300 years ago many scientists around the world especially in european territory found many inventions in some discipline of sciences, but lately we never hear the scientists get a noble prize for their invention. we see very rare scientists to get noble for invent at something worth to people. is it because people now become more lazy than it was? what is your opinion? or maybe we think or we feel we have all what we need? so we have already reached on the top of scientific knowledge? and we have to stop to invent something else? we feel enough already? we're satisfied? i don't know, maybe this is the path to the end of human life where we have to stop for being curious about anything around us? we don't have to worry anymore about anything? 'cause everything is here? or what? I please you to find out what the real matter and seek for solution. thank you
I call it the Steven Hawking effect. Now Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man don't get me wrong. But he is also an overrated physicist. He has produced very little that will better man kind. His chosen filed of stuidy is largely esoteric and that is kind of the point. When he was a young man he was a largely undisguised scientist. By moving into such an esoteric field he was able to distinguish himself through theory alone. The field is so theoretical that you can say just about what ever you want. When Preskill showed Hawking to be wrong Hawking was able to just come back and claim that he is right in an alternate dimension.
What? The Nobels are categorized by discipline and most years someone wins in each category. But there's no "outstanding invention" category. This doesn't mean we don't invent cool stuff any more. We just don't have an award show for scientific discoveries.
The measure of a good scientist is the degree to which his work betters mankind? When does the judging for this end? Suppose a mathematician in 1900 discovers some nifty numerical trick, publishes it to no acclaim, and dies. Bad scientist, right? And then suppose someone notices today that his work is exactly what we need to tweak some therapy so we can cure cancer. Good scientist? What about the statute of limitations? You need to explain the rules to me so I know who is a good scientist and who isn't. This is getting embarrassing at parties.
We will have to wait and see then. However, it is quite a stretch to see how Hawkings and Preskill never ending argument over the preservation of data in a black how will ever serve an purpose to the betterment of mankind. This became a very theoretical pissing contest a long time ago. They should just measure who's is bigger at this stage.
I don't like Hawking, and I think he is overrated as well. However, theoretical physics is a better use of time and money right now than a lot of other areas.
There will probably be more inventions and scientific discoveries in this decade than in all of human history previously. Just because you don't know about it, or understand it, doesn't mean it's still not happening.
In this thread non-mathematics/science majors talk about how useless science is. Way to go guys! Hawking is an idiot right?! Yeah!
look into graphene. it's changing the field of science, now 'worth' to people? the greatest 'value' is the knowledge to mankind, not things in a bunch of ways, yes! nothing can stop the evolution of knowledge but it often takes a bit to be known within the body of mankind i/m satified in many ways heck if all the good stuff was under one roof, there'd be a greater class divide i kind of like the unfolding going viral comprehend 'life' itself (the energy of mass) and know thyself. there are a set of principles to do 'good' while aware of self the pinnacle of existence; existence (nature) comprehending itself
Speak for yourself. People do go to school you know, even people on forums. When did I say that. "Now Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man don't get me wrong. But he is also an overrated physicist." Strawman much? Please leave the forum. Posters like you are a plague.
Hawking even says he's overrated. A few years ago physicists came up with a list of the 100 greatest physicists of all time. Hawking didn't make the list.
So since someone says that the information paradox holds little real world value you say that means they don't understand it. And I'm the one always getting warned for being a jackass.
I have always thought that the "information paradox" is a made up bunch of crap. Entropy is a concept, not a thing, and as such is not something which the universe cannot lose. Of much greater relevence was the question of conservation of mass/energy which led to the postulation of Hawking radiation.
To be fair, this argument hardly takes up much of each of their days, I imagine. And regardless of how substantive it actually is it's had a highly positive side-effect - to periodically put them in the news. I think it humanizes science for a lot of people for whom it's entirely impenetrable. But anyway, how do we have any right to complain about what any particular scientists do at work? Hawking researches whatever he can get approval for, I imagine, without much thought as to whether or not we approve. Should he have a say in what you get up to each day, measured against how you could potentially leave a giant legacy for all mankind? Seems like it's none of our business, you know? And anyway, who's to say what kind of current research will form part of tomorrow's technology? Relativity was pretty nifty when it was published but nobody for a moment thought that it would some day make GPS possible. And your iphone wouldn't be possible without Quantum mechanics, although it took a while to put that to use as well. I figure, as a scientifically literate layman, the best I can do is be thankful that someone who appears to be one of the top scientists alive is able to work at science doing whatever he thinks is the best use of his time. Who better than Hawking to know?
I am still trying to figure out exactly what you are saying here. If you are talking about the Nobel Prize, it is not "300 years old", only 117. And according to Alfred Nobel's will, the prizes were to be given for "physics, chemistry, peace, physiology or medicine, and literature.". Not "Inventions". In fact, about the closest I can think of where a Nobel prize in the sciences was given for what was essentially a single invention instead of for a theory was the awards to Shockley, Bardeen, and Brattain for the Transistor.
