Thomas comments on Particles may not have broken light speed limit - Less Wrong

2 [deleted] 17 October 2011 07:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (30)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Thomas comment score below threshold [+] (10 children)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 18 October 2011 11:51:48AM 4 points [-]

I think their position is to be considered carefully now, too.

GR is a single point in theory-space. But the position "GR is wrong" is just the set of every other alternate theory, stated or unstated, imagined or yet unimagined. As a position it doesn't really make predictions, unless it specifies in what particular way GR is wrong.

Comment author: Thomas 18 October 2011 12:18:14PM 0 points [-]

Could still be wrong, couldn't it?

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 18 October 2011 03:09:50PM 2 points [-]

You didn't grasp my point. What I said means that GR probably is wrong in an absolute sense - same way that Newtonian mechanics was wrong in an absolute sense.

But GR also seems to be Less Wrong than any other theory on the topic that we currently have. Which alternate theory do you have that you want us to "carefully consider"?

Comment author: Thomas comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 18 October 2011 03:53:05PM 1 point [-]

Not good enough.

"enough" for what?

If we have something better than the GR, or we have not - it is just besides the point.

What exactly do you believe "the point" is?

Comment author: Thomas 18 October 2011 04:12:39PM -2 points [-]

What exactly do you believe "the point" is?

The point is, to have a correct theory. This is enough, and nothing else.

I don't know where and how and if at all, the GR is valid or not. But we have a measurement which might contradict it. And that might not be resolvable without mending the theory.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 18 October 2011 04:39:52PM 1 point [-]

Okay, but I think you're saying the obvious. I'm not a physicist but the way I understand it, much stronger evidence for GR's non-validity would be the fact that it's inconsistent with quantum mechanics -- and since it's at large distances that we keep getting results we don't expect and which we need to patch over with hypotheses about dark energy/dark matter/etc, it's GR that is most likely to be revised first.

Comment author: Thomas 18 October 2011 05:15:09PM -1 points [-]

much stronger evidence for GR's non-validity would be the fact that it's inconsistent with quantum mechanics

Quite a bad omen, yes. Something had to give. Either QM, either GR. Now, we MAY have a contradiction inside the GR and the QM is much less threatened by the GR as it seemingly was, back in 1926.

There were other bad signs for the Relativity before, name a few. Ehrenfest paradox and the already transluminal speed of the Universe expansion, were not helping.

The probability that the Gran Sasso measuring was wrong, is smaller and smaller.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 18 October 2011 05:20:10PM 2 points [-]

I think you're giving way too much significance to this latest measuring. Even if GR is shown to be false, my money's still on the measuring to be false as well.

continue this thread »

Thomas comments on Particles may not have broken light speed limit - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (30)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (30)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login