Good question. Here are two answers:
To non-scientists who have not been trained in physics and who have nothing better to do: "EINSTEIN IS WRONG".
To scientists who use Enstein's equations almost every day, having used them practically : "EINSTEIN IS RIGHT".
Make up your own mind, the comment box is free for anyone.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Was Einstein Right or Wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I wish to take a "middle of the road" approach. Einstein is right, but like Newton, Einstein's Theories will one day be seen as limited in their scope. I think faster than light speed will be found and demonstrated, but within the context of a larger theory that does not dismiss Einstein's Theories anymore than we dismiss Newton's brilliant, original observational theories.
Faster than light speed may simply mean that light transitions into something else we do not yet recognize nor have a name for. It could even be something I will call a beyond light substance, let me steal a string from String Theory, just to give it a name. Of course, that is pure, uneducated speculation. No question about that.
To further speculate, maybe all infinities we think are infinities today, are not. Maybe infinite mass is not infinite, but transitory, in that it transitions into something else at a certain mass density. Maybe even elusive gravity plays a role in all this. Perhaps some of Kurt Godel's ideas will prove to fit. One must look at the few, rare cracks in Einstein's Theories to point the way. When you carry some of that math out to enough decimal places perhaps reality misses by some decimal place of what Einstein's Theories predict. Along this line I think I have heard it said that uranium decay found somewhere in Africa seems to indicate the decay rate has varied in the past, which does not hold with theory.
This is some of my thinking over the years in trying to see how Einstein can be right today, but wrong tomorrow. He would be right within his context, as is Newton, but a new context will come into play, which will supercede Einstein's context, however great I find Einstein and his ideas. I think this is what many scientists fail to understand, having been blinded by Einstein's brilliance. My own speculations come out of a desire to prove Einstein wrong, which is foolish. Once I understood this I understood that Einstein's ideas must fit into a larger context. Thanks for the chance to offer my non-mathamatically based, speculative opinion. I look forward to reading the thoughts of others on both sides of this issue. I wish to learn whatever is worthy of learning that my mind is capable of learning, within its limits. Thanks again.
As quoted:
"faster than light speed will be found and demonstrated" - Absolutely not.
"It could even be something I will call a beyond light substance" - Been done already with the theroetical 'tachyons'
"in that it (mass)transitions into something else at a certain mass density" - if it does, we haven't seen it yet at 99.99999% light speed in vacuo (or greater)
"One must look at the few, rare cracks in Einstein's Theories to point the way" - there are no cracks in Einstein's theory
"uranium decay found somewhere in Africa seems to indicate the decay rate has varied in the past" - this I have not heard of butI DO know that it has been speculated that the Inverse Square Law might have been inverse 1.99999999 Law at one time
Yes, Einstein's theory MAY be superceded by a newer one rather like it eclipsed Newton's, but judging from the equations alone (see previous post), it is extemely hard to see how.
The Earth was flat and man could not fly because the math to prove otherwise was beyond science at the time. (Geometry and trigonometry, Aerodynamics now)
However, at THIS time we ALREADY HAVE the math to prove that faster than light speed is impossible.
THIS is the differnce that many fail to appreciate when making similar comparisons.
Though she shall remain nameless, I was reading the other day, an American tv morning show called The View--not exactly an educational program--once had as one of its number of co-hosts or members, a black lady who was unwilling to argue that the world is not flat. In fact, it seems she thought the world WAS FLAT. Science has not gotten the news to everyone yet, I guess. Maybe she never saw that picture with that beautiful blue orb known as Earth, floating in space. Hope that amuses you.
You say Science already has the math to prove that faster than light speed is not possible. I seem to recall that Rieman and another fellow disproved the parallel postulate of Euclid, right? Okay, I think I have also read and maybe you can verify the correctness of this: There may be an infinite number of non-Euclidean Geometries, thanks to the discoveries of Rieman and I think the other guy was Lobachevesky. So,if there are an infinite number of non-Euclidean Geometries,is it not possible, even probable one of them might exist, such that, it covers all we now think we know, yet permits faster than light speed within that non-Euclidean structure? I know that this fails as a clearly stated thought and to most scientist would seem an unlikely case, but is the above possible in theory? Yes, I know, I am exasperating at times. Thank you.
Post a Comment