In what aspect of Einstein’s theory were there any assumptions that were not true? A theory in physics is a detailed explanation of why things are as they are and that allows for accurate predictions to be made. If any prediction is found to not be true than there is something wrong with the theory and it needs to be modified. For over 1…
In what aspect of Einstein’s theory were there any assumptions that were not true? A theory in physics is a detailed explanation of why things are as they are and that allows for accurate predictions to be made. If any prediction is found to not be true than there is something wrong with the theory and it needs to be modified. For over 100 years Einstein’s theory has been tested over and over and not a single prediction has failed the test. This week the theory’s prediction that large gravitational bodies “bend” light will be tested again. And the total solar eclipse will with almost 100% certainty be confirmed again. Newton’s theory of gravitation is not based on any incorrect assumptions. It is mathematically accurate, as is Einstein’s theory. Mathematics is the universal language of science and its theories. A theory in science is not a guess. Darwin’s theory of natural selection was not based on inaccurate guesses. It was based on factual observations. What it lacked at the time was the explanation for the mechanism of natural selection: what was the cause of the differences in traits and how were those differences stored and passed on? Today we know that DNA in genes can change (mutate) leading to changes in traits that may be selected for or against, i.e., increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a gene being passed on. Nothing in Darwin’s theory was based on a falsehood. An incomplete explanation yes, but nothing in the theory needed to be corrected, just expanded. The laws of the universe, such as the laws of gravitation or thermodynamics, etc., are immutable. Human laws are not. That’s why human laws lack the 100% predictably of settled scientific theories.
I can't speak in detail to Einstein, but Newton's theories certainly contained simplifying assumptions, and the resulting small predictive errors, put scientists to work for centuries in an attempt to account for them. The assumptions [which bracketed the effects of the planets on each other, etc.] made the theory both possible and fertile. That the spirit of Solow's provocative -- but also humorous -- opening statement; scientific theories are open-ended and subject to improvement because their setup makes them, in some sense, approximations. Darwin's made one big simplifying assumption, so big it's almost invisible, that evolution is a biological process, based on traits in individuals, but ever since Darwin scientists (especially social scientists) have asked whether selection could be group-based (today's "cultural evolution" researchers believe so), and it's a hot debate.
Galileo, though he was ignorant of algebra and statistics, asserted that mathematics is the "language of nature," and most scientists since have shared that assumption/assertion and have given it a deterministic spin -- to the extent that Einstein could not accept some of the non-deterministic implications of quantum theory, etc. Today, we have Stephen Wolfram -- a crank, perhaps, but an interesting one, suggesting that nature is a discrete and "computational" process rather than the law-bound mathematics-speaking entity described by Galileo. so, in the fields you describe I see lots of important, facilitative, fertile, but perhaps limiting assumptions.
Solow's "not quite true" was a joke at Milton Friedman's expense; yes, some of our assumptions may be unprovable, but we had better think our crucial assumptions make sense as statements about the world and are not just chosen to facilitate a result. Newton's assumption allowed him to focus on the main effect, which he had correctly identified, and what Solow proposes is completely in that spirit.
In what aspect of Einstein’s theory were there any assumptions that were not true? A theory in physics is a detailed explanation of why things are as they are and that allows for accurate predictions to be made. If any prediction is found to not be true than there is something wrong with the theory and it needs to be modified. For over 100 years Einstein’s theory has been tested over and over and not a single prediction has failed the test. This week the theory’s prediction that large gravitational bodies “bend” light will be tested again. And the total solar eclipse will with almost 100% certainty be confirmed again. Newton’s theory of gravitation is not based on any incorrect assumptions. It is mathematically accurate, as is Einstein’s theory. Mathematics is the universal language of science and its theories. A theory in science is not a guess. Darwin’s theory of natural selection was not based on inaccurate guesses. It was based on factual observations. What it lacked at the time was the explanation for the mechanism of natural selection: what was the cause of the differences in traits and how were those differences stored and passed on? Today we know that DNA in genes can change (mutate) leading to changes in traits that may be selected for or against, i.e., increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a gene being passed on. Nothing in Darwin’s theory was based on a falsehood. An incomplete explanation yes, but nothing in the theory needed to be corrected, just expanded. The laws of the universe, such as the laws of gravitation or thermodynamics, etc., are immutable. Human laws are not. That’s why human laws lack the 100% predictably of settled scientific theories.
Thanks for the comment.
I can't speak in detail to Einstein, but Newton's theories certainly contained simplifying assumptions, and the resulting small predictive errors, put scientists to work for centuries in an attempt to account for them. The assumptions [which bracketed the effects of the planets on each other, etc.] made the theory both possible and fertile. That the spirit of Solow's provocative -- but also humorous -- opening statement; scientific theories are open-ended and subject to improvement because their setup makes them, in some sense, approximations. Darwin's made one big simplifying assumption, so big it's almost invisible, that evolution is a biological process, based on traits in individuals, but ever since Darwin scientists (especially social scientists) have asked whether selection could be group-based (today's "cultural evolution" researchers believe so), and it's a hot debate.
Galileo, though he was ignorant of algebra and statistics, asserted that mathematics is the "language of nature," and most scientists since have shared that assumption/assertion and have given it a deterministic spin -- to the extent that Einstein could not accept some of the non-deterministic implications of quantum theory, etc. Today, we have Stephen Wolfram -- a crank, perhaps, but an interesting one, suggesting that nature is a discrete and "computational" process rather than the law-bound mathematics-speaking entity described by Galileo. so, in the fields you describe I see lots of important, facilitative, fertile, but perhaps limiting assumptions.
Solow's "not quite true" was a joke at Milton Friedman's expense; yes, some of our assumptions may be unprovable, but we had better think our crucial assumptions make sense as statements about the world and are not just chosen to facilitate a result. Newton's assumption allowed him to focus on the main effect, which he had correctly identified, and what Solow proposes is completely in that spirit.
So far none of his predictions have been found to be wrong and his equations are very predictive.