Theory that challenges Einstein's physics could soon be put to rest

In summary: This can lead to a consensus among scientists that a certain theory or explanation is the most accurate and supported by evidence. However, this consensus can change if new evidence or competing theories emerge. Ultimately, the vetting process for a new theory involves a combination of peer review, replication of results, and convincing other scientists through evidence and sound reasoning.
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,446
558
Surly the variable speed of light is a dead dog, this article says it is not, and the theory can be tested

But some researchers have suggested that the speed of light could have been much higher in this early universe. Now, one of this theory's originators, Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, working with Dr Niayesh Afshordi at the Perimeter Institute in Canada, has made a prediction that could be used to test the theory's validity..

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161125084229.htm
 
  • Like
Likes K. Doc Holiday
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
wolram said:
Surly the variable speed of light is a dead dog, this article says it is not, and the theory can be tested

But some researchers have suggested that the speed of light could have been much higher in this early universe. Now, one of this theory's originators, Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, working with Dr Niayesh Afshordi at the Perimeter Institute in Canada, has made a prediction that could be used to test the theory's validity..

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161125084229.htm
Here's the arxiv link for the source paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.03312

Seems interesting, and it's good that they make some very definite predictions. But it won't be easy to distinguish this model from inflation. I think the main difficulty with this model being accepted will be that they don't have a reasonable mechanism by which the speed of light might vary.
 
  • #3
What's the vetting process for a new theory like this? Do authors still go through the peer review/journal publishing process or is it all about citations these days (this paper currently has 1). I ask because I've read Sean Carroll speak negatively about the journal publication process as being too "20th century".
 
  • Like
Likes K. Doc Holiday
  • #4
stoomart said:
What's the vetting process for a new theory like this? Do authors still go through the peer review/journal publishing process or is it all about citations these days (this paper currently has 1). I ask because I've read Sean Carroll speak negatively about the journal publication process as being too "20th century".
There is no formal vetting process. It's all a matter of convincing other scientists. In general, the way to do that is to have multiple different types of evidence that converge on the same picture.

With this particular model, for example, even if further experiments dramatically narrowed the measurements of the spectral index (and related parameters), and the narrowed results still fit this model, it will not convince a large number of physicists just because there isn't independent confirmation. If somebody were to use this model to come up with a completely different observation or experiment that could test the model in a different way, then they would be at the point of convincing some people.

If you want a picture of how this is done, take a look at this essay:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

The essay goes over a bunch of different pieces of evidence. In particular, many of the types of evidence use entirely different sorts of observations, varying from the abundances of light elements to the variations on the CMB to the typical distances between galaxies, to name a few. The fact that these very different types of measuring the same model agree with one another gives us confidence in the model.

Note that inflation also has similar observational difficulties (in that it's difficult to come up with independent evidence). The main reason why it's the preferred model is because the model behind it is a natural extension of existing high-energy physics.
 
  • Like
Likes K. Doc Holiday and stoomart
  • #5
Science is ruled by consensus. A new theory evolves much like ancient religions. It begins with an idea and a small group of apostles who spread the word then peaks in a vast swarm of adherents. It transforms via an apostate who overturns the establishment view with a new idea and predictions that accommodate both past and future observations.
 
  • Like
Likes stoomart and Carrock
  • #6
Chronos said:
Science is ruled by consensus. A new theory evolves much like ancient religions. It begins with an idea and a small group of apostles who spread the word then peaks in a vast swarm of adherents. It transforms via an apostate who overturns the establishment view with a new idea and predictions that accommodate both past and future observations.
Eh. There's frequently not anyone single person pushing a new theory. Not any longer, anyway. Physics these days is generally done by large teams of people, or at the very least large numbers of distributed people. The last example of something like this happening was probably General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics, for example, wasn't led by anyone single physicist. Neither were the later relativistic additions to quantum mechanics that led to the development of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The discoveries of dark matter and dark energy were also large, combined efforts by many people with no single scientist standing out among them.

New discoveries aren't typically led by a single person any longer because if they were that simple, they would have been discovered long ago.
 
  • #7
Chalnoth said:
they don't have a reasonable mechanism by which the speed of light might vary.
Doesn't loop quantum gravity not only allow but requires the speed of light to vary?
 
  • #8
newjerseyrunner said:
Doesn't loop quantum gravity not only allow but requires the speed of light to vary?
From what I can tell, LQG requires that different wavelengths of light travel at different speeds. This isn't the same thing as the speed of light changing, but rather that very high-energy light doesn't respect Lorentz invariance.
 
  • #9
Chalnoth said:
There is no formal vetting process. It's all a matter of convincing other scientists. In general, the way to do that is to have multiple different types of evidence that converge on the same picture.

With this particular model, for example, even if further experiments dramatically narrowed the measurements of the spectral index (and related parameters), and the narrowed results still fit this model, it will not convince a large number of physicists just because there isn't independent confirmation. If somebody were to use this model to come up with a completely different observation or experiment that could test the model in a different way, then they would be at the point of convincing some people.

If you want a picture of how this is done, take a look at this essay:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

The essay goes over a bunch of different pieces of evidence. In particular, many of the types of evidence use entirely different sorts of observations, varying from the abundances of light elements to the variations on the CMB to the typical distances between galaxies, to name a few. The fact that these very different types of measuring the same model agree with one another gives us confidence in the model.

Note that inflation also has similar observational difficulties (in that it's difficult to come up with independent evidence). The main reason why it's the preferred model is because the model behind it is a natural extension of existing high-energy physics.
Wow! Was not aware of the process. To clarify, before Copernicus the scientific consensus was the universe was centered around the earth. Is that all it takes to become mainstream theory? I ask because mainstream theory is the boundary on this forum.
Thanks for the information.
Doc
 
  • #10
K. Doc Holiday said:
To clarify, before Copernicus the scientific consensus was the universe was centered around the earth. Is that all it takes to become mainstream theory? I ask because mainstream theory is the boundary on this forum.

Yes. Of course, the fact that you have to reach back almost 500 years says something. And there are plenty of sites that will answer your own questions with crackpot woo. And yet you are here. That says something too.
 

FAQ: Theory that challenges Einstein's physics could soon be put to rest

1. What is the theory that challenges Einstein's physics?

The theory is known as the "theory of loop quantum gravity" and it proposes a different way of understanding gravity compared to Einstein's theory of general relativity.

2. How does the theory differ from Einstein's theory?

The main difference is that loop quantum gravity does not view space and time as continuous, but rather as discrete units. It also suggests that gravity is not a fundamental force, but rather emerges from the interactions of these discrete units.

3. What evidence supports this theory?

There is currently no direct evidence for loop quantum gravity, but there have been some calculations that suggest it could potentially solve some of the issues that arise when trying to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics.

4. How could the theory be put to rest?

One way to test the validity of loop quantum gravity is through experiments that involve extreme conditions, such as in the early universe or near black holes. Another approach is to look for observational evidence that is predicted by the theory.

5. What would be the implications if the theory is proven correct?

If loop quantum gravity is proven to be a more accurate description of gravity than general relativity, it would fundamentally change our understanding of the universe and could potentially open up new avenues of research in physics and cosmology.

Back
Top