We constantly say that Einstein’s General and Special theories of relativity have passed many different tests, insenuating their accuracy.
Before Einsten, we tested Isaac Newton’s theories, which also passed with accuracy until Einstein came along.
What’s to say another Einstein/Newton comes along 200-300 years from now to dispute Einstein’s theories?
Is that even possible or are his theories grounded in certainty at this point?
In: 593
Of course it could be the case that someone comes along and refines Einstein’s theories, just like Einstein’s theories refined Newton’s.
But, remember, Newton “had it right” for his time, and even now, Newton’s equations still get you close enough for most practical purposes.
We know he’s wrong, actually, in many regards. His equations for general and special relativity are only applicable in certain cases (which we are used to) but it breaks down at the large scale and small scale. This is why we’re still trying to figure out things! String theory, dark matter/energy, etc aim to “fix” Einstein’s theories and find a more holistic set of equations that are applicable both on the cosmic and quantum scale.
Einstein’s theory predicted that gravity could bend light. An experiment was designed based on the idea that this would mean you should be able to see stars that are behind the sun because their light gets bent. The problem with this idea is that the sun’s brightness overwhelms the light of any star. So photos were taken during an eclipse and we did in fact see stars that were behind the sun. This was considered the first “proof” of Einstein’s theories and made him wildly famous.
All science is provisional. The scientific method holds up current knowledge as the best theory we have that has not been disproved yet. It is all one scrappy young turk away from being overturned with new evidence.
> Newton’s theories, which also passed with accuracy
Actually, Newton’s theories were wrong about a couple things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Limitations. They were wrong about Mercury’s orbit and about how much gravity deflects light. Einstein’s theories fixed both those flaws.
> What’s to say another Einstein/Newton comes along 200-300 years from now to dispute Einstein’s theories?
We are actively trying to dispute his theories right now. The reason we’re so confident about his theories is because we haven’t been able to yet. (With the exception of the spinning of galaxies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter). Everything from black holes to time dilation to gravitational waves have been shown to be accurate.
Also, we already know his theories break down at the very small scales. For that, we have a completely separate theory called quantum mechanics. The current holy grail of physics is to unify relativity and quantum mechanics into the “theory of everything”. After all, if the whole universe obeys the same rules, then we shouldn’t need two separate theories to explain it all.
Newton did have it mostly right, that is to say he was right about planets that weren’t mercury and objects that were much slower than light.
When Einstein came along with his theories, they were more complex but they reduced to Newton’s theories in those limiting cases. So you can see Einstein as a generalization of Newton.
And yet people didn’t really believe it at the time. He published two other theories at the same time as special relativity, and he won the Nobel for the other two. Despite his formula for relative velocities falling out of Maxwell’s equations and the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment, it took a long time for enough precise tests to confirm other predictions before relativity was finally accepted. Even when they first launched GPS satellites, his theories weren’t universally accepted, and those satellites themselves were pretty much the final conclusive proof people needed.
We only accepted Einstein kicking and screaming, when faced with overwhelming evidence. So he’s at least as right today as Newton was in his day.
Any future theory will almost certainly generalize Einstein, and not contradict or replace him. His equations will continue to be used in most cases, for the same reason we still use Newton for cars and planes and billiard balls. So Newton is still right today, and so is Einstein, and if we find any places we can do experiments where Einstein is wrong, they will be very well hidden indeed.
Nothing. Science at his most basic is just what we see(observe). So far, what Einstein saw is what we all see now. 2-300 years down the line, someone may see something else, and then they open our eyes to it.
This is not a show for 5 year old, but Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia had a scene where one of main characters tries to ruin evolution and he kept on pointing how scientist kept being proven wrong by other scientists. That’s how science works.
You are misunderstanding something. Newton was ***right***. He just didn’t cover everything perfectly.
Einstein didn’t prove Newton wrong. He proved that there was more to it than what Newton found. He didn’t prove that light wasn’t a wave. He proved that it was a particle *and* a wave. His theories of relativity depended upon Newton’s concept of inertia. They didn’t prove it wrong, they explained it further. Nothing about not being able to accelerate to the speed of light changes the fact that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It only helps us to understand better what that “equal” means.,
About the closest we come to proving Newton wrong and Einstein right is Mercury and “the procession of the perihelion”. However, in this you are incorrect;’ Isaac Newton did ***not*** pass with accuracy. Mercury did not orbit the way Newton said that it should. Einstein shows how a more accurate understanding explained an existing discrepancy between Mercury’s orbit and Newton’s predictions.
In the case of physical laws, they are not “disproven”, they are found to be inaccurate or incomplete and in need of refinement. If you prove that Galileo was wrong about gravity people don’t float off into space. You just find that in some respect somewhere he wasn’t quite right. Einstein refined what Newton said and made it more accurate, but mostly Newton remained right. Einstein added on rather than proving wrong.
If 100 years from now Ferguson creates a faster-than-light drive, it will not prove Einstein wrong in general. Objects approaching the speed of light via acceleration will still get heavier, just as Newton being inaccurate about gravity in one way didn’t change the fact that Mercury orbited the Sun. What will change is that we will find a way in which relativity does not prevent faster-than-light travel, not that relativity was outright wrong. Within the limits of our current measurements, it is right and will continue to be so.
New discoveries or theories may show where it does not apply, or even where it has no meaning, but they won’t change the fact that approaching the speed of light makes you heavier and no amount of energy can accelerate you past the speed of light. If a faster-than-light drive exists it will either sidestep Einstein or it will show that Einstein was only ***mostly*** right.
Newton was wrong about some things, but right about many others. We still use Newtonian mechanics today in a lot of contexts. Its not so much that Newton was wrong, more so that he was incomplete. Einstein added a lot more depth to the theories, specifically when things are really big (lots of gravity) or traveling really really fast (relativity). Einstein probably wont ever be proved wrong, but someone could come along and add more to his theories.
Newton wasn’t wrong. His work was just incomplete. There were things that could not be explained by the classical theory. It’s when you have these anomalies that makes you look deeper.
A simple way of explaining this would be that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. It’s observed and is a known fact. Now someone who has never lived in high altitudes would never disagree with this. But water boils at a lower temp at higher altitudes. So we come to the conclusion that it’s not just temperature that affects boiling point. It’s pressure as well. You haven’t proven the first observation wrong. You have simply added more to your understanding.
Latest Answers