Stephen Hawking Einstein Newton Poker
Stephen Hawking, who sadly passed away on 14 March 2018, was one of the most prolific scientists of our time. Image credit: Getty
- Stephen Hawking Einstein Newton Poker Chips
- Stephen Hawking Einstein Newton Pokerstars
- Stephen Hawking Albert Einstein Isaac Newton Poker
I recall the Star Trek episode where Hawking, Einstein and Newton are playing poker with Data on the Holodeck. The novelty was that Hawking was played by himself. What has he done to deserve this honor? Einstein had relativity, Newton his laws of motion. I can't think of 'Hawkings first law'. This particular TNG story has the famous poker game. That old earth card game certainly flourished in the future with the Enterprise brass enjoying it for all it's worth. But Brent Spiner has got himself a holodeck program with 3 of the greatest earth minds ever, Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and the real Stephen Hawking. I first learned of Dr. Stephen Hawking from Star Trek: The Next Generation. The episode originally aired in 1993, this brief foray on screen saw Hawking playing poker with Einstein, Newton, and android Lieutenant Commander Data. Physics jokes were made, Hawking won the hand, and the cameo was over. Stephen Hawking 1993 am Set von 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' mit den Darstellern von Albert Einstein und Isaac Newton Star Trek um 13:44 von Wolfgang Greber.
AAS: Do you think there was anything before the Big Bang?
SH: In the early Sixties there was a big debate as to whether the universe had a beginning a finite time ago. And so, the obvious question was, what happened before the beginning of the universe? As Saint Augustine [an early philosopher] said, what was God doing before he made the universe? He was preparing for all the people who asked such questions!
Does it require a creator to explain how the universe began, or is the initial state of the universe interpreted by a law of science? To answer how the histories of the universe began, Jim Hartle [a professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara] and I proposed what we called the ‘no-boundary hypothesis’. The problem of what happened at the beginning of time is a bit like the question of what happened at the end of the world when people thought the world was flat. Is the world a flat plate with a sea going over the end? I have tested this experimentally. I have been around the world, and I have not fallen off!
As we know, the problem of what happens at the end of the world was solved when people realised the world was not a flat plate, but a curved surface. One can think of the Earth’s surface as beginning at the South Pole, as you head northwards the size of the circles of latitude increase. According to the no-boundary hypothesis, the history of the universe is like this. The history begins at a single point at the South Pole. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question because there is nothing south of the South Pole. Imaginary time, as measured in degrees of latitude, would have a beginning at the South Pole, but the South Pole is like any other point. The same laws of nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. This would prove the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning and that it would be a place where the normal laws broke down. The beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science, such as quantum gravity that merges the theories of quantum mechanics – the science of very small things such as particles – with the theory of gravity, which acts over large distances.
AAS: So how do you personally think the universe began?
SH: The universe must have at its beginning a singularity. A singularity is a place where the [solutions to the] field equations of classical general relativity can’t be found. So classical general relativity cannot predict when the universe began.
This was a conclusion with which Pope John Paul was happy! At a conference on cosmology at the Vatican, the Pope told cosmologists that it was okay to study the universe after it began, but they should not inquire into the beginning itself, because that was the moment of creation and the work of God. I was glad he didn’t realise
I had given a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn’t fancy being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo!
Many modern cosmologists are like Pope John Paul. They are happy to apply the laws of physics to the universe after it actually began, but they evade the actual beginning. But in one sense cosmology has no predictive power over what happened at the beginning of the universe. All it can say is that things are as they are now because things were as they were shortly after the beginning. Although classical general relativity predicts that the beginning of the universe was a singularity, at which the theory breaks down, we know that theory has to be quantised like the theories of all other physical fields. Although we don’t yet have a complete theory of quantum gravity, that is how it all works, we have an approximation that is good for practical purposes.
The prevalent theory is that the universe was born from a singularity. Image credit: NASA
AAS: Has the Big Bang always been the preferred theory?
SH: The prevailing theory used to be that the universe had lasted forever, because something eternal was more perfect, and because that avoided all the questions about the creation. In order to avoid the universe having a beginning, astronomer Fred Hoyle proposed the ‘Steady State’ theory. In this theory, the universe will have existed forever with new matter being continually created as the universe expanded, to keep the density the same. The Steady State theory was never backed up by observation, and had an energy field that was objectionable to particle physicists because it would lead to runaway production of pairs of positive and negative energy particles. But the final nail in the coffin came with the discovery of a faint background of microwaves. These microwaves are the same as those in your microwave oven, but much less powerful – they would heat your pizza only to -271.3 degrees Celsius [-456.34 degrees Fahrenheit]. That’s not much good for defrosting a pizza, let alone cooking it. You can observe this yourself by setting your analogue TV to an empty channel. A few per cent of the ‘snow’ that you see on the screen will be caused by the microwaves.
There was no way the Steady State theory could account for this background. A reasonable interpretation of the background is that the radiation is left over from an early, very hot and dense state – the Big Bang. As the universe expanded, the radiation would have cooled until it was just the faint relic we observe today.
AAS: You have described the universe as a hologram. Could you explain why?
SH: The universe has three spatial dimensions plus time, so it is a four-dimensional object that can therefore be represented as a hologram on a three-dimensional surface. The history of the universe can be represented as a hologram on the boundary of a four-dimensional disc.
As I expect you know, a hologram is a representation of a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional surface such as a photographic plate. I was supposedly represented as a hologram in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. I say supposedly because although I may have appeared three-dimensional on the Starship Enterprise, television sets at the time could not, and still can’t, display three-dimensional holographic images. That will be the next technological revolution. In the episode I was playing poker with Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and Commander Data [on the Holodeck]. Because the game was interrupted by a red alert on the Enterprise, I couldn’t cash in my winnings of 140 Federation credits. I approached Paramount Studios, but they did not know the exchange rate!
AAS: What can the cosmic microwave background radiation tell us about the universe?
SH: Cosmology became a precision science in 2003 with the first results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite, which confirmed our simplest predictions of cosmic inflation. WMAP produced a wonderful map of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, a snapshot of the universe at about three hundred-thousandths of its present age. The irregularities that we see are predicted by inflation and they mean that some regions of the universe had slightly higher density than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra density slows the expansion of that region and can eventually cause it to collapse and form galaxies and stars. So look carefully at the map of the microwave sky and it is the blueprint for all the structure in the universe. We are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. God really does play dice.
There [was] the Planck satellite, with a much higher resolution map of the universe. The analysis of the Planck data is in remarkable agreement with the simplest models of inflation. All the data suggested that [the fluctuations that made the structures we see today] were sufficient and there seemed to be no need to look for [the first ripples in space-time, or gravitational waves]. Planck only announced a number limit of 11 per cent on [a ratio of gravitational waves to density fluctuations]. Personally I have a bet with Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute, that [this] is at least five per cent. If this is confirmed by future observations, it will be quantum gravity written across the sky.
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the relic radiation left after the Big Bang. Image credit: NASA
Keep up to date with the latest reviews in All About Space – available every month for just £4.99. Alternatively you can subscribe here for a fraction of the price!
Tags: All About Space, Cosmology, galaxies, Hologram, interview, Planets, Star Trek, Stephen Hawking, Universe
Thread Rating:
I hadn't paid attention to the poker play in this episode, but did this time and noticed this scene, like many others in TNG, has nonsensical poker procedure. It's so rife with error that I won’t even bother explaining it. I will say that it certainly *sounds* like a rousing game of poker! Here's the action:
Clockwise at the poker table from Data are holograms of Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and Sir Isaac Newton.
—Einstein recalls that Hawking raised Data 4. He mistakenly calculates that the bet is 7 to him.
—Newton corrects Einstein by saying the bet is 10 to him. The sound of a clinking of chips indicates that Einstein calls.
—After some discussion, Newton says the action is to Hawking, who now raises 50.
—Newton and Data fold.
—Einstein, sensing a bluff, calls.
—Hawking shows quad 7s.
During the poker craze of the 2000s, my friend and I watched with more scrutiny over what the crew of the Enterprise-D was doing in the episode Cause and Effect. Yes, I know it's television and the writers are just trying to tell their story for the non-poker-playing masses (for extra flair, they often make the obligatory string bets). They're even playing 5 Card Stud for goodness' sake! I don't fault them for errors, but I would have been really impressed had the show got the game right. (One pet peeve was always that Worf turns over his hole card for all to see—definitely a poker faux pas!)
Because this is the Internet, here's an overanalysis of their game from an unedited transcript of the emails my friend and I exchanged. You're welcome!
So I'm watching TNG right now with a deck of cards....
Data: _ 4 9 6 9 (I'm assuming everybody has a rainbow)
Riker: _ 8 10 J 7
Worf: 3 A 7 4 J (yeah he did turn over his hole card
right before turning everything face down)
Beverly: _ Q Q 2 8
1 rd, no bet
2 rd, Bev opens with 10, everyone calls
3 rd, Bev leads with 20, Will raises 'and 50 more',
everyone calls
4 rd, Bev leads with 20, Data folds, Will raises, Worf
folds, and Bev reraises, Will reraises, and Bev calls.
Data shows a pair of 9s, I doubt he has 2 pair since
he didn't go against Bev's 2 Q's at the end, unless he
thought Bev had a Q in the hole. Why did he call
Will's first raise when he only had the first 9? If
he had a 9 in the hole, why fold at Bev's rd 4 lead?
Worf should also have folded with Will's raise, but
Klingons have gaul, so I can see him staying in.
Will was bluffing one of 2 9's (gut shot straight
draw), since Data was showing the other 2 9's. Bev
could have had either of the 2 other Q's (3 Q's), or
one of the 3 2's or one of the 2 8's (2 pair); or not
and just a pair.
My response was:
You watched that in quite detail. I wonder if the writers had each round of betting scripted. I doubt it, though.
Data's betting doesn't make much sense. He woud have needed either an A or K in the hole, and hope he pairs one of those to beat Crusher's pair of queens after the second up-card. It's possible data had a 4 in the hole, in which case he would stay in hoping for a 4 to make three-of-a-kind. But since Worf got one of his 4s, he was facing long odds to win the hand. Perhaps Riker's raise put enough money in the pot to make the 'pot odds' correct for him to try for the last 4, but I doubt it. If he had 9s and 4s after the last round (he definitely didn't have three 9s) he would have at least called Crusher on the last round, even with Riker's straight draw showing. With 2 pair, calling a bet of 20 with a pot that big is the correct play, and calling Crusher would also prevent Riker from trying to bluff *two* players.
Dr. Crusher definitely should have reraised Riker's raise of 50. At that point, he was without question trailing Crusher's 2 queens, and the correct strategy would be to make it expensive for him to try for his straight.
His response:
I would think the betting was scripted; and then the
cards were then scripted to match the 'action'. The
important part was the play between Will and Bev.
Leading to Bev calling Will's bluff; because she
'remembered' what he had. When we first see the poker
game, the Enterprise had already exploded once
onscreen.*
And since Worf and Data ultimately folded, their hands
weren't important. Come to think of it, Worf should
have lead out with the first A (bluffing that he had
an A in the hole).
*I come up with about 46 times through the causality
loop. Worf says that their chronometers are off 17.4
hours. I assume the poker game was at 9pm and the
crash occurred just after the 6am morning meeting
(9.078hr loop).
Wait, it could be *47* times (the loop being 8.88
hrs)! Owing to the inside joke about 47 with the TNG
writers!
My response:
excellent analysis!
did you notice how Data's cards are neatly lined up in front of him, while everyone else's cards are just kind of piled about? (though, he *is* the dealer and would more likely place the cards, rather than drop them)
one last poker note: usually in stud games (5-card, 7-card), the last card is dealt face-down.
His response:
Didn't notice the neatness, but it fits Data's
character. I did notice that Data looked at his hole
card right before he folded. Not like he can forget
what card he had...
I was wondering about the amount of face up cards!
Hard to bluff when the rest of the table knows 4/5 of
you hand!
But it moves the story along much faster. A 7 card
game would have taken longer to 'play', and only
showing 3 cards would have made it harder to show that
Will was bluffing a straight. Although they could
have given him an open-ended draw. And with Bev
showing her pair [chuckle] and two hole cards, I think
it would be harder to bluff.
Also, Troi is normally at these games. I'd think she
was omitted for time.
My response:
Yeah, I remember him looking at his hole card, as well. That's probably a cultural sub-routine, where he's observed that although players clearly remember their hole card(s), they look one more time to admire their hands before folding.
Yep, they made a simplistic game even simpler with that 'house rule.' Probably not much of an exciting game in the long run.
And finally, I agree for storytelling purposes they probably kept the poker table simple. It usually takes 5 or 6 people to make poker interesting. Good poker players will fold most of the time, so 4-handed, it'll be rare to get a good pot going. Unless everyone calls like in this scene.
His response:
I'm surprised I haven't found any analysis of ST poker
games online.
[Editor's note: you have now!]
But good analysis. Well done.
As far as Data looking at the cards he would obviously have memorized, you're right in that it's a specifically programmed sub-routine. It's been mentioned throughout the series that Data has been programmed to act more human and do things he doesn't need to do to better fit in with people around him.
Before the poker boom in the early 2000's, I never played in a casual game where betting was consistent or made sense as far as raises and re-raises and all of that. Even nowadays when I (rarely) play, outside of a tournament setting or for any real money, nobody really pays attention to that stuff. Super-casual poker players like me don't think about odds or pot odds or check-raising or any of that other poker math that constitutes 'good' play, so I guess that's why I never thought the poker scenes in TNG were all that unrealistic. Keep in mind they're not playing for money, and they rarely play at that (I think Picard says in one episode something like he hasn't played in months).
As far as Data looking at the cards he would obviously have memorized, you're right in that it's a specifically programmed sub-routine. It's been mentioned throughout the series that Data has been programmed to act more human and do things he doesn't need to do to better fit in with people around him.
Picard only played in the game once, in the last scene of the finale!
Stephen Hawking Einstein Newton Poker Chips
Picard only played in the game once, in the last scene of the finale!
That's right... I forgot about that! So he played even less than I remembered...haha...Mission146
Picard only played in the game once, in the last scene of the finale!
Yeah, but he, 'Should have done it a long time ago.'
Yeah, but he, 'Should have done it a long time ago.'
I do always get a bit dusty at that scene...
I love the Hawking scene too. It’s the only time in ST that a cameo appearance is of someone who is playing them self. Troi: I seem to remember her mentioning at one of the poker games, the telepath thing is something she can turn on and off, and promises to keep it off during the games. They’re all friends and such, it was accepted, and that was that.
5 card: Remember that this was before the poker boom. Most people haven’t heard of Hold Em, in fact most people haven’t heard of a game that has more than five cards. So, for an unsophisticated TV audience, 5 card makes sense.
Stud: I remember poker scenes in other episodes that were draw. Don’t know why the game in the original post was stud. In the Hawking episode it kinda makes sense since we don’t see anyone putting cards in his card holder.
Splashing the pot: Again, it’s a friendly game. Also, wasn’t it a relatively small table?
String bets: Now that’s a whole other can of worms. And again, it can happen in friendly games. And, yeah, it’s almost required whenever there’s a poker game on a TV show.
As some of you may remember me saying, I am a dealer in a pub poker league. So I have to respond to a lot of these kind of issues. I tell new players that although they see it all the time on TV, you’ll never see it on a poker show. Bottom line, when you say “I see your bet, and...” there’s no ‘and’.
Rounders: Rounders is often held as an example of a dramatic, but realistic, presentation of poker.
The biggest example of rules being broken is at the judge’s game. When Mikey starts betting for the dean, that’s two man on a hand. Absolutely forbidden.
Stephen Hawking Einstein Newton Pokerstars
And there are string bets. I can think of a couple But the way they did them, the way the scenes played out, they were perfect example of string bets that could have happened in real life.There were the games vs Teddy KGB, particularly the last hand. (Everybody remembers this one.) Not only is KGB splashing the pot, he is doing it one stack at a time, string bet, while saying, “I ... bet ... it ... all.” Of course Mike isn’t gonna object, he has the nuts!
In the scene where the opponent says “I bluffed the big ringer!” Right before that he says “You’re raising me $300? I call your $300. How much is in there Whites?”
Whites replies, “Um, $1,500”
“$1,500? Here’s $1,000... $500... I bet the pot limit, kiddo.”