What's new

Was Einstein wrong?

cirr

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
17,049
Reaction score
18
Country
China
Location
China
Was Einstein wrong? Chinese physicist Wu Yueliang claims universe flat not curved, created by ‘big break’ instead of ‘big bang’

PUBLISHED : Friday, 22 January, 2016, 9:00am
UPDATED : Friday, 22 January, 2016, 9:00am

Stephen Chen


Einstein believed the universe was ‘curved’ due to be bending of space and time, but Chinese physicist Wu Yueliang claims it is in fact ‘flat’. Credit: Handout

Albert Einstein was undoubtedly a genius, but he may have unintentionally duped us for the last century with his description of the universe, according to a new theory developed by Chinese physicist Wu Yueliang.

According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, released in 1915, space and time are curved. This is became any object with an inherent mass, for example a planet like earth, bends space and time and creates gravity, it asserts.

As such, any journey across the universe would be a journey through a distorted space and time.

But in his paper published in the latest issue of Physical Review D, a monthly journal run by the American Physical Society, Professor Wu Yueliang argues that the universe is in fact “flat”.

Wu, a leading theoretical physicist in China, serves as vice-president of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.

He claims that space and time have always been flat, and have never been bent or distorted.

Furthermore, he believes gravity is not the byproduct of a kink in the space-time continuum. Rather, according to his argument, it is caused by quantum - or subatomic - particles that lack mass.

However, space and time can be “broken”, he said. Taking his argument as far as it could go, Wu said it should even be possible to create an entirely new universe.

f0cef74e-c020-11e5-9503-d84cbca18933_486x.jpg

The universe was not created by a ‘big bang’, as shown in the above image, but rather a ‘big break’ in space and time, according to Wu’s theory. Credit: Dailygalaxy

Wu’s paper makes the case that the universe was in fact created by a “big break” in the symmetry of space and time. This runs contrary to the Big Bang model, which was not, as it sounds, marked by a huge explosion.

The general consensus is that the universe began as a very hot, dense point only fractions of an inch across about 13.7 billion years ago. How it came to being is still the subject of much debate among cosmologists today.

“Wu’s is a grand, original theory,” said Li Dingping, a professor of physics at Peking University in Beijing.

“It is a theory of everything. It has some brilliant new ideas. But I am afraid most people cannot fully understand it, including myself,” he conceded. Li was not involved with Wu’s research.

Wu’s theory effectively unites all known forces in the universe, including gravity, electromagnetic forces, nuclear forces and quantum mechanics into one model.

It was precisely this field of endeavour that kept German-born Einstein (1879-1955) busy in the second half of his academic career. But he was unable to find the answer during his lifetime.

As Wu’s theory is so new and untested, Li said it would be premature to claim it could topple Einstein’s and change our view of the universe just yet.

Moreover, such tests may not even be possible at present due to technological limitations, Li said.

In the last few decades, physicists have proposed numerous theories of how all the physical forces could be united, but none have been confirmed by lab experiments or astronomical observation.

String theory, which replaces the point-like particles of particle physics with one-dimensional objects called strings, and describes how these interact in space, would be a case in point.

In contrast, the fact that Einstein’s ideas match with empirical observations have given them both credibility and longevity. Many experiments have been designed to challenge his theories, but for the most part they have held their own.

Was Einstein wrong? Chinese physicist Wu Yueliang claims universe flat not curved, created by ‘big break’ instead of ‘big bang’ | South China Morning Post
 
Last edited:
. .
I am struggling to imagine a "FLAT" Universe .
Does "FLAT" mean 2D/3D or more than that .

or does "FLAT" mean Flat like a Blanket but no Height and Depth .
 
.
Einstein was a copy cat master (Plagiarizer)

Late 19th-century natural philosophers believed that electromagnetism was more fundamental than Isaac Newton’s laws of motion and that the electromagnetic field itself should provide the origin of mass.


i.e they knew moving electrons gained mass


When other scientist did their work they released the research with "references" and thank you notes to previous scientist however Einstein did not showed references to work already proven or close to proven by top scientist of the time

In 1881 J. J. Thomson, later a discoverer of the electron, made the first attempt to demonstrate how this might come about by explicitly calculating the magnetic field generated by a moving charged sphere and showing that the field in turn induced a mass into the sphere itself.






220px-Hasenoehrl.jpg

One of the more plausible precursors to E = mc2 is attributed to Fritz Hasenöhrl, a physics professor at the University of Vienna. In a 1904 paper Hasenöhrl clearly wrote down the equation E = 3/8mc2.

He calculated that the motion adds a mass of 3/8c2 times the radiant energy


220px-Oheaviside.jpg

1889 English physicist Oliver Heaviside simplified his work to show that the effective mass should be m = (4⁄3) E / c2

230px-Henri_Poincar%C3%A9-2.jpg

Poincaré concluded that the electromagnetic field energy of an electromagnetic wave behaves like a fictitious fluid ("fluide fictif") with a mass density of E/c2

One naturally wonders whether Einstein knew of Hasenöhrl’s work. It is difficult to believe that he did not, given that the bulk of the prize-winning trilogy appeared in the most prominent journal of the day

Equally surprising is that although Einstein was the first to propose the correct relationship, E = mc2, he didn’t actually prove it, at least according to his own special relativity

(Note all other scientist proposed a equation and were trying to prove their equation Einstine just took the idea and it was self solvable he did not bother showing world the proof of his work)

Yet ... here we are celebrating him


Nor he invented the Nuclear bomb
The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (about $26 billion in 2016 dollars). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissile materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons. Research and production took place at more than 30 sites across the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.
 
Last edited:
.
No Einstein wasn't wrong. There have been quite literally hundreds of papers that have sought to explain different reasoning and all have been proven incorrect.

There have been empirical findings that also correlate with his theories.
 
.
I am struggling to imagine a "FLAT" Universe .
Does "FLAT" mean 2D/3D or more than that .

or does "FLAT" mean Flat like a Blanket but no Height and Depth .
As far as i understood he meant that space-time is not bent due to gravity. Then the scientists who change time on satellites and atomic clocks everyday for having a very minute faster time is fake? Or maybe he is trying to say something else as
But I am afraid most people cannot fully understand it, including myself

There have been empirical findings that also correlate with his theories.
Like?
 
. .
Somehow he was wrong his theories as per physics / science standards not constant, some time went philosophical example his general relativity theory without assuming about many things we can't apply this. And because of this many still believes that we can time travel and many times present in the universe which is quit idiocy.
 
.
I am struggling to imagine a "FLAT" Universe .
Does "FLAT" mean 2D/3D or more than that .

or does "FLAT" mean Flat like a Blanket but no Height and Depth .


Flat in 4th dimension. Something that is beyond human imagination as human live in 3rd dimension.

Analogy like: a 2 dimension bend in 3 dimension (space); creature in 2 dimension (if any) cannot understand/imagine how the 2 dimension it live bend in space, but human who live in 3rd dimension can see it.
 
.
We need gigantic machines to prove Einstein wrong or otherwise。

Ditto any new “theory of everything”
 
.
As far as i understood he meant that space-time is not bent due to gravity. Then the scientists who change time on satellites and atomic clocks everyday for having a very minute faster time is fake? Or maybe he is trying to say something else as



Like?

To begin with, the fact that there needs to be a correction factor applied to the atomic clocks on GPS satellites. That's for the theory of relativity. There are many other instances.
 
. . .
No Einstein wasn't wrong. There have been quite literally hundreds of papers that have sought to explain different reasoning and all have been proven incorrect.

There have been empirical findings that also correlate with his theories.

There are other theories which can also explain the same phenomena but in a more mathematically "beautiful" way, or account for things in Einstein's theory that require explanations that don't quite make sense. What if it's relativity that's a local manifestation of a more general theory, just like Newton's theory is a local manifestation of relativity?

I can't comment on this too much. The only thing I remember from relativity is how awful tensor math was.
 
.
I can't comment on this too much. The only thing I remember from relativity is how awful tensor math was.

Nobody likes tensor mathematics. I completely understand. Could you point me towards these more elegant theories that explain the same phenomena. Cheers.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom