# Stephen Hawking: idiot or genius?



## ENFP_of_Pasta

Today in my Earth/Space science course we were discussng Stephen Hawkings and I commented on how smart he was. The girl next to me said 'Or really stupid.' So, do you hink his theories are just the ramblings of a crackpot or do you think that he is a scientific genius?


----------



## ProfessorLiver

Who is Steven Hawkings? Is he related to Steven Hawking, the renowned physicist?


----------



## ENFP_of_Pasta

MisterLiver said:


> Who is Steven Hawkings? Is he related to Steven Hawking, the renowned physicist?


Oops, yes, I mistyped Hawking as Hawkings. *facepalm* Thanks for catching that. Stupid me...


----------



## QueCueYew

Hawking is legit. He might have views counter to my own, and that lady chick probably has some beef with his stances on whatever got her hating the guy, but the man is SMART. And his track record really can't be dismissed either.


----------



## Mr. Morph

ENFP_of_Pasta said:


> Today in my Earth/Space science course we were discussng Stephen Hawkings and I commented on how smart he was. *The girl next to me said 'Or really stupid.*' So, do you hink his theories are just the ramblings of a crackpot or do you think that he is a scientific genius?


That comment alone made you question it?

Bloody hell. Or did she have more to say?


----------



## ENFP_of_Pasta

Mr. Morph said:


> That comment alone made you question it?
> 
> Bloody hell. Or did she have more to say?


No, I didn't question it. I was just bored and wanted to post something.  Also I wondered who agreed with me or her. I still think he's a genius even though, like the above poster, some of his theories compete with my beliefs.


----------



## ENFP_of_Pasta

Candid Apple said:


> Hawking is legit. He might have views counter to my own, and that lady chick probably has some beef with his stances on whatever got her hating the guy, but the man is SMART. And his track record really can't be dismissed either.


Yeah, I think she just hates the class...  And it looks like no one else agrees with her, anyway.


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii

ENFP_of_Pasta said:


> Today in my Earth/Space science course we were discussng Stephen Hawkings and I commented on how smart he was. The girl next to me said 'Or really stupid.' So, do you hink his theories are just the ramblings of a crackpot or do you think that he is a scientific genius?


Dont listen to stupid people.


----------



## ALNF1031

MisterLiver said:


> Who is Steven Hawkings? Is he related to Steven Hawking, the renowned physicist?


Who's Steven Hawking? I'm pretty sure his name was Stephen William Hawking.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor

Alddous1031 said:


> Who's Steven Hawking? I'm pretty sure his name was Stephen William Hawking.


Hahaha, I didn't catch that.

Anyways I believe he came up with the most advanced things that we're still working on now. The nature of black holes, dark matter, etc...


----------



## absentminded

ENFP_of_Pasta said:


> The girl next to me said 'Or really stupid.'


Alright, let me show you something:










This is the Schrodinger Equation. It's the most basic expression of the probability that an abstract particle with mass m and charge q will be found within a region r given a potential v.

The absolute simplest situation that this equation deals with is an electron in an infinite potential well. I can solve the equation for this abstract situation with a pen and a dozen pieces of paper or so. Hawking could solve it in his head.

Forget the validity of his theories. The ability to intuitively solve the nested differential equations that quantum cosmology (the field of Hawking's expertise) requires in his head is extraordinary in and of itself.

Black hole thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black hole thermodynamics, a field that Hawking almost single-handedly invented, is still one of the most complex subjects in physics. It is still the only theory of quantum gravity that actually works, if only near an event horizon.

The dude's a friggin' genius.


----------



## ALNF1031

absentminded said:


> Alright, let me show you something:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Schrodinger Equation. It's the most basic expression of the probability that an abstract particle with mass m and charge q will be found within a region r given a potential v.
> 
> The absolute simplest situation that this equation deals with is an electron in an infinite potential well. I can solve the equation for this abstract situation with a pen and a dozen pieces of paper or so. Hawking could solve it in his head.
> 
> Forget the validity of his theories. The ability to intuitively solve the nested differential equations that quantum cosmology (the field of Hawking's expertise) requires in his head is extraordinary in and of itself.
> 
> Black hole thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Black hole thermodynamics, a field that Hawking almost single-handedly invented, is still one of the most complex subjects in physics. It is still the only theory of quantum gravity that actually works, if only near an event horizon.
> 
> The dude's a friggin' genius.


Jesus, and I thought I knew science. Now I feel dumb. xD


----------



## absentminded

Alddous1031 said:


> Jesus, and I thought I knew science. Now I feel dumb. xD


Everybody has one of those moments. I'm amazing at math and science, and the car's wiper-blades out-witted me earlier.


----------



## ENFP_of_Pasta

Alddous1031 said:


> Who's Steven Hawking? I'm pretty sure his name was Stephen William Hawking.


...Ooops again. I posted this at 1 am where I was and I was half asleep, so... *stupid**


----------



## ENFP_of_Pasta

absentminded said:


> Alright, let me show you something:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Schrodinger Equation. It's the most basic expression of the probability that an abstract particle with mass m and charge q will be found within a region r given a potential v.
> 
> The absolute simplest situation that this equation deals with is an electron in an infinite potential well. I can solve the equation for this abstract situation with a pen and a dozen pieces of paper or so. Hawking could solve it in his head.
> 
> Forget the validity of his theories. The ability to intuitively solve the nested differential equations that quantum cosmology (the field of Hawking's expertise) requires in his head is extraordinary in and of itself.
> 
> Black hole thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Black hole thermodynamics, a field that Hawking almost single-handedly invented, is still one of the most complex subjects in physics. It is still the only theory of quantum gravity that actually works, if only near an event horizon.
> 
> The dude's a friggin' genius.


*whistles* wow... now I feel even dumber than 2 minutes ago... wow...


----------



## absentminded

ENFP_of_Pasta said:


> *whistles* wow... now I feel even dumber than 2 minutes ago... wow...


...which is why *he's* the genius and we're not. :happy:


----------



## Longdove

The man, in recent years, has seemed to question much of his own original contemplations into black holes and dark matter, they are still respected and used in the field for the most part, but there have been quite a number of scientists who have selective issues with his theories. So, whether he can be called an idiot or a genius is really up to his contemporaries.

Personally, I tend to favour the ideas being researched by Lisa Randall, who is someone I admire and look up to, and her and Hawking delve into the same areas, but Hawking had an early peer-backup in his career, which made it much easier for people to start thinking of him as a genius, whereas the Randall-Sundrum theory was harder to pass in terms of acceptance among physicists because even then such a theory was expected to be first be sorted out by someone in reputation like Hawking.


----------



## ENFP_of_Pasta

Paradox of Vigor said:


> Hahaha, I didn't catch that.
> 
> Anyways I believe he came up with the most advanced things that we're still working on now. The nature of black holes, dark matter, etc...


Yeah, that stuff is awesome! 



absentminded said:


> ...which is why *he's* the genius and we're not. :happy:


One word (other than these): Yup.



Longdove said:


> The man, in recent years, has seemed to question much of his own original contemplations into black holes and dark matter, they are still respected and used in the field for the most part, but there have been quite a number of scientists who have selective issues with his theories. So, whether he can be called an idiot or a genius is really up to his contemporaries.
> 
> Personally, I tend to favour the ideas being researched by Lisa Randall, who is someone I admire and look up to, and her and Hawking delve into the same areas, but Hawking had an early peer-backup in his career, which made it much easier for people to start thinking of him as a genius, whereas the Randall-Sundrum theory was harder to pass in terms of acceptance among physicists because even then such a theory was expected to be first be sorted out by someone in reputation like Hawking.


 Hmmm, you make an excellent point.


----------



## Sarin

I'd say he's a genius..

Even if it's not certain if his way of thinking is the right one... it surely leaves us with other insights that eventually lead to more discoveries.

When einstein first published his relativity theory, it took scientists more then 20 years to utilize it (nuclear powerplants and the atomic bomb).
At some point in the future.. his insights will clearify some physical mysteries.


----------



## Black Rabbit

I like Stephen Hawking and I also like Ricky Gervais


----------



## Mr. Morph

ENFP_of_Pasta said:


> No, I didn't question it. I was just bored and wanted to post something.  Also I wondered who agreed with me or her. I still think he's a genius even though, like the above poster, *some of his theories compete with my beliefs. *


Fair enough pal 

I agree with you on his genius. *Could you give me an example on what I've bolded?*


----------



## Ephemerald

I'm aware of his work. Some of it interests me. I possess no opinion of his intelligence. Was I the only one to over-analyze the relativity of the "smart vs. stupid" remark in the original post? I think the thread response provides a good representation of that observation. People who think he's "smart" probably value his expression of intelligence and can relate, quite opposite of "stupid." The reason I don't care is because I see no point in attributing a label of intelligence in the first place.


----------



## ENFP_of_Pasta

Mr. Morph said:


> Fair enough pal
> 
> I agree with you on his genius. *Could you give me an example on what I've bolded?*


Alright. Quote (from his video Into The Universe: The Story Of Everything): So does that mean that there is a higher authority (God) out there? Not necessarily. Things like this, since I'm Jewish, I don't agree with.


----------



## DouglasMl

He's definitely the guy behind "Hawking radiation", or "the case of the exploding micro-singularity." Here's a video about this:






Video courtesy of stevebd and the BBC, all rights reserved.


----------



## Bote

I think that there are physicists far more deserving of the attention that Hawking gets. I also think that his elevation to a pop icon owes a lot to Cold War. Remember, the Soviets were the first to send crafts and men outside the atmosphere yet do you know of any other names than Yuriy Gagarin and Teryeshkova? Do you know about the scientists behind Soyuz and Sputnik and Mir station? There's two awesome individuals involved in those projects, but I'll let you do the digging yourself and see how harder it is to get to that information than info about American efforts. Living in an ex-communist state I have easy access to papers and articles about communist science in public libraries.


----------



## Ephemerald

You're being awfully generous to our world's general knowledge of space programs Bote. Try asking someone for the names of the 5 American shuttles, or 3 people who have *ever *been in space. Some don't even know about the ISS, let alone what the heck a Soyuz is. It's rather depressing really...


----------



## ALNF1031

Ephemerald said:


> You're being awfully generous to our world's general knowledge of space programs Bote. Try asking someone for the names of the 5 American shuttles, or 3 people who have *ever *been in space. Some don't even know about the ISS, let alone what the heck a Soyuz is. It's rather depressing really...


How is this something new? Most people don't really care for this sort of knowledge. Their ignorance in this sort of stuff is boundless. Try asking someone whether they know an empire named Prussia or the Hittite even existed. And in their defense, I don't really see why they should learn it either if it doesn't interest them and they're confident they'll never actually need it.


----------



## absentminded

Ephemerald said:


> You're being awfully generous to our world's general knowledge of space programs Bote. Try asking someone for the names of the 5 American shuttles, or 3 people who have *ever *been in space. Some don't even know about the ISS, let alone what the heck a Soyuz is. It's rather depressing really...


There were _six_ American shuttles: Endeavor, Challenger, Enterprise, Atlantis, Columbia and Discovery. Sure Enterprise was built without an engine assembly or heat shield, but it still counts.


----------



## Ephemerald

absentminded said:


> There were _six_ American shuttles: Endeavor, Challenger, Enterprise, Atlantis, Columbia and Discovery. Sure Enterprise was built without an engine assembly or heat shield, but it still counts.


I don't expect people to know the name of the unfinished/inactive nor was it the point of my comment.

But bonus points for over-achievement?


----------



## fourwalls

Thing is, people would think they are stupid because they don't grasp what the other is talking about. It's like they are in the 1st dimension, and these people are in the 9th dimension. Beings who are threatened by a greater being generally pull them down. I for one don't understand what the hell he is talking about, but I am amused and amazed and rendered speechless with what ideas that come into their mind. It's not that they can do so well in math that makes them genius. It is what is beyond and picturing what can be then translating them into math. That creativity alone, makes them brilliant minds.


----------



## absentminded

Ephemerald said:


> I don't expect people to know the name of the unfinished/inactive nor was it the point of my comment.


I didn't think so, but I wanted to point that out anyway. Saying there were six shuttles is more correct since Enterprise was the proof of concept that made the others possible. That's all. :happy:


----------



## IDontThinkSo

Hawking.. He sure talks a lot and medias love him due to his very symbolic aspect, but he still hasn't done anything revolutionary. Don't know if he can think out of the box enough. Fast thinkers are rarely great innovators.


----------



## Valdyr

Hawking in a genius, and I don't mean to be blunt, but anyone who actively doesn't think so simply doesn't sufficiently understand the physics, not to mention, as @absentminded said, the ease with which he can do the relevant math. 

Seriously. Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems? Proving that any black hole can be completely described in terms of mass, charge, and angular momentum? Hawking no-boundary condition? Top-down cosmology? These are all efforts that he was at the forefront of, and are merely some of his numerous contributions to physics, to which there is more as a subject than space stations and oh-so "practical" applications.

This isn't to say I don't disagree with him about things. Two sticking points are that I think loop quantum gravity is a better GUT (grand unified theory) than M-theory, and I'm an annoyingly persistent critic of Everettian interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically the "hard MWI" (many-worlds interpretation) where the "worlds" have ontological status. Nevertheless, the number of his contributions which are now part of the standard lexicon of theoretical cosmology, quantum gravity etc. far outnumber his contentious conjectures, which are in themselves well-supported (if ultimately as I believe off the mark, such as M-theory and the hard MWI).


----------



## sofort99

Valdyr said:


> Hawking in a genius, and I don't mean to be blunt, but anyone who actively doesn't think so simply doesn't sufficiently understand the physics, not to mention, as @absentminded said, the ease with which he can do the relevant math.
> 
> Seriously. Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems? Proving that any black hole can be completely described in terms of mass, charge, and angular momentum? Hawking no-boundary condition? Top-down cosmology? These are all efforts that he was at the forefront of, and are merely some of his numerous contributions to physics, to which there is more as a subject than space stations and oh-so "practical" applications.


Hawking is such a fucking genius that after his giant brain figures stuff out, he can explain it in terms making it sound so simple that people on forums can say things like "he's not that smart" and not have their internet privileges revoked.


----------

