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
In general, we know science “has it right” in the three following steps. Step one, come up with a way to explain everything we know. Step two, based on whatever method you used, make a prediction about what we should expect to happen in an experiment we haven’t done yet. Step three, do that experiment and see if the prediction was true. A theory needs to be able to explain all known experimental results and have predictive power for unknown experimental results. If someone comes up with an experimental result, our theories can’t predict, we have to put more work in. Einsteins theory has high redictive power for the scope for which it was developed. However, at the cosmological scale we need to consider things like dark matter and dark energy, which we can’t really explain so far, and on the quantum scale, we don’t even know how to apply gravity so it is very likely that someone will come up with a new theory. But that theory will look like General Relativity on the scales Einstein considered, much like General Relativity looks like Newtonian Mechanics if the winkles in spacetime are small enough.
Physics use maths to model reality, but they’re not «reality». Newtons models weren’t wrong, just less precise than Einsteins models.
That’s how science works. We have an idea about how things work that seems to fit, someone comes up with a better one that we go with until the next one and so on.
We don’t. We can only make that assertion once we have acquired all possible knowledge.
The colloquial issue with science is thinking that it provides proofs which is actually misleading. Science provides us with models which we can test under specific circumstances. When a model passes a test this doesn’t confirm that the model is right. It only confirms that the model wasn’t wrong given the parameters of the test. There can be a new test devised tomorrow that breaks the model. Then we need to come up with a new model that explain the old observations as well as the new ones.
Basically, we don’t know anything with 100% certainty. The best we can say is that so far a given model has not failed given the tests we have performed. For example, we don’t know that it’s impossible for the laws of physics to vary in a specific locality because we haven’t surveyed the entire universe. We can only say that it would appear to be unlikely that the laws are variable because we have no evidence to suggest it. All of our experiments are consistent with the properties of the universe being static.
Newtonion physics is remarkable accurate and only starts to break down and the sub-atomic or high energy.
That’s where Einstein comes into play with general realitivity.
You don’t need to know time dilation theory to calculate the trigectory of an artillery shell or figure out how long a certain object may be in free fall and the resulting forces.
So far, Einsteins work in conjunction with others has allowed for the creation of nuclear weapons and GPS, among many other technologies, so he must at least be right enough at the level of physics we can harness into usable equipment.
Newton even said there was a force acting from a distant, he just did not know what that was. Einstein was basically gravity tells space/time how to form, and that space/time tells matter how to move and we got that action from a distance so it was in a way clearing up what he started.
It did not end there either the debate about gravitational waves was ongoing, how fast they could travel, if we could ever detect them or not. Who is to say the speed of light truly is the speed limit of the universe. For now we can just say with our understanding of it, it is.
If/when we figure out dark matter how will that change our understanding of the universe. Do we find a way to bypass the speed of light, or do we just get the cool looking hover cars in sci-fi without producing downward thrust. Wont know until we get there.
We don’t just think general relativity may not be the final theory of everything, we KNOW it’s not. We’ve known for a hundred years. That is because our two main theories in physics: general relativity and quantum mechanics, have inconsistencies that can’t be true at the same time. But we don’t know enough to fix it. And although we’ve made progress, like proving the Higgs boson exists; and there have been attempts at unifying them like string theory (which turned out to be more hype than any result); a complete unified theory remains elusive.
Yet these models still work for practical purposes. If you’re an engineer, building houses or designing equipment, you’re still using Newtonian physics, the difference in Einstenian theory would be so small it ain’t worth bothering with in most cases.
My favorite example of so called “disproven” theories is the curvature of the Earth. Naive logic may tell you that the Earth is flat. Stuff falls down etc. And most of the time in every day problem solving it’s fine to treat it as if it WAS flat. That tiny difference between a very flat curve and a truly flat surface is so small it is not worth bothering with. However, by observing the horizon, sunlight etc. you can easily come to the conclusion that the Earth is round. Ancient people’ve done it, even correctly calculated the size of the Earth. But this isn’t quite true either. The Earth isn’t a sphere, it’s a geoid (irregular-shaped ball). However, pay attention: each of our subsequent models *encompassed* the previous model. It could account for everything they accounted for and allowed for them to be true in a specialized case. What is NOT ever going to happen is that we find out that the Earth is a cube. Successive models can be thought of as refinements. We find some phenomenon that doesn’t quite fit or one we could not explore before, and make adjustments.
It’s important also that EVERY model is an approximation, otherwise it wouldn’t be practical. When you say “the car has 3 people inside it” do you care that the people are of different size, so to be fair you should be adding them up like: 0.87 person + 1.12 of a person +… etc. In fact it’s kind of a miracle that reality can be boiled down to a few relatively simple laws that can fit into a human brain.
The scientific method allows for better theories without a problem, in fact it encourages it.
The model we have is just that: a model to understand how things work so we can predict (within certain limits) what will happen. Theories have proven to be able to do that.
Observations where the predictions aren’t compliant with reality is where it gets highly interesting to do more research. E.g. Newtonian mechanics cannot explain Mercury’s orbit around the sun. That orbit can however be explained using general relativity.
FWIW we do know there are limits to what Einstein’s work can be used for. Both the very small: quantum and gravity aren’t unified, as well as the very large (we need dark energy and dark matter to correct things). But neither of that makes it wrong, it’s just a limit of what the model is able to do, and understanding those limits is an integral part of it, just as those limits show where the opportunities and improvement lie.
These theories are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are grounded in a limited reality. Newtonian stuff works in its own “bubble”, but it comes short in broader application. Einstein’s theories have far more applications but it’s not the end or a theory of everything and one day someone will surely surpass Einstein as he surpassed Newton.
I think you’re under the misconception that Newton was proven incorrect. He wasn’t. We just learned the scope in which it was correct.
It’s like saying fire is hot. Then discovering there is a special kind of cold fire. That doesn’t suddenly make the “fire is hot” wrong. It means it is scoped to specific fire. It’s not disproven. It’s built on. Einstein’s general relativity has been real world proven intensely. Could there be exceptions? Yes. Basically all of quantum Theory is beyond Einstein. But we weren’t doing the kind of quantum experimentation we do today, 100 years ago.
I get the impression you think there is like a tower of people disproving and recreating the entire world view every so often. Not true. Each mind is standing on the shoulder of giants. We use 2,000+ year old Greek geometry today. They weren’t proven wrong. Pythagoras is immortal.
Nothing is insinuated (the word I think you were going for). It’s certain. The word “Theory” is the highest form of proof in science. Something becomes Theory when there is overwhelming physical proof and consensus. It isn’t a guess.
You’re confusing the coloqlial “theory” with the scientific “Theory”. They have entirely opposite meanings. Jim’s theory on the lunch meat is just a guess. The Theory of Evolution is certified fact. Same with General Relativity.
You go to university and learn Theory. You don’t go to university to learn a bunch of guesses. You go to learn the scientific consensus.
The next time someone says, “theory” in casual speech to mean guess, correct them. They actually mean Hypothesis. Theory isn’t hypothesis. It’s proven. Unequivocally.
Latest Answers