Is the Theory of Relativity no longer a theory by now? Have we now made it a "Fact"?

Answer 1

Science never proves anything. It just poses hypotheses that stand the tests of experimentation. Relativity has accurately predicted the experimental results so far, but is still just a theory... and a limited one that will almost certainly be supplanted in the future.

Answer 2

There are often misconceptions about Science's use of the terms theory, fact, hypothesis, and law. Further, even within science there are many scientists who don't strictly adhere to the technical definitions, which can make things convoluted.

"Theory," as science uses the term, is supposed to mean "a model of explanation supported by an abundance of evidence." A theory represents the highest "status" of a scientific model. In general, the process goes like this: Laws/Facts --> Hypothesis --> Theory

Scientists (usually researchers) will observe the world, and generate statements on any consistent patterns they see. This is the process of observing facts and generating laws. For example, the Law of Gravity predates the Theory of Gravity, and it says that objects fall at a constant acceleration in a vacuum. Hubble's Law predates Big Bang theory, and it says that galaxies farther away from us emit light that is more redshifted than galaxies closer to us. These "laws" are not unbreakable. They are simply statements of observed patterns.

After a bunch of patterns have been observed for a certain segment of science, scientists will typically try to see the connections between the different laws. He or she will try to come up with a model that consistently explains all the laws, based on some fundamental principle. These models are called hypotheses. However, a model that explains all the laws is still considered only a hypothesis until one crucial criteria is met -- predictions.

Each model or hypothesis, if true, has consequences that we have not observed yet. To take an example, when relativity was first introduced, Einstein made several predictions. He said that light would bend around large blobs of mass, that really fast-moving satellites would have time slow down for them, etc. These predicitons were made before observations confirmed them. That's the essence of science -- predictions and falsifiability.

Once experiments were conducted, and Einstein's predictions came true, the concept was elevated to be called the Theory of Relativity. That's the highest it can get, because there's always a chance that new or refined experiments will show the theory to be incomplete.

Finally, it should be noted that in general, theories are never completely overturned. When new experiments show a theory to be "wrong," it is generally in an area that was previously unexplored. A "wrong" theory is never wrong so much as it is incomplete. (It's a subtle, but crucial difference).

Hope that clears things up.

Answer 3

A theory is an explanation for what is observed. If you observe something that always happens exactly the same way, you could call that an empirical law. An empirical law is one that we just haven't seen anything that breaks it.

Newtonian mechanics explained a lot of things about the orbits of the planets. It wasn't until time and distance measurements became much more accurate that someone noticed that the orbit of Mercury didn't behave exactly as predicted by Newtonian mechanics. Well, this is exactly the kind of thing that had helped early astronomers to find some of the outer planets. They measured some orbits. They did some math. They concluded that if Newton was right, there would have to be another planet right about here. And there was.

Well, at the turn of the century, astronomers decided that some small perturbations in Mercury's orbit had to be due to a small fast moving planet somewhere inside the orbit of Mercury. They had already named it Vulcan and they hadn't even seen it. They did the calculations and were just waiting for the next time the planets would line up so that Vulcan would transit between the earth and the sun. Here is the interesting part. Several observeratories claimed to have seen it.

The truth is, Vulcan wasn't there. It took a better theory to explain what was going on. Does that mean that we should toss out Newtonian mechanics? No. We just have to realize that Newton's theories didn't take into account time dilation.

Who knows what we will find tomorrow that isn't explained by Einstein's theories.

Answer 4

Facts, theories, and hypotheses are all components of the 'Scientific Method'.

A theory is a supposition based on a collection of facts.Theories don't always become facts, even if they can be proven. A theory CAN become what's known as a 'Law', such as "the law of gravity."

You start with a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a supposition that you think you can prove. Before a HYPOTHESIS can become a THEORY, it must be demonstrable and repeatable.

Even so, theories seldom if ever become facts. This is because the entire idea of the scientific method isn't concern about creating new facts. Rather, scientists are concerned with discovering new facts.

New theories just help scientists to discover new facts that were there before, but were heretofore unknown to humanity.

So, to answer your question the 'Theory' of relativity may never become a fact, BUT it continues to help us discover NEW FACTS about our world and our entire universe.

After a theory has been accepted for a very long time (and has not been successfully challenged) it will become a 'law'. So we once had a "Theory of Thermodynamics," now we have a "Law of Thermodynamics." Some day, we might have a "Law of Relativity," or a "Law of Evolution!"

Not yet, though. That day will only come when the scientists are satisfied there are no challenges to these theories. They won't really be facts, though, even then.

One might say that the theory of relativity helps us become nearer to God, or to better understand God's universe.

Answer 5

Theories can certainly become facts, but very few of them do, especially those on the order of complexity of Relativity. The problem is that, in order for a theory to become a fact, every single aspect of that theory must be proven. For complex theories such as Relativity or Quantum X-Dynamics, they were devised and presented mathematically and then observations were made which support them. New observations are being made over time which continue to support them, and for every supporting observation, the theory becomes stronger.

However, if even a single observation is made that refutes the theory, then it must either be modified to fit this new observation, or scrapped altogether. (Assuming, of course, that no error was made in making that observation.) Most of the time, instead of scrapping the theory completely, it is modified to attempt to explain the new observation. But the theory will remain a theory as long as there is even the slightest possibility that a new observation can be made in the future that can throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing.

Some examples:

Newton's Law of Gravitation was even considered a "law", i.e. "fact", but then was superceded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity because this new theory was able to explain some anomalous behavior that Newton's "law" could not (e.g. the precession of Mercury's orbital axis).

Einstein's initial theory of Special Relativity was soon superceded by his theory of General Relativity which took into account gravity and acceleration outside of inertial frames.

And finally, attempting to place some order to the current mish-mash of quantum theories can really turn your brain into mush. There are many observations which fit them all, but there are also so many holes and unknowns that the whole field is in a constant state of flux even today, with new theories (such as Supersymmetric String Theory) being devised as methods to better explain it all. Put simply, it is an attempt to match Quantum Field Theory with that of Relativistic gravity because current knowledge can so far only tie it with the other three natural forces.

Answer 6

The theory of relativity has not been 'proved' just like the theory of evolution has not been proved. But I would go with these theories in a heartbeat rather than believe in some supertitious religion based on something I know far less about - faith!

Answer 7

NO theory can be said to be true or false if that was what you were getting at. "Fact" is generally associated with things that are beyond reproach, which no theory ever is. But not being able to be proven true definitely doesn't imply falsity as many people seem to think.

Answer 8

A theory is based on a set of facts and predicts another set of facts. As long as anything within is unprovable, it remains a theory.

Answer 9

Nope its not a fact because it might be possible that it can be refuted. So it is just a theory.

Answer 10

Theories will remain theories forever.

It may be treated as fact by most people, but they are still theories.