There used to be two major conservation laws, conservation of mass and conservation of energy. Then along came a little equation, e equals em see squared, that melded them into one law. There used to be Newton's Three Laws. They are still applicable for most real world problems. It's only when you operate in extreme conditions that the errors start to show up - very high mass, very high velocity, very small masses and distances. For these, new theories were developed that reduce to Newton's Laws as conditions approach what we consider "normal". New theories arise when we find conditions for which the familiar laws begin to break down. Invariably, they are refinements of the existing laws, not completely different laws. When they appear to be different, like the first bversions of quantum mechanics, and Newtonian mechanics, it's because another theory is needed to bridge the gap. The laws of thermodynamics would reconcile. perhaps with some refinements, if there were a passage to a different universe involved.
This is a problem with the was people understand science. Their "theory" is actually an incredibly complex series of equations that predict an outcome accurately. "Proving" the theory is the fact that the equations work accurately, and disproving it involves finding a weakness and coming up with new equations to explain it. Laymen can say "Well it's all theoretical, so you can't prove anything," while they use their GPS that only works based on those theories.
There is strong experimental evidence that supports the validity of the Hawking Effect. I don't believe any competent modern physicists dispute Hawking Radiation, although some have suggested refinements.
@Jack Asher Theories that are used in Theoretical Physics, especially those having to do with the universe, can only be proven by using equations that make sense based on actual evidence that has been witnessed. The only evidence we know from a black hole is from quite a far distance and it only comes from measuring the radiation it gives off and has nothing to do with anything that has been seen from the eternal dynamics of it. So yes, it is all theoretical based on equations that are formulated and proven using only the physics that we as humans know. Professor Leonard Susskind, one of the pioneers of the string theory disagrees with Hawking. Hawking is quite possibly the smartest man on the planet, but that doesn't mean he is 100% right all the time. If you are to believe everything Hawking says, he also said that he believes in the probability that there is a more advanced society out in the universe and that they will eventually come to earth and take us over much like the Europeans did North America from the Native Americans.
1.) He didn't say that there was a certainty that they would come, only that the effects would be disasterous. 2.) Are you saying they wont?
I'm not trying to hijack this thread, BUT unless black holes make intergalactic space travel possible, or there are such things as worm holes, OR Einstein is wrong that matter can not travel faster than the speed of light, based on the latest observations, the closest planet that could possibly support life is over 10,000 light years away. That means if matter can not travel faster than the speed of light, and there is no way to make an intergalactic short cut, it would take at least 10,000 years to get here. That would make it impossible.
Looking through history, I would never label anything as impossible. If science has shown us anything, it's that impossible is usually just a 'not right now'.
There is so much things as wormholes. In fact without them the universe would just be a huge cloud of evenly distributed dust.
All theories that postulate that worm holes exist, also say that they are so unstable that they could never be used for any type of travel.
Could something about the physics of a wormhole allow us to work out equations that may be beneficial for our own travel? We could develop a new understanding of energy at high speeds and put it to use, even if it didn't reach the speed of light. New technology could be designed to allow this. I have no idea if it's possible. I have no real grasp of physics. But it seems possible in speculation.
@123456789: You might be right, but I'm taking being talked about on nature.com as a good sign @Jack Asher: Thanks for the explanation, I am not sure it is entirely correct. Purely because theories were refined and even disproved before, and finding something previously thought to be impossible is a rule, not the exception. What I am sure of is that there are branches of mainstream physics community who are theorising and calculating answers that indeed support the existence of multiple universes and other phenomena you are dismissing. I'm also sure they aren't ignorant of Stephen Hawking's theories. Some physicists agree, others disagree, on most theories, one thing is in common though, they have to have compelling mathematical proof, and are forever searching for physical proof as well, so I keep an open mind
Slightly OT, but I read from somewhere, I think it was from a science mag, that matter can become infinitely dense after it's passed the event horizon and is sucked into the "hole". Might be a stupid question, but how is it possible to get denser and denser and denser and denser... infinitely?
@KaTrian: An interesting theory is that as the universe expands until all matter decays and becomes light. Since it has no time or distance scale associated with it, it becomes synonymous with a Big Bang and the new cycle starts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology So the notions of infinity, one way or another,may have a lot hidden in them. It's all a matter of right perspective.
what proof is there of what you are claiming as fact, cog? what are you claiming caused the 'big bang'? how can there be an 'explosion' of sorts without the existence of any material to 'explode'? how can nothingness produce something? what you are stating here as 'fact' is still just another 'theory'... yet another childish way humans try to explain what is incomprehensible to them, due to their extremely limited use of their mental capacity... and i strongly suspect that even if we were able to utilize 90% of same, instead of only the 10-15% we do, we'd still be coming up with flawed logic to explain the inexplicable...
"First there was nothing, which exploded." ~Terry Pratchett. Michio Kaku, in Hyperspace, points out that a foundation of string theory is that the upper 6 dimensions exist, tightly coiled, smaller than a plank length. When the energy of the universe is finally exhausted and the "pressure" is no longer exerted on these dimensions they might explode in a new big bang, yielding a universe who properties we cannot even imagine. Could the big bang be the result of a smiler decay/explosion? It is impossible to know.
...or perhaps the universe was created by a changeless, timeless, spaceless entity that has no cause. (God.)
Or the flying spaghetti monster More seriously, though, if god doesn't need a cause, then why does the universe need one? It seems just as easy to say that the universe has always existed in some form as to postulate the existence of a god and say he has always existed.
You're right of course. It would be better not to examine the universe and just use God to fill in anything we don't understand. This science thing, and the civilization it's produced is really no more than a passing fad.
Science is silent as to the question of god, in my view. It's not a topic that is susceptible to scientific inquiry. Most research scientists I know believe in god, but not because of anything science has or hasn't done.
While I appreciate the reply, this is no more than a straw man argument. No one is supporting any of these points, especially myself.
Speaking of infinity... How long can the unprovable argument between the existence and nonexistence of God go on?
The original post is a topic regarding a new theory of the beginning of our universe. In stands to reason that this new theory would be compared with existing theories. Could you please clarify what is out of bounds?
The boundary lies in that this conversation is heading for the train wreck known as mixed epistemology. I was actually siding with you, JJ, when the last few comments seemed to be dismissive and then slightly scornful of the argument you presented.