Skip to main content

On Hawking, Physics and "The Grand Design"

I recently finished Stephen Hawking's newest book, "The Grand Design" last night, and I thought I would spend the post today talking a little about it. It was very well-written, and written at a level that makes it an accessible text for the educated public. A layman interested in the findings of physics, such as myself, can pick it up and not feel lost because they never took physics beyond high school. What Hawking, and Mlodinow, have to say (and it isn't clear who did most of the writing of the two) is fascinating as they chart the historical progression of science in answering the Big Questions that they mention at the start of the book; Why is there something rather than nothing, why do we exist, etc. They discuss the nature of reality, the historical progression of scientific naturalism, quantum theory, the search for the Theory of Everything and other topics.

It was all easy to understand, save the chapter on quantum theory which I struggled through. As I said, it was well-written and accessible, but even the basics of the quantum are so counter-intuitive as to boggle the mind. It is difficult just to let it sink in. For instance, quantum tells us (and this is supported by very good empirical evidence) that when a particle travels between two points, it actually takes EVERY path SIMULTANEOUSLY. It is only by observing the particle that we see the path it took and create its history.

Hawking and Mlodinow also assert, repeatedly, that there is nothing in the Universe as we see it that points to the need for a Creator. Gravity, instead, is sufficient to set everything into motion, and the evidence for the multiverse theory, in which not only our universe but a potentially infinite number of universes exist, serves to make the apparent fine-tuning of our universe that creationists often point to unremarkable.

On the downside of the book, my critique is that I wish the last chapter "The Grand Design" on the theory of everything were longer. It was, by far, the best chapter in attempting to explain just how gravity could have set the Big Bang into motion. Other than that, Hawking lives up to his reputation for making grand overarching statements like "Philosophy is dead," and "Miracles are an impossibility" as they are violations of the physical laws of the universe, that seem extraneous to his argument and are only there to, apparently, agitate certain segments of the population, those who aren't likely to read his book anyway.

I wanted to conclude with part of the last paragraph. It's an example of excellent writing and poetic language. "...perhaps the true miracle is that abstract considerations of logic lead to a unique theory that predicts and describes a vast universe full of the amazing variety that we see. If the theory [M-theory] is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3,000 years. We will have found the grand design."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Unanswerable Questions" for Evolution Part One

Creation Ministries International has launched a new initiative, which seems a lot like all the other creationists blitzkriegs before it. With the wonderfully creative tagline of "Question Evolution", CMI intends to challenge "evolutionists" and their "indoctrination" of high school students with the supposed dogma of evolution. They also aim to  cut the population of atheists by half , presumably by challenging the "faith" that every atheist (and only atheists, no "real Christians") is supposed to hold in Darwin's great idea. The main thrust of this is a tract with fifteen "unanswerable" questions for evolutionists. I'm done putting quotation marks around the word, evolutionists; from here on out I ask my readers to recognize that it is a creationist term that is about as silly as calling someone a general relativist (accepts general relativity) or germist (for accepting germ theory). Regardless, CMI seems just as i...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...

The Absurdity/Agony of War

Science writer Mary Roach is never one to shy away from parts of science that verge on the absurd, as anyone who has read any of her books surely knows. I'd read two of her previous books, and been enchanted enough by Roach's unique combination of endless curiosity and a wry sense of humor that I rushed to lay my hands on her newest book. Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War will not fail in living up to the expectations that fans of her work will bring. Those who have never read her before will be hard-pressed to put down a book that I finished in a few short days.  The real joy of reading something by Mary Roach is her talent for seeking out strange areas of science that a reader might never have known about. As an investigator, she answers questions you never knew you had. Her newest work   is no exception. We discover, for instance, how the military tests the ability of a fighter jet to survive a mid-air collision with a large bird--by firing a dead chicken...