I sent the following email to Professor Hawking and a copy to his assisstant, Mr. Blackburn –
________________________________
Dear Professor Hawking:
According to a recent announcement, you have said that you are willing
to bet $100 that the Higgs Boson particle won’t be discovered at CERN
with the LHC. I am willing to consider your wager. I am writing to
inquire of the terms of your bet, as far as a constraining time period
for this discovery to take place, etc, so that I can evaluate it more fully.
Unfortunately, it has not been made clear by the news reports as to
whether your bet was for the initial test of the LHC or when they
actually begin to run it at full power, or some other condition.
Please contact me here with the details. If I find them satisfactory, I
will not only be willing to accept your wager, but raise it by $900,
just to make it interesting. I think I have a way for the winnings to go
to the winner’s favorite science cause without it coming out of the
loser’s pocket. It will then be rather beneficial to a fitting cause and
get some publicity as well.
With All Due Respect,
Marshall Barnes
__________________________________
My willingness to consider Hawking’s bet has nothing to do with my confidence in the Higgs Boson. To be frank, I’m not that big on particle physics as I am in other areas. That being said, I’m willing to take Hawking up on his challenge because of the odds that he is wrong, based on his track record. He has repeatedly made statements that I have found to be as puzzling as they are erroneous. The earmark seems to always be a reliance on making some kind of humorous remark as opposed to a well thought out position. His chronology protection conjecture, “making history safe for historians”, is but one that comes to mind. He has since backed down from it, but it didn’t have a leg to stand on from the moment that he uttered it.
In the immediate wake of being recognized for creating an experiment to test the psychological bias of physicists that prevents them from seeing obvious theoretical flaws, stemming from a mistake that Hawking made (look at the 5th paragraph down, for as long as the story is still available online) that no physicists were able to see until I started pointing it out, I couldn’t let professor Hawking’s remarks about the Higgs go unanswered. It seems that as I made my decision to move forward, Peter Higgs has spoken up as well with his own, more mathematically inspired objections.
Depending on the terms that Hawking presents, I will follow through with meeting his challenge. Whether he accepts or not, is the question. There’s a good chance that he’ll ignore my offer, which is why I sent a copy to his personal assistant Blackburn, to be sure that my email didn’t get lost in the pile of regular fan mail and requests that he gets. It’s also why I’m going public, so that there’s a record that I stepped forward to answer his bet. If I lose, it doesn’t really matter. I have a whole string of projects coming out, concerning the nature of time, where I prove that he has been wrong. In that area, I more than agree with Peter Higgs’ statement that “I am very doubtful about his calculations”. In fact, I know that they’re wrong.
That’s exactly right, David. If you look at one of my early comments on this thread, I was expecting a discussion of that point. [EDIT: it must have been on one of Marshall’s earlier threads, where he first “teased” us with this claim. I discussed my review of Hawking’s The Universe in a Nutshell and Hawking’s conjecture that the laws of physics preserve chronology.]
Given Marshall’s rants here, I’m less willing to give him the benefit of the doubt than you are in your precisely worded second paragraph. But as you note, this is at best a nit-pick and hardly qualifies as the kind of conceptual error implied in the claim of “Hawking’s Biggest Mistake.”
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Marshall:
I was finally able to watch the video on a computer with sufficient audio amplification so I could actually hear what was being said.
I will assume that you correctly characterized Thorne’s thought experiment, as he expressed it in his book. I will also assume that the model Hawking actually responded to was the same as that expressed in Thorne’s book. And I will further assume that there were no transcription errors, or any other errors made in Thorne’s expression of Hawking’s assertion, that you read from Thorne’s book. (I don’t have a copy of that book by Thorne, neither do my work nor local public libraries. I have also never read any papers by Stephen Hawking on this particular subject. So I’ll take your word, as given in the video, on this matter.)
I suspect that the reason N. Jinn Ear (whose actual name I suspect I know) and Fred were unable to understand the point of your “Biggest Mistake Stephen Hawking Ever Made” video is that I expect they were looking for some substantive mistake that would actually invalidate Professor Hawking’s assertion that quantum vacuum fluctuations would cause a feedback loop that would lead to a collapse of the Thorne wormhole “time machine”. Instead, your “Biggest Mistake Stephen Hawking Ever Made” is more like a “nit pick” (admittedly a really big “nit”, of a factor of more than two :-) ), since it has no bearing whatsoever with regard to Hawking’s assertion.*
The thing is that there is nothing special about ten light years. If the “rest frame” of the quantum vacuum fluctuations is such that ten light years is contracted to a Planck length, then less than five light years will certainly be contracted to less than half a Planck length. So this makes Hawking’s argument even stronger, not weaker.
I would say that if that were my biggest mistake ever, I would feel most fortunate indeed. :-) Of course I suspect that what you have here is not “The Biggest Mistake Stephen Hawking Ever Made”, but perhaps simply one of his most obvious mistakes.
Really, Marshall, I suspect that the reason no physicist “caught” him in this mistake (or, rather, “called him” on it), at least publicly, has more to do with how “nit picky” such would be. In a rather real sense, Marshall, I suspect it’s sort of a “glass house” (as in not throwing stones if one lives in one), or a “he who is without sin” issue.
Basically, if one is to pick such “nits”, one leaves oneself open to having one’s own mistakes exposed. Speaking of such, I noticed a far more grievous mistake on your part as you were explaining time dilation to the poor high school students in your video. Do you want me to elaborate?
David
* Incidentally, I can think of many more substantive objections to Professor Hawking’s assertion, but that’s for another time.
P.S. I certainly have no special reverence for Stephen Hawking, other than his perseverance through his afflictions. I most definitely don’t “lap up” whatever writings he may produce (especially not his publications intended for the general public).
In fact, of his work that I have interfaced with I would have to say that I disagree with him about as often as I agree. However, such matters as I disagree with him on are usually within realms were all any of us have are pure speculation (with, hopefully, a heaping dose of physical “intuition”, if you will) such as areas that would require both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, which really don’t “play” well with each other.
I LOVED the video, Marshall! The kids were sooo cool. I especially liked the cute red headed kid with the curly hair. He was so nonchalant through the whole thing – even tossing his pencil up in the air and catching it a couple of times in the background. His answer so detached, like “isn’t this pretty obvious?”. It was a classic!
Keep up the good work and don’t mind the haters. They’re just JEALOUS!
-Celeste
P.S. If you ever hear back from Stephen Hawking or his peeps on that bet, let us know! I agree with you. When in doubt, go with the odds. They’re probably 50/50 he’s wrong, so it’ll be fun to see what happens.
“It’s hard to argue for or against Marshall’s claim when the video doesn’t explain that claim very clearly–at least for this viewer.”
Thanks!
David,
I’m glad to see you back here again.
I’d be very interested in what you think of the video. I share N. Jinn Ear’s assessment that it does not provide enough detail. It’s hard to argue for or against Marshall’s claim when the video doesn’t explain that claim very clearly–at least for this viewer.
I certainly would appreciate a written explanation from Marshall, and N. Jinn Ear has outlined a format that would lead to a clear case for us to consider.
I would also appreciate your assessment of Marshall’s video and his claim, since Marshall has done so much to destroy his credibility here and elsewhere by his angry outbursts and his assertions regarding the Philadelphia experiment.
[EDIT: I just saw that Marshall was back again with another rant. He seems hopeless!]
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
N. Jinn Ear:
I won’t be writing anymore here to explain anything else about the Hawking mistake issue. It’s pointless. Your request for more information for those of you who don’t “get it from the video” supports my decision on this matter because it means that these same people couldn’t “get it” from what I’ve already written here and that others have commented on. It means that they’re not capable of understanding the material directly from the source that I’ve already quoted here. It means that despite the fact that I’ve named the book and given page numbers, that they aren’t capable of going and looking at it for themselves.
You want me to “explain it in writing”, well guess what? I already did. You want me to quote “Hawking’s work and cite the source”? Guess what? I already did in the video. If that’s not sufficient, consider this – it was sufficient enough for professors that I’ve presented it to, for that high school class and their teacher, who approved the project. It was sufficient enough for three girls and two boys to understand it and get the right answer, which I predicted would happen. It has also been sufficient enough for people at my lectures to at least consider the problem, even if they failed to see the answer until it was pointed out. No one has claimed that they weren’t given “sufficient detail”.
This is not a teaching blog or instructional course. It’s my blog to post my thoughts on what I’m working on or what I want to comment on that’s going on in the science world. I’m not here to teach temporal physics and relativity theory to people who are running below the high school physics level or refuse to read what I’ve posted already just so they can say that they weren’t given sufficient detail.
I’m sorry if you can’t look at the video or read what I’ve already posted here and “get it”. But my time is valuable and I don’t want to waste it doing something that I’ve already done. If I had not given references, or not quoted pages directly, or not cited the proper source material, then I would say that you have a point. But I did all of that. I’m not doing it anymore. I suggest you review it again.
As much as I actually enjoy discussing these types of subjects, I don’t when it’s pretty obvious that it’s pointless to continue.
Sorry. Maybe you can find another blog that’s easier to understand. It appears that this one may not be your cup of tea.
MarshallBarnes:
I have been reading this tragedy of a thread, trying to catch up. While I agree that Gadfly, and others, really “stepped in it” when they “fell for” the “stretched” wormhole fallacy, it appears to me that perhaps thou “doth protest too much, me thinks”, at least in regard to the “tone” arguments and your perceptions of other’s motives.
(You claim that the “tone” issues are all on the receiver’s side, while you proceed to “attach” those you perceive as your adversaries, even when they try to point out that it is not as you claim. I agree with N. Jinn Ear. It appears to me that you apply a double standard with regard to issues of miscommunication, whether of “tone” or otherwise. Fred is right to suggest that one should try to learn and adjust one’s approach when miscommunication occurs, rather than accusing [or worse, berating] those that misunderstand.)
Unfortunately, I’m probably letting myself in for your ire. I expect that both Fred and Gadfly would consider me foolish for doing so. C’est la vie.
David
P.S. I’ll have to watch the video another time, such content is blocked by our “benevolent” firewall here at work. :-(
P.P.S. Incidentally, the “offense” Peter Higgs took at Stephen Hawking’s off hand comment that it would be “more interesting” if the LHC didn’t find the Higgs particle appears to be shockingly similar to what I’ve seen in this thread. I don’t believe Hawking was trying to offend Peter Higgs, not do I believe Dr. Hawking has any real calculations showing that there should be no Higgs boson (of course, since I cannot claim to have read all of Hawking’s works, I could be wrong here [of course if he has some calculations to this affect, I could always quibble that it all depends upon the definition of “real” here :-} ]).
P.P.P.S. My own “bet” is that there is no scalar uncharged Higgs particle. I base this upon a “feel”, if you will, for Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity, even though we are certainly far from truly having any theory that bridges that gap (and we are probably way too far from creating any experiments that will provide anything close to definitive guidance in its development—I suspect that only some lucky/chance observation will provide such in the foreseeable future).
Marshall, why don’t you write something to explain your point to those of us who don’t seem to get it from the video? Please quote the passage in Hawking’s work that you are disputing and cite its source so we can find it in context. Then explain in writing why it is wrong.
Communication failures can occur at the transmission end as well as at the reception end (or in the channel). Your replies so far imply that you believe you, the sender, can’t possibly have any responsibility in this failure to communicate.
I disagree. It’s not all the receiver’s fault. Your video does not provide sufficient detail. Perhaps you can remedy that here.
I’d give my real name, but you seem to rant and call people ignorant, dumb, stupid, etc., when they don’t understand your point.
N. Jinn Ear
All mainstream dogs and journals will be proved to be wrong.
Those dogs and journals are the old Catholic Church who subpressed Galileo and Bruno!!!!!
Here are some little dogs!
———-
Hawking always wants to make show of his uggly uggly face.
LHC will prove his trash BLack Holes are wrong!!!
shiiit! Tax payers have to pay a lot of money for his survival and his trash mouth. Very bad.
Hey, I’m looking forward to the next post!
Please try my web-based experiments
No, I didn’t take it down. Why would I? You found an old link. There’s several out there due to problems that happened with the uploading.
I’m not going to waste anymore of my time explaining this problem. The basic premise is in the video, I quoted the page number from the Thorne book, I quoted one of many references from the Thorne book here that shows why Thorne states that the connection would never be stretched and gave the page number to it and someone else here has already confirmed it.
A detailed explanation would only force me to bring in concepts that you all have already shown would be way over your head, because you can’t even handle what these high school kids did. If you can’t understand terms like “relative”, and “light years” and what they mean within the context of a thought problem like this, then this is beyond you, sorry. All the information is right there.
When one of you gets off your backside and gets the Thorne book and is able to quote from the text why I’m wrong, then I’ll have a discussion with you, but I’m not holding my breath ’til then, since I know you’ll never do it and I know that the minute any of you try, you’ll see how moronic this idea of the stretched wormhole connection is. You won’t be able to find one word to support it because it goes completely against the premise of both Thorne model and Hawking’s goof, as well as relativistic physics.
I can’t believe how dense you people are. You’ve only given me ample evidence for a theory that I’ve had that I would be more than happy to be wrong about. I wish I was, but it certainly seems, tragically, I’m not.
This is pretty sad. It’s pathetic really.
“The rocket with the wormhole exit travels (almost) ten lightyears back and forth relative to Earth, even though it never gets more than five lightyears away.
That seems to support Hawking’s conjecture, despite Marshall’s claim.”
You’re contradicting the entire set-up of Thorne’s model. I guess telling book page references and quotes so that the correct information is readily available to you people doesn’t matter.
At least Stewart took the time to look the information up! If your claim is correct, then Hawking is still wrong because such a connection would make it impossible for any feedback loop to develop. If the connection is stretched 10 light years, that is equal to a distance that it would take light to travel in 10 years. According to Hawking’s objection, quantum gravity waves would be able to travel through the wormhole connection and arrive before they left thus creating the feedback loop that would break the connection. If the distance through the wormhole connection is stretched to the distance of 10 light years, they wouldn’t arrive before they left or any time close to the time they left – they would arrive 10 years later IF they were traveling at the speed of light.
There’s other reasons why this idea is so bad it’s not even wrong, but why bother trying to explain them – it’s pointless.
All you’re doing is showing that you can’t understand what a number of high school kids could, you’re too lazy to look up references to the original material when they are given, and no matter how much you try to discuss it – you’ll make no more sense of it than a group of hens would. It doesn’t matter how many times you watch it.
All you’re trying to do is figure out a way that I could be wrong. Sorry, I’m not. Get over it. Ignoring the facts is never going to change that. As long as you avoid the original text from Thorne, you’re only proving my point. It does however, explain why all you detractors want to hide your names.
Watch it before it disappears.
Gadfly may not have been precise in his choice of language, but the point seems valid. The rocket with the wormhole exit travels (almost) ten lightyears back and forth relative to Earth, even though it never gets more than five lightyears away.
That seems to support Hawking’s conjecture, despite Marshall’s claim.
Others care to argue in Marshall’s favor? We now have something to discuss, at least as long as he keeps that link alive.
Perhaps Marshall will explain why he took it down rather than using it to make his case.
I’ll settle for a new Marshall Barnes posting in the form of a detailed explanation of “Hawking’s Biggest Mistake” and allow the readers of Science Blog to critique it openly. If Marshall doesn’t like peer review, then at least he can put his evidence out there for us to consider.
I’m here Eric because I found the information about the bet with Hawking. At the same time I discovered the debate over the wormhole connection.
I too, am concerned with tone but what you seem to forget is that in science it’s important to have the facts right. This wasn’t a matter of opinion over data. Marshall was accused of misleading students, which in the educational field is a serious charge. As it has been confirmed, the charge was completely false. That doesn’t seem to concern you, however.
I think it’s important that salicious accusations made by faceless entities, be exposed for what they are. I don’t think that the tone is the important part of that, especially when it concerns false charges made with obvious malice. By your not looking to change the content, you are supporting the making of salicious accusations. After all, false charges can be made without name calling or emotional outbursts.
I too, remember the SciAm blog community though I rarely participated, I just lurked. I don’t remember seeing Marshall’s blog there, but I read mostly articles and not many blog posts. I certainly don’t remember seeing anything as disappointing as this circus, either way.
-Stewart
It is not ok – but it doesn’t mean that Marshall is in the right either. My issue is really, again, the tone.
Before I answer your question, let me ask you the same question – why are you here?
I am here because I have been reading this site for the last 4-5 years and have really enjoyed it. Not only that, I support the idea of people using blogs to share and discuss science. I have noticed lately that a lot of bitter comments and name calling has been happening and very little real comments with substance. I contributed to that arc when I posted to this thread.
When I realized I was being petty, I took the stand and apologized for my name-calling. For this situation I was only asking Marshall to do the same. If he feels righteous in his position; feels he did no wrong and sincerely believes that a persons response to antagonism should be as equal in vitrol and spite as the original statement, then I guess I have nothing else to say here.
I am looking to change the tone, not the content. People can obviously disagree and have their own opinions – I just don’t think it should degenerate into name calling.
Eric
I’m curious Eric, Why is it OK for Gadfly to hit Marshall with a vicious smear, but it’s Marshall that you’re demanding an apology from, not Gadfly? Perhaps if Gadfly minded his own business and didn’t attack people with false accusations, he wouldn’t have “hurtful comments” made about him.
How do you know he was hurt, anyway? Is he some friend of yours?
From where I sit, he got as good as he gave, and better. Nothing that he didn’t deserve.
Why are you even here? Marshall accepted your apology. He’s not said anything further about you or Fred. He hasn’t been here for a couple of days. It’s not even your blog!
-Stewart
The LHC seems to produce a field that attracts aliens:
Here a link to prove it.
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Good to have you back, ‘Sauce. I’ll be posting a re-welcome comment on your new posting.
In physics, the over/under is measured in standard deviations. Also, watch out for the Heisenberg bookie service, which offers uncertain payouts. On the positive side, they do offer jackpots for tunneling, with or without a wormhole.
The Feynman bookie service has great diagrams on their web site, but they only promise to pay off for the spontaneous creation of a ship/anti-ship pair from the vacuum. The only claim they ever faced was for the Philadelphia Experiment. To avoid paying it, they and the entire physics establishment have conspired to develop a campaign of denial and doubt. That explains why, to this day, most people do not accept that it really happened.
(Note to the humor-impaired: This is satire, not passive aggression.)
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
I’m new to this debate, but I think all of this proves my point that Vegas really needs to start keeping a physics book. This would be huge. The problem with Hawkings bet is that he doesn’t lay down any odds. I have no idea what the over/under is. How am I supposed to make a decision without a qualified nerd bookie running the show?