The Problem with Einstein's Theory of Relativity

I am not even going to pretend to grasp the theory, but I am fully persuaded there are some brilliant philosophers, mathematicians, physicists who do understand this and would love to hear you all talk about what is being discussed in this video.

I understand the problem they are breaking down in this video of a singularity of infinite mass taking up no space at all. I just don't know the pro's and con's of this, so I ask you all to take this on and discuss it so I can glean some deeper understanding on this theory of relativity.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Even Einstein new that he wasn't satisfied with his equations and it plagued him in his later years.
Einsteins theory and quantum mechanics are incompatible.
He ignored everything electrical and this was his biggest mistake. The universe is electric in nature and all new discoveries are confirming this, but you will never hear this from so called mainstream Cosmology which is all based on old theories that do not work any more. Dark energy, dark matter, black holes, quasars, do not exist, the big bang never happened, its all fiction.
Educate yourself and others regarding the electric universe and you will quickly see everything you thought to believe was true was just another grand lie.
Gravity is not the force that rules the universe, compared to magnetic fields and electrical forces, gravity is a very weak localized force that has no effect on the universe at all.
www.youtube.com...

www.thunderbolts.info...

see thats the point,what he claimed is so out of date,we all know that things once claimed are being challenged,so much has being discovered in last 20 years that can you take what was said by any scientist in last 100 years to be fact?

you ask me then i would say no and that includes einstien

Originally posted by mark1167
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Even Einstein new that he wasn't satisfied with his equations and it plagued him in his later years.
Einsteins theory and quantum mechanics are incompatible.
He ignored everything electrical and this was his biggest mistake. The universe is electric in nature and all new discoveries are confirming this, but you will never hear this from so called mainstream Cosmology which is all based on old theories that do not work any more. Dark energy, dark matter, black holes, quasars, do not exist, the big bang never happened, its all fiction.
Educate yourself and others regarding the electric universe and you will quickly see everything you thought to believe was true was just another grand lie.
Gravity is not the force that rules the universe, compared to magnetic fields and electrical forces, gravity is a very weak localized force that has no effect on the universe at all.
www.youtube.com...

www.thunderbolts.info...

edit on 26-8-2013 by mark1167 because: text

edit on 26-8-2013 by mark1167 because: (no reason given)

Thank you very much for the links. I love Nassim Haramein and he talks about some of this stuff. I will check out the links.

reply to post by sparky31

Except that observations predicted by relativity continue to be made and not a single aspect of relativity has been disproven.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.centauri-dreams.org...
www.space.com...

The main paradox is that black holes mean that something as finite as physics, can't explain something that is infinite, which is what is mathematically the answer to a singularity. It is arrived at regardless of classical physics or quantum physics. In math, infinity is acceptable, but in physics, it is not.

It was interesting to see Michio Kaku with such a look of dismay about not being able to solve this problem. If Einstein is right, which so far he seems to be about the macro/cosmic, then the singularity exists in a black hole and there is an infinite aspect to space and time - quite the problem for physics. If Einstein is wrong, then it's still quite the problem for physics, of which, much has been based on his theories.

Either way, as Michio Kaku puts it: "Nature is smarter than us."

...and it will probably always be that way, so the physicists should get used to it.

~Namaste

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by sparky31

 

Except that observations predicted by relativity continue to be made and not a single aspect of relativity has been disproven.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.centauri-dreams.org...
www.space.com...

thats true but i,m still convinced that long after we,r all gone that things we all take as fact will sooner or later be disproved,scientists all love to think they know whats going on and as we know most things have to be revaluated,i believe the facts about relativity will be included in that.

Originally posted by sparky31
scientists all love to think they know whats going on

The complete opposite.
The whole point of doing science is that you know there are things you dont know.

And if you're lucky, you'll discover something completely radically new and get a Nobel Prize.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by sparky31
scientists all love to think they know whats going on

The complete opposite.
The whole point of doing science is that you know there are things you dont know.

And if you're lucky, you'll discover something completely radically new and get a Nobel Prize.

exactly but come on how many scientists have said no way this is true but then it has been proven to be?things keep developing,mean 15-20 years ago most scientists said no way could you detect planets around another star,we now know we can do that,just saying that just cause we think things are impossible we shouldn,t discount anything.

Originally posted by sparky31
exactly but come on how many scientists have said no way this is true but then it has been proven to be?

And thats exactly the way it should be.
The current ideas that best fit the observations made so far, should be the one that currently stand.
But as you say, if an idea arises that *better* explains the observations, then that should be the one that then becomes the accepted norm.

And, it does.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by sparky31
exactly but come on how many scientists have said no way this is true but then it has been proven to be?

And thats exactly the way it should be.
The current ideas that best fit the observations made so far, should be the one that currently stand.
But as you say, if an idea arises that *better* explains the observations, then that should be the one that then becomes the accepted norm.

And, it does.yeah when some proves it beyond doubt,the fact is with the universe is anythings possible so why should we accept what we are being told?we know nothing,we just like to think we do.

edit on 26-8-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

Black holes are other universes. This is why I believe they can't put it together right now. We are inside a black hole and this is why light diffuses. The blackness you see is the membrane of the black hole event horizon. Our universe keeps expanding because more matter is being fed into it from outside. One day it will stop and the universe will evaporate just like Stephen Hawking said. It will vanish away. The multiverse is an infinity of universes made from bubbles we call black holes.

reply to post by Fromabove

If we were inside a black hole the the infalling light from the "outside" universe would fill the sky and be boosted to extreme energy levels. Instead, we get the CMB.

Actually, Black Holes, are the Recepticle Bins, for useless experiments,,
and the way things have progressed here on this Planet,,#ushima/Bio-Logical Warfare/Failure in Leadership Roles,,etc,,
I can see why there is one at the Centre of Our Spiraling Gallaxy,, after all would not want too infect, other Galaxies.


files.abovetopsecret.com...
www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
I am not even going to pretend to grasp the theory, but I am fully persuaded there are some brilliant philosophers, mathematicians, physicists who do understand this and would love to hear you all talk about what is being discussed in this video.

I understand the problem they are breaking down in this video of a singularity of infinite mass taking up no space at all. I just don't know the pro's and con's of this, so I ask you all to take this on and discuss it so I can glean some deeper understanding on this theory of relativity.

The implication of this whole thing is that there's some things in the universe that we will never know even if it takes "infinity".

Which brings me to this point that even though we will never know what it is - our mind is equally up to the task.

We will keep learning with no end in mind!

That is the paradox of the whole thing - fathom the unfathomable.


Ha!!

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I understand the problem they are breaking down in this video of a singularity of infinite mass taking up no space at all.

Your first problem is in that sentence. The singularity does not have infinite mass, it has infinite density. That means that all the particles (at this point, speaking of atoms is meaningless) are touching. Black holes can be quite small (relatively speaking). They are of course extremely massive per unit volume, but they are not infinitely massive. The universe contains a finite mass which is rather accurately known, the concept of infinite mass is quite meaningless.

Furthermore, while the singularity itself is quite odd and thinking about it is weird, that is not all there is to a black hole. There is also the event horizon and the space (if you can call it that) between the singularity and the event horizon.

By the way, 'black hole' is an unfortunate term. Stephen Hawkings showed that 'black holes' actually glow. See: Enigma: Black Holes Glow with a Hot Ring of Light

so I ask you all to take this on and discuss it so I can glean some deeper understanding on this theory of relativity.

Sorry, that is way beyond the scope of a blog or forum, any blog or forum, but especially this one. An entry level physics course at your local community college would be much more satisfactory. Many schools have continuing education courses that would cover this material. Relativity is actually fairly easy to understand, even though the consequences can be far reaching.

reply to post by mark1167

Einsteins theory and quantum mechanics are incompatible.

No they aren't. They are complimentary. Your assertion is akin to saying that electric motors and internal combustion engines are incompatible, when in fact every modern automobile uses both devices interdependently.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by mark1167

 

Einsteins theory and quantum mechanics are incompatible.

No they aren't. They are complimentary. Your assertion is akin to saying that electric motors and internal combustion engines are incompatible, when in fact every modern automobile uses both devices interdependently.

Einstein's general theory of relativity is a theory of classical physics in which dynamical properties, like position & momentum or time & energy, are simultaneously defined for objects with exact precision. Quantum mechanics states that these variables cannot be simultaneously measured/known with arbitrary accuracy. The two theories are not complementary but are fundamentally inconsistent with each other. That is why physics is in crisis. Its two most successful theories are incompatible with each other.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

The main paradox is that black holes mean that something as finite as physics, can't explain something that is infinite, which is what is mathematically the answer to a singularity. It is arrived at regardless of classical physics or quantum physics. In math, infinity is acceptable, but in physics, it is not.

I pretty much agree, though I don't see it as a problem for physics, just a conceptual hurdle.

Kurt Gödel's "first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency." (quoted from Wikipedia).

Furthermore, Werner Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology." (again quoted from Wikipedia).

Gödel and Heisenberg are describing pretty much the same thing, from different viewpoints, one from logic and mathematics and the other from physics. Different knowledge spaces, but both describing a fundamental limit on the accuracy that we can understand the universe. Interestingly, Gödel published his incompleteness theorems in 1931, Heisenberg first described his uncertainty principle in 1927.

This means that physics (a consistent system of axioms in Gödel's sense) cannot represent every possible outcome; there will always be true 'results' that are inherently not understandable, like the infinity result that troubles people so.

Quantum physics is almost incomprehensibly weird, but understanding the results makes the transistor possible.

reply to post by micpsi

Einstein's general theory of relativity is a theory of classical physics in which dynamical properties, like position & momentum or time & energy, are simultaneously defined for objects with exact precision. Quantum mechanics states that these variables cannot be simultaneously measured/known with arbitrary accuracy. The two theories are not complementary but are fundamentally inconsistent with each other. That is why physics is in crisis. Its two most successful theories are incompatible with each other.

I disagree entirely.

There is a point where Newtonian Physics 'breaks down' (i.e. as objects approach the speed of light) and General Relativity is required to explain what is going on. The two are not 'incompatible'; they are complimentary.

Likewise, there is a point where General Relativity 'breaks down' (i.e. the event horizon of a black hole) and Quantum Field Theory (which is simply, but not strictly accurately, Quantum Mechanics plus Special Relativity; review the work of Dirac) is required to explain what is going on. GR and QM most certainly are complimentary, they can answer different questions, though there is overlap, just as there is between Newton and Einstein.

Some Physicists find this an aesthetic problem since infinities are ugly in Physics. They think one approach should handle everything, and QFT may solve the problems they are working on better, or more aesthetically, than GR. But as I said above, Godel showed that it is an impossible ideal to strive for completeness; eventually you are going to come up against something that just doesn't fit, like a singularity and GR.

One needs to remember that we are working at the outer limits of both theories. No experiment has ever shown a valid prediction from General Relativity to be incorrect; and the same with QM (after Dirac added Special Relativity anyway). That does not mean that we will never find an instance where QFT makes a better prediction than GR. Never say never in science. There will certainly be problems where QFT handles the problem 'better'.