Was Einstein Wrong??

popinfresh · 09-05-2005 10:53PM #1

Was reading an interesting article here something about the speed of gravity or something and hence things can move faster than the speed of light (or something) and hence the theory of relativity may very well be pants. Anybody who knows what they're talking about care to comment on this (I don't really know much myself

)

Son Goku · 10-05-2005 02:37PM

It has been tested for the last eighty years and has stood up to every test.
There is somebody every year who believes he has proved Einstein wrong.
Relativity isn't wrong, it just isn't the whole picture.
That said, it's a pretty damn big picture.

From a brief look, he seems to be treating gravity as a Newtonian force rather than a warping of the pseudo-Riemennian manifold that is Spacetime.

popinfresh · 10-05-2005 03:58PM

hmm, you're from Mikado aren't you.

I posted the topic in 2 forums, tryin to see could I get different responses. A second opinion if you will

Son Goku · 10-05-2005 04:34PM

popinfresh wrote:

hmm, you're from Mikado aren't you.

I posted the topic in 2 forums, tryin to see could I get different responses. A second opinion if you will

Ah, sorry.
I frequent both.

planck2 · 20-05-2005 12:47PM

I'll give you a second opinion. I completely back Einstein, Son Goku and who ever else knows anything half way decent about Relativity theory

beller b · 20-05-2005 12:57PM

The thing about theroies is just because we don,t understand how to do something doesn,t mean it can,t be done... Years ago people thought you would die if you travelled faster than 25 mph then they said faster than sound was impossible.. So forgetting about the restrictions & limitations of our knowledge at present it is logical to presume it is possible, we just hav,nt figured out how to do it!
For example if you tried to explain the workings of the Internet & global communications to somebody 200 years ago would they have said it was impossible??

Son Goku · 20-05-2005 09:27PM

Years ago people thought you would die if you travelled faster than 25 mph then they said faster than sound was impossible

The first one was a popularised fear that wasn't held by biologists of the day.
Some people who didn't understand the mechanics of locomotive operation (the origin of this fear) thought that a locomotive at such speeds would shake you apart.
However a minority actually thought this.
As for the sound barrier, certain engineers at the time thought it was too difficult an engineering task for their time.

For example if you tried to explain the workings of the Internet & global communications to somebody 200 years ago would they have said it was impossible??
The thing about theroies is just because we don,t understand how to do something doesn,t mean it can,t be done

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.
The man whose hypothesis we are discussing believes that Einstein's mathematical model of the physical world is flawed in relation to the propagation of gravity, as well as other things.
This thread isn't about saying something can't be done.

amen · 24-05-2005 05:40PM

there are also some theories that suggeste that just becuase you can't travel at the speed of light(Einsten) there is nothing to stop you travelling faster than the speed of light

in fact the Start Treak (Original Series) insgina worn on the uniforms is something to do with the acceleration and exceeding light speed.
some hungarian physicsts proved it was possible

Son Goku · 24-05-2005 07:34PM

A Mexican physicist has provided a paper that establishes evidence that it may be possible.

It it hasn't been proven yet. In fact it is much closer to haven been disproven.

All suggested methods involve very unconventional energy conditions that mightn't be physically realisable.

planck2 · 25-05-2005 01:16PM

Son Goku wrote:

A Mexican physicist has provided a paper that establishes evidence that it may be possible.

It it hasn't been proven yet. In fact it is much closer to haven been disproven.

All suggested methods involve very unconventional energy conditions that mightn't be physically realisable.

You be able to provide a link to the paper or the name of the physicist. Thanks Son Goku. I wish the posters on this thread would be more careful. They are very quick to say ' Einstein was wrong' and yet they have no clue about what Einstein was talking about.

Son Goku · 25-05-2005 03:10PM

You be able to provide a link to the paper or the name of the physicist.

Absolutely.
Here is some links, I hope they are of use to you.
At the bottom of the wikipedia page there is a link to NASA's Advanced propulsion research which contains more papers on related topics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0107/0107097.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9907/9907019.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9707/9707024.pdf

planck2 · 25-05-2005 08:05PM

Thanks Son Goku

ISAW · 26-05-2005 11:36AM

beller b wrote:

The thing about theroies is just because we don,t understand how to do something doesn,t mean it can,t be done... Years ago people thought you would die if you travelled faster than 25 mph then they said faster than sound was impossible.. So forgetting about the restrictions & limitations of our knowledge at present it is logical to presume it is possible, we just hav,nt figured out how to do it!
For example if you tried to explain the workings of the Internet & global communications to somebody 200 years ago would they have said it was impossible??

the idea that science has the answer to everything and that just over the next hill or around the next bend that science has the answer to eternal life, eternal energy, making the universe last forever etc. is a form of scientism and is propesterous!

Science is not magic. Just because people in the middle ages said it was magic to fly and we subsequent developed technologies to do it does not mean anything can be done. After all a thousand years ago people knew that birds could fly. the laws of physics havent changed since then.

I should add that some philosophies of science suggest maybe there are no ultimate laws of physics and what relativity for example offers is a good approximation better even than Newtonian mechanics which is adequate to discribe much of what we see in the Universe anyway! So when you go on about Einstein being wrong what do you suggest the person suggesting is getting at? If you are trying to claim science is not suffiuecient for everything I am sure you will get no arguments on that here. However science is the best discription of how thinks work and how to solve problems related to that.

planck2 · 26-05-2005 01:52PM

ISAW wrote:

the idea that science has the answer to everything and that just over the next hill or around the next bend that science has the answer to eternal life, eternal energy, making the universe last forever etc. is a form of scientism and is propesterous!

Science is not magic. Just because people in the middle ages said it was magic to fly and we subsequent developed technologies to do it does not mean anything can be done. After all a thousand years ago people knew that birds could fly. the laws of physics havent changed since then.

I should add that some philosophies of science suggest maybe there are no ultimate laws of physics and what relativity for example offers is a good approximation better even than Newtonian mechanics which is adequate to discribe much of what we see in the Universe anyway! So when you go on about Einstein being wrong what do you suggest the person suggesting is getting at? If you are trying to claim science is not suffiuecient for everything I am sure you will get no arguments on that here. However science is the best discription of how thinks work and how to solve problems related to that.

From the above statement, I assume that the poster has little or no scientific education and is in fact talking through his pompous ass. Science does not currently hold the answer to all a life's little annoyances true (so quit whinning), but the fundamental belief of all human beings is that anything is possible.

As for your grossly misinformed and totally inaccurate statement that relativity is "merely" a better approximation to our Universe than Newtonian mechanics, I reply that relativity is the single greatest mathematical achievement of our time. This theory describes the beginning of the universe (something Newton believed on faith).

So leave the arguements on relativity and quantum mechanics to people who know what they are talking about!
Rat Bas(tard).

ecksor · 26-05-2005 04:18PM

He didn't say "merely" so I don't know why you're quoting that. As for your description of relativity, well, I'm not a physicist but I've yet to hear a mathematician describe relativity as a great mathematical achievement. Was there any new mathematics in his papers? Despite the dodgy pop science education that people will inevitably bring to a forum such as this I think the point about scientism is valid (although I'm not sure if it's relevant here). If you disagree then of course you should argue your point, but a phrase such as "pompous ass" didn't seem called for.

Son Goku · 26-05-2005 06:05PM

He didn't say "merely" so I don't know why you're quoting that. As for your description of relativity, well, I'm not a physicist but I've yet to hear a mathematician describe relativity as a great mathematical achievement.
Was there any new mathematics in his papers?

It is a great mathematical achievement in the sense that it is an internally consistent mathematical model of a large section of the physical world.
Regardless of whether there is new mathematics or not, it is certainly an mathematical achievement due to the inherent descriptive power of the mathematical relations contained within.

the idea that science has the answer to everything and that just over the next hill or around the next bend that science has the answer to eternal life, eternal energy, making the universe last forever etc. is a form of scientism and is preposterous!

First of all, biology might have the answer to, if not eternal, then extremely extended life.
Physics has already addressed the questions of "eternal energy" and what might cause the universe to not last forever.
I can guarantee you that science has addressed most questions you choose to come up with, in some form.

I should add that some philosophies of science suggest maybe there are no ultimate laws of physics and what relativity for example offers is a good approximation better even than Newtonian mechanics which is adequate to discribe much of what we see in the Universe anyway!

The thing is, there might be no ultimate laws of physics but equally there could.
I understand the train of thought, that since we keep coming up with better and better approximate descriptions of the physical world that this approximation will continue ad nauseum.
However it is equally likely that we might find the final "law" that describes the universe.

planck2 · 27-05-2005 02:34PM

In response to Ecksor, 'pompous ass' was unjustified.
Science never claimed to have the answers to everything.
Science can tell you why there is no such thing as eternal energy (cf Carnot's engine), enternal life that's a biological and ethical question.
Newton's laws are not adequate to describe the universe, to say it is is just a lie. One needs General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics or something better.
And I thing such questions like'was Eintsein wrong?' should be left to physicists and not to the general public and ther pop science education.

ISAW · 31-05-2005 03:16PM

planck2 wrote:

In response to Ecksor, 'pompous ass' was unjustified.

I know. but you only stated that in response to Ecksor. You insulted me but you did not address your apology to me.
I do not argue from authority. I do not claim that "i have more degrees in quantum physics than you do so you must be wroing".
If I stated something which is in error then please point out the error in my statements and not resort to personally attacking me.

your assertion that :

the poster has little or no scientific education and is in fact talking through his pompous ass.

Is an argument from authority. If you assert it proves I have little no scientific education then care to please show how you know this for a fact?

Furthermore if you assert that having more scientific education means you must be correct then you are again arguing from authority and I would add that that in itself holds an air of pompousity.

Finally I hope you do not use the same tone in attempting to teach anyone science. One would not get very far with such an attitude in training either primary teachers with little science or in secondary or tertiary teachers with science degrees.

Science never claimed to have the answers to everything.

Where did i claim it did? I gave a definition of scientism which I suggested prompted the original posters question

Science can tell you why there is no such thing as eternal energy (cf Carnot's engine),

If you are being axiomatic about entropy there are cosmologies which do not adhere to it. Indeed Fred Hoyle's (who no doubt had much more scientific training and experience than you) would have told you that he knew best

Joking aside it is not necessary to understand the equations relating to the Carnot engine in order to understand the principle of the second law of thermodynamics. Also, as far as I know most undergrad physicists would study the equations of the carnot cycle but might never reproduce them in a laboratory.

enternal life that's a biological and ethical question.

Not if the universe is not eternal. So are you with Hoyle after all?

Newton's laws are not adequate to describe the universe, to say it is is just a lie.

You are calling me a liar now! I didnt claim they were adequate to describe the universe. go back and look at the qualifying adjectival clause.

One needs General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics or something better.

But you are hoist on your own petard. GR or QM (or both) are not sufficient by your own admission. Even a synthesis into a Unified theory which still does not exist does not suffice.

And I thing such questions like'was Eintsein wrong?' should be left to physicists and not to the general public and ther pop science education.

And do you also think that politics should be left to politicans, Theology to theologians, economics to economists, genetics to geneticists? Your pythagorean dogmatism in the understanding of numbers only by those adept in the "occult" knowledge of the field seems not only pompous but scientism at its worst!

Now when you come to the likes of me to look for a budget for your new pet project will you tell the bugetary authority that you are a PI and know better about these things or will you try to justify the basis for scientific research?
Maybe we had better leave the justification to those "stupid uneducated people" who pay the "experts who know about their field"?

Finally I will address you personally. Talking down to people will not make a good impression on them whether you win or lose the argument. Personally attacking them (even if justified and in this case it isnt!) will alienate others also. Indirect one line qualified apologies only make things worse.

Son Goku · 31-05-2005 03:29PM

ISAW wrote:

And do you also think that politics should be left to politicans, Theology to theologians, economics to economists, genetics to geneticists? Your pythagorean dogmatism in the understanding of numbers only by those adept in the "occult" knowledge of the field seems not only pompous but scientism at its worst!

I can see why you'd say this, but I must say something in defence of planck2.

Very often people will read a pop-science book and think they understand General Relativity. The mathematics is necessary, absolutely necessary to understand it.

As I have said, you do not need a degree in physics to understand the mathematics, but you still need to understand the mathematics.
The majority of the people who do are physicists.

He is probably just tired of people attacking relativity on a pseudo-philosophical grounding rather than on a mathematical and physical one.

nesf · 31-05-2005 04:13PM

Son Goku wrote:

I can see why you'd say this, but I must say something in defence of planck2.

Very often people will read a pop-science book and think they understand General Relativity. The mathematics is necessary, absolutely necessary to understand it.

As I have said, you do not need a degree in physics to understand the mathematics, but you still need to understand the mathematics.
The majority of the people who do are physicists.

He is probably just tired of people attacking relativity on a pseudo-philosophical grounding rather than on a mathematical and physical one.

Good post. We had this argument (about pop-science vs reality) on the physics/chemistry board before.

I did think that plank2 overreacted though. Calling relativity a good approximation is accurate.

Physics is at best an approximation. You should know that plank2... Newton's "Laws" were a decent approximation of a very narrow section of reality, relativity is a much better approximation of a much bigger piece of reality.

Surely you can't argue with that?

ISAW · 31-05-2005 04:22PM

Son Goku wrote:

I can see why you'd say this, but I must say something in defence of planck2.

Good for you.

He is probably just tired of people attacking relativity on a pseudo-philosophical grounding rather than on a mathematical and physical one.

If he is I am sure he can state that.

If you read what I wrote you will see I didnt attack GR or any other scientific theory which was almost good enough to describe what we see.

I was pointing to the idea of someone claiming "Einstein was wrong". Whatever do they mean? I was suggesting they sometimes come from the "science is evil " or "science is not sufficient" camp and encounter "science is everything" people when they attack science.

As regards Einstein I personally believe it was his original insight into insisting on sticking with the two postulates for Special Relativity which was his breakthrough. I believed he also believed that. I think his philoshphical insight far outstripped his ability as a mathematician. If you think that is not a fair comment them please show me how so.

To me to suggest one can not comprehend the "beauty" of GR without being able to do second order differentials is a bit like suggesting that one can not contemplate the interactions within a star without being able to understand electrodynamic equations associated with them.

Talliesin · 31-05-2005 04:22PM

Well, it's not like the dignified thing for a scientist who comes to conclusions differing from those of Einstein is to say "Ha, Einstein pwn3d. I R teh win! J00 are lamma!!!!11!!one!!".

Maybe in private, just once or twice.

nesf · 31-05-2005 04:43PM

ISAW wrote:

To me to suggest one can not comprehend the "beauty" of GR without being able to do second order differentials is a bit like suggesting that one can not contemplate the interactions within a star without being able to understand electrodynamic equations associated with them.

Ehm. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than second order differentials to be fair mate.

Most people who do a degree in physics or a PhD never do a "full treatment" of it unless they are looking to specialise in it.

It's more that it isn't something that can be explained in an easy palatable way in maths, nevermind in English. There is an awful lot of subtlety to the topic and it is not something that can be "comprehended" over a short period of time.

It's not elitism. It genuinely is a horribly complex subject. Just like Quantum.

Edit: Just to reassure you mate. I don't consider myself as having a good grasp of general relativity to be honest. I've never had the time to devote to the topic, and it is a topic you need to devote a lot of time to. It's not something that studying physics automatically grants you. It doesn't work like that.

ISAW · 31-05-2005 05:27PM

nesf wrote:

Ehm. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than second order differentials to be fair mate.

Most people who do a degree in physics or a PhD never do a "full treatment" of it unless they are looking to specialise in it.

Okay how about Fermat's last Theorem? The proof had to be broken down into I believe six parts and sent to six different groups of mathematicians to look at each part. this was not to keep anything secret but because it was so long. Now I think anyone could understand the problem. Not many people have even read some part of the proof. It isnt something that one would do of an afternoon. But people can appreciate the problem and the proof. Indeed people can look into the principles behind it without having to do the mathematics. I dont think the idea that "you have to know all the mathematics" applies in that case. Does it? If not then how can it apply in GR?

nesf · 31-05-2005 05:45PM

ISAW wrote:

Okay how about Fermat's last Theorem? The proof had to be broken down into I believe six parts and sent to six different groups of mathematicians to look at each part. this was not to keep anything secret but because it was so long. Now I think anyone could understand the problem. Not many people have even read some part of the proof. It isnt something that one would do of an afternoon. But people can appreciate the problem and the proof. Indeed people can look into the principles behind it without having to do the mathematics. I dont think the idea that "you have to know all the mathematics" applies in that case. Does it? If not then how can it apply in GR?

Fermat's last theorem is unique in that it is an extremely complex problem whose basic premise can be understood by anybody who's done any level of basic algebra.

It's an exception to the rule. It doesn't invalidate it.

Also Fermat's Last theorem is a very simple question. General Relativity doesn't have a simple beginning. You first need to fully grasp mechanics, then see where that is lacking, then grasp special relativity and see where that is lacking and finally you know where to begin with general relativity.

Yes there are parts of it that are quite accessable. But to debate it's validity as a theory one would need to have a full grasp of the theory not just have a few "choice bits" of explanation of some parts that are easy to grasp.

Do you know what I mean?

Son Goku · 31-05-2005 08:24PM

ISAW wrote:

As regards Einstein I personally believe it was his original insight into insisting on sticking with the two postulates for Special Relativity which was his breakthrough. I believed he also believed that. I think his philoshphical insight far outstripped his ability as a mathematician.

It was a physical insight, not a philosophical insight.

ISAW wrote:

To me to suggest one can not comprehend the "beauty" of GR without being able to do second order differentials is a bit like suggesting that one can not contemplate the interactions within a star without being able to understand electrodynamic equations associated with them.

General Relativity deals with spacetime as a self-contained manifold. Which can contort in a manner our language never evolved to deal with.

The reason the equations must be known is that no language can convey the relations and ideas directly or even that well indirectly.

Okay how about Fermat's last Theorem?

Fermat's Last Theorem can be simply understood, it's proof however can not.

planck2 · 01-06-2005 12:21PM

ISAW wrote:

I know. but you only stated that in response to Ecksor. You insulted me but you did not address your apology to me.
I do not argue from authority. I do not claim that "i have more degrees in quantum physics than you do so you must be wroing".
If I stated something which is in error then please point out the error in my statements and not resort to personally attacking me.

your assertion that :

Is an argument from authority. If you assert it proves I have little no scientific education then care to please show how you know this for a fact?

Furthermore if you assert that having more scientific education means you must be correct then you are again arguing from authority and I would add that that in itself holds an air of pompousity.

Finally I hope you do not use the same tone in attempting to teach anyone science. One would not get very far with such an attitude in training either primary teachers with little science or in secondary or tertiary teachers with science degrees.

Where did i claim it did? I gave a definition of scientism which I suggested prompted the original posters question

If you are being axiomatic about entropy there are cosmologies which do not adhere to it. Indeed Fred Hoyle's (who no doubt had much more scientific training and experience than you) would have told you that he knew best

Joking aside it is not necessary to understand the equations relating to the Carnot engine in order to understand the principle of the second law of thermodynamics. Also, as far as I know most undergrad physicists would study the equations of the carnot cycle but might never reproduce them in a laboratory.

Not if the universe is not eternal. So are you with Hoyle after all?

You are calling me a liar now! I didnt claim they were adequate to describe the universe. go back and look at the qualifying adjectival clause.

But you are hoist on your own petard. GR or QM (or both) are not sufficient by your own admission. Even a synthesis into a Unified theory which still does not exist does not suffice.

And do you also think that politics should be left to politicans, Theology to theologians, economics to economists, genetics to geneticists? Your pythagorean dogmatism in the understanding of numbers only by those adept in the "occult" knowledge of the field seems not only pompous but scientism at its worst!

Now when you come to the likes of me to look for a budget for your new pet project will you tell the bugetary authority that you are a PI and know better about these things or will you try to justify the basis for scientific research?
Maybe we had better leave the justification to those "stupid uneducated people" who pay the "experts who know about their field"?

Finally I will address you personally. Talking down to people will not make a good impression on them whether you win or lose the argument. Personally attacking them (even if justified and in this case it isnt!) will alienate others also. Indirect one line qualified apologies only make things worse.

I apologise to you( ISAW), some of statements were wrong and insulting. I am sorry for insulting you. I'm sure you do have some science education. And I do agree with your last statement in your above post.

Having some science education does give one a little authority when it comes to dealing with scientific matters, but it does not mean that you are going to be correct, there is after all a higher chance of being correct if one does.

No you didn't say science had all the answers, in fact you said the opposite.

In response to the Fred Hoyle comment, there maybe cosmologies which do not adhere to entropy, but these are just plain wrong as I'm sure you are aware. And by the time I'm Fred Hoyles age, I'll have a lot more experience than him and probably be better qualified to talk on these subjects than he is.

[/Quote]
I should add that some philosophies of science suggest maybe there are no ultimate laws of physics and what relativity for example offers is a good approximation better even than Newtonian mechanics which is adequate to discribe much of what we see in the Universe anyway![/Quote]

The way I read that statement suggested to me that you were implying Newton's laws were adequate to describe much of what we see. So if I read it wrong I am sorry, but I stand by the statement that anyone who says Newton's laws are adequate is just plain and such a statement is clearly a lie.

In regard to leaving politics to the politicians, you know as well as I do that politics is for everyone, deciding economic policies such be given due care and attention not just by the economists. People can have opinions on anything they want, but are you telling me that those of us who have had years of training in certain fields such sit and twiddle our thumbs when people start talking about things which they have some understanding of, but in reality don't really have much more than that. It is not Pythagorean dogmatism or scientism at its worst, it is plain fact that those who have study subjects for years know a little more than most about it.

And in regard to funding pet projects can anyone justify studying astrophysics or general relativity.

And what do you mean hoist on own charge, GR and QM do fairly well, but neither are even close to being able to describe the universe and this includes most current theories.

planck2 · 01-06-2005 12:24PM

nesf wrote:

Good post. We had this argument (about pop-science vs reality) on the physics/chemistry board before.

I did think that plank2 overreacted though. Calling relativity a good approximation is accurate.

Physics is at best an approximation. You should know that plank2... Newton's "Laws" were a decent approximation of a very narrow section of reality, relativity is a much better approximation of a much bigger piece of reality.

Surely you can't argue with that?

Yes Newton's laws are a good approximation, provided the space-time is approximately Minkowskian

planck2 · 01-06-2005 12:34PM

[/Qoute]He is probably just tired of people attacking relativity on a pseudo-philosophical grounding rather than on a mathematical and physical one.[/Qoute]

Yes I am tired of it, I know something of relativity, not as much as I would like, but I don't have time for people who start talking about GR or QM when they haven't really studied them.

[/Quote]I was pointing to the idea of someone claiming "Einstein was wrong". Whatever do they mean? I was suggesting they sometimes come from the "science is evil " or "science is not sufficient" camp and encounter "science is everything" people when they attack science.
[/Quote]

Yes ISAW this exactly what I was getting at many who claim Einstein was wrong don't know what they are talking about this is why I said such things should be left to scientists

ecksor · 01-06-2005 03:50PM

If you don't have time for those people then you don't actually have to post here. You're just being rude and contributing nothing.

planck2 · 01-06-2005 04:39PM

I'm not rude tbh. I'll try and put people on the right track, but if they want to continue with their misheld opinions am I not entitled to get annoyed?

Was Einstein Wrong??

Comments