Talk:Stephen Hawking

Verdict on God?

This article makes no mention about whether or not Stephen Hawking believes in a god. He concludes in his book A Brief History of Time that there is the possibility of a non-interventionist god that created the initial conditions and no longer intervenes in the universe. There should at least be a subsection that notes this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.12.217 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the answer to God and Hawking, relation to his concept of time-space constriction. He believed in rare intelligent life out there. At a George Washington University lecture in honour of NASA's 50th anniversary, Prof. Hawking theorised on the existence of extraterrestrial life: "Primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare." So this is his E=mc2 best quote, ever. --Florentino floro (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking wrote this regarding the big bang in his book A Briefer History of Time: "In the hot big bang model there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that the initial state of the universe would have to have had exactly the same temperature everywhere to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. Moreover, the initial rate of expansion would have had to be to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expansion still to be close to the critical rate needed to avoid collapse. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us" (73). Does that sound like an atheist to you? I'm not suggesting that he's a theist, but he's certainly no atheist. 71.234.79.94 (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)poopoo head

He is a atheist. In a South African interview when asked the question if he beliefed in an afterlife, he then replied that with a no and said he thinks that death is much like switching off a computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.58.40 (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to call you on this assertion. One) Proof-read your text. Two) I don't see a source. Three) Not everyone who believes in God also believes in an afterlife. Do some research on Deism.

Quite frankly, I don't think he has said he is either theistic or atheistic. Popular thought is that he is agnostic, but I've never seen anything official about his religious views. I also don’t see why it is such a huge deal with people. --75.106.177.22 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably because he's very intelligent, and people like to identify with others like themselves. If he wants the world to know his specific theological stance, I'm sure he'll be able to get the word out. Heh. Othersider (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In "God, the Universe, & Everything Else", in the response to the question "Now 'God' of course means many things to many people. What sort of God are we talking about?", Stephen Hawking said "I use 'God' in the same sense that Einstein did." And Einstein used 'God' as a metaphor for the nature of the universe, denying a personal God and saying "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." 80.235.56.123 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The policy wikipedia:verifiability with respect to living persons states

"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles ... I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons".

In view of this I am removing the "religious stance: believer" which lacks an adequate citation and is in any respect far too vague.83.105.29.229 (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No source proves he's Atheist. From his own writings, it sounds like he's an Agnostic who, if there is a God, would believe in a Deist God. Armyrifle (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

300 IQ

The article is locked - can someone fix the 300 IQ nonsense at the bottom of the page? AFAIK, his has been *estimated* at 160, but without an explicit test, even this does not really belong on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.41.143 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

300 IQ? That's merely impossible! Where'd that come from? —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk}@Apr/05/09 05:50

Comment

And probably improper, but I can't help wondering why the heck he does not have a Nobel yet!! Mysterious to me 134.4.61.136 (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nobel Committee requires a person's theories to be proved prior to winning the Nobel Prize. Luckily CERN could prove most of Hawking's theories true by the end of the year, so who knows perhaps 2009 will be his year. --99.254.176.37 (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No disrepect to Hawking, but as Bill Bryson notes, longevity is pretty much a requisite for getting a Nobel Prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarry1250 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC) he is also know to communitcate very well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.208.188 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth date signifigance

Excuse me, I do not have a Wikipedia acount and this page is locked, so I can not put this in myself. Can anyone who has an acount put this in for me? (this information comes from the Stephen Hawking website, www.hawking.org.uk)

Stephan hawking was born on the 300^th aniversary of the death of the great astronomer, Galileo.

Thank You

--66.190.75.77 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done--Andy mci (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Most recent computer

I think that this section should not contain the "Most recent computer was recieved in 2007". It seems pointless as it becomes out of date every 8 - 12 months. SeanJA (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded --62.243.111.166 (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

American Accent?

In the section 'Illness', the statement is made: The voice synthesizer, which has an American accent (...) In the section below, 'Computer', the statement is made: His computer was created by an American engineer. He once joked that his computer "had an American accent."

Is this the same issue that has been misunderstood one of the places? Is it a joke or not? Even if it is two different scenarios that just coincidentally mix up, it should be clarified somehow since it is a little disturbing to the sense of the text as a whole - I thought it clearly had the accent of a Thai hooker. --62.243.111.166 (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links

It would be helpful to put a link in this section to Stephen Hawking's webpage on Academia.edu: http://cambridge.academia.edu/StephenHawking Richard56 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic/Atheist

I think that this two thinks isn't same.--Vojvodaeist 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

An atheist and an agnostic are not the same. An atheist is someone who believes God doesn't exist, or they deny the existence of God. An agnostic is someone who believes the question of whether or not God exists to be unanswerable, or they personally do not have sufficient knowledge (or they believe there isn't sufficient knowledge) to come to a conclusion. Stephen Hawking wrote this regarding the big bang in his book A Briefer History of Time: "In the hot big bang model there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that the initial state of the universe would have to have had exactly the same temperature everywhere to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. Moreover, the initial rate of expansion would have had to be to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expansion still to be close to the critical rate needed to avoid collapse. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us" (73). Does that sound like an atheist to you? 71.234.79.94 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, they are not the same. I will just give quick examples of possible things each would say:

Atheist: "There is no God". Agnostic: "I don't think anyone can say for sure whether there is a God or not, I don't know either way." Atheist agnostic/agnostic atheist: "I don't think it can be proved either way but personally I don't blelieve there is a God."

Hawking is a nothing, you could argue he was one thing or a multitude of things but they would always be biased conclusions until the day he says 'I dont/do believe in God', 'I am a Hindu', 'I am an agnostic' or w/e.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course. If we dont have some kind of personal statement we cant make any conclusions about it. --Vojvodaeist 20:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I wish more people on here would remember that. Othersider (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Whine

Just a random whining comment. Why the h--- has he not gotten a Nobel Prize in Physics yet? Look at the recent winners. You've GOT to be kidding me. They don't generally do posthumous Nobels, so time is running out. Just whining. Thanks for listening. Bigmac31 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Retirement

I was going to leave in the following:

and new applicants are being invited for 1st October 2009<ref name=news>{{cite news|title=Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics: Notice|work=[[Cambridge University Reporter|The Cambridge University Reporter]]|date=2008-22-10|url=http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2008-09/weekly/6124/7.html}}</ref>

But I was concerned it read to much like an ad, but if someone can word it better, feel free! GTMusashi (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Who the HELL is Joshua Adamson?

I met the name Joshua Adamson in the bio, and also two other bios, Tom Hanks and John Donne. Well, who the hell is that vampire, who was the life-long friend of men both in the 17. and in the 20. century, and about whom they wrote with the same sentence in each article?

I suggest it is a media hack. There is a Joshua Adamson, he edits the Urban Dictionary.com site. Also there is a science student Joshua, etc. Or maybe there is a bored teenager Joshua. Don't you think it is a very stupid way to advertise a name?

DJS (81.183.126.6 (talk)), 2008. 11. 29. —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

chump —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.53.219.20 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Abuse claims

Why is there nothing in this article pertaining to the accusations that his second wife "emotionally and physically" abused him? I would have thought that was quite important? Thisnamestaken (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Discovery channel commercial

A citation for his apearance in a discovery channel commerical. http://www.splendad.com/ads/show/2145-Discovery-Channel-I-Love-the-World

209.89.222.58 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking Museum at El Salvador

this is the site of The Stephen Hawking Museum at El Salvador

http://www.museodecienciaselsalvador.org/museo/index.php

Please, anybody could add this to the article, Thanks a Lot

Slinbader (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC) L. Herrera

This article can be organized better

This article can surely be organized better. There aren't that many sections right now, but it's a little bit too much for what relatively little information there is in this article. Does anyone want to give a stab at it? Gary King (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll give a stab at it myself as I've looked through the archives and found a few interesting ideas. Feel free to clean it up a bit further. Gary King (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesse Maynard

^{Superscript text}Bold textItalic textjesse is hecos malecos if u do not like him he will be sad. give him money and you will feel iner peace.

  x    x
  x    x
  x    x

x x^{_{Superscript text}}

xx     xx
 xxxxxxx

if a book was written about a simple subject ect. a brick wouldn't the information about the subject become as material as its subject? a 10 pound book full of information "data" of the 3 pound brick... the more data ,the heavier the book? the actual brick of course,remains its weight or size but the details of its material ,,,fill pages that multiply in mass,,in comparison to the subject itself ect.the brick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.28.25 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

stephen hawking

this is a story on Stephen hawking, Stephen has lived the longest with moto neuron diseases and is still living today thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.243.114 (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Zero-G

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.145.187 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Laflamme listed twice

I am as big a fan of quantum computing as anybody, but Laflamme probably isn't twice as important as the rest of Hawking's students. His second entry in the "Doctoral Students" section should be removed.--Adam Wolbach (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dead?

It has been reported on the BBC website that Stephen is "very ill" in hospital. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8008767.stm

In no way has this said he is dead but, the Wiki page seems to suggest that he dies tomorrow. Do the writers know something that we don't? The page has been changed already, was a mistake made or do they really know the future? I managed to get a screen shot of the page as proof! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.34.223.1 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

He died. RIP