Stephen Hawking New Book The Grand Design: God Not Needed For Creation
Stephen Hawking New Book The Grand Design: God Not Needed For Creation - Stephen Hawking has stated in his new book that, in his opinion, a god was not needed for the creation of the universe. His statements have been met by criticism from religious leaders from across the country. Few excerpts from his new book, “The Grand Design” were printed in the British newspaper The Times on Thursday. Hawking wrote the book with his fellow physicist Leonard Mlodinow, and it is scheduled to be released on the 9th of September.
It will be his first release in almost a full decade. The book is a challenge to Isaac Newton’s theory that a supreme being, or god, must have been involved in the creation of the universe because order could not have come out of chaos simply through nature.
Of course, the explanation is never all that simple. Hawking is most known for his work involving black holes, and he references a number of other planets with similarities to earth as proof that our planet was not designed by a supreme being with the intention of us living here. In 1988, he released his bestselling book “A Brief History of Time,” in which he appeared to accept the possibility that a supreme being created everything.
It appears that years of research and weathering have led Hawking to conclude otherwise. In his new book, Hawking claims that physics can provide an explanation for many things without there being a need for a “benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.” With only excerpts having hit the Internet so far, it will be interesting to see what else is contained in the book.
Category: Science News
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
It is said that the universe can and will create itself from nothing. This is not correct. This belief is not scientific. This is against the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Nothing can be created from ‘NOTHING’. In fact, the universe has been created from Infinite Expanse of Virtual Nothingness. In theologians terminology this is known as Infinite Expanse of Spirituality (Consciousness). Both gravitational waves and current of consciousness could not so far been seen by any manner. Since they can not be seen, they have been termed as ‘NOTHING’ or ‘ZERO’. This state of nothingness is eternal and the universe has been created from here.
The Universe has a Creator. In fact, source of Gravitational Force is the Creator of the Universe.
The Universe includes everything that exists. In the Universe there
are billions and billions of stars. These stars are distributed in the
space in huge clusters. They are held together by gravitation and are
known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar
system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the
ultimate cause of birth and death of galaxy, star and planets etc.
Gravitation can be considered as the cause of various forms of animate
and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms.
Withdrawal of gravitational wave from some plane of action is called
the death of that form. It can be assumed that gravitation force is
ultimate creator. Source of it is ‘God’. Gravitational Field is the
supreme soul (consciousness) and its innumerable points of action may
be called as individual soul (consciousness). It acts through body and
mind. Body is physical entity (weak and strong nuclear force. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system. Electromagnetic waves are its agents through which it works. This can be realized through the practice of meditation and yoga under qualified meditation instruction. This can remove misunderstanding between science and religion and amongst various religions. This is the gist of all religious teachings – past, present and future.
I read a news God was not the Creator: Hawking published in The Times of India/ Ishwar nei nahin banayee duniya published in Dainik Jagran dated September 3, 2010. In this connection I would like to state that I don’t agree with Hawking’s view that God was not the Creator. However, Hawking may be right that ‘Law of Gravity Explains Big Bang’. In fact, source of consciousness is God. I have presented a paper In Scientific Terminology Source of Gravitational Wave is God at the 2nd International Congress on Vedic Sciences held in Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi in February 2007. I am also working in this area during the last 5 years. Some of my work is highlighted below:
I am one the chief expounder and supporter of Gravitation Force Theory of God. This is most scientific and secular theory of God. This is the Theory of Universal Religion. I have given Higher Theory of Everything. Sometimes back I posted this as comments to a blog on:
‘Fighting of the Cause of Allah by Governing a Smart Mathematics Based on Islamic Teology’
By Rohedi of Rohedi Laboratories, Indonesia. Rohedi termed my higher theory of everything more wonderful than which has been developed by Stephen Hawking. Some details are quoted below:
rohedi
@anirudh kumar satsangi
Congratulation you have develop the higher theory of everything more wonderful than which has been developed by Stephen Hawking. Hopefully your some views for being considered for Unified Field Theory are recognized by International Science Community, hence I soon read the fundamental aspect proposed by you.
I have posted my comments to the Blog of Syed K. Mirza on Evolutionary Science vs. Creation Theory, and Intellectual Hypocrisy. Syed Mirza seems to be a very liberal muslim. He responded to my comments as mentioned below.
“Many thanks for your very high thought explanations of God.
You said:
“Hence it can be assumed that the Current of Chaitanya (Consciousness) and Gravitational Wave are the two names of the same Supreme Essence (Seed) which has brought forth the entire creation. Hence it can be assumed that the source of current of consciousness and gravitational wave is the same i.e. God or ultimate creator.
(i) Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, Source of Gravitational Wave is God”
Whatever you call it, God is no living God of any religion. Yes, when I call it “Mother Nature” is the God generated from all Natural forces and Gravitational force is the nucleus of all forces or we can presume that Gravitation is the ultimate guiding principle of this Mother Nature we call it non-living God unlike living personal God of religions. I can not believe any personal God would do so much misery created for its creation. Hence, only non-living natural God can explain everything in the Universe. When we think of any living personal God, things do not ad up!”
I THINK AS THINHER OF FREEDOM THIS RELEASE (DR.S.HAWKING)
MAYBE GOT RESULT JUST FROM ONE CROSSING OF PROBLEM.BUT WE HAVE TO DIMENTION .DR YOU SUCCED TO EXPLANATION OF CROSSING WITH NAME OF DIMENTION AND ORGINALLY IT IS THE BEST RESULT BUT SOONLY YOU WILL DISCOVER AN CASE OR DIMENION WITH NAME OF EXODIMENTION OR METADIMENTION FINALLY THOUGHT YOUR BOOK PUBLICING BEEN SOME LATE.
THANK YOU SO.
Stephen Hawking, such a great man; such a great mind. I wonder when that which is him without his disabled body stands in front of God, will he tell him He is not needed. Mr. Hawking I would laugh at you but that kind of end makes me cry for you.
I believe the most frustrating thing about this argument is that we are overlooking the obvious.
This idea of nothingness or what the people of Babylonia, Greece and other ancient civilizations deemed “zero” is all but relative.
Zero is no different from other measurements in that it derives meaning only by comparison and reference. Therefore, zero exists in a relative way only, not an absolute way as Stephen Hawking would lead you to believe.
The idea of zero, nothing or the covenant “M Theory” requires the existence of something in order for it to have meaning. Simply stated, to perceive nothing, someone must perceive it. Therefore it cannot be absolute. The observer (Hawking) and that which is observed (M Theory, zero or nothing) are not separate, so if “nothing” is observed and the conclusion is that “nothing” exists, the observer (Hawking) is attempting to exclude himself from the set referred to as “nothing.”
This idea is similar to the age old question, “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Of course based on perception one would argue it does make a sound based on current knowledge, however that answer is solely based on assumption. Yes, I am sure you can show me numerous mathematical formulas that will prove it makes it sound, but once again, like Hawking, we are missing the obvious…
The sound can only exist if there is someone there to witness it. Yes, in theory it makes a sound and in theory “M Theory” holds merit, but that’s just theory.
“Nothing” can only exist if there is a perceiver (something) present in order to verify and/or perceive nothing.
Therefore, everything stated by Hawking is only relative to his perception of the perceived idea of “nothing, zero and M Theory.” They only exist because Hawking perceived it.
So I ask then, who perceived the conception of universe? Certainly not Stephen Hawking. He didn’t exist yet.
I think that Stephen Hawking is right because if the god is the creator of the universe.So,who is creator of god because nothing can exist until or unless someone can make it.
the universe need to be created because every thing in it is a creation but GOD doesn’t need to be created.
we’re all creatures so someone is needed to create us. but GOD isn’t a creature and doesn’t need a creator. GOD is the source of everything whether we believe or not….
Notwithstanding the fact that diferent theories under the proposed M-theory in Hawking’s latest book represent different facets of the same underlying theory i.e., ‘Theory of Everything’, its viability as ‘The Grand Design’ providing mathematical formulism for unification of fundamental forces in nature is highly speculative, with very remote possibility of its being verified expermentally. It may not be out of place to mention that the ‘Big Bang Model’ has failed one of the crucial acid test for its survival that relates to detection of remnant of gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe. Existence of gravitational – wave background, predicted by Einstein in 1916 in his general theory of relativity, is expected from the violent early moments of the Big Bang much like the cosmic microwave background that fills the sky with radio waves from the early universe. While the microwave background originated 380,000 years after the Big Bang, gravitational – wave background purportedly come directly from events in the first minute after the Big Bang. As per Einstein’s prediction, the cataclysmic Big Bang is believed to have created a flood of gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of space-time that still fill the universe, albeit at a very feeble strength to be discernible by the conventional astronomical tools, and carry information about the universe as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang. Ironically, the much publicized LIGO experiments, undertaken at whopping sum of over $365 million, for probe of remnant of the gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe have so far yielded nothing.
Readers may like to go through the following write-up on the persistent ‘redshift controversy’ that has direct bearing on the expanse and age of the universe.
As per Hubble’s law, galaxies in the cosmos are observed to recede on account of expansion of universe. However, there remains nagging uncertainty whether the redshift calculated on the basis of Hubble’s law gives true value of the receding galaxies. Some astronomers (Narlikar 1989; Parker 1993; Harrison 1993; Longair 1995) have serious reservations about the authenticity of the galactic velocities catalogued by astronomers using the Hubble’s velocity- distance law, v = Hd. Expansion redshift does not arise from the Doppler effect, nor is the redshift related to velocity by the special relativistic relation, 1+z =[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]1/2 (Narlikar 1993). Einstein’s relativistic Doppler formula merely applies to the motion of galaxies through space, it does not apply to the recession of galaxies (Seeds 2007). Moreover, Doppler redshift is bound by the laws of Einstein’s special relativity, which dictates that an object cannot travel faster than the speed of light whereas in the case of cosmological redshift, v > c is possible since the space which separates the objects (e.g. a quasar from the Earth) through a vacuum can expand faster than the speed of light.
Under the cosmological redshift interpretation, galaxies are not receding simply by a physical velocity in the direction away from the observer; instead, the intervening space is expanding, which accounts for large-scale isotropy of the effect demanded by the cosmological principle (Harrison 1981). In the current cosmological model (Gray and Davies 2008), cosmological redshift z(cos) is described as the observable time-dependent cosmic scale factor (a), governed by the expression, 1+z(cos)= a(now)/a(then). Bondi (1947) defined cosmological redshift as the summation of the Doppler shift due to an object’s motion through space, and the global gravitational shift (Einstein effect) due to the difference between the potential energy per unit mass at the source and the observer. Mathematically, cosmological redshift is expressed as z(cos) = z(dop)+ z(grav), where 1+ z(cos) =[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]1/2 (1+∆Ф/c2), and ∆Ф is the difference in gravitational potential between the points of emission and reception of a photon, which hints at the Doppler shift not being the correct measure of distance between the source and the observer. Wrongly computed redshift gives false picture of the expanse and age of the distant galaxies.
Some astrophysical observations (Burbidge 1973; Field 1974) have also raised doubts whether the large redshifts (Hubble redshift) related to the distant galaxies are due entirely to cosmological expansion. The strongest argument (Field et al. 1973) in favour of cosmological expansion is that there is no known hypothesis consistent with laws of physics (other than Doppler shift hypothesis) that can explain the observed redshifts. Crawford (1979) provides alternate explanation to the problem – the interaction of photon with curved space-time causes it to lose energy in the form of very low energy secondary photons, giving rise to the phenomenon of redshift. Marmet (1990) too was of the opinion that the cosmic redshifts could be explained without invoking the Doppler interpretation. According to him, photon, in its passage from a distant galaxy to the observer on the earth, loses some of its energy to the intergalactic medium. As such, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium between a galaxy and the observer, the more its light gets shifted toward the low-energy (red) end of the spectrum (Marmet and Reber 1989). Interactions of photons with atoms in the intergalactic medium always result in the production of secondary photon (bremsstrahlung photon) at longer wavelength (Jauch and Rohrlich 1980). Julia (2009)too has attributed cosmological redshift of distant galaxies to the loss of energy of the photon with time through transfer of its energy (heat) to the intergalactic space whereby redshift is shown to increase exponentially with the distance, z = e(H/c)d . These ideas suggest that the distant quasars might be much closer to the Earth than their redshift would indicate if they have an ‘intrinsic redshift’ due to their being surrounded by a ‘fuzzy’ atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This concentration of electrons produces the unusual redshift as the light travels through it, and loses energy to these electrons by the Compton effect (Grey and Davies 2008).
Every variant of cosmological model, be it inflationary or cyclic, predicts possible detection of the primordial gravitational waves created in the immediate aftermath of the cataclysmic Big Bang (the latest in the present universe as per the cyclic model). Futile experiments undertaken by the LIGO (Laser Interferometry Gravitational Wave Observatory) project since 2002, and by the Virgo interferometer since 2007 are suggestive of the fact that we are still far from finding tangible clues regarding the origin of the universe.
Realization of the supernatural force commanding this universe is very much evident from the knowledge of quantum physics itself. The incidence of electron not collapsing into the nucleus despite the electron gradually losing its energy during its orbit around the nucleus on account of emission of radiation resulting from its motion in the magnetic field, is a glaring example of the presence of the supernatural force at micro level. There is always a minimum energy level for the electron in its orbit around the nucleus beyond which trespassing is not permissible. And then, quantum tunnelling and quantum fluctuations are the other bizarre natural phenomena that appear to be regulated at Almighty’s behest alone.
In the context of the ongoing debate on Stephen Hawking’s observations in his latest book, ‘The Grand Design’, I must mention Einstein’s famous words :
” Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind “.
I have gone through three books titled, ‘ A Brief History of Time’, ‘The Theory of Everything’, and
‘The Grand Design’ – all authored by the celebrated scientist, Stephen Hawking. I find content of all his books to be more or less the same with minor variation here and there. I fail to comprehend why Hawking has been repeating the same thing again and again. Repeated mention of the Big Bang Model as viable explanation for the origin of the universe does not convince intelligent readers about its validity in the light of several unattended inconsistencies with the said model.
Hawking is a really man and he is not pessemits in espirit world so he see a new window in galaxy while most of people not see it,its fact while hawking know new design fact for world,I like it,hawking see up 3D and he see fact picture of us and galaxy,I love tez and her esprit,soul of galaxy is in the hand hawking,I pay him because he is superhumans.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
- Stephen Hawking in “The Grand Design”
“As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
– Stephen Hawking, Ibid
Here three questions can be asked:
1) Which one came first, universe, or law of gravity and quantum law?
2) If the universe came first, then how was there spontaneous creation without the law of gravity and quantum law?
3) If the law of gravity and quantum law came first, then Hawking has merely substituted God with quantum law and law of gravity. These two laws together can be called Hawking’s “Unconscious God”. Therefore we can legitimately ask the question: Who, or what, created Hawking’s unconscious God?
Now regarding the M-theory: I have already written something on multiverse theory (not yet published anywhere). There I have come to the conclusion that if there are an infinite number of universes, then only within that infinite number of universes there will certainly be at least one universe in which life will emerge. If the number of universes is only 10 to the power 500, then it is very much unlikely that any one of them will support life, because no universe will know which set of values the other universes have already taken, and if everything is left on chance, then there is every probability that all the universes will take only those set of values that will not support life. There will be no mechanism that will prevent any universe from taking the same set of values that have already been taken by other universes. There will be no mechanism that will take an overview of all the universes already generated, and seeing that in none of them life has actually emerged will move the things in such a way that at least one universe going to be generated afterwards will definitely get the value of the parameters just right for the emergence of life. Only in case of an infinite number of universes this problem will not be there. This is because if we subtract 10 to the power 500 from infinity, then also we will get infinity. If we subtract infinity from infinity, still then we will be left with infinity. So we are always left with an infinite number of universes out of which in at least one universe life will definitely emerge. Therefore if M-theory shows that it can possibly have 10 to the power 500 number of solutions, and that thus there might be 10 to the power 500 number of universes in each of which physical laws would be different, then it is really a poor theory, because it cannot give us any assurance that life will certainly emerge in at least one universe. So instead of M-theory we need another theory that will actually have an infinite number of solutions.
British Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees has said in a conversation (published in The New York Times, November 22, 2008): “I believe an infinity of different universes actually exist, and we could find ourselves in any one in which the governing laws allowed life to exist.” When no evidence can be given, we have no other option but to believe. As theists believe in their God, so scientists believe in their multiverse.