The point is, to have a correct theory. This is enough, and nothing else.
I don’t know where and how and if at all, the GR is valid or not. But we have a measurement which might contradict it. And that might not be resolvable without mending the theory.
Okay, but I think you’re saying the obvious. I’m not a physicist but the way I understand it, much stronger evidence for GR’s non-validity would be the fact that it’s inconsistent with quantum mechanics—and since it’s at large distances that we keep getting results we don’t expect and which we need to patch over with hypotheses about dark energy/dark matter/etc, it’s GR that is most likely to be revised first.
much stronger evidence for GR’s non-validity would be the fact that it’s inconsistent with quantum mechanics
Quite a bad omen, yes. Something had to give. Either QM, either GR. Now, we MAY have a contradiction inside the GR and the QM is much less threatened by the GR as it seemingly was, back in 1926.
There were other bad signs for the Relativity before, name a few. Ehrenfest paradox and the already transluminal speed of the Universe expansion, were not helping.
The probability that the Gran Sasso measuring was wrong, is smaller and smaller.
I think you’re giving way too much significance to this latest measuring. Even if GR is shown to be false, my money’s still on the measuring to be false as well.
my money’s still on the measuring to be false as well.
You are most probably right. But it is not a sure thing yet. With every day passed and with no likely explanation, I update my probability estimation for a major patch needed for GR—up.
“enough” for what?
What exactly do you believe “the point” is?
The point is, to have a correct theory. This is enough, and nothing else.
I don’t know where and how and if at all, the GR is valid or not. But we have a measurement which might contradict it. And that might not be resolvable without mending the theory.
Okay, but I think you’re saying the obvious. I’m not a physicist but the way I understand it, much stronger evidence for GR’s non-validity would be the fact that it’s inconsistent with quantum mechanics—and since it’s at large distances that we keep getting results we don’t expect and which we need to patch over with hypotheses about dark energy/dark matter/etc, it’s GR that is most likely to be revised first.
Quite a bad omen, yes. Something had to give. Either QM, either GR. Now, we MAY have a contradiction inside the GR and the QM is much less threatened by the GR as it seemingly was, back in 1926.
There were other bad signs for the Relativity before, name a few. Ehrenfest paradox and the already transluminal speed of the Universe expansion, were not helping.
The probability that the Gran Sasso measuring was wrong, is smaller and smaller.
I think you’re giving way too much significance to this latest measuring. Even if GR is shown to be false, my money’s still on the measuring to be false as well.
You are most probably right. But it is not a sure thing yet. With every day passed and with no likely explanation, I update my probability estimation for a major patch needed for GR—up.