bro4bro saidYeah he's been quacking about this for years. Obviously there's no physical proof; it's just something that results from the mathematical model he chose to apply to the universe. It's always dangerous to put too much faith in a mathematical model since they're necessarily idealized and limited in application.
Hawking is a brilliant guy but not on the level of Einstein or Newton or even Paul Dirac. His work isn't revolutionary; it's mostly an extension of the work of others. He's viewed by the pop culture as some sort of genius wizard largely because of his disability. If he wasn't in a wheelchair and didn't communicate with a Speak-and Spell, nobody outside of a small group of physicists would know his name.
What an awesome critical take. I'd love to read your physics and mathematics papers sometime, where you hand Stephen Hawking his ass.
In fact, bunkie, I am a physicist. And yeah I could show you a few papers I've published but I don't think you'd understand them. But never fear, my work has nothing to do with Hawking's.
Here's my point: This "new" idea of Hawking's was adequately covered in his pop culture book A Brief History of Time
(published in 1988 ). Somehow it failed to take the physics community by storm. Why? Because it's one possibility that happens to fit, if his mathematical model happens to be correct. But there's no way to tell if his model is correct.
So, why is this suddenly news now? Because he's a celebrity. Because he's been anointed as The World's Smartest Guy by people who couldn't physics their way out of a paper sack. So, his every word is hailed as a pearl of arcane wisdom - even if the rest of the physics community yawned over it 30 years ago.
There are a number of theories about what came before the Big Bang. But Hawking's theory is automatically assumed to be correct by everyone who knows nothing about it, only because he's a celebrity. And yeah, that pisses the rest of us off.