Einstein again ?

[Hal.]

Why is Einstein's Theory of Relativity not a Law of Relativity ? I hope the answer to this is fact based enough not to be speculative , thus keeping at bay the wrath of the higher powers that be .

[swansont]

Scientific laws are generally simple mathematical relationships. Theories encompass more, as does the theory of relativity.

[Hal.]

And Swansont , Is the theory of relativity proven ?

[swansont]

And Swansont , Is the theory of relativity proven ?

 

Not in the mathematical sense, no. Science is inductive. Relativity is well-established. Informally, though, it would not be wrong to say that it is proven (within some limits of application).

[DrRocket]

And Swansont , Is the theory of relativity proven ?

 

Proof applies to mathematics, not science.

 

Relativity is supported by a mountain of experimental and observational evidence. But general relativity is also known to be incompatible with quantum mechanics, which is also supported by a large body of evidence. Either or both will probably eventually be supplanted by a theory that will refine and extend both.

[zapatos]

A scientific theory is a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions. Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. The "theory of evolution" is the framework that best explains observed changes of species over time and best predicts the new observations that continue to be made in evolutionary biology and related sciences.

 

The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a hypothesis, a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. However, In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A theory is hypothesis corroborated by observation of facts which makes testable predictions. In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

 

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[1]

 

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

 

Hypothesis

 

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

 

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

 

Theory

 

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

 

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

 

 

Law

 

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

 

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

 

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

 

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

[steevey]

Because the fabric of space-time is not proven to exist. Scientists have not found a medium for light and gravity and other forces, so until then, a lot of Einstein's theories are purely mathematical descriptions, as in they only describe how the math works. Gravity get stronger by the square of the distance (inverse of gravitational strength at distance?) as you get closer to a mass emanating gravity, so it would only make complete sense that in a 2D plane it would 3D bend by an ever increasing amount as you got closer to the source.

Edited April 19, 2011 by steevey

[swansont]

Because the fabric of space-time is not proven to exist. Scientists have not found a medium for light and gravity and other forces, so until then, a lot of Einstein's theories are purely mathematical descriptions, as in they only describe how the math works. Gravity get stronger by the square of the distance (inverse of gravitational strength at distance?) as you get closer to a mass emanating gravity, so it would only make complete sense that in a 2D plane it would 3D bend by an ever increasing amount as you got closer to the source.

 

Relativity implies that there is no medium, and there is ample evidence in support of them. Regardless, there will never be a law of relativity.

[keelanz]

Not in the mathematical sense, no. Science is inductive. Relativity is well-established. Informally, though, it would not be wrong to say that it is proven (within some limits of application).

 

logically it could be proven, logical manipulation/simulation of physical machines can prove scientific theory's relative to each other, so scientific facts? fairly sure we cant physically create anything quite powerful enough too map the whole of relativity yet, but theoretically its as possible as e=mc^2, you love it.

[swansont]

logically it could be proven, logical manipulation/simulation of physical machines can prove scientific theory's relative to each other, so scientific facts? fairly sure we cant physically create anything quite powerful enough too map the whole of relativity yet, but theoretically its as possible as e=mc^2, you love it.

 

It's based on the premise that c is a constant in an inertial frame. One can prove, based on that premise, that length contraction and time dilation exist and that E = mc^2, etc. From that you create an internally consistent model. But we have no way of knowing if that premise is true, i.e. that it reflects how nature behaves; the only way of checking is by experimentation. There are a lot of models that are internally consistent but are wrong because they disagree with experiment.