I do not think we should accept a theory that cannot be experimentally confirmed. As Dr. Sheldon Glashow stated regarding string theory, “Is that a theory of physics, or a philosophy?” If the theory seems strong enough, the experimentalists will keep hammering away,

An untestable theory should never be accepted, it may though sit alongside the previous theory since they two give identical results, they are equally useful so take your pick. If in any way they differ then that provides a distinguishing feature and it is then just a question of designing an experiment to explore that difference.

However, I do think Rovelli is avoiding another test which has been done and appears to go against his theory. He relies on the area of boundaries being of the order of the Planck length but dispersion, which is another anticipated effect and much more amenable to testing, has not been seen at a level far below that level:

https://sci.esa.int/web/integral/-/48879-integral-challenges-physics-beyond-einstein

A further point is that since this was made, a number of repeating FRBs have been found so it seems unlikely that these are his white holes.

Mathematicians should think about the PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF THEIR FORMULATIONS OR THEORIES before developing any.
In school we were taught calculus using the example of velocity, accerelation and displacement.
Instantaneous means dT tends to zero… and all that…

But sometimes mathematics makes mathematical sense but not physical sense… If it is the language of our universe then it must contain the Vocabulary of our universe… words of english aren’t present in the sanskrit language…

😅😅😅sorry just an undergraduate…

The words needed for humans to understand the true nature of physics may not exist in any language other than the language of mathematics. Physicists start with experiments and observations that tell them how the universe behaves in a repeatable manner, then they find mathematics that duplicates that, only then can they attempt to express it in other languages, and in quantum mechanics for example, nobody has succeeded in that final step after a century of trying. Still the equations work precisely and allow us to develop new technology that is reliable, even if we have only a mathematical understanding of how it works.

The interpretation of experimental results is very important. Other situations are: 1) build models in LQG and make the limit where the space-time is classical and the fields are quantum and comparing specific models in LQG with the corresponding models build in semi-classical context. If both result are very similars the consistency of the LQG model in the respective limit can be taken seriously.

I think we should accept such theories without evidence because most of the theories that scientists are using today didn’t have 100% prove and evidence.

It’s fine to have theories that haven’t been proven experimentally yet and then think about creative ways of testing them. If they’re not testable even in principle then they just become philosophy and that’s fine, it’s still interesting to talk about them. They shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, especially if their math is consistent.

Yes, we should continue even though there is no experimental evidence *yet).I believe that each such theory has some grain of validity in it and given enough of these grains a new Einstein will come along and pull them together into the ‘real’ theory (that is experimentally viable).

General theory was theorized in 1915 and we found gravitational waves in recent years. A strong hypothesis with basis in mathematics can easily be taken until then.

Can you explain me the BH->WH bounce? What happens with the BH horizon? Already at the horizon the time is inf. slowed down for an observer in inf. How can we see the time inverses solution couple of bi/millions later? Does it mean that the WH occurs a bit elsewhere, on the other side of the brane?

2001 shows first FRB data. Either due to tech level or the search for them.

LIGO is proving gravitational theories.

Why should experiments for white holes be difficult if fast radio bursts exist?

I am thinking research money for black holes has made following the 2001 FRB signals… Unpopular.

We see all the knowledge gaps in WSU, all the fights for the fundings.

But FRBs are recorded.

This is reality to be pursued. It is incredible to hear clarity from a Prof. on such a topic.

Recall Prof. Berin spent years hoping for LIGO.

But you already have evidence. Theory predicts evidence and you have that evidence.

My work predicts a molecule called thoranyl working with uranyl to mediate radiation in our atmospheres. So we don`t all fry.

Ok. So all we need to do for white holes is get ready for the eventuality.

Fuzzy black holes don`t seem to mention FRB as proof. So your funding efforts trump that idea.

And you don`t just have an idea.

You have FRB proof.

This is going to revolutionize everything.

As Astronomy is work in progress, this concept allows for wrong efforts, but FRBs are not wrong effort.

Hopefully the LIGO people can share the spotlight.

What a great day, hearing about this before it gets huge!!! 🔊📯🎼🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶🎵🎊🎉🎈🎏💸🎆🎇🤸🤹🎖🏆🥇🥈🥉🥈🥇🎯🥁

Ok, to celebrate, here`s my anti-covid drink-enjoy!!!
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
🔆 ORANGEDOT🔆 Natural Health Consulting. (Honours Diploma) ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

🛡🔆🍵anti-covid tea – fennel, olive oil, lemon juice, chamomile, mint, tumeric, OJ, rosemary, onion and licorice powders! 🔆🛡 Write/talk about it 10× for best recall!
∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆eyes-swim! ∆∆∆∆

Communication using e-tools is at a 20% level- let`s use this natural 80% disaster to kill covid!
×××××××××××××××××××××××⚰!

Unproven theories lead to experimentation that proves or disproves then you add those to your arsenal. Wasn’t it the LIGO data that showed mathematical prediction alongside the observed condition, nearly a precise match.

It is crucial to approach scientific theories, especially in the realm of quantum gravity, with a balanced perspective. While experimental confirmation is the gold standard in science, there are cases where we may need to consider theories that are mathematically rigorous and consistent with existing observations, even in the absence of direct experimental evidence. Here are some reasons to support this approach:
Theoretical Framework: Mathematical rigor is a fundamental aspect of scientific theories. When a theory is mathematically consistent and can successfully explain known phenomena, it demonstrates the internal consistency required for a valid scientific framework.
Predictive Power: Some theories may make predictions that can be indirectly tested through their implications on existing observations. Even if we can’t directly confirm it, if it makes accurate predictions in areas we can observe, it adds credibility to the theory.
Exploration of the Unknown: Theories of Quantum gravity aim to bridge the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics, which are highly successful in their respective domains. Exploring mathematically rigorous theories in this field can help guide our understanding of the universe, even if direct experimental tests are challenging.
Historical Precedent: Throughout the history of science, there have been instances where theories were accepted before direct evidence was available. For example, the existence of certain subatomic particles was postulated mathematically before experimental confirmation.
Technological Advancements: As technology advances, our ability to conduct experiments and gather evidence may improve. What seems experimentally challenging today may become feasible in the future.
It’s essential to strike a balance between theoretical development and empirical testing in the pursuit of scientific progress. While we should be cautious about accepting theories without evidence, we should also recognize the value of mathematically rigorous frameworks that align with existing observations, as they can provide crucial insights and guide future research endeavors.