Einstein Lecturing

Why Einstein Will Never Be Wrong

13 Jan , 2014 by

One of the benefits of being an astrophysicist is your weekly email from someone who claims to have “proven Einstein wrong”. These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as “it is obvious that..”, or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways. They all get deleted pretty quickly, not because astrophysicists are too indoctrinated in established theories, but because none of them acknowledge how theories get replaced.

For example, in the late 1700s there was a theory of heat known as caloric. The basic idea of caloric was that it was a fluid that existed within materials. This fluid was self-repellant, meaning it would try to spread out as evenly as possible. We couldn’t observe this fluid directly, but the more caloric a material has the greater its temperature.

Ice-calorimeter

Ice-calorimeter from Antoine Lavoisier’s 1789 Elements of Chemistry. (Public Domain)

From this theory you get several predictions that actually work. Since you can’t create or destroy caloric, heat (energy) is conserved. If you put a cold object next to a hot object, the caloric in the hot object will spread out to the cold object until they reach the same temperature.  When air expands, the caloric is spread out more thinly, thus the temperature drops. When air is compressed there is more caloric per volume, and the temperature rises.

We now know there is no “heat fluid” known as caloric. Heat is a property of the motion (kinetic energy) of atoms or molecules in a material. So in physics we’ve dropped the caloric model in terms of kinetic theory. You could say we now know that the caloric model is completely wrong.

Except it isn’t. At least no more wrong than it ever was.

The basic assumption of a “heat fluid” doesn’t match reality, but the model makes predictions that are correct. In fact the caloric model works as well today as it did in the late 1700s. We don’t use it anymore because we have newer models that work better. Kinetic theory makes all the predictions caloric does and more. Kinetic theory even explains how the thermal energy of a material can be approximated as a fluid.

This is a key aspect of scientific theories. If you want to replace a robust scientific theory with a new one, the new theory must be able to do more than the old one. When you replace the old theory you now understand the limits of that theory and how to move beyond it.

In some cases even when an old theory is supplanted we continue to use it. Such an example can be seen in Newton’s law of gravity. When Newton proposed his theory of universal gravity in the 1600s, he described gravity as a force of attraction between all masses. This allowed for the correct prediction of the motion of the planets, the discovery of Neptune, the basic relation between a star’s mass and its temperature, and on and on. Newtonian gravity was and is a robust scientific theory.

Then in the early 1900s Einstein proposed a different model known as general relativity. The basic premise of this theory is that gravity is due to the curvature of space and time by masses.  Even though Einstein’s gravity model is radically different from Newton’s, the mathematics of the theory shows that Newton’s equations are approximate solutions to Einstein’s equations.  Everything Newton’s gravity predicts, Einstein’s does as well. But Einstein also allows us to correctly model black holes, the big bang, the precession of Mercury’s orbit, time dilation, and more, all of which have been experimentally validated.

So Einstein trumps Newton. But Einstein’s theory is much more difficult to work with than Newton’s, so often we just use Newton’s equations to calculate things. For example, the motion of satellites, or exoplanets. If we don’t need the precision of Einstein’s theory, we simply use Newton to get an answer that is “good enough.” We may have proven Newton’s theory “wrong”, but the theory is still as useful and accurate as it ever was.

Unfortunately, many budding Einsteins don’t understand this.

Binary waves from black holes. Image Credit: K. Thorne (Caltech) , T. Carnahan (NASA GSFC)

Binary waves from black holes. Image Credit: K. Thorne (Caltech) , T. Carnahan (NASA GSFC)

To begin with, Einstein’s gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don’t work. Einstein’s theory didn’t supplant Newton’s until we had experimental evidence that agreed with Einstein and didn’t agree with Newton. So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of “disproving Einstein” will fall on deaf ears.

The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein’s theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory.  Ideally, your new theory will also make new predictions that can be tested in a reasonable way.  If you can do that, and can present your ideas clearly, you will be listened to.  String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that.

But even if someone succeeds in creating a theory better than Einstein’s (and someone almost certainly will), Einstein’s theory will still be as valid as it ever was.  Einstein won’t have been proven wrong, we’ll simply understand the limits of his theory.

, , , , ,



Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Dan
Guest
Dan
January 13, 2014 3:50 PM

Agreed!! Well Put Sir!

Vega_AMG
Guest
Vega_AMG
January 13, 2014 4:03 PM

This article has some excellent points. It should be considered MUST reading for all those pushing the failed theories associated with climate change.

Nexus
Member
January 13, 2014 7:36 PM

You mean the failed theories that claim climate change is not happening?

Derek Mathias
Guest
Derek Mathias
January 14, 2014 2:32 AM

And failed theories that evolution didn’t happen / isn’t happening.

hrizzo
Member
January 14, 2014 4:55 AM

No sir. He means the failed theory of anthropogenic global warming. Climate is changing as it always has been, due to natural causes, for the last 4500 million years.
What has been disproved by paleoclimatic data and by the current pause of 17+ years in global temperature, despite the growing levels of atmospheric CO2, is the AGW hypothesis.
In fact, there is no empirical evidence for the hypohesis, just failed computer models predictions.

Kawarthajon
Member
Kawarthajon
January 14, 2014 9:52 AM

Nonsense. There is clear scientific support for anthropogenic climate change, and it is not just based on computer models, but actual real scientific data. Read Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy blog to get your facts straight, especially this 17 year “pause”.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html

hrizzo
Member
January 14, 2014 12:35 PM

You are talking nonsense. Just name one empirical evidence for AGW, and you will be famous and rich. All there is for it is a rather short time of correlation (and correlation is no causation) and a bunch of failed models.
There is dispute on the real effect of GHGs, but the window for CO2 is already totally saturated. The hypothesis depends on feedbacks that are mostly unknown.
That´s all.
And against it you have real data from Vostok and Greenland, and the unexpected and unexplained pause of 17+ years in global warming.

Kawarthajon
Member
Kawarthajon
January 14, 2014 12:41 PM

Please read the posts on climate change on Phil Plait’s website. He is much more eloquent than I am and will put to rest your denial of “AGW”. He has posted dozens of articles on the topic, including his most recent one here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

hrizzo
Member
January 14, 2014 1:17 PM

I have read him, and I have not found an empirical proof for AGW, and no real answer to the problems I have listed.
Have you found any?
Models and hypothesis must agree with the real world, or they are just wrong. That is what happens with AGW hypothesis.
All of its predictions: continued warming, tropical hotspot, polar amplification in both poles, have been proved wrong by nature.

hypernova
Member
hypernova
January 14, 2014 5:13 PM

Sir, that is not correct. These things have not been proven wrong. Simply saying it does not make it so. Please provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific paper that show these things have been “proved wrong”. You also may want to re-read this article, as it seems that you are still fuzzy on the scientific process.

hrizzo
Member
January 15, 2014 7:41 AM

Links to 1100+ papers against AGW will be enough?:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Plus, if you like, a link to a letter sent to ONU signed by more than 1000 scientists dissent over man-made global warming:
http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

Nexus
Member
January 14, 2014 6:10 PM
The problem is that the science deniers have not made their case. We know how CO2 and other greenhouse gases behave in the laboratory, that they trap heat. So if the deniers want to convince anyone that human-induced climate change is not real, they need to provide a convincing explanation why greenhouse gases do not behave the same in nature as they do in the lab. So far they have failed in that responsibility. Trusting well-understood physics, chemistry and thermodynamics must remain the default position. Furthermore, the models have been right more often than they have been wrong, and the claimed 17 year hiatus just is not real. Deniers have to do better than cherry-picking every little surprise… Read more »
hrizzo
Member
January 15, 2014 7:10 AM

No, sir, you are completely wrong. The proponents of a theory must provide real data and evidence for it, and explain why it doesn´t work as expected when confronted with reality. So far, the AGW has no provided any factuall evidence in both cases. If the theory is contradicted by nature, it is wrong. That is called “scientific method”.

Nexus
Member
January 15, 2014 8:43 AM
You say the proponents of a theory need to provide evidence for it. That means you agree that the burden of proof lies on the deniers. Because the people who agree that climate change is real are doing nothing more than asserting that the laws of physics are uniform everywhere. This is not a controversial assertion. It is the deniers who are making the extreme claim, and extraordinary claims require robust evidence, which has simply not been provided. You need to explain why greenhouse gases do not act the same way in nature as they do in the lab or alternatively explain where the extra trapped heat is going, if it is not heating the planet. Then you… Read more »
Pr3Historic .
Guest
Pr3Historic .
January 15, 2014 10:46 AM

Shouldn’t it be the one who is saying that a theory is true providing the evidence?

hrizzo
Member
January 15, 2014 12:03 PM
No sir, you got it backwards. We know, for sure (geologic and fossil evidence) that Earth climate´s natural condition is change; it has been changing for the last 4500 million years. We know that we don´t know exactly why; we have some broad suspects but not fine details. The AGW hypothesis proposes that CO2 is the principal cause of those changes, so it must: 1) Present empirical evidence that that is the main reason of climate change (past and present), 2) Explain the changes of past climate considering the fundaments of the hypothesis, and 3) Make predictions about the future that can be measured and registered, considering that the hypothesis is correct. Fact is that the hypothesis has… Read more »
Dan D.
Member
Dan D.
January 15, 2014 1:53 PM
Pretty much everything you’ve said here is wrong. The evidence strongly favors the hypothesis that the most recent warming is due to increased C02 from anthropogenic sources. Past climate change prior to large-scale anthropogenic influences provides a helpful backdrop to understanding climate sensitivity to C02 and other forcings, of course. And climate scientists do make predictions about the future. They also make “hindcasts” of climate change in the past. For example, a recent study ran a bunch of simulations of the 20th Century climate, for which we have excellent temperature records. One set of simulations included anthropogenic sources of C02, the other didn’t. Guess which set more closely approximated the *actual observed global temperature trends*? That’s right, only… Read more »
hrizzo
Member
January 15, 2014 2:39 PM

What evidence. Models are not evidence, of course, specially GIGO models.

Hindcasts are more or less right, because they are made to look so.

But the proyections have been totally wrong:

Implications for climate models of their disagreement with observations
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/

von Storch and Eduardo Zorita: on our paper on stagnation and trends
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.es/2013/08/hans-von-storch-and-eduardo-zorita-on.html

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

Nicola Scafetta: Climate Models Used By IPCC Fail To Reproduce Decadal & Multidecadal Patterns Since 1850
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/06/nicola-scafetta-climate-models-used-by-ipcc-fail-to-reproduce-decadal-multidecadal-patterns-since-1850/

Why Climate Models Fail
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WHY_CLIMATE_MODELS_FAIL.pdf

IPCC Lead Author Says Climate Models Are Failing
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/07/13/ipcc-lead-author-says-climate-models-are-failing

Failure evidence for all 21 IPCC positive-feedback climate models
https://archive.org/details/TheObservedFailuresOfAllIpccPositive-feedbackClimateModelsAndTheir

Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3706

Two Minutes to Midnight –
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/24/two-minutes-to-midnight/

IPCC hides the decline of its climate models
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_hides_the_decline_of_its_climate_models/

Dan D.
Member
Dan D.
January 15, 2014 1:42 PM
While you are quite right that the evidence strongly favors AGW, the evidence for its impact one way or another on extreme weather events is on far more shaky ground at the moment. We simply don’t have enough data, and our models aren’t yet robust enough to give reliable signals for regional climate change, let alone individual weather events like heat waves. Right now the best we can say is that it is more likely than not that, say, heat waves will become more extreme with continued warming. But it’s also possible that climate feedbacks that we don’t know much about yet will actually dampen weather extremes, even while the average temperature continues to rise. It’s also simply… Read more »
Greg Robert
Guest
Greg Robert
January 16, 2014 6:02 AM

Evidence of global warming? That’s easy. Just look at all the hot air in here.

hrizzo
Member
January 16, 2014 3:06 PM

Yup A good bunch of hHot air is all what AGW hypothesis is.

TerryG
Member
January 13, 2014 7:43 PM

Also String Theorists, people who write about string theory and other loons hoping to supplant Relativity theory should take careful note of this article.

You can derive Einstein’s field equations using a mathematical construct known as a tensor. But of course this doesn’t mean the universe is one huge tensor, only that it can be modelled this way.

Similarly, String Theorists might derive elegant (but otherwise meaningless) equations by calling on extra dimensions. This do not mean we live in a Universe with hidden dimensions as some String theory like to think.

Thanks for this story UT.

Pr3Historic .
Guest
Pr3Historic .
January 15, 2014 10:45 AM

That’s why we have Super String theory grin

joseluis
Member
joseluis
January 13, 2014 4:29 PM
Proving that a theory or a model provides wrong results under certain conditions (such as Newton’s laws at speeds comparable to c) means that this theory is shown to be incomplete, if not plainly wrong. We may call this “the limits” of a theory, but this is rather too benevolent or optimistic, in my opinion. We should not so much fear this adjective, as science has most frequently (if not always) progressed by stepping on the hurt/dead bodies of older and -yes, wrong theories. Caloric is a clear example. These older theories may have worked in some or in many cases, but this does not mean they were “correct” or complete. In any case this will not stop… Read more »
metalman_5150
Member
metalman_5150
January 13, 2014 4:49 PM

“But Einstein also allows us to correctly model black holes, the big bang, the precession of Mercury’s orbit, time dilation, and more, all of which have been experimentally validated.”

Show us where (preferably in the lab) these validations hold true. A black hole? The big Bang? Those are still theories too, true?

todd
Guest
todd
January 13, 2014 8:38 PM
We can observe – not in a lab – the characteristics and formations of black holes – we can measure the speeds vs. distances of bodies near a black hole…….we can observe the bending of light in a vacuum via large body gravitation….they have achieved hi quality observations and measurements of Mercury’s orbit which validates the theory …..he predicted gravitational lensing, which is being used today to look farther than ever……..space navigation must work in some principles of special relatively into their formulas to avoid small errors….. Einstein equivalence principle is proven by the redshift measurements we all agree on today……..there are several more – but still many, many more to substantiate – so far as I know,… Read more »
Alexander Vyssokii
Guest
Alexander Vyssokii
January 14, 2014 3:10 AM

Surprisingly, the thing that today is in a widest use, the GPS, would not work without taking into account the effects of the Relativity. As simple as that.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

magnus.nyborg
Guest
magnus.nyborg
January 14, 2014 12:13 PM
Does the measurements of stars orbiting something in the centre of the milky way, something with the mass of about 4 million sunlike stars and yet that do not emit light in any normal fashion for starlike objects of similar mass, does that provide evidence for or against the existance of a black hole in the center of the milky way. Do these measurements constitute scientific facts? Do any of the rest of the observations of that something in the center of the milky way support or reject the existance of a possible black hole Now it is true that we still havent conclusive evidence for a black hole in the centre of the milky way, but we… Read more »
What?
Guest
What?
January 14, 2014 7:11 PM

Time dilation was shown in the lab, through changes in Muon decay times. At rest, Muons decay in about 2 microseconds. This means that we shouldn’t see any Muons from cosmic rays on the Earth’s surface, but we do. Time dilation as a consequence of relativity explains this, since high energy Muons travel faster to the point that they experience time dilation. Hell, Einstein himself named three tests that, if the theory failed to pass them, then it was wrong. It’s passed all three, and has done ever since. Search for the classical tests of general relativity.

Pr3Historic .
Guest
Pr3Historic .
January 15, 2014 10:51 AM

Well the big bang generally defies every law of physics soooo…..

Ola
Guest
Ola
January 13, 2014 6:14 PM

Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” It takes faith to believe. that.So does believing things that happened billions of years ago.Isaac Newton, mentioned in the article once said “If the Bible is true, time will come when man will travel at 50 miles an hour.” And the great scientist has been proven right. …scientifically and otherwise. He certainly had what many in his days did not have.

Derek Mathias
Guest
Derek Mathias
January 14, 2014 2:30 AM

It does NOT take “faith” to believe things that happened billions of years ago. Faith is belief without evidence or even despite evidence to the contrary. For instance, we can look at galaxies billions of light-years away and be reasonably certain that they looked then like they do now. No faith required.

H.
Guest
H.
January 14, 2014 4:58 AM

No. If look at galaxies billions of light-years away, we can only tell what they looked like billions of years ago. Thats it. No superluminal vision.

Derek Mathias
Guest
Derek Mathias
January 14, 2014 5:35 PM

That’s actually what I said. To be clearer, perhaps I should have said, “we can look at galaxies billions of light-years away and be reasonably certain that they looked then like they look to us now.”

Nexus
Member
January 14, 2014 6:16 PM

Dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.

Joe Rogan
Guest
Joe Rogan
January 14, 2014 8:20 PM

“There is no God, Summer. You gotta rip that Band-Aid off now. You’ll thank me later.”

Pr3Historic .
Guest
Pr3Historic .
January 15, 2014 10:50 AM

Or we could just look at the piles of historical evidence Jesus existed for the New Testament

Hlafordlaes
Member
Hlafordlaes
January 13, 2014 7:14 PM

Excellent piece. Nice addition to the other fine articles on UT. Keep it up!

UFOsMOTHER
Member
UFOsMOTHER
January 13, 2014 8:23 PM

If it works DONT FIX IT ….

Coacervate
Guest
Coacervate
January 14, 2014 1:33 AM

Yep, that ox-cart is still creaking along. Praise be to Ur

john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 14, 2014 1:11 PM

It does not work. see my post, John Kulick

Kevin
Member
Kevin
January 13, 2014 9:27 PM

Yeah, I’m sure there are tweaks and refinements ahead, but Einstein’s work is solid.

Windfall
Member
Windfall
January 13, 2014 11:45 PM

Great article; well written. This should help me articulate some of these points better.

Coacervate
Guest
Coacervate
January 14, 2014 1:02 AM

Ahem…OK, agreed, but let us keep in mind that it was Prof. Einstein (who spoke of “the Old One” often) who was compelled by a fellow whose name may or may not be Heisenberg to admonish God to, in the vernacular of our day, let what happens in Vegas stay in Vegas.

Seriously, are we really one unifying equation away from knowing everything about the universe save “the bookkeeping”? I find that difficult to believe. Although we do know everything about optics, right?

H.
Guest
H.
January 14, 2014 5:04 AM

Some predictions of the theory of relativity actually have been verified in labs. We wouldn’t have nuclear power (or nuclear bombs) without E=mc^2, and the electronic structure of many heavy elements (observed in labs) requires inclusion of relativistic effects.

BrianFraser
Member
BrianFraser
January 15, 2014 12:16 AM

E=mc^2 can also be derived using non-local physics. The form is:

E/((1/c)^1) = m/((1/c)^3)

It means that mass is a three-dimensional form of energy.

space/time is “local”
time/space is “non-local”

So it is the 1/c term that is non-local.

As I mention below, stuff like this could be taught at the high school level.

Steve Nerlich
Member
January 14, 2014 5:54 AM

Nice article. Not sure about ‘Einstein also allows us to correctly model black holes’ when the math just delivers a ‘singularity’ (i.e. an infinitely-dense point source) as a solution, regardless of the differential mass or radii of different black holes. Einsteinian physics does predict black holes, but doesn’t allow you to ‘model’ them in any meaningful way.

Bill Samson
Guest
Bill Samson
January 14, 2014 6:22 AM

I can’t wait for dark matter and dark energy to go the way of caloric.

Peter F.
Guest
Peter F.
January 14, 2014 6:26 AM

Nice article! Only it was a shame that it put entropic gravity on the same (sure as can currently be) footing as string/M-theory.

nirmalgopa
Guest
nirmalgopa
January 14, 2014 8:48 AM
Yes, Einstein was not wrong. Actually, he teaches us to progress front. Regarding the creation of the universe, there are many hypothetical proposals, but not the ultimate theory. Ones Einstein tried on complete unified theory, but not succeeded. He told that complete unified theory be the pillar of science at the time of delivering lecture in the year 1921, when he was honored by the Nobel Prize. So, some mistakes are there in modern science which the scientists are failed to prove. 1) what is the accurate mass of a photon, graviton? we don’t know, treated it as zero mass. The mass cannot zero, Zero means there is no matter into it. 2) In the theory of Relativity,… Read more »
john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 14, 2014 11:26 AM
Something very fundamental IS wrong with General Relativity, as proved below. In the void of outer space, a gram of matter is converted into radiant energy and beamed to a distant galaxy which has a large mirror that returns the signal. When the light returns, the wavelength of the light has been lengthened and the energy diminished, as predicted by General Relativity. The wavelength increases proportionally with the “stretch” of space. Convert this energy back into matter and there will no longer be a gram of matter. This indicates four very significant problems. 1. Energy is lost. This violates the principle of conservation of energy. The gram of radiant energy is now less than the gram of matter… Read more »
john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 14, 2014 11:56 AM

Not quite true. Even with corrections for general relativity and special relativity, (which tend to cancel out) there still are corrections that have to be constantly “tweaked” to keep the system working. The system self corrects itself all the time and can do so perfectly fine without dipping into calculations of special relativity and general relativity.
The effects of Special Relativity of slowing clocks with speed, and General Relativity’s speeding up of clocks as the gravitational field density diminishes does happen, so the theories are locally valid.

Alexander Vyssokii
Guest
Alexander Vyssokii
January 14, 2014 5:00 PM

> there still are corrections that have to be constantly “tweaked” to keep the system working…
-Didn’t knew that.

Prime
Member
Prime
January 14, 2014 12:03 PM
Quantization Once we are free from the light quanta paradigm, quantization can be simply defined as the frequency response of the atomic antenna. We find that Max Planck, the originator of light quanta himself, referred to the quanta as an EFFECT due to the oscillator’s characteristics and resisted Einstein’s point particle nature of light quanta. In his recorded remarks which took place during 1909 in an audience at Einstein’s talk we find him arguing Einstein’s hypothesis of atomistic light quanta propagation through space. “If Einstein were correct, how could one account for interference when the length over which one detected interference was many thousands of wavelengths? How could a quantum of light interfere with itself over such great… Read more »
john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 15, 2014 10:03 AM
Huh? who is talking about acceleratin frames? If an object moving at the speed of light can not change, according to special relativity, how can a photon change its wavelength and energy content while moving at the speed of light?” You are! Or at the very VERY least you spoke of different frames from the universe and photons, yet expect their numbers to match? My “frame”, in the proof that something is wrong in the cosmological application of General relativity with respect to the photon, is the same. I am in space, sitting with a gram of matter, and beam off a gram of energy. Eventually the once gram of energy returns to me in my frame. I… Read more »
Prime
Member
Prime
January 15, 2014 11:22 AM
The Photon is a False Concept The debate over the true nature of light and matter dates back to the 1600s. Christiaan Huygens proposed light to be waves, whilst Isaac Newton came up with his own corpuscles (particles) theory. Over periods of time, preference flipped to and fro between these two opposing views. Presently, the scientific community cannot find a proper resolution to this debate and it holds that all waves also have a particle nature (and vice versa). Years have passed, theories have been revised and updated, new technologies have surfaced, and yet it seems that nobody has had the guts to tackle this challenging issue again. Scientists seem satisfied enough reciting the wave-particle duality. So, shall… Read more »
BrianFraser
Member
BrianFraser
January 15, 2014 1:11 PM

Bill:
Copy and paste this line into Google.

Inverseness, Complementarity, and the
Wave/Particle Duality

I think you will find a satisfactory explanation of the wave/particle duality.

Prime
Member
Prime
January 16, 2014 12:01 PM

I found a more less true explanation. No False Concept Photons,, even in the gamma frequencies;

Bill

john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 14, 2014 12:05 PM
Something very fundamental IS wrong with General Relativity, as proved below. In the void of outer space, a gram of matter is converted into radiant energy and beamed to a distant galaxy which has a large mirror that returns the signal. When the light returns, the wavelength of the light has been lengthened and the energy diminished, as predicted by General Relativity. The wavelength increases proportionally with the “stretch” of space. Convert this energy back into matter and there will no longer be a gram of matter. This indicates four very significant problems. 1. Energy is lost. This violates the principle of conservation of energy. The gram of radiant energy is now less than the gram of matter… Read more »
Zaoldyeck
Guest
Zaoldyeck
January 14, 2014 2:31 PM
I am confused on many points of yours… First, if I am accerating, do I measure a different frequency of a wave? If so I can’t help but feel you’ve missed the whole point of relativity. Why must the energy you measure light to have be invariant? E=mc² is only true for massive objects, so let us look at the true eqution. E²=p²c²+m²c?. Well this is interesting… Apparently the energy of a particle is related to the momentum as well as the mass. Clearly then this equivilence isn’t invariant in the case of accelerating frames. But wait! If we can’t use the equivilence with accelerating frames, what then do we make of not only the expansion of the… Read more »
john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 14, 2014 11:12 PM

“First, if I am accerating, do I measure a different frequency of a wave? ”

What do you mean by this?

“E=mc² is only true for massive objects,”

Huh? works for electrons, even photons.

“Clearly then this equivilence isn’t invariant in the case of accelerating frames.”
Huh? who is talking about acceleratin frames?
If an object moving at the speed of light can not change, according to special relativity, how can a photon change its wavelength and energy content while moving at the speed of light?

Zaoldyeck
Guest
Zaoldyeck
January 15, 2014 12:44 AM
I mean exactly what I say, if I am accelerating, and there is either an incoming wave, or a outgoing wave, would I measure changes in its frequency/period? That is, do I observe crests more/less frequently than I would if I were otherwise staying still? This is important, because it forces you to picture different frames, how not all quantities you’d expect to agree actually agree. Which brings me to “E=mc^2”. That’s a silly equation, and when I said “it’s only true for massive objects”, even THAT is a bit of a stretch. In truth, I should say, “E=mc^2 is valid for massive objects at rest”, a more proper equation is E=?mc^2 where ? is the lorentz factor…… Read more »
john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 16, 2014 9:56 AM
Hi Z Just some advice from a fellow “outside the box” thinker. I understand your need to have someone, anyone, consider the fruits of ones labor. I checked out the link to your work and it is clear you have spent much time developing your ideas. This process can be very frustrating, and may very likely be an exercise in futility, even if you are right. I am reminded by the story of Boltzmann. You probably know about him from the study of entropy, and Boltzmann’s constant, which is on his tomestone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_entropy He believed he never recieved credit for his work from his contempories, which apparently one of the contribuiting factors leading to his suicide. It is… Read more »
hypernova
Member
hypernova
January 14, 2014 5:17 PM

Please re-read this article and then delete your post. Thank you.

john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 14, 2014 11:13 PM

NO

john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 14, 2014 11:15 PM

Sorry, that was a bit brupt.
Sorry you did not learn some of the short failings of General Relativty, as pointed out in the post.

BrianFraser
Member
BrianFraser
January 15, 2014 12:37 AM

John
Here is another problem you can add to your list:

According to Einstein, the photon does not experience the passage of time. It follows logically that photons cannot have a trajectory. Yet we readily manipulate photons as though they have a trajectory.

That in turn means that the “trajectories” are actually effects of the reference system. And for that to work, the reference system must be moving at the speed of light, and in a completely isotropic (non-directional) fashion.

Those would seem to be two insurmountable problems. However, non-local physics easily addresses those problems, and in terms that a high school student could understand.

john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 15, 2014 10:11 AM

Hi Brian,
We both share a level of skepticism that should be more common in science.
It seems we also believe we have an alternative model.
Do you have a web page or paper to consider?

BrianFraser
Member
BrianFraser
January 15, 2014 6:37 PM

John:
I tried to post additional information but it was deleted. No reason given. I suspect it was not “sufficiently mainstream” to post here.

Does this site support email between members?

john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 15, 2014 10:16 AM

I re-read it. (This posting is made after my callous posting below).
Lets see, Caloric model eventually was replaced by another better model.
My posting seems in line.
General Relativity when applied to Cosmology will be replaced by a better model.
History repeats itself.
Einstein will fall off this reverential pedestal once we start acting like true seekers of knowledge rather than worshipers of idols.

hypernova
Member
hypernova
January 15, 2014 4:41 PM

I’ll explain it then:
Newton was not wrong. His equations are still valid. The reason that Einstein supplanted Newton is because Einstein’s equations can do more than Newton’s. Newton is still taught in school. And, in fact, you can derive Newton’s equations from Einstein’s.
The reason I suggested you re-read the article, is because in your original post you did EXACTLY what the author said that the Physics cranks do. Lots of scientific terms used inaccurately, with no equations. Read the first couple sentences of the article again.

john kulick
Member
john kulick
January 16, 2014 9:31 AM

Ivan B.
Thank you for the reply. It was courtious. More so than I was. I applogize.
You accused me of doing exaclty what physics “cranks” do.
Lots of scientific terms used inaccurately with no equations.
My post pointed out the shortfalls of General Relativty at a very fundamental level with respect to the Cosmological Red shift. If I am wrong, I would be greatfull to learn what concept you believe I am misssing.
If you want equations, you can check out my model at Youtube, use search name of John Kulick. (No dark energy and no dark matter is needed, and the ambiguity with respect to the energy of a photon and the cosmological red shift are resolved).

Ausra Meskaite
Guest
Ausra Meskaite
January 14, 2014 5:09 PM

This also says about you , urselves, the one who want to change himself- dont do that, befora making a mistake you are right, after a mistake u are right to acept that mistake, you dont hawe to change urself, you hawe to um, i’m not that good at english so i will use the word update ;D u have to update ur self to become what u want to be! This was one excelent point about those einstein theories became from the old ones! Peace /..

wpDiscuz