Is Relativity 100% proven to all professional scientists satisfaction?

[Hazel M]

This is the kind of question someone would ask who does not understand enough about the topic - e.g. Me. Nevertheless, the question is sincere. Have all of Einstein's theories about relativity been proven to the satisfaction of all professional scientists? In other words, does everyone who thoroughly understands what Einstein is saying and is able to test his theories agree with him? Or are there scientists who have other theories that contradict Einstein? Thanks.

[xyzt]

This is the kind of question someone would ask who does not understand enough about the topic - e.g. Me. Nevertheless, the question is sincere. Have all of Einstein's theories about relativity been proven to the satisfaction of all professional scientists? In other words, does everyone who thoroughly understands what Einstein is saying and is able to test his theories agree with him?

Yes.

 

 

 

Or are there scientists who have other theories that contradict Einstein? Thanks.

 

No.

[Delta1212]

That's not really how science works. We don't have proof, we have evidence. And most evidence comes from trying to disprove something and failing.

 

So there are plenty of people who spend time working with relativity trying to come up with tests that could, depending on the result, disprove it in some way, or at least find the boundaries. So far, relativity has passed all such tests, and there have been many. As such, we know the domain in which relativity is applicable, and in that domain it is generally accepted as being highly accurate.

 

In the other hand, one of our other most well tested and useful theories describes the realm of quantum mechanics. QM and General Relativity aren't compatible. In their respective domains, they've both proven extremely accurate, but reconciling them is something of an on-going concern.

 

It's also important to remember that even if, in the future, something overturns relativity, it will still have to approximate the results with the same degree of accuracy in the domain in which relativity has been thoroughly tested, in the same way that we know Newtonian mechanics is wrong because we've run tests that falsify it, but if you use it for every day calculations you aren't even going to be able to detect the margin of error because it doesn't exist for all practical purposes for the domain in which Newtonian mechanics applied.

[Strange]

The only points of disagreement are on things like what will happen when we are able to come up with a theory of quantum gravity, what the implications are for the history and fate of the universe, and other speculative ideas.

[Hazel M]

Thank you. I just wondered. I know it is part of a scientist's job to try to confirm someone else's theory or show why it doesn't work out.

I suppose the difference in meaning of words is important to the scientist. Well, should be important to all of us. But I don't want to start a semantics debate. The way I am using the word, "proof" means, in part, to have evidence. I only wanted to know if there are any who have serious doubts about the theories. Evidently not. Thanks.

[Sensei]

We need to multiply measured mass of galaxy by ~500% (and call it dark matter) to match Newtons & General Relativity predictions.

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

 

"Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community, some alternative theories of gravity have been proposed, such as MOND and TeVeS, which try to account for the anomalous observations without requiring additional matter."

 

You should also read this article

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

Edited June 23, 2014 by Sensei

[Strange]

Thank you. I just wondered. I know it is part of a scientist's job to try to confirm someone else's theory or show why it doesn't work out.

 

It is important to note that scientists are continually coming up with new experiments and observations to test the theory. The important point here is that "test" means, try and find something that shows it doesn't work. (After all, that is the way to Nobel Prizes, etc.) So far, every test has been consistent with the theory within experimental error. And some of those experiments are just ludicrously precise (like 1 part in 10^-36 if memory serves).

[studiot]

+1 for an honest question, honestly put.

 

The first measurements contrary to the accepted science of the day led Einstein to his theories.

 

He subsequently made several changes (refinements ?) to particularly the General Theory, in the light of later measurements.

 

Both his theories also yielded predictions that were tested and found accurate. In fact, no one has ever found measurements contrary to the final versions.

 

However it is also true that there are other more complicated potential explanations that also fit the known facts.

During the last century there were even more competing theories but several failed as a result of some new measurement.

 

There is a fascinating book just out by the Professor of Astrophysics at Oxford University that charts the history of relativity.

 

The Perfect Theory

 

Pedro F Ferreira

[CharonY]

Thank you. I just wondered. I know it is part of a scientist's job to try to confirm someone else's theory or show why it doesn't work out.

 

 

Actually, it is not even that. The job is typically to disprove something. If repeated attempts fail to disprove something, we kind of confirm it (until someone gets a better idea to approach it). In other words, we confirm something by disproving alternative hypotheses.

[Delta1212]

Science is really the business of trying to come up with better theories than the ones we have. When we get a theory that a lot of people fail to best, it becomes the accepted benchmark for what new hypotheses need to be tested against until and unless we can come up with one that beats it.

 

It also becomes generally accepted as working within the range that it has been tested. This is why, again, we still teach Newtonian mechanics because, despite the fact that we've discovered the universe doesn't actually follow the assumptions used to formulate Newtonian mechanics, the math still works really, really well when used for the types of problems it was originally formulated to address.

 

Relativity and QM just work for a broad range of situations where classical mechanics begins to break down because they passed new tests where it failed.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Delta1212

[KenBrace]

Nothing in science is EVER 100% proven.

[swansont]

There are credentialed scientists who do not accept relativity. They are generally considered crackpots, as the evidence is overwhelmingly in agreement. But all science is like this. One would be hard-pressed to find a topic where someone didn't have some sort of disagreement with it. However, one could argue that that these people don't thoroughly understand the topic. (That's certainly true of the sort of amateur anti-relativity cranks that have appeared here)

 

There are also alternatives to relativity that have been championed. They all have failed to garner the kind of experimental agreement that relativity has. Many of them solve a specific issue and then fail spectacularly in other applications.

[xyzt]

Nothing in science is EVER 100% proven.

Actually this is not correct:

 

1. In math, the proofs are 100%. There is no such thing as a 93% proof. It is either proved or not.

2. In physics, theories are not proven at all, they can only be disproven. Experimentally.

[ajb]

The key point here is that every direct and indirect test of special and general relativity has shown them to be a good theory well in agreement with nature.

[Ophiolite]

Have all of Einstein's theories about relativity been proven to the satisfaction of all professional scientists?

The main point seems to have been adequately dealt with, so let's add an aside.

 

The majority of professional scientists couldn't give a damn about relativity since it does not impinge upon their specialty. Biochemists, palaeontologists, microbiologists, ethologists, zoologists, geologists, et cetera, et cetra. Not an application of relativity in sight and total indifference on a professional level.

[Strange]

The majority of professional scientists couldn't give a damn about relativity since it does not impinge upon their specialty. Biochemists, palaeontologists, microbiologists, ethologists, zoologists, geologists, et cetera, et cetra. Not an application of relativity in sight and total indifference on a professional level.

 

Although a lot of them depend on GPS working correctly.

[Hazel M]

I thank you all. So, Einstein is right and no one is going to support my disbelief. As I indicated at the start, those of us who do not understand something will look for an "out". I do know better than to preach that, though. I shall just carry on. Maybe some day I'll get it. Again, thanks.

[Delta1212]

You could always ask for help with getting it. The people on this site are a pretty good resource learning if you're struggling with something.

[Hazel M]

You could always ask for help with getting it. The people on this site are a pretty good resource learning if you're struggling with something.

True. But first, you have to know what to ask. If I started on Einstein, I'd go on so long and get so convoluted that Science Forum would shut me down. Patience.

[ajb]

If I started on Einstein, I'd go on so long and get so convoluted that Science Forum would shut me down. Patience.

 

 

If you have some experimental evidence, or some mathematical proof of some inconsistancy in the formulation then it should be published. If you have some philosophical argument then it is less likley to be considered important. Even worse would be if your argument is just based on misuderstanding.

 

Just about all "anti-relativity" is based on philosophy and/or misunderstanding. I have not come across any serious attack on relativity taking into acount the domain of validity, experimental errors and so on.

[Delta1212]

True. But first, you have to know what to ask. If I started on Einstein, I'd go on so long and get so convoluted that Science Forum would shut me down. Patience.

Is there any aspect of relativity in particular that you struggle to come to grips with? Rather than going on a whole tangent about it, maybe just pick one key issue you have and see if we can work from there.

 

Thousand mile journeys begin with a single step and all that.

[Hazel M]

If you have some experimental evidence, or some mathematical proof of some inconsistancy in the formulation then it should be published. If you have some philosophical argument then it is less likley to be considered important. Even worse would be if your argument is just based on misuderstanding.

 

Just about all "anti-relativity" is based on philosophy and/or misunderstanding. I have not come across any serious attack on relativity taking into acount the domain of validity, experimental errors and so on.

And there you have it in a nutshell. There is quite a difference between not understanding and disagreeing. Hence my question in the original post.

[Ophiolite]

Thousand mile journeys begin with a single step and all that.

Doesn't that depend on your frame of reference?

[Delta1212]

Doesn't that depend on your frame of reference?

Good point. Once you start moving, the journey actually gets shorter.

[xyzt]

True. But first, you have to know what to ask. If I started on Einstein, I'd go on so long and get so convoluted that Science Forum would shut me down. Patience.

You mean another one of "Einstein is wrong" ? Yes, you should try another forum, this one is, at least, trying to maintain a semblance of a science forum.