General relativity, will we learn otherwise?

[Smokinjoe9]

"General relativity is a geometrical theory which postulates that the presence of mass and energy "curves" spacetime, and this curvature affects the path of free particles (and even the path of light)."

Sorry, I just thought I would ask. I don't like the above statement, it seems to fit the present research, but I find it hard to believe(no need to explain, I get it It's just, well, too old). Like occams razor, yeah a straight line from point a to b is the simplest, no need for more lines, blah, blah.. That's hundreds of years old...Sorry, I am not smart enough to come up with a new/better provable theory, but I don't have to like the old ones either.

[GAHD]

Best explanation I've seen so far, though some of the extrapolations end up looking more like curve balls.

[GAHD]

a bit of clarification: by proven wrong I mean it will be replaced by something more right.

[Smokinjoe9]

I shouldn't have said proven wrong thats harsh. I also meant replaced by something better. I understand it seems like that just won't happen, but I find that hard to comprehend seeing how far we've come. I understand that the current set of rules may have to be scrap piled or altered, but someone has to do it and I would guess it's on the horizon...

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Smokinjoe9

That's hundreds of years old...Sorry, I am not smart enough to come up with a new/better provable theory, but I don't have to like the old ones either.

You do realize that GR is not yet 100 years old.

[Smokinjoe9]

Originally Posted by C1ay

You do realize that GR is not yet 100 years old.

Yes, but Occams Razor is....

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

Originally Posted by Smokinjoe9

Yes, but Occams Razor is....

Occams Razor is a nice principle to use to estimate things (when it can be used) with, but there is absolutely no proof that the universe to be described in the widest domain of its variety will follow its principle.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Smokinjoe9

Yes, but Occams Razor is....

So, if you don't like Occam's razor because it's hundreds of years old, why are you picking on relativity when it's still comparatively young? Is it the old you don't like or the new? BTW, what does age have to do with it. Pythagoras' theorem is 1000s of years old, should we throw it out too?

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Kirk Gregory Czuhai

Occams Razor is a nice principle to use to estimate things (when it can be used) with, but there is absolutely no proof that the universe to be described in the widest domain of its variety will follow its principle.

There's probably an actual example of this we can point to (may be many more).

When physcists were working out the details of neutrinos the SIMPLEST model that fit all the current data had them being massless. But after a while evidence accumulated (such as that based on the solar neutrino problem) that showed they have non-zero mass. Scienstists COULD have assumed a small but non-zero mass to start with, but that wasn't the simplest possible explanation.

So Ockham's razor is more of a guide, or a tool for tentatively concluding which of multiple explanations is prefered, than it is a rule that must be strictly adhered to in order for something to be valud.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Smokinjoe9

I shouldn't have said proven wrong thats harsh.

As so often happens with polls, the array of possible choices is incomplete and/or biased.

General relativity is most likely here to stay. It may be extended (kind of how Einstine extended, but did not refute, Newton's mathematical descriptions of space and time and gravity) but it's not likely to be flat out proven wrong.

In my opinion, general relativty is here to stay. The only real problem that I know it faces is being merged with quantum mechanics for special cases such as things described as singularities, but string theory offers a possible way out of that dilemma.