Why some people ask "was Einstein wrong?"

ISAW

Why do people ask such questions? Some people are fixated with the idea that they might have the answer just as others in history believed they could discover the Philosophers stone. Most people who make them dont understand the field in which they make such confident predictions.

Some seem to have an Asperger's like fixation on disproving Einstein or making similar pronouncements "disproving" some tenet of Science and introducing a whole new way of looking at thge world!. In reality this does happen! about as often as a supernova i.e. once every 500 years.

Some people are really interested in such question but admittedly don't understand a lot of the specialities in a field.

On the other hand, on the general point of "was Einstein wrong" some people claim you must have at least a PhD in mathematics or physics and then specialise in General Relativity in order to ask this question. I do not subscribe to such a view. I also think that a heart surgeon should ask for my permission before operating on a familly member. I will however admit that I would not attempt such an operation myself.

Special Relativity:The state of motion of an observer with respect to, say, a laboratory, determines the rate at which his/her clocks tick with respect to the lab's clocks.

General Relativity: Matter tells space-time how to curve and space-time tells matter how to move.

Was Einstein wrong?

All you have to do is show glaring measurable errors in the above statements.
Up to now we have measurements which confirmed Einstein's theory. So if einstein was "wrong" how would we know? Well special relativity brought in the assumption of the speed of light being constant. Quantum Mechanics suggests that there are circumstances where you can get knowledge about something which is far away, faster then the speed of light.

Irish physicist John Stewart Bell suggested that reality is not local. As i see it in my srtictly laymans terms, Einstein believed there was no such thing as a non local causal effect. How could there be an instantaneous link between two parts of the universe when Einsteins theory stipulated no information could be transferred faster than the speed of light in a vacuum?

Einstein himself asked this question and produced a paper on it proposing an experiment which became known as the EPR experiment.

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen: "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?" Physical Review 41, 777 (15 May 1935). You will find it here:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf

J.S. Bell: "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" Physics 1 #3, 195 (1964).
Here: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf

The EPR experiment was eventually performed!:

A. Aspect, Dalibard, G. Roger: "Experimental test of Bell's inequalities using time-varying analyzers" Physical Review Letters 49 #25, 1804 (20 Dec 1982).
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Aspect.pdf

Here is something in a similar line: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9810/9810080.pdf
a bigger high res version:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9810/9810080.pdf

The above links came thanks to : http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm

and after all that :

David Elm wrote:

Since the test only proves QM when you assume QM, it is circular logic and non-rigorous. ALL EPR experiments have used this faulty scaling as the basis of their determination of the validity, or lack of, of the local reality views and it so is clear that the local reality models cannot be rejected using these experiments.

Perhaps Einstein was right all along.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Here is another explaination which requires NO advanced math:
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html

Talliesin

I love the crank who doesn't understand that the gedakenexperiment with the clocks, one on a near-lightspeed train and one stationary, wasn't actually performed and argues that the clocks were faulty.

Spear

Talliesin wrote:

I love the crank who doesn't understand that the gedakenexperiment with the clocks, one on a near-lightspeed train and one stationary, wasn't actually performed and argues that the clocks were faulty.

Hmm, I remember a crank called Spaceman/James Driscoll who plagued the physics newsgroups with very similar claims. Could it be same crank? Or is it just so very difficult for people to understand that there's more to the universe than what they see on the trip between their home and the supermarket.

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

On the other hand, on the general point of "was Einstein wrong" some people claim you must have at least a PhD in mathematics or physics and then specialise in General Relativity in order to ask this question. I do not subscribe to such a view. I also think that a heart surgeon should ask for my permission before operating on a familly member. I will however admit that I would not attempt such an operation myself.

I'll address the rest later, but I'll speak on this first.

General Relativity cannot be described in English. I'm not being smart, I'm not saying you need a Ph.D. but you do need the mathematics to understand it.
Mathematics is the language it was written in. Without a knowledge of Tensors, curved spaces, e.t.c. the concepts in General Relativity aren't lucid at all.

I remember myself thinking I had a pretty good understanding of General Relativity when I was younger, then I learned the mathematics and realised what "curved space, e.t.c." really means.

You draw an analogy with another field, but that doesn't change the fact that General Relativity cannot be described without mathematical knowledge.

ISAW

Talliesin wrote:

I love the crank who doesn't understand that the gedakenexperiment with the clocks, one on a near-lightspeed train and one stationary, wasn't actually performed and argues that the clocks were faulty.

If you mean the Irish one he is not a crank he is an engineer. He used to work for the ESB. He has excellent presentation. It goes to show many scientists should avoid taking on people in the media since they have little knowledge or experience of it.

But I do admit the convincing stance taken by such people, whether partly science but not fully understood or not up to date, or religious fundamentalist or claiming parnormal powers or whatever, does not assist science. I dont want to go off topic into something better suited to Irish Skeptics though.

Talliesin

ISAW wrote:

If you mean the Irish one

No, this guy's American.

ISAW wrote:

he is not a crank

The guy I'm talking about thinks Einstein really did that experiment.

nesf

ISAW wrote:

I dont want to go off topic into something better suited to Irish Skeptics though.

Being a skeptic is easy. It's just like being a believer. In both you don't have to make any effort to understand what's happening.

nesf

ISAW wrote:

On the other hand, on the general point of "was Einstein wrong" some people claim you must have at least a PhD in mathematics or physics and then specialise in General Relativity in order to ask this question. I do not subscribe to such a view.

No, I'll go to great lenghts to protect your right to ask that question.


Just don't be suprised when my answer makes no sense to you.

Son Goku

I think the main reason people want Einstein to be wrong is because of the perceived arrogance of physicists.

Certain people would see him being wrong as showing scientists that they aren't always right.

Occasionally it is somebody with very little mathematical knowledge who "proves" Einstein to be wrong based on the a personal, often vague, physical insight, which is claimed to be revolutionary.
This is combined with either algebra level or calculus level mathematics to give the insight "concrete mathematical form".
A section of the general public will find out about this "new theory" and will see it as exposing the arrogance of scientists.

Even changes of opinion amongst physicists themselves can be jumped on.
I remember a letter to the Irish Times where a women said:

"If professor Hawking has changed his mind on black holes, could he consider the possibility of him changing his mind on God"

I severly doubt this women was concerned with the preservation of Quantum information, but more likely she just saw:
"HA!, them scientists are wrong, pwned!!!",
because she was a member of the group who love scientists to be wrong.
Even if they don't understand the issue which they were wrong about.

nesf

Son Goku wrote:

I think the main reason people want Einstein to be wrong is because of the perceived arrogance of physicists.

Certain people would see him being wrong as showing scientists that they aren't always right.

Occasionally it is somebody with very little mathematical knowledge who "proves" Einstein to be wrong based on the a personal, often vague, physical insight, which is claimed to be revolutionary.
This is combined with either algebra level or calculus level mathematics to give the insight "concrete mathematical form".
A section of the general public will find out about this "new theory" and will see it as exposing the arrogance of scientists.

Even changes of opinion amongst physicists themselves can be jumped on.
I remember a letter to the Irish Times where a women said:

I severly doubt this women was concerned with the preservation of Quantum information, but more likely she just saw:
"HA!, them scientists are wrong, pwned!!!",
because she was a member of the group who love scientists to be wrong.
Even if they don't understand the issue which they were wrong about.

The above could apply to any field....


It's just scientists have a nasty habit of being able to back up their opinions with physical evidence....

That's what gets to people imo

ISAW

nesf wrote:

Being a skeptic is easy. It's just like being a believer. In both you don't have to make any effort to understand what's happening.

Nope! see my thread in sceptics on atheism. One could contend science is also steeped in belief.

apart from that sideline there are the false dichotomies of science versus religion or science versus atheism.

True scepticism requires thought. it isnt just gainsaying other statements like a monty python scetch. It requores the full course

ISAW

nesf wrote:

No, I'll go to great lenghts to protect your right to ask that question.


Just don't be suprised when my answer makes no sense to you.

Okay.
Don't be surprised if it does!

You are beginning to make me entertain a worldview of "experts" all in their own domain and unquestioned by other "experts" and who collectively instruct society how to "progress". didn't aldus Huxley already do that one? Ah forget even surprising me. I will just go of to my corner and swallow my soma.

nesf

ISAW wrote:

Okay.
Don't be surprised if it does!

You are beginning to make me entertain a worldview of "experts" all in their own domain and unquestioned by other "experts" and who collectively instruct society how to "progress". didn't aldus Huxley already do that one? Ah forget even surprising me. I will just go of to my corner and swallow my soma.

You miss the point. It's not unquestioned by experts. It's questioned and tested all the time by "experts". It's put to the test every time there is data gathered. Every time.

The only time that science will support a theory is after it has been tested multiple times by different institutes.

This is why I don't like string theory. It's philosophy not physics simply because we cannot test it. I've no interest in untestable physics, the whole point of a scientific theory is that it is testable. IE it can be wrong.

I'll give you a full answer in a sec.

nesf

ISAW wrote:

Nope! see my thread in sceptics on atheism. One could contend science is also steeped in belief.

apart from that sideline there are the false dichotomies of science versus religion or science versus atheism.

True scepticism requires thought. it isnt just gainsaying other statements like a monty python scetch. It requores the full course

True sceptisism comes from experience. A true skeptic is an expert in a field who refutes a theory or statement based on years of experience and fact.

You're ignoring this part. You're deciding to doubt the theory before you understand the question. Surely you can see the logical flaws in this approach?

If you don't understand the question then you are simply naysaying on a whim not putting forward a serious critique of the issue.


My point is that, even with all the physics i've learned over the years, I am not in a position to be skeptical of the greater theories of physics. I just don't understand enough about them because I haven't spent the necessary time in the subject.


Edit. Answer me this question, why does space time need to be curved?

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

Okay.
Don't be surprised if it does!
You are beginning to make me entertain a worldview of "experts" all in their own domain and unquestioned by other "experts" and who collectively instruct society how to "progress". didn't aldus Huxley already do that one? Ah forget even surprising me. I will just go of to my corner and swallow my soma.

What we are saying is that General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory are hard.
Mind bendingly so.

It requires a huge amount of personal effort and mathematical knowledge to understand them at the basic level.
You don't have to have a PhD in physics. Anybody with the interest and mathematical ability can eventually understand them.
They are just that hard.
When explaining it to somebody with no knowledge, the very best you can give are extremely vague analogies.

We aren't suggesting a pseudo-"Brave New World" scenario, simply the fact of the matter is that these subjects are hard to understand without sufficient knowledge.

ISAW

nesf wrote:

You miss the point. It's not unquestioned by experts. It's questioned and tested all the time by "experts". It's put to the test every time there is data gathered. Every time.

Maybe I didn't express it fully. I meant one group fo "experts" say particle physicists or brain surgeons or accountants not questioning a different group of experts.

The only time that science will support a theory is after it has been tested multiple times by different institutes.

I think i already showed you this was not historically true in the case of General relativity. It seems Eddington wanted to confirm and not test GR. Science fairly much "knew" it should be correct which is a contradiction of the method of how science should be done. a similar case arose when Penzias and Wilson presented their discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background. they displayed a curve with the one and only measurement they had taken at the peak of the curve! Most of the audience laughed at the idea of this but "knew" they must be correct!

Having stated that in case you think I am suggesting all scientists are liars or do not follow the hypo deductive method I think if you look here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
under the heading =What Gravitational Effects Have Been or Will be Tested? you will find a list of current experimental tests.

This is why I don't like string theory. It's philosophy not physics simply because we cannot test it. I've no interest in untestable physics, the whole point of a scientific theory is that it is testable. IE it can be wrong.

I agree with your principle here. I have a similar problem with parallell universes from which we can never get any information. But we cant ever make a machine to test the energy levels of the early universe nor can we go into a black hole to test them and later come back out and publish the results. So where does that leave us? Inside a black hole maybe:)