Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

General Relativityimcomplete?

  1. Oct 31, 2003 #1
    In fact has proved lots of time that g.r is true..but in my opinion would not be a complete theory by several reasons:
    a)is not "complete" in the sense taht you can add a term whose covariant derivative is 0 but the term is not a constant..so there are infinite Einstein,s equation for gravity.
    b)the coupling constant in this theory makes theory non-renormalizable whereas the other theories describng the forces are so the "3 to 1 " means that relativity must also be renormalizagble
    Perhaps the situationis like this g.r describes relativity for gtreat distances (cosmology universe) perhaps are some terms left relating high curvature on einstein,s equation these terms should descirbe classically the g.r for greta curvature (small distancess) and must give a renormalizable theory .

    So the question is...was einstein wrong?..was einstein a "genious" that made an imcomplete theory of gravitation?..
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 31, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    General relativity is extremely accurate for large things. Quantum theory is extremely accurate for small things. However, these two theories are incompatable - for example, trying to describe the inside of a black hole (small volume with large mass), which requires both theories at the same time, leads to nonsense. String theory is an attempt to reconcile this difficulty.
  4. Nov 1, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Actually, that's a very peculiar post. General relativity is a physical theory, therefore it is incomplete. Any theory is necessarily based on information available at that time- as more information becomes available, the theory changes.

    What would make you think that anyone everyclaimed general relativity was "complete"?
  5. Nov 1, 2003 #4
    my opinion

    i don,t agree with you in fct there have been physical thoeries unchanged ..for example termodinamics or physical statistic.

    In fact as i have said before in my first post a complete theory of relativity should include the actual one and give a coupling constant so the theroy is renormalizable , unfortunately einstenian g.r does not so this is why i consider it incomplete.

    Perhaps to quantizy gravity using perturbations we should first take another description of g.r (as i know there are some other theories of g.r too) with dimensionless or positive mass dimension before apply quantization.
  6. Nov 2, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: my opinion

    Just because a theory has never changed does not make it "complete." Hall's is right: a theory by definition is incomplete.
  7. Nov 6, 2003 #6
    GR as incomplete theory

    I consider GR to be an incomplete theory in the sense that Dr. Einstein left the right side of the equation, describing energy/matter as a phenomenological term. He himself refers to this side of the equation as wood compared to the marble of the left side. In addition, in his own essays he discusses the problems of linking GR to Electromagnetism and describing things like particles in such a theory. Thus the quest for a unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism.
    Dr. Mendel Sachs made an attempt to complete the theory in the mid to late 1960's. His theory can be found in QUANTUM MECHANICS FROM GENERAL RELATIVITY published by Dordrecht Reidel in THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS SERIES. See KLUWER and Dr. Sachs' website. Some of Dr. Sach's comments regarding the incompleteness of GR can be found in his book Einstein vs. Bohr. This also includes his belief that Quantum Mechanics and the theory of relativity are philosophically incompatible.
    Renormalization is needed to correct errors in Quantum Field Theory that lead to infinite results rather than admitting there is an error. But circles don't have to be described using only straight line segments. I see no reason why a general relativistic theory should be renormalizable. It's like telling a thin person they must go on a diet because the obese people have to.
    Eventually Einstein will probably be proven wrong in the same way as Newton was proven wrong. Actually neither one was wrong. Each just had an incomplete view. The logic that divides sharply into right vs. wrong is what is really wrong.
    If the mule known as Dr. Einstein was right and had a unified theory there would be no need for seeking a SECOND FOUNDATION for Physics and looking at things like superstrings or wondering what an electron,positron or photon REALLY is.
  8. Nov 6, 2003 #7
    Witten: You have to be open-minded because ideas come from different places. You can think about something in one way for a long time and it seems like the only way to think about it, but it really isn't. Somebody could make a suggestion that really sounds naïve. It might even be naïve, but it could have an important element of the truth in it. And it could be truth that one's overlooking. So it's really hard to state a general rule. If one could say the general rule about where to find inspiration, we would just teach it to our students and then science would be much more straightforward.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook