What Would It Take to De-Throne Special Relativity, and Other Sciences?

[Wowbagger]

What would it take to dethrone special relativity? To render it irrelevant to serious science, except for the historians? And, more interestingly, are there any ideas of what its replacement would look like?

I know how I would answer, if someone asked me the same question, about Evolution by Natural Selection:
I would start, of course, with the general answer:

It must completely explain all of the evidence gathered, thus far, and also allow us to make profound new discoveries, that the old theory was not powerful enough to pick up on, and might even contradict it.​

But, then, I would even suggest what the replacement of Natural Selection might look like, in this case: Self-Organizing Network theories. If SONs could be developed sufficiently, it could yield new discoveries about the origins of the first cells, and how they tie into contemporary selection algorithms.
If that were to happen, Natural Selection would be rendered a "special case" of Self-Organizing algorithms, and might not necessarily be overthrown completely, but close enough to push it off its throne, a little.
And, of course, there is a long way to go, before that even happens. But, at least we have some vision of what Darwin's replacement could end up looking like, in the distant future.

The only possible "replacement" for Special Relativity, that I have ever really looked at, is String Theory: It could, if ever empirically proven, explain exactly what happens when the physics of Relativity breaks down, inside a singularity.

Of course, that hardly counts as a replacement. Einstein's formulas would probably still be relevant to scientific studies outside those confines. But, again, it would move him off the throne, a little bit.

What are some other ideas that could, possibly, ultimately de-thrown Special Relativity? Any serious speculation on what such a replacement could look like? (Even if it takes a really long time to get there?)
Perhaps, to the point where only historians would be interested in the concept?

We can also expand this discussion to other scientific ideas, if you would like:
What would de-throne Big Bang Theory?
What could possibly replace Germ Theory?
What ideas would seriously send Plate-Tectonics into an upheaval?
Etc.

Have fun! Speculation is allowed, but please have some edge of seriousness to it. I would rather not see this thread delve into the realms of complete fantasy.

And, in the event any "trolls" show up, please do not let them distract us from the core of the discussion. My aim to demonstrate what it takes, in a matter that is as constructive and as informative, as possible. Sound good?

 

[sol invictus]

The only possible "replacement" for Special Relativity, that I have ever really looked at, is String Theory: It could, if ever empirically proven, explain exactly what happens when the physics of Relativity breaks down, inside a singularity.

String theory doesn't "replace" special relativity - it's an example of it. String theory is a Lorentz invariant theory.

SR is not really a theory - it's a claim about the world; namely, that all the laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations. It doesn't say what those laws are - only that they must belong to a restricted class. That claim could certainly be wrong, and it would be very, very easy for it to be disproven. There are countless experiments going on all the time, any one of which could kill it.

As for what would replace it? The most obvious guess is a return to Galilean symmetry, although I can't see how that could possibly be made consistent with data. A more interesting possibility is that Lorentz invariance is only an approximate symmetry, one which is broken at very small length scales or very short times. There's a lot of work, both experimental and theoretical, investigating that.

 

[drkitten]

What would it take to dethrone special relativity?

Well, this first question is fairly easy. Show that the speed of light in a vacuum varies or (equivalently, more or less), show that massive objects can move [through normal space] faster than light.

To render it irrelevant to serious science, except for the historians? And, more interestingly, are there any ideas of what its replacement would look like?

I suspect that it would involve a previously unknown influence; the speed of light is proportional to the unobtainiostity of the vorlon field density. Since the vorlon field density does not vary (much), especially locally where we can do the serious experimentation, the speed of light looks constant for us.

I think it's actually easier to overthrow relativity than evolution, just because evolution does not make very specific predictions, while relativity has been tested to zillionths of a percent. So we wouldn't even need to find something that "must completely explain all of the evidence gathered," because if we find a way to get a photon to zip along at 450,000 km/sec -- or 300,001 km/sec -- then relativity is simply wrong.

As to why the vorlon field density matters -- I would be inclined to look for explanations in terms of how tightly knit space is. I believe Smolin and some other cosmologists have been able to find relationships between some physical properties of space and some physical constants, including the speed of light (which is how we get those lunatic statements from creationists about "if the fine structure constant had been different by a hijillionth of a percent, life would be impossible and therefore God must exist").

But we wouldn't need a replacement theory to entirely bugger relativity, simply because it makes such specific predictions that could be so specifically wrong....

 

[temporalillusion]

String theory doesn't "replace" special relativity - it's an example of it. String theory is a Lorentz invariant theory.

SR is not really a theory - it's a claim about the world; namely, that all the laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations. It doesn't say what those laws are - only that they must belong to a restricted class. That claim could certainly be wrong, and it would be very, very easy for it to be disproven. There are countless experiments going on all the time, any one of which could kill it.

As for what would replace it? The most obvious guess is a return to Galilean symmetry, although I can't see how that could possibly be made consistent with data. A more interesting possibility is that Lorentz invariance is only an approximate symmetry, one which is broken at very small length scales or very short times. There's a lot of work, both experimental and theoretical, investigating that.

Just wanted to say I appreciate your posts and I enjoy reading them, because typically each one makes me go read for about 15 minutes.

You how sometimes you think you understand something but you are ignorant of the fact that you don't really know. Then there's being ignorant of something and knowing you are ignorant, and going and educating yourself.

And then there's how I feel when I read some posts of yours and others.. knowing I'm missing something, but not having any idea how to get from where I am to where I could write a post like this confidently.

Anyway, didn't want to derail, just wanted to thank from the gallery.

 

[Wowbagger]

String theory doesn't "replace" special relativity - it's an example of it. String theory is a Lorentz invariant theory.

Ah, interesting.

Though, if proven, String Theory would tell us more about the Universe than Special Relativity, alone, I assume.

To summarize: Relativity restricts what sorts of laws and theories would be useful in describing the Universe, and String Theory could fill in what some of those laws and theories would actually be.
But, any experiment that breaks the restrictions, if reliably repeatable, would break Relativity.

Am I right, so far?

As for what would replace it? The most obvious guess is a return to Galilean symmetry, although I can't see how that could possibly be made consistent with data. A more interesting possibility is that Lorentz invariance is only an approximate symmetry, one which is broken at very small length scales or very short times. There's a lot of work, both experimental and theoretical, investigating that.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was going for. The "shape" of what could replace an accepted scientific concept.

In this case, it is interesting that you chose an older idea, as the replacement. If SR is, somehow, proven incorrect, we might actually go back to an older concept, instead of marching on with a brand new one.
I had not thought of that approach. Though, it seems fairly obvious, now.

I suspect that it would involve a previously unknown influence; the speed of light is proportional to the unobtainiostity of the vorlon field density. Since the vorlon field density does not vary (much), especially locally where we can do the serious experimentation, the speed of light looks constant for us.

I suppose no one is taking Vorlon Theory very seriously, right now, though. I wonder if there is anything, currently being "taken seriously" that would resemble that, in some way.

(And, if Vorlons truly are involved, would that legitimize the existence of psychics? )

As to why the vorlon field density matters -- I would be inclined to look for explanations in terms of how tightly knit space is.

Looks like grounds for future investigation, to me!

I think it's actually easier to overthrow relativity than evolution, just because evolution does not make very specific predictions, while relativity has been tested to zillionths of a percent. So we wouldn't even need to find something that "must completely explain all of the evidence gathered," because if we find a way to get a photon to zip along at 450,000 km/sec -- or 300,001 km/sec -- then relativity is simply wrong.

Its replacement would, eventually, have to consider why the speed of light looked constant to us, for so long. Like your Vorlon Theory might try to do.

Just wanted to say I appreciate your posts and I enjoy reading them, because typically each one makes me go read for about 15 minutes.

That's what this Forum is all about!

 

[thesyntaxera]

Well, this first question is fairly easy. Show that the speed of light in a vacuum varies or (equivalently, more or less), show that massive objects can move [through normal space] faster than light.

I could totally be mistaken, but wasn't there something about this on that history channel show "the universe"?

I seem to remember them talking about the light horizon and how there are objects in space beyond it that are speeding up as the the universe expands, and that if you were to go out far enough there would be objects moving faster than light and the result would be us never getting to see them ever...???

 

[wmadoss]

Hmm havent you guys heard... GMB already has "dethroned" SR..

He has provided lots of evidence for it .. ehmmm oops I must be thinking of someone else.....

 

[Dilb]

I could totally be mistaken, but wasn't there something about this on that history channel show "the universe"?

I seem to remember them talking about the light horizon and how there are objects in space beyond it that are speeding up as the the universe expands, and that if you were to go out far enough there would be objects moving faster than light and the result would be us never getting to see them ever...???

That's a different sort of speed. It's not that the object is moving faster than light, it's that the space in between us and the object is expanding faster than light. The expansion of space only affects things 'far away' from us; we always see light as moving faster than any object 'near us'.

So we can send a pulse of light towards a galaxy a gazillion light-years away, and that light won't ever reach the galaxy, but that galaxy still isn't outrunning any light near itself.

 

[sol invictus]

Though, if proven, String Theory would tell us more about the Universe than Special Relativity, alone, I assume.

To summarize: Relativity restricts what sorts of laws and theories would be useful in describing the Universe, and String Theory could fill in what some of those laws and theories would actually be.
But, any experiment that breaks the restrictions, if reliably repeatable, would break Relativity.

Yes - well put.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was going for. The "shape" of what could replace an accepted scientific concept.

In this case, it is interesting that you chose an older idea, as the replacement. If SR is, somehow, proven incorrect, we might actually go back to an older concept, instead of marching on with a brand new one.
I had not thought of that approach. Though, it seems fairly obvious, now.

It was the first thing that came to mind. But, as I said, I think what's more probable than that is that Lorentz invariance is an almost exact symmetry, but broken in some interesting way at very high energies. After all, Lorentz symmetry is a statement about how the laws of physics transform under some transformations on spacetime. But if spacetime is an approximation - an average, macroscopic phenomenon that emerges on length scales longer than the Planck length - it's not very obvious what one would mean by it.

 

[drkitten]

It was the first thing that came to mind. But, as I said, I think what's more probable than that is that Lorentz invariance is an almost exact symmetry, but broken in some interesting way at very high energies. After all, Lorentz symmetry is a statement about how the laws of physics transform under some transformations on spacetime. But if spacetime is an approximation - an average, macroscopic phenomenon that emerges on length scales longer than the Planck length - it's not very obvious what one would mean by it.

Well, in some sense, it's a little premature to start speculating on what will replace SR until we have an idea about what the data are that overthrow it.

I mean, if I told you we were going on a vacation together --- and all you know about the destination is that it's not Munich -- how would you pack?

 

[sol invictus]

Well, in some sense, it's a little premature to start speculating on what will replace SR until we have an idea about what the data are that overthrow it.

It may be premature, but that kind of speculation was precisely what the OP was asking for. Anyway, there are many examples in the recent history of physics where well-thought out and informed speculation led to dramatic discoveries. After all, experimenters need some idea of what to look for and where to look. For example, there was little or no experimental evidence that Newtonian gravity was wrong circa 1915, but that didn't stop Einstein from discovering general relativity, which in turn stimulated a series of experiments that verified it.

Here's a recent and more on-topic example: in Lorentz invariant theories, photons travel at speed c regardless of their frequency. But in (almost) all Lorentz non-invariant theories, their speed depends on their frequency (as well as other things, like the velocity of the source). So, observers have looked at light from very distant sources to see whether there's a time delay in the arrival times of light of different frequencies. They didn't find one, which puts a very good constraint on the size of any such Lorentz-violating effects. But if no one even thought about how Lorentz invariance could be broken, no one would have done that experiment.

I mean, if I told you we were going on a vacation together --- and all you know about the destination is that it's not Munich -- how would you pack?

A toothbrush. The situation in physics is similar in the sense that there are certain essentials we can be nearly certain will be needed.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I mean, if I told you we were going on a vacation together --- and all you know about the destination is that it's not Munich -- how would you pack?

DUH! All I need is a TOWEL!