Revisiting Einstein's Theory: Perspectives from Theoretical Scientists

  • Thread starter Thread starter kurious
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Einstein Theory
AI Thread Summary
Paul Dirac's remarks on the need for new theoretical frameworks in light of infinities in quantum field theory sparked a debate about the validity of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GTR). Dirac suggested that infinities indicate fundamental flaws in existing equations, challenging the reliance on renormalization as a solution. The discussion highlighted the importance of theoretical elegance and symmetry in physics, with participants asserting that modifications to Einstein's equations must still align with observational data. Despite differing views, the consensus is that GTR remains the most effective explanation available. The conversation reflects ongoing tensions between theoretical innovation and established scientific principles.
kurious
Messages
633
Reaction score
0
Paul Dirac said that Einstein didn't need new experimental data to produce a new theory.And he also said that infinities should not appear in a theory
that is correct.What do people on theory development think about these remarks made by a man respected for the depth and clarity of his theories?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is out of context. If this was to be taken literally then Dirac's own work is reduced to being completely incorrect...

You got to stop with this sad crusade of yours against GTR, kurious...
Einstein built his GTR based upon theoretical elegance and symmetry. Isn't this THE procedure in theoretical fysics : YES

And one final note : shame on you and your INTERPRETATION of Dirac's "words" on these socalled infinities: Feynman would be turning himself in his grave and you should start renormalizing...

regards
marlon
 
Kurious:
Part of interview relating to infinities:

Interviewer:
Would you comment on the divergences and infinities which occur in quantum field theory? Many think that they can be removed by renormalization. Is this your feeling?

Dirac:
It's just a stop-gap procedure. There must be some fundamental change in our ideas, probably a change just as fundamental as the passage from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. When you get a number turning out to be infinite which ought to be finite, you should admit that there is something wrong with your equations, and not hope that you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that number.

Interviewer:
Some people have suggested that by introducing curved space you can get rid of these infinities, Abdus Salam for example.

I know that he is working on that idea, but I feel that with a good theory these infinities would never arise in the first place.


Interview with Dirac:
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/dirac.htm

Marlon:
Einstein built his GTR based upon theoretical elegance and symmetry. Isn't this THE procedure in theoretical fysics : YES

Kurious:

This thread wasn't supposed to be about GTR!
And I agree with you about elegance and symmetry.
But it might be possible to modify Einstein's equations and still have both.
 
Last edited:
kurious said:
And I agree with you about elegance and symmetry.
But it might be possible to modify Einstein's equations and still have both.
Sure, but it still has to fit observations.
 
You can modify the 'Einstein' equations all you want. Fact is, they still provide the best explanaiton we know of.
 
thank you chronos and russ, you guys are right.

I don't know kurious personally, but he has got some fundamental issues with Albert Einstein and GTR

marlon
 
marlon said:
I don't know kurious personally, but he has got some fundamental issues with Albert Einstein and GTR
That's actually a common thing around here. We attract them like moths to a flame somehow.
 
Back
Top