5 ms·

Special relativity is an article of faith now? So far it has survived all experimental tests, that doesn't mean it is guaranteed to do so in the future

wtallis 3y ago
Any theory that would supplant special relativity must agree with special relativity on everything that has already been experimentally verified. So it's not the theory of special relativity that's an article of faith, it's the associated mountain of evidence that imposes requirements on new theories.
- hotstickyballs 3y ago
  Doesn’t mean that it needs to take the exact form of special reactivity though, especially when we know when it breaks down.
  - wtallis 3y ago
    Nobody said it has to take the exact form of special relativity. The comment in question here only said that it needs to respect special relativity. A new theory can offer a wildly different explanation, as long is it does explain all the correct predictions of special relativity. In mathematical terms, that does mean your theory will produce the equations of special relativity when some limit or restriction is applied, just as special relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of velocities being much less than c.
    - noslenwerdna 3y ago
      I would dispute that the comment in question said that, but now it is gone (deleted?). Your view is quite reasonable, the original post's was not.
      - wtallis 3y ago
        The comment has been flagged, so you can't see it without turning on the showdead option. The line in question is: > If you're promoting research into quantum gravity that doesn't respect special relativity, you're a crackpot. Using the word "crackpot" apparently went too far for some people, but it's not controversial to say that a theory of quantum gravity needs to respect special relativity: quantum gravity is about trying to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, and general relativity is the generalization of special relativity to include gravity.
        noslenwerdna 3y ago
        Sure, but implying she is a crackpot for investigating what are presumably extensions of special relativity is too far. I'm not familiar with her research, but I very much doubt she proposes disregarding special relativity all together.

wtallis 3y ago

Any theory that would supplant special relativity must agree with special relativity on everything that has already been experimentally verified. So it's not the theory of special relativity that's an article of faith, it's the associated mountain of evidence that imposes requirements on new theories.

hotstickyballs 3y ago
Doesn’t mean that it needs to take the exact form of special reactivity though, especially when we know when it breaks down.
- wtallis 3y ago
  Nobody said it has to take the exact form of special relativity. The comment in question here only said that it needs to respect special relativity. A new theory can offer a wildly different explanation, as long is it does explain all the correct predictions of special relativity. In mathematical terms, that does mean your theory will produce the equations of special relativity when some limit or restriction is applied, just as special relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of velocities being much less than c.
  - noslenwerdna 3y ago
    I would dispute that the comment in question said that, but now it is gone (deleted?). Your view is quite reasonable, the original post's was not.
    - wtallis 3y ago
      The comment has been flagged, so you can't see it without turning on the showdead option. The line in question is: > If you're promoting research into quantum gravity that doesn't respect special relativity, you're a crackpot. Using the word "crackpot" apparently went too far for some people, but it's not controversial to say that a theory of quantum gravity needs to respect special relativity: quantum gravity is about trying to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, and general relativity is the generalization of special relativity to include gravity.
      - noslenwerdna 3y ago
        Sure, but implying she is a crackpot for investigating what are presumably extensions of special relativity is too far. I'm not familiar with her research, but I very much doubt she proposes disregarding special relativity all together.