PDA

View Full Version : "Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong..."



N2NH
10-23-2012, 09:19 AM
Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong—Because He Didn't Go Far Enough?

There have been those who exposed errors in the formulas derived from Einstein's theories in the past, but is there even more that is wrong? Is the General Theory of Relativity, well, wrong?


It was less than a century ago that Einstein was the most radical physics thinker around. With his general theory of relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity), he discarded the traditional notion of space and time as fixed and redefined them as flexible dimensions woven together to create a four-dimensional fabric that pervades the universe. In Einstein’s vision, this stretchy version of space-time is the source of gravity. The fabric bends and warps severely around massive objects such as the sun, drawing smaller objects such as planets toward them. The force that we perceive as gravity is the result.


Yet Einstein’s fabric left a few loose threads that cosmologists have struggled to tie up ever since. For one, general relativity alone cannot explain the observed motions of galaxies or the way the universe seems to expand. If Einstein’s model of gravity is correct, around 96 percent of the cosmos appears to be missing. To make up the difference, cosmologists have posited two mysterious, invisible, and as yet unidentified ingredients: dark matter and dark energy (http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/), a double budget deficit that makes many scientists uncomfortable. Einstein also failed to deliver an all-encompassing theory of “quantum gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity)”—one that reconciled the laws of gravity observed on the scale of stars and galaxies with the laws of quantum mechanics, the branch of physics that explains the behavior of particles in the subatomic realm.


While other scientists tread softly around the edges of Einstein’s theory, hoping to tweak it into compliance, Barbour and a growing cadre of collaborators see a need for a bold march forward. They aim to demolish the space-time fabric that stands as Einstein’s legacy and remap the universe without it. This new cosmic code could eliminate the need to invoke dark matter and dark energy. Even more exciting, it could also open the door to the theory of quantum gravity that Einstein was never able to derive. If Barbour is right, some of the most fundamental things cosmologists think they know about the origin and evolution of the universe would have to be revised.

In math as well as science, a half finished problem is not a solved problem and that makes it wrong.


Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong (http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far)—Because He Didn't Go Far Enough? (http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far)

KC2UGV
10-23-2012, 10:00 AM
Fascinating. It would be interesting to be able to toss out time as a fundamental definition of space-time. It would impact Alcubierre's drive solution as well, eliminating the time paradox it would present.

K7SGJ
10-23-2012, 10:14 AM
Boy, Dr. Who is going to really be pissed when he hears about this.

n2ize
10-23-2012, 10:30 AM
Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong—Because He Didn't Go Far Enough?

There have been those who exposed errors in the formulas derived from Einstein's theories in the past, but is there even more that is wrong? Is the General Theory of Relativity, well, wrong?



In math as well as science, a half finished problem is not a solved problem and that makes it wrong.


Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong (http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far)—Because He Didn't Go Far Enough? (http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far)
Interesting , however I don't think we can say his work was "all wrong". Indeed, General Relativity is directly used in GPS systems.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Case and point. Classical mechanics is not "all wrong" despite the fact that there were phenomenon that could not be entirely explained in classical mechanics, hence the birth of quantum mechanics which at times appears to conflict with Einsteins General relativity yet we use relativity to make certain technologies work.

http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~alan/ECE6451/Lectures/ECE6451L2ClassicalQuantumMechanicsReviewAndLimitat ions.pdf

Likewise, we don't regard mathematics as all-wrong because there are many problems, seemingly simple on the surface,, such as Goldbach's Conjecture which remain unsolved to this date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture

N2CHX
10-23-2012, 10:32 AM
Boy, Dr. Who is going to really be pissed when he hears about this.

Don't worry, he's not paying attention right now, he's busy with Mrs. Whatsit.

NQ6U
10-23-2012, 11:20 AM
In math as well as science, a half finished problem is not a solved problem and that makes it wrong.


And yet, Einstein's theories have stood up to every test to date.

I think that headline is nothing but sensationalism intended to draw in readers. The truth is a bit more mundane. It's been accepted for years that a unifying theory was needed in physics in order to tie up some loose ends but that does not make Einstein "all wrong."

WŘTKX
10-23-2012, 11:20 AM
Newton wasn't wrong in his frame of reference and neither is Einstein. They both had their limits at the errr... Time. We are starting to poke around past that, and it's getting interesting. So far, it seems Maxwell and Gauss have held up better than most, but as we move forward... Change Happens.

I'm amused with the premise of operating CW on an entanglement transceiver. ;)

N2NH
10-23-2012, 04:11 PM
Interesting , however I don't think we can say his work was "all wrong". ...
Likewise, we don't regard mathematics as all-wrong because there are many problems, seemingly simple on the surface,, such as Goldbach's Conjecture which remain unsolved to this date.

Somebody should've told that to the Math professor I had a college. She did not give partial credit. It was either all right or all wrong. Einstein would've failed for not finishing his formulae.

w0aew
10-23-2012, 05:35 PM
I've never understood all the furor over time. Isn't that just an artificial construct to measure subsequent events? How can a measurement arbitrarily derived from the motion of the earth around the sun be important enough to aid in understanding physical laws?

WŘTKX
10-23-2012, 06:02 PM
Ask the Tralfamadorians. And so it goes. Ting-a-ling!

NQ6U
10-23-2012, 06:05 PM
Somebody should've told that to the Math professor I had a college. She did not give partial credit. It was either all right or all wrong. Einstein would've failed for not finishing his formulae.

It's a theory, not a formula. You are incorrectly equating the two.

kb2vxa
10-23-2012, 06:59 PM
Dark energy, dark matter. You think Doctor Who will be pissed? What about George Lucas? The Force cannot exist with its counterbalance, the Dark Side.

n2ize
10-23-2012, 07:05 PM
Einstein disguised as Robin Hood
With his memories in a trunk
Passed this way an hour ago, with his friend, a jealous monk
Now he looked so immaculately frightful
As he bummed a cigarette
Then he went off sniffing drainpipes
And reciting the alphabet
You would not thin to look at him
But he was famous long ago
For playing the electric violin
On, Desolation Row.

n2ize
10-23-2012, 07:11 PM
Somebody should've told that to the Math professor I had a college. She did not give partial credit. It was either all right or all wrong. Einstein would've failed for not finishing his formulae.

That depends on the criteria of the specific math course. When I was in grad school I generally gave partial credit if the problem, proof, or logic was set up correctly I had many math professors, some well known, and they all had different criteria for grading..

Also, bear in mind that there is a difference between "proof": in mathematics and "proof" in science. Mathematics has absolute proof based on well defined axioms and logical argument. Science does not have that luxury.

N2NH
10-24-2012, 06:41 AM
It's a theory, not a formula. You are incorrectly equating the two.

You are right. It is a theory. Supported by math.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/Einstein-at-blackboard-chalk-in-hand.jpg

N2NH
10-24-2012, 06:42 AM
I've never understood all the furor over time. Isn't that just an artificial construct to measure subsequent events? How can a measurement arbitrarily derived from the motion of the earth around the sun be important enough to aid in understanding physical laws?

Well it does come in handy when you're making an hourly wage. If we ever have interstellar flights, it will come in handy to allow for food, air, water, fuel and how many generations it will take to get there.

KC2UGV
10-24-2012, 07:03 AM
You are right. It is a theory. Supported by math.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/Einstein-at-blackboard-chalk-in-hand.jpg

The math used to support a theory is still not the same as a mathematical proof.

N2NH
10-24-2012, 11:31 AM
The math used to support a theory is still not the same as a mathematical proof.

Okay ya convinced me.

1+1http://i45.tinypic.com/14ybytl.jpg 1 or maybe that should just be...1+1...

http://i49.tinypic.com/10da5av.jpg

kb2crk
10-24-2012, 11:42 AM
Didn't Einstein revise his theory of relativity to get it approved by his peers? I think I remember hearing something to that effect. The original outcome was to far out of the realm of conventional science.

KC2UGV
10-24-2012, 12:14 PM
Didn't Einstein revise his theory of relativity to get it approved by his peers? I think I remember hearing something to that effect. The original outcome was to far out of the realm of conventional science.

Most likely. That's how science works:

* Formulate hypothesis
* Test hypothesis
* Does hypothesis pass test? If so, submit. If not, refine or discard hypothesis, and go back to step 1.

n2ize
10-24-2012, 01:37 PM
Okay ya convinced me.

1+1http://i45.tinypic.com/14ybytl.jpg 1 or maybe that should just be...1+1...



Corey is actually correct in his statement.

1 + 1 > 1 ^ 1 + 1 =/= 1

The following paper does a nice job describing the development and nature of mathematical proof versus the concept of "proof" as in science. It explains it in a nice and gentle many and uses subtle mathematical examples that don't require an advanced degree to understand.

http://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/eolss.pdf