Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDon
I'm not trying to be hostile or blow anybody any atitude but I learn more from the replies to Jerry's posts than if he hadn't posted. Almost like a professional sock puppet as per definition two, (or three).
As you have never done me any harm Jerry, I'm sorry about the implied insult.
|
Never insulted when others are critically analysing the papers and observational data. This is always appreciated.
The only
line in the article I took exception to, is the statement that GR has "passed every test". In a paper referenced by Chris, Turyshev uses slightly different, but meaningful wording (my bold):
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1731v2.pdf
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Turyshev
It is remarkable that even after over ninety years since general relativity was born, the Einstein’s theory has survived every test . Such a longevity and success made general relativity the de-facto “standard” theory of gravitation for all practical purposes involving spacecraft navigation and astrometry, and also for astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology and fundamental physics
|
'Surviving' is not quite the same as passing, and Turyshev goes on to explain why:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Turyshev
However, despite a remarkable success, there are many important reasons to question the validity of general relativity and to determine the level of accuracy at which it is violated. On the theoretical front, the problems arise from several directions, most dealing with the strong gravitational field regime; this includes the appearance of spacetime singularities and the inability of classical description to describe the physics of very strong gravitational fields. A way out of this difficulty would be attained through gravity quantization. However, despite the success of modern gauge field theories in describing the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions, it is still not understood how gravity should be described at the quantum level.
|
When we try to improve our understanding, we hope to be able to better predict what will happen when we try to push our understanding to the next level. This is proving to be very difficult, as the Gravity B Probe team underscores (my bold):
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gravity B Probe Status Report
Now, in 2008, the scientific justification for completing the GP-B experiment is even more valid. During the past five years, there has been little progress on other relativity experiments, but GP-B was launched, operated, and collected all of the necessary data.
|
Like the Lunar Ranging experiments, the GP-B probe team ran into unexpected complications. GP-B probe funding was cut, in part, because, as the senior review committee wrote, "the goals of GP-B have already been fulfilled by other measurements".
I don't think this is true. I think 'survived every test' is a better description than 'passed every test'. Whether or not the observational failures are a result of a flawed theory, or flawed observations remains to be seen.