So If Einstein Was Wrong...

[Da Blob]

what difference could it possibly make in daily life?

A pair of mathematicians -- one from Indiana University and the other from Sichuan University in China -- have proposed a unified theory of dark matter and dark energy that alters Einstein's equations describing the fundamentals of gravity.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...ergy-alters-einsteins-view-of-spacetime-.html

 

[Architect]

No GR is not wrong. We've verified it's predictions experimentally to a high degree of precision. If these guys have got something - which they probably don't - then that will be a refinement of GR. Just as GR refined Newtonian gravity (though by a LOT in that case). We're all expecting that GR and QM will be refined, as the two don't play well together. I'd be surprised that a couple of mathematicians did it though.

Personally I suspect Dark Matter doesn't exist, but it's a hole in our theories. It's too much like a rug you sweep stuff under. "Wheres the missing mass?" "Oh yeah, that must be Dark Matter, you know, we matter we're just not detecting".

The other possibility is that our estimates of the mass of the universe are way off for some presently unknown reason. So there is Dark Matter, but it's not Dark (except to us presently).

 

[defghi]

It's a bit of a stretch to say this would make Einstein "wrong". These mathematicians are working with different data than was available to Einstein, data that is only available today because of Einstein's theories. It's not about absolute truths of right and wrong, it's about a progression of knowledge, and it would be incredible if we are taking another step along that path.

As for what difference it could make.. we better understand our world. What more could one possibly want?

 

[Da Blob]

I am of the opinion that perhaps the greatest Joke is the one being played upon mathematicians.

The universe simply does not add up.

It does not submit to any human scale or bow to any human numerical constraint.

 

[defghi]

Then how is it we're able to create things, such as the computer you're posting from, based on human numerical constraints?


I know, I know, responding to obvious trollbait, blahblah

 

[Etheri]

No GR is not wrong. We've verified it's predictions experimentally to a high degree of precision. If these guys have got something - which they probably don't - then that will be a refinement of GR. Just as GR refined Newtonian gravity (though by a LOT in that case). We're all expecting that GR and QM will be refined, as the two don't play well together.

This. We KNOW the theories need refinement. In that sense we already know they are 'wrong'. But in all honesty, refinement =/= wrong.
Just because einstein described the world better than newton, doesn't mean newton was any less genius.

I am of the opinion that perhaps the greatest Joke is the one being played upon mathematicians.

The universe simply does not add up.

It does not submit to any human scale or bow to any human numerical constraint.

Actually, most of the universe does simply add up. Hell, i'd say GR is one of the major cases in which things have been proven not to be lineair nor superposable whatsoever. The ammount of cases in which simple vector representations and the superposition of these is enough to describe reality to great accuracy is astonishing.

 

[Vrecknidj]

This is a handy little summary of Dark Energy and Dark Matter (or, appropriately, it is a nice little summary of what we're pretty sure they aren't).

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

What the mathematicians have dreamed up (and I applaud them for it, we need big ideas to make progress in cosmology and similar fields), seems to be an attempt to resolve a bunch of related problems in physics all in one swoop.

I agree with Architect regarding the nature of inter-theoretic reduction rather than replacement. Einstein didn't show that Newton was wrong; Einstein showed that Newton's expressions didn't account for everything -- that there was more to the universe than Newton had assumed, and so Newton's equations had a more limited scope of application than he'd thought.

If this business about Dark Energy and Dark Matter and the composition of the universe being mostly not normal matter is correct, then Einstein's own theories, which mostly address normal matter, energy, space and time, might not apply as fully to parts of the universe that were outside his field of vision at the time.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I'm going to have to agree with the sentiment that Einstein's theory of general relativity can be refined and added on to, but at this point it's highly unlikely that his theory is completely wrong. E=mc2 was confirmed to be absolutely solid a few years back using the world's largest super computer. So his theory of matter and energy exchange as well as the constance of the speed of light is about as close to being proven as any theory can be. We have observed Einstein's theories at work in nature countless times.

That being said, I think the article you've posted is very interesting. I look forward to seeing if this theory pans out, it would be another great step toward understanding the universe.

 

[scorpiomover]

No GR is not wrong. We've verified it's predictions experimentally to a high degree of precision. If these guys have got something - which they probably don't - then that will be a refinement of GR. Just as GR refined Newtonian gravity (though by a LOT in that case). We're all expecting that GR and QM will be refined, as the two don't play well together.

I agree.

I'd like to see people take the same attitude to other topics. But then, I often don't get everything I want. Why should this be different?

I'd be surprised that a couple of mathematicians did it though.

Why? Because physicsts are smarter?

I also have doubts about such theories, but mainly because while evidence is aplently, in the last 150 years, the major breakthroughs like this, have come from someone sitting down trying to marry 2 different known sets of equations, and in the process, realise that our science has been based on certain assumptions, like that space HAS to be Euclidean. Once the equations were recalculated without said assumptions, then the new equations made strange predictions of new entities that no-one had thought could exist, that turned out to be real, and found repeatedly by experiment, and the equations themselves turned out to be far more accurate than the previous equations.

That being said, I suspect that it depends on how they've developed these new equations. If they have simply asked the question "What if not all energy and not all matter is positive?" and recalculated Einstein's equations, allowing for the possibility that some matter is negative and some energy is negative, then we'll find one of 2 things:
1) All matter and all energy is positive anyway, just like we assumed. Then their equations would be as accurate than Einstein's, but no more, and no less, either.
2) Some matter and some energy is negative, and a substantial enough amount of that, that there is a detectable difference in our experimental results. Then their equations would be more accurate than Einstein's.

However, if this is just pure guesswork, someone just trying to come up with a way to make themselves into another Einstein, then it'll probably come to nothing.

 

[s0cratus]

1
Dark Energy may be Vacuum
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php
2
And dark matter may be matter of Dirac’s virtual particles.
==.

 

[Architect]

Why? Because physicsts are smarter?

Why would you think that was what I meant? No, because they're working out of their field. Doing physics work is quite different from doing math.

I also have doubts about such theories, but mainly because while evidence is aplently, in the last 150 years, the major breakthroughs like this, have come from someone sitting down trying to marry 2 different known sets of equations, and in the process, realise that our science has been based on certain assumptions,

What is this based on? The major breakthroughs in the last 150 years are the discovery of the genome, GR, QM, and what else? None of those discoveries were based on trying to marry two different sets of equations.

 

[Proletar]

I am of the opinion that perhaps the greatest Joke is the one being played upon mathematicians.

The universe simply does not add up.

It does not submit to any human scale or bow to any human numerical constraint.

Well what's the alternative? You being non-existant and ponder about how perfectly logical it is for you to not exist?


We've been over this before. To ask the question of life, there has to be life. This transforms the posed argument from "the universe is [X]" into "intelligent life is an entity that questions it's existance.".

 

[scorpiomover]

Why would you think that was what I meant? No, because they're working out of their field. Doing physics work is quite different from doing math.

Doing experimental physics is quite different from doing maths. Theoretical physics is all covered in applied maths.

What is this based on? The major breakthroughs in the last 150 years are the discovery of the genome, GR, QM, and what else?

GR is almost all maths. So is QM. So is Turing's computational theory, Boolean logic, and most of programming.

The human genome project suggests, by its name, that it has great potential at the mo. But so far, it's yet to produce treatmentst that have caused the far-reaching effects of something like the polio vaccine, let alone the smallpox vaccine.

None of those discoveries were based on trying to marry two different sets of equations.

Maxwell's development of electro-magnetism, which was the basis for the discovery of, and the understanding of, electro-magnetic waves, which includes all radio waves, all X-rays, all gamma rays, all infra-red waves. This accounts for a number of medical treatments, all radio, CB, and TV communications, all mobile phone signals, all GPS, all wireless. Oh, and microwave ovens, and lasers.

Dirac's development of the Dirac equation to marry Special Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, which accounts for the existence of anti-matter, the Dirac Sea, and a single and complete description of the behaviour of an electron.

 

[Architect]

Doing experimental physics is quite different from doing maths. Theoretical physics is all covered in applied maths.

Not when I went to graduate school in physics. Applied maths - mathematics you mean, is a sub field that usually doesn't even have a department.

GR is almost all maths. So is QM. So is Turing's computational theory, Boolean logic, and most of programming.

Then why do physicists, including theoreticians, take no upper division math courses? Why is the only advanced math course I took a one semester "Advanced math for physicists" class, which mathematicians would laugh at. It was a hodge podge of tools and techniques, as it should be. As a physicist you bone up on math to whatever degree you need, in whatever speciality you need.

Doing theoretical physics is far more about knowing existing physics - theoretical and physical, than it is about math. A mathematician could not have the time to be familiar with the latest Phys Rev letters, not to mention the existing body of work. Of course there is the networking aspect too, conferences, etc.

Ultimately physicists - including theoreticians - use math as a tool. Nothing more or less. If they don't have the expertise in some aspect the consult or collaborate with a mathematician, as Einstein did when he needed Tensor calculus for GR.

Sorry but your view is simply incorrect. Easy to get however, since when you study physics from the outside all you see is math, but that (along with English) is simply the language used to communicate ideas.

 

[Da Blob]

While I admire the attempts to do so, when made in a sincere effort to understand, I really doubt that humanity has the perspective to answer all of the questions it is able to ask. This is due to a lack of perspectives available to us. We are limited to merely human perspective of the Inside of the Box, that is our universe.

Why attempt to put a puzzle together, if one knows that there are pieces missing? Why play with equations with missing factors, replaced by mere assumptions?

I really think the only valid theories are those without assumptions or ones with a single assumption as a dependent variable. A single IF removes a statement from the realm of the real to the realm of the fantastic. That is to say, the use of the word, IF, signals a hypothetical situation, a mere speculation.

As far as adding up the universe, I am of the opinion that the Whole exceeds the sum of its parts and there will never be a way to quantify the qualities known to exist in the universe.

 

[Absurdity]

While I admire the attempts to do so, when made in a sincere effort to understand, I really doubt that humanity has the perspective to answer all of the questions it is able to ask. This is due to a lack of perspectives available to us. We are limited to merely human perspective of the Inside of the Box, that is our universe.

Why attempt to put a puzzle together, if one knows that there are pieces missing? Why play with equations with missing factors, replaced by mere assumptions?

I really think the only valid theories are those without assumptions or ones with a single assumption as a dependent variable. A single IF removes a statement from the realm of the real to the realm of the fantastic. That is to say, the use of the word, IF, signals a hypothetical situation, a mere speculation.

As far as adding up the universe, I am of the opinion that the Whole exceeds the sum of its parts and there will never be a way to quantify the qualities known to exist in the universe.

Had Blob been born four hundred fifty years ago he would have probably been among the Inquisitors at Galileo's heresy trial.

 

[kora]

Why attempt to put a puzzle together, if one knows that there are pieces missing? Why play with equations with missing factors, replaced by mere assumptions?

Better than just sitting and staring at the pieces whilst doing nothing...

 

[Da Blob]

Sorry, don't mean to derail this thread.

However, it seems as though so many ignore the tremendous Monsters-Under-The-Bed, that assumptions represent, - mere 'givens' that make hypotheticals possible and seemingly feasible.

Perhaps the grossest assumption made by too many leaders, (whether it be religious, scientific or political leaders) is the assumption that humans have the capacity to know everything. Too often fact has been discounted in favor of the assumptions held by these Know-It-Alls.

At least in engineering or other applied science, if an assumption is false then that which was built using that assumption will fail to work as designed. This is not the case in other areas of 'science' or knowledge, whereby Popper's quality of falsifiability can never be tested. Mathematics is just another fallible human language, a bunch of symbols, that isolated as just symbols can't prove anything. It is only when that represented by certain symbols is manipulated in reality, become falsifiable, that mathematical equations acquire meaning.

 

[s0cratus]

We are setting limits on things ( for example: c=1, T=0K )
that we don’t have a clue about.
From these two parameters (c=1, T=0K ) was started
all modern speculations in Physics ( SRT, QT, GRT ).

==..

 

[s0cratus]

Our Modern Scientific Philosophy.
=.
The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton.
Question.
Where did electron and proton come from?
Answer.
Electron and proton came from big bang.
Question.
Where the did big bang come from?
Answer.
The big bang was created when all electrons and protons
and all another particles were pressed into a singular point.
==..
If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are ignorant man.
=.

 

[defghi]

Our Modern Scientific Philosophy.
=.
The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton.
Question.
Where did electron and proton come from?
Answer.
Electron and proton came from big bang.
Question.
Where the did big bang come from?
Answer.
The big bang was created when all electrons and protons
and all another particles were pressed into a singular point.
==..
If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are ignorant man.
=.

This is one specific scientific theory, not scientific philosophy.

Scientific philosophy is, essentially, that claims must be supported by evidence, and requires no sort of belief at all. It does indeed take an ignorant man to deny that.

As far as the aforementioned theory, yes that is what the evidence says, until and unless better evidence comes to light. Though it may be more accurate to say all matter and energy were pressed into a singular point- there was no such thing as protons or electrons at that time.

This may be what you were saying, but it seemed misworded to me.

 

[Vrecknidj]

From at least one point of view, the Big Bang was logically prior, physically prior, and perhaps even causally prior to electrons and protons (and, more deeply, fermions and bosons). Heck, from a certain point of view, the Big Bang is prior to laws of nature.

But, those themselves are points of view. And, frankly, for now anyway, axiomatic ones. At some point, we always get back to unprovable axioms and when we do, we've left physics and entered metaphysics, and we're done using empirical means for justification and verification. (Not that that's a problem, but, it should be pointed out for anyone who might otherwise be misled.)

Dave

 

[defghi]

But, those themselves are points of view. And, frankly, for now anyway, axiomatic ones. At some point, we always get back to unprovable axioms and when we do, we've left physics and entered metaphysics, and we're done using empirical means for justification and verification. (Not that that's a problem, but, it should be pointed out for anyone who might otherwise be misled.)

Dave

This is very accurate, and I would like to mention (to others, not necessarily to you) that these unprovable axioms are not the base of our knowledge, they are the limits of our knowledge.

 

[Da Blob]

It seems obvious to me, that the limits to human science is humans, themselves. What true science of Mankind could exist before mankind did?

How can rational people make these bold claims about what would be observed in the Distant Past, not even knowing if observation was even possible in that time?


For example, How could an observation of the Big Bang even be made, what elaborate structure could provide the POV for such an observation and who could be that which observed?

When was the first 'scientific' observation of this universe made possible? What was observed and who observed it?

 

[defghi]

It seems obvious to me, that the limits to human science is humans, themselves. What true science of Mankind could exist before mankind did?

How can rational people make these bold claims about what would be observed in the Distant Past, not even knowing if observation was even possible in that time?


For example, How could an observation of the Big Bang even be made, what elaborate structure could provide the POV for such an observation and who could be that which observed?

When was the first 'scientific' observation of this universe made possible? What was observed and who observed it?

Direct observation of the distant past is possible right now. A galaxy we see 3 billion light-years away, is a galaxy which existed in that state 3 billion years ago.

An observation of the Big Bang could be (has been) made by looking at the Cosmic Microwave Background. A radio telescope provides the POV and people observe.

It's impossible to say an exact person or time that was the first "knowledge", but it's also unnecessary. I think if I had to name one, I would name Pythagoras, 2500 years ago, because this was the first time we know of that the concept of things occurring due to "natural law", rather than "the rain god", was understood. It is only the most recent millennium, and really the last 500 years, that has seen the driving philosophy of the world shift to the scientific method of finding natural laws and supporting them with evidence.

Feel free to be amazed, as I constantly am, at what mankind has accomplished in the last 500 years, after the previous two to four hundred thousand years of human existence without the scientific method.