SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Observations made with ESO's Very Large Telescope have for the first time revealed the effects predicted by Einstein's general relativity on the motion of a star passing through the extreme gravitational field near the supermassive black hole in the centre of the Milky Way. This long-sought result represents the climax of a 26-year-long observation campaign using ESO's telescopes in Chile.
[...] The new measurements clearly reveal an effect called gravitational redshift. Light from the star is stretched to longer wavelengths by the very strong gravitational field of the black hole. And the change in the wavelength of light from S2 agrees precisely with that predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity. This is the first time that this deviation from the predictions of the simpler Newtonian theory of gravity has been observed in the motion of a star around a supermassive black hole.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:06PM (13 children)
Why does it continue to be called the Theory of relativity rather than the Principle or the Law of relativity? There is no counter evidence and plenty of observable evidence. The very design of GPS is corrected for relativity in order for it to function.
Why do we use the word "Law" for thermodynamics?
Why do we use Theory for evolution when it is directly observable at the microscopic level where generations are very short?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:15PM
A theory may apply to this Universe, or it may not.
A "law" is an axiom within a theory that applies to this Universe.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:16PM
A theory, in science, is typically composed of multiple laws, and a supporting framework of understanding for how those laws work.
There is, for example, within relativity, a law of mass-energy equivalence. It's a piece that the whole needs to work.
It doesn't seem like if you took mass-energy equivalence away, and declared it invalid, that time dilation would cease to be a meaningful concept, but E=MC2 governs the way in which two different frames of reference can see the same body at 2 different kinetic energy levels, but total energy levels the same. And without that, there'd be no way for 2 different frames of reference to see events flow at a different rate. And without that, there'd be no way to describe time dilating for one point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:19PM (2 children)
In modern science "Theory" is the term for believed to be accurate/true. They gave up on "Law" because we kept finding ways to refine the old models. So now, it doesn't get to be an officially accepted "Theory" until there is sufficient evidence and support within the scientific community.
The scientist proposes a theorem along with one or more experiments to demonstrate it. Other scientists repeat the experiment and come up with more experiments to either demonstrate the theorem or try to disprove it and also publish their results. When enough scientists are convinced, it gets promoted to "Theory".
Plus, there a problems with getting Relativity Theory to work with Quantum Theory and yet we use both in highly precise tools (GPS relies on Relativity and electron microscopes rely on Quantum Theory).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:27PM
Your notion of "theory" is utterly wrong.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:39PM
Nice try.
Explain then the String Theory.. Actually, don't bother, someone has done it already [xkcd.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:35PM
Because a law can be suspended if that's what politicians want [gizmodo.com.au]. They aren't doing it only because those lobbyists are telling them jobs will be lost, especially in fossil fuels and energy retailing sectors.
I expect there'll be one to realize that repealing even if only the 2nd law of thermodynamics will allow free unlimited energy.. Any day now
Perhaps to remind people that theoretical sciences are still needed, so they on;t grumble when taxes are allocated for them
Besides, many of them are cheap... look, there's one theory that only need some strings to give them a hardon (instead of that budget black hole that LHC is. And for what? To find a bosun?)
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:39PM
Basically "law" is used for old theorems because that was the term used then. It's not used anymore.
(Score: 4, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday August 02 2018, @03:08PM
Because theory is an explanation which fits observations and not the prediction of observaable events (laws). It tries to explain why things are, not what they are.
https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html [livescience.com]
https://blog.ed.ted.com/2016/06/07/whats-the-difference-between-a-scientific-law-and-theory-in-ted-ed-gifs/ [ted.com]
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html [ucr.edu]
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1057150.pdf [ed.gov]
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Thursday August 02 2018, @03:12PM
It's just incomplete. For a theory to become law, it must fully describe every single aspect within it's domain, or in other words it must be a universal model.
(Score: 5, Informative) by stormwyrm on Thursday August 02 2018, @04:44PM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday August 02 2018, @05:48PM
"Law" has fallen out of use for scientific statements, because theories cannot be proven, only falsified. Also because there's no presumed "law giver".
If a theory cannot be tested for falsification (not necessarily at the moment, but in principle) then it's not a scientific statement. But you can't test a theory everywhere in the universe at every time, so there's no possibility of being able to prove that it is correct. All you can show is "it fits all the evidence, and it predicts things we haven't tested yet".
In practice, even when a theory is shown wrong by experiment, the first thing that gets checked is whether there was something wrong with the experiment. Or whether there's some other factor in action that explains the result. Usually even a better theory can't replace a generally accepted theory until those committed to it retire.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @08:21PM
Missing mod: +1 Good question
Thanks a lot for the good answers, belwo, but also thanks a lot for asking the question.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 02 2018, @11:46PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves