28 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseIncredible! Does this "Extreme Test" move "The Theory of Relativity" from 'Theory' to Principle or Law or Level
http://www.space.com/20826-einstein-gravity-theory-toughest-test.html
It doesn't get much more extreme than this outside of black holes.
of An Absolute Truth [or must more batteries of Empirical Tests and/or Laboratory Trials be performed first]?
"An extreme pair of superdense stars orbiting each other has put Einstein's general theory of relativity to its toughest test yet, and the crazy-haired physicist still comes out on top. About 7,000 light-years from Earth, an exceptionally massive neutron star that spins around 25 times a second is orbited by a compact, white dwarf star. The gravity of this system is so intense that it offers an unprecedented testing ground for theories of gravity.
"Scientists know general relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915, isn't the complete story. While it does very well describing large, massive systems, it's incompatible with quantum mechanics, which governs the physics of the very small. For something extremely small, yet extremely massive — such as a black hole — the two theories contradict each other, and scientists are left without a physical description." (www.space.com)
.
28 Apr 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyLaws are old hat. The various laws were proposed by overly confident people like Newton who thought they had found absolute truth. Nowadays a theory stays a theory until replaced with a new one.
Incredible! Does this "Extreme Test" move "The Theory of Relativity" from 'Theory' to Principle or Law or Level
of An Absolute Truth [or must more batteries of Empirical Tests and/or Laboratory Trials be performed first]?
"An extreme pair of superdense stars orbiting each other has put Einstein's general theory of relativity to its toughest test ye ...[text shortened]... h other, and scientists are left without a physical description." (www.space.com)
.
29 Apr 13
Originally posted by SoothfastAny new theory will have to be backwards compatible, that is, jiving with Newtonian physics as well as Einstein's physics. It will have to rightly explain phenomena that neither Isaac or Big Al can explain AND make predictions on other new phenomena that pan out or IT will fall by the wayside.
Usually a new theory just refines an old one.
29 Apr 13
Originally posted by KeplerI thought a 'law' was a simple equation or the equivalent in words whereas a theory was longer and more descriptive. We still learn Newtons Laws even though we know they are not entirely accurate.
Laws are old hat. The various laws were proposed by overly confident people like Newton who thought they had found absolute truth. Nowadays a theory stays a theory until replaced with a new one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
29 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's one way of looking at it but none of the more modern equations are accorded the status of a law and not all laws are equations. The Schrodinger wave equation from quantum mechanics is not a law for example. Also, some of Newton's laws of mechanics are not simple equations, the bit about equal and opposite forces for example. Likewise Kepler's laws are not all equations, only the third one that deals with the relationship between orbital period and size of orbit is expressed in anything like an equation in Kepler's work.
I thought a 'law' was a simple equation or the equivalent in words whereas a theory was longer and more descriptive. We still learn Newtons Laws even though we know they are not entirely accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Not being entirely accurate doesn't render Newton's laws useless. They are good enough to get a space probe to Neptune for example, something you couldn't do very well with relativity.
01 May 13
Originally posted by KeplerSo you are saying Newton's physics is more accurate in the close in world of the Solar system than Big Al's?
That's one way of looking at it but none of the more modern equations are accorded the status of a law and not all laws are equations. The Schrodinger wave equation from quantum mechanics is not a law for example. Also, some of Newton's laws of mechanics are not simple equations, the bit about equal and opposite forces for example. Likewise Kepler's laws are ...[text shortened]... space probe to Neptune for example, something you couldn't do very well with relativity.
01 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KeplerI'll give you that! Going through the velocity equations and the variable time thing. Figuring out more or less where you are is a bear, and the equations are loaded into every GPS so I am happy for that box to do all the heavy lifting🙂
Not more accurate but more practical. It is much easier to solve the equations of motion in Newqton's gravitational system than Einstein's.