Basic assumptions and black holes

摘要

Science develops by initially proposing hypotheses to explain phenomena, then creatinga formal consistent mathematical framework, verified by experiment and observation, called ascientific theory. This theory must exclude solutions that violate basic physical principles or yieldinconsistent mathematics. New observations may challenge the theory, but do not necessarilyinvalidate it as a basic mathematical inconsistency would. Science continues by developinghypotheses to explain what the current theory cannot. The paper discusses objects falling into blackholes using general relativity as examples of both valid theory and developing hypotheses. Theexistence (according to most physicists) of a black hole is part of a valid theory. The crossing of theevent horizon of the black hole is an extension of the theory, but is not part of the theory, for themathematics is not consistent, and the results violate basic principles. Another example of an invalidextension of a theory is given from special relativity. Since this theory is easier to understand, ithelps clarify the point. One needs to be clear what is part of the theory, and what is not part of thetheory. The statement "an observer crossing the event horizon and losing all contact with the rest ofthe universe is part of physics" is a counterexample to the proper understanding of theories.Statements incorrectly based on theories may be obstacles to the advance of science. One needs tounderstand the philosophical underpinnings of science, and how one can tease out the hiddenassumptions of a theory.