How Does Stephen Hawking Research?

[lamp]

I really like this forum on the first look, at least one science forum that does not look rudimentary.

 

To my question, excuse my lack of knowledge, I just was watching a documentary about Astronomy and there was Stephen Hawking explaining his own theories and the newest findings about the universe and how life originated. While all this is happening, I'm wondering how does a man who is paralyzed even do his researches in a way that he's brining innovative theories to the table? Obviously he doesn't have the same possibilities like others, for example working all day in the labor using telescopes.

 

The only explanation I have is that he's simply reading A LOT, be it studies, findings, books, articles, and then he takes all those bits of details and combines them together to his own theories. Would that be his only way of doing it, or just one way of it? What would be another way of his research methods?

 

I'm just asking out of interest.

[IM Egdall]

I think Hawking is like Einstein; a pure theoretical physicist. Einstein generally did not work in a lab or do experiments himself. He just worked on his theories in his mind. Of course he also read the work of and talked to other scientists when he could.

 

His method was usually to come up with a mental picture of what is happening, what he called a thought experiment. Then he tried to develop the core pricinples from this mental picture. Finally he tried to come up with the equations which modeled his ideas. This is no doubt a simplification but from what I have read, generally how he worked. Perhaps Hawking works in a similar way.

Edited March 28, 2011 by I ME

[lemur]

I think Hawking is like Einstein; a pure theoretical physicist. Einstein generally did not work in a lab or do experiments himself. He just worked on his theories in his mind. Of course he also read the work of and talked to other scientists when he could.

 

His method was usually to come up with a mental picture of what is happening, what he called a thought experiment. Then he tried to develop the core pricinples from this mental picture. Finally he tried to come up with the equations which modeled his ideas. This is no doubt a simplification but from what I have read, generally how he worked. Perhaps Hawking works in a similar way.

How is it different for Hawking or Einstein to work with other people's data and observations or if they would do it themselves? If someone collecting and analyzing their own data would theorize like Hawking or Einstein, how would that be different? As you may read in my tone, the whole distinguishing between empirical research and theory seems moot to me since obviously neither is ultimately possible without doing the other in some way to some extent.

[A Tripolation]

How is it different for Hawking or Einstein to work with other people's data and observations or if they would do it themselves? If someone collecting and analyzing their own data would theorize like Hawking or Einstein, how would that be different? As you may read in my tone, the whole distinguishing between empirical research and theory seems moot to me since obviously neither is ultimately possible without doing the other in some way to some extent.

 

I think that the experimental and theoretical physicists would disagree with you.

[lemur]

I think that the experimental and theoretical physicists would disagree with you.

That's it? No grounding/reasoning/evidence/examples?

[A Tripolation]

That's it? No grounding/reasoning/evidence/examples?

 

As a physics major with the intention to go into the fields of Cosmology/High Energy Physics, I can attest to the fact that there is a distinct difference between the two. I would love to study Type 1a Supernovae, for evidence of their positron creation. I would be an experimental astronomer/physicist. I WOULD NOT be a theoretical physicist. Those are the people that hypothesize on matters, based on what their equations/constructs are leading them to believe.

 

True, in early classical physics, most of the physicists who created the math also tested out their observations in the real world. However, that's not how it is today. I would venture to say that most string theorists "research" very differently than the physicists at CERN.

[lemur]

As a physics major with the intention to go into the fields of Cosmology/High Energy Physics, I can attest to the fact that there is a distinct difference between the two. I would love to study Type 1a Supernovae, for evidence of their positron creation. I would be an experimental astronomer/physicist. I WOULD NOT be a theoretical physicist. Those are the people that hypothesize on matters, based on what their equations/constructs are leading them to believe.

 

True, in early classical physics, most of the physicists who created the math also tested out their observations in the real world. However, that's not how it is today. I would venture to say that most string theorists "research" very differently than the physicists at CERN.

Ok, I see how our viewpoints diverge now. I generally tend to look at divergent species as branches of the same tree, so to speak, or maybe variations of the same sort would be more accurate. I know that when you're deeply embedded in the institutions, they seem worlds apart. It's just that I take a very distanced view where I look at all theorists needing to connect with empirical data in some way or other and all empiricists needing some theoretical architecture for their work. In practice, I don't get or like string theory too much but I also probably wouldn't appreciate most of the technical details that are considered very meaningful by people working at CERN. Still, I'm sure both could produce research results that would stimulate my lay interest and they would both draw on familiar empirical realities and theoretical conceptualizations. Since I'm a generalist, though, I tend to see disciplinary line-drawing as professional social-structuring at best.

[Spyman]

I really like this forum on the first look, at least one science forum that does not look rudimentary.

 

To my question, excuse my lack of knowledge, I just was watching a documentary about Astronomy and there was Stephen Hawking explaining his own theories and the newest findings about the universe and how life originated. While all this is happening, I'm wondering how does a man who is paralyzed even do his researches in a way that he's brining innovative theories to the table? Obviously he doesn't have the same possibilities like others, for example working all day in the labor using telescopes.

 

The only explanation I have is that he's simply reading A LOT, be it studies, findings, books, articles, and then he takes all those bits of details and combines them together to his own theories. Would that be his only way of doing it, or just one way of it? What would be another way of his research methods?

 

I'm just asking out of interest.

This is what Stephen Hawking says himself on his work and disability:

 

"It would be difficult for someone that is disabled to be an observational astronomer. But it would be easy for them to be an astrophysicist, because that is all in the mind. No physical ability is required."

 

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/about-stephen/questionsandanswers