIP - a real hero!
Some people just don't understand humour. He played himself on the Simpsons for goodness sake.
I total agree, Hawking have lots of humor.
And “The Big Bang Theory” and Star Trek TNG.
And Futurama.
And Homer called him Larry Flynt on that episode.
@@Retro_Rich He was in star trek? I've missed that one.
Whether or not you agree or disagree about hawking winning a Nobel prize, I feel like he was joking when he talked about deserving to win one.
I guess it's hard to make sarcasm with a robot voice
@@orangestapler8729 yeah
"I feel like he was joking when he talked about deserving to win one."
I personally don't think he was joking, but that's just my opinion.
@@orangestapler8729 Just reading "A Brief History of Time" (which I purchased years ago), watching videos by and about him, etc, over a period of many years (I am a fairly old guy). He "may" have been correct on a few things, but more like when a broken clock is correct twice a day. Listening to Sabine is the exact opposite of listening to Hawking IMO, like a veil is lifted over the gobbledygook of theoretical physics, and the BS gets exposed for what is.
@@mark9118 This is partly because of the fact that at Hawking's time people needed to hear some fringer opinions with intelligent confidence and same can be said about String Theory people or opinions like holographic principle. Attention was required and publicly known scientist were trying to grab that attention, inform about possibilities, broaden the view. Now, they have some attention on theoritical physics, ideas are floating, people started to understand the importance and began to get the concepts, had to chance to explore with the help of internet, partial freedom of knowledge and so forth. Dear Sabine (because I really like and respect her) and similar science communicators help on getting our feet on the ground. I would highly recommend to consider time and circumstances and not to compare apples with bananas.
He wasn’t arrogant. He had a tremendous sense of humor. Eric Idle once got him to pretend to run over Brian Cox in his wheelchair - a clear sign that he never took himself too seriously.
He was very arogant like every atheist.
@@obvioustruth - Following logic and reason to wherever they lead is bravery, not arrogance.
Also appeared in The Big Bang Theory
@@obvioustruth Who hurt you buddy?
@@obvioustruth Your daddy hurt you ?
Stephen Hawking had a sense of humor. The scientists complaining about him apparently didn't.
I was very critical of Philip Ball presentations on the Ri channel, and I find that he considers Hawking arrogant for stating the obvious beyond weird.
:P
If I was Sheldon, I would be exclaiming "Strike two!".
michael blacktree. -> Speaking of his humor;
- Wasn't he originally a standup comedian but gave it up because he couldn't ? (think about it)...
OOF!
exactly!
Stphen Hawking is among a remarkably small group of scientists whose names are recognised by a very large number of people. There are not too many Nobel Laureates in this group.
think of maxwell and tesla and you have it!!!
@@herbetrono4373 Einstein, Curie, Crick & Watson, and Pauling jump to my mind immediately, but probably those names are not recognized by a large number of people, even Einstein’s.
@@jpe1 Wat? Einstein and Curie both received a nobel prize and they are both known from the general public.
Yes but that's because Stephen Hawking is the most overrated scientist in history whereas most Nobel Laureates are underrated among the general public. Stephen Hawking was a great scientist and he may well have deserved to win the Noble prize for his singularity theorems. Penrose and Hawking discovered a mathematical fact about the Einstein equations, which in turn had the consequence of making the idea of black holes more plausible among other scientists. It could be argued that once there was enough evidence for the existence of black holes, then those who made the most convincing argument for their existence should have won a Noble prize. Nonetheless, Stephen Hawking would not make it on a list of the top ten scientists of the past century. His popularity is due much more to his disease and his ability to sell books rather than his calibre as a scientist.
That's because your general peasantry don't care about or understand science. They like the weird guy in a wheelchair that talks like a robot.
Any Brit would immediately recognise this as self deprecating humour.
It was even flagged by the audience's laughter.
Hawking has great deadpan delivery (edit: spelling)
@@mollistuff Indeed, I never saw him break while telling a joke.
@@rossjackson7352 like every other empire in history?
Even more ironic then that Philip Ball _is_ a British science writer, and an editor for Nature.
What the great man had to deal with for a long period was inspirational to many. A far greater way to be remembered?
I doubt he wants to be remembered for that. He got irritated at people who tried to clumsily ‘help’ him. He used his condition mostly to defend the NHS and thus advocate for people with disabilities. It would be a disservice to his work and his character to give weight to his condition. He didn’t like pity parties.
My father's mother had Lou Gehrig's Disease. It's a horrible disease to have to deal with.
Epstein's child abuse Island
@@elmersbalm5219 I understand where you're coming from, but ultimately I think you're missing Tuna Free Dolphin Meat's point. And I should say, only on RUclips can you [at least reasonably] expect to have a serious, interesting, intellectual and philosophical discussion with someone presenting themselves to the world as "Tuna Free Dolphin Meat".
But what we're talking about here isn't _pity,_ or anything close to it. What we're talking about is the effect he had (and will continue to have) on other people. There are a few different things I could say in response to your point, but I want to hone in on just one.
And that is, I strongly believe that you're doing, ironically, exactly what (in my opinion, and it's just that) you misinterpreted others who wrote or engaged with this particular comment as doing, but not for a lack of good intentions, I sincerely believe you had the best of intentions.
How Hawking felt about his condition from start to finish, and how he felt he was being perceived by, and _wanted to_ be perceived by others throughout his life in regards to the condition, was his battle to have, and his alone. The reality was, as is hidden right there within your answer, his progressive disabilities were never a burden on anyone else; people weren't ever seeing him as any less of a person, or any less of an intellect. It wasn't a bother for people, or a definition of his character to them, they wanted to do whatever they could to *lift him up,* because _people cared, man._ The best of humanity is how we care for, and build one another up. There was never an ounce of pity going around, and there certainly isn't today for the man in our memories.
There's one distinction I ultimately think needs to be made, and it regards how millions of people then and now knew Stephen Hawking, and will remember Stephen Hawking.
His physical condition never defined his character. It really didn't. But before long, it had damn well *demonstrated* his character. Specifically, it was how he responded, practically immediately to his diagnosis (and a god awful prognosis at that time), that demonstrated to the world _who Stephen Hawking REALLY was._ He could have succumbed to his worsening condition and passed away very shortly after that diagnosis, and nothing about how we will remember him would've changed.
It was the displaying of his character in the face of the worst possible news a human being could get (which would've frankly completely ruined most people who got the same news, and to that point, it might very well have been why Stephen Hawking _didn't_ meet the short fate that appeared in the cards for him) that told people exactly the kind of person he was, and continues to inspire them to this day.
The fact that he was THEN able to go on, REALLY get into his work, learn and absorb new concepts, and just _contribute to science_ for decades to come, is genuinely one of those miracles of life that we just get to be thankful for after the fact. And at the end of the day, or even the beginning of the day, who cares whether he got a Nobel Prize? Hawking will be remembered among all of humanity for who he was, and what he did. He might've felt like that had something to do with the fact that he developed that condition, or that people were only going to remember him out of pity, but he would've been dead wrong about it from the very beginning, and I hope he overcame feelings like that. That's what I meant when I said that was his battle alone to fight, because nobody else ever saw it that way.
I love it when Sabine throws shade on string theory..."blah...blah...blah"...LOL!
I just love it when she throws shade. 💚
I starting to think she's not a fan of Brian Greene
@@CAThompson She uses her fierce intellect to go where she believes the best evidence leads, everything else be damned. That's why we love Sabine!
@@sfcablecar If she ever were to tell me I'm wrong, that would be a blessing indeed.
@@hankrearden20 whenever I hear him speak or host an event, it becomes instantly clear he's gotten to where he is through politics and networking (obviously he's also very smart, just not brilliant).
He was a person. The public likes personalities and he communicated his work in a funny way. He played himself on shows and did funny skits and bits. I think this drew in people into physics for sure
His nobel prize is he remain in our mind for ever.
At least until we die.
Nicely put..
Stephen Hawking was just another of the rich, powerful, literary that enjoyed the fruits on the island of Jeffrey Epstein.
So I am going with, HELL NO!
I loved Prof H's line in The Big Bang Theory, when Sheldon said "But Professor you did not get a Nobel Prize". The Professor said "Ah, but I was on the Simpsons.
Sabine.. You deserve a Nobel prize for dispensing, discussing, and questioning our "knowledge" of science.
- Steve was a real trip.
Amazing guy
Sabine, I think you should get the Nobel Prize for courageously fighting the BS in physics and science! Best wishes. Uldis
By the uncertainty principle, all physicists have a bit of BS to them, even Sabine.
@@ThomasJr Yes, that's true but I like that Sabine has less BS than the majority of theoretical physicists so I value her courageousness in bucking the myopic and often mythical bureaucratic self perpetuating theoretical community of physicists to some extent.
@@uldissprogis5138 Yes, but again, she's fallible too, she makes mistakes. Even more when she goes against a team, because a lot of heads think exponentially better than one. However even when she chooses to go against established ideas, it's very useful for us to learn because it exposes her thought process, and it's usually very good. In the case of her criticism of the GW detector for example, she pointed out some of the problems with their experiment. A strong argument was the fact they had discarded 8 alerts out of 41. However, she perhaps forgot that glitches usually only occur in one of the detectors, not in both at the same time, which is possible but more unlikely, unless it's a GW. Perhaps she also failed to acknowledge the neutron star merger that was accompanied by visible light observation, though I am not sure. Time will tell if she was right.
@@ThomasJr Of course, human perfection is not possible and everyone makes some mistakes in an entire lifetime. It is really excellence that we are taking about and not human perfection where we all fall short of the mark or standard.
@@uldissprogis5138 At least with Zabina we get to learn a lot, which is not so easy with other channels
Quite the tribute. Another excellent video , thank you much.
Hawking's opinion on the England soccer team and World Cup penalty shootouts: 'As we say in science, England couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo'. Great sense of humour.
Invoking science for soccer… is a hint of mental imbalance.
@@clmasse It says that Stephen Hawking was British with humour to match.
@@clmasse It would be great to understand the joke.
@@clmasse bla bla bla watching soccer is for plebes. Me!? A scientist!? Watching soccer!? Never!!!
I met Dennis Sciama, who was Hawking's supervisor, when I studied in Trieste. I remember him as a nice, English gentleman with a lot of humour. Seems to me that many English scientists are a bit eccentric, with great personalities. That of course includes Hawking.
Dear Sabine, just discovered your channel by accident! Where have I been, right? Amazing presentation, great sense of fashion, funny and humores as hell, "smart" is an understatement, and love your accent. So glad to know they're humans like you! Congrats!
That comment honestly sounded like Hawking's sense of humor to me. I don't think it was arrogant at all.
That picture of Brian Greene talking about string theory (blah blah blah) is priceless... I guess Sabine is not very fond of him or his ideas.
What is String Theory good for? Selling books. Making TV shows. Keeping academics employed etc, but not for advancing Physics 😂🤣😂🤣.
@@davidbrisbane7206 Exactly right. The more outlandish, unprovable and speculative the proposed theory, the more likely a physicist is to receive lucrative grants and be lavished with attention.
@@chuckschillingvideos
If anything, String theory might advance mathematics, but if it called itself mathematical research, it would not get nearly as much funding as it currenly gets.
@@davidbrisbane7206 Funding a theoretical physicist is a matter of a salary and a budget for paper and pencils. Times three or four and add a few chalkboards and a chalk budget and you have a “department”. They don’t need a ton of expensive equipment. You’re barking up the wrong tree if you’re looking for a good way to save money.
Of course, the same goes for experimentalists on a national level.
@@Markle2k
Lots of string theorists who should be applying for jobs in the mathematics department 🤣😂🤣😂.
The reason they are a waste of time is that theoretical physics attract lots of first class minds into a field that is going nowhere. I.e. a loss of human potential.
I totally agree with that final statement. Hawking did not need a Nobel prize. The world has enough respect for his work already.
AMLS is one horrible disease & Hawking handled it well. Everyone with half a brain knows that he was kidding when he made that remark. His genius will always be remembered & speaks for itself, no Nobel Prize needed! Thanks for this video Sabine. 👍👍
@illuminOz I know all about the disease. So, what's your point? I think it best that you yourself apply some "critical thinking" rather made snide remarks to other commenters.
@illuminOz Your way of approaching a conversation is exactly what the world needs a bit less of at the moment.
@illuminOz Make an explicit statement, please, so we don’t have to wander in the mist.
Einstein should have won for relativity after Eddington's confirmation...
Keep in mind that the great Einstein himself won a Nobel not for his groundbreaking work on Special and General relativity but for the photoelectric effect. I don't really care for awards, I just want to understand.
feynstein 100. - Ever since AVITAR lost out in 2010 Best Picture to a mediocre film because of Hollywood politics I quit watching that circus as I did years earlier in the Miss America Contest.
- Never gave much thought to Nobel prize since none was granted for Relativity.
- Its funny but I read some where not too long ago that Einstein's explanation for the cause of Brownain motion was recently discredited in Lab tests. So go figure.
Hawking had a wicked sense of humour..a great Scientist too!
Keep it up,Sabine,we love you,be safe,tgcx
Great video! Loved the waterfall analogy. Hawking had a good sense of humor others obviously didn't...
Einstein did not receive a Nobel price for the theory of general relativity. He received one for his work on the photoelectric effect but surely if the Nobel committee gives general relativity, which must be one of the crowning achievements of physics, a pass, it not recognising other work has little meaning.
It was much to early too give a Nobel for GR at the time Einstein received his as the theory was only verified observationally in a couple of limited contexts (ie precession of Mercury's orbit and the solar eclipse data which was still a bit sketchy).
Stephen Hawking was a great scientist and he may well have deserved to win the Noble prize for his singularity theorems. Penrose and Hawking discovered a mathematical fact about the Einstein equations, which in turn had the consequence of making the idea of black holes more plausible among other scientists. It could be argued that once there was enough evidence for the existence of black holes, then those who made the most convincing argument for their existence should have won a Noble prize. Nonetheless, Stephen Hawking would not make it on a list of the top ten scientists of the past century. His popularity is due much more to his disease and his ability to sell books rather than his calibre as a scientist, so he is more deserving of an award for the most overrated scientist in history than the Nobel prize. If the existence of Hawking radiation due to black holes is ever experimentally confirmed then at that point he would certainly be deserving of both these awards.
@@zetacrucis681 That’s not why. They didn’t give it to him because they were anti Semitic. These are the people that tried to give hitler the Nobel peace prize.
I find it very plausible that Hawking actually won the nobel price during his lifetime. He was an important and well respected member of the science community, and made groundbreaking work despite his physical condition. It makes sense that he won the price.
Now to make this plausible, I only need few extra dimensions here and here and here....
'Or maybe the Nobel Prize committee just waited for Hawking to die, so they would not have to think about just how to disentangle Hawking's work from Penrose's work? We'll never know.' [Sabine shrugs]
Woah, Sabine spits Hell Fire until your monitor cracks, your glasses break, and your clothes burn, while you scream 'mooore'
I thought the reference to de-entanglement was rather interesting 'wink' :-)
Fantastic video, Sabine. I come away with just a little more cosmological understanding (and more string theory skepticism) with every one of your explanations. Thank you.
For every famous scientist there are at hundreds of scientists at least as smart that are not famous at all. Hawkings contribution to science I cannot judge, he certainly seems to be cited a lot. Hawkings contribution to the public is making scientific discourse seem fun, with bets and all, and showing us that the mind can overcome immense limitations of our bodies. I hope he will be remembered for generations.
every generation has good scientists who do a lot to popularize science. there's quite a lot now, as it's much easier to get mass exposure. sagan did a lot to popularize science, and is responsible for the bulk of our knowledge of mars before we actually put landers on the surface. einstein, who's look, accent, and mannerisms are ingrained on the entire world's popular culture as the epitome of "genius." you could write an entire novel of single sentences listing but a name and the mark the person left, and have enough left over for a sequel.
hawking is immortal. he'll be remembered with honor so long as records persist. this is possibly the greatest achievement a single human could ever hope to accomplish.
Einstein, Maxwell, Newton... will be remembered, Hawking? not so much.
@@gumby2241 Hawking radiation is kind of a big thing and unless they rename it, he will be remembered.
About time someone spoke out that Professor Hawking deserved a Nobel Prize. But like you said, he didn't need it. I know that I will never forget him.
The rules and conventions of the Nobel foundation apply to everyone equally. Nobel prizes require experimental evidence and so far there is none for Hawking radiation. For the same reason there haven't been any Nobel prizes given for String theory. It wouldn't be right to hand out prizes for purely theoretical achievements, as this would also create a wrong incentive to come up with speculative theories just to angle for a prize.
I remember reading the Philip Ball's piece. Maybe he was too harsh with Hawking, but admiteddly, there was a lot of selfpromotion in their public acts, and their papers were more philosophical than Physics in the end. Respect the Nobel Prize, well, other scientists get peeved for not getting it("Losing the Nobel Prize").
Hawking at least got the Principe de Asturias from Spain as consolation prize!
If not a Nobel Prize in physics, a Nobel Prize of owning up and not letting life circumstances destroy you. He fought his disease head on, fought it with tooth and nail, and accomplished more in that wheel chair than most people ever do in their lives... he did it with wit, humor, and with a sense of wonderment that he captivated audiences into wanting to learn more about theoretical physics. A Brief History In Time changed my life. Prior to reading it I though the Big Bang, quantum theory, and a plethora of other sciences were ridiculous notions as a teenager. After reading it... it made so much sense I pursued a career in science.
Hawking did need a short course in critical philosophy though. Did you read his 2010 or 11 book The Grand Design? He started by asking a few philosophical questions like "Why are we here?" and "Why is there something instead of nothing?" his answer was uncomprehending of what science can do. He stated that these questions once were answered by philosophy, but philosophy hasn't kept up with physics and was dead. Philosophy is dead? He apparently did not know that was a philosophical and a self stultifying assertion, it counters itself, it is like saying I'm absolutely certain that there are no absolutes.
At the end of the book he summarized what he was writing about by by stating, "Because there is a Law of Gravity the Universe can and will create itself." It contains 3 contradictions and is impossible. Firstly Gravity is not nothing, or not anything it is something. 2nd contradiction is assigning causal agency to the Law of Gravity, a description of gravity is just that a concept with no physical attribute and cannot do anything. The final contradiction is the Universe creating itself, means it would have to BE before it WAS.
I was really disappointed with this book by Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (a theoretical physicist) and I have no idea who wrote what, but if you're going to engage in philosophy at least have a cursory knowledge of it. It had a lot of good things in it, but was heavy into M Theory (string theory) which I think has some credence to it, but it is missing something and I am a biologist/engineer so I won't go deep into it. I have read A Brief History Of Time and enjoyed it for the most part, I thought some of his concepts a bit high for your average reader, but it has been 20 years since I last read it. Roger Penrose wrote a review of The Grand Design and he wasn't as sure about M Theory as Hawking was. Link to his review.
www.ft.com/content/bdf3ae28-b6e9-11df-b3dd-00144feabdc0
Sabine you're amazing. Thank you for your book and for these videos.
A Brief History of Time is his prize gifted to average Joes like me. Still on the bookshelf with other classics.
I'm reading it right now at the age of 14. The best book ever
I miss Hawking, even though I don't understand much about physics - I imagine a lot of people miss him too, which is the best prize. Sabine is one of the few who has ever enabled me to at least scratch the surface on this stuff, which is kind of amazing too - and a cool feeling.
You are so cool, Sabine! Your talk about the merits of Hawking’s work is fascinating, clear, and witty. If I ever met you in person I’d be enthralled by your conversation; fortunately for you, having your posts saves you from having to endure such a one sided conversation with my only contribution being a repeated exclamation of “Wow! That’s so amazing!!!” 😆
His Nobel Prize in my mind is his episode on Dexters Laboratory
Hi Ms. Hossenfelder, thank you for your great RUclips videos. Gold Standard! Greetings from one of your biggest fans in Africa (Morocco)
His name and ideas will survive long after the names of these humorless scientists names that have been given a prize have long been forgotten forgotten....
Just found this channel. Love how clearly you explain complex subjects. Love your voice as well.
I visited Cambridge once, one day while traveling to the UK. I was walking along a sidewalk and who goes rolling by the other way right past me but Stephen Hawking! What struck me was his face was bigger than I imagined. Couldn’t believe it.
I'm not much for celebrities but that would have been something else!
@IanFromCalifornia 🤣🤣🤣
I think your conclusion is a very reasonable and admirable one. The best person to hand out awards to is an *underrated* scientists. I feel that simply being smaller and less well known makes you *inherently* more deserving of anything that elevates your status - because status (and wealth) is non-linear.
(This is why I'm subscribed to your patreon - you deserve the exposure and money far more than a channel that already has millions of subscribers!)
Chien-Shiung Wu, is one of those people who has certainly been "cheated" out of a Nobel Prize. It is very sad that they do not give a Nobel Prize to people who died, because she really deserves one.
Forget not Rosalind Franklin!
@@johnstonewall917 Yes, she is also a really good example. I hope the Nobel Committee one day realizes, that the way things are done now is wrong.
Or Lise Meitner
@@GuruPrasad-qu4vg Indeed!
Rosalind Franklin yes, Waston's account of her in his book showed her frustration. She is inextricably linked to the discovery of DNA structure and deserves the Nobel maybe more than Watson.
Thank you for the clear explanations, Sabine. I think that Steven should also be remembered for his example for everyone of us. Despite what he went through, he kept working and living.
Imagine if the HC just destroyed the planet, that would be Hawkward.
I bursted out laughing...
Bruh... Lol
Certainly would be a Large problem.
That would be terrible for the economy
Hawkward indeed! Hahahaha! 😂🤣
I once attended a public lecture by Hawking, and he certainly had a great sense of humor about himself. At that lecture, he didn't actually mention the Nobel. Maybe because it was attended by the general public, and not just other physicists, the accomplishment he wanted to promote was his Star Trek cameo.
It turns out, he's the only person (so far) who has ever appeared on Star Trek as himself.
Having a great sense of humor about oneself is having self-mockery. We are not in this case.
Hawking was an amazing human being, not only very smart but with a wonderful imagination... Penrose aswell.
This video never showed up in my feed.. stupid RUclips.. glad I found you again!
Short answer: yes
Long answer: y e s
Definitely a superstar for science, while he didn't necessarily need it, it's one of those things you would just assume he already had if you didn't know.
Brilliant, Sabine
Bottom-up Thought Experiment... Constraints: As few base forces and particles as possible to form a coherent, integrated 4D multi/universe model
--
Subspace Field: Positive cells (fuzz ball, quanta, +1) held close together by negative gas. Matter-energy field conserves momentum
Matter-Energy: Matter is focused energy.. Energy is mobile matter.. Momentum conserves velocity.. Force changes velocity and/or direction
Positron/Up Quark/Graviton (p+): Free, mobile out of place cell warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres at C + 6 DC spin loops
Electron/Down Quark (e-): Hole left behind warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres of opposite phase at C + 6 DC spin loops
Noton/Dark Matter (n+-): Exactly opposite phase close p+ and e- annihilate (ie. entangled pair created together (e_p) ), else a noton forms
Nucleons: Proton: P=pep.. Neutron: N=P_e=pep_e.. Beta-: N-e>>P+e.. Beta+: P+e_p>>N+p.. Alpha: A=PNPN=PeP_PeP=(pep_e_pep)_(pep_e_pep)
Heavier Fermions: Larger holes and chunks of subspace field rapidly disintegrate to p+s, e-s, n+-s and/or annihilate to regular = empty field
Electrostatic Force: Recoiling blip spheres propagate. Opposite direction + and - blips form a vibrating AC bond, same sign = phase repel
Instant-Off Long Force: AC (longitudinally blipping) subspace 'flux tube' as thin as 1 cell wide. Each cell and its -ve gas move in contrary motion
Spin: e-s and p+s pull in the 12 surrounding cells, or -ve gas that pulls cells, that then bounce out, stabilising as a torus of 6 in/out (N/S) DC loops
Strong Force: Spin loops merge forming flowing DC circuits between e-s and p+s, and/or nucleus' steep gravitational -ve gas density rise gradient
Mass: Sum of the lengths of all strong force bonds + near electric field. Notons have compact strong force bonds, Protons' are long as 2 p+s repel
Magnetism: Some spin-aligned atoms' p+s and e-s' strong bonds join in a shorter straight path. Energy conservation results in external force circuits
Left Hand Rule: Magnetic circuit cells squeeze between field cells causing short range, lateral, perpendicular electrostatic blips
Weak Force: Geometric structural charge balance instability. Possibly noton hits statistically tipping the balance
Photon: Charged particles moving up and down (transmitter, atomic electron) form a radiating transverse wave blip pattern
Double Slit: Laser light / particle centre's preceding, extended subspace distortion diffracts, interferes, forming wave guides observation destroys
Dark Gravity: p+ traps 1 quantum of -ve gas so void cell size/gap grows (and matter's shrinks?) forming a macro -ve gas density gradient
Bang Expansion: Loss of -ve gas to the multiverse?.. Bang ejector velocity petered out, magnified in time by outward momentum conservation
Gravity Wave: Longitudinal wave where the entire field in a large region is effected in unison for a duration
Big Ping: A dark crystal universe collisions' intense gravity wave forms e- & p+ pairs inwardly at C that annihilate or form notons, Protons, Neutrons
Big Bang: Ping wave collides centrally? Field blast forms matter + a large hole (then Big/Dark Refill)? Fast -ve gas loss? Noton crystal exploded?
Black Hole: Absorbs matter and energy. Noton crystal (with a core returning to empty field)? Large hole in the field traps anything entering?
Frame Dragging: Entire sphere of subspace cells rotating around a point in unison
Time: Cell to cell blips take a constant time. Gravity shrinks cells so light slows but locally measures C as circuits lengthen in space & time, adding mass
--
This is not an aether theory, it's a matter-energy field, a quantised, relativisitic subspace medium. Forces and matter emerge from and are part of the field
--
Makes more sense than making up bosons to carry force and mass, quarks that don't solve the anti-matter and dark matter problem, (anti) neutrinos, loads of fundamental fields, extra spatial and temporal dimensions etc, that ultimately don't tie relativity and quantum mechanics together properly or well... They should at least be honest and call their 'spatial dimensions' geometric/field dimensions or something.. Magic Space is not my cup of tea.
"blah blah blah extra dimensions"
That made me laugh for real.
That was typical of him. Basing a thesis on something from mathematics. It's like promoting String theory, mathematics.
He was great for science in my opinion for all sorts of reasons, a great scientist, not so sure.
@@PanglossDr Brian Greene?
“My Life is my Message” - Gandhi. I think that quote applies to Hawking well, who contributed so much while managing a severe disability.
British conceit, the greatest physicist of the 21st century so far is Russian. Leibniz is greater than Newton.
@@clmasse I'm not saying he's the greatest physicist of the 21st century. I'd probably give that medal to Witten
He won a higher price than a Nobel.
There is hundred of Nobel Prices we don't know his name ... now ask anybody: who Stephen Hawking was?, that's the real Price
Camon,how can anybody not remember 76' Nobel, Chao Chung Ting???
@@eljcd 🤦♂️
Hawking is a legend. Observing a probability may not warrant a Nobel prize necessarily. He argued against the tipler cylinder working with the theory of general relativity which is true. Looking past general relativity Tipler cylinder is congruent with an observer, just as his ideas would not exist without one.
They hadn't invented the 'smiley face' nuance for computer generated voices at the time. Actually, they probably STILL haven't !
Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.
Nice! I'm glad this video did not engage in Hawking-bashing, which is all too common. Fairly presented.
3:00 Brian Greene: "Blah blah blah... Extra dimensions..."
3:14 Brian Greene: "Blah Blah Blah"
😂
Bedankt
That was so poignant. Thank you for the tenderness with which you described Stephen Hawking and his achievements.
Completely agree with you. Had Hawking lived, I think he definitely would have shared the Prize with Penrose. I could never understand why it even took so long for singularity theorems to be considered for a Nobel Prize.
Nobel Prizes are not given for "theorems". Those theorems belong to mathematical physics, which is a part of mathematics really, not the physics itself (same like the "string theory" now). If Hawking deserves a Nobel Prize, it is only for the same thing he did together with Roger Penrose: "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity".
The existence of black holes themselves was never confirmed actually, but the astronomical objects looking very similar to black holes were found indeed. And such a certainty has appeared only quite recently, just a few years ago. The Nobel Prize that Penrose received was shared by two other people: Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez "for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the centre of our galaxy". Stephen Hawking would be apparently the fourth contender/laureat here. Unfortunately, he died two years earlier.
Concerning his arguably the most important (and independent) work about the black hole radiation, it still remains highly speculative with little chance to be proved experimentally in any observable future.
Because is is wrong, there is no singularity.
... and you don’t get interrupted by advertisements of sponsor messages 😂😂
Thanks Sabine, for another great, thought-provoking video!
Whenever I read “X should have been given the Nobel prize”, I never see who should not have got the prize so that X could receive it.
I feel Roy Glauber should not have been given since ECG Sudarshan was denied
The one I hear the most is Obama, I haven’t fully looked into it but I’ve seen people say he got his based on promises of things he would do as president, which he ultimately didn’t fulfill. The massive civilian body count of his drone strikes in the Middle East kind of makes me agree a “peace” prize might not be something he’s deserving of.
@@Sanakudou The Peace Prize is a political tool given out by a political body, a committee nominated by the Norwegian parliament.
The body count of conventional airstrikes would be higher.
Stephen Hawking was a great scientist and he may well have deserved to win the Noble prize for his singularity theorems. Penrose and Hawking discovered a mathematical fact about the Einstein equations, which in turn had the consequence of making the idea of black holes more plausible among other scientists. It could be argued that once there was enough evidence for the existence of black holes, then those who made the most convincing argument for their existence should have won a Noble prize. Nonetheless, Stephen Hawking would not make it on a list of the top ten scientists of the past century. His popularity is due much more to his disease and his ability to sell books rather than his calibre as a scientist, so he is more deserving of an award for the most overrated scientist in history than the Nobel prize.
Nobel Prize is not the only parameter to recognize and appreciate a man's intellect and wisdom. The true intellectual is independent of awards and recognition. It's about pure exploration of both mind and the Universe.
He was and will always be my favorite modern day Scientist. An inspiration that still keeps me excited for physics.
Thanks, your content is always engaging and well presented That said, I miss your content challenging/questioning/exploring the foundation of physics and the related series of quantuum mechanics. Also hoped for a series on how foundations of detectors how/why they work, how the data is collected, stored and analyzed -- sort of a sibling of the theoretical measurement problem.
He should've been awarded it posthumously. His mind/theories changed physics. I know everyone will remember him, but I think science's greatest honor should acknowledge this for the sake of history.
I sometimes think it’s better to have a prize/medal named after you like J Bell Burnell or Fred Hoyle both deserving non recipients. Or even an exclusive club as with G Marks.
Love the Brain Greene meme. Love your dry humor. Love that you make videos.
Thanks for spoiling it...
@@maxwellsequation4887 So nice that you give your attention to my post before Sandra's video. I appreciate it.
Joking or not, wanting and getting recognition for remarkable work is not something to be ashamed of. Regular people want recognition even for doing house chores. And to be fair, while not worth a Nobel prize, one can really appreciate a tidy place.
Such a big fan of yours Sabine. Please keep producing these videos.
Btw, you're saved as a playlist name called 'Sabine doesn't give AF' :)
Great video. I really enjoyed watching it.
Jocelyn Bell who discovered pulsars didn't receive a Nobel Prize for her discovery but is much more remembered than her supervisor who did.
... So maybe sometimes, there's a bit of justice after all!
@@davidwright8432 oh, yes. She is much more famous and has, I believe, been credited with the discovery. As you point out justice has been done.
Sabine, you make me feel sane. I admit to being befuddled by all the deep math, but I can understand (most) of your lectures. Thanks. You keep me engaged.
The fact that "Hawking Radiation" is named after Stephen Hawking is a MUCH bigger honor than receiving a Nobel Prize. He was an amazing honorable person for numerous reasons and he will never be forgotten.
Wow. Reading through the comments, I didn't know that a video about Stephen Hawking's legacy could be so triggering for so many people.
Hawking is the rol e model for guts to never give up
I would for fun have liked to have asked Stephen Hawking at a lecture -
"Say a hypothetical mental fist fight develops between yourself ( Stephen Hawking ) and Jacob Bronowski, who would win?"
Laughs and the occasional cough in the audience.
He'd then say -
"That is a very silly question!"
Claps and more laughs and occasional coughs
"Obviously ( he may go on to say ) Bronowski would lay me in one theory ( rapturous applause, laughs, and occasional coughs ), I greatly admired Jacob Bronowski, and I loved his series 'The Ascent of Man'. He had a wonderful gift of communication!"
Generous applause, and occasional coughs.
@Sabine Hossenfelder
Thanks for the replies, Sabine!
I don't understand your replies but thank you anyway.
Cheers - Mike.
Who has ever heard of an arrogant scientist? Impossible!
Absolutely I agree, thank you Sabine 👏
He should have been given the peace prize for his inspiration for humanity. He was a force of nature.
If they hand them out to politicians then I don't think you really want anything to do with it.
The career in particle physics. If if if, maybe maybe maybe, (insert more grant money here)
if if if, maybe maybe maybe, perhaps could be, possibility, speculation,
(insert more grant money here) we've got to keep our jobs, must publish something,
Really don't have any idea, (insert more grant money here).
More thoughts from the boundary:
Witten got a Fields Medal. I don't know if Penrose has one for his maths of the the tribar; or his work on tiling [ aperiodic and self-similar ] and sheaf bundles on the manifold in cohomology and non-orientable spaces...which takes us into the 2-torus, the Mobius strip and HyperKlein bottle homology. In fact in-out geometry is fundamental in cell division [ after 4 divisions, I think. ]
I resist the temptatation to come up with a GUT. I just look at biology...and see Santelli's Iso-Euclidian geometry in shells; honeycomb structure in nature, like the Giant's Causeway; and in the spongy mesophyll, organized according to simple allometric scaling rules at the cellular level, with an emergent topological motif of an irregular honeycomb that obeys Euler’s Law of space filling at the tissue level and minimizes cellular investment... THE PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ACTION, also called more correctly the STATIONARY action principle. Draw your own dots.
Brian Green: Blah, blah, blah...Extra dimensions Blah Blah Blah
I really like your humor!
First of all, just get on with studying what you are interested in. Having your name on an equation, a theorem, an effect, some inequalities, some radiation or whatever else is appropriate is the most prestigious thing that can be achieved. There's quite a few of these prizes that can be won nowadays, and it's a bit of a lottery. In Britain we also have knighthoods and peerages as well as FRS, OM and KG. It can help not to die too young.
James Clerk Maxwell won few of these prizes and is buried in an obscure churchyard in Parton on Loch Ken. I don't think he would be too bothered. I can quickly think of three things he is noted for, some equations, a distribution and some relations.
James Clerk Maxwell died in 1879, the first Nobel prize was awarded in 1901.
He died at the age of 48, and didn't even get a knighthood. There are a few Maxwell buildings in Britain and a telescope in Hawaii. I have never seen him on a British postage stamp or a banknote (Scotland has three banks which issue their own notes). I missed off a demon and a colour wheel.
Alternative title: Should Nobel prize have won Stephen Hawking?
Sabine, you have a nice voice. Please restrain from using red alerts.
Lol she is salty about Greene 😂 love it
Fucking LOL
Enjoyed! Thanks.
It's official now, Brian Greene It's a meme!!lol
And anticipating the rants about people that didn' get the Nobel, I will mention Vera Rubin(et al.), who discovered the galaxies don't follow our gravity laws!
Nobel has become irrelevant.
An American President was awarded the Nobel peace prize, yet said, "we have the force and will not hesitate to use it", yet Albert Einstein said, peace cannot be attained by force of any kind, only by understanding". Nothing Noble about the Nobel anymore, rather, is an appeasement to and for righteousness.
I suspect the Nobel prize is like many awards, particularly knighthoods, some thoroughly deserve it, some so so? Your final comment is perfectly apt. As for me, yes, Steven Hawking will be remembered far above many nobel laureates, and that is quite some legacy, and yes, I believe deservedly so.