4 ms·
On the other hand, the gold standard of scientific verification is the prediction of something not yet observed, and in that light, it seems to me to be somewha
by mannykannot 2y ago
On the other hand, the gold standard of scientific verification is the prediction of something not yet observed, and in that light, it seems to me to be somewhat inconsistent to reject a prediction of your own theory on the basis of it being at odds with your a priori feelings about how things should be, while still maintaining that everything else about your theory is correct.
Update: It is one thing to suppose that the singularity is a mathematical artifact, and another to reject black hole formation entirely. In this regard, the article seems vague about exactly what Einstein and Rosen were saying in their 1939 paper. It seems to me to be saying that, having concluded that collapse would not stop at the Schwartzchild radius and that would lead to a singularity, we should conclude that collapse to the Schwartzchild radius itself is not possible.
The article linked to this point is (IMHO) well worth reading, and seems to support this view of Einstein’s position.
- franciscop 2y agoNow it might be, but let's remember that back in the day Physics was mostly used to derive laws from observations. Only with the advancement of calculus, notation, etc. we could make predictions that later we confirmed. Granted, at the time of the black holes prediction this had been going on for a while so it should not have been too surprising, but also I don't think it'd be such a strong point as it is today.
- mannykannot 2y agoNote that I was concurrently adding an update to my post as you posted this (though I think my update is orthogonal to your point here.) With regard to contemporary attitudes to verification, we know that Eddington went to Principe to measure the magnitude of gravity’s effect on light specifically because it would be seen (and was) as strong confirmation of the theory.