What would it take to prove Albert Einstein Wrong?

[Schmelzer]

How does the existence of singularities prove anything wrong if their theoretical existence doesn't contradict anything we can actually observe and measure?

There are no infinities in nature, thus, an infinity shows an internal inconsistency of the theory. An internally inconsistent theory is certainly wrong. So there is no need for experiments.

What actually does prove Einstein's theories wrong (at atomic scales) is the nonlocal nature of quantum reality, but last I heard you're not a believer in such truths.

Whenever you have heard something about what I think you are probably wrong.

Indeed, in any reasonable interpretation of GR you can prove the Bell inequalities, so that the observed violation of the Bell inequalities is yet another proof that GR is wrong. GR defenders try heavy reinterpretation, rejecting as realism as causality, to get rid of this, and try, moreover, to blame quantum theory that realism and causality have to be rejected. Which is nonsense, given that there are realistic and causal interpretations of quantum theory. Nonetheless, however meaningless, this is essentially the mainstream position. That means, the mainstream does not acknowledge that the violations of the BI simply falsify SR/GR.

 

[QuarkHead]

There are no infinities in nature, thus, an infinity shows an internal inconsistency of the theory.

This assertion, without proof or even argument, is an empty one. In the absence of such, GR remains internally consistent

 

[paddoboy]

All that is necessary is internal inconsistency, say, singularities. This has been already done, GR has singularities, unavoidable, at the big bang and at the center of a black hole. So, GR is already proven wrong.

It shows nothing more then the fact that GR has limitations. Plus of course it being a classical theory, that is obvious to most.

This does not prevent scientists to use GR as the best available theory of gravity they know about. So, an alternative would be certainly necessary to change this. But even this would not change much - scientists use Newtonian gravity too, whenever the differences between GR and NT seem clearly too small to be relevant.

And the probability exists that we may never have a verifiable QGT.

 

[paddoboy]

GR defenders try heavy reinterpretation, rejecting as realism as causality, to get rid of this, and try, moreover, to blame quantum theory that realism and causality have to be rejected. Which is nonsense, given that there are realistic and causal interpretations of quantum theory. Nonetheless, however meaningless, this is essentially the mainstream position. That means, the mainstream does not acknowledge that the violations of the BI simply falsify SR/GR.

Yep, the mainstream position, for the reasons that any position that is mainstream, obtains that position because the greater bulk of scientists, see it as aligning with observational and experimental evidence far better then any supposed alternative.
And of course its incredible predictive powers, highlighted most recently by the discovery of gravitational radiation.

 

[Beaconator]

A lightsaber would prove Einstein wrong. Lol lol

 

[Seattle]

A lightsaber would prove Einstein wrong. Lol lol

To be accurate, I'm sure Einstein must have said something stupid in his life. Just prove that wrong. It might be easier than GR.

 

[river]

hmm.. It might be of interest for you to look em up...
Also another major apparent anomaly would be the Eridanus super void... (CMB cold spot) although perhaps not directly related to Einstein but possibly more to the physics that has been generated because of GR.

So much of Physics today is a follow on from GR if I am not mistaken...

To your last statement , Indeed .

 

[Schmelzer]

It shows nothing more then the fact that GR has limitations.

The same holds for flat Earth theory. It works nicely on the nearby soccer field, but has limitations. We want a theory which does not have such limitations.

And the probability exists that we may never have a verifiable QGT.

This is not only a probability but a certainty because physical theories cannot be verified even in principle.

Yep, the mainstream position, for the reasons that any position that is mainstream, obtains that position because the greater bulk of scientists, see it as aligning with observational and experimental evidence far better then any supposed alternative.
And of course its incredible predictive powers, highlighted most recently by the discovery of gravitational radiation.

Except that in the case of the Bell inequalities SR/GR predict that they hold, but this prediction failed.
But the alternative - SR/GR with a hidden preferred frame - has in all other questions the same predictive power but does not predict the Bell inequalities.

The rejection of the preferred frame is purely metaphysical.

 

[Schmelzer]

This assertion, without proof or even argument, is an empty one. In the absence of such, GR remains internally consistent

Feel free to believe that there are really infinities in nature and that theories with infinities have no problems.

 

[Beaconator]

To be accurate, I'm sure Einstein must have said something stupid in his life. Just prove that wrong. It might be easier than GR.

I read that wrong and made a post and now I can't delete it.

 

[paddoboy]

The same holds for flat Earth theory. It works nicely on the nearby soccer field, but has limitations. We want a theory which does not have such limitations.

Certainly, but just as certainly a Surveyor's methods using the "Flat Earth" are correct within his domain of applicability. It gives correct answers, the same as Newtonian gives correct answers, and of course GR gives correct answers...each though has a larger applicability and accuracy.

This is not only a probability but a certainty because physical theories cannot be verified even in principle.

They do though gain in certainty over the course of time, as they continue to make successful predictions, as per GR and the predicted gravitational radiation.

 

[paddoboy]

Feel free to believe that there are really infinities in nature and that theories with infinities have no problems.

I'm pretty sure that most scientists now reject the singularities in BH's as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and densities, but instead accept the more valid concept of singularities as defined simply by the failure of our models.

 

[Schmelzer]

They do though gain in certainty over the course of time, as they continue to make successful predictions, as per GR and the predicted gravitational radiation.

The amount of time is not really essential for this. If the experimental/observational techniques improve during this time, that's another question.

I'm pretty sure that most scientists now reject the singularities in BH's as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and densities, but instead accept the more valid concept of singularities as defined simply by the failure of our models.

Don't understand this point. A theory which has solutions with singularities has a problem. And this holds even if those solutions have no chance to fit into our reality. The GR singularities do not have such an excuse, they appear in our actual universe as in the big bang, as inside black holes.

 

[James R]

What would it take to prove Albert Einstein theories wrong?
I would think that providing an alternative would not be necessary.
Any one?

You're right. You wouldn't need to provide an alternative.

Einstein's theories are eminently falsifiable, just like all good science.

For example, any experiment testing time dilation that didn't produce results in accordance with the predictions of relativity (within experimental error) would do the trick. And in the past hundred years, such experiments have been carried out over and over again. That's one reason we're so confident Einstein was right (at least within the limits of experimental error).

There are countless experiments that could potentially falsify Einstein's theories. So, if he was wrong - especially in an "obvious" way - it wouldn't be hard to show.

 

[James R]

I think a mathematical proof that the Lorentz transform is invalid would be futile in this fora.... don't you?

Invalid for what?

I mean, if you start with the postulates of special relativity, you're going to have to derive the Lorentz transforms, inevitably. There's no possible "disproof" of them, as long as you accept the postulates they are derived from.

You can certainly show that in a hypothetical universe in which some other set of postulates held, the Lorentz transforms would be "invalid", but in our real universe they appear to work nicely.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Invalid for what?

I mean, if you start with the postulates of special relativity, you're going to have to derive the Lorentz transforms, inevitably. There's no possible "disproof" of them, as long as you accept the postulates they are derived from.

You can certainly show that in a hypothetical universe in which some other set of postulates held, the Lorentz transforms would be "invalid", but in our real universe they appear to work nicely.

There are two points I wanted to make in response to your post. The following is the easiest so I will stick to this one about the postulates and see how we go...
For example:
Let's take a look at the first postulate:
Commonly worded as :
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
Based on the wording there appears no problem, certainly not for me, however, let's adjust it a little so that my point can be made clearer.

The laws of Physics, as we know them, are the same in all inertial reference frames.

You will note that the meaning or implication is very different.

The second version implies that while the laws of physics may indeed be universal in application, the laws as we know them may not be so universal in application.


This is because the laws as we know them MAY be not be entirely correct and / or complete (inclusive).


However the laws if true and sound and fully inclusive, would indeed have universal application in all inertial reference frames
Evidence to suggest this is not the case:

• Dark Flow phenomena,
  
• CBR cold spot - Eridanus super void,
  
• The Great Attractor anomaly near universal center.
• The need for an unknown matter ( 84% of the known universe) to explain gravitational and other anomalies.

 

[exchemist]

There are two points I wanted to make in response to your post. The following is the easiest so I will stick to this one about the postulates and see how we go...
For example:
Let's take a look at the first postulate:
Commonly worded as :
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
Based on the wording there appears no problem, certainly not for me, however, let's adjust it a little so that my point can be made clearer.

The laws of Physics, as we know them, are the same in all inertial reference frames.

You will note that the meaning or implication is very different.

The second version implies that while the laws of physics may indeed be universal in application, the laws as we know them may not be so universal in application.


This is because the laws as we know them MAY be not be entirely correct and / or complete (inclusive).


However the laws if true and sound and fully inclusive, would indeed have universal application in all inertial reference frames
Evidence to suggest this is not the case:

• Dark Flow phenomena,
  
• CBR cold spot - Eridanus super void,
  
• The Great Attractor anomaly near universal center.
• The need for an unknown matter ( 84% of the known universe) to explain gravitational and other anomalies.

Earlier in the thread you made this suggestion but seemed unable to explain why you think these hypotheses might imply the laws of physics are not the same in all inertial frames. presumably you have a reason for thinking this. What is it?

 

[CptBork]

Feel free to believe that there are really infinities in nature and that theories with infinities have no problems.

There are lots of infinities that pop up in natural calculations, like the infinities that appear and cancel off in quantum renormalization, and the infinite orders of perturbation. There's an infinite number of non-repeating digits in any irrational number such as pi. Your stubbornness in refusing to accept the most sensible interpretations of reality might possibly be infinite too.

I never said whether or not infinities actually exist in nature independent of human abstraction, I'm agnostic on that. I'm sure QuarkHead is too. Why don't you provide us with a mathematical or experimental proof that nature can't have any infinities or singularities?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Earlier in the thread you made this suggestion but seemed unable to explain why you think these hypotheses might imply the laws of physics are not the same in all inertial frames. presumably you have a reason for thinking this. What is it?

and I asked you in post #48 what hypothesis you are referring to... yes?
You didn't respond to my request for clarification.

Now you are saying that the hypothesis is about observed anomalous astronomical phenomena... yes?
So what Hypothesis are you referring to?
I have mentioned no hypothesis.
They are considered by mainstream science as anomalies for a reason yes?

Perhaps you could explain why you believe they are considered as such?

 

[Schmelzer]

There are lots of infinities that pop up in natural calculations, like the infinities that appear and cancel off in quantum renormalization, and the infinite orders of perturbation. There's an infinite number of non-repeating digits in any irrational number such as pi.

Of course - in approximate calculations. In mathematics, they appear all the time. In cheap polemics too. But not in reality.

Why don't you provide us with a mathematical or experimental proof that nature can't have any infinities or singularities?

Because such a request, as every request of proofs of something about nature, is nonsensical.