New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime

WhiteLion said:
Yes science is a lot about going through trial and errors. If a theory or idea valid for one gets kicked, punched, scaulded enough and still left standing, you know there's probably something there.
Click to expand...


So, science is like Rocky? :D
 
Just as vapourware is only vapourware until it is delivered, so too is an hypothesis only an hypothesis until it is demonstrated in a practical way.

Hype.
 
I'm not really seeing a hypothesis here. Just an observation that we have a new model that is not based on "spacetime" but rather on a de-coupling of space and time, and the resulting math seems to fit certain observations better. But on a deeper level there is no "truth" being revealed here.

Both classical Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's GR are valid scientific theories because they meet the criteria of being testable and falsifiable. The big win is if your theory makes predictions that you can go out and test and get positive results that the earlier theories didn't predict, or predicted incorrectly. This is why GR sits on top of Classical Mechanics, but both are still treasured as the "crown jewels" of science.

I'd say it's a matter of debate whether GR really "falsified" Newton's mechanics. It would be more accurate to say that Newton got everything right, and it's only the most modern measuring devices, push to the absolute limits of their ability, that can find cases were GR gives a result that is more accurate than what Newton would have predicted.

Show me how Horyava's theory meets those criteria, and you will have my attention.
 
My point is that its value may not be in being a good description of gravity but as a toy model demonstrating approaches that may get us there. Describing it as vapourware and hype is not that helpful.
 
edd said:
My point is that its value may not be in being a good description of gravity but as a toy model demonstrating approaches that may get us there. Describing it as vapourware and hype is not that helpful.
Click to expand...
Not helpful, but accurate!

Nothing has been proven or demonstrated; thus hypothesis and vapourware, respectively.
 
Last edited:
Vapourware is something that doesn't exist. This theory exists, it just happens not to be correct - and being incorrect does not render it without value. It's nothing like vapourware - it's an entirely inaccurate description.
 
Richard S said:
I'd say it's a matter of debate whether GR really "falsified" Newton's mechanics.
Click to expand...

Relativity certainly didn't falsify Newtonian mechanics. It was failing to make predictions that matched observed phenomenon that did that. In fact, that's the only way you can ever falsify a theory, simply proposing another theory can never do that.

It would be more accurate to say that Newton got everything right, and it's only the most modern measuring devices, push to the absolute limits of their ability, that can find cases were GR gives a result that is more accurate than what Newton would have predicted.
Click to expand...

No, that wouldn't be accurate at all, since Newton demonstrably didn't get everything right. That was known well before Einstein ever came along and didn't require any modern devices or pushing anything to its limits. What is actually correct to say is that Newtonian mechanics gives answers that are close enough to reality to be good enough in most situations. Relativity gets everything a lot closer to reality, but still seems to have a few problems here and there.
 
Richard S said:
I'd say it's a matter of debate whether GR really "falsified" Newton's mechanics. It would be more accurate to say that Newton got everything right, and it's only the most modern measuring devices, push to the absolute limits of their ability, that can find cases were GR gives a result that is more accurate than what Newton would have predicted.
Click to expand...

It's not that Newton's work was proven wrong, per se, by Einstein but rather that it was proven incomplete, limited as it were.
You see, as past significant breakthrough's in, for example, theoretical physics were in their own way correct, they were oft limited as to not account for other layers of dynamics. Relativity is solid at a macroscopic level yet at the levels of QM there suddenly appears a variety of issues and problems. This is why, in science, we specify a theory's solid/valid status through its specific 'domain of application', because we do not have a UFT yet (Unified Field Theory) really encompassing all laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom