The Hawking Paradox

2005 ,    » 102 Comments
Ratings: 7.19/10 from 36 users.

The Hawking ParadoxStephen Hawking is the most famous scientist on the planet. His popular science book A Brief History of Time was a publishing sensation, staying at the top of the bestseller lists longer than any other book in recent history. But behind the public face lies an argument that has been raging for almost 30 years.

Hawking shot to fame in the world of physics when he provided a mathematical proof for the Big Bang theory. This theory showed that the entire universe exploded from a singularity, an infinitely small point with infinite density and infinite gravity. Hawking was able to come to his proof using mathematical techniques that had been developed by Roger Penrose. These techniques were however developed to deal not with the beginning of the Universe but with black holes.

Science had long predicted that if a sufficiently large star collapsed at the end of its life, all the matter left in the star would be crushed into an infinitely small point with infinite gravity and infinite density – a singularity. Hawking realized that the Universe was, in effect, a black hole in reverse.

Instead of matter being crushed into a singularity, the Universe began when a singularity expanded to form everything we see around us today, from stars to planets to people. Hawking realized that to come to a complete understanding of the Universe he would have to unravel the mysteries of the black hole.

More great documentaries

102 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Guest

    one interesting talk was that of Nassim Harramein at the Nexus conference in July 2010. Doc available for free.
    The guy's idea is not supported by the science world...but listen to what he has to say before you make an in all things he is not right on the dot yet...but he is imagining in a beautiful way.
    Now i will watch this one.

  2. Guest

    The black hole that concerns me most as a being, is the one in the middle of my eyes. Because without that common black hole we all have, our reality would quite possibly not be material. It is that black hole that defines the need for a definition.
    What is behind that black hole? "i1O1i", two pi signs back to back against infinity.
    That's the dot on the i for me and my present understanding of GOD!
    Since i am a dough nut, i'll keep searching for what's off the table.
    the pupil of my eye
    the pupil of my i

  3. Guest

    I say the black hole of the eyes...because for me what works is to look from a view of the "one eye" through eye gazing.
    I talk about this in details on Invisible World.


  4. Guest

    Part 4 at 1:30min., says that if an observer watched someone falling in towards the event arising, they would see something extraordinary happening to that person as the person gets closer and closer to the black hole, they would be evaporated or ionised .....eventually completely destroyed.
    I say: metamorphosed.

    What does the G of his formula stand for? math and i are strangers. please help.

  5. Irishkev

    I think in this case G stands for large gravitational force, whereas g usually stands for acceleration due to gravity. Although it's been over 20 years since I studied, maybe they are using a different type of abacus these days.

  6. Guest

    In a physic reality a Big Bang may have happened, if so, then it is normal to expect that in a non-physical energetic reality, a Big Bang of it's own sort will also happen. This may be what the ancient writings describe for 2012.

    We are a black hole and the pupil of our eyes is where the energy is disected into dots or mini black holes. We had to have a black hole in our eye to think our first black hole, so quite possibly we have created in our mind the existence of eyes that sees black holes.
    It is like the chicken and the egg or the human and his ego!
    I think it's encouraging to think that we are a black hole and that we are finally intensily studying what we are our selves. We are finally grabing our own tail. The snake.

    I see that Hawking's end theory applies to a concept that i have.
    Is the information lost or not?
    In a universal perception where we see, (with black hole), we have memory for stuff but we lose memory of the nothing ness.
    In a universal perception that we are solely energetic, we regain the memory of nothing ness but we lose the memory of stuff.

    He says: "if one waits long enough only the history without a black hole will be significant. So in the end information is preserved"

    Because the real information is not the stuff of this reality, but the immense possibility of a reality with no frontier of any kind.

    You are GOD in this way and so am I
    i is GOD

    i am not trying to convince anyone, i am looking at angles trying to convince my self.

  7. Muzar

    is it just me or does this docu seem recycled? I've seen these animations, video shots in other bbc docus. too bad...

  8. Guest

    Nice to watch the doc, even though have seen it before, I "think" that nothing can actually be destroyed/annihilated even by black holes, since everything is energy. May come out the other side in a white hole in another parallel universe.

    Even thoughts, since they are formed by electrical energy, firing the neurons in our brains as information. As in quantum mechanics, if by observing we can collapse the waveform, then thoughts are energy that cannot be destroyed.

    Matter may be broken to its fundamental beginnings, but still exist as energy, waiting for someone to collapse the waveform again.

    If information can be regained through various means might be "decompartmentalised" info, but again by probabilities, might be different info and because of the different info could be new universes that are formed by the Planck seconds of the "now's". Re: Many worlds theory.

  9. Arnold Vinette

    More and more evidence is coming to light these days that the big bang theory is completely wrong. Not to offend Stephen Hawking but the standard model of the universe is wrong and the Big Bang theory is wrong.

    Making matters even worse the concept of the Universe continually expanding is also wrong. The reason why is that the expanding Universe has been based on the understanding of the Red Shift of light. More and more evidence is showing that red shift data is wrong.

    The new theory for the universe is the electro magnetic theory. Which is making more and more sense of observable data.

    And when it comes to gas cloud formation in the universe the old theory stated that eventually the gas would run out, leading to the eventual darkening of the universe.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Hydrogen atoms in the universe are being continuously created from cosmic energy. The hydrogen atom is the simplest atom that can be created from pure cosmic energy. The hydrogen atoms gradually collect into clouds, and eventually form stars. The cycle of star formation and destruction eventually leads to the other elements in the periodic table.

    The cycle of cosmic energy is never ending. Meaning that the universe we exist in has never had a beginning nor will it have an ending. It has always just been and will continue to exist into infinity.

    The concept of the big bang as expressed by Stephen Hawking is no longer correct.

    Arnold Vinette
    Las Vegas

  10. Jordan Todd

    For the record it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics you are speaking of.

    1) This has nothing to do with the law so I will ignore it.
    2) Again, nothing to do with it, unless you are calling planets "organized". If that is in fact what you are doing, this planet will eventually not be here anymore, whether through a planetary collision, our sun going supernova, etc., and will then be significantly less organized.
    3) Our planet being in a solar system is by simple chance and the force of gravity. Again, one day it won't be and the whole system will be less organized.
    4) Same argument as 3) on a bigger scale.
    5) Humans die and decay, the organic matter we are made of shall be significantly less organized after we die.

    Also, watching water go down the drain has less than nothing to do with the big bang theory and black holes.

    As for the theory of the universe always being there, since you said you plan on ignoring the math, it is a plausible theory.

  11. Epicurean_Logic

    @Arnold Vinette

    Your arguments have more holes in them than a Swiss cheese,

    1) By your sink hole rationale the earth should also have been engulfed by the sun which is clearly not the case.

    2) Galaxies do not rotate uniformly. Just like your sink hole the closer the matter is to the centre, the faster it spins. A basic Google search brings up many links that show this to be true.

    3) Tens of thousands of separate measurements of red-shift data over many decades involving hundreds of scientists effectively prove that the universe is expanding.

    Stop spreading specious information on matters that you know nothing about.

  12. StevenHawkings

    wrong, matter moves from a organized state to a more disorganized state. (low entropy to high entropy). At the big bang the universe was at an extremely low entropy state and after the "bang" has been heading toward a higher entropy state ( less organized). Eventually are galaxy will collapse and explode leading to more disorganization.

  13. DeeJay Pickles

    I think the fact that the concept of infinity can exist means that infinity is so.
    how can you contain such a powerful concept within a universe that cannot manifest this idea. so I think because we can talk about infinity as a concept it means that it must exist. energy cannot be destroyed (so neither can the thing that contains it) it just takes on a different form like heat or matter.

    But then again I have smoked a lot of weed tonight and I might be talking s**t.

  14. manohar sullad

    I have to disagree with 2).

    Stars at the Galaxies edge rotate at nearly the same speed as that of center.
    What you say applies only to planets where planets closer to there respective stars rotate faster in there orbit around star and planets outwards rotate slower around their orbit of the star, the same can't be said wrt galaxy and stars.

    This is the reason Dark Matter theory exists.

  15. Guest

    @Arnold Vinette:

    What are you saying, that we take your water in sink experiment as our model of the forces of the universe?
    That has nothing to do with anything, so won't even go there.

    The forces that keep our planets from falling into the Sun and galaxies from falling into black holes are rotation and gravity, called "Centripetal" force, with the law of gravity. Which all rely on the speed of rotating bodies and gravity, as in the case of our moon degrading away from earth, not enough gravity.

    But at centre of our galaxy, stars rotating very fast around our black hole gobbling up stars with fury causing the bulging glow of "Active Galactic Nuclei" (AGN) but even then that takes tens of millions if not billions of years to have any earth shattering effects. So do not look for anything spectacular for upwards of tens or hundreds of billion years, if you live so long.

  16. tomregit

    Arnold, please stop posting these incredibly goofy ideas of yours. You haven't the sense to realize your level of education precludes you from having any way to come up with new, groundbreaking theories in astrophysics. You are becoming an embarrassment to me and thirty million other Canadians.

  17. tomregit

    If one is a stranger to math, there can be no understanding of modern physics. Ideas on the subject from a philosophical viewpoint are almost meaningless. Because of your holistic explanations, may I call you az whole? BTW it's event horizon not event arising.

  18. Epicurean_Logic

    We can talk about the unicorns and the fairies (some of us more than others *cough cough*) but that doesn't necessarily mean that they do exist in the world.

    If we see them as the distal stimulus (the thing out there) then they exist out there. IMO rationalism has to be tempered with empiricism.

    Infinity is not a number and hasn't been observed. It is a never ending state of affairs so how can one observe something that never ends unless they also never end? Not possible.

    Infinity is contained through (and possibly only through) the powerful language of mathematics. Here it is {1,2,3...} suitably contained as the set of all positive whole numbers.

  19. Epicurean_Logic

    When you say collapse the wave form does that mean the transfer from one state to another? matter to energy or vice-versa?

    I was asked what collapse the wave form means by a hot chick with a gorgeous 'bottle' *and glass* (arse) in the coffeeshop and didn't have an answer 'cause I don't have a 'Danny le rue' (clue) about quantum mechanics.

  20. James del Valle

    Got as far as when they said that the information of any object would be imprinted on the event horizon of a black hole and so the information of the material could be retrieved thus not going against the presumed laws of the universe which hawking goes against. I cant believe I wasted a half hour of my life watching this complete crap, how stupid do they think people are to be believe that nonsense. It makes me sick actually that people have the cheek to tell us these things like they are real when its obvious they are not.

  21. Bohrfanboy

    Galaxies actually do spin uniformly(more or less)....this was discovered in the 60´s I think and was a big part of why we deduced that there had to be "dark matter" in the universe.....(I am not siding with Arnold here) just wanted to let you know

  22. PsychicBeing

    Beautiful, Arnold.
    What StevenHawkings, tomregit, and the rest of these neanderthals fail to posit is a thinking, living, breathing consciousness within their pompous theories of everything. They all go on about the meaning of the universe, and WE ARE NOT IN IT! Any such theory is of course, utter, laughable nonsense. Unless, tomregit, you want to go ahead and prove to me that you do not exist and that the universe somehow goes on regardless?

  23. Bohrfanboy

    Arnold you sound like you enjoy science allot but i think you would enjoy it allot more if you would take a little longer time trying to understand the basic´s of physics. Most of your statements are easily refutable given you understand the basics.

    for your own sake please do some reading on the subject matter before trying to taken down the smartest guys on the comes across as very arrogant and somewhat insulting to the field of science.
    Not that I think anyone in here or in the field of science would care about it I just thought you might want to know your kinda embarrassing you self(and Canada apparently).

    I cant even begin to tell how dumb it sounds when you try to refute black holes in the centre of galaxy's by filling you sink with water and watch it run out...I was planning on trying to explain the flaws in your idea's but to be hornets I don't know where to begin.

  24. Kevin Lynch

    As long as the electrochemical processes that allow the mind to work still occur in the universe, then people will disagree about everything. Whatever the 'truth' of the matter might be. In the end, ultimately, it will not matter in the scope of your average life

  25. Guest

    When a hot chick with a body you could die for, asks you what collapses a wave form its a come-one man! you don't need to know squat about quantum mechanics, can tell her will show you, all it means is you can by various ministrations get her into one state from another, for your benefit of course, if you get what I mean?

    Should of told her in the name of science and the scientific method, will demonstrate that particular scientific paradigm on and with her!

    Don't tell me you had a great opportunity like that and lost it??? Bad, Bad.

    Collapsing the wave form means as in..."Feynman's sum over histories"..."Feynman demonstrated that subatomic particles traverse infinite paths through spacetime, implicating infinite histories for any one particle" a nut shell by direct observation can get that wayward particle to settle down and do something, Re: one history, matter. Or as an example the double slit experiment.

  26. Guest

    Imagine if he has been taken over. His computer being under the control of an exterior hand. His word being the word of some 1 else?
    He certainly would not have the physical force to fight this, or show it in any face contortion...Hey Hey!

  27. Guest

    I am all for the finite understanding of infinity...LOL
    Or is Infinity infinite?

  28. Guest

    guys always talking about slit experiments. lol

  29. Guest

    One never knows where a dot will emerge in a black sky. Don't think thinking is not enough. Every one of us on earth is part of the knowledge, a chinese man working his field in Dali (China) could come up with an earth shattering idea.
    I am not claiming to have that...but also i am not afraid to venture. I don't care what people think which is my step ahead of many. Fearless of opinions about my brain, the only think i really fear is to stop it from travelling in the unknown.
    No i am not your way, i am travelled in and out!

  30. Intbel

    Seems to me that if the universe is expanding it will reach a limit of expansion and then the only thing it can do is contract.

    Then we have a contracting universe which, when it reaches its limit of contraction, expands again.

    Thus, suspect this universe is in an eternal state of expansion and contraction. I also suspect there is an infinite number of universes each in various stages of expansion and contraction.

    This expansion and contraction seems to be the rhythm of Life ...

  31. princeton


    I'm with Arnold on this one...
    the whole black holes mess is bunk..

    you guys really haven't even begun to dismantle anything arnold said. if you have an infinitely dense black hole from which nothin can escape, please don't start showing me plasma jets shooting out of the dang thing.. that is simply ridiculous and not becoming of people who claim to think for a living.

  32. princeton

    @ point #1 .. well not really, because the sun is not claimed to be of infinite density and gravity. we clearly see that light and other particles excape the sun with no problem... so its well understood y the earth maintains a certain orbit, just like our satellites orbit earth.. i don't think u can talk about orbiting a black hole though...

    if a point of infinite density exists somewhere out there.. then the rest of the universe should not.

  33. princeton

    yes, true indeed, but i think what arnold meant is that when the galaxies collapse and explode, new galaxies will be formed. Arnold may stretch things a bit by saying it goes from unorganized to... but i think our evidence that things go the other way is also incomplete.

    what we've noticed is cycles. things break down and reoraganize themselves in another fashion.

    in a sense also, atoms and molecules organize themselves and create self replicating systems... thats how we got here..

    the only evidence of the universe moving toward a greater state of disorganization is the expanding universe model if it were correct.

  34. princeton

    you know.. I always wondered... if the universe is expanding.. are we getting bigger also...
    i guess the earth and sun would be growing too, if the fabric of space itself is that which is expanding, would we not also? why just the distance between the galaxies, but not the objects within the galaxy?


  35. Guest

    If everything was expanding as a whole, then there can be no measurements of expanding at all, measurements would be the same, for something to be/get bigger, you need a point of reference.

  36. princeton

    well... math and other science are actually rooted in and based on sound philosophical principles.
    you need to have established the basic rules of logic before you can begin to tackle any mathematical problem.

    philosophy should not be so underrated..
    I do understand the impulse though because phrases like "its my philosophy" have worked to discredit the most important and fundamental of the sciences. now when people hear philosophy, they start thinking Woo-woos and whatever anyone wants to believe as truth.

    well this is not so!
    philosophy is a defined science and does not just accept any "theory" that makes someone feel good as valid. There are rules which must be followed in order to engage in philosophy.

    sorry bout the rant but my point is that if philosophical viewpoints have no bearing on physics, then we are not doing science!

  37. Guest

    Philosophy is "not" a defined science, it is not even a thought experiment unless it has defined scientific paradigms.

    As was said, "philosophy bakes no bread"!

  38. Guest

    Although philosophy does not bake bread or describe the what how when, it helps to describe the why.

  39. Guest

    We are expanding energetically, what is expending in us is the gray matter sort of speak. That is what we are energy, and as with the universe it is the energy that is expanding.
    may be wrong may be right or somewhere near either one!

  40. Guest

    Well no, don't know about you, but I don't keep having more energy, I wish!
    There is a limited amount of energy and matter in universe. can't take away from one without adding to the other. The universe as we know it, is a closed system, a Brane.

  41. Guest

    It depends what you measure. We are not getting more energetic in the sense of a physical progression, although that's possible too, i always say the more i spend energy the more i am full of it longer. We are getting more energetic in a way we cannot quantify yet.
    We have gone to an extreme of the heavens and to an extreme of the minimum, we are now realizing that both may be infinite within a growing Brane. That realization makes us turn to a third direction, the inward of self.
    If we start with the concept that the outer in both directions lead to what we think may be infinity, then we might as well skip the long search with philosophy and jump straight to the idea that the unknown inside of us is probably infinite too.
    I have been saying "for God to be he has to be"....well i think we are about to define a very new way to describe what that word means.

    and again upwards
    i even made it bigger
    and important
    look through the words
    you will see substance
    the best gift to give
    is often the gift of receiving generously
    with Open arms
    it permits generosity to grow genuinely
    a difficult offer
    to submit to 1's joy
    a hand that receives gleefully
    from 1 that gives humbly
    please all ways
    end in thank you
    please help thank you
    help me help you help me
    help my Self to help the world
    quizzers stand in the middle of my game
    ambition lets you read in a proper way
    if i had only 3 words to describe Z?A
    i would say
    composed unpredictable mysterious
    1 cannot be 1
    without being the 2 others
    we are all simultaneously
    owing to the fact
    that we are our very present
    sandwiched between past and future
    as yet to be discovered and fathomed
    in and outside of our self
    glowing in the empty spaces on each sides

    a poet in her free time

  42. Guest

    Well again no, we have not gone to the extreme of anything as yet, we are like babes lost in the woods, just skirting on the edge of our great mystery, what is the universe, and why are we here.

    If we do not blow ourselves up in the process, maybe when we become a class three civilization might know some answers, and even shoot for the stars, right now still a class zero, not even a class one civilization as yet. Long, Long, way to go!

  43. Guest

    If you read well i say we have gone to an extreme of the heavens and to an extreme of the minimum...not THE extremes, in other words our present extreme.
    And yes i do agree the trip is far from over. That means we may be approaching a passing into something innimaginable as yet! or not?
    Sometimes great leap are done because of a bang!

  44. Guest

    1 can die from the hit of lightening
    1 can live from the hit of enlightement
    if amnesia is the inability
    to imagine a future
    be amnesiac or be a maniac
    with extreme enthusiasm
    for a fathomless tomorrow

    so why be afraid of dying
    let us be afraid of not living

  45. Epicurean_Logic

    Dudes if I could have directed the conversation into one about sex I would of. It started off with me overhearing that she went to MIT and of course I have done a semester of classical mechanics on the MIT online open courseware ( a free course if anyone is interested) so I pounced and then she hit me with the quantum mechanics whammy. I didn't want to bluff 'cause she was an MIT student. Turns out she studied computer science.

    Out of every bad comes good: she was quite weird and got quite annoying and ratty towards the end of the conversation and kept on asking for my surname???

    I have tried the Achemsian approach to pulling birds (women) before. Last summer im memory serves. Lol. What was it? Oh yes use flowery words and lay it on thick with a trowell. To be fair it wasn't all bad.

  46. Epicurean_Logic

    As I understand things. The point of infinite density occurs at the point of singularity and the further away from this point the weaker the force of gravity acts on matter according to the inverse square law. So eventually the event horizon is the distance at which matter is no longer compelled to fall into the abyss of infinite density and from there onwards matter can easily escape the fatal attraction of the black hole depending on direction and speed of travel.

    I get what you are saying though. If it's infinite then nothing should escape. There could be a temporal delay to all matter eventually falling into black holes. A pocket of golden or free time in the entropy. Thats one possibility.

    Also intuitive understanding of physics is not really the best way to think about these ideas because intuition can be very misleading. Physics is directed by the maths.

  47. Epicurean_Logic

    It is very hard to pin down in a few words what exactly philosophy is. All branches of philosophy however agree on one thing, that if a question can be answered empirically, by use of the senses or setting up experiments, it is not a philosophical question.

    Questions that can be answered by the science, maths, history or ordinary perception are not philosophical.

  48. NAND Gate

    You fail to mention that therefore something can initially be philosophical, but then moves into the realm of empiricism once it is properly explored.

    This pretty much involves ALL thought since the dawn of time.

  49. MuzammilAli

    It's not even the distance between galaxies that's expanding, it's the distance between the clusters of galaxies that expanding with the rate of 70Km/second/mpc (mpc=mega par second=3.26 light years). The solar system and the galaxies within a cluster are bound together by the force of gravity so the distance between them won't increase much like the electrons in an atom that are bound together by electromagnetic force.

  50. anuragawasthi

    Like How a seed grows into a plant the same way an infinitely small concentration of energy explodes into a universe which we know of and after a time it starts to contracts,and become infinitely small and floats into a void and stillness,and then the process starts all over again

  51. Elickson Arias

    i think the black whole is the big bang, things just don't vanishes from the universe. instead, i think is a recycling process like water turns into vapor and then rains. i think what vanishes will some how appear in another dimensional universe of time and space, the same will happen in that other side.i think the universe works like a line two pistons in an engine both opposite but working together pushing each other out to make the universe run.

    i'm not as smart as hawking's and the highest grade in physics(H.S) i had was an 80, as you can see not very smart but i think my theory makes sense after all everything not experienced is a theory.

    please don't hate. XD

  52. Elickson Arias

    i don't think the universe is expanding maybe changing shape. that would probably give an illusion of expansion. every theory is good, the more theory's crossed out the closer we are to understanding.

  53. Kelly Mitchell

    Isaac Newton was not a 'scientist.' that designation did not exist then. He was called a 'natural philosopher.' Philosophy gave birth to science.

  54. Guest

    @Kelly Mitchell:

    So they did not have a name for scientists, so what if he was called a natural philosopher, he could of being called anything, what's in a name? But that is what Isaac Newton was, a scientist, he experimented through the scientific method which gave the facts, not philosophy. Philosophy did not give birth to science, as it does not now. philosophy bakes no bread!

  55. His Forever

    I hope that Stephen Hawking does indeed come up with an answer to the big quesitons. He is brilliant and I'd like to understand it more myself.

  56. Guest

    I think what's interesting is how this site allows all of us to philosophize while describing in opinions our way of seeing the world we live on.
    Philosophy doesn't bake bread, well this morning while watching, writing or reading TDF, i managed to make a few loafs of bread made with a live yeast (sourdough) that was brought all the way from The Northern Territory more than 15 yrs ago and kept alive to this day in my fridge.
    Therefore Philosophy in a way Bakes Bread!

  57. Kevin Yoder

    Personally, I think Hawking should spend more time on giving humanity on this planet "direction", and EDUCATE the people. He knows math quite well, so why doesn`t he point out that we`ve reached what`s known as "critical mass" after increasing "exponentially for nearly 500 years? That would be far better than some black hole? Who cares about black holes? We have children starving to death by the millions worldwide annually due to lack of education mostly. Hawking could do so much more for humanity in my opinion.

  58. tomregit

    I certainly never "go on about the meaning of the universe". No design, no purpose, no evil, no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference, with thanks to Richard Dawkins.

    Cogito ergo sum. I am part of this universe; and it will go on without me.

    It is intellectually dishonest to begin a debate with name calling. You should know better.

  59. tomregit

    Apologies for position of last post. It is a reply to Psychic Being

  60. danielmcd3

    Your post is, if you excuse the expression, stupid. It is not a scientist's job to give "direction" to the world. Science, rationalism and questioning is their job. What on earth do you expect Hawkings to do about World hunger? Just because he is great in his field does not mean he can enlighten mankind on our follies. "we have children starving to death by the millions worldwide annually due to lack of education" People do not starve from lack of education, lack of food maybe?. "Who cares about black holes? " This kind of statement is plain ignorant and shows a retrograded mentality. Yeah , who cares about something which has a huge impact on the very reality in which we dwell. Lets all be thick and go and live in a cave. Black holes have a huge impact on the Universe, the very universe in which you and I live and which gave birth to the basic elements which make up both of us. If you want another person to waffle on about world hunger I suggest you google "Bono" and "Bob Geldof", leave the scientists out of it and let them get on with what they do best and what humanity does best: questioning everything.

  61. korydk

    Einstein had a definite experimental proof for special relativity; succinctly if the experimental data wasn't in his favor he was willing to say he was wrong...Turned out he was proved right.
    As someone with a couple scientific degrees in a different field and only modest understanding in theoretical physics, I have to say where's the data? Where's the experimental proof, they are engaging in conjecture with fancy math, sans some measurable, repeatable data. Unifying disparate physical constants into a universal equation, with no proof is hubris.

  62. Nakor420

    OK, when we see the universe expanding in all directions, it's easy to see how if you travel far enough back in time that we end up at a single point of origin. FINE...BUT, how do you explain the expansion? A singularity by definition CAN't expand. And object that is infinitely small and infinitely dense would also have an infinitely powerfull gravitational force, thus any expansion is immpossible. I'm not saying the big bang didn't happen, but it could not have started with a singularity.

  63. Anthony Pirtle

    How can you say that a singularity 'cant' do anything, since the laws of physics break down there?

  64. Anthony Pirtle

    Who cares about black holes? Stephen Hawking. What are you doing to give the world direction? If thats your thing, run with it. Why should we expect a scientist to be obligated to do so?

  65. Anthony Pirtle

    Well its not a new hypothesis, and it certainly is one possibility.

  66. Anthony Pirtle

    Leonard Suskind's supposed solution to the 'hawking paradox' is worse than the disease. The holographic principle is just wishful thinking on his part.

  67. Nakor420

    Do you even know what a singularity is? If your argument held any wirght, then we would be deeing black holes expanding into new universes all over the place. It just DOESN'T HAPPEN.

  68. AlfBeta

    I have thought the same. His does fulfill a science fantasy, the "disembodied brain of a genius".

  69. AlfBeta

    So is 'infinitely small' greater or less than zero?

  70. ryanhunt_93

    Firstly, if it was negative it wouldn't be -infinity as this is infinitely large. It would be a number close to 0.
    To answer your question mathematically. It would be both yet neither at the same time. Just like -1 and 1 are equal distances from 0, infinitely small could be a possitive or negative in a mathematical sense but then when taken as a negative value would be conceptually possible and not realistically, however it is still completely possible mathematically.
    But this theory relies on negative being positive with opposite direction (for motion) or opposite dimension (for matter).
    Also negative infinitely small is equal to infinitely small. Heres why:
    infinitely small = s
    n = any finite positive integer
    s = n divided by infinity
    -s = -n divided by infinity
    If treated mathematicall both s and -s give you negligable answers and therefore infinitely small = negative infinitely small so both must = 0 and neither can exist.
    This means infinitely small can only be taken as a physical value and can therefore only be positive (as it only exists in the real plane) and is therefore greater than 0. (but only just)
    Sorry for the lengthy answer :p

  71. AlfBeta

    excellent, thanks ryanhunt

  72. AlfBeta

    So "infinitely small" is the first quantum of dimension 'larger' than a point. But a point did not precede Kaboomy, because tho a point is dimensionless, it needs location. Don't mind me, just musing we can have: First element of Kaboomy process = The Point. Second, the first quantum of time and transformation of The Point into Infinitely Small.

  73. Guest

    I found a little weird when it was suggested that black hole may be sort of a funnel through which matter was "Suck in" another world, one which is not in our universe. Even though they didn't went up to the point of suggesting another "Dimension", it remains and will always remains unprovable.

    When the maths cannot find practical applications, philosophy and religion take over, alas. - "Eternity last a very long time, especially near its end".

  74. Thaddeus Wolicki

    I've solved the problem! If you take the posts which Azilda has written and replace the words "black hole" with "Jesus", the posts stop being ridiculous!

  75. Ali

    Neither. It's infinity which has its own mathematical donation.

  76. Ali

    Richard Dawkins!? really? he is what I would call an atheist extremist no better than the religious extremists who spout their extreme views while trying to shove it down our throats. It is intellectually dishonest to deny the beliefs of others especially when no one has yet and will most likely never be able to prove otherwise. The argument for intelligent design is equally plausible to that of organised chaos. It is up to the rational human being to allow others to chose which ideas they wish to adhere to, as division will only cause conflict. People like Dawkins like their religious counterparts are on a points scoring exercise; a juvenile practise which has no place outside of the playground.

  77. tomregit

    My writing was a reply to someone named "Psychic Being".

    The reason I used Richard Dawkins name was to acknowledge him for the quote I used. I happen to agree with his beliefs, though not always the way he presents them. If you had read more carefully you would understand that, so take your angry rants elswhere. I could not care less what you choose to believe, nor am I the least bit interested in "shoving anything down your throat".

  78. Nul Fyr

    If the universe has existed into infinity, as you say, why have we not found any life, whatsoever, so far, in the universe? You'd think that some life form would have colonized a great deal of it, by now. Right?

  79. AdamRogers

    Actually, if Hawkings can explain how something infinitely small became infinitely large, then that COULD be applied to solve world hunger. Imagine turning one grain of rice into something much bigger. And your view of how people are dying of starvation due to lack of education is quite baffling.

  80. eugler

    So we should stand idly by while the killing and bigottry over whose imaginary friend has the biggest genitals goes on and on? Because it would be impolite to critize? Chances are good that at some point one fairytale will emerge as the overwhelmingly dominant one in your area as it is the situation in many parts of the world. And history shows that at that point no matter what you believe, if you don't concur it's gonna be your ass on the line.

  81. ObamaATL

    Stephen Hawking is a liar

  82. Zeeshan Asif

    it's the reality of world accept it otherwise go to hell because God stressed on getting knowledge

  83. Killin

    Interesting, how could Susskind be so sure Hawking was wrong, if he could not not prove it, if he had no evidence. Is there such a thing as intuitive knowledge, or was it just because it did not fit with existing theories?

    How does the Hawking paradox fit with the big bang theory, which also describes a universe sized black hole, which exploded its material outward rather than dissipating itself and dissapearing?

  84. Killin

    This is a great video much better than Darwinian videos on this site.

  85. Killin

    *Religions have to move from the idea of anthropormorphic God, the great He man.
    *The idea of spontaneous creation of the universe, still begs the question of how these bubbles, or from where the original bubbles in space/time emerged.
    *The idea of infinity and multiple universes, in constant state of creation, expansion and collapse would not be inconsistent with the idea of God though, I don't think.
    *Is Hawking saying that this all happened by chaotic, random chance, or in an orderly, intelligable fashion, based on scientific laws. I think the latter right?

  86. Killin

    Is there any such thing as 0. Does something sponaneously emerge from nothing? If not, then the universe must have always existed in some form, is that right?

  87. hpthoroughbreds

    i, as a mere mortal, bow down before all of you. the fabulous scientists who have invested their lives in the pursuit of knowledge and the search for absolutes and truths. i should have gone for the a.v. pocket protector guy instead of the id*** with the fast car (as my son would say "back in the day").. oh well.....too bad we all can't reach an event horizon, look at what was and what could be and sort of blink ourselves several different paths through time. just for the fun of it!!!!

  88. Mickey Bigmick Lee

    was watching these docu's and suddenly wondered, ...i know they have all been looking for the source of dark energy right? i wonder if they take into account the matter that is still technically inside a black hole...the really small terribly dense piece of matter which still represents the all the crazy gravity a black hole exhibits and now they say there are supermassive blackholes at the center of galaxies, thats alot of gravity...

  89. UniversalCypher

    if im not mistaken, i believe you mean dark matter, and not dark energy(?). dark matter is the bigger picture, holding together entire sections of the universe considerably larger than any black hole or galaxy, or number of galaxies for that matter. i dont think dark matter is a product of gravity, but more like a separate force all its own.

  90. nad eem

    matter and energy are the same thing

  91. someone else

    "Cogito ergo sum. I am part of this universe; and it will go on without me."

    You do realize that, when taken as a whole, your sentence is a complete contradiction? Basically you just said "I can only prove that I exist, nothing else is certain; the universe will certainly exist without me.


  92. tomregit

    Where is the contradiction? I exist. When I cease to exist (a given) the universe will continue. Nowhere is it stated or implied that nothing else is certain. Your understanding or logic is deeply flawed. Oh well, at least YOU think you're funny. You made me laugh too! At you, not with you. Later, troll.

  93. Héctor

    the universe has existed with you on it since the creation of itself so your existence will be there until the end of it

  94. dugiewugie

    Yes are right Killin. In the book of Hebrews it says,
    We understand that the things that are seen were made of things
    that that are not seen. What to us would be called Spirit".

  95. Killin

    Interesting , mind bending. I have not followed this stream for quite a while so I forget the theme of this site.

    But, if it has to do with R.Dawkins, then following thoughts will fit with prior discussions.

    I just read some unusual ideas about atheism- as a paradox, in that when we follow an organizational paradigm that involves God, we experience internal resistance to the restraints and mysteries of that belief system. Similarly, when we release ourselves from 'God' as in God is Dead, there is an internal resistance to annihilation of the sacred. (Zizek ,Slavoj and Gunjevik, Boris (2012) God in Pain: Inversions of the Apocalypse, Seven Stories Press, New York. Translated from Croatian. The authors are professors and apparantly well known, Gunjevik is a priest as well. This is so interesting because they have lived under Communism, and so they are describing from experience, social activities of faith with and without Also, instead of the notion that" "Without God anything is permitted" it is suggested that " Without God nothing is permitted", which makes sense from their standpoint. There is less confidence in humanr free will and greater need for disciplines of the self and others, as Foucault would say. For me this is a great postmodern study of mystical or religious faith systems, including Judaism and Islam, compared to secular alternatives.

  96. ApocalypsoChaChaCha

    Wrong. As recent event in Switzerland indicate, "nothing" is now known to be unstable on a quantum level and therefor our understanding of "nothing" is now new and profoundly different. It doesn't disprove a "god"... just renders one unnecessary. It will take people some time to wrap their heads around this let alone the Higgs Field and the exponential barrage of what is yet to come!! :)

  97. helena zlno

    isn't it a little bit wrong for one person to have all this brains? way to go nature, great at balancing things out. :(

  98. Achems_Razor

    @helena zlno:

    What?? you are joking right? unbelievable!!

  99. bored

    umm wouldn't you say being in a wheelchair with motor neuron disease a "balance" to having all those brains?

  100. kahldog

    How do you know? Where is your proof?

  101. hasone

    proven by E = (Mc2)

  102. root

    Nah, God did it.

Leave a comment / review: