Skip to main content
Physics

Return to Answer

Copy edited (ref. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_clause_structure#Run-on_sentences> (the alternative is to use the shamed semicolon) and <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/square_one#Noun>).
Source Link
Peter Mortensen
Peter Mortensen
  • 2.4k
  • 2
  • 19
  • 25

Words like "proven" and "wrong" have to be used carefully in this context. It is more meaningful to talk about "accuracy" and "limits". If an experiment was conducted tomorrow that contradicted general relativity it would by no means make general relativity a useless theory, nor would we get rid of it.

The purpose of theories in physics isn't to "prove" anything about the real world, this. This isn't even something they are capable of doing. Their purpose is to as accurately as possible predict the outcome of experiments.

Of course if there comes a time when a prediction of general relativity is not found in nature the likely reaction will be to attempt to reconcile the theory with the experiment, rather than throwing it out and starting from square 1.

Words like "proven" and "wrong" have to be used carefully in this context. It is more meaningful to talk about "accuracy" and "limits". If an experiment was conducted tomorrow that contradicted general relativity it would by no means make general relativity a useless theory, nor would we get rid of it.

The purpose of theories in physics isn't to "prove" anything about the real world, this isn't even something they are capable of doing. Their purpose is to as accurately as possible predict the outcome of experiments.

Of course if there comes a time when a prediction of general relativity is not found in nature the likely reaction will be to attempt to reconcile the theory with the experiment, rather than throwing it out and starting from square 1.

Words like "proven" and "wrong" have to be used carefully in this context. It is more meaningful to talk about "accuracy" and "limits". If an experiment was conducted tomorrow that contradicted general relativity it would by no means make general relativity a useless theory, nor would we get rid of it.

The purpose of theories in physics isn't to "prove" anything about the real world. This isn't even something they are capable of doing. Their purpose is to as accurately as possible predict the outcome of experiments.

Of course if there comes a time when a prediction of general relativity is not found in nature the likely reaction will be to attempt to reconcile the theory with the experiment, rather than throwing it out and starting from square 1.

Source Link
Charlie
Charlie
  • 7k
  • 1
  • 16
  • 39

Words like "proven" and "wrong" have to be used carefully in this context. It is more meaningful to talk about "accuracy" and "limits". If an experiment was conducted tomorrow that contradicted general relativity it would by no means make general relativity a useless theory, nor would we get rid of it.

The purpose of theories in physics isn't to "prove" anything about the real world, this isn't even something they are capable of doing. Their purpose is to as accurately as possible predict the outcome of experiments.

Of course if there comes a time when a prediction of general relativity is not found in nature the likely reaction will be to attempt to reconcile the theory with the experiment, rather than throwing it out and starting from square 1.