It seems to be such a common refrain in science news: “Einstein proved right again”. At once comforting yet disappointing, a violation of Einstein’s theory would mean the potential for new physics and a new understanding of our reality. Einstein always seems to be right.
But is he?
In reality, Einstein’s theory has been fit to our observations of the universe. The very names Dark Matter and Dark Energy presuppose Einstein’s theory is correct and that any deviations from it can be explained on the “right side” of Einstein’s field equations where matter and energy live rather than the “left side” where Einstein’s gravitational field is.
There is good reason to continue to support his theory because no other theory has met the criteria of (a) explaining a phenomenon that Einstein’s theory doesn’t and (b) predicting a new phenomenon never before observed that Einstein’s doesn’t agree with. This is the criteria that Einstein’s own theory met between 1915–1919 and on when it replaced Newton’s, and even then acceptance was slow. While the theory made Einstein famous, it was far less interesting to the physics community because of difficulties testing and confirming it. It wasn’t until the 1950s and 60s that technology was really up to the job.
Nevertheless, confirmations of Einstein’s theory have been largely first order corrections to Newton’s theory. While it would be impossible to explain what we see in the universe without his theory, it is not as well confirmed as quantum electrodynamics by far.
Indeed, the main reason the theory hasn’t been replaced already is because it is so hard to test. It requires minute astronomical observations and data analysis to come up with a confirmation of a first order phenomenon. Solar system tests are easier and more accurate but the gravity is not strong enough to create good conditions to put the theory to the test.
Unlike quantum field theory, which has gotten better through the building of larger and larger colliders, general relativity has required better and better telescopes and computers to crunch the numbers but the conditions for testing it are always too far away and too far beyond our control.
Still, there is something compelling about the theory. It is simple since it says that the universe has a shape upon which you can define distances in space and time. The shape is determined by minimizing the difference between the curvature and the mass/energy at each point over the whole of space and time. Almost any other theory must add to it, never take away.
While there is good reason to believe that space and time are not continuous but actually discrete in some way, without data about that discrete nature, it is impossible to come up with a meaningful theory in that direction.
Others focus on adding additional fields to his theory or additional symmetries (for Einstein’s theory has no physical symmetries). Again, to do anything to the theory you must add to it rather than reduce or combine.
Is it possible that the theory cannot be improved? Perhaps we will find that, in the end, Einstein’s swallows up all other theories. This is what 5D Space-Time-Matter theory proposes. In this theory, there is no matter, only geometry. If all matter is geometry, then all particles and forces live inside Einstein’s theory. Could it be that correcting it or replacing it is the wrong direction entirely and we should be looking to shove all other theories into it?
What could be simpler than the minimization of the difference between curvature and mass/energy? The minimization of curvature alone. Thus, this theory, unlike most others, takes away rather than adds.
Perhaps that’s why I have thrown myself into trying to prove that the universe is 5D (at least), that all matter is indeed geometry, and that we are all waves expanding into the 5th dimension at the speed of light (as the theory requires). Maybe Einstein was more right than he even knew.