I disagree completely. Hawking Radiation has never been proven to exist, which is why Stephen did not earn a Nobel for it.
Merely providing a mathematical possible solution that satisfies all known behaviors would be a tremendous step forward.
We don't actually "know" anything about EM, by example, except how to describe its behaviors in all physically observable instances. Radios work reliably with current. Supernovae behave comprehensibly. Photons carry predictable energies. However, long before we knew there were supernovae, or even photons, Maxwell said pretty much all we know about EM behavior.
The problem here is experimental evidence, which is the general reason they focus on mathematics.
I disagree completely. Hawking Radiation has never been proven to exist, which is why Stephen did not earn a Nobel for it.
Merely providing a mathematical possible solution that satisfies all known behaviors would be a tremendous step forward.
We don't actually "know" anything about EM, by example, except how to describe its behaviors in all physically observable instances. Radios work reliably with current. Supernovae behave comprehensibly. Photons carry predictable energies. However, long before we knew there were supernovae, or even photons, Maxwell said pretty much all we know about EM behavior.