Sad news today about the passing of a mind who has touched on many of the subjects discussed on this forum

Rest in peace doctor Hawking, there are few things in life more intriguing than a brilliant theoretical physicist with strong opinions and the intellectual weight to back them up.

I know his ideas and sentiments have started discussions with strong words on this forum, but I hope we can maintain decorum in this thread if people decide to post here. He was a man who engaged in discussions about the universe with passion, fervor and curiosity, and at least in that I think most of us should see a kindred spirit.

I would imagine many theists are breathing a sigh of relief. His 'Boundary conditions' hypothesis posed a serious threat to theistic claims about the origins of the universe, prior to the Big Bang. God's final hiding place was in danger of being forced to retreat, again, to yet another unprovable first cause position.

I'm very sad that the world has lost an exceptional mind, but I'm not going to speak to him as if he could read this, because he can't.

You imagine many things in the deaths of many people.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43396008

Sarcasm Alert: I hope this thread maintains the high standard of respect and decorum that was established in the Billy Graham RIP thread.

Hawking's contributions to a better understand of the universe is undisputed and his greatness as a physicist stands. I recall reading his Brief History of Time and enjoyed what this brief book had to offer. As a scientist and critical thinker in the field of science he deserves the accolades. As a populizer for science I also think he also deservs accolades and for his helpful advancement/advice for younger people to take science seriously and as a career.

As to his other contributions in the more popular vein, I have some difficulty; mainly because of the distortions that are so prevalent in the press/media of what scientists (and others) actually say, mean, and the misrepresentation that so often happens in reporting, which is so prevalent in much of the press, (intented or not) to garner readership and amp up emotionalism, fear, controversy, etc, etc. Few journalists are scientists and the whole context of agurments or comments are frequently very distorted. That's a personal nit and observation but I think it holds true very frequently.

But there is a price to pay for becoming Popular and to engage in popularising science (Carl Sagan for example) and/or to use your star status to pick at other subjects out of your field of expertise that you may not have so good a handle on, or to influence some political agenda. Scientist have that right of free expression, as do all, but some lose a more circumspect approach. Whether that applies to Hawking, I don't know enough to say. I haven't followed many of his recent and not so recent commentary.

I think that is a fair and nuanced post. The discussion about being a public figure and using your scientific position as a platform is a hotly debated topic in scientific communities everywhere, even the act of writing pop-science is contested (the opponents thinking that it mighty bind the scientist to his / her opinions too strongly). There is also the point of incorrect impressions. Some of Hawking's ideas were (and stil are) scientifically controversial, but to the public at large that might not always be clear.

That said I think these things are not always equal, some strike a better balance than others, and I think Hawking mostly managed to do this well. And it is also no secret that these days many portions of science is under attack, from both sides of the political spectrum (though the hard sciences most noticeably from the far political right), and it is a lot to ask brilliant men and women remain silent when their work is called into question and many a underfunded science department written off as "corrupt elite" by large, powerful and often rich political organizations attempting to sway public opinion.

But we can't deny that a cosmologist and theoretical physicist with opinions is just plain fun and intriguing. Debating and contemplating the universe would still have been interesting without Hawking, but undoubtedly less so.

This!

+1

Is he in the top ten of living physicists? In the top 50 of all time?

Yes to both questions, I would think.

no, cos he dead

I was gonna post something like that, but thought DS meant top-ten physicists among living physicists while Professor Hawking was still alive. Everybody kinda knows that Hawking in dead.

I just wonder if he was a little overrated due to his disease. His main theory was disproven was it not?

You often hear these sentiments about people with disabilities or who in some other fashion (gender, sexuality, ethnicity) are uncommon in their field. But in the real world the people that face these challenges are less likely to succeed, not more.

You might argue that his recognizability helped his popular image as a great physicist, and that's probably true. But that took place after he was a very accomplished physicist. As I noted earlier it might have also given rise to the notion that his more speculative ideas where more accepted than they actually were. Still, that's one of the things that made him intriguing. Not only did he have very intriguing opinions and the intellectual weight to explore them, but he opened up venues of debate that have sparked tens of thousands of brilliant papers.

Theoretical physics can advance understanding greatly even in the cases where it is rejected, as it it not always about the result - but about the method, what data to look for and how it can be applied when said data is available. An ideal Hawking very much lived up to on the several occasions where he was both accepting and supporting of work that would show earlier papers by him to be likely incorrect.

Ratings are overrated. Hawking's contributions to the advancement of cosmology were/are important and useful. And they spurred on further inquiry. Tame made a good post about that. I'll add that this is actually quite standard in all branches of Science, although not know about or understood very well by the general public.

I knew of numerous small published ideas/concepts/preliminary results, say as letters to the Journal Science, where the main thrust was just to get ideas/hypotheses out to a wide science audience, for perusal and critique. It is a very useful thing to do and part of the scientific method. The idea may, and can, turn out to be bunk or need substantial revision etc., but that doesn't preclude it not being published.

Is he in the top ten of living physicists? In the top 50 of all time?

i dont think it can be a good information

A fine person and top scientist. Yet, because of the mysterious ways of discussion boards, he got mentioned much more often in the religion subforum than the science subforum. Hope he now has a definitive answer to the Grand Design question. RIP.

That could be because one has to have knowledge about science to understand his scientific work, while anybody can shoot their mouth off when the topic is religion or origins whether they know anything or not.