bernee51 wrote:seventil wrote: Much like how relativity replaced Newtonian physics - replaced it on a different level. That's just my speculation, however.
I'm not sure I would use the word 'replaced'. Perhaps "transcended and included" might be a better descriptor. Just a thought.
Agreed, bernee. I meant replaced as in replacing the science that explained things Newtonian physics could not. I like your definition better, however.
QED wrote:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:44 pm Post subject:
seventil wrote:
bdbthinker wrote:
I think if relativity were shown to be incorrect, that would but the BB in major question. In fact, BB would no longer be the "best explanation".
Well, I hope he sees my post. I'm interested in seeing the explanation of the expanding universe would be explained without relativity... Wink
For the record, I don't think relativity will ever be disproved. I believe a unified theory will unite quantum theory and relativity. Much like how relativity replaced Newtonian physics - replaced it on a different level. That's just my speculation, however.
I'm not sure what you mean by an explanation that doesn't include relativity... There are many observations that are compatible with an expanding universe:
Hubbles distance versus redshift law.
Time dilation characteristics of supernova light curves.
The sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
Blackbody cosmic microwave background radiation indicates that the universe has evolved from a dense isothermal state.
Radio source and quasar counts versus flux showing that the universe has evolved over time.
Abundances of deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li all match predicted reactions occurring in the first three minutes of a BB.
QED, my point was that relativistic physics are the basis for the theory itself. While I agree that there are other observations that can support the theory - if the basis of the theory is proven to be incorrect, the supporting evidences become shady. It's hard to speculate on this because relativity has not been disproven (and I believe it never will be - just transcended like I said before).
An example:
Redshift is a measure of how fast a celestial object is moving relative to us. And further:
Measuring a redshift or blueshift requires four steps:
1) obtain the spectrum of something (let's say a galaxy) that shows spectral lines
2) from the pattern of lines, identify which line corresponds to which atom, ion, or molecule
3) measure the shift of any one of those lines with respect to its expected wavelength, as measured in a laboratory on Earth
4) apply a formula that relates the observed shift to velocity along the line-of-sight
From
http://cas.sdss.org/dr3/en/proj/advance ... shifts.asp
Regarding time dilation: This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1.
From
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#TD
I think it can be agreed that the basis of the BB theory has relied on and been supported by relativistic physics. I agree that the theory is the "best idea" sort of theory. However, the original point was that relativity can't explain certain parts of the BB theory (from time 0 to t-43, if I remember correctly). In fact, nothing can (right now). We have no solid science to explain it, just speculation.
My original point was that I believe it takes a certain amount of faith to believe in a theory that cannot be explained by modern science. While I concede that science and the theory do not claim to be Absolute Truth (which we discussed) - I still think there is a certain underlying faith in science itself to try to explain the universe - faith in an explanation that does not rely on supernatural means.
