Slashdot Mirror


Einstein's Theory Passes Strict New Test

FiReaNGeL writes with an excerpt from a story at e! Science News: "Taking advantage of a unique cosmic configuration, astronomers have measured an effect predicted by Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity in the extremely strong gravity of a pair of superdense neutron stars. Essentially, the famed physicist's 93-year-old theory passed yet another test. Scientists at McGill University used the National Science Foundation's Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT) to do a four-year study of a double-star system unlike any other known in the Universe. The system is a pair of neutron stars, both of which are seen as pulsars that emit lighthouse-like beams of radio waves."

12 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Re:For us plebs... by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 5, Informative

    in summary:

    1. GE says two objects can cause a wobble in each other's axes due to gravity
    2. Measurement of this wobble wasn't possible earlier
    3. With this star system, since they are massive and pulsate, and that they are aligned in a manner that makes a measurement possible, astronomers took the plunge
    4. Prof...proved.

  2. Re:Can't be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate it when people discuss science in this banal way. It is as if they think that the physical theories are what cause nature to act (the Laws of Nature). This is wrong. These physical theories only describe how nature appears to act. Quantum mechanics is a classic example. Look at all the different formulations that describe how the state vector or wave function or whatever you want to call it acts (Heisenberg's, Schrödinger's, Dirac's, Feynman's, etc.). They are all good theories because they explain the experimental evidence, they are simple, and they can predict things. Take a look at the so-called wave-particle duality. A photon, for example, doesn't act as a wave or as a particle. It acts as a photon (paraphrasing Feynman). We only describe it as acting as a wave or a particle.

    The truth about science is that it may very well not be possible to understand why the Universe acts as it does. It may not even be possible to understand the most basic laws governing it. But we can certainly study and try to understand its behavior where we can observe it. General relativity does that well, and quantum mechanics does that well. Calling one right and the other wrong sort of loses its meaning in this context when both theories describe their data exceptionally well for the ranges that they observe. Neither of them proposes to govern nature, nor should we ever expect that of a physical theory.

  3. Re:Strict new test? Psh! by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they want to REALLY test a theory, they should just post it on slashdot.

          No, silly, that's just how you test the server.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  4. Re:Can't be right by sjhs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are exactly right, but to paraphrase:

    "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

  5. Re:Can't be right by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Calling one right and the other wrong sort of loses its meaning in this context

          I agree. Once again science... REAL science, is never about "right" or "wrong". It's about "can I use what you just told me in a predictable manner?". If it's BS and it doesn't work, then leave me alone I have stuff to do. :)

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  6. Re:And that, boys and girls, by blahplusplus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the value of good old fashioned visual thinking and geometry actually, einstein's theories were so powerful correct BECAUSE he was an excellent visual thinker and thought in terms of geometry. Geometry is highly under-rated in mathematics and physics in my opinion.

  7. hypothesis - 1 of 4 scientific terms by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 5, Informative

    The word you are searching for is hypothesis.

    There are 4 terms that need to be understood in the realm of science - hypothesis, theory, law & fact. They are all separate & distinct, except for the only progression that occurs - hypothesis => theory.

    A fact is what has been carefully observed.
    A law describes that observation.
    A hypothesis is a proposal intended to explain that observation.
    A theory seeks to explain that observation & has been confirmed by considerable evidence and has endured all attempts to disprove it.

    example:

    Fact
    Objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass.

    Law
    http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/Class/circles/u6l3c1.gif

    Hypothesis => Theory
    Mass causes a curvature of spacetime which creates the effect of gravity.

    1. Re:hypothesis - 1 of 4 scientific terms by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Informative

      The parent is not quite right.

      An observation is some type of measurement. We could call this a fact if we like, but observation is better because is acknowledges the role of the observer in a way that "fact" does not.

      A law is some invariance across multiple observations. See, for instance, Kepler's laws. (They do not, as the parent says, "describe" observations, but rather they postulate invariant aspects of planetary motion)

      A hypothesis is a testable prediction based on naturalistic explanation of lawful behavior, typically of smaller scope than a theory and untested or weakly tested. Theories can also lead to hypotheses, through logical implication (ie, "my theory predicts that X, therefore I hypothesize X will occur in this experiment")

      A theory is a unified, parsimonious, testable, naturalistic explanation for entire sets of laws. For instance, Newton's theory of mechanics explained all of Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and lawful behavior on earth as well.

      Observation: These objects that I have dropped all appear to fall at the same rate regardless of mass, within measurement error

      Law: All objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass

      Hypothesis and theory Newton's theory of mechanics, or Einstein's theory of relativity

  8. Re:And that, boys and girls, by megaditto · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think what he's saying is that since these scientists's job to to disprove relativity, or kill cancer, or cure AIDS, and they failed at their job, then they should not get their paycheck next month.

    Seems perfectly logical to me.

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  9. Re:For us plebs... by Raenex · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now THAT is a summary

    Actually I recommend reading the article. It's short, understandable, and contains other cool facts about these neutron stars.

    Also, as for that last "proved" bit, the article ends with:

    "It's not quite right to say that we have now 'proven' General Relativity," Breton said. "However, so far, Einstein's theory has passed all the tests that have been conducted, including ours."

  10. Re:And that, boys and girls, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, this upholds the theory that pink unicorns, which are known to exist, are invisible, otherwise this experiment would have revealed them. Further proof of the existence of invisible pink unicorns!!!

    Here's an experiment you can do yourself. Find a dark room, such as a bathroom stuck between two other rooms and therefore windowless. Close the door and keep the light off. Reach out your hand. Do you feel anything? Holy Crap, you just found an OMGPONIES! Turn the light on, quick! Did you see the OMGPONIES!? No, you didn't. Further proof that OMGPONIES!s, known to exist, hate artificial lighting, and run very fast. Isn't that amazing?

  11. Re:Can't be right by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are aware that "impossible" means "cannot be done" and not just "we can't do it right now", right?