What tests can falsify general relativity?

In summary: GR?There are many tests that could falsify GR, but so far they haven't. One possibility is that we find something that behaves differently than GR predicts at a black hole or the big bang.
  • #1
francis20520
19
5
TL;DR Summary
falsification
I know that general relativity fails in singularities like the center of a black hole or the big bang.

GR also fails at fundamental particle levels like electrons, protons and neutrons etc. I.e. GR cannot explain interactions of various fundamental particles?? (Am I correct?)

But these does not make GR wrong because it works every where else. Above things don't falsify GR, right?

But my question is what test will falsify GR?

Like, what experimental setup can be done (theoretically) that if successful will prove GR wrong?

I.e. What are the falsification tests people have come up for GR?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Loads of tests have been done. Gravitational deflection of light. Gravitational waves. Motions of planets. Redshift of distant galaxies. Tick rates of clocks at different altitudes. Frame dragging. Probably others that haven't occurred to me off the top of my head. Any one of these could have falsified general relativity, but has not done so.

On a point of language, I would say that what you seem to be talking about isn't falsification, precisely. It's finding the limits of applicability of GR as an approximation to a more fundamental theory. Falsification would be finding something right in the middle of GR's "known valid" regime that didn't behave as predicted.

GR keeps passing the tests we can do, in that its predictions match measurement to available precision. We are pretty sure that it's not quite right, that it's an approximation to a more general theory, but we can't reach a regime where it is measurably inaccurate, so we cannot gather data to help develop it.
 
  • Like
Likes Ilya B, PhDeezNutz, Pyter and 4 others
  • #3
I see I haven't quite answered your question.

Better gravitational wave astronomy might show differences between the detected waves and the predicted ones in the final stages of a black hole merger, which is one way of probing near black hole event horizons. I believe that there are studies in the works to see how particles in superposed states fall under gravity, which might yield some information about gravity and quantum states.
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz, vanhees71 and docnet
  • #4
francis20520 said:
Summary:: falsification

I know that general relativity fails in singularities like the center of a black hole or the big bang.

GR also fails at fundamental particle levels like electrons, protons and neutrons etc. I.e. GR cannot explain interactions of various fundamental particles?? (Am I correct?)

But these does not make GR wrong because it works every where else. Above things don't falsify GR, right?

But my question is what test will falsify GR?

Like, what experimental setup can be done (theoretically) that if successful will prove GR wrong?

I.e. What are the falsification tests people have come up for GR?

I'd suggest Will's review paper, "The confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment", https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377

There's too many tests to summarize them all, but I'll give a few.

The weak equivalence principle can be detected by testing that objects of different compositions all "fall at the same rate", and by Eotovos type experiments to measure the gravitational attraction of materials of different composition. If materials of different composition but identical masses attracted each other differently, GR would be falsified.

Tests that special relativity holds locally also test GR - for instance, the Michelson Morely experiment. Wills describes this as "tests of local Lorentz invariance". So if any of the standard SR tests of the speed of light failed, GR would also be falsified.

Gravitational redshift is another test of GR, though many other theories predict this phenomenon. Wills calsifies Pound-Rebka experiments in the same general category here.

To compare General Relativity with other metric theories of gravity, various tests using the PPN formalism have been done. The commonly known tests here are the deflection of light, and the "Shapiro time delay" tests.

The perihelion shift of mecury's orbit is another test that fits into the PPN framework.

The general idea is that metric theories of gravity have a set of parameters that can be measured (beta, gamma, and others), measuring the values of these parameters distinguishes GR from other metric theories such as Branse-Dicke gravity.

Gravity probe B tested for gravitomagnetic effects predicted by GR.

Moving onto strong field tests, the Ligo experiment detecting gravitational waves that fit with the predictions of GR is a good one, and we have some inspiral measurements that also indirectly indicate gravitational radiation of the expected amount.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Dale, Pyter, Vanadium 50 and 4 others
  • #5
francis20520 said:
I know that general relativity fails in singularities like the center of a black hole or the big bang.
Yes.

francis20520 said:
GR also fails at fundamental particle levels like electrons, protons and neutrons etc. I.e. GR cannot explain interactions of various fundamental particles?? (Am I correct?)

A quantum generalization of GR works for fundamental particles like electrons, protons, neutrons etc. These are all still at relatively low energies compared to where we think the quantum generalization of GR will fail. Quantum GR does not explain their interactions, but can be integrated with the standard model of particle physics that describes their interactions.

francis20520 said:
But my question is what test will falsify GR?

In addition to the experiments mentioned by @Ibix and @pervect, some ideas for tests that have not yet been done to test GR more stringently are discussed in https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0100.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and francis20520
  • #6
francis20520 said:
I know that general relativity fails in singularities like the center of a black hole or the big bang.
No, GR predicts them. It doesn't fail at them. So far there are no obeservations or experiments about the singularities to see if GR fails or not.
GR also fails at fundamental particle levels like electrons, protons and neutrons etc. I.e. GR cannot explain interactions of various fundamental particles?? (Am I correct?)
GR is not a theory of everything, so it doesn't fail here either.
But these does not make GR wrong because it works every where else. Above things don't falsify GR, right?

But my question is what test will falsify GR?

Like, what experimental setup can be done (theoretically) that if successful will prove GR wrong?

I.e. What are the falsification tests people have come up for GR?
Any test whose outcome differes from the predictions of GR will show the limits og GR. So far GR passes all test.
 
  • #7
I'd say, unavoidable singularities of a theory show clearly limitations of that theory.
 
  • #8
vanhees71 said:
I'd say, unavoidable singularities of a theory show clearly limitations of that theory.
Not if the singularities are part of nature, then the theory makes good predictions.
 
  • #9
Hm, well. How do you measure whether there's a true singularity? Maybe the singularities are all hidden behind a horizon (cosmic censorship). Then they wouldn't be observable at all and you could never falsify their existence, but we are drifting into philosophical questions which never have a definite answer ;-)).
 
  • #10
vanhees71 said:
Hm, well. How do you measure whether there's a true singularity? Maybe the singularities are all hidden behind a horizon (cosmic censorship). Then they wouldn't be observable at all and you could never falsify their existence, but we are drifting into philosophical questions which never have a definite answer ;-)).
May be, but you simply reject them because of your philosophy, not scientific evidence.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #12
martinbn said:
May be, but you simply reject them because of your philosophy, not scientific evidence.
There’s nothing wrong with rejecting an idea on the basis of philosophy as long as we know that’s what we’re doing. It’s how we keep our thought processes from being gummed up by an accretion of unfalsifiable ideas.

(This is commentary not argument)
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #13
If someone could show that velocity of light is a parameter in time and not a constant, than STR would be falsified and GTR, as well ... Is that assupmtion correct ?
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Likes francis20520 and Vanadium 50
  • #14
eaglechief said:
If someone could show that velocity of light is a parameter in time and not a constant, than STR would be falsified and GTR, as well ... Is that assupmtion correct ?
Yes.
However it is also true that if someone could show that I had wings I would be able to fly; that true statement is of little relevance when I'm trying to get up onto the roof without a ladder. The equally true statement that relativity would be wrong if the speed of light were not constant is of equally little relevance when we live in a universe in which the speed of light is constant.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and martinbn
  • #15
Nugatory said:
Yes.
Do you think so? I was going to say no, because local Lorentz invariance requires that ##c## be invariant, not constant.
 
  • #16
at least, wiki says so ...

"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. "
 
  • #17
Ibix said:
Do you think so? I was going to say no, because local Lorentz invariance requires that ##c## be invariant, not constant.
I think that we're in a conversation that isn't far enough along to need that distinction yet, and that OP used "constant" when "invariant" might have been a better word.
 
  • #18
Nugatory said:
I think that we're in a conversation that isn't far enough along to need that distinction yet, and that OP used "constant" when "invariant" might have been a better word.
Not sure I agree. The question seemed to me to be asking what if ##c## varied over time. I think a measurement that concluded that ##c## (or ##\alpha##, although happy to duck that distinction at this point) was different in the past wouldn't bother relativity. One that showed that ##c## was different for different local frames would be a problem, I agree.
 
  • #19
martinbn said:
Not if the singularities are part of nature, then the theory makes good predictions.

Classically, that is true. But I don't think it's true quantum mechanically, where we can treat general relativity as an effective field theory at low energies, but it's not even clear what we get if the energy gets high enough (string theory, asymptotic safety, fundamental failure of local Lorentz invariance?).
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #20
vanhees71 said:
Hm, well. How do you measure whether there's a true singularity? Maybe the singularities are all hidden behind a horizon (cosmic censorship). Then they wouldn't be observable at all and you could never falsify their existence, but we are drifting into philosophical questions which never have a definite answer ;-)).

Maybe one of these theories with extra dimensions will be correct, then there could be a failure of cosmic censorship :oldbiggrin:
https://www.livescience.com/53857-5d-black-holes-break-general-relativity.html
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.071102
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #21
atyy said:
Classically, that is true. But I don't think it's true quantum mechanically, where we can treat general relativity as an effective field theory at low energies, but it's not even clear what we get if the energy gets high enough (string theory, asymptotic safety, fundamental failure of local Lorentz invariance?).
What makes you think that? Any theorems in that direction?
 
  • #22
atyy said:
Maybe one of these theories with extra dimensions will be correct, then there could be a failure of cosmic censorship :oldbiggrin:
https://www.livescience.com/53857-5d-black-holes-break-general-relativity.html
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.071102
This is gramatically way too complicated for me. What is the proper term for conditional sentences of the form "If extra dimensions then possibly there might be numerical evindence that could perhaps be interpreted as suggesting that WCC may not be true."
 
  • #23
eaglechief said:
at least, wiki says so ...

"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. "
Since it is not a unitless constant, it is as much conventional as physical. We can change its value over time with a flick of a pencil and eraser. And we have done so.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #24
What definitions of the distance (say meters) and time (say seconds) are being used by the Original Poster (OP)? We can conclude that they are not using the most modern definitions, because they are interested in experimentally measuring the speed of light, and that's not compatible with the modern SI definition of the meter and second. So presumably the OP is using some other definition. I've found it unwise to make assumptions about what what defintitions people might be using in such threads.

Unfortunately there's no meaningful answer to experimentally measuring the speed of light without knowing the experimental basis of the distances and time standards being used. And the only conclusion we can be certain of is that they're not the modern one , which goes as follows;

SI standard said:
The metre, symbol m, is the SI unit of length. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299 792 458 when expressed in the unit m s–1, where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency Cs.

So if the OP was using the modern standard, they wouldn't be talking about measuring the speed of light, because it is defined as a constant. So they are implicitly using some other definiton. We need to know what that is to attempt to answer the question.

The dimensionless approach would be to talk about the fine structure constant instead of the speed of light but we've had those discussions in the past and gotten "blank stares". I'm still willing to have such a discussion if the OP is interested and feels it's relevant, though.

Otherwise, we need to get into the nitty-gritty of the time and distance standards to attempt to provide an answer.
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444
  • #25
I am disappointed in the direction this thread has turned down.

Suppose I built a box with an LED, a mirror and a light sensor and set it up to look at the delay between emission and detection, and from that calculate the speed of light. Every second it blinks 300000. Now suppose one morning it, and every box in the universe like it, started blinking 600000. It doesn't matter if what "really changed" was the speed of light, our time standard, our length standard, or some combination. SR would be in trouble.

But the whole idea is immensely silly, and in my view should not have been brought up instead. SR is an amazingly well-tested theory - much better tested than, for example, the theory that Covid is caused by the Coronavirus - and bringing it up to the exclusion of real tests of GR is an ill-advised and ill-founded distraction. One might as well ask if the sudden appearance of Zeus with his energy-non-conserving thunderbolts would falsify GR.

There are at least ten parameters that can be measured and have values predicted by GR and with different values predicted by alternatives. As an example, the amount of space curvature (not spacetime curvature) is smaller in scalar-tensor theories than in GR.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Motore, Grasshopper and russ_watters
  • #26
Well, that example would lead us again to the unfruitful discussions of one-path light speed. As discussed at length recently, for that you need clock synchronization conventions, as was realized by Einstein already in 1905 when writing his famous paper on special relativity.
 
  • #27
vanhees71 said:
that example would lead us again to the unfruitful discussions of one-path light speed.

If I measure 300000 today and 600000 tomorrow with the same device, that's a problem. Synchronization conventions do not affect the number being read out.
 
  • Like
Likes Richard R Richard and russ_watters
  • #28
Vanadium 50 said:
If I measure 300000 today and 600000 tomorrow with the same device, that's a problem. Synchronization conventions do not affect the number being read out.
You measure 300000 for what, exactly? A count per unit time? With time measured based on the period of the radiation associated with...? Perhaps the dimensions of the box changed. That does not affect special relativity.

If we want to avoid a debate on whether the speed of light changed or the size of the box changed, we get right back to worrying about unit definitions, the fine structure constant and rewording the question.

[Though I do understand a sentiment that these quibbles feel like cheats designed to avoid the thrust of the OP's question]
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #29
I am not going to answer. It's pointless quibbling, and a distraction from the question at hand. We could equally well argue about the color of Zeus' thunderbolts.

If you think less of me because I couldn't come up with an unquibbleable example in a paragraph, well, so be it.
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444
  • #30
Vanadium 50 said:
If you think less of me because I couldn't come up with an unquibbleable example in a paragraph, well, so be it.
No, no. I get where you are coming from and do not disagree. I'll be quiet now.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #31
jbriggs444 said:
You measure 300000 for what, exactly?

He means the device is measuring the speed of light by some well-defined process--for definiteness, say it's a light source, a mirror, and an atomic clock--and outputting the result in meters per second.

If nothing changes about how the device is constructed from today to tomorrow, then our understanding of SR says the result it outputs should not change from today to tomorrow. So if it did, that would mean something was wrong with our understanding of SR. That's what I take @Vanadium 50 to be saying.
 
  • Like
Likes Motore, vanhees71, russ_watters and 1 other person
  • #32
Vanadium 50 said:
I am disappointed in the direction this thread has turned down.

Suppose I built a box with an LED, a mirror and a light sensor and set it up to look at the delay between emission and detection, and from that calculate the speed of light. Every second it blinks 300000. Now suppose one morning it, and every box in the universe like it, started blinking 600000. It doesn't matter if what "really changed" was the speed of light, our time standard, our length standard, or some combination. SR would be in trouble.

Your box (es) is (are) made out of atoms, I presume. Following this line of reasoning leads one to the realization that one is actually experimentally concerned with the fine structure constant of said atoms. As you say, it doesn't matter whether the atoms are changing, or the speed of light is changing, something is happening and we can determine it experimentally. The dimensionlessness of the fine structure constant is what allows us to unequivocally say that something is changing, that we're not playing any such games.

Without knowing that your box is made up of atoms, though, one could be using any number of different notions of distance. For instance, one might have a long physical meter stick as they did in ages past, and perhaps this "standard" is loosing atoms over time via various mechanisms included sublimation. Then it would be a prediction of SR based on this standard, that the speed of light is slowly changing over time. What happens to the speed of light when your standard meter stick totally evaporates is an interesting question, which I won't attempt to answer, as I believe that using a physical meter stick is an inferior standard, though at one time it was the best we had.

Without knowing that your box is made out of atoms, and that you are implicitly relying on the properties of atoms to determine both your time scale (via the cesium atoms), and the length of your box, one really can't say what is changing, and the focus gets lost.

One reason to talk about the fine structure constant is the notion that boxes and other "physical" objects are made out of atoms, and that if we are assuming that those atoms are the basis of our time and distance standards, then the appropriate language to use for the speed of light varying is the fine structure constant is varying. There is no ambiguity in that, because the fine structure constant is dimensoinless.

And it saves a lot of wrangling.

However, we do not know if the Original Poster has the notion that distance and time standards are based on the properties of atoms. Most likely, they haven't actually thought about the issue at all. If they're willing to accept the idea that atoms are the basis of distance and time standards, though, there isn't any real problem that can't be gotten around. And this route leads to the fine structure constant being the interesting physical quantity, because it's dimensionless, and no amount of fiddling with units can change the value of a dimensionless constant. Problem solved.
 
  • #33
Vanadium 50 said:
If I measure 300000 today and 600000 tomorrow with the same device, that's a problem. Synchronization conventions do not affect the number being read out.
Of course they do. You need two clocks at different points to measure a one-way speed of whatever, including the speed of a light signal. The standard Einstein synchronization is for a (thought) set of clocks relative at rest in an inertial reference frame (SR). In this sense the one-way speed of light is set to ##c## by defining the corresponding Galilean (pseudo-Euclidean) coordinates. Already synchronized clocks of one such global inertial frame are not synchronized with the synchronized clocks of another such frame moving with constant speed relative to the former.

In GR you can establish such a clock-synchronization only locally, and the issue becomes more complicated.
 
  • #34
pervect said:
So if the OP was using the modern standard, they wouldn't be talking about measuring the speed of light, because it is defined as a constant. So they are implicitly using some other definiton. We need to know what that is to attempt to answer the question.

Thanks for the answers but i think my point concerning velocity of light was misunderstood.
It is currently described and agreed as a constant in space, but it is not generally accepted that c is a constant in time, as well, as several VSL-approaches of the last years show.

Wikipedia VSL-Theories

Even Albert Einstein was discussing that in 1911 ...
 
  • #35
Wouldn’t an observational evidence of Strong Equivalence Principle violations be a proper falsification of General Relativity? It seems that GR is the only metric theory of gravity which relies on the SEP. And we have a recent study that casts a lot of trouble for the SEP: https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11525. If confirmed, do we have falsification?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes vanhees71
<h2>1. What is general relativity and why is it important?</h2><p>General relativity is a theory of gravity proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915. It describes how massive objects interact with each other and how they affect the fabric of space and time. It is important because it has been extensively tested and has accurately predicted many phenomena in the universe, such as the bending of light by massive objects and the existence of black holes.</p><h2>2. Can general relativity be proven wrong?</h2><p>Yes, general relativity can be proven wrong if experimental evidence contradicts its predictions. Scientists are constantly testing and refining the theory to ensure its accuracy. However, so far, all experimental evidence has supported general relativity.</p><h2>3. What are some tests that have been used to validate general relativity?</h2><p>Some tests that have been used to validate general relativity include the observation of the precession of Mercury's orbit, the bending of starlight by the sun, and the confirmation of the existence of gravitational waves.</p><h2>4. Are there any experiments that could potentially falsify general relativity?</h2><p>There are ongoing experiments and observations that could potentially falsify general relativity, such as the measurement of the gravitational constant and the observation of the behavior of gravity in extreme conditions, such as near the event horizon of a black hole.</p><h2>5. What implications would falsifying general relativity have on our understanding of the universe?</h2><p>If general relativity were to be falsified, it would mean that our current understanding of gravity is incomplete. This could lead to the development of new theories and a deeper understanding of the universe. It could also have significant implications for fields such as cosmology and astrophysics, as well as potentially impacting our everyday lives through technologies that rely on the accuracy of general relativity, such as GPS systems.</p>

1. What is general relativity and why is it important?

General relativity is a theory of gravity proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915. It describes how massive objects interact with each other and how they affect the fabric of space and time. It is important because it has been extensively tested and has accurately predicted many phenomena in the universe, such as the bending of light by massive objects and the existence of black holes.

2. Can general relativity be proven wrong?

Yes, general relativity can be proven wrong if experimental evidence contradicts its predictions. Scientists are constantly testing and refining the theory to ensure its accuracy. However, so far, all experimental evidence has supported general relativity.

3. What are some tests that have been used to validate general relativity?

Some tests that have been used to validate general relativity include the observation of the precession of Mercury's orbit, the bending of starlight by the sun, and the confirmation of the existence of gravitational waves.

4. Are there any experiments that could potentially falsify general relativity?

There are ongoing experiments and observations that could potentially falsify general relativity, such as the measurement of the gravitational constant and the observation of the behavior of gravity in extreme conditions, such as near the event horizon of a black hole.

5. What implications would falsifying general relativity have on our understanding of the universe?

If general relativity were to be falsified, it would mean that our current understanding of gravity is incomplete. This could lead to the development of new theories and a deeper understanding of the universe. It could also have significant implications for fields such as cosmology and astrophysics, as well as potentially impacting our everyday lives through technologies that rely on the accuracy of general relativity, such as GPS systems.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
84
Views
5K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
67
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
930
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
3K
Back
Top