| Re: Are the theories of relativity real?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedaisoul  I cannot tell whether you interpret all four as being real, or abstractions? | First of all, semantic issues, is there an aut-aut between "real" and "abstraction"? I could say in some sense that they are real and in some sens that the are abstractions. They are an excellent description of reality (whatever the hack that is) at scales we have so far observed. Reaching the so-called Planck scale of length (including time) the description is not expected to be the same because gravitation is expected to exhibit quantum nature.
If you read about string and membrane theories, there is a whole zoology of them: distinct theories that all give predictions compatible with what we are currently able to observe. These are constructed in terms of manifolds having more dimensions than the known ones of space-time and typically they conjecture some fundamental things such as causality being different at such small scales but becoming statistically as we know them on the large scale. So far, these theories are not distinguishable from each other by currently observable predictions.
Relativistic quantum field theory is the best description we have at the smallest scales currently observable; it is stark raving zany, worse than the more well known quantum mechanics, it's absolutely crazy but it works. The famous Standard Model (of particle physics) is built in terms of it and, to boot, on a wacky notion called spontaneous symmetry breaking. This matches with all that's known about the whole zoo of subatomic particles, including the quark flavours observed after prediction, and the only beast remaining to be seen is the Higgs boson.
Considering the way quantum field theory works, I wouldn't be surprised if, one day, we found some proof that in principle all these possible sub-Planck descriptions are equally valid, with none more nor less true than the other. | 
Similar Threads 
