I Is Relativity a Complete Theory? Investigating Math Formulation

[kent davidge]

Is it complete in the sense that there's nothing further to investigate in terms of its mathematical formulation?

I mean, in the sense that we don't need to introduce new mathematical tools or review existing ones for the theory.

 

[Dale]

How could the answer to that question be determined?

 

[kent davidge]

How could the answer to that question be determined?

By a good mathematician or physicist analyzing and determining whether new additions are convenient?

 

[SiennaTheGr8]

As @Dale said, the question isn't well-posed. That said, if you regard classical (i.e., non-quantum) covariant electrodynamics as part of "relativity," then perhaps the answer is no.

 

[PeterDonis]

By a good mathematician or physicist analyzing and determining whether new additions are convenient?

How many such attempts would need to be made before you would say their results are definitive--either relativity is definitely complete or definitely not?

 

[martinbn]

Is it complete in the sense that there's nothing further to investigate in terms of its mathematical formulation?

I mean, in the sense that we don't need to introduce new mathematical tools or review existing ones for the theory.

Why? Are you worried that you might need to learn more maths.

 

[George Jones]

Is it complete in the sense that there's nothing further to investigate in terms of its mathematical formulation?

I mean, in the sense that we don't need to introduce new mathematical tools or review existing ones for the theory.

Careful.

From the section "Mathematical relativity" in the final chapter "Next steps" of the very nice, very short, new book "General Relativity: A Concise Introduction" by Steven Carlip.