https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12235 Not Even Wrong [purity-new-1] Skip to content * Home * Frequently Asked Questions * Twistor Unification - Muon g-2 Result Hawking Hawking Posted on April 8, 2021 by woit There's a very good new book about Stephen Hawking that just came out, Charles Seife's Hawking Hawking. Some detailed reviews can be found at Prospect Magazine (Philip Ball) and the New York Review of Books (James Gleick). Seife has chosen to write the story of Hawking's life starting at the end and ending at the beginning, which takes some getting used to, but provides a different perspective. Hawking was a huge world-wide celebrity, widely considered by the public and the press to be the modern-day analog of Einstein, dominating the field of theoretical physics. His personal story, involving a long life battling a disease that left him quadraplegic and severely disabled, added greatly to the phenomenon he became. His life has been the subject of various books, films and TV shows, but only now, three years after his death, has something appeared that gives an account of this life corresponding not to myth but to reality. The reality of this story is that Hawking was a very good theorist, with a high point of his career his work on Hawking radiation in 1974. I remember attending lectures by him at Princeton in the early 1980s, when he was actively working on Euclidean quantum gravity. His speech was hard to follow, so one of his graduate students or postdocs would translate for the audience. Unfortunately, the disease continued to take its toll, and after he nearly died from it in 1985, losing the ability to speak to a tracheostomy, all evidence I've seen is that he was no longer able to continue to do research at the highest level. From then on he lived a remarkable and full life for another 33 years, including some collaborative work with other theorists, but he was no longer the driving force behind any new research programs. Seife quotes extensively many physicists who worked with Hawking during this time, including Andy Strominger and Hawking's student Marika Taylor, who give a fairly good idea of what it was like to work with him. During the early 80s Hawking was quite fond of the idea that N=8 supergravity would be a successful unified theory, famously giving a talk about it entitled Is the end in sight for theoretical physics?. The advent of string theory coincided with the serious deterioration in his health and ability to communicate. From then on he was reliant on others to explain to him what was going on in string/M-theory: [Marika] Taylor didn't yet know how difficult the task ahead of her was. Her thesis was going to be on M-theory, but Hawking was not an expert on the subject. Taylor would largely have to guide herself straight to the frontier of an incredibly difficult branch of theoretical physics, digest all the important work of the past few years, and then teach Hawking what she had learned before even being able to come up with a thesis idea. On top of that, Hawking wasn't particularly enthusiastic about the string-theoretic parts of the theory: he just cared about supergravity. "As I was starting to go into those areas, I wouldn't say that he was skeptical," Taylor says. "He was just not interested... Actually I think the real truth is that he didn't want to engage with people on territory he was unfamiliar with." Soon after I started this blog in 2004, I wrote here and here about Hawking's heavily publicized talk in Dublin announcing that he had figured out how to resolve the black hole information paradox. I was baffled by reports of his talk and his paper, and not the only one. Seife tells the story of this in some detail, and I think the consensus is that there was no there there. A large part of Hawking's celebrity and income derived from his work as a popular author. His 1988 popular book, A Brief History of Time, was a huge success. Seife tells the story of how that book came about, partly motivated by the need for a new source of income. An initial manuscript due to Hawking was edited and improved a great deal before the published version was done. Many other books followed, and if you go to any bookstore with a science section, you're likely to find quite a few of them for sale. The problem is that, on the whole, they're not any good, and they're not written by Hawking. Seife documents this sorry tale in some detail. I first noticed this when I ran across a copy of God Created the Integers, a thick anthology of writing on mathematics, supposedly edited by and with commentary by Hawking. At least he's listed as the sole author. Given the topic and the volume of material, it seemed highly implausible to me that Hawking was actually the author. For a review of the book, see here. Seife explains in detail that much of it is essentially plagiarized from other sources, and that to this day, it seems to be unknown who wrote the material (just that it clearly wasn't Hawking). At least this sort of thing got little attention, which unfortunately was not true of his 2010 The Grand Design, co-written with Leonard Mlodinow. I wrote about this book in some detail here. Put bluntly, it was an atrocious rehash of the worst nonsense about M-theory and the string theory landscape, with an argument for atheism thrown in to get more public attention. This is the sort of thing that has done a huge amount of damage to both the public understanding of fundamental physics, and even to the field itself. James Gleick's otherwise excellent review of the Seife book ends with Hawking promoted the theory of everything with a vengeance. He made it part of his brand. It was the title of the 2014 biopic in which Eddie Redmayne played Hawking. The much-quoted ending of A Brief History of Time raised the prospect of a complete theory--a final theory: "It would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would know the mind of God." At the 1998 White House event, Hawking told the assembled dignitaries: We shall have to rely on mathematical beauty and consistency to find the ultimate Theory of Everything. Nevertheless I am confident we will discover it by the end of the 21st century and probably much sooner. I would take a bet at 50-50 odds that it will be within twenty years starting now. He would have lost that one, too. It was hubris--but it sold, and it is part of his legacy. He showed younger colleagues how to chase grand theories and best-selling books. Hawking is not the only physicist guilty of hawking. The theory of everything is a false idol. Why should the universe, which grows more gloriously complex the more we see, be reducible to one set of equations and formulae? The point of science is not the holy grail but the quest--the searching and the asking. Let us hope there will never be a final theory. We now live in an environment where the idea that there may be a deeper, more unified theory has become completely discredited, through the efforts of many, with Hawking playing an unfortunate part. If you have any interest at all in Hawking's story, you owe it to yourself to read this book. It's a rich and thoughtful examination of his life and work, pushing aside the myth and bringing out the much more interesting reality behind it. This entry was posted in Book Reviews. Bookmark the permalink. - Muon g-2 Result 6 Responses to Hawking Hawking 1. Sabine says: April 9, 2021 at 1:52 am I suppose it was a difficult branch, not bran? I'm just here to say I've read the book too and also recommend it. 2. Martin Visser says: April 9, 2021 at 4:59 am I can't quite make out what this phrase was meant to say - "and I think the consensus is that there was no there there." 3. Davide Castelvecchi says: April 9, 2021 at 5:21 am I have a much more positive view of The Grand Design. For one thing, it's well written and extremely readable, contrary to A Brief History of Time. And the central thesis of the book is precisely that there may not be one ultimate theory, only a number of partial theories, each explaining a limited range of phenomena. I found that surprising and refreshing because it suggested that Hawking (to the extent that he had anything to do with the contents of the book) had decided to move on from his "reading the mind of God" propaganda. 4. Genghis Khan says: April 9, 2021 at 5:36 am Whenever anyone mentions Leonard Mlodinow, I cannot help but think of Langlands's incredible review of his book "Euclid's Window". 5. Philip Gibbs says: April 9, 2021 at 6:38 am It's not unusual for physicists to do their most original work before the age of 40. Hawking gave us singularity theorems, Hawking radiation, quantum cosmology and much more. He brought new mathematical insight and tools to work on general relativity and opened up the field of quantum gravity when most physicists had no idea how to make any progress. He may not have solved the black hole information paradox, but he was the one who highlighted the significance of the problem in the first place and that is at least as important. It's futile to compare the achievements of physicists who worked on different topics many years apart, but Hawking was a great physicist by any standard. In the UK his work was the subject of television documentaries from the mid 1970s, long before he started writing books, and it was very clear that being in a wheelchair was not the main reason for his fame. Nobody gets to be the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge because of media popularity. If he went on to popularise his work when it became difficult for him to keep up with later developments due to his condition, then that is to be celebrated. It was probably beyond human reach for him to take in the new mathematics of string theory enough to contribute to research given his disabilities, but he had worked on supergravity and could certainly see that it was a worthy natural progression. There is a wide range of opinions on the current state of subjects like M-theory, supersymmetry and multiverses among physicists and not everyone agrees with your conclusions. The status of the subjects may well be overhyped but the endgame has yet to be played out. If Hawking needed more and more help with writing his later books then that is understandable. It's safe to assume that he was able to set directions, read drafts and suggest changes. Being able to keep up any kind of active life required finances and he may not have had his name attached to some of these later works otherwise, but I am sure he kept his integrity intact. Both his scientific work and his popular books will continue to be highly influential for a long time, and rightly so. 6. Alice T. says: April 9, 2021 at 8:40 am "There is no there there" is how Gertrude Stein famously described the state of broadband access in Oakland, the city of her 1874 birth. For more on this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ why-gertrude-steins-no-there-there-is-everywhere-1517589198 Leave a Reply Cancel reply Informed comments relevant to the posting are very welcome and strongly encouraged. Comments that just add noise and/or hostility are not. Off-topic comments better be interesting... In addition, remember that this is not a general physics discussion board, or a place for people to promote their favorite ideas about fundamental physics. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Comment [ ] Name * [ ] Email * [ ] Website [ ] [ ] Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. [Post Comment] you MUST enable javascript to be able to comment [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] * Search for: [ ] [Search] * About Peter Woit's Home Page * Follow @notevenwrong * follow us in feedly * Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations book cover * Not Even Wrong: The Book book cover Reviews Errata * Subscribe to Blog via Email Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Join 136 other subscribers Email Address [ ] Subscribe * Recent Comments + Muon g-2 Result 22 SG, Martin H., SG, Andre W-L, Joseph Conlon, Martin H. [...] + Hawking Hawking 6 Alice T., Philip Gibbs, Genghis Khan, Davide Castelvecchi, Martin Visser, Sabine + The God Equation 32 David, Patrick Dennis, MD, Bernhard, Amitabh Lath, Peter Woit , David Roberts [...] + The Future of Fundamental Physics 30 ML, Peter Woit, Sundar, Peter Woit, Doug McDonald, Peter Woit [...] + Twistor Unification 11 Peter Woit, Jamie, Justin, Robert A. Wilson, Peter Woit, Low Math, Meekly Interacting [...] * Categories + Book Reviews (114) + BRST (13) + Experimental HEP News (152) + Fake Physics (6) + Favorite Old Posts (50) + Film Reviews (15) + Langlands (38) + Multiverse Mania (154) + Not Even Wrong: The Book (27) + Obituaries (31) + Quantum Mechanics (19) + Quantum Theory: The Book (6) + Strings 2XXX (19) + Swampland (18) + This Week's Hype (119) + Twistor Unification (1) + Uncategorized (1,219) * Archives open all | close all * Links + Cosmo Coffee + FQXi Blogs + Interactions + Particlebites + Physics Buzz + Planet Musings + Symmetry Breaking * Mathematics Weblogs + Alex Youcis + Alexandre Borovik + Anton Hilado + Cathy O'Neil + Daniel Litt + Danny Calegari + David Hansen + David Mumford + David Roberts + Emmanuel Kowalski + Harald Helfgott + Jesse Johnson + Johan deJong + Lieven Le Bruyn + Mathematics Without Apologies + Michael Hutchings + Noncommutative Geometry + Pieter Belmans + Qiaochu Yuan + Quomodocumque + Secret Blogging Seminar + Terence Tao + The n-Category Cafe + Timothy Gowers * Physics Weblogs + Alexey Petrov + AMVA4NewPhysics + Andrew Jaffe + Angry Physicist + Capitalist Imperialist Pig + Chad Orzel + Clifford Johnson + Cormac O'Raifeartaigh + Doug Natelson + EPMG Blog + Geoffrey Dixon + Georg von Hippel + Gordon Watts + Jackson Clarke + Jacques Distler + Jennifer Ouellette + Jim Baggott + Joe Conlon + John Horgan + Lubos Motl + Mark Goodsell + Mark Hanman + Mateus Araujo + Matt Strassler + Matt von Hippel + Matthew Buckley + Norbert Bodendorfer + Peter Orland + Physics World + Reimagine Physics + Resonaances + Robert Helling + Ross McKenzie + Sabine Hossenfelder + Scott Aaronson + Sesh Nadathur + Shaun Hotchkiss + Stacy McGaugh + Tommaso Dorigo * Some Web Pages + Alain Connes + Arthur Jaffe + Barry Mazur + Brian Conrad + Brian Hall + Cumrun Vafa + Dan Freed + Daniel Bump + David Ben-Zvi + David Nadler + David Vogan + Dennis Gaitsgory + Eckhard Meinrenken + Edward Frenkel + Frank Wilczek + Gerard 't Hooft + Greg Moore + Hirosi Ooguri + Ivan Fesenko + Jacob Lurie + John Baez + Jose Figueroa-O'Farrill + Klaas Landsman + Laurent Fargues + Laurent Lafforgue + Nolan Wallach + Peter Teichner + Robert Langlands + Vincent Lafforgue * Twitter + Chris Quigg + Edward Frenkel + Frank Wilczek + Graham Farmelo + John Horgan + John Preskill + Lisa Randall + Sabine Hossenfelder * Videos + BIRS + CERN + CIRM + CMI Oxford + Fermilab Colloquia + Fields Institute + Harvard Physics + IAS + ICTP + IHES + Institut Henri Poincare + KITP + Math-net.ru + MSRI + Newton Institute + Perimeter Institute + QGM + Rutgers HEP Theory + Simons Center + Stanford ITP + Stony Brook Mathematics Not Even Wrong Proudly powered by WordPress.