Slashdot Mirror
New Theory of Gravity Decouples Space & Time
eldavojohn writes "Petr Horava, a physicist at the University of California in Berkeley, has a new theory about gravity and spacetime. At high energies, it actually snips any ties between space and time, yet at low energies devolves to equivalence with the theory of General Relativity, which binds them together. The theory is gaining popularity with physicists because it fits some observations better than Einstein's or Newton's solutions. It better predicts the movement of the planets (in an idealized case) and has a potential to create the illusion of dark matter. Another physicist calculated that under Horava Gravity, our universe would experience not a Big Bang but a Big Bounce — and the new theory reproduces the ripples from such an event in a way that matches measurements of the cosmic microwave background."
Behold, science.
The catch is, eventually one will be right, and explain things that are out of the scope of Einstein's theories or more accurately explain in-scope things.
Or do you believe we are at the pinnacle of the field, and can achieve no more?
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Horavec's formulation works for certain (perfectly spherical) cases of the stress-energy tensor, not in other cases. In fact it produces some wildly inaccurate results in more realistic cases. Nor is he the first to try this kind of thing. Still, it sounds interesting and further refinements could produce a fully consistent theory which can match observation. When and if that happens then it will be a really major advance. It certainly seems like we're edging closer to something.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Whether it's a feature or a bug depends on whether it reflects reality.
It's strange to me that Dvali would abandon his model for allowing FTL propagation of information unless he experimentally checked the conditions in question to see if information really could propagate FTL in those cases. I have to assume he did not - lacking clarification on the matter I'm left to assume that the conditions were not something simple he could test no a whim.
Without the experimental results, it's meaningless to call such an artifact in the model "good" or "bad".
Yeah: http://yfrog.com/b9sciencevsfaithbigp
This sentiment is rather old, I'm sure before and when Einstein came about, people were saying the same thing about Newtonian physics. Skepticism about new theories are fine, but I'm sure the science will come to a point where we do discover something better than Einstein's formulas in some areas.
BTW, my physics is really rusty, doesn't one of Einstein's equations devolve into a newtonian equation at slow speed? Which just shows that things are truly built on top of one another.
This is healthy. Science can only progress if we accept that thinking outside the box is admissable. If the idea works ehen it will be testable.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
It took me long enough to get my head around the intertwining of space and time in relativity. Now you're telling me that they might also be decoupled in special circumstances.
Ow! My brain hurts.
BTW, my physics is really rusty, doesn't one of Einstein's equations devolve into a newtonian equation at slow speed?
Wouldn't be correct if it didn't. Newton wasn't *wrong*, he just didn't specify the parts he couldn't see. Same with Einstein, same with this.
I'm really going to destroy my karma here, but I think that diagram isn't correct. I would argue that personal faith is almost identical to the path of the science in the diagram. There are those of us out there who hold beliefs but aren't afraid that our beliefs might be changed by what evidence we are presented with. Faith will always be there for the things we do not have the tools to understand. Whether or not you apply a god to it doesn't matter, because in the end, past what our science is able to tell us, everything comes down to a belief.
The problem with faith is when it becomes blind faith. Some people think what they've found is the be all end all and refuse to search anymore. It's not specific to the religious either. If you notice, there are "science" folk in here mocking this new theory because it contradicts the old one. Think about this next time you want to take a swing at someone who holds faith.
What, science?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I don't understand this, I don't need faith to believe there is order in the universe. It's been proven that there is a certain amount of order and I can reproduce those measurements if I wanted to see for myself. Causality is equally provable. We don't know how everything works yet but the stuff we are sure about I don't need faith to believe. The other stuff we make our best guess while reserving the right to change our mind pending further data.
Yes, with science there is a certain amount of established expectation based on observation. Do something, see what happens, expect it to behave the same way in an identical situation. If it doesn't behave the same way, figure out what's not identical about the situation. I don't think it's right to call this faith, or if you want to, it's important to suggest the only REAL faith is "expecting what you've already observed will continue to be true". There are still tests that can be tried and repeated, there are generally equations that can be applied to the results.
Religious faith, on the other hand, deals with having insight into the unknowable. As such there aren't any tests, any results, no expectation of repetition, no equations.
Religious faith may be rewarding for many people in many ways (hey, it seems pretty popular), but it doesn't pay to confuse it with the scientific process. Those two different uses of the word faith are so divergent, it's probably better just not to use them.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
All faith is blind.
'Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.'
And just because some may swing one way or the other within either group doesn't show anything. At its root religions are unchanging, or at least the Judeo-Christian ones are meant to be. At sciences base we strive for changing, evolving viewpoints.
No, that is a stupid terrible meme. First off the axioms of science are things like 'a + b = b + a', compared to there is a God and history as described in a multiple 1000page book. Not the % of which is axiom, In fact the whole christian belief system IS a huge axiom, individuals get to add theories on top that's all.
As well, science is made of 'best guesses so far'. That 'so far' stipulation means you don't actually have faith in anything merely knowledge of a best guess. Scientists/Philosophers haven't proven with any great certainty that we can know anything so all we CAN do is make guesses. The only absolute proofs we make do use givens, so we can prove things withing certain constructs. Like, we can PROVE things in math, but it is an artificial device. That isn't the same as universal truths. All we get there are good guesses.
Do we act on those guesses? Certainly, much like you'd call a friend's cell before his house. You don't KNOW he is there, simply that is the best educated guess you can make at the moment. The idea that people EVER need to make a leap of faith is total BS.
I'm not familiar with this Jesus theory. Because I am open to outside-the-box thinking, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and evaluate your theory based on it's merits, rather than dismissing it out of hand. Can you send me an example where Jesus accurately predicts known experimental results? Also, what experiments would you posit to prove or disprove Jesus? I eagerly await your reply.
Not so. You cannot prove that repeatedly making a measurement in the past is any indication that it will hold in the future. Pointing out that it's worked before is just begging the question, and therefore reproducing the results doesn't help, for it does not mean you'll reproduce the results *again*.
You *must* presuppose that the future is relevantly like the past for empiricism to have any meaning in any context; it's pretty much an irreducible problem.
With that said, such "faith" is, I would argue, essentially to daily living and doesn't really deserve to be categorized as "faith" except in the most pedantic of senses. Without acting under this presupposition, you cannot learn. Anything. I suspect that biologically this presupposition cannot be unlearned since it appears to be intrinsic to learning even in some of the stupider members of the animal kingdom.
"You cannot prove that repeatedly making a measurement in the past is any indication that it will hold in the future."
Flip side, you can't prove that it won't hold true in the future either. In essence, your argument is a case of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
The bottom line is that you're engaging in fancy footwork trying to get to him to use the word "faith", in which case you then have a basis for moving on to a discussion of "true faith", a belief in God or some such. Faith is belief without proof.
But... if you have proof then you don't need faith. Past personal observation, history, science, math, and orbital mechanics all say that the sun will come up tomorrow. Faith is not needed.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
There are two stated assumptions in the principa, one of them is that "time is constant", 20/20 hindsight says this assumption was wrong. However, the fact that he had the insight to recognise that statement was an assumption is testement to his genius.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"Faith is belief without proof."
Belief without evidence is called blind faith, science rests on the faith that the universe is ultimately predictable and will continue to exist even if we don't (in other words it believes that the proverbial tree in a forest does indeed make a noise).
There is no way to "prove" that the universe behaves like this but rational people take it as an indisputable fact because the evidence of ones own perceptions is very difficult to ignore particularly when they match the perceptions of other humans. So yes, science is based on faith as is all knowledge that goes further than "I think therfore I am".
"The bottom line is that you're engaging in fancy footwork trying to get to him to use the word "faith"
No he is not, the "bottom line" is that basic scientific philosophy confuses the hell out of people who subscribe to the popular but incorrect notion that science is in the bussiness of "proof". We wouldn't even be having this discussion if epistemology was taught in modern high schools.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Can you send me an example where Jesus accurately predicts known experimental results?
(I'm not sure if your stay on rejection was genuine or troll-bait, but it's caught momentum and I thought I'd provide an honest response rather than leave the question hanging.)
There's the golden rule, for starters. He didn't invent it, but he was instrumental in the widespread use of its positive statement ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as opposed to "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him"). And the result of following that rule, the rule of initiating kindness, you are statistically more likely to be treated kindly in return. Common sense and anecdotal evidence bear this out as well.
Then there's a bunch of other stuff he said, including things about the Kingdom of Heaven being here and now, forgiveness, faith, and love, that has unfortunately been so steadily downplayed and cloaked in tradition and dogma that it gets lost in the "war" to "win souls" for God. I think the historical Jesus would get along just fine with good-hearted atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Krishnas, Christians, Buddhists, and followers of most any other creed that you can imagine--and he probably had more in common with the Buddhists than we tend to think. He might not agree with all of the beliefs in those various systems, but he was more interested in disciples, people who would emulate his way of living, than converts to his religion, which didn't even exist during his lifetime. In other words, I think he'd be an excellent person to discuss philosophy and religion with, and he'd probably be the first to quell any budding flame wars.
This is of course only my understanding of Jesus. I've put a lot of thought and a decent amount of study into it, so I have a nuanced view not shared by most Christians, but I prefer to simply act in a manner I think he would approve of than to talk about it. It's more challenging and more effective to act, and I lack the agenda to convert people so dislike being perceived as having it. It is still disheartening to see his teachings rejected out-of-hand because of the centuries of stupid, un-Christlike actions of his followers, not to mention the (in my opinion) corruption of his words within the Bible. I hope to change that by trying to live up to the way I think he did. Even if most people who learn from me never find out my source, it is a good way to live.
Your brain is not a computer.