"The Universe Exists Because of Spontaneous Creation" -Stephen Hawking
Follow the Daily Galaxy
Add Daily Galaxy to igoogle page AddThis Feed Button Join The Daily Galaxy Group on Facebook Follow The Daily Galaxy Group on twitter
 

« EcoAlert: Will Earth Mirror the Fate of Easter Island? (Today's Most Popular) | Main | Darwin's Secret Island: A Model of How Human Exploration Could Transform Mars »

September 03, 2010

"The Universe Exists Because of Spontaneous Creation" -Stephen Hawking

Srvr In "The Grand Design," Stephen Hawking and Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow suggest that physics and metaphysics (and religion) are merging. The grand design which we have taken for granted since Newton is more complex than anything we ever dreamed of. Models of the universe are changing radically. Many physicists doublt the reality of a Big Bang. We live in a world in which many physicists have come to believe there are not merely three dimensions plus time, but 10, or possibly 11 -a new world view world that encompasses that includes black holes, supermassive black holes, galaxy-mass black holes, dark matter, dark energy , string theory, M-theory, alternate pasts and alternate futures. 

"The universe began with the Big Bang, which simply followed the inevitable law of physics," Hawking writes. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own," says reknowned physicist Stephen Hawking Hawking explains in his new book, The Grand Design.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to set the universe going." In his famous 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking did not dismiss the possibility that God may have played some role in creation. But earlier this summer he said in an interview that he does not believe in a "personal" God, reported Great Britain's Telegraph. "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second," he explained. "If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God,' but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

Casey Kazan

Source:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-stephen-hawking-20100905,0,2573263.story

Comments

I find it so perfect a representation of where we are right now as a species to find an article asking the greatest question man has even known and then go to read the comments and there is just one, and it is spam. So, so sad but yet so dead on.

I find it so perfect a representation of where we are right now as a species to find an article asking the greatest question man has even known and then go to read the comments and there is just one, and it is spam. So, so sad but yet so dead on.

This type of reasoning of spontaneous creation is unorthodox because Physical Science has always postulated that gravity requires matter. This quote of "creation because of gravity" is reverse-thinking; Gravity requires matter which requires the creation of matter. In other words, if no creator (or creation) then no matter; If no matter, then no gravity ... and be Hawking reasoning there would be no creation. Am I missing something here? Is Stephen Hawking becoming a philosopher?

If initially there was nothing, that means there were no gravitons either. No gravitons, no gravity.

Has someone taken advantage of advancing Hawking's illness to put their words in his mouth so to speak?

I'm a huge fan of Stephen Hawking, for the work that he has done, and the amazing mathematical/scientific power of his mind, that rivals nearly any other mind on planet Earth.

In fact my own puny brain and intellectual ability stands in complete awe of Stephen Hawking!

But I must admit that I've always held the view that the initial spark that triggered the big bang (or that "moment" in which the multiverse came into creation) may have come from... dare I admit it... God.

While the rest of society struggles to reconcile religious/spiritual beliefs with science, I personally never had a problem reconciling them in my mind.

To me, science is simply the study of creation -- the universe in all it's glory, beauty, and mysteriousness.

Just because I'm a huge fan-boy of Stephen Hawking doesn't mean I have to blindly agree with everything he says. Spiritually, many days, I really "feel" irrationally that there is something else out there -- a power and life force that created the universe.

The way I see it: if 2 objects that touch, can somehow then communicate data with each other instantly, no matter how far apart they are brought, through quantum-entanglement, then surely if there is a God, then he (she?) can communicate with me on some level, no matter how vast the distance we are apart.

No observation or new discovery in science has ever been able to shake my sense that there is something else... if anything new discoveries, observations, and photos from the Hubble Space Telescope only enhance my sense of awe and astonishment for this incredible creation that live within.

So ya, I love science, mathematics, and I think science will save us! (But ultimately I believe science comes from something else -- higher and beyond all of us.)

Well said Velocity : )

Mathematics is one thing, and Hawking is without peer in that field, but when he starts spouting off about God, extraterrestrial civilizations, spontaneous creation, he sounds just as silly as the rest of us. "Spontaneous" is just another word for "God," which is just another way of saying "we don't yet understand."

hmmm...i hesitate to ascribe a name to a force that only becomes more incomprehensible with more answers, a power that may someday be defined, but never controlled...unless life can hop dimensions. yeah right.

The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own,"

No longer one can say where did God come from, Unevers is God.

No longer one can say where did God come from?... Unevers is God.


The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own," Stephen Hawking Hawking.

what the universe needs is a good anti-universe. then everybody can relax.

For those who did not get what Hawking meant by "spontaneous creation", I recomend you look up quantum fluctuations, false vacua, and the anthropic string theory land scape to shed light on the issue. Hawking also never said that the universe began because of gravity. This is an example of misquoting by the media.

Thanks Nao Aar for letting people know that this is so misunderstood and misquoted.

Also this article is badly in need of proof reading.

Thanks Nao Aar for letting people know that this is so misunderstood and misquoted.

Also this article is badly in need of proof reading.

Black and time reverse white holes spontaneously Create and Annihilate Matter. Superclusters like the Coma Cluster and Sloan Great Wall took longer then the age of the universe to form. Dark Energy is proof of anti-gravity and a dumb Hawking statement for more fame and money. Likely dark energy expansion cools the universe to absolute zero, where Bose-Einstein condensates by condensation forms larger black holes. other big-bangs are fractal size-scaled CMB anistropy in the same way that mini-black holes are evaporating and exploding all the time around us. Gravity is not a law of the universe like Hawking says. Hawking is talking two sides of his mouth full of crap to get more publicity instead of explaining truths

Hate to disagree with Professor Hawking but he is forgetting that any entity that could create the Universe is so far beyond our understanding that we would naturally put it down to gravity and "spontaneous combustion!"

Forces were at work here that are not only beyond our understanding, but even beyond our imagination.

I don't subscribe to I.D. but there is something at work here that we can draw an analogy from.

Just as we haven't heard any messages from SETI yet because we are looking for them in a method compatible with our stage of technology, not theirs, so too does our attempt at explaining or defining God not work when we apply inherent human limitations on the problem!

Since Dr. Hawking is currently just up the road at the Perimeter Institute in Kitchener, ON……, if he would like to discuss this further I would be happy to go over and see him!

Allan W Janssen
London, Ontario

Yet you think of this answer, and the more you think about it the more it makes sense. It's all nature and the product of nature's way. I find it a little sad that it is that way which TOTALLY makes sense. But that is too boring to me. All i can say is if all this happened because of "spontaneous creation." It did a hell of a job making everything make soo much sense. I find it way more exciting to think that something did create the universe, and they've had at least 13.7 billion year head start. I also like to think of the universe as a computer that is so smart, it's incomprehensible. Because it is in a sense. ALL of everything. makes thinking about things seem easier to me anyway because it gives me reason. and not no questions of why, I hate why! But what... is the question.

Scientific study on things that we can measure; for example car crash, radiation strength, load calculation, etc are very much accurate and acceptable as its baseline, reference point, measurement unit and its associated fundamental laws are very much well understood (we think so...)

Astronomical study on current existing state of celestial bodies on the other hand is less understood as we only have several telescopes to look at them, and more or less based on calculations and tonnes of assumptions. We know how, I mean the scientists know how to predict the movement, background radiation, etc but that is all they know! They don't even have information on when a meteor may crash the earth or even solid information on what's on Mars! They use a lot of spectrometry analysis and yet they think they're correct based on their very very much limited information, and not so well understood fundamental laws. Also, the lights received on their expensive telescope may have aged billions of years!

They can't even fully understood the current state of celestial bodies and yet they are trying to tell us what they think about the initial or the start of the universe. They came with a lot of THEORIES on what they THINK it may be started off. They also came with all sort of clustered universe theories, warp universe etc which are mainly theories from their thinking. Now they're saying that it may start inevitably because the existence of the law of gravities...

MY THEORY on their inadequately supported theories (which is very much misleading), is that they fail to understand that we only have FIVE SENSES. Yes, human only have five senses. Because we can't see ghost, it doesn't mean that there is no ghost. We study, we think, we engineer, we theorize only solely based on our five senses and THAT is our limitation.

Look at it this way, if all humans are born blind, do you think we can even THINK that light exists? I don't even say KNOW or UNDERSTAND, we can't even THINK that light exists, or make a theories about that. And that is what those scientists are missing.

Yeah, like we're sending signal to aliens, they may have different sensory that they don't even have an equipment to detect them. Or they're at a few fold of IQ level ahead of us that they knew our existence and they take us as nuisance. Or they may be a non matter based creature that we can't sense their existence?

Who made the 'Law of Gravity' to work as it is? Similarly to electricity and magnetism, we KNOW how it works (electron, ionization, potential difference) and then we work, we engineer things around them. But can anyone tell me who design the atoms to work as it is? What binds the universe together? What binds every piece of sub atomic elements together?

There are a lot of things that is beyond us, beyond our thinking capacity as human. And there are tonnes of examples that can show you that. Just look at your cat; can your cat think how you think? Nope, because your cat's IQ is much lower than you. The cat is not even able to think or even theorize how you manufacture canned food for him... It's the same here between God and us!

It is the same, if we can't understand how God created the universe; how the universe sustains and does not collapse; it doesn't mean that God does not exist.

Hawking has a brilliant mind, but for me, those theories are not even at theory level, they are merely ideas.

Aw c'mon. Let's get real here, people. The "God" component doesn't play into the equation in the least. With no malice intended whatsoever, is the human race ever going to wake up and truly realize we created the concept of god. It's in our heads . . . we imagined it. It's not real. End of story. Just because we don't know how or why existence is here, does not mean we can concoct some childish explanation and call it a "truth". Fer cryin' out loud, the only relevance any mention of "god" has in any discussion is that it's probably a psychological condition of the human psyche. For once, I'd love to see banter about the bigger picture of existence take place without the delusional "god factor" being invoked. I say Homer Simpson's purple donut created everything, and the result was an universe that would make the conditions for that purple donut inevitable and predetermined. In fact, perhaps some all-powerful sentient being was eating a purple donut 16 billion years ago, reared up a giant belch, and the universe was born to produce an environment ideal for the existence of purple donuts. Prove me wrong. Or prove me right. But, if you conclude that I'm delusional in the belief of a purple donut deity, at least have the sense to admit that "our" human gods are just as ridiculous and erroneous. Why can't we all just say, "we don't know what the heck is going on, but we're taking a good look-see."

HAWKINGS SCIENCE FICTIONS

No matter if Hawkings is misquoted or not, one has to react on the contents of the article.

- I have no problems with a merging of Religion and Science. In fact it could turn out to be very fruitful – as long as they both get rid of their religious dogmas.

If the Religion got rid of a personified “god” “who” supposedly started it all and if Science got rid of the very same dogma of Big Bang - and a lots of speculative and illogical constructed equations - it would be a good merging starter between these two major branches.

Hawking quote: "The universe began with the Big Bang, which simply followed the inevitable law of physics," Hawking writes. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”, unquote.

- Such a statement is nothing but a circular argumentation which contains NO science or cosmological logics at all. Everything cannot com from nothing, not even from a singularity point, period! The Big Bang is Big Bullocks and nothing else.

Hawking quote: “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist”, unquote.

- Again: Because of the cosmological dogma of Big Bang and general ignorance about natural cosmological creative movements in the Universe, Hawkings is forced to state the creation as spontaneous. Nothing in the Universe happens spontaneously! All movements in the Universe have mechanical and/or electrical reasons!

The scientists don’t know what causes the movements – and the cosmic movements are not allowed to get integrated in their equations because it will reveal all the weaknesses in their strange constructed hypothesis and equations. Just read here how math is misused in order to fit the scientists and not the natural universal cosmology: http://milesmathis.com/index.html

Hawking quote: “The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own”, unquote.

Hurrah! Here Hawkings, involuntary, admits that the creational forces in the Universe are self creating – AND THEREFORE ARE CYCLIC - but anyway his cosmology doesn’t recognize this circular and eternal creation. NO! It all started in a suddenly Big Bang for some earthly time ago.

Hawking quote: "The question is: Is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second," he explained. (Unquote)

- Oh dear! If there was/is “a personal god” creating it all, he/she would certainly not state that the Universe once upon a time did come from nothing – people would think he/she was a pure idiot.

How much Hawkings thinks of him self and his “brilliant colleges”, shines very clearly trough this statement: The Universe was/is determined by “a law of science”, which is the purest blown up egocentric science fiction bullocks!

The Universe was determined long before Newton, Einstein and Hawkings and his mathematical colleges began to invent crazy theories and equations about the creative movements in the Universe.

- So much for criticising modern cosmological science. For those who also would like to study how humans created their gods and goddesses in their own human pictures, take a very good look here: http://www.native.science.net – bookmark and forward it!

- Besides for the pure humanised and personalised deities, humans always has gained genuine intuitive/spiritual knowledge of the cosmos in where we all live under the very same earthly cosmological conditions – an Earth and a Cosmos which of course gives origin for all common religious, mythological and Mytho-Cosmological telling and believes on the Earth.

Also remember and bookmark these links:
Miles Mathis – a mathematical logician dissects the “logical thinkers of modern science”.
http://milesmathis.com/index.html

Bill Gaede:
“Einsteins Idiots” – Part 1-14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSJjs4l_FHU

Natural Philosopher
Ivar Nielsen

UPS!
Should be: http://www.native-science.net
Regards Ivar

The energy equivalent of the mass of any massive particle is exactly balanced by its (negative) gravitational potential energy. So you can indeed make a star, or a universe, from nothing. The story is told that this realization literally stopped Einstein in his tracks while he was crossing a busy street.

So, which came first, matter or gravity? Obviously neither. They are the two sides of one coin.

Hawking can not claim to possess total knowledge about the universe. Logically design can not emerge from total randomness. The event of Big Bang and subsequent logical evolution are not the consequences of what Hawkings proposes. How the gravity arose can not be just a mere chance? The primordial matter was born without the gravity at Big Bang. The fast expansion from the point within extremely short time is still a mystery. This can arise due to some intense repulsive force that dispersed the primordial matter ( which certainly was not baryonic in nature) into the initial universe. Only subsequently, the four forces of nature emerged sequentially; gravity, strong nuclear, electromagnetic and finally the weak nuclear, as per the demands of the logical pattern of universe's evolution. The same was built-in the extremely strong potential of collective nature that already contained the signatures of four component fields to emerge, as per the intelligent design of the universe. It does not matter what we like to call the CREATOR. It may well be highest form of Cosmic Consciousness that ever exists!This seems like a possibility to me, as it is logical. Nothing existed physically prior to Big Bag is no longer a mystery as such a Unified Potential Field has had no manifestation till the Creator desired it by way of Big Bang. God is conceptual only , not something like super human form as most of us imagine him to be. Rational objectivity demands that how we in science can relate non-physical with physical. This can be done through intense research on the nature of CONSCIOUSNESS. If neurologists like Prof. Eccles of Oxford join up with top Physicist and Biology scientists in an equal collaboration, remarkable science may emerge in the future. Sorry, Prof. Hawkings, i do not agree with everything you may conjecture /propose!

Hawking can not claim to possess total knowledge about the universe. Logically design can not emerge from total randomness. The event of Big Bang and subsequent logical evolution are not the consequences of what Hawkings proposes. How the gravity arose can not be just a mere chance? The primordial matter was born without the gravity at Big Bang. The fast expansion from the point within extremely short time is still a mystery. This can arise due to some intense repulsive force that dispersed the primordial matter ( which certainly was not baryonic in nature) into the initial universe. Only subsequently, the four forces of nature emerged sequentially; gravity, strong nuclear, electromagnetic and finally the weak nuclear, as per the demands of the logical pattern of universe's evolution. The same was built-in the extremely strong potential of collective nature that already contained the signatures of four component fields to emerge, as per the intelligent design of the universe. It does not matter what we like to call the CREATOR. It may well be highest form of Cosmic Consciousness that ever exists!This seems like a possibility to me, as it is logical. Nothing existed physically prior to Big Bag is no longer a mystery as such a Unified Potential Field has had no manifestation till the Creator desired it by way of Big Bang. God is conceptual only , not something like super human form as most of us imagine him to be. Rational objectivity demands that how we in science can relate non-physical with physical. This can be done through intense research on the nature of CONSCIOUSNESS. If neurologists like Prof. Eccles of Oxford join up with top Physicist and Biology scientists in an equal collaboration, remarkable science may emerge in the future. Sorry, Prof. Hawkings, i do not agree with everything you may conjecture /propose!


Post a comment

« EcoAlert: Will Earth Mirror the Fate of Easter Island? (Today's Most Popular) | Main | Darwin's Secret Island: A Model of How Human Exploration Could Transform Mars »




1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8





9


11


12


13


14


15

Our Partners

technology partners

A


19


B

About Us/Privacy Policy

For more information on The Daily Galaxy and to contact us please visit this page.



E