Is relativity falsifiable?

[Genecks]

I went on Google and came across a closed thread on physicsforums.com: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=748719

 

When I think of falsification, all you need is something that proves the theory false, some kind of observation. For instance, if something was observed to be going faster than light, it would disprove relativity, for what I understand. But it seems that no evidence has been found to disprove relativity. Nothing has been found to disprove relativity. As such, it seems that relativity is as much as saying 1+1=2.

 

I've considered some ways that relativity can be disproven. However, that is dependent on a views of psychologism and biocentrism. With that, it's like asking, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

 

Which came first, time or the word "time"? The word time came first.

 

Even more complex is the psychologism feel of Truth, whereby the neutrinos that went faster than light actually did go faster than light. In that view, repeatability is a myth. And I do think repeatability is a myth with the measurement problem in consideration. Thus, I've started to have increased belief in the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

And this starts getting me on a Daoist feel of Truth, whereby anything and everything is an approximation, for the Dao cannot be described.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Genecks

[Fred Champion]

Which part of relativity do you wish to disprove, that nothing can go faster than light or that nothing can be observed to go faster than light? These are two different issues.

 

We and our instruments cannot measure velocities faster than the input to the instrument. Using only light, how would we be able to recognize an object moving at some multiple of c, a light 'boom" similar to a sonic boom? I doubt that anyone is looking for that sort of event and even if they were set up to recognize it the odds of finding even one seem slim. How many sonic booms attributable to naturally occuring supersonic objects (not military jets) are heard each year?

[swansont]

Particles traveling faster than c wouldn't have to be directly detected, as long as they had some interaction with a signature that could be discerned. Much like detecting the Higgs, or other particles in an accelerator — the particles themselves are never detected, it's the unique pattern of the particles that can be detected.

 

The thing is, we do detect when particles travel faster than light in a material. Saying that we could not do this in a vacuum doesn't hold up to scrutiny. At best it restricts one specific sort of measurement. The Gran Sasso neutrino experiment results measured a FTL signal. We know why this is so and why it's faulty, but it was a simple time-of-flight experiment measuring the creation time and elapsed time to interaction. There's nothing in principle to prevent a result shorter than L/c.

 

As to the question of "is relativity falsifiable" - yes, of course it is. Clocks e.g. don't have to run at a rate dependent on their speed or position in a gravitational potential. If they didn't follow the equations given by relativity, that would disprove it. That they follow the equations gives us confidence that relativity is correct.

[Fred Champion]

When you go to the OPERA, take good glasses.

[Delta1212]

Which part of relativity do you wish to disprove, that nothing can go faster than light or that nothing can be observed to go faster than light? These are two different issues.

 

We and our instruments cannot measure velocities faster than the input to the instrument. Using only light, how would we be able to recognize an object moving at some multiple of c, a light 'boom" similar to a sonic boom? I doubt that anyone is looking for that sort of event and even if they were set up to recognize it the odds of finding even one seem slim. How many sonic booms attributable to naturally occuring supersonic objects (not military jets) are heard each year?

I don't know where this idea that you can't measure velocities faster than an input comes from.

 

For instance, if I have a supersonic jet and I where it is starting from, I can use a gunshot (or some other loud sound) that goes off when the jet starts to determine its average speed between it's starting point and when it passed me, even if it is moving faster than the speed of sound. The jet might pass me before I hear the signal indicating that it has started, but knowing how far away it was, I know how long it took that sound to reach me, so I can determine when it must have gone off and therefore what the difference in time between the jet starting and reaching me must have been.

 

In this way I can use an input much slower than what is being measured to detect the speed something moving much faster.

 

Similarly, I could easily use light to measure the speed of something moving faster than c. It wouldn't even require any sort of convoluted set up. I could see where the object was at time A, check where it was at time B and then see how much ground it covered in that interval. If it went farther than light would have gone in the same period, it's moving faster than c.

[Strange]

Which part of relativity do you wish to disprove, that nothing can go faster than light or that nothing can be observed to go faster than light? These are two different issues.

 

The first part is a consequence of the theory of relativity. The second part appears to be something you have made up.

 

 

Using only light, how would we be able to recognize an object moving at some multiple of c, a light 'boom" similar to a sonic boom? I doubt that anyone is looking for that sort of event and even if they were set up to recognize it the odds of finding even one seem slim.

 

The equivalent of a sonic boom for light is Cherenkov radiation. People have looked for signs of this as evidence of the existence of tachyons.

[Deepak Kapur]

Is relativity falsiable?

 

Some serious scientists believe that time & motion do not exist...they are just illusions...

 

if these two do not exist, relativity also does not exist, it's just an illusion.....

[swansont]

Is relativity falsiable?

 

Some serious scientists believe that time & motion do not exist...they are just illusions...

 

if these two do not exist, relativity also does not exist, it's just an illusion.....

 

That does not follow. It's not a requirement that time and motion "exist" in some metaphysical way in order to say relativity is consistent with experiment and is falsifiable. Even if these are emergent phenomenon, the description given by relativity is correct so far as we have data,, and we have extensive data. Should someone discover an underlying framework for describing nature that eliminates time and motion, it will have to be consistent with our results, which agree with relativity.

 

Falsifiable simply means the ability to, in principle, show the model to be inconsistent with experimental data.

[Genecks]

Yes, but no data has been found to contradict the theory of relativity (scientifically). That's what I have an issue with. If it's "correct" or "true," then there is nothing to contradict it. And if there is nothing to contradict it, then it is not falsifiable. Aristotle's physics were falsifiable. However, I don't believe he held a grasp of the falsification of his metaphysics, despite arguing against attacks on his metaphysics. Arguments generally come down to the law of non-contradiction. Also, without a doubt, I believe the theory of relativity comes with metaphysical arguments.

 

With my first statement in this post, I say "scientifically." Personally, I think repeatability is a myth. That's when I look at the reductionist aspect of it all, because it appears to me that repeatability is reliant on a metaphysical notion of free-will or independence from the variables that are involved. However, that's not true, because a person's past experiences are involved (this makes me think of "the measurement problem").

 

This is why I have become interested in psychologism, and I've read that there has been a resurgence in the philosophy of psychologism as of late. It's hard to deny that there is electricity, electronics, and the such. However, as an experiment, I did play with the belief of electricity being a figment of a deluded mind, and eventually lightning made the electricity in the house I'm at go out for a while: After enough mental repetition of the belief. This, however, may not necessitate that electricity is a figment of my imagination. But I can sense some relation to chaos theory, or at least initial conditions of conceiving of electricity being non-existent with the eventual power outage.

 

Data that has been found to contradict the theory of relativity has been called by science "a mistake" or an error, such as the neutrino issue. In 2011, the OPERA experiment mistakenly observed neutrinos appearing to travel faster than light.

 

My issue with repeatability still stands. This makes me think there may be more to psychologism. However, the metaphysical implications are not understood. And I do not know if it would be possible to escape the metaphysical methodology of science due to my past experience with it.

 

With the psychologism branch of philosophy vs. science, I see the following:

 

Psychologism: I perceive that reality is physical

Scientist: Reality is physical

 

In that there are more metaphysical aspects to reality, such as idealism or monism, then psychologism is true over current scientific understandings. It's just that the metaphysical breakthrough to go beyond relativity has not been understood nor found.

 

If relativity is true, then it cannot be false. And if it cannot be false, then it cannot be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is not science. If there is something that falsifies relativity, I have an assumption that it will be independent of time and space.

 

 

Is relativity falsiable?

Some serious scientists believe that time & motion do not exist...they are just illusions...

if these two do not exist, relativity also does not exist, it's just an illusion.....

 

Rather than illusions, it may be better to say that they are improperly defined, thus potentially falsifiable. I had an experience with the telephone time being off a few minutes from a phone call I received: The phone call came about three minutes into the future from the time I saw on the phone. None of that made sense to me, though. Sure, equipment might be faulty. The other issue I perceive is whether or not there actually exists data but the ability to prove such data is impractical.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Genecks

[Deepak Kapur]

 

That does not follow. It's not a requirement that time and motion "exist" in some metaphysical way in order to say relativity is consistent with experiment and is falsifiable. Even if these are emergent phenomenon, the description given by relativity is correct so far as we have data,, and we have extensive data. Should someone discover an underlying framework for describing nature that eliminates time and motion, it will have to be consistent with our results, which agree with relativity.

 

Falsifiable simply means the ability to, in principle, show the model to be inconsistent with experimental data.

What is the difference between an illusion and an emergent phenomenon in this case.......

[Fred Champion]

I don't know where this idea that you can't measure velocities faster than an input comes from.

 

...

 

Similarly, I could easily use light to measure the speed of something moving faster than c. It wouldn't even require any sort of convoluted set up. I could see where the object was at time A, check where it was at time B and then see how much ground it covered in that interval. If it went farther than light would have gone in the same period, it's moving faster than c.

The idea comes from relativity. I may get some argument on the idea that it is, or was, the basis for relativity, but I think it was.

 

If you can't see something moving faster than light, how can you know where it is? If you cannot track its motion, how can you know what path it took? For measuring the speed of any moving object you must maintain contact (by touch, hearing or sight) with the object in order to be sure that what you are measuring is actually that particular object and that it is on the prescribed path. Your experiment will be compromised once you lose contact.

 

If you see a runner at the beginning of a race and again at the end can you know he ran the entire race?

[swansont]

What is the difference between an illusion and an emergent phenomenon in this case.......

 

An illusion goes away when viewed under the right circumstances; you get a different answer. If time were shown to be an emergent phenomenon, that would not change the result of our experiments. Moving clocks would still run slow.

The idea comes from relativity. I may get some argument on the idea that it is, or was, the basis for relativity, but I think it was.

 

If you can't see something moving faster than light, how can you know where it is? If you cannot track its motion, how can you know what path it took? For measuring the speed of any moving object you must maintain contact (by touch, hearing or sight) with the object in order to be sure that what you are measuring is actually that particular object and that it is on the prescribed path. Your experiment will be compromised once you lose contact.

 

If this had validity it would mean you invalidated a wide swath of physics experiments. Is that your position? We don't monitor photons along their path, or other particles in many experiments.

 

If you see a runner at the beginning of a race and again at the end can you know he ran the entire race?

 

Since "because magic" isn't a valid model. If this were a legitimate concern, you would have to build in a method of monitoring into the experiment. But you would have to show it was a legitimate concern.

[Deepak Kapur]

 

An illusion goes away when viewed under the right circumstances; you get a different answer. If time were shown to be an emergent phenomenon, that would not change the result of our experiments. Moving clocks would still run slow.

 

 

moving clocks running slow.....would itself be an illusion...

[swansont]

moving clocks running slow.....would itself be an illusion...

 

How so? Everyone can agree upon comparison in one frame that one clock ran slower than the other.

[Deepak Kapur]

 

How so? Everyone can agree upon comparison in one frame that one clock ran slower than the other.

It would be an illusion for everyone....i.e. their agreement would be regarding sth thatis an illusion. Edited June 29, 2014 by Deepak Kapur

[Delta1212]

Yes, but no data has been found to contradict the theory of relativity (scientifically). That's what I have an issue with. If it's "correct" or "true," then there is nothing to contradict it. And if there is nothing to contradict it, then it is not falsifiable.

That is not what falsifiable means. Falsifiable means that I can conceive of a test that could, feasibly, produce results that would prove the theory wrong, if it is, in fact, incorrect.

 

Falsifiable does not mean that theory is wrong and can therefore be proven wrong. You can have a theory that is both falsifiable and 100% correct. In that case, it is falsifiable but will not be falsified.

 

If relativity is true, then it cannot be false. And if it cannot be false, then it cannot be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is not science. If there is something that falsifies relativity, I have an assumption that it will be independent of time and space.

The logical conclusion of what you just said is that only theories that are false are scientific. Any theory which is correct is unscientific. Therefore, science must be wrong or it isn't science.

 

You are equating "falsifiable" with "false" and this is incorrect. Something must only be capable of being proven false in principle to be falsifiable. It does not have to be able to be proven false in reality to be falsifiable (as in the case where it is correct).

 

"I have 5 toes on my left foot" is falsifiable. I can count the toes on my left foot and see whether there are 5. It happens that there are, so it is not falsified by my count, but it is still a falsifiable statement. If I had other than 5 toes, I have a rest that would demonstrate that statement as false.

 

"I have a 6th toe on my left foot that cannot be detected by any means" is not a falsifiable statement. If there is no way to detect the toe, there is no test I could conduct to demonstrate that it is or is not there. There is no way to falsify that statement. It is (probably) false, but it is not falsifiable.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Delta1212

[Genecks]

Not with current technology until mind reading technology comes around. If it cannnot be detected, then the question comes up how you can detect it. And if it cannot be detected by any means, then you are making false statements. However, if belief is detectable, then the belief that you have a sixth toe is detectable.

 

Karl Popper: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

 

 

One issue is that Popper's science is built on relativity. That's not well described, though. But I believe it's a given.

 

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

 

First off, I don't think anyone here can Truly conceive of something faster than light. You can set forth some properties, but the realization of that thing is impossible except from a monist viewpoint. Sure, tachyons. Great. But I haven't observed any tachyons. Maybe my evolution prevents me from observing tachyons. Now, if tachyons are supposed to make no sense and are logically paradoxical, then why can't we say that the OPERA experiment was the observation of a tachyon? Scientifically, we can't, because there was an issue with causality. But tachyons break causality. A speed faster than light was found. Causally, it did not make sense. However, causality not making sense happened after getting the result to see how the result was caused. Initially, things were going as planned. Psychologically, no one noticed an issue with the fiber optic cable. I guess you could say I'm somehow relating this to Descartes' evil demon.

 

This leads to an interesting question: The first time the experiment was done, was the fiber optic cable damaged?

That question leads to a trippy potential answer: History was re-written post-tachyon observation (speed result) as to where the cable was then misconfigured... and no one is the wiser.

 

With that in mind, I see some value in Kuhn's view of science being mobocratic and psychology-based. With that said, it's like saying, "Yeah, a tachyon was observed; but it doesn't make any sense."

 

Perhaps a wormhole could be taken back in time to see the configuration of the fiber optic cable; and if it is properly configured, evidence of a tachyon could be argued.

 

I feel like I'm going in the right direction with this thread how I wanted.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Genecks

[imatfaal]

Not with current technology until mind reading technology comes around. If it cannnot be detected, then the question comes up how you can detect it. And if it cannot be detected by any means, then you are making false statements. However, if belief is detectable, then the belief that you have a sixth toe is detectable.

 

Karl Popper: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

 

 

One issue is that Popper's science is built on relativity. That's not well described, though. But I believe it's a given.

 

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

 

First off, I don't think anyone here can Truly conceive of something faster than light. You can set forth some properties, but the realization of that thing is impossible except from a monist viewpoint. Sure, tachyons. Great. But I haven't observed any tachyons. Maybe my evolution prevents me from observing tachyons. Now, if tachyons are supposed to make no sense and are logically paradoxical, then why can't we say that the OPERA experiment was the observation of a tachyon? Scientifically, we can't, because there was an issue with causality. But tachyons break causality. A speed faster than light was found. Causally, it did not make sense. However, causality not making sense happened after getting the result to see how the result was caused. Initially, things were going as planned. Psychologically, no one noticed an issue with the fiber optic cable. I guess you could say I'm somehow relating this to Descartes' evil demon.

 

This leads to an interesting question: The first time the experiment was done, was the fiber optic cable damaged?

That question leads to a trippy potential answer: History was re-written post-tachyon observation (speed result) as to where the cable was then misconfigured... and no one is the wiser.

 

With that in mind, I see some value in Kuhn's view of science being mobocratic and psychology-based. With that said, it's like saying, "Yeah, a tachyon was observed; but it doesn't make any sense."

 

Perhaps a wormhole could be taken back in time to see the configuration of the fiber optic cable; and if it is properly configured, evidence of a tachyon could be argued.

 

I feel like I'm going in the right direction with this thread how I wanted.

 

 

But relativity is completely refutable - and in the fact that we place limits on its scope shows it has to an extent been found wanting. If we are talking Galilean Relativity then the constancy of the speed of light in all frames of reference blows that out of the water. If we are talking special relativity then a gravitation field (ie nonEuclidean) shows where it is wrong. And if we are talking General Relativity then we are pretty certain that in the intersection of high gravity and quantum mechanical effect which is a black hole singularity then GR will break down. We do not need to discover a tachyon to show that general relativity is limited and falsifiable.

 

And the fact that the entire physics community worked in a constructive and critical manner when Gran Sasso made its erroneous announcement - rather than dismissal and ignoring - shows that whilst there may be inertia the commonly made accusation of dogma and intransigence is wide of the mark. Within hours of the announcement Nobel laureates were excitedly discussing implications, making claims and counterclaims, and placing bets.

 

The re-writing of history fit past observation with present conceptions makes little sense; we search for simple solutions - and from the very moment that the sums came out with a super-luminal speed the belief was that there was a mistake. It is also massively anthropocentric in that it feels as if you are claiming that universe/nature/deus_ex rewrites history in order to comply with a human theory

[Genecks]

I've given this all some more thought.

 

Is Einstein's relativities science? They predate Karl Popper's falsification philosophy, for what I understand. I guess that's also like asking if Newton's physics, if his methodology of calculation can be called physics, should fall under science. Historically, I believe the answer is "no" to both Newton and Einstein. I guess it could be argued that before Karl Popper's falsification, there was the law of non-contradiction. They appear very similiar. Even then, what continues to bother me about Karl Popper's falsification is the issue of repeatability.

 

At least, Einstein's relavitity and Netwon's mathematical principles of natural philosophy, cannot be considered Popperian science because they predate Popperian science.

 

What is a "genuine test" according to Karl Popper? If we're working off Einstein's block universe, there is no such thing as repeatability... unless you've got yourself a wormhole and somehow watching someone repeat an experiment that you were already there to observe in the first place (but then, there appears to be a paradox).

Edited August 1, 2014 by Genecks

[swansont]

I've given this all some more thought.

 

Is Einstein's relativities science? They predate Karl Popper's falsification philosophy, for what I understand. I guess that's also like asking if Newton's physics, if his methodology of calculation can be called physics, should fall under science. Historically, I believe the answer is "no" to both Newton and Einstein. I guess it could be argued that before Karl Popper's falsification, there was the law of non-contradiction. They appear very similiar. Even then, what continues to bother me about Karl Popper's falsification is the issue of repeatability.

 

At least, Einstein's relavitity and Netwon's mathematical principles of natural philosophy, cannot be considered Popperian science because they predate Popperian science.

 

What is a "genuine test" according to Karl Popper? If we're working off Einstein's block universe, there is no such thing as repeatability... unless you've got yourself a wormhole and somehow watching someone repeat an experiment that you were already there to observe in the first place (but then, there appears to be a paradox).

 

It boggles my mind that one could conclude that relativity is not science.

 

I'm also confused by the phrase "Einstein's block universe". I'd be interested in a reference where Einstein ever mentioned it. AFAICT it's a philosophy regarding the ontology of time, not physics.

[ajb]

Is Einstein's relativities science? They predate Karl Popper's falsification philosophy, for what I understand.

So Einstenian relativity predates Popper's work. But that does not mean the everything before Popper is not science. In particular, where do you think Popper got his initial ideas from? Also, note that the scientific method has been used to more or less define science since the 17th century. The idea is of course much older than that; the Ancient Egyptian, Greeks and Babylonian used the scientic method.

 

It is not like science started when one man wrote a paper on what science should ideally be.

[Genecks]

Mmm... Well, this is definitely a language issue to a degree. I don't believe the Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Babylonians called it the scientific method. Before Popperian science, there was Einstein's block universe. I guess that is like arguing that science as we know it could be gone in the future. But that would require falsification of Einstein's theory of relativity (at least on a Popperian science level). The next level is that physics as we know it change (or perhaps the realm of physics is more realized than before; and that the older theories are realized as wrong). But the curious thing is if they did change, would that still be part of some fatalistic, deterministic universe?

 

Here is definitely a question, though.

 

What did Karl Popper mean by a "genuine test"?

 

Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

 

It seems like there can be no such thing as a "genuine test" in a fatalistic universe (or Einsteinian block universe).

 

As such, I perceive a contradiction and have increased belief in psychologism.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Genecks

[ajb]

Mmm... Well, this is definitely a language issue to a degree. I don't believe the Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Babylonians called it the scientific method.

Okay, they did not call it the scientific method. However, the point is their is evidence that they were using empirical methods and experimental testing. I think it was Aristotle who really started for formalise the notion of deductive reasoning which is vital in the scientific method.

 

 

What did Karl Popper mean by a "genuine test"?

I guess he meant a test that definitively rules some given theory as bad. That is there is some clear signal that the theory does not describe nature well within its expected domain of validity.

 

With this in mind, given how successful general relativity has been, any more complete theory of gravity will include general relativity as some suitable limit. Just as Newtonian gravity comes out of general relativity in some limit.

[Eise]

Genecks,

 

I think you do not understand Popper. A theory is not scientific because it is falsified or so. A theory is scientific if it does definite predictions, that can be tested. Being able to test the predictions means that the theory can be falsified in principle. But if the tests are done, and the predictions turned out to be correct, then the theory has survived falsification, and we can take it to be true for the moment. The theory might still be falsified by other tests on other predictions.

 

If a theory stands many and many tests, if even working technology is based on it, you can safely assume it is true, at least in the domain where it is applied. The special theory of relativity is such a theory, and until now the same seems to hold for general relativity.

 

A scientific theory that is falsified has turned out to be a wrong scientific theory, but it could be called scientific, because it did definite predictions.

 

I think what Popper did was just a kind of clarification what actually happened in science already for hundreds of years. But Popper's ideas gave also a a demarcation criterion between science and pseudo-science. Except clarification, Popper's idea of falsification did not contribute much to scientific development. It only made it more understandable. But it was a clear weapon against pseudo-science.