Are Dr.Stephen Hawkings Theories Correct?

Question

The reason I have posed this question is that great thinkers like him
need to be challenged.

Answer 1

I don't know anything about his GR singularity theorems mentioned in the Wikipedia page, but I am dubious of the supposed mechanism of Hawking radiation. So little is known about black holes and the idea of virtual particle/anti-particle pair production at the event horizon is just too much for me. There are many other theories to choose from whenever you need to explain radiation coming from outer space (nuclear fusion anyone?)

Sorry to be such a player hater but that's my rotten opinion.

Answer 2

First of all, it's HAWKING, not Hawkins, or Hawkings. Second, theories are NOT promoted to facts - theories are overall explanations for things, and are above facts - they may contain facts and evidence and laws. Calling something a theory is a compliment in science - it means it has evidence to support it. Before it has evidence, it is a hypothesis or 'something-I-pulled-out-of-my-as*'.

Yes, science needs to be challenged - and it is, every day, by other scientists. We have ideas about how things might work, but any new idea will be thouroughly challenged and disputed. It doesn't make it to theory without withstanding those challenges. And Hawking's work has. I don't know about his more recent theories, but we don't just believe everything another scientist says - a lot of science is arguing.

Answer 3

A theory is an idea that is speculated to answer a question we do not have the complete answer for but there is strong evidence suggesting that this how certain phenomena occur. For instance, we can not be certain that evolution is how species came to be as we know it, but there is strong paleontological and biological evidence to support it. In any instance, I do not think Hawkings would mind that people would question his theories because scientist are trying to find answers and throughout history each scientist furthers research. He might not be entirely correct but he may point us in the direction we need either by being correct or having another scientist show how he can not be right.

Answer 4

There is a problem when a person touts a particular discipline and then denies the validity of it. I would like to quote a paragraph from Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time.”

Page 53, paragraph two, begins: “During the next few years I developed new mathematical techniques to remove this and other technical conditions from the theorems that proved that singularities must occur. The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. … It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.”

Does it not seem odd that the same person who is able to mathematically prove a particular concept as being valid one way is able to invalidate it later for something else? Mathematics in our culture has been considered the definitive authority to express reality, and it is by the use of mathematics that “black holes” and the “big bang” have the credence that they do. Surprise! Surprise!

So, do the mathematics of Hawking actually support what he and Penrose began? No. “Black holes” and the “Big Bang” are theories and that is all. Of course those who feel a necessity for their existence treat them as fact. “What is the evidence,” you ask “for their non-existence?”

Were you to determine mass acceleration within our sun at a distance of 400 miles from its very center, you would discover that were a mass to be released in that location it would exceed the speed of light in one second. In our planet the distance is 0.716 miles from its center. If a mass were to be released in either of these locations, and were it able to fall freely, the mass would exceed the speed of light in one second. What really exists within the inner area of our sun and planet? A mass as we know it cannot exist there, because the gravitational force would cause it to atomically exceed the speed of light. Remember, the gravitational force is figured from the center of an object, where the greatest gravitational energy would exist. It seems that were “black holes” a reality one would exist within our sun. But, if that were to happen it would gobble it up! Hummm.

There are two web locations that may be of interest to you. They are found at:
http://timebones.blogspot.com and
http://360.yahoo.com/noddarc

Answer 5

First of all, to non-scientist a theorem or theory is something that hasn't been proven. In the science world, theories are accepted facts. Have you ever heard of Pythagorean theorem? Theory of Special Relativity? General Relativity? Noether's Theorem?? There are many theories that have been proven mathematically, and they are still called theories. And about Dr. Stephen Hawkings, his theories about black holes are based on the widely accepted theory called General Relativity. They follow logically from general relativity.

Answer 6

Great thinkers like Einstein and Sir Newton have been proved wrong by modern scientists, so why not Dr. Hawkings. However, my respect goes to all three especially Dr. Hawkings.

Answer 7

Dr. H usually deals with theories difficult to verify experimentally. Hawking radiation from a Black Hole, for example, would be impossible to detect in practice even if we could visit one close up. He focuses more on integrating physics conceptually. Judge that as you will.

Answer 8

"Correct" is not quite the word to use for a theoretical model of a physical phenomenon. "Correct" has the sound of exactness which is not there. You might ask "Are Stephen Hawkins theories the best that exist"?

Answer 9

no person is conscious of regardless of if any theories are maximum concepts-blowing or no longer. with the aid of fact of this they are theories. this is sufficient to be attentive to that they are consistent with what we see in actual existence. in the event that they do no longer seem to be, new theories are progressed and examined. many human beings have in all possibility challenged his strategies, so which you do no longer ought to hassle approximately doing it your self. it could be extremely silly for each individual to take regardless of he (or all and sundry else) says without finding out it themselves.

Answer 10

I think the fact that they still call them theories implies they haven't been proven to be correct. And, unless you've got some serious credentials, challenging them might be tricky. Do you challenge every Scientist you come across, or do you just have a problem with him?