GR does not mesh with quantum dynamics yet. GR and modified theories of gravity cannot explain dark energy. GR is complex; that suggests it is not as fundamental and simple as iteration and scaling as in the 4/3 law. The 4/3 law implies the existence of two physical reference frames. Might two physical reference frames simplify the basis for gravity?
The theory of general relativity (GR) is not a theory of physics, so any question of completeness or incompleteness does not arise. It is an axiom based abstract geometrical edifice built with equally abstract scaffolding to support a so-called abstract (please notice how many times the term “abstract” has to be used) spacetime structure, which is supposed to have REAL and tangible physical mechanical attributes . It is no wonder that its architect Einstein himself termed it as a “Castle in the Air” towards the end of his life. The only requirement of further extension (which can be easily done without limit, because only thought is required for that) is that it must be consistent with the premise (i.e., what was pre-supposed in the axiom) without any contradiction.
GR has nothing to do with objective reality and have no relevance to the real world; because the rules of this theory only apply to the abstract, imaginary and ideal (contradiction free) world. The physical/material world is full of messy contradictions and ugly facts. But the patrons of GR want that the real world must conform to its rule; to make the world look beautiful for their own benefit and advantage. They try to deceive the population with subjective, contrived and even forgery, using multi-billion dollar experiments to “prove” the validity of the theory in the physical world. They make these “proofs” kosher by bestowing fame, fortune and funds to the selected “scientists” involved; as was done few days ago with the Nobel Awards to the Trio for “proving” GR.
The validity of any scientific theory; like Newton’s laws of motion and mechanics is affirmed and proved through social/historical practice in life, technology, industry etc. This is the only way to know whether a scientific theory correct or not, because it proves its relevance. So far (after about a century) the theory of general relativity has provided no useful practice or technology. On the contrary it has led to all kinds of mysteries, paradoxes, fairy tales, dark/black cosmic monsters and still counting!
Please follow the link to the RG forum below; where scientists are vigorously debating about the various aspects of the theory of general relativity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312118218_Free_Fall_in_Gravitational_Theory?feedback/
Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory
"Is the theory of general relativity incomplete?"
The answer is yes!
General relativity works with differentiable manifolds, but it predicts singularities, which are not differentiable. So GR is incomplete even if we does nor take into account quantum effects. Even at classical level one needs a theory of singularities or a sort of modification without singularities.
Dear Zbig,
Singularities appear in GR starting from differentiable initial condition. No pressure (if energy conditions are valid) could prevent creation of singularity.
There is no such a thing as complete scientific theory . No one can makes perfect one . But they can makes good prediction in a limitation .
GR does not 'predict' singularities but 'accepts' them. In this it is similar to all physical theories. This situation arises from the point-particle assumption and not from GR. The problem is not in the field side of the field equations but in the matter (stress-energy) side. The Schwarzchild metric assumes a point mass. Is string theory a better alternative? Perhaps.
Dear Zbigniew,
Certainly, from QFT point of view one need to derive space-time from Hilbert space. I completely agree with this position.
But black holes could be large, because R~M. I.e. singularities are small, but horizons could be large and classical. From point of view of GR covariance horizons are not peculiar points of space-time, so horizon is not a true singularity.
dear Mikhail, dear Zbigniew, < GR predicts singularities, which are not differentiable>. if using distributions theory singularities become differentiable (that`s my new theory to repair relativity). relativity is not only incomplete, it is false!
dear Zbigniew, some axioms of relativity must be changed too (s.my work ultimate physics decaloque published here on RG).
Dear Robert Shour,
The special theory of relativity is itself incomplete on the basis of which the general relativity is formulated. That is, the theory of relativity developed so far is valid only for those matter , energy content of the universe of which, a particle follows the law of inertia of the special relativity in a local Minkowski structure.The Minkowski structure defined so far, one may not consider the existence of an inertial force because, it will violate the geodesic equations of the Minkowski structure. we must have to construct at first a Minkowski structure in which it could be possible to consider an inertial force with out violating the geodesic equations of the Minkowski structure. On this Minkowski structure, if we define the general relativistic structure then we may be able to consider those matter energy content of the universe of which a particle will follow the motion underthe action of the inertial force in the local Minkowski structure.
Regards
To criticize previous answers: Singularities are not an indication that the theory is incomplete, but that it is wrong. Then, that GR is a classical theory, not a quantum theory, does also not mean that it is incomplete. It means that it is wrong, because it cannot describe gravitational effects of quantum phenomena.
To answer the question: GR is incomplete, because it also needs some other theory which describes matter. So, a complete theory is obtained by adding some hypothesis about matter fields.
NO not at all!!!!!!!!!
we just don't know how to utilize Einstein"s field equation.....it is not a incomplete theory... GR cannot explain dark energy does not mean that it is incomplete.....
Yes, dear colleagues,
you can not solve Einstein's equations and try to discuss them.
why didn`t einstein himself solve his equations? because his maths was superficial! could anybody show me one single solution given by einstein himself to equations? relativity is false while it begins with false axioms. here 1 example: speed of light in vacuum is constant! well, vacuum does not exist! if there were light in the vacuum, that vacuum were not empty.
@Aleksei Bykov
"GR describes perfectly the gravity in all experiments"
What experiments do You mean, Aleksei?
Dear Robert Shour
My answer is Yes, Einstein's GR is not a complete theory.
The equivalence principle on which GR is based, applies only in the case of parallel vectors of accelerations of points of a body, that is, to infinitely small size of this body . And, therefore, to the infinitely small mass of bodies. This theory is not defined for bodies of finite dimensions. So now there are more than 30 variants of theories that attempt to generalize GR with the aim to describe the interaction of bodies of finite size. The figure of 30 is talking about the incompleteness of the General relativity theory of Einstein.
---
Уважаемый Robert Shour
Мой ответ – да, GR Эйнштейна –не полная теория.
Принцип эквивалентности, на котором построена GR, относится только к случаю параллельных векторов ускорения точек тела, то есть, к бесконечно малым размерам тел. И, следовательно, к бесконечно малым массам тел. В этой теории не определено, что будет для тел конечных размеров. Поэтому сейчас существует более 30 вариантов теорий, пытающихся обобщить GR с целью описать взаимодействие тел конечных размеров. Уже сама цифра 30 говорит о неполноте общей теории относительности Эйнштейна.
Dear Readers,
The GR as a gravitational theory is to be completed when it would be possible to equate the Riemann curvature tensor to the energy-momentum tensor.
Regards
GR is not merely to complete, it must be revised. in my opinion all physics values have to be expressed as functionals. (because it is obviously that they must be adjusted by operating with SQRT(1-v²/c²) for example)
GR is sufficient when Quantum Mechanics can be ignored. Researchers largely agreed in a different thread that very short distances and extreme high energy density require something in addition to GR.
Where is logic, Jerry, if Quantum Mechanics can be ignored? What completeness?
Two comments on previous posts:
1- GR and quantum theory? Is GR a good approximate theory at scales where QM corrections are small or is there a fundamental conflict between the two theories?
2- GR kept the Newtonian concept of a point particle with no size. This concept which is useful macroscopically is also the source of many difficulties in physical theories starting with classical electrodynamics. I am willing to accept the field side of the field equations of GR, but what about the source side? What is the 'correct' form of the stress energy tensor of all forms of matter including radiation? This is the 'incompleteness' of GR.
There is a fundamental conflict between the two theories, Ramzi.
it is more like follows: QT shows errors/limits of RT, i.e. RT is false
Eugene, indeed the evidence is that there is a fundamental conflict and not only a matter of 'corrections'. So we have two theories which differ in their foundations. This means that we are very far from the 'truth', whatever it is.
dear Ramzi, if You read my works published here on RG (unification of relativity and quantum without using strings AND ultimate physics decalogue), you can see the discrepancies/differences You are looking for
Eugene, "There is a fundamental conflict between the two theories, Ramzi."
It is only a conflict of metaphysical interpretations. See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/Schmelzer,%20I.%20(2017).%20Quantum%20Gravity%20as%20a%20Metaphysical%20Problem,%20Phys%20Astron%20Int%20J%202017,%201(5):%2000029.pdf for why there is no physical problem.