Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
I believe there's space. I believe there's time. I believe there's gravity. I believe that experiments have shown that the three interact. I'm willing to defer to any reasonably intelligent-looking, bookish sort of person as to the specifics.
joeybernard
Student
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 33
I'm not sure. I mean the mathematics of General Relativity assumes that this is the case, and working for this assumption makes some very precise predictions about the world around us (that's why your GPS works). But it is incomplete since it doesn't take into account quantum mechanics. But the latest and greatest extension to GR, called loop quantum gravity, seems to continue on this vein. So maybe?
Isn't that the whole point of science? You don't "believe" in something. You look at the world and try and find the best possible description of it. If it doesn't fit exactly, try and find a better one.
Isn't that the whole point of science? You don't "believe" in something. You look at the world and try and find the best possible description of it. If it doesn't fit exactly, try and find a better one.
Nancarrow
Chelonian Overlord
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2005
- Messages
- 462
I do, provisionally. But I'd be perfectly happy to go with Aristotle if Ptolemy, Aristarchus, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton and Einstein hadn't come up with successively better ideas. When the next egghead comes along and sees a problem with general relativity and fixes it, I'll go with what s/he says.
ETA: ok so I'm conflating 'theories of gravity' with 'theories of the solar system'. Bite me.
Last edited:
Wudang
BOFH
Hmm, how do you define "physical"?
Personally I believe that string theory is actually about the FSM's noodley appendages which are the basis of reality.
Personally I believe that string theory is actually about the FSM's noodley appendages which are the basis of reality.
joeybernard
Student
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 33
I didn't even think of that! Oh, it is so clear now. RAmen!
General relativity doesn't actually assume space-time, it predicts it. The only assumption is that the speed of light is constant regardless of who measures it. It follows from this that space and time have to be in some way connected otherwise it would not be possible.
joeybernard
Student
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 33
This true. What I was referring to was the mathematical architecture used to describe general relativity. I guess I shouldtry to bemore precise next next time
This true. What I was referring to was the mathematical architecture used to describe general relativity. I guess I shouldtry to bemore precise next next time
I'll let you off this time.
One idea that I find particularly interesting is that relativity and quantum physics are genuinely separate. That is we have a 4D space-time, which can be distorted by masses to cause gravity, inside which different particles exist (or strings or whatever) that interact via the other three forces. This would explain why gravity has not been unified, because it does not have the same origin as the other forces.
Occam's razor can be tricky to apply sometimes, and is difficult to see when this explanation is more or less complex than the attempts at connecting all forces by postulating more and more unobserved particles and dimensions.
joeybernard
Student
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 33
This seems to be sorted out in loop quantum gravity. At least as far as I've read so far. Of course they said the same thing about geometrodynamics, and then string theory. And neither of those seem to be progressing very far, so the same may happen to loop quantum gravity.
l0rca
I know so much karate
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,100
I love you guys. Sometimes in the science forum I don't even need to go deep into explaining what I'm talking about in order to get the sort of discussion I want.
Occam's razor, in a trope, is a cutting edge of scientific theories. It works great for scientific theories, but its minimalism doesn't help a theory come closer to reality.
You're right that they're separate, but it's interesting in how they are separate. The 4-dimensional curves you're talking about, are Lorentz Manifold ideas. And Quantum Physics, as a spur of Relativity, contains these Maniforlds. But these ideas don't seem to be allowing QM to come to any strong, worldly, and familiar ideas for its observations.
That's the main reason I don't think spacetime is anything more than a very good, accurate model. I don't think that spacetime, from a Lorentz explanation, is accurate.
But the idea of spacetime, and the predictions it gives us, I think, has at least earned its way into our ordinary semantics for distinguishing certain charicteristics about our universe.
I'll go on about this some more later. I've got other things to do at the moment (and please excuse my grammar and errors; I don't have time to edit).
EDIT: edited anyway. I'm terrible at hurried first drafts.
Occam's razor, in a trope, is a cutting edge of scientific theories. It works great for scientific theories, but its minimalism doesn't help a theory come closer to reality.
You're right that they're separate, but it's interesting in how they are separate. The 4-dimensional curves you're talking about, are Lorentz Manifold ideas. And Quantum Physics, as a spur of Relativity, contains these Maniforlds. But these ideas don't seem to be allowing QM to come to any strong, worldly, and familiar ideas for its observations.
That's the main reason I don't think spacetime is anything more than a very good, accurate model. I don't think that spacetime, from a Lorentz explanation, is accurate.
But the idea of spacetime, and the predictions it gives us, I think, has at least earned its way into our ordinary semantics for distinguishing certain charicteristics about our universe.
I'll go on about this some more later. I've got other things to do at the moment (and please excuse my grammar and errors; I don't have time to edit).
EDIT: edited anyway. I'm terrible at hurried first drafts.
Last edited: