4 ms·

Has it been proven? I read online and while it seems impressive (and increased my estimation of him), I didn’t see concrete proof of it being proven or disprove

Has it been proven? I read online and while it seems impressive (and increased my estimation of him), I didn’t see concrete proof of it being proven or disproven

bawolff 6y ago
This isn't my field, and i cant talk to the specifics, but i think that's the wrong question. The important thing is did it move the field forward? Did it get us closer to the "Truth" of the universe. There's a certain sense that newtonian mechanics isn't "true" (with relativity and what not), but its still obviously an important contribution. P.s. this is physics not math. You don't prove things of the natural world, you check if they are the best explanation of emperical observation. This is very different from proving sonething in the math sense.
- abhinav22 6y ago
  Thanks - that’s the right perspective, I agree. The question you phrased is better and more appropriate
coldtea 6y ago
Yes, it has been proven. Also, while it's good that you admit your bias, "don't think highly of him" while you don't even know the basics of his field (never mind of his career), it's nonetheless a bias. I don't think he (or, well, his legacy) should be striving to prove something to you, rather the opposite. You should be striving to evaluate it if you want to have an opinion about it (even if it's a negative one after the evaluation), as opposed to randomly have opinions and feelings about it.
titzer 6y ago
Proven? No idea. But it has been observed: https://phys.org/news/2021-02-stationary-hawking-analog-black-hole.html https://phys.org/news/2021-02-stationary-hawking-analog-blac...
- l33tman 6y ago
  But that wasn't with any black hole and it's not Hawking radiation. Basically they could as well have simulated that experiment on a computer and said the same thing (that what they got is similar in nature to Hawking radiation). But it's just similar - Hawking radiation relies on a mashup of GR in a strong regime and quantum field theory extravaganza, it's something you would very much want to observe for real as those theories don't normally fit together very well. I'm not sure you'd want to be close enough to observe it though :)
  - titzer 6y ago
    Ah, right, I didn't notice that in the article I linked, the black hole was an artificially created sonic black hole, not a real one.
vl 6y ago
All current astrophysics is “proven” in a sense that bunch of scientists loosely agreed that strange unexplained things we see explained as such, but then there are elephants in the room like dark energy, dark matter and etc. So it’s really far away from actually being iron-clad, unlike more basic QM or GR.

Has it been proven? I read online and while it seems impressive (and increased my estimation of him), I didn’t see concrete proof of it being proven or disproven

bawolff 6y ago

This isn't my field, and i cant talk to the specifics, but i think that's the wrong question. The important thing is did it move the field forward? Did it get us closer to the "Truth" of the universe. There's a certain sense that newtonian mechanics isn't "true" (with relativity and what not), but its still obviously an important contribution. P.s. this is physics not math. You don't prove things of the natural world, you check if they are the best explanation of emperical observation. This is very different from proving sonething in the math sense.

abhinav22 6y ago
Thanks - that’s the right perspective, I agree. The question you phrased is better and more appropriate

coldtea 6y ago

Yes, it has been proven. Also, while it's good that you admit your bias, "don't think highly of him" while you don't even know the basics of his field (never mind of his career), it's nonetheless a bias. I don't think he (or, well, his legacy) should be striving to prove something to you, rather the opposite. You should be striving to evaluate it if you want to have an opinion about it (even if it's a negative one after the evaluation), as opposed to randomly have opinions and feelings about it.

titzer 6y ago

Proven? No idea. But it has been observed: https://phys.org/news/2021-02-stationary-hawking-analog-black-hole.html https://phys.org/news/2021-02-stationary-hawking-analog-blac...

l33tman 6y ago
But that wasn't with any black hole and it's not Hawking radiation. Basically they could as well have simulated that experiment on a computer and said the same thing (that what they got is similar in nature to Hawking radiation). But it's just similar - Hawking radiation relies on a mashup of GR in a strong regime and quantum field theory extravaganza, it's something you would very much want to observe for real as those theories don't normally fit together very well. I'm not sure you'd want to be close enough to observe it though :)
- titzer 6y ago
  Ah, right, I didn't notice that in the article I linked, the black hole was an artificially created sonic black hole, not a real one.

vl 6y ago

All current astrophysics is “proven” in a sense that bunch of scientists loosely agreed that strange unexplained things we see explained as such, but then there are elephants in the room like dark energy, dark matter and etc. So it’s really far away from actually being iron-clad, unlike more basic QM or GR.