Stephen Hawking: the interpreter of God?

Science or speculation

The demonstrations of the great English Astrophysics

Let's see what the central thesis of this famous British astrophysicist, through commenting his speech at Oviedo (2005); he more or less said:

... the reason why we do not know the initial state of the Universe is that, as Roger Penrose and I demonstrated, according to the general theory of relativity, the Universe would have started with a "big bang". In it, the gravitational fields have been so intense that space-time would be in an extreme situation in which the general theory of relativity would not apply. Thus general relativity cannot predict (demonstrate) how the Universe began.

Comment: ... demonstrated that the Universe would have started ... that gravitational fields would have been ... that space-time would be ... the general theory of relativity would not apply ... (so what these two scientists have demonstrated?)

The reason why general relativity becomes invalid in the "big bang" is that it does not take into account the quantum theory, the theory of the very small. This becomes dominant when the Universe is very small, near the "big bang". To understand the origin of the Universe, we must combine general relativity and quantum theory. The best way to do it is to use the idea of a sum over histories, proposed by the American physicist -and occasional percussionist of bongo drums- Richard Feynman. According with this idea, the Universe is not a single story as we usually think, but all possible histories, each with its own probability amplitude. There will be a story in which the moon is made of green cheese, but maybe its probability is very small or none.

Comment: he is talking about quantum theory (of the very small) which becomes dominant when the Universe was very small near the "big bang" ... and the idea of Feynman that the Universe is not just one history ... but all possible histories, each one with a probability ... (so far nothing has been demonstrated)

Usually we interpret the sum over histories in the context from the past to the future, ie known the state of the Universe to a certain moment, we can calculate the probability that the Universe be in a different state at a later time. To do this, we add the amplitudes probability of all possible histories that begin at the initial state considered and ending in that particular final state. Normally, one of the stories has much higher probability than the others, and then we call it the history of the Universe.

Comment: we end-up in a sort of Monte Carlo simulation (probabilities) to conclude that the history that has the highest probability is called (only "called" not confirmed as …) the history of the Universe... (who and with what criteria are the probabilities assigned to the billions or trillions or more historical alternatives?, because we would be talking about those magnitudes in the world of probabilities)

How can we use the sum over histories to study the origin of the Universe whose initial state is unknown? Penrose's work and mine show that the initial state must be determined by the quantum theory and cannot have been earlier than fourteen billion years. In 1983, Jim Hartle and I proposed an initial condition for the Universe. Accordingly it would have appeared spontaneously out of nothing, as the steam bubbles appear spontaneously in boiling water. Like bubbles, the early Universe expanded rapidly. This initial condition for the Universe is called the condition of no boundaries, because it implies that the Universe is created spontaneously from nothing, according to the laws of science. We can then calculate the probabilities of various states in which the Universe could be found at the present time, adding the amplitude probability of all histories that begin and end as a bubble in the state in question.

Comment: Hawking and Penrose work showed that the initial state of Universe must be determined by quantum theory (which makes sense), Hawking and Hartle propose an initial condition for the Universe ... that would have appeared spontaneously out of nothing ... (then say) ... the absence of borders means that the Universe is created out of nothing according to the laws of science ... (i.e., do the laws of science already existed within the nothingness when the Universe started or they were created with the Universe?) (what is beyond the Universe without borders if, as argued, it is evident that it continues to grow?), (I can also ask: what was there before the "big bang" that would match the omnia cellula ex cellula?, perhaps “the absolute nothingness”?, what was outside the boundaries of the omnia cellula ex cellula toward it expanded immediately after the "big bang"?; Where were stored or contained the laws of science?). Besides, the example of the steam bubbles cannot be applied because bubbles are generated from water and heat, not from nothing.

If the condition of no boundaries is accepted as the natural requirement for the quantum state of the Universe, we are led to a profoundly different vision of history and from the relationship between cause and effect. Accordingly we should not follow the history of Universe bottom-up in other words, from past to future, because it assumes that there is a single story with a beginning point and a well-defined evolution trend. Rather we should write the histories from the present back into the past, ie getting them back from the hyper-surface measure S for the present moment. The histories that contribute to the integral of the path have no independent existence, but depend on the value of the quantity being measured. Thus, we create history by our observation, rather than the history creating us...

Comments: (1) Are not we in a defined point?, (2) has not the history passed through well-defined points?, (3) do we not come from a well-defined point?. Unfortunately for the proponent, the history (even unknown) created us; it could be correct to sustain that the "value of the magnitude" that is being measured is the integral of the path (and depends on the observer who finally creates the history ... but what history?).

Tricking way to go into the shelter of Quantum Physics to do not explain, what cannot be sustained?

SCIENCE HAS BEEN, IS AND WILL CONTINUE BEING PROVISIONAL... UNTIL TRUTH BE FOUND