411–420 of 468 posts
I accidentally ate Stephen Hawking's lunch once at a conference at Caltech.
Please explain more...
Come on guys, think this through. Hawking. Eating. Movement.
I'm sure he would have appreciated this joke though and how it got at least two of you ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar issue with Bill Nye, I think, though he's definitely not on the same level.
Mr.Wizard far surpassed Nye, even back in the day. There was never any competition. Nye was always an entertainer first, science teacher second.
That's true, but I don't really see why it's a problem. As long as he's not spreading misinformation or anything, being entertaining is a skill, and he's using it towards constructive ends.
How many HN articles are published every week about how people-skills are undervalued?
For a second I just couldn't believe this was real. Stephen Hawking was one of those people that inspired me towards a career in science, as well as a pursuit of discovering what mysteries of the universe I could uncover within my (cosmically short) lifetime. He did this not through some major life-altering speech I heard from him (although his talks and lectures were quite interesting), or through some grand quote t…
I agree completely. Who will take his place? Who will be the Stephen Hawking of my children's generation? As a society we should work hard to find, celebrate and give a platform to the Stephen Hawking-s and the Carl Sagan-s of tomorrow. The impact of such "celebrity scientists" (I do not use that term pejoratively) is far greater than the measure of the work they have done. It is how they inspire an entire generation…
I nominate Brian Greene from Columbia University! Rhodes Scholar, mind-bending types of work in theoretical physics, cofounder of the World Science Festival, frequent appearances on fancy-schmancy podcasts and television shows. Definitely all the makings of a science hero.
For a second I just couldn't believe this was real. Stephen Hawking was one of those people that inspired me towards a career in science, as well as a pursuit of discovering what mysteries of the universe I could uncover within my (cosmically short) lifetime. He did this not through some major life-altering speech I heard from him (although his talks and lectures were quite interesting), or through some grand quote t…
I agree completely. Who will take his place? Who will be the Stephen Hawking of my children's generation? As a society we should work hard to find, celebrate and give a platform to the Stephen Hawking-s and the Carl Sagan-s of tomorrow. The impact of such "celebrity scientists" (I do not use that term pejoratively) is far greater than the measure of the work they have done. It is how they inspire an entire generation…
But while I think the people like Nye and Tyson are important, someone more in Hawking's mold needs to be a genuinely novel contributor. I'd put Leonard Susskind's name in the hat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mr.Wizard far surpassed Nye, even back in the day. There was never any competition. Nye was always an entertainer first, science teacher second.
> Nye was always an entertainer first, science teacher second. That's true, but I don't really see why it's a problem. As long as he's not spreading misinformation or anything, being entertaining is a skill, and he's using it towards constructive ends. How many HN articles are published every week about how people-skills are undervalued?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Causality is an artefact of the universe. From a philosophical standpoint we would need to establish that why is the key question or we are chasing a socks theory of feet. And that is assuming that why is about causality rather than intention. To paraphrase this abstract's ending, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then the mind of God would be knowable.
If we do come up with a grand unified theory that spawns the existence of everything that's completely self contained and self describing, and it ends up being something like x + y = z, what does that really explain? Why? It's because x + y = z, that's why! Once we boil it down to that why becomes meaningless. Everything ultimately has the same reason why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please explain more...
Surely you're joking mr. richardfeynman. Come on guys, think this through. Hawking. Eating. Movement. I'm sure he would have appreciated this joke though and how it got at least two of you ;)
The timing would even work for the incident to involve the real Richard Feynman. Though, I can't find anything to suggest the story is true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not fear non-existence. For most of the history of the universe, I did not exist. I have considerable experience with that. Dying appears to be unpleasant, though.
For most of the universe’s history you did exist, but were dead, scattered into atoms all across space. The thing is, after a mere billions of years, you managed to consolidate into a form and became alive. Not a bad deal. But to be dead, is to wait a trillion years for something to happen, only for it to turn out at the end you have to wait a trillion years more, and then you have to continue this forever .
This cheered me up a bit, thanks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neil Degrasse Tyson is clearly vying for the slot but seems to make science seem more elitist, more pedantic (read literally any of his tweets) and thus appears to miss the point entirely
Tyson doesn't have the academic credentials that Hawking or someone like Richard Feynman does. The power of Hawking and Feynman is that they both were at the top of their fields, but took the time to make the foundations of their science accessible to the common man. Tyson has done great things, but he's not quite there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neil Degrasse Tyson is clearly vying for the slot but seems to make science seem more elitist, more pedantic (read literally any of his tweets) and thus appears to miss the point entirely
Tyson doesn't have the academic credentials that Hawking or someone like Richard Feynman does. The power of Hawking and Feynman is that they both were at the top of their fields, but took the time to make the foundations of their science accessible to the common man. Tyson has done great things, but he's not quite there.