2006-12-10 07:26:39 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
No. His theory is accurate by something like 99.99999999% but its not perfect, it just conforms to prediction remarkably well. Its an interesting question how scientists can even make such models of the Universe which can be so incredibly accurate and yet not contain the underlying 'true' final theory of quantum gravity and I hardly think its a question for this type of forum.
As far as we have seen in theory and experimental conformation has confirmed exactly what Einstein predicted including atomic clocks on board planes that predicted (with a control clock on the ground) that the faster you go, the more time slows down. I wouldnt say Einstein was wrong but his theory is obviously not perfect though it is accurate to an incredible degree - but simplicity is something too - NASA navigation people dont even use Einstein's general relativity because all though its ever so slightly more accurate than Newton's theory of gravitation, they find they can do just fine using Newton's as it is simpler to calculate.
The other great theory of the 20th century is quantum mechanics which describes the physics of the very small - black holes are objects which although incredibly massive with an incredible gravitational power are infinitesimal in size and when the two theories mesh trying to describe such a thing - the results are nonsense. I keep hearing say physical laws break down inside black holes but thats silly - all that breaks down is our ability to explain whats happening.
Many physicists are working on various ways to reconcile relativity (general if anyone is gonna be pedantic) and quantum mechanics. Superstring theory is one possibilty though its all very tentative at the moment. Regards.
2006-12-10 07:35:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, he wasnt totally and completely right in all his theories, but he
introduced some concepts that filled in pieces of the puzzle.
He made some major contributions.
People like Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, and Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and others have added a lot to the work that Albert Einstein revolutionized.
Still, there are many answers that are not known to us, and the work is continuing.
2006-12-10 07:39:46 · answer #2 · answered by hls 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No because no one person is completely right even Einstein, anyway he didn't do all of his theories on his own so he can't be completely right.
2006-12-14 03:02:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we know that there are problems with relativity on the quantum level.
However, despite popular belief, physics is not about being completely right. In fact we can be sure that we are completely right, we can test to see where a theory fails, and how it fails.
The whole idea behind physics is to create models that can be used to predict how objects will behave in certain situations.
2006-12-10 13:15:08 · answer #4 · answered by sparrowhawk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there became right into a mathematical paper titled Rotating Cylinders and the potential of international Causation Violation; and a s/f tale by using the same identify, based on the unique paper. The s/f tale became into by using Larry Niven, and the unique paper became into (i think of) by using Frank Tippler. basically, the belief is that that's theoretically obtainable to holiday around a sufficiently huge rotating cylinder in closed loops which will carry a guy or woman back to their beginning element in the two area and time. we can't build the variety of cylinder and attempt the theory, yet with satellite tv for pc contraptions we could in all likelihood see some neutron stars in orbit around black holes returning to their beginning element in the two area and time. it may well be an exciting confirmation of the belief. consequently, the time deliver may well be an area deliver, one ought to holiday to the previous and make differences, then return to the modern-day. Niven postulates an inertia to time, such that the Universe will act to maintain reason-and-effect by using combating time holiday. In his tale, a solar went nova to circumvent people who had desperate to construct a time gadget for conflict purposes from beginning the undertaking. in the event that they had not been destroyed, probably they might have succeeded in wiping out their enemies in the previous they have been born, hence messing up the reason-and-efect relationship of the Universe.
2016-10-18 01:55:09 · answer #5 · answered by scharber 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the thing about science, you never know you are completely right because it is not an exact thing. I think that he had some brilliant theories and would love for us to be at the stage in evolution where we had brains big enough to try out some of the stuff he suggested!
2006-12-10 07:58:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
About what?
His theory of relativity? Yes, as far as we know, all his predictions are true and verified.
About the cosmological constant? Not really. He came up with the concept to balance the pull of gravity of a universe he thought was static. The universal expansion and the red shift that Hubble found showed the universe was not static, and Enisteing called his theoretical cosmic constant his greatest blunder. Except that recent observations indicate that the universe should be full of dark matter and dark energy, and that more or less requires a cosmological constant.
About his decision to write to the president to ask that research be done to design the atomic bomb? You'll be the judge.
2006-12-10 07:34:10 · answer #7 · answered by Vincent G 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well no, he wasn't, at one point he retracted some theories that now have been proven to be so.
And remember he like Ben Franklin, believed that one women was to be loved, therefore the more women the more love. And both had a lot of them.
2006-12-10 07:36:15 · answer #8 · answered by brp_13 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He wasn't completely right. He only gave a theory to how things worked.
2006-12-10 07:30:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, a good half of him was left - apart from some embarrassing dangly bits in the middle.
2006-12-10 07:35:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋