From this (ATM) thread, specifically a post by 37.1101 (extract):
There was an excellent post by Ken G, and several good ones by others, in a recent Q&A thread that has disappeared, on the nature of modern physics, the relationship with 'reality', and the role of "all the abstract math".Originally Posted by 37.1101
This post, by 37.1101, provides what might be an excellent example to illustrate this.
With General Relativity (GR), we have a theory which has extraordinary explanatory and predictive power (see Clifford Will's latest review, for example). The theory predicts 'black holes', each of which has an 'event horizon', 'inside' which no external observer can 'see'*. One consequence of this is a complete^ inability to test any predictions concerning the physics 'inside' the event horizon of a black hole ... unless and until an extension or replacement for GR is developed which does allow such 'observation'.
One corollary of this is that anything goes! There are essentially no restrictions on whatever speculative physics you wish to write to describe what's inside the event horizon**.
But that's just my understanding; what do other BAUTians think, re GR, event horizons, black holes, etc?
* I'm using quote marks because the terms have particular, somewhat narrow and technical, meanings; if anyone would like any of them spelled out, please ask.
^ this is not entirely accurate, and the exceptions may be interesting to discuss ...
** other than mass, charge, and angular momentum ('spin')