Another programme on TV the other night about Hawking - it was interesting.
It is not my field - but how would others here describe the contribution of Hawking to the world of physics? Is he really the genius the media always portrays him as? Would you place him in your top 5 physicists of all time? Or is he good - but just got better media relations than other much better physicists working today?
Or are you all very cynical and think that at least some fo the media's pre-occupation with him is due, partly, to his disability?
So one question is about his contribution to physics and one about his media coverage over the years.
{PS - note - the above are questions and not statements. I am a fan of Hawking, but part of me can't help but think that there are many more brilliant minds out there doing plenty (perhaps even more) but just not engaging with the public so much}
Perhaps you should get a wheelchair, Dr B ...
No way - I need less, not more distraction.....
I can tell you my top 5 records of all time, my top 5 TV shows, even my top 5 holidays but top 5 physicists?Originally Posted by Dr B
I think to garner public interest the media always elects a poster child for a cause. This cause célèbre has its uses, but I feel it also pigeonholes a lot of people. It typecasts them forever in the public eye. I respect Hawkins work, I think he is a great, history will remember him as such. There are more like him though that do work that is just as good if not better yet recieve no recognition (publicly) they are content to advance mankind, and not worry about media representation unless funding is an issue.
Besides I think Hawkins was a fool to leak his sex tape.
http://www.devileash.com/1825-Stephe..._Sex_Tape.html
I think there are probably many copies of his book that haven't been read beyond page 1.
Completely off topic, but does Leeds have the only bus station in Britain at which the bus times are announced by an American-accented synthetic voice? There's something bloody unnerving about hearing Stephen Hawking inform you that "The 22.50 bus to York will depart from bay number eleven."
It's hard to say really (about Hawking that is, not the buses). There's no doubt that he is one hell of a clever bastard, but when it comes down to it, there's really no such thing as the "top five physicists of all time". It's just not possible to compare people in any sensible way. The vast majority of his work is highly theoretical physics, and most of it can have no practical use in the forseeable future. For example, it's all very well knowing that black holes will evaporate after billions of years, but how useful is it really to know that? There are probably thousands of physicists alive today whose work has been more useful than his simply because it is actually used at all. Most of them won't have as far reaching consequences across different fields, but does that really make them any worse than him?
Another important point is the whole "standing on the shoulders of giants" thing. No physics today could exist without the work of thousands of other people having come before it. Einstein is often thought of as some kind of unique genius, yet none of his ideas were really original, he just gathered together many things whose time had pretty much come. If Einstein hadn't existed, it's virtually certain that someone else would have come up with exactly the same as he did. This is even more true of some others. Maxwell's equations, for example, aren't his at all. He was simply the first to put them all together and connect them, they had all been thought up well before he got hold of them.
Of course, this doesn't take away the fact that while many people could have done the same, the people we remember are (usually) the ones who actually did. However, it does mean that the popular view of a few super-genius types just isn't true. They are usually just rather clever people who happened to be working in the right field at the right time.
I think if he had not written A Brief History of Time, he would be much less well known.
That book brought physics to the masses in a way.
Physicists have voted on the top ten physicists before. I've never seen Hawking in the running
Here's one post on it
http://ideaisaac.blogspot.com/1999/1...hysicists.html
Cuddles, why does making a great contribution to physics have to be "useful"?
Exactly! Good point.
What's wrong with just finding answers to things.
I hate it when people complain about science spending, space projects for example, because there is no practical use.
Stop spending on the terribly stupid military and there will be enough for a whole lot of things.
Well there's two ways of looking at useful. One purely pragmatic. As far as that goes I agree, a contribution to physics needn't have any direct pragmatic use. Though it's often the case that what physicists see as pure research will eventually be put to good use. There's the story of Rutherford discussing cathode rays - pure science he said, of no practical benefit whatsoever. Now there are billions of cathode ray tubes in use all over the world in TV and computer monitors. Cathode rays are used to generate x-rays and reaerch into the humble electron (as this is what cathode rays turned out to be - a stream of electrons) has lead forst to thermionic valves and later to semi conductors and through them the information revolution. Then of course is the more prosaic story of the laser physicist who acidentally fried the hair folicles on his forearm. A dratted nuisance as it left a permanently bald patch. It was years before he discussed this with someone at a party who pointed out to him how much women would pay for laser hair removal - a multi million dollar industry that the physicist in his ivory tower was completely unaware he'd invented.
However even if when practical application can be found physics can be useful in pushing back the forefront of our knowledge.
The trouble with Hawkins work is that much of it is highly theoretical to the point of being to all intents and purposes unfalsifiable. It remains to be seen if his work can serve as the foundation for further discoveries. If so then while of little pragmatic benefit it is useful. If not, as seem likley for much of it, then not so useful after all.
I never said it did.
Cuddles - "For example, it's all very well knowing that black holes will evaporate after billions of years, but how useful is it really to know that?" seemed to me to say so! Unless you meant merely "useful in terms of theoretical research".
Speaking as a complete layman, I imagine that knowing black holes are going to evaporate would tell us something about their past behaviour, and so help to build a picture of how the universe has developed to its present state.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks