Post by swamprat on Nov 27, 2017 18:35:16 GMT -6
Hawking has a rare early-onset, slow-progressing form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) that has gradually paralyzed him over the decades. He now communicates using a single cheek muscle attached to a speech-generating device.
I often wonder what Hawking might have accomplished had he been healthy all of his life...
Working With Stephen
James B. Hartle∗
Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501 and
Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9530
The banquet for the July 2017 conference in Cambridge, UK celebrating Stephen
Hawking’s 75th birthday was held in Trinity College on July 3rd. The organizers
asked the author, among others, to give a 10 minute after dinner talk on what it
was like to work with Stephen. The following is an edited version of the author’s
speaking text.
"I would like to thank the organizers for inviting me to this celebration
and for giving me an opportunity to speak at a wonderful occasion. For
after dinner amusement they asked me to give a few personal recollections
addressing the question ‘What is it like to work with Stephen’. It remains
to be seen whether I should thank them for that.
My association with Stephen began 46 years ago during a long
visit to Fred Hoyle’s Institute of Theoretical Astronomy (as it was known
then). In residence were people like Brandon Carter, Martin Rees, Paul
Davis, and Stephen Hawking — colleagues with whom I have maintained
lifelong personal and scientific contacts.
Stephen had guessed there must be solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations
that represented many equally charged equally massive black holes held
in equilibrium with the electrostatic repulsion between them balancing their
gravitational attraction. As it happened I knew where the relevant metric
was to be found, and we were off and running.
Since that time I have always felt that we were on the same wavelength
— not the same in ability or insight, of course — but rather similar in style
and understanding of what is important. Ten more papers were to follow.
It's impossible to address the question of what is it like to work with
Stephen without first answering the question of what is it that makes him so
special as a scientist.
It's a common misconception that scientists working at the frontier are
participants in an organized effort seeking to answer some well defined fixed
famous great questions. “What is the unified theory of all the fundamental
interactions?” “What was the origin of the universe?” But this is not how
it seems to those of us in the trenches.
The frontier of theoretical physics is a noisy, chaotic place. At any one
time, we have cherished old ideas, well confirmed in territory already mapped,
that we are very reluctant to give up. We also have a whole variety of
competing, different, unconfirmed new ideas vying for the best route forward
into new territory that require us to give up some of the old ideas. It’s
certainly not organized! I think that Stephen likes situations like this and
the surprises that upset the status quo.
Rather the questions are: “What is the right question?” “What do we keep
and what do we give up?” Stephen knows the answers. He has a remarkable
ability to see through all this clutter, to cut to the heart of the matter, and
to focus on the essentials. He also has the courage to discard the cherished
old ideas that are an obstacle to progress. Later when looked at in the right
way these seem inevitable. But that’s the genius.
Working with Stephen day to day is not so very different from other col-
laborations. Ideas are supplied and vetted by all. Contrary views are reconciled
by argument. The important is distinguished from the unimportant
by debate. The feasible is separated from the unfeasible by trial and error.
Stephen is inclusive in all this and I think cognizant of its value. Many of his
statements start with ‘we’, for instance: ‘We could say that...’ That inclusion
extends to a larger loose group of scientists with similar viewpoints working
on similar problems — Thomas Hertog for instance, Stephen’s many students,
and many more. Working with Stephen broadens your horizons both
scientifically and personally.
Working with Stephen is fun. You get to draw on his vast and deep
understanding of physics broadly and general relativity in particular. You
learn. You get to appreciate his ability to explain with concision and clarity.
You get to enjoy Stephen’s wonderful sense of humor. Right now I can see
the expression on his face when he getting ready to tell me that something
I’ve just said is inconsistent, or violates some basic principle of physics, or
some other rubbish. But it’s not just about physics. The conversation is
often diverted to talk about other issues in science and life on which Stephen
often has strong, well thought out positions.
The consequences of working with Stephen extend far beyond the particular
paper or calculation. I have often thought that the signature of a great
problem in physics is that its solution generates more great problems. Certainly
that is the case with the Hawking radiation. In my case the work with
Stephen on the no-boundary wave function of the universe led to numerous
specific calculations, many with Thomas Hertog and Stephen, of what it predicts
for our observations of the universe on the largest scales of space and
time. But it also motivated a new vision formulated with Murray Gell-Mann
of how usual text-book quantum mechanics can be generalized to apply
to cosmology — decoherent histories quantum theory in particular.
Working with Stephen brings out the best in you. You are stretched. You
learn. You are confronted with new ideas, and new perspectives that are more
powerful than the ones you had before. Important new routes are opened
up and important questions asked that you didn’t think existed. Stephen
encourages thinking outside the box while at the same time setting high
standards for that thinking.
Late in life I find that I am proud of my record in theoretical physics. Not,
of course, because of any great discoveries or huge impacts. But rather in the
sense of ‘personal best’. I think that I did the best that I could have done
with the talents and circumstances that I had. But I don’t think I could
have done even that without working with Stephen."
A toast concluded the proceedings: “For seventy-five years of achievement
both in science and life: Stephen Hawking”.
arxiv.org/pdf/1711.09071.pdf
∗Electronic address: hartle@physics.ucsb.edu
I often wonder what Hawking might have accomplished had he been healthy all of his life...
Working With Stephen
James B. Hartle∗
Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501 and
Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9530
The banquet for the July 2017 conference in Cambridge, UK celebrating Stephen
Hawking’s 75th birthday was held in Trinity College on July 3rd. The organizers
asked the author, among others, to give a 10 minute after dinner talk on what it
was like to work with Stephen. The following is an edited version of the author’s
speaking text.
"I would like to thank the organizers for inviting me to this celebration
and for giving me an opportunity to speak at a wonderful occasion. For
after dinner amusement they asked me to give a few personal recollections
addressing the question ‘What is it like to work with Stephen’. It remains
to be seen whether I should thank them for that.
My association with Stephen began 46 years ago during a long
visit to Fred Hoyle’s Institute of Theoretical Astronomy (as it was known
then). In residence were people like Brandon Carter, Martin Rees, Paul
Davis, and Stephen Hawking — colleagues with whom I have maintained
lifelong personal and scientific contacts.
Stephen had guessed there must be solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations
that represented many equally charged equally massive black holes held
in equilibrium with the electrostatic repulsion between them balancing their
gravitational attraction. As it happened I knew where the relevant metric
was to be found, and we were off and running.
Since that time I have always felt that we were on the same wavelength
— not the same in ability or insight, of course — but rather similar in style
and understanding of what is important. Ten more papers were to follow.
It's impossible to address the question of what is it like to work with
Stephen without first answering the question of what is it that makes him so
special as a scientist.
It's a common misconception that scientists working at the frontier are
participants in an organized effort seeking to answer some well defined fixed
famous great questions. “What is the unified theory of all the fundamental
interactions?” “What was the origin of the universe?” But this is not how
it seems to those of us in the trenches.
The frontier of theoretical physics is a noisy, chaotic place. At any one
time, we have cherished old ideas, well confirmed in territory already mapped,
that we are very reluctant to give up. We also have a whole variety of
competing, different, unconfirmed new ideas vying for the best route forward
into new territory that require us to give up some of the old ideas. It’s
certainly not organized! I think that Stephen likes situations like this and
the surprises that upset the status quo.
Rather the questions are: “What is the right question?” “What do we keep
and what do we give up?” Stephen knows the answers. He has a remarkable
ability to see through all this clutter, to cut to the heart of the matter, and
to focus on the essentials. He also has the courage to discard the cherished
old ideas that are an obstacle to progress. Later when looked at in the right
way these seem inevitable. But that’s the genius.
Working with Stephen day to day is not so very different from other col-
laborations. Ideas are supplied and vetted by all. Contrary views are reconciled
by argument. The important is distinguished from the unimportant
by debate. The feasible is separated from the unfeasible by trial and error.
Stephen is inclusive in all this and I think cognizant of its value. Many of his
statements start with ‘we’, for instance: ‘We could say that...’ That inclusion
extends to a larger loose group of scientists with similar viewpoints working
on similar problems — Thomas Hertog for instance, Stephen’s many students,
and many more. Working with Stephen broadens your horizons both
scientifically and personally.
Working with Stephen is fun. You get to draw on his vast and deep
understanding of physics broadly and general relativity in particular. You
learn. You get to appreciate his ability to explain with concision and clarity.
You get to enjoy Stephen’s wonderful sense of humor. Right now I can see
the expression on his face when he getting ready to tell me that something
I’ve just said is inconsistent, or violates some basic principle of physics, or
some other rubbish. But it’s not just about physics. The conversation is
often diverted to talk about other issues in science and life on which Stephen
often has strong, well thought out positions.
The consequences of working with Stephen extend far beyond the particular
paper or calculation. I have often thought that the signature of a great
problem in physics is that its solution generates more great problems. Certainly
that is the case with the Hawking radiation. In my case the work with
Stephen on the no-boundary wave function of the universe led to numerous
specific calculations, many with Thomas Hertog and Stephen, of what it predicts
for our observations of the universe on the largest scales of space and
time. But it also motivated a new vision formulated with Murray Gell-Mann
of how usual text-book quantum mechanics can be generalized to apply
to cosmology — decoherent histories quantum theory in particular.
Working with Stephen brings out the best in you. You are stretched. You
learn. You are confronted with new ideas, and new perspectives that are more
powerful than the ones you had before. Important new routes are opened
up and important questions asked that you didn’t think existed. Stephen
encourages thinking outside the box while at the same time setting high
standards for that thinking.
Late in life I find that I am proud of my record in theoretical physics. Not,
of course, because of any great discoveries or huge impacts. But rather in the
sense of ‘personal best’. I think that I did the best that I could have done
with the talents and circumstances that I had. But I don’t think I could
have done even that without working with Stephen."
A toast concluded the proceedings: “For seventy-five years of achievement
both in science and life: Stephen Hawking”.
arxiv.org/pdf/1711.09071.pdf
∗Electronic address: hartle@physics.ucsb.edu