# Is Stephen Hawkings overrated? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 3, 2015, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-stephen-hawkings-overrated/716707 "2015-04-03T14:27:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-stephen-hawkings-overrated/716707/61 "2015-04-06T11:03:47Z")
> [@Nelson\_Pike](#): > > I read _Dreams of a Final Theory_ 20 years ago. Great book. > > Too bad, though, that the final theory remains elusive. Again, within the world of physics, Professor Weinberg is as least as well known and at least as highly regarded as Hawking. And that’s where it matters. Hawking is NOT overrated in academia. He’s merely overrated in the sense that the average Joe can only name ONE living physicist, and that’s Stephen Hawking. But if you asked that average Joe to summarize some of Hawking’s contributions to science, he wouldn’t know. Fifty years ago, I could have said the same thing about Albert Einstein. If you’d asked my Mom back then to name a physicist, she’d have named Einstein. If you’d asked her to name TWO physicists, she’d have drawn a blank. That doesn’t mean Einstein and Hawking weren’t/aren’t genuinely brilliant- it just means that fame among the public at large isn’t always directly related to stature within the science world. ---
**Author:** ![Methyl\_Ethyl\_Death](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Methyl\_Ethyl\_Death](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Methyl_Ethyl_Death)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-stephen-hawkings-overrated/716707/62 "2015-04-06T13:18:01Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > You, obviously, have never parked your car under a tree inhabited by a huge colony of grackles. > > If you had, you’d be cursing Noah for bringing them on the Ark! You forgot to mention that they are also loud and obnoxious! ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-stephen-hawkings-overrated/716707/63 "2015-04-06T18:02:02Z")
> [@Nelson\_Pike](#): > > It is reasonable to consider Hawking’s achievements inferior of those, say, of Weinberg-Glashow-'t Hooft. They took the first step since Maxwell in the 1800s in theoretical unification of the forces of nature, since enhanced by the inclusion of the Strong Nuclear force by the Standard Model. (Yes I know Abdus Salam, now dead, contributed and yes I know 't Hooft’s renormalization contribution was not enough by itself to earn him a Nobel Prize). Hawking has done nothing nearly comparable. > > I really don’t know why removing Hawking from a place in the top flight of theoretical physicists should be considered “trashing”. So he’s not in the top 10? Well, the second 10 is still pretty good! Of course Weinberg Glashow and 't Hooft are also clearly physicists who have also reached the top of the tree, all three being Nobel prize winner ('t Hooft won his nobel prize precisely for his work on renormalization. However my point is that comparision is subjective as you’re comparing substantial achievements in one field with substantial achievements in another (though 't Hooft it must be said has also made substantial contributions to quantum gravity). You simply cannot rank living physicists in a way that allows you to distinguish the top 10 from the top 20 without it being hugely subjective. > [@](#): > > You did not mention singularities before now, and just as well since the field accords Hawking no preeminent distinction. Singularities were first conceived before 1920, and have been at the forefront of relativistic cosmological discussion ever since discovery of the expanding universe in the late 1920s. There have been perhaps dozens of theorists from Schwartzchild to LeMaitre to Gamow to Wheeler (who coined the term “Black Hole” in 1967) who have made seminal contributions to the problem. Even if Hawking’s contribution to the subject was as great as anyone else’s I wonder if that would be enough to elevate him to the status of best living. This again is my problem, it’s clear from this paragraph that you don’t really know what I am actually discussing. Which brings me back to my point, how can you assess Hawking’s contribution to physics when you don’t actually know what it is! Before Hawking and Penrose it was believed by many that gravitational singularities in what otherwise appear physically reasonable solutions were in fact the result of over-idealization in the solution. In fact it is probably fair to say that was the tentative consensus of the early sixties (if not accepted by all). What Hawking and Penrose proved is that, under certain sets of reasonable and general enough assumptions, singularities were unavoidable in physically realistic solutions (Hawking proved this for cosmological solutions, Penrose proved this for gravitational collapse). This was very important: John Wheeler in the GR bible _Gravitation_described the unavoidable appearance of gravitational singularities as “the greatest crisis in physics of all-time”. Hawking with Geroch, Penrose and others also built up the theory of what a gravitational singularity is (describing singularities generically is not a simple issue) and its relationship to the causal/large-scale structure of spacetime. > [@](#): > > Would Hawking’s contribution even amount to 10% of Peebles’? Peebles, who with Dicke rediscovered GR solutions from which the cosmic microwave background could be deduced (original discovery was by by Gamow and Alpher, but was forgotten for 10-15 years) All modern cosmology proceeds from there. I do not think the same can be said for any contribution by Hawking. Are you being serious? No they did not re-discover the GR solutions from which the CMB could be deduced as these solutions are just the standard and comparatively simple FLRW solutions which have been well-known since the 1930s. What Dicke, Peebles, Peel and Robinson did was to analyse the thermodynamic properties of the Universe implied by the FLRW solutions to predict relic radiation from the early Universe. As you say this had already been done and Peebles’ major contribution is actually his related work on nucleosynthesis. Peeble’s contribution to GR is not really comparable to Hawking’s wide-ranging contributions which pushed the whole subject forward. > [@](#): > > Where did I ever say _that_ “picture” was simple ??? I’ll say it’s complicated !!!- it frames what has been the greatest problem in theoretical physics, and one of the greatest in the history of science, ever since quantum mechanics was discovered, namely, the complete, utter and intractable incompatibility of QM and GR. No real progress has been made at reconciliation in 90 years (\*pace \*string theorists’ discovery that their project requires that gravity exist). I would not be adopting the stance I have throughout this thread if Hawking had contributed anything to the solution of _that_ problem. As I said it is more complicated than _you_ think. To say no real progress has been made in 90 years, considering how active the field is, is to misunderstand what the problems actually are. Much of Hawking’s work in quantum gravity is general enough that it is important in all of the different approaches to the subject. ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-stephen-hawkings-overrated/716707/64 "2015-04-06T20:13:21Z")
> [@Mr\_Shine](#): > > Who is Stephen Hawkings? He can’t be overrated, as I’ve never heard of him. Stephen Hawkings is my _SH\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*T!!!_ ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-stephen-hawkings-overrated/716707/65 "2015-04-06T21:04:25Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > What? Is there some definition of “grackle” I don’t know of? Are you talking about the bird? What does that have to do with anything? You said you lived in Austin, but you didn’t say you attended UT. Or maybe the 70’s was too early. But in the late 80’s, you literally had to carry an umbrella to avoid getting shit on in some parts of the campus. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-stephen-hawkings-overrated/716707/66 "2015-04-07T02:17:30Z")
I was a student at UT the first two years I was there and worked on campus the last year. I don’t remember hearing anything about grackles when I was there. Hey, you learn something new every day. ---
**Author:** ![Orville\_mogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/aeb1de/32.png) [@Orville\_mogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orville_mogul)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-stephen-hawkings-overrated/716707/67 "2015-04-07T09:02:24Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > Stephen King is overrated. [SLIGHT HIJACK] No he isn’t. Aside from what he has accomplished in the suspense genre, King is also one of the best writers of Americana since Faulkner and Steinbeck. [/SLIGHT HIJACK] ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-stephen-hawkings-overrated/716707/68 "2015-04-08T21:43:21Z")
My last to this thread: > [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > Of course Weinberg Glashow and 't Hooft are also clearly physicists who have also reached the top of the tree, all three being Nobel prize winner ('t Hooft won his nobel prize precisely for his work on renormalization. It is obvious that I was referring only to the limited example of ‘t Hooft’s renormalization of electroweak theory. > [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > However my point is that comparision is subjective as you’re comparing substantial achievements in one field with substantial achievements in another (though 't Hooft it must be said has also made substantial contributions to quantum gravity). Gravity has not been quantized, there is no end in sight to the search for a quantizing theory, and it is improper to evaluate anyone’s contribution until the end _is_ in sight. > [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > You simply cannot rank living physicists in a way that allows you to distinguish the top 10 from the top 20 without it being hugely subjective. No more so than distinguishing the person in first place from all the others. > [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > This again is my problem, it’s clear from this paragraph that you don’t really know what I am actually discussing. Which brings me back to my point, how can you assess Hawking’s contribution to physics when you don’t actually know what it is! Before Hawking and Penrose it was believed by many that gravitational singularities in what otherwise appear physically reasonable solutions were in fact the result of over-idealization in the solution. In fact it is probably fair to say that was the tentative consensus of the early sixties (if not accepted by all). What Hawking and Penrose proved is that, under certain sets of reasonable and general enough assumptions, singularities were unavoidable in physically realistic solutions (Hawking proved this for cosmological solutions, Penrose proved this for gravitational collapse). Your problem you think you can disguise your indifferent performance in this debate by resort to ad hominem. I will help you explain your own point more clearly: for the purpose of our conversation Hawking’s work on singularity is analogous to Einstein’s 1905 Brownian Motion insight as follows: Both proved the existence of an important feature of physical reality: Einstein, atoms, Hawking, singularities. Although Einstein’s Brownian work propelled him to high rank among theoretical physicists, it did not, by itself, propel him to first place. That took Special Relativity and the quantization of light. Similarly Hawking’s singularity enhanced his ranking. But dissimilarly Hawking has produced no follow-up distinguished enough to elevate him over many others now living. It will take much more to win a first place designation for Hawking, or even to solidify a position in the top 10. Quantum Gravity does not qualify because the theory is so far from complete that no contributor’s work can yet be properly evaluated. > [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > This was very important: John Wheeler in the GR bible Gravitationdescribed the unavoidable appearance of gravitational singularities as “the greatest crisis in physics of all-time”. Hawking with Geroch, Penrose and others also built up the theory of what a gravitational singularity is (describing singularities generically is not a simple issue) and its relationship to the causal/large-scale structure of spacetime. The greatest crisis of all time? Greater than the precession of Mercury? Greater than the lumineferous ether? Greater than the ongoing tension between Relativity and QM? GR bible or no GR bible I believe Wheeler has been misquoted. > [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > Are you being serious? No they did not re-discover the GR solutions from which the CMB could be deduced as these solutions are just the standard and comparatively simple FLRW solutions which have been well-known since the 1930s. What Dicke, Peebles, Peel and Robinson did was to analyse the thermodynamic properties of the Universe implied by the FLRW solutions to predict relic radiation from the early Universe. As you say this had already been done and Peebles’ major contribution is actually his related work on nucleosynthesis. Peeble’s contribution to GR is not really comparable to Hawking’s wide-ranging contributions which pushed the whole subject forward. My error re GR solutions, but that does not diminish the comparative importance of GADP’s discovery of the MB (I do not think Wilson and Penzias deserve to be considered co-discoverers since if left along they might have gone on thinking that the static they saw was caused by pigeon shit). > [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > As I said it is more complicated than you think. To say no real progress has been made in 90 years, considering how active the field is, is to misunderstand what the problems actually are. Much of Hawking’s work in quantum gravity is general enough that it is important in all of the different approaches to the subject. The continuing proliferation of different approaches only confirms that Quantum gravity theory is so far from complete that no contributor’s work can yet be properly evaluated. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-stephen-hawkings-overrated/716707/69 "2015-04-09T01:05:50Z")
> [@Nelson\_Pike](#): > > No more so than distinguishing the person in first place from all the others. I agree completely, but I have not tried to do that. My argument has only ever been is that Hawking’s achievements are sufficient that attempting to rank living physicists above him invloves a very high degree of subjectivity. > [@](#): > > Your problem you think you can disguise your indifferent performance in this debate by resort to ad hominem. I like the way you accuse me of making an ad hominem attack, before making one of your own in the same sentence. My point is though that Hawking’s work on singularities should be a basic reference point when discussing his achievements, so demonstrating an awareness and basic understanding of it is surely necessary to evaluate his work. [/quote] > [@](#): > > I will help you explain your own point more clearly: for the purpose of our conversation Hawking’s work on singularity is analogous to Einstein’s 1905 Brownian Motion insight as follows: Both proved the existence of an important feature of physical reality: Einstein, atoms, Hawking, singularities. > > Although Einstein’s Brownian work propelled him to high rank among theoretical physicists, it did not, by itself, propel him to first place. That took Special Relativity and the quantization of light. Similarly Hawking’s singularity enhanced his ranking. But dissimilarly Hawking has produced no follow-up distinguished enough to elevate him over many others now living. It will take much more to win a first place designation for Hawking, or even to solidify a position in the top 10. Quantum Gravity does not qualify because the theory is so far from complete that no contributor’s work can yet be properly evaluated. I don’t think you’ve chosen a particularly good analogy, however the point is Hawking did follow it up with other work, most importantly Hawking radiation. To say it some how doesn’t count because it is in the broad umbrella of quantum gravity is to misunderstand how the result was arrived at. Hawking has shown that hawking radiation is a result in Euclidean quantum gravity (an approach which extends Feynman’s path integral approach to quantum field theory), it was actually derived using a semi-classical approximation. To compare, the approximate energy levels of a hydrogen atom were derived using a semi-classical approximation long before quantum electrodynamics was formulated. > [@](#): > > The greatest crisis of all time? Greater than the precession of Mercury? Greater than the lumineferous ether? Greater than the ongoing tension between Relativity and QM? GR bible or no GR bible I believe Wheeler has been misquoted. Considering Wheeler is one of the co-authors of the book and who was responsible for the chapter in question I highly doubt that Wheeler misquoted himself. > [@](#): > > My error re GR solutions, but that does not diminish the comparative importance of GADP’s discovery of the MB (I do not think Wilson and Penzias deserve to be considered co-discoverers since if left along they might have gone on thinking that the static they saw was caused by pigeon shit). Obviously its is important in physical cosmology (depending on how you view the fact it was a re-derivation of an older piece of work) , but the point is in GR not so much. Sure it provides an important way of experimentally testing GR, but it didn’t push the understanding of the whole theory forward like Hawking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-stephen-hawkings-overrated/716707.md?page=3)