3 ms·
We use general relativity for anything fast moving I think. Not sure, but pretty sure. GPS wouldn't work with newton. But that's the point, newton mostly works
by m101 1y ago
We use general relativity for anything fast moving I think. Not sure, but pretty sure. GPS wouldn't work with newton. But that's the point, newton mostly works to within an error of measurement
- satori99 1y agoIndeed "It turns out that GPS must account for both special relativity and general relativity to deliver position at 1-meter level and time at 100-nanosecond level to its users." https://www.gpsworld.com/inside-the-box-gps-and-relativity/ https://www.gpsworld.com/inside-the-box-gps-and-relativity/
- staunton 1y ago> anything fast moving Examples of using GR are few, GPS being the most prominent one, another being astronomy. Making this point, SR would be a better example. Maybe a better description would be "we use GR to describe extremely precise time measurements, or the movement of extremely large things". The latter has not yet lead to any devices being built, as far as I know.
- m101 1y agoMy point with these examples is we're expecting our quantum models to be true at orders of magnitude more precision than we currently have, and is necessary for a quantum computer. It's as if no one even considers that it might hold to within the errors of what we have currently tested. Proof is in the pudding.
- staunton 1y agoArguably, if building quantum computers leads to quantum mechanics being falsified, that completely justifies the effort of trying to build them. The "disappointing" scenarios would be either that the engineering task turns out to be so hard that it stays "20 years away" for another century, or that quantum computers get built but nobody can find a really impactful and useful application.