Rethinking relativity: Is time out of joint?

New Scientist ^ | 21 October 2009 | Rachel Courtland

[Kevmo]

Rethinking relativity: Is time out of joint?

EVER since Arthur Eddington travelled to the island of Príncipe off Africa to measure starlight bending around the sun during a 1919 eclipse, evidence for Einstein’s theory of general relativity has only become stronger. Could it now be that starlight from distant galaxies is illuminating cracks in the theory’s foundation?

....

Yet it is still not clear how well general relativity holds up over cosmic scales, at distances much larger than the span of single galaxies. Now the first, tentative hint of a deviation from general relativity has been found. While the evidence is far from watertight, if confirmed by bigger surveys, it may indicate either that Einstein’s theory is incomplete, or else that dark energy, the stuff thought to be accelerating the expansion of the universe, is much weirder than we thought (see “Not dark energy, dark fluid”).

The analysis of starlight data by cosmologist Rachel Bean of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, has generated quite a stir. Shortly after the paper was published on the pre-print physics archive, prominent physicist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena praised Bean’s research. “This is serious work by a respected cosmologist,” he wrote on his blog Cosmic Variance. “Either the result is wrong, and we should be working hard to find out why, or it’s right, and we’re on the cusp of a revolution.”

.... At this stage, it’s hard to say what would happen if the deviation from general relativity was confirmed. Cosmologists have already considered some modifications to general relativity that could explain the universe’s acceleration (see “Not dark energy, dark fluid”).

....

[Kevmo]

I think photon decay would be testable in the lab.

Since I’m already in way above my head, I’m pinging my 2 favorite cosmologists, Alamo Girl and Betty Boop.

[djf]

Because gravity becomes not a distortion of space or a stretching of time, the gravitational acceleration effect we see is because of the interactions of the zero point energy field.

The pointer I gave you is for the abstract, the article is available online, but you have to really, really dig for it.

Here’s another presentation Puthoff gave to Nasa.

http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/putnasa.htm

[aruanan]

I have long wondered if the redshift were actually caused by decay of photons (the speed of the particle constant, but the wavelength decreasing). If so, the universe may not be expanding at all. If neither the speed nor the wavelength of light is constant, what do we really know?

Or that higher redshift is a property of younger matter as seen in the decreasing, quantized redshift in successively more distant quasars ejected from Seifert galaxies.

[djf]

And from the paper I just cited...

“Sakharov came to the conclusion that the entire panoply of general relativistic phenomena could be seen as induced effects brought about by changes in the quantum-fluctuation energy of the vacuum due to the presence of matter.”

Now, Sakharov himself ain’t no slacker.
He is credited as being the father of the Soviet H-bomb!

[Kevmo]

Keelynet is still around! Cool.

I usually don’t trust Targ & Puthoff after James Randi handed them their hats with his simple demonstrations proving their research into psychic phenomena was a waste of time. But it looks like an interesting read.

Question: Is this the origin of the phrase “Zero Point Energy”? I noticed that even Sci Fi started using this phrase a while back.

[djf]

Not sure, but I doubt it is the origin.

[FredZarguna]

Photon decay would imply via the Uncertainty Principle that the range of the electromagnetic force was not infinite. To the precision that we can measure, it is infinite.

[FredZarguna]

Not true. In fact, not even close.

There are two postulates of Special Relativity:

1. All inertial reference frames are equivalent; consequently absolute uniform motion cannot be detected.
2. The speed of light is a constant which is the same for all inertial observers.

[RebelTex]

Hey, guys, too much overthinking it here.

It’s simply obvious that redshift is caused by the Palin wave.

;>D

[stripes1776]

Nothing in the theory of relativity is a constant, it is all relative to the observer. Not time, speed, distance, energy, mass, or speed of light. Speed is a measure of time vs. distance, and if time is relative or distance is relative, than the speed of light has got to be relative.

That isn't exactly what relativity theory says. Einstein's first choice to name his theory was invariance theory. I have often regretted that he didn't keep the first name. That might have cleared up some misconceptions. Perhaps his theory is incorrect, but it would be important to represent his theory accurately.

[Talisker]

Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

[Arthur McGowan]

Special Relativity is in big, big trouble. Cf.: Questioning Einstein, by Tom Bethell.

Hint: The ether is back! And it’s the gravitational field.

There IS ether drift!

[GiovannaNicoletta]

bookmark for later

[FroggyTheGremlim]

I don’t believe Einstein said there is no ether.

I believe he said the ether cannot be detected.

[allmost]

In perspective. I assumed the /sarc tag at the end. In theory.

[allmost]

The constants are relative. The Lorentz contraction being infinite shows the limitations immediately.

[shibumi]

"Hey, guys, too much overthinking it here. It’s simply obvious that redshift is caused by the Palin wave."

Your comment, while no doubt made in jest, just might cut right to the heart of the matter.

While I really hate to quote from Democrats, there are moments when even the AufgeblasenBlutegelBourgeoisieBurokraten get it right.

Tip O'Neill once said "All politics is local." What the ex-Speaker was trying to point out was the fact that people tend to view things from a purely selfish perspective. Thus political solutions are most popular when they address individual needs and concerns, rather than the general welfare of the country, on a principled basis.

What you might call "The Palin Wave" in astrophysics jokingly attributes anomalies in celestial phenomenon to relatively insignificant earthly events, but in fact you have pointed out our innate tendency to think that our observation of highly local phenomena can somehow generate laws and rules for a universe (more likely a multiverse) that the best of us cannot get our brains wrapped around.

Even our description of the distances in space, such as "parsec" are derived from the extrapolation of relationships in planetary movement that are less than insignificant in terms of the size of just the observable portion of the universe.

Point being, we should expect to find that the laws we construct to explain our physical surroundings break down once we leave our local environs. To find anything else, would speak to the notion of a Creator God with a very limited imagination - for an infinite being.

WANTED - Schroedinger's Cat, Dead or Alive.

[allmost]

Found - Both.

[Arthur McGowan]

Actually, the Michelson-Morley experiment appeared to show there was no ether wind. But there is: It’s just much slower than Michelson and Morley thought it should be. They were looking for an ether wind caused by the earth’s motion in orbit, whereas the actual ether wind is only about 700 mph on the earth’s surface at their latitude. The earth’s gravitational field travels with the earth’s center—but it does not rotate with the earth.

[onedoug]