I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one? (Albert Einstein)
Thinking about the musings from DAY 72: The Scientific Revolution – Part 2 – (Part 2)….
As discussed in earlier posts, when Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galilei and Newton, all began the process of transforming the way we view the universe, from a Geocentric to Heliocentric Model:
Day 67: The Scientific Revolution – Part 1.;
Day 68: The Scientific Revolution – Part 1 – (Part 2). and;
Day 69: The Scientific Revolution – Part 1 – Conclusion.
the conclusion one can make is clear:
The Geocentric Model of the Universe was scientifically proven to be wrong.
Now, fast-forward to the late 1800’s, as a scientist also interested in the universe, Albert Einstein, comes up with perhaps one of the most famous equations of the 20th century, (and for all-time for that matter):
E = mc2.
Also known as the Theory of Relativity, this equation, ultimately proposed and then published between the years 1905 and 1915, changed the way scientists view the universe, and ultimately, Newton’s view of the universe.
I would submit to you that although the Theory of Relativity actually encompasses both ‘special’ and ‘general’ relativity, (I have no idea what any of that means…I am a history teacher), the bigger picture is the fact that Einstein’s famous E = mc2 was so impactful in the both fields of astronomy and physics, that scientists believe that it supersedes the theory of mechanics of Isaac Newton.
Therefore, the question that needs to be asked is this:
Does E = mc2 make Newtonian mechanics obsolete, the way that Newton, (and his cohorts mentioned above), made Ptolemy’s Geocentric Model of the Universe obsolete?
I would submit to you that in some ways the simple answer to those questions is…
Yes.
Consider the following. Ptolemy was limited by his views of the universe by among other things, the fact that he did not have a technology that many of us today take for granted.
Ptolemy did not have access to a telescope.
What if Ptolemy had access to the telescope in his lifetime?
It would most likely be an eye-opener…that is for sure.
So where is the evidence that would potentially make Newtonian mechanics obsolete?
Right here, in Newton’s book, Principia, he defines what we know today as gravity:
Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Now, while the story of an apple falling directly on the head of Newton is still considered legend and up for debate today, what is not up for debate is three issues regarding Newton and gravity:
1) Mercury’s peculiar orbit around the sun and for that matter;
2) Newton’s concept of gravity doesn’t work for any planet because;
3) While Newton’s laws may work well in the real world under normal circumstances, it begins to break down when things aren’t too fast or when their gravitational field isn’t too strong.
Now, without getting lost in the weeds and over-complicating the nuances between Newton and Einstein regarding gravity, the basic takeaway to the point I am trying to make is ultimately this:
While some scientists may not consider Newton ‘wrong’ but rather, ‘not accurate for our purposes in today’s world’, this fact still remains:
There are many in the scientific field of physics that consider some of the fundamentals regarding Newtonian’s concept of gravity to be in conflict with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
In other words…
Whether you conclude the Newtonian concept of gravity to be wrong…or…not accurate…or in conflict, in relation to E = mc2, the science regarding the field of gravity and how it affects the universe, from Newton to Einstein….
Has anything but remained constant.
Remember this, the Theory of Relativity was published between the years 1905 and 1915, just under 200 years after Newton’s Principia.
The next question that needs to be asked is this:
Is there a theory out there that is putting E = mc2 into question…that it may be wrong…or not accurate…or in conflict?
Yes there is.
But those issues will be discussed once we get into the Scientific Revolution – Part 3….
Remember…we still need to cover the scientific discoveries of one more individual before the Scientific Revolution – Part 2 is complete:
Charles Darwin.
Do not feel discouraged if you are still trying to wrap your head about the discoveries of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Do not feel discouraged if you are still trying to understand if the discoveries of Einstein proved Newton wrong or not accurate or in conflict. Instead, embrace the idea that as you continue to learn more about these individuals, embrace the idea that all will eventually come full circle regarding science and the Holy Bible.
“12 It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.” Isaiah 45:12 KJV
Was today’s blog a little confusing at times? Was the content perhaps a little overwhelming? Did you feel lost not understanding some or most of the subject matter?
Those feelings are totally understandable and it is ok to have one or more of those feelings. Remember that you are reading Day 73: The Scientific Revolution – Part 2 – (Conclusion)..
If you haven’t been in class since the first day of school…or when the project began…or when the contract was first signed, etc., these feelings make perfect and logistical sense.
Please feel free to go back to where all of this began: