Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What happens if Einstein was wrong ???
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5291 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 6 of 15 (107354)
05-11-2004 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RingoKid
05-10-2004 7:48 AM


RingoKid writes:
...if Gravity probe B (GP-B) proves certain predictions concerning General Relativity were a figment of Einstein's fertile imagination, then...
...it would probably lose the great man some cred, put a lot of clever people out of a job and make some people's life work irrelevant but what does it mean for the average man in the street and what are some of the far reaching implications stated in the following excerpt from the GP-B website???
Einstein's credibility is secure, and will not be affected by the progress in science taking us beyond what he proposed. Science, by its very nature, continues to progress; and the contributions of the past, of geniuses like Leonardo Da Vinci, and Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein, will continue to be celebrated, honoured and used; even if those contributions turn out to be subsumed or superseded in subsequent developments.
Clever people are not put out of a job by new discoveries. Their jobs become more important; not less. The job of a scientist or engineer is not predicated on the knowledge of the day; it is expected that a professional will be able to keep up with new developments. The experts in old theories are the very ones who are best positioned to grasp and appreciate and apply new knowledge that replaces those old theories. Someone who has no grasp of Einstein's work is at a real handicap in dealing with further extensions or replacements or refinements.
The life work of a scientist is rarely made completely irrelevant by new developments. It can happen; but usually this is when a scientist is pursuing new ideas that don't pan out. The people whose work is most likely to become "irrelevant" are those who are actively proposing a specific new idea to replace Einstein's models. It is more common for major new ideas to turn out to be incorrect than for them to become established as the new foundation for physics. However, this is not "irrelevant"; it is essential to how science works. An idea proposed and rejected is still useful basic scientific research, even if nothing comes of it at all. Rejection sometimes involves finding useful new data, which can still be used by others in other contexts; but even if the only result is "Well, that idea was wrong"; this is still useful and relevant research.
The impact for the man-in-the-street will be pretty much nothing, in the short term, unless they are interested in physics or cosmology. There is a chance of new possibilities for applied knowledge with any new advances in physics; but this is not really something we can predict.
On the other hand, simply solving the problems of building and launching the probe is a major exercise in engineering research and development. There is a definite potential for spin-off applications which may be useful to people who have no idea where they originated. This is described in a page at the site you reference: Spin-off Technology from Gravity Probe B.
The impact on cosmology, for those who are fascinated with learning as much about the universe as we can manage, could turn out to be profound.
Finally (and not wanting to be a wet blanket, but this has to be said):
The most likely consequence, in my opinion, is strong confirmation of Einstein's relativity and the further cementing of this as a pivotal and reliable scientific basis for research in theoretical cosmology.
But let's wait and see. Any new test has potential for surprises.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-12-2004 02:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RingoKid, posted 05-10-2004 7:48 AM RingoKid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Darwin Storm, posted 05-12-2004 2:46 AM Sylas has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5291 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 9 of 15 (107663)
05-12-2004 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Darwin Storm
05-12-2004 2:46 AM


Darwin Storm writes:
IF I remember correctly, this experiment has been on the drawing boards for almost 50 years.
Yes... according to Page 3 of "the story of gp-b":
In 1918, two years after Einstein formulated general relativity, W. Lense and H. Thirring calculated that according to the theory a rotating massive body should slowly drag space and time around with it!
Startling and far-reaching as Lense & Thirring's discovery was, any verification of frame-dragging seemed hopeless. Nothing happened until 1959 when Leonard Schiff of Stanford University (and independently George Pugh of the Defense Department) considered orbiting gyroscopes. On Schiff's calculations a gyroscope in polar orbit at 400 miles should turn with the Earth through an angle amounting after one year to 42 milliarc-seconds.
This vitally important frame-dragging effect has never been seen. Gravity Probe B will measure it to a precision of 1% or better.
The rest of the linked pages all make up a really fascinating introduction to this experiement.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Darwin Storm, posted 05-12-2004 2:46 AM Darwin Storm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by usncahill, posted 05-20-2004 10:15 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5291 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 13 of 15 (109600)
05-21-2004 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Eta_Carinae
05-21-2004 1:04 AM


Re: Hint:
Hi Eta... I don't understand your hint; and I don't know enough relativity to answer the question with confidence. But I'll take a stab at it. Any comment from you explaining what I get right, and what I get wrong, would be much appreciated.
Here is my attempt.
An object in orbit is in freefall. In conventional Newtonian physics, the orbit of a satellite around a large sphere, like the Earth, is dependent only on their masses. It makes no difference whether or not the large massive sphere of the Earth is spinning; the orbit of the satellite remains the same.
In relativity, this is no longer true. The rotation of the Earth actually drags space along with it, in a sense, and this has an effect also on the orbitting satellite.
Gyroscopes on board the satellite will remain pointing in a fixed direction in space; but if space itself is being dragged along by the spin of the Earth, then the gyroscope will move in the same way. The end result is that it ends up pointing at different regions of the sky after a length of time. The effect is slight, but should be detectable in the new probe... if the effect exists as predicted.
Now I think some of that is on the right track, but I am not sure. I'll bet it could be explained much better. Could you consider this my astrophysics assignment, and mark it for me?
Thanks -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-21-2004 1:04 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mogur, posted 05-21-2004 3:53 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024