Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewgleave | Hacker News Reader

It don't "prove" anything. The observation just doesn't refute relativity.

You are correct, but using this argument, pretty much all of our understanding of Physics is "unproven". All we do is look at what happens in nature and form theories. Sure, we reason a lot and that to cut down the state space but at the end of the day, we have no way to be sure if what we know of Physics today is how our universe actually works. So validations like this are almost as good as it gets. The only thing that would be better is experimental observation refuting relativity or some other accepted theory.

A better headline would be “doesn’t prove Einstein wrong”.

An even better one would be "Einstein's General Relativity model supported by (another) observation". We've had many similar observations already (e.g. Mercury's procession around the Sun) that provide similar confirmation.

That's why there is such consternation about it, versus the Standard Model born of quantum physics: both models have tons of confirming evidence supporting them, and yet they are at some level incompatible/incomplete. There's a gap in our knowledge, understanding, and intuition.

Publication bias might suggest otherwise.

No, it proved Einstein’s theory predicts the trajectory of objects in the presence of a rotating supermassive object

The observation is consistent with the theory of relativity.

Like I said, in proves general relativity predicts the trajectory of objects in the presence of a rotating supermassive object

That's not how science (or logic) works.

You are wrong on both counts

Your comment proves my theorem that xadhominemx only ever posts in this particular thread.

Not logically equivalent scenarios

qed!

No, your scenario is different than the headline. Closer, but still not the same, would be “xadhominemx posts in this thread”

It seems you missed the whole 'a single observation proves a theorem' part in the headline, which you conveniently omit in your attempt here.

There was not a single observation. The star followed a complex trajectory.

There is a difference between "proving," vs "supporting" or "confirming." This observation still leaves the possibility that Einstein's prediction is wrong but within the margin of experimental error, or that the model will fail to accurately predict motion near a different rotating supermassive object due to variables which aren't present for this one.

Any analytical formula describing a physical property will have dropped higher order terms (implicit or explicitly) the entire way through the derivation. This experiment proves Einstein’s equations are predictive within the precision implied by order of terms within the equation. That is implied by the form of the equation itself. You are trying to logic yourself to a witty conclusion but lack the context to understand the words that are being used.

The experiment confirms the specific prediction made by the equation for this particular set of circumstances. That's good, that's useful, but it doesn't prove that the predictions made by the equations under other circumstances will be confirmed, nor does it prove the equations that made the prediction, nor does it prove the model that generated the equations. Those are generalizations that require additional assumptions not tested by the experiment. That's just a limitation of empirical methods.

People (including myself) get in a bugabear about the use of the word "prove" because it implies a finality of knowledge which is not true of the experiment, and in fact counter to the spirit of the scientific method. The equations are supported by the experiment, but that support still admits the possibility of better equations later ("better" having many possibilities). The ideas confirmed by this experiment as still subject to revision and review and modification and improvement, hence the disagreement with calling them "proven."

You strike me as a non-scientist who never formally studied a science outside of general educational requirements. Am I correct?

My degree is in mathematics. Opinions vary on whether that's considered a science (I consider them distinct).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com