Why Einstein will never be wrong

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Jan 14, 2014.

  1. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Nobody replied to this so I looked at Wiki:



    Some alternatives to dark energy aim to explain the observational data by a more refined use of established theories, focusing, for example, on the gravitational effects of density inhomogeneities, or on consequences of electroweak symmetry breaking in the early universe. If we are located in an emptier-than-average region of space, the observed cosmic expansion rate could be mistaken for a variation in time, or acceleration.[28][29][30][31] A different approach uses a cosmological extension of the equivalence principle to show how space might appear to be expanding more rapidly in the voids surrounding our local cluster. While weak, such effects considered cumulatively over billions of years could become significant, creating the illusion of cosmic acceleration, and making it appear as if we live in a Hubble bubble.[32] [33][34]

    Another class of theories attempts to come up with an all-encompassing theory of both dark matter and dark energy as a single phenomenon that modifies the laws of gravity at various scales. An example of this type of theory is the theory of dark fluid. Another class of theories that unifies dark matter and dark energy are suggested to be covariant theories of modified gravities. These theories alter the dynamics of the space-time such that the modified dynamic stems what have been assigned to the presence of dark energy and dark matter.[35]

    A 2011 paper in the journal Physical Review D by Christos Tsagas, a cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece, argued that it is likely that the accelerated expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by the relative motion of us to the rest of the universe. The paper cites data showing that the 2.5 billion ly wide region of space we are inside of is moving very quickly relative to everything around it. If the theory is confirmed, then dark energy would not exist (but the "dark flow" still might).[36][37]

    Some theorists think that dark energy and cosmic acceleration are a failure of general relativity on very large scales, larger than superclusters.[citation needed] However most attempts at modifying general relativity have turned out to be either equivalent to theories of quintessence, or inconsistent with observations.[citation needed] Other ideas for dark energy have come from string theory, brane cosmology and the holographic principle, but have not yet proved[citation needed] as compellingly as quintessence and the cosmological constant.

    On string theory, an article in the journal Nature described:

    String theories, popular with many particle physicists, make it possible, even desirable, to think that the observable universe is just one of 10500 universes in a grander multiverse, says Leonard Susskind, a cosmologist at Stanford University in California. The vacuum energy will have different values in different universes, and in many or most it might indeed be vast. But it must be small in ours because it is only in such a universe that observers such as ourselves can evolve.

    Paul Steinhardt in the same article criticizes string theory's explanation of dark energy stating "...Anthropics and randomness don't explain anything... I am disappointed with what most theorists are willing to accept".[38]

    Another set of proposals is based on the possibility of a double metric tensor for space-time.[39][40] It has been argued that time reversed solutions in general relativity require such double metric for consistency, and that both dark matter and dark energy can be understood in terms of time reversed solutions of general relativity.[41]

    My bold.

    I really wonder if re-visiting GR is the best way forward.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    I did mention it before brucep, there is another forum, where people with new ideas, theories, etc, are given a month to come up with evidence supporting their claims. If that isn't forthcoming, the thread is closed.
    My main argument with some of the nonsense is that, in most of the cases, it isn't an approach such as "I think I may have a better description of gravity, blah blah, here's how I think it is"...They approach with "This is the way it is and no correspondence will be entered into" type of approach....And when evidence is asked for, it is ignored. Arrogance in the extreme.
    I don't believe I have taken up any gauntlet though, and I don't want any slack. All such nonsense should be jumped on by those attuned into the relevant subject matter. Which in itself sometimes leaves me behind the eight ball so to speak, being a layman in these fields.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. superstring01 Moderator

    The obsession with absolutes is theist thinking. "Why can't there be just one rule to guide us!" No. Life is never that simple. The universe isn't so kind.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The thing about science is that, by and large, it's a public enterprise, and an international one at that. The findings of science, its theories, the results of experiments, etc. are all publically available. They aren't kept hidden away in some vault somewhere. Moreover, the methods of testing that have been used by the scientists are also detailed in public documents. So, if you don't trust some of them, you can ask others to duplicate the findings. Or do it yourself.

    The effect of dark energy is built into the equations of general relativity. In a sense, it's just a parameter in those equations that people thought was most likely equal to zero until quite recently. It's not quite correct to say that dark energy works against gravity. It is, itself, a type of gravity - repulsive gravity.

    The position we're in is that the acceleration of the universal expansion has been observed and now we need to explain it. The best available explanation at present appears to be dark energy. If you or somebody else can come up with an explanation for the expansion that doesn't require dark energy, that's great if it works. It's not like physicists have their hearts set on dark energy as the only explanation. It's just the best one currently available.
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    I mentioned gravity induced pressure and phase changes, which is implied with Newtonian gravity. Maybe the point I was making is GR is often pitch as the new and improved version of Newtonian and I was showing this is not exactly true. One would not use GR to model metallic water in large gas planets but would go back to Newtonian which is more flexible.

    Another consideration that comes to mind has to do with SR. A charge in motion will give off a magnetic field, with the field strength increasing with velocity. As velocity increases, the field strength get stronger with distance and does not distance contract, except as a minor adjustment of the first effect. This is why I said that relativity could use another layer to the model. This extra layer is important because in other discussions on the forums there is a tendency to model in only space-time. I have shown this to be false since it ignores layers. Maybe that is not Einstein, by bad extrapolation like the quote above points out. The quote is not just for the laymen.
  9. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    It's nice to hear you say that. The general impression that you get from the media (not the science media, particularly, but the general media) is that dark energy is a given and it's just a case of finding out what it is.

    Someone suggested on another thread that time might be variable, and that it ran more slowly earlier in the universe. If this is right, then time ran more slowly in the past and is getting progressively faster. That would mean that the red-shifts have been distorted too, and the expansion of the universe is not accelerating, so there is no need to invent dark energy.

    Would that be a correct conclusion, given the (flaky) assumption? Or would it have the opposite effect?
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Hi James....I accept that.
    The way I pictured it in my layman's head was as follows......this "repulsive gravity" [ or CC/DE or quintessence, or whatever other name one feels like asigning to it] was strongest just after the BB and that impetus was the cause of Inflation. Then the effects of gravity working against it gradually slowed it down to a more sedate expansion. At the same time because that continued expansion was in effect lessening the density of mass/energy in the Universe, and consequently the slowing of the effects of gravity, the expansion then started to accelerate again. [since the repulsive gravity reveals its effects over all of space/time] This is the phase we find ourselves in now.
    No, I have no maths to support that scenario, but I am still asking how the idea itself stands up to current cosmological knowledge and observations.
    What do you think?

    Great point!!!
    It's OK for some to come to a science forum decrying the theories that are at present the accepted scenarios, but it would be really nice for them to offer other explanations, supported by observational and/or experimental evidence supporting the alternative.

    My thoughts are that Newton was not wrong.....His model is just less accurate, but still accurate enough to send our present probes to all parts of the solar system.
    Einstein [as the thread suggests] was also correct. But to a much higher degree.
    Any future QGT will most certainly encompass the BB and relativity, and at the same time extending its parameters.
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Based on the WMAP results it's the cosmological constant. Doesn't surprise me since Einstein predicted it and it's a component of the cosmological metric. For inflation the source is the local gravitational field of a 'soliton' in a quantum scalar field. The cosmological constant term is dominant term over the metric which describes the inflation of the soliton. During inflation the potential 'rolls down the hill' seeking the minimum vacuum expectation value. I've thought, like you, that the minimum still hasn't been found and it was hidden from our analysis until we discovered the universe expansion is accelerating. I've never read anything like that from cosmologists so it's probably not quite true.

    Theoretical models are interesting in many ways. One way is 'domain of applicability. Where the theoretical model expects the theoretical predictions to apply. For the domain of applicability that Newton chose his theory is correct in every way. What made his theory a weak field approximation was discovering the domain of applicability for gravity wasn't the domain Newton chose. His choice of domain was time and length are invariant and the speed of light is infinite. It's not like he had much of a choice.
  12. brucep Valued Senior Member

    The scientific answer is the cosmological constant [WMAP results]. The media doesn't have a hand in making that experimental measurement.
  13. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Jesus wept. Will someone answer the question?

    If time ran more slowly in the early universe, what effect would that have had on the red shift and would it change the perceived acceleration of the expansion of the universe?
  14. brucep Valued Senior Member

    It would have no effect on measurements made now for cosmological redshift. The acceleration of the expansion of the universe isn't perceived. Experimental measuring devices don't measure perception. It's real natural phenomena. It would mean the universe is younger than we think. Cosmological time is based on the tick rate of co-moving proper frame observers. The tick rates are synched so time passes at the same rate during the evolution of the universe. The tick rate we use is 1 and it's equivalent to the tick rate of a clock at boundary. This tick rate is ~ a nanosecond faster than the tick rate of your wristwatch. So we say the universe is this old ...... to some error bar. Essentially in Earth years.
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    You're probably afraid of your own shadow. BOOO!
  16. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ OP,

    Einstein will never be wrong because he is dead and does not talk much these days.

    However if you mean his theorys will never be proven wrong you contradicted this already by saying,

    So let me try to guess the idea behind this thread.

    You are saying that "to discredit Einstein someone needs a better Theory.".

    Ummm.. Okay.
  17. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

  18. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Actually the author of the article was simply picking up the phrase "proven wrong" and using it in the same sense that all the crackpots out there typically use it. And within that context he talks about what it would take to actually do that. But the article is essentially about whether or not that's even a legitimate way to characterize what happens when a scientific theory is supplanted by a more robust one, hence the contradiction is merely apparent, not actual.
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The expansion of space-time within the universe is inferred by the red shift. We see a red shift and assume this implies space-time expansion. That aside, if we assume this inference is true, then we infer dark energy, which we have never investigated in the lab, must be responsible. There is even more creative liberty being used. To create an alternate explanation, all you need to do is explain the red shift in another way that does not require so much creative liberty.

    Time modulation of frequency to red shift energy:

    If you look at photons they have wavelength and frequency, with the product equal to the speed of light. Theoretically, one can get a red shift if we tweak photons by either the frequency, or the wavelength, since the product will be consistent. For example, if we have a train moving away from us, the tone of the whistle will get deeper (red shift) due to the wavelength changing, since the output frequency of the whistle stays the same on the train.

    Say the train is moving away but now the conductor alters the frequency of his whistle, so the pitch goes up, while it is moving away. I can be tuned to cancel the distance tweak, so the train appears stationary if we only use the red shift. The whistle frequency tweak can also add to the distance tweak to get what appears to be a faster train, than is real, if we only depend on the red shift.

    The question becomes, are there any sources of frequency modulation, that can amplify the red shift so expansion appears faster?

    Let me show you how this is possible with a well documented observation. If we orbit a satellite, around the earth, its clock/time will change relative to the surface of the earth. On the other hand, if we measure the physical clock, does its physical size get smaller or larger? No, therefore only time or frequency is being tweaked by the order in a permanent way, but distance is left unaffected. We can prove this in the lab. I don't need dark energy, only gravity and orbits to frequency/time tweak.

    Quantum tunneling:

    There is another way that I figured out yesterday. This has to do with quantum tunneling. The picture below represents an activation energy hill. Normally energy is added to push a reactant up the hill, to overcome an energy barrier, before it can slides down the other side. Quantum tunneling would be a direct path from A to B that can avoid having to climb the hill.

    Since the y-axis is energy, a tunnel path involve less exothermic energy output, than starting at the top of the energy hill to point B. It would appeared red shifted. There is also no rule that says that tunneling can't occur anywhere from point A to the top of the hill, allowing us to get from high to low red shift. Dark energy helps this effect by making the tunnel barrier more sandy and less rocky so it happens more often.
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    It only took 3 sentences before you wrote something completely wrong.

    This is not the first time you have had to be corrected on this and yet you continue to incorrectly state that the expansion of space is driven by dark energy. Dark energy is proposed to account for the ACCELERATION of the expansion of the universe. I am not sure if this is just to subtle for you to understand or you are ignoring these facts so you can pretend your ideas make sense.
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Most people don't care. This thread is most likely directed at the tiny minority of cranks and crackpots who continuously promote their pet theories and denials.

    Only someone who doesn't understand how science works would say such a thing.

    Are you serious? Keeping secrets about General Relativity? Do you realize how utterly impossible and improbable that would be considering the time frames and people involved? No, seriously?

    It is well known the GPS system would not function accurately if not for taking into account both Special and General Relativistic effects. If this were not so and there was another explanation, why not just reveal that other explanation? What could anyone possibly gain by withholding secrets about it?

    Seems rather immature, downright childish.

    Exactly. But, since there is an entire global system in place based on Einsteins equations, why not use them? At least, until something better comes along. But, that would mean showing hard evidence that his equations are wrong. That hasn't happened.
  22. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Rav,

    The author was suggesting the conditions necessary to make it actual which may one day occur. The entire thread is about the future, but the author plainly is disgruntled by half ass theories be put forth without evidence and math. To state Einsteins Theories will never be proven wrong as a complete stance is not scientific.

    Einstein is fairly broad in his analogies concerning Ether as well. If space bends then what is actually bending. That is another thread however.
  23. Rav Valued Senior Member

    His point is not that general relativity will never be supplanted by a superior scientific theory. His point is that to then say it has been proven "wrong" will not really be an apt characterization, as it will continue to model the cosmos with a stunning degree of accuracy.

Share This Page