Was Einstein wrong?

[csmyth3025]

Thanks Ramparts,

Although I think I understand the overall concept of mass (or equivalently, energy) distorting spacetime, there are a lot of details - like the Ricci tensor - that I don't understand at all. Trying to get a handle on these details is something that will occupy a lot of my time, as I'm sure countless college students have found out over the years. Fortunately, I don't have the pressure of achieving a passing grade to worry about.

Chris

 

[ramparts]

The Ricci tensor is a tool of differential geometry, a very difficult branch of mathematics that is used at the heart of general relativity. The majority of college physics students never see it, so there are probably better things to focus on if you're not going to get a Ph.D. The point is, noblackholes argument is one based on confusion of GR.

 

[csmyth3025]

Ramparts wrote:
"...The Ricci tensor is a tool of differential geometry, a very difficult branch of mathematics that is used at the heart of general relativity...."

Well, I don't plan on getting a Ph.D, but I am very much aware that if I want more than just a vague understanding of what General Relativity is all about I'm going to have to improve my understanding of math. To that end, I've found a number of on-line resources such as this, offered by MIT:
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/resources/St ... ngtext.htm
and this, offered by Faraz Hussain:
http://understandingcalculus.com/

In an ideal world, I'd go to college and get a proper education. My reality is that I'm a 60 year old working man (12 hour night shifts) with no retirement in sight. I have no regrets in this regard. Still, I'm fortunate enough to have retained my sense of curiosity over these many decades since I've been "in school". My wife and I have been somewhat preoccupied raising our children and, subsequently, our grandchildren. Now, hopefully, we'll have a little extra time and I hope to use some of that time to indulge my curiosity.

I know that learning even the rudimentary math skills needed to better understand General Relativity will be a long-term effort. Part of the fun of it is learning new things along the way. Wish me luck.

Chris

 

[ramparts]

Good luck!

 

[Main]

He wasn't wrong in postulating. I couldn't find [still searching] any articles that could dispute the theories he founded,wholly. Spacetime has been tested [GP-B:NASA],the atomic clock on jets around the globe and the most famous,the space travel that can go up to 18,000 miles/hr. These small testimonies of trials proved what was written and penned in 1905 still valid,by now it's making its way to schools text books. Anyway,I am still looking for theories such as SUSY,super stringg,etc. that 'postulates' something inside GR and SR without them realising it. Cheerio.

 

[csmyth3025]

Isn't it amazing that a thought experiment generated a century ago based on the scientific understandings of the time produced a new way of looking at the world that, to this day, remains the "gold standard" against which alternate theories are tested. Even more amazing is that all the astronomical observations, particle accelerator experiments, and advancements in particle physics theory have been unable to clearly establish a better way of looking at the (macro) world.

Eventually someone may well produce a "better way of looking at the world", but I suspect that it will build on and extend the work of Einstein in much the same way that Einstein extended the work of Newton into realms that Newton could only speculate about.

Chris

 

[ramparts]

Well, there's a lot more to general relativity and its insights than just a thought experiment

 

[lanceromega]

Isn't it amazing that a thought experiment generated a century ago based on the scientific understandings of the time produced a new way of looking at the world that, to this day, remains the "gold standard" against which alternate theories are tested. Even more amazing is that all the astronomical observations, particle accelerator experiments, and advancements in particle physics theory have been unable to clearly establish a better way of looking at the (macro) world.

Eventually someone may well produce a "better way of looking at the world", but I suspect that it will build on and extend the work of Einstein in much the same way that Einstein extended the work of Newton into realms that Newton could only speculate about.

Chris

Isn't that how all theories begin, with an idea and setting up the experiments that will prove that idea correct.
Einstein little throught experiment did not begin the process of Special and General relativity.

The limitation of C as a max velocity was first hinted at by Maxwell equations on electromagnetic, Maxwell originally saw the fact that the velocity of light would be independent of an object Velocity. Just as Planck saw the first sign in the crack of the physics of his day, Maxwell was unsure what his equation meant, he even went as far as coming up with an alternate theory of Ether to explain his result, which didnot pan out.

Einstein saw that Maxwell equations,and Lorentz and Fritz contractions hints to something special about the Veolcity of light and its relationship to Space and time.

General Relativity, like special Relativity had its seeds that came before Einstein, Reimanns and even Gauss suspected that Gravity was a Geometric property of space, Einstein added to it by including time, but if it was not for Reimanns Tensors equations, Einstein would not have had the tools to express his theory.

Maybe the reason that all these astronomical observations, particle accelerator experiments, and advancements in particle physics theory, fails to come up with something better, is the fact that Einstein nail it on the head. Special and General Relativity may be like the laws of Thermodynamic , an undeniable truth of the nature of the universe. Both theories invoke Symmetries that most other theories of Physics follow. The symmetries of space and time that give raise to conservation of momentum, and Energy.

General Relativity fails when it come to the extremely small where quantum interactions begin to make a major different, examine a small enought region of space time and the uncertainty principle show that the energy in that region turns the smooth space time into a foam of roaring chaos, the Quantum Foam of Wheeler. Also just like most field theories, GR fails as we approach the radius of a point. The fact that QR doesnot specify a minium distant is sign that it is incomplete.

Special Relativity was incorporated into Quantum mechanics, but General Relativity haven't. Problem is that we donot understand how to incorporate it, string and M theory hope to, but generally ignore it when dealing with the Quantum world. So the incorporation lies with the various Quantum theories of Gravity that are attempting to show what space time is like on a quantum scale, whether it an collection of loops, triangle, spin foams,Twistor and spinor obritals.

And you are correct, these theories assume Relativity is correct, and are looking at the smallest region that predictions of Relativity can be applied, so we can Quantumize Space time. I believe when the right method of Describing Space time on at the Quantum level is found, we'll be able to promote Both special Relativity and General to the status of scientific laws and it will put to rest our doubts about Einstein. Maybe it well also tell us a little more about the Reality of Quantum Mechanics..

 

[dryson]

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.

The question that really needs to be asked is what is space? Has anyone ever really come up with a definable definition of what space actually is or just general assumptions to what space might be? Until a definiable definition of what space actually is then no one can say if space can be bent or not bent. You also have to remember that the theories of Einstein are from around the time of the First World War. That is almost 100 years ago when the intelligence of the common man was that of maybe a fifth grader. In order to prove Einstein right or wrong someone needs to define what space is without any introduction of religion into it's matrix so someone can capitilize off of it.

This is 2009 so why is everyone still basing their view points from a time when horse draw carriages were still the everyday means of travel? If one continues to follow a theory based in such old world mentalities then that person's mentality and thinking perspective is that of the era from which the theory is based upon.

 

[dangineer]

Ha! Eintstein's General Relativity uses differential geometry and tensors, which are usually not seen until upper level undergraduates or graduate students. The Einstein Field Equations are still considered some of the most difficult partial differential equations around. So, regardless of the education of the rest of the population, General Relativity is still considered an advanced theory.

In fact, many theories in physics were developed hundreds of years ago and are still in common use today. I use Newton's law of gravity all the time to determine spacecraft orbits. Those equations were developed in the eighteenth century!

 

[lanceromega]

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.

The question that really needs to be asked is what is space? Has anyone ever really come up with a definable definition of what space actually is or just general assumptions to what space might be? Until a definiable definition of what space actually is then no one can say if space can be bent or not bent. You also have to remember that the theories of Einstein are from around the time of the First World War. That is almost 100 years ago when the intelligence of the common man was that of maybe a fifth grader. In order to prove Einstein right or wrong someone needs to define what space is without any introduction of religion into it's matrix so someone can capitilize off of it.

This is 2009 so why is everyone still basing their view points from a time when horse draw carriages were still the everyday means of travel? If one continues to follow a theory based in such old world mentalities then that person's mentality and thinking perspective is that of the era from which the theory is based upon.

why does it matter when the theory was introduce matter? Should we throw out thermodynamic because it was a produce of the industrial revolution when finding out how to make the most efficention stream engine was the high of fashion..

like thermodynamics, Both SR and GR are the best description to date. As for being a religion, Both are not matter taken on fate, and Einsteins is not some prophet. Both have been challenge over and over again, and have been proven correct. Science is not a matter of fashion ( okay that if you donot count the little fad over string theory) , theories donot have expiration date, they are discard when proven inaccurate and when a better theory can replace them.

 

[csmyth3025]

dryson wrote:

"...This is 2009 so why is everyone still basing their view points from a time when horse draw carriages were still the everyday means of travel? If one continues to follow a theory based in such old world mentalities then that person's mentality and thinking perspective is that of the era from which the theory is based upon...."

Old theories may be based on "old world mentalities" but that doesn't necessarily make them any less useful or any less valid. Wikipedia contains these entries:

:...The Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which is Latin for "mathematical principles of natural philosophy", often Principia or Principia Mathematica for short, is a three-volume work by Isaac Newton first published on 5 July 1687..."

and

"...The Principia contains the statement of Newton's laws of motion forming the foundation of classical mechanics, as well as his law of universal gravitation and a derivation of Kepler's laws for the motion of the planets (which were first obtained empirically)..."

The theories (laws) that Newton formulated remained perfectly valid for over 200 years. They remain valid today except for "tweaking" to account for relativistic effects.

There's no point in trying to formulate a new theory unless the "old" theory is unable to explain new observations. We have plenty of new observations that don't fit well with the "old" theories we're using - things like dark matter and dark energy. We also have plenty of people trying to develop new theories that account equally well for the things our present theories explain satisfactorily and the things they don't.

As with Einstein, when someone comes up with such a new theory there will be an army of skeptics who will go over the work with a fine tooth comb looking for flaws and inconsistencies. If it's a good theory it will stand up to this test and, perhaps with a little "tweaking" in the process, it will replace the old theory.

Some scientists cling to the "old" theories with religious ferocity - most aren't that dogmatic.

Chris

 

[csmyth3025]

by csmyth3025 » Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:48 am


Well, I don't plan on getting a Ph.D, but I am very much aware that if I want more than just a vague understanding of what General Relativity is all about I'm going to have to improve my understanding of math. To that end, I've found a number of on-line resources...

Although this is somewhat off-point, I would like to add the following link for those who, like me, are at the beginning stages of trying to gain more than just a superficial understanding of Relativity. In order to start to learn the "language" of Relativity (namely, the math), an excellent sight for beginners may be found here:

http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-g ... -calculus/

I realize that many in this forum are already well versed in the math of Relativity. There is also a goodly number of us who hope to understand, but are struggling.

Chris

 

[darkmatter4brains]

The question that really needs to be asked is what is space? Has anyone ever really come up with a definable definition of what space actually is or just general assumptions to what space might be? Until a definiable definition of what space actually is then no one can say if space can be bent or not bent. You also have to remember that the theories of Einstein are from around the time of the First World War. That is almost 100 years ago when the intelligence of the common man was that of maybe a fifth grader. In order to prove Einstein right or wrong someone needs to define what space is without any introduction of religion into it's matrix so someone can capitilize off of it.

This is 2009 so why is everyone still basing their view points from a time when horse draw carriages were still the everyday means of travel? If one continues to follow a theory based in such old world mentalities then that person's mentality and thinking perspective is that of the era from which the theory is based upon.

Within every culture and era there are those men born who are far ahead of the rest in terms of intelligence and vision. Einstein was one them. The rest of the world still has a ways to go before catching up with him. And not just his physics. If you read some of his quotes you'll see he was very wise as well.

However, your point about definining space is well taken. I don't think anybody really knows what space is. It's like the vacuum. We thought it was empty "space", now it's a boiling cauldron of virtual particles. And finally, what the heck is time. We talk about these things all the time (no pun intended) like we know what they are. But, as far as understanding their true nature, I think we've got some work to do still, imho.

Dangineer had a great point as well. I too use Newton's theories every day at work. Each theory has a domain of validity and will always be useful within that domain. Einstein's theories didn't necessarily prove Newton's ideas were wrong. They just showed that they are only valid within a certain domain (v<<c). Einsteins builds on the theory to extend validity to domains where v approaches c. In fact, Newton's laws fall out of Einstein's theories when v <<c, so in a way Einsteins laws still contain Newton's laws.

 

[ramparts]

And we know that for very small scales (r<~M_P), general relativity fails, and whatever the theory of quantum gravity turns out to be, GR will fall out of it at large r

 

[darkmatter4brains]

by csmyth3025 » Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:48 am


Well, I don't plan on getting a Ph.D, but I am very much aware that if I want more than just a vague understanding of what General Relativity is all about I'm going to have to improve my understanding of math. To that end, I've found a number of on-line resources...

Although this is somewhat off-point, I would like to add the following link for those who, like me, are at the beginning stages of trying to gain more than just a superficial understanding of Relativity. In order to start to learn the "language" of Relativity (namely, the math), an excellent sight for beginners may be found here:

http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-g ... -calculus/

I realize that many in this forum are already well versed in the math of Relativity. There is also a goodly number of us who hope to understand, but are struggling.

Chris

Couple books you might like, that are pretty good for getting into relativity:

A great book on special relativity that's not too bad on the math is: Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler

http://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Physics ... 225&sr=1-7

It goes over a lot of the paradoxes and hard-to-understand concepts of SR like the relativity of spontaneity, etc, and it does a very good job. You'll have a fairly thorough understanding of SR if you can get through the whole thing.

Bernard Shutz's book on General Relativity is pretty good and one of the easier ones to understand. But, you'll want a solid foundation in special relativity and vector manipulation/math first. It pretty much holds your hand through the tensor stuff though, so it's a good intro.

 

[csmyth3025]

Thanks,

I'll add these books to my list of required reading as I work through trying to understand the complexities of this very interesting subject.

Chris

 

[csmyth3025]

It seems that a Space.com article lends further validation to the widespread opinion that Einstein was right:

Einstein Was Right: General Relativity Confirmed
By Clara Moskowitz
Senior Writer
posted: 10 March 2010
01:29 pm ET


Chris

 

[benbald]

This is so interesting because as we all know, we never have it quite right in science. We just get closer and closer. Like the old example of classical mechanics vs relativistic mechanics. I'm sure one day we'll have something that is closer to the truth and hopefully (fingers crossed) we may even discover some underlying mechanism to it all. Wouldn't that be something?

 

[csmyth3025]

This is so interesting because as we all know, we never have it quite right in science. We just get closer and closer. Like the old example of classical mechanics vs relativistic mechanics. I'm sure one day we'll have something that is closer to the truth and hopefully (fingers crossed) we may even discover some underlying mechanism to it all. Wouldn't that be something?

Amen!

Chris