B Examples of theoretical proofs overturned by evidence?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems in cosmology and their relationship to current evidence, particularly regarding dark energy and inflation. Participants note that these theorems rely on specific energy conditions, which recent theories like dark energy and inflation appear to violate, suggesting that the theorems may not apply to our universe. The conversation also emphasizes that Hawking and Penrose's work was primarily mathematical and not necessarily predictive of physical reality, as their premises may not hold true in the context of our universe. There is a recognition that demonstrating whether our universe satisfies these premises remains an ongoing challenge in physics. Overall, the discussion highlights the evolving nature of theoretical physics in light of new evidence.
  • #31
pinball1970 said:
I assumed he published his papers then put out a pop Science book to make some of the ideas accessable to the general reader as Hawking did.

And if your assumption is correct, then there will be published peer-reviewed papers by him that can be used as references. That doesn't change the fact that his pop science book is not a valid PF reference.

pinball1970 said:
It was more of an invite for someone to explain what the papers were outlining and what the current experimental data has done to support or refute them.

And if you can reference particular papers, then that is a valid subject for discussion. But his pop science book is still not.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
PeterDonis said:
And if your assumption is correct, then there will be published peer-reviewed papers by him that can be used as references. That doesn't change the fact that his pop science book is not a valid PF reference.
And if you can reference particular papers, then that is a valid subject for discussion. But his pop science book is still not.
Ok trying to find them. I'll feedback
 
  • #33
Cerenkov said:
My reason for starting this thread is exactly this - a burning desire to know just how the H - P theorems work. What they are saying and what they aren't saying. What they can do and what they can't. Where they apply and where they don't. That is why.

Then that's what you should have asked in the OP of this thread. And the thread title should have been something like "How do the H-P theorems work" or "What do the H-P theorems say and when do they apply". Basically we've wasted more than 30 posts finding out that what you're actually interested in has nothing to do with the title or OP question of the thread.

Cerenkov said:
Dogged persistence in the face of difficulty is simply a hallmark of my character.

Dogged persistence is fine, but it's not the only skill you need. You also need to be able to ask what you actually want to ask.

Since the title and OP question of this thread are not what you actually wanted to ask, I am closing this thread. If you want to know about the H-P singularity theorems, then you can ask a specific question about those theorems in a new thread. I would strongly recommend thinking carefully about framing a specific question rather than just something like "How do the H-P theorems work?"
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K