Was Einstein wrong?

[dangineer]

There is quite a bit of discussion, arguing rather, that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is wrong and that there are other theories that explain what we observe without envoking the principles of relativity. I could not find a thread specifically devoted to this subject under the physics forum, so I thought it would be a good idea to start one. Please note however, that the purpose of this thread is to discuss legitimate and scientifically rigorous ideas that refute the Theory of General Relativity, and not to posit individuals' opinions on how they think the universe should behave. Anything outside of this will likely drive this thread to The Unexplained.

So please take the time to gather your theories and present them clearly and concisely so that other readers can examine them closely. Please keep things civil.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

There is quite a bit of discussion, arguing rather, that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is wrong and that there are other theories that explain what we observe without envoking the principles of relativity. I could not find a thread specifically devoted to this subject under the physics forum, so I thought it would be a good idea to start one. Please note however, that the purpose of this thread is to discuss legitimate and scientifically rigorous ideas that refute the Theory of General Relativity, and not to posit individuals' opinions on how they think the universe should behave. Anything outside of this will likely drive this thread to The Unexplained.

So please take the time to gather your theories and present them clearly and concisely so that other readers can examine them closely. Please keep things civil.

I have currently no problem with General Relativity, until someone clearly shows failure of the theory with experiments. From some of my previous posts it may appear as I'm claiming GR is wrong. But that is/was not in my mind. I understand proving GR or SR by experiments is extremely difficult on earth, because we can not attain relativistic speed and we do not have strong gravity around us to prove the theories without a shadow of doubt. But it makes me squirm when I read 'GR has been proven again and again' by experiment.

The other problem with GR I've is not GR, but the mathematical spin-offs of GR. Two examples that come to my mind at this moment are Blackholes and Big Bang. Blackholes have gained a cult status, and big bang to me is a theory created too soon with little data for convenience.

Love to hear and learn others comments on GR and SR. Interesting thread.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

You've heard the saying, 'Einstein is right, even when he is wrong"

I still remember in my relativity class in college, the guy who was teaching it said he never bought into the whole curved spacetime thing. He believed in the quantum picture. For example, that light doesn't bend around a star because space is curved there, but rather from the interaction with the graviton. If I'm not mistaken Feynman was a proponent of this view too. If these guys are right, Einstein was at least conceptually wrong.

Also, what does it mean if two mathematically different theories predict the same results but have different physical interpretations. Which phsyical interpretation should we believe? Seems one of them will have to break down somewhere at some point.

 

[dangineer]

It is my interpretation of forces in general that there is sort of a duality with fields. On the quantum level you see flat space with a bunch of field quanta (force particls) running around and interacting. But when you zoom out, these particles get out of focus and on relatively large scales, the field looks more like curved space. As far as I can tell, the other forces curve space as well. It's just that we don't look at them that way because most of our observations of forces other than gravity are on a much smaller scale, thus the prevailing theories (electromagentism, quantum mechanics) do a suitable job without envoking curved space. This idea stems from the fact that Einstein included things like bonding energy into his stress-energy-momentum tensor (which explains why heavy elements are heavier than they should be). This leads me to believe that field energy can be included in GR.

This thought really needs more mathematical basis, however, so I'm not posing it as a real theory.

As for experiements on Earth there have been some decent experiments in particle accelerators, where relativistic speeds can be obtained. The decay times for several particles, for instance, coincide very closely with the results of time dialation. The input energies required to accelerate particles also coincide closely with their expected relativistic mass. There was also another experiment that has been repeated where the wavelength of light is measured at two different heights and were shown to be different, confirming time dialation in the presence of gravity. I'm sure there are several more, but that's what I got off the top of my head.

 

[lanceromega]

You've heard the saying, 'Einstein is right, even when he is wrong"

I still remember in my relativity class in college, the guy who was teaching it said he never bought into the whole curved spacetime thing. He believed in the quantum picture. For example, that light doesn't bend around a star because space is curved there, but rather from the interaction with the graviton. If I'm not mistaken Feynman was a proponent of this view too. If these guys are right, Einstein was at least conceptually wrong.

Also, what does it mean if two mathematically different theories predict the same results but have different physical interpretations. Which phsyical interpretation should we believe? Seems one of them will have to break down somewhere at some point.

Problem with the particle attempt to describe gravity is the fact that they cannot be normalized. Basically Gravitron would interact with themselve causing the force of gravity to go off to infinity... Feynman and other physicists have been able to cancel out the infinities caused in other theories, but there is no way with the Gravitron.

They have tried, a Theory called Super Gravity would have added addition Types of Gravitrons who's interactions would cancel out. But this theory and other Theories like SUSSY make prediction such as proton decay that just have not been observed.

Also they donot have a mechanism for warping space and time, as much as some poeple hate the concept, such warpage has been detected, time dilation is a proven effect. Even String theory doesnot show us how particles effect the structure of space and time directly.

Best bet are various theories of Quantum Gravity, that first assume General Relativity is correct, but then works on the quantum structure of space and time. They show that space and time can be broken into Quantum structure that are composed of events. There are several Quantum Theories like Loop quantum gravity theory, and Non commutative Geometry, each approach the exact relationship of these events and how they mesh together, but lately theorist in loop theory has shown how knots in these loops between events can be seen as element particles such as Quarks, photons and electrons.

The Challenge For Quantum Gravity is to describe the interactions of particles via the other forces of nature, so while QM, string and M brane theory have master the reactions of Electroweak and strong forces, Quantum Gravity theories have to see how these forces arise from the various knots and kinks of space time. This is basically what kill Einstein's early attempts. ( okay also his lack of faith in Reality of QM).

Another Theory is M brane theory, basically instead of multidimension string like string theory, we use multidimension objects called Branes. These objects can actually be used to describe space and one set branes,called D branes have been used to examine the behaviors of blackholes. Hawking radiation has been sucessful model by D branes, but more detail interaction such as how branes interact to mimic General Relativity is still being work on.

So it a horse race, Quantum Gravity and M brane as replacement for General Relativity, but i doubt that either one will cause the finish line any time soon.

 

[csmyth3025]

I've noticed that discussions about the validity of Einstein's theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity, and the purported outgrowth of General Relativity - black holes and the Big Bang theory - evoke a lot of emotion in, at least, some of the participants. This emotion strikes me as very similar to the heated arguments between Darwinists and those advocating Intelligent Design. I suppose that this is because acceptance or rejection of one or the other set of theories determines in a fundamental way how an individual views the world. There seems to be claims from both camps that the other side must take certain things "on faith" - which makes "their" views unscientific.

That said, I know of no widely accepted experimental result that contradicts either Special or General Relativity. Additionally, these theories explain a lot of phenomena that otherwise could not be explained by classical (Newtonian) physics.

I look forward to any posts in this thread that present a reasoned argument refuting Special and/or General Relativity. Most particularly, I'm interested in alternate explanations of certain experimental results - such as the observed slowing of the decay rates of particles at relativistic speeds in particle accelerators and the slowing of atomic clocks in a weaker gravitational field. I believe both of these observations are accepted, but there may be some who disagree.

Chris

 

[ramparts]

General relativity has been exquisitely tested - it might be wrong, either on very large or certainly on very small scales, but whatever the true theory is has to reduce to general relativity in most limits. You will find nary a physicist who believes general relativity is completely wrong, because to say that would be complete folly. If a theory survives for over a century, passing every test thrown at it with flying colors, it becomes very difficult to throw it out entirely. That is not faith.

As a side note, Chris, I'm curious why you're looking specifically for someone to refute GR. On a forum like this, you're bound to get "theories" that both contradict GR and are completely untrue, but I'd say the chances of getting a theory that is an alternative to GR and actually describes the universe are close to 0. Perhaps you could seek out a physicist at a local university? Of course, such a person will not do much to refute GR for you, if that's what you really really want

 

[csmyth3025]

Ramparts wrote: "...You will find nary a physicist who believes general relativity is completely wrong, because to say that would be complete folly..."

Please don't mistake my curiosity for doubt about Einstein's work. I think the papers he produced during his "miracle year" and his subsequent paper on General Relativity represent some of the most magnificent leaps of human insight ever recorded.

There are those, however, who claim that there are fundamental errors in his theories. There's a thread in "The Unexplained" category of this forum called "Big Bang or No Big Bang" in which at least one participant has posted numerous links to papers which purport to refute General Relativity and the Big Bang theory. I can't make any sense out of most of it. The papers are much too technical for me to follow - especially the math.

I'm hoping that if there is a valid argument against General Relativity, or an alternate theory that "makes sense", that I would see it in this thread. I've given up trying to understand the claims in the other thread.

One reason for my curiosity is that I'm reminded that Newton's "classical physics" stood the test of time for hundreds of years until it had to be "tweaked" by Einstein to accommodate new observations. We now have "dark matter" and "dark energy" and "inflation" introduced into the Standard Model which is starting to look as shaky as the "lumeniferous ether" did a century ago.

Chris

 

[ramparts]

Hopefully your curiosity will be satisfied There are papers out there that use technical-sounding arguments but are just silly. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that GR is correct at least at the relevant scales, and any theory purporting otherwise has a pretty massive task in front of it.

 

[lanceromega]

Hopefully your curiosity will be satisfied There are papers out there that use technical-sounding arguments but are just silly. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that GR is correct at least at the relevant scales, and any theory purporting otherwise has a pretty massive task in front of it.

It funny that Nikola Telsa actually disagree with both special and General relativity, calling it:

“ ... magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists ...”

Tesla also argued:

“ I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view. ”

Tesla also believed that much of Albert Einstein's relativity theory had already been proposed by Ruđer Bošković, stating in an unpublished interview:

“ ...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Ruđer Bošković, the great philosopher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Bošković dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum ..

When he was eighty-one, Tesla stated he had completed a "dynamic theory of gravity". He stated that it was "worked out in all details" and that he hoped to soon give it to the world. The theory was never published.

Would have been nice if he did, just to see his take on the matter.

 

[ramparts]

Tesla also died in 1943 So he's missed quite a few fantastic experimental confirmations of predictions made by GR.

I don't know much about Tesla's views on GR except what you just posted (which, you should note, was pulled verbatim from Wikipdia), but his objections to it here seem more philosophical than scientific. When a physicist refuses to believe something, but the experiments seem to suggest otherwise, a good rule of thumb is to go with the experiments

 

[lanceromega]

Tesla also died in 1943 So he's missed quite a few fantastic experimental confirmations of predictions made by GR.

I don't know much about Tesla's views on GR except what you just posted (which, you should note, was pulled verbatim from Wikipdia), but his objections to it here seem more philosophical than scientific. When a physicist refuses to believe something, but the experiments seem to suggest otherwise, a good rule of thumb is to go with the experiments

Yes true, Einstein did the same with Quantum mechanics. His refusal of many of the central concepts mirror Tesla view point with Relativity.

 

[ramparts]

That's a good point. Going back to the literal question of this thread's subject, Einstein might well have been wrong on quantum mechanics There is probably an analogy between that and Tesla on GR.

 

[braveaskal]

Thanks for the reviews. Although it was all a theories there some points that i consider about Einstein studies. He always try to figured things that has too many principles, reason that leads him into unproven studies.

 

[csmyth3025]

Ramparrts wrote: "...Einstein might well have been wrong on quantum mechanics..."

It seems ironic that Einsteins paper on the photoelectric effect solidified the concept of a quantum approach to electromagnetic radiation (i.e.the photon) and yet he was unable to accept the logical consequences of quantum mechanics on philosophical grounds. I believe he is quoted as saying "God does not play dice." in rebuttal to the probabilistic nature of quantum theory.

As far as Tesla's view that "matter bends space" is an absurd idea, it seems to me that - for all practical purposes - matter produces the effect of bending space. Whether it actually does, or whether it does something else, awaits the insight of another theorist who can match the breadth of General Relativity's applicability and experimental validation.

Chris

 

[lanceromega]

Ramparrts wrote: "...Einstein might well have been wrong on quantum mechanics..."

It seems ironic that Einsteins paper on the photoelectric effect solidified the concept of a quantum approach to electromagnetic radiation (i.e.the photon) and yet he was unable to accept the logical consequences of quantum mechanics on philosophical grounds. I believe he is quoted as saying "God does not play dice." in rebuttal to the probabilistic nature of quantum theory.

As far as Tesla's view that "matter bends space" is an absurd idea, it seems to me that - for all practical purposes - matter produces the effect of bending space. Whether it actually does, or whether it does something else, awaits the insight of another theorist who can match the breadth of General Relativity's applicability and experimental validation.

Chris

yes the bending space time is the sticking point, it easy to see from the Mathematic how energy density effect tensor and metric, but these are mathematical concepts. It like talking about line and plains. What is the physical reality of a Metric, what is the composition of Space time that allow it to interact with matter and energy? This seem to be unanswer by General Relativity.

Most Quantum Theories of Gravity seem to me to make the matter worse, they talk about space time as be units created from events. While they all seem to adapt the Penrose early Spin Foam to show how these event combine to form small area of Space time, they still seem to ignore the Big Question, what is meat, the substance that is being molded.

I head how some Physicist refer to the fabric of space as a type of superconductor for light, that while light is transmitted effortlessly , it create resistance or inertia to particles that we refere to as mass. This effect is believe to be due to One or more types of Higgs fields that exist thru out the universe, So could we rework General Relativity to be Quantum Field equations using the Higgs field? Is The Higgs field the Root of gravity?

Just wondering..

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I look forward to any posts in this thread that present a reasoned argument refuting Special and/or General Relativity. Most particularly, I'm interested in alternate explanations of certain experimental results - such as the observed slowing of the decay rates of particles at relativistic speeds in particle accelerators and the slowing of atomic clocks in a weaker gravitational field. I believe both of these observations are accepted, but there may be some who disagree.

Chris

Muon lifespan can be explained by time dilation of SR, but one can try to prove half-life of particles changes because of speed. Now it'd be impossible to prove. Let me explain, if someone had performed an experiment before SR on effect of speed on half life, his conclusion would have been 'speed makes half life longer'. But now our conclusion is 'speed makes time to slow down'.

The experiment to show 'clocks slows down in a gravitational field' is performed, correct me if I'm wrong, only once, at MIT. I haven't read about any other experiment of that nature, the same goes for the experiment with planes flying around earth.

IMHO, relativity (SR and GR) are the first theories widely accepted as true before repeated experimental verification. The beauty of GR math may have been the reason for this acceptance. Now we see a similar environment in scientific community about String Theory. Many say, 'the math is so beautiful and elegant, it cannot be wrong'.

 

[CommonMan]

All these THEORIES that Einstein was wrong is just that, THEORIES. If it was a proven fact it would be on the front page of the newspaper and all over the sceince news on the internet. Where is DR. Rocket when we need him?

 

[dangineer]

"Although it was all a theories there some points that i consider about Einstein studies. He always try to figured things that has too many principles, reason that leads him into unproven studies."

I just wanted to point out that most areas of physics are based on principles. These principles are assumptions made based on what we observe. For instance, Newton's principle of inertia, Einstein's principle of the constancey of c, Faraday's law, etc. Most theories start out with postulates and then a relationship is built to try to explain these. Maxwell's equations are considered one of the most concise and elegant theories in physics, but they are essentially based on the observation that time varying electric fields produce magnetic fields and vice versa. The formulation also doesn't include magntetic monopoles, simply because we haven't observed them or their effects.

 

[lanceromega]

I look forward to any posts in this thread that present a reasoned argument refuting Special and/or General Relativity. Most particularly, I'm interested in alternate explanations of certain experimental results - such as the observed slowing of the decay rates of particles at relativistic speeds in particle accelerators and the slowing of atomic clocks in a weaker gravitational field. I believe both of these observations are accepted, but there may be some who disagree.

Chris

Muon lifespan can be explained by time dilation of SR, but one can try to prove half-life of particles changes because of speed. Now it'd be impossible to prove. Let me explain, if someone had performed an experiment before SR on effect of speed on half life, his conclusion would have been 'speed makes half life longer'. But now our conclusion is 'speed makes time to slow down'.

The experiment to show 'clocks slows down in a gravitational field' is performed, correct me if I'm wrong, only once, at MIT. I haven't read about any other experiment of that nature, the same goes for the experiment with planes flying around earth.

IMHO, relativity (SR and GR) are the first theories widely accepted as true before repeated experimental verification. The beauty of GR math may have been the reason for this acceptance. Now we see a similar environment in scientific community about String Theory. Many say, 'the math is so beautiful and elegant, it cannot be wrong'.

[The experiment to show 'clocks slows down in a gravitational field' is performed, correct me if I'm wrong, only once, at MIT. I haven't read about any other experiment of that nature, the same goes for the experiment with planes flying around earth.
/quote]

GPS satellites show both effects and adjustments have to be made for this or location they display would be off. Also special relativity ( Not GR) had to be incorporated into Quantum Field theory (Dirac Electron Equation was the first incorporation of special relativity with QM). When this occur it made predictions of electron spin which was later detected ( non Relativitic equation of Schrodinger didnot and didnot show any indication of spin ) and the existant of electron anti particle. Quantum Field theory is use by Solid state physics which is responible for all the nice little IC chips that basics of all our present day technology.

While the equations of GR are pretty they are also make a host of predictions from Frame dragging to Gravity lens, in contact String theory is actually five theory, neither one by itself capable of describing everything the standard theory of Quantum mechanics describes. GR is base on mathematics that were completed by Reimanns while String theory as one of it supporter once commented "Is a 20 century theory, waiting on 21 Century mathematics".

25 years of string research seem a bit of waste in the light of things, we now have M theory that incorporate all the aspects of various string theory and many of the other GUT theories, but it make no prediction because we donot know the exact shape of smallest part of space ( There are 10 to 5000 configuration) so it a theory of anything not everything.

GR and SR make valid testable prediction and have found their way into other area of physics. The biggest complain is that GR is a too air tight. Also unlike SR it doesnot combine with QM, at least not yet. If we can find a flaw in GR maybe it will point us to direction where we can unite the two.

 

[csmyth3025]

emperor_of_localgroup wrote:
"...Let me explain, if someone had performed an experiment before SR on effect of speed on half life, his conclusion would have been 'speed makes half life longer'. But now our conclusion is 'speed makes time to slow down'..."

Let us suppose that, as you surmised, someone had performed an experiment on the effect of speed on the half life of unstable particles and concluded "speed makes half life longer". I'm sure theorists would try to formulate explanations for this effect. Do you think Einstein's explanation via Special Relativity would be any less satisfactory than it is today?

Chris

 

[ramparts]

To comment on emperor's point: there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the knowledge we already have to explain things that would otherwise have other explanations. This is how science works. Before Kepler and Newton, one could have explained (and frequently did explain) planetary motions using a system of epicycles. Given the data they had, it worked, and it made sense. But knowing later, as we did, about Newton's 1/r^2 law of gravity, we were able to instead explain planetary motion as a result of the planets moving in such a gravitational potential around the sun.

No measurement in science has only one possible explanation if taken on its own. We should be using our knowledge of the universe to explain the measurements we make. Special relativity was formulated for reasons completely unrelated to muons (we didn't even know what a muon was back then!), and the fact that it happens to nicely explain an issue of particle physics isn't something to be suspicious of - it's something to celebrate

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well said, and a very good example. Epicycles worked, but turned out to be worthless. True science prevailed once the evidence overwhelminglingly showed it was correct.

GR and SR are very much like that, and those who fight it are living in the epicycle (flat earth, geocentric, etc.) era.

 

[csmyth3025]

I encountered this passage (among other things) in the "Big Bang or No Big Bang" thread in the "Unexplained" section:

"...And I'm still waiting for the Defenders of the mainstream Realm here to prove that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter (i.e. Ric = 0): after all, the mainstream claim that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter...."

This passage is part of the author's claim that General Relativity is entirely bogus. I have two questions: First, what does Ric=0 mean. Second, what does he mean by "...the mainstream claim that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter..." - is this "construction" in some way a fundamental part of General Relativity? I posted these questions on the thread but received no response.

Chris

 

[ramparts]

"Ric=0" is likely one of those things that people who don't know what they're talking about say when they've read some math on Wikipedia, don't entirely get it, and then throw it out to other non-experts to try to sound smart

He probably means a spacetime in which either the Ricci scalar or tensor - two measurements of curvature in spacetime - is 0. In other words, "Ricci flat", or a vacuum solution. His mistake, quite simply, is that while a vacuum solution only works for points in spacetime where there's no matter, it can be affected from matter by elsewhere. Many solutions to general relativity use this technique, including the Kerr and Schwarzschild solutions, which describe black holes Technically, they describe any spherically symmetric object (so to very good order, Kerr describes our Sun), but only outside the matter distribution! Kerr will tell you what spacetime looks like outside the Sun, but you need something else to talk about the interior.