>There is actually a theory that black holes create universes inside them
Calling it a "theory" is kind of wrong, it's not a "theory" according to the classical definition of the word. The word has been diluted over time to mean any thought anyone has about anything, but it used to mean something that has been proven by observation and empirical evidence. Yes, I'm being pedantic.
>A "classical" definition of a theory refers to a well-established, comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon, based on a body of evidence and often including clearly defined principles or laws, signifying a robust and widely accepted understanding of a subject, as opposed to a mere hypothesis or speculation; essentially, a "theory" in the true scientific sense
>Granted, this is in the realm of science where we have no idea if this is remotely true, but that's part for the course when black holes are involved.
I'm not sure this qualifies as "science". It's more like stoner speculation.
Science is defined as:
>"The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."
There is no observation, experimentation, or testing of theories that could ever happen for these notions about black holes and the universe(s).
It could be that the universe is a giant egg laid by a giant chicken, and that is just as plausible as "black holes create universes inside them" as far as we know.
Theories are always in a sense speculative, as they build upon other theories and measurements. And as measurements aren't definitive, but just a standardized way of comparing results, theories are just an abstract framework how we have a shared understanding of the world around us.
Theories usually are just based on other theories and just create a theory from the current available data. The less data you have, the larger the possible space that your theory might lie in.
Hypotheses are usually things that rework theories because we have some new data that showed that our theories were inaccurate/false/invalid and builds a new framework that more accurately models the data and theories that we have.
Take this just with grain of salt, this is just a philosophical view of the meanings of the words as I understand them.
Calling it a "theory" is kind of wrong, it's not a "theory" according to the classical definition of the word. The word has been diluted over time to mean any thought anyone has about anything, but it used to mean something that has been proven by observation and empirical evidence. Yes, I'm being pedantic.
>A "classical" definition of a theory refers to a well-established, comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon, based on a body of evidence and often including clearly defined principles or laws, signifying a robust and widely accepted understanding of a subject, as opposed to a mere hypothesis or speculation; essentially, a "theory" in the true scientific sense
>Granted, this is in the realm of science where we have no idea if this is remotely true, but that's part for the course when black holes are involved.
I'm not sure this qualifies as "science". It's more like stoner speculation.
Science is defined as:
>"The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."
There is no observation, experimentation, or testing of theories that could ever happen for these notions about black holes and the universe(s).
It could be that the universe is a giant egg laid by a giant chicken, and that is just as plausible as "black holes create universes inside them" as far as we know.