Will General Relativity Fail?

[Mac]

Place your bets.

 

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/dark_energy_breakdown.html?1852005

[Smokinjoe9]

I am just learning the different laws of physics, so I cannot make a mathmatically proven judgement, but I voted yes.

[Little Bang]

I think if by some miracle the human race survives another hundred years it will fail because of the connection of mind to the quantum universe, which he never believed.

[Stargazer]

The same way as Newtonian physics has "failed"? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it will become false or untrue. It just means we will have discovered its limitations and then try to form another theory encompassing larger domains.

[infamous]

The same way as Newtonian physics has "failed"? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it will become false or untrue. It just means we will have discovered its limitations and then try to form another theory encompassing larger domains.

Exactly Stargazer; Science as well as humanity is involved in the evolutionary process. I was just reading an article about the concept of Dark Energy, this emerging field of investigation has the potential to add much to our understanding of the universe. Our understanding of scientific information will change as time passes, but not be completely discarded as some would have us believe. It's rather like building any structure, a good foundation will support a fine house which may from time to time need renovating. At present, our understanding of the universal expansion has not been adequately defined. The speculation about this Dark Energy may add to an understanding about things we don't have an answer for as yet.

[Queso]

i don't think it will fail, it will just be revised and added to over the years.

[jasonchild]

Interesting.

 

from the linked material:

The simplest case of Dark Energy is the cosmological constant that Einstein introduced 80 years ago in order to reconcile his theory of General Relativity with his prejudice that the universe is static. He had to withdraw the cosmological constant a few years later when the expansion of the universe was discovered. The discovery of the cosmic acceleration has revived the debate about the cosmological constant in a new context.

 

What about the Higgs field?

 

It seems to me that we (mankind) have flirted with a basic concept of aether for quite some time. First we assert it, then we detract it only to reassert it in another form later on. The cosmological constant of Einstein's General Relativity was indeed a "patch" to fix his theory. From what I have come to understand the Higgs field (which some believe gives particles their mass as they "drag" through it) acts much like a cosmological constant if one doesnt take it in a macroscopic view (in terms of cosmological "history" and elapsed time since 0). For that matter Newtonian mechanics works dandy at the correct resolution, much as quantum mechanics works on the converse scale. I tend to agree with orbsycli on this one; it will be updated.

 

regards,

 

jCc

[HIENVN]

General Relativity Theory will fail if nobody improves it. In a statement at Sweden, 1923, Einstein confirmed some disadvantage of his relativity theory and he wished to improve it by relating this theory to electromagnetism and gravitation.

[Boerseun]

I personally believe that every conceivable Theory must eventually fail to be replaced by new theories that will be more accurate under more conditions.

 

For instance, there's nothing wrong with applying Newtonian physics until you approach relativistic speeds.

 

This is to say if you define "failure" as a theory being replaced by another.

 

The only Theory that won't fail is the "Final Theory", and no, not the McCutcheon version, but the Real, Actual Final Theory of Everything, which can't fail by definition. And science is an asymptotic approach towards that One Theory. Whether we will ever reach it, is anybody's guess.

[HIENVN]

I personally believe that every conceivable Theory must eventually fail to be replaced by new theories that will be more accurate under more conditions.

 

For instance, there's nothing wrong with applying Newtonian physics until you approach relativistic speeds.

 

This is to say if you define "failure" as a theory being replaced by another.

 

The only Theory that won't fail is the "Final Theory", and no, not the McCutcheon version, but the Real, Actual Final Theory of Everything, which can't fail by definition. And science is an asymptotic approach towards that One Theory. Whether we will ever reach it, is anybody's guess.

You may absolutely believe on "The Final Theory," which this theory can't fail by definition!

Please comeback to the scientific purpose of Science Forums, in which we can talk about science better than just believe on a name of a theory. You can know a lot of "The Final Theory," and then I have a request to you,

"Please tell me, how many theories are using in The Final Theory?"

[Boerseun]

You may absolutely believe on "The Final Theory," which this theory can't fail by definition!

Please comeback to the scientific purpose of Science Forums, in which we can talk about science better than just believe on a name of a theory. You can know a lot of "The Final Theory," and then I have a request to you,

"Please tell me, how many theories are using in The Final Theory?"

Huh? Huh? HUH? HUHHH??? :)

[Qfwfq]

Perhaps he simply isn't making enough of an effort a writng in English, or perhaps it is just a pointless post. :)

 

Hienvn, Boerseun simply meant that research can only seek to asymptotically approach a perfect understanding.

[learnin to learn]

as our knowlegde of science increases laws will fall, giving rise to better laws.

[Mohit Pandey]

The same way as Newtonian physics has "failed"? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it will become false or untrue. It just means we will have discovered its limitations and then try to form another theory encompassing larger domains.

 

Can anyone tell me how Newtonian physics has failed? I could not understand.:)

[Mohit Pandey]

I think there is 99.95% chance to succeed General Relativity and 0.05% chance to fail. If you want the reason, click here:) .

[Qfwfq]

Can anyone tell me how Newtonian physics has failed? I could not understand.:confused:

In a sense it has not failed at all. Only a detail or two has changed. Newton defined momentum (or quantity of motion) as:

 

[math]p = mv[/math]

 

and one of his three axioms is that its rate of change in time will be given as the force applied. Minkowski translated Einstein's 1905 paper as defining the 4-momentum:

 

[math]p_i = mu_i[/math]

 

and as saying that its rate of change in proper time will be as the 4-force applied. The

[math]\norm u_i[/math] in there is called the 4-velocity. The other two axioms hold exactly.

[DryLab]

I voted no because useful theories such as GR and SR don't fail. They may be modified or added to, but as long as they are useful to predict what we observe, they have not failed.

 

IMHO