Posted on 02/20/2014 3:47:32 PM PST by Kevmo
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml
According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.
According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.
This gravitomagnetic field is similar to the magnetic field produced by a moving electric charge (hence the name "gravitomagnetic" analogous to "electromagnetic"). For example, the electric charges moving in a coil produce a magnetic field - such a coil behaves like a magnet. Similarly, the gravitomagnetic field can be produced to be a mass moving in a circle. What the electric charge is for electromagnetism, mass is for gravitation theory (the general theory of relativity).
A spinning top weights more than the same top standing still. However, according to Einstein's theory, the difference is negligible. It should be so small that we shouldn't even be capable of measuring it. But now scientists from the European Space Agancy, Martin Tajmar, Clovis de Matos and their colleagues, have actually measured it. At first they couldn't believe the result.
"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement," says Tajmar. They hope other physicists will now conduct their own versions of the experiment so they could be absolutely certain that they have really measured the gravitomagnetic field and not something else. This may be the first empiric clue for how to merge together quantum mechanics and general theory of relativity in a single unified theory.
"If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough," says Tajmar, "it opens up a new means of investigating general relativity and its consequences in the quantum world."
The experiment involved a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute. According to quantum theory, spinning superconductors should produce a weak magnetic field. The problem was that Tajmar and de Matos experiments with spinning superconductors didn't seem to fit the theory - although in all other aspects the quantum theory gives incredibly accurate predictions. Tajmar and de Matos then had the idea that maybe the quantum theory wasn't wrong after all but that there was some additional effect overlapping over their experiments, some effect they neglected.
What could this other effect be? They thought maybe it's the gravitomagnetic field - the fact that the spinning top exerts a higher gravitational force. So, they placed around the spinning superconductor a series of very sensible acceleration sensors for measuring whether this effect really existed. They obtained more than they bargained for!
Although the acceleration produced by the spinning superconductor was 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, it is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Thus, the spinning top generated a much more powerful gravitomagnetic field than expected.
Now, it remains the need for a proper theory. Scientists can also now check whether candidate theories, such as the string theory, can describe this experiment correctly. Moreover, this experiment shows that gravitational waves should be much more easily to detect than previously thought.
This is a thread about a bogus experiment which supposedly impinges on general relativity, not a thread about bogus LENR experiments.
If you have citations, provide them.
While you're doing that, please cite a peer reviewed paper by any physicist or cosmologist who believes gravitational coupling was smaller in the past.
You were the one who brought up LENR with your surly attitude, Mr. Bogus.
Oh, I get it. It’s okay for you to bring up LENR when you’re in full adam henry mode, but it’s not okay for someone else to bring it up after you’ve done so when it is used to point out how unscientific your viewpoint is.
Once again, we see freshman level fallacies from someone who claims a post-grad science degree.
I find it interesting that Wesson, in this recent research, is broaching the idea of a "cosmological constant."
Albert Einstein, whether by instinct or mathematical intuition or whatever, felt pretty sure that a cosmological constant existed. He pursued the quest for it. He did not find it. Late in life, he allowed as how the search for the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake he made in his scientific career.
And it seems the next generation of physicists dropped the matter accordingly.
Then again, just because Einstein couldn't find it, doesn't mean that it isn't real, that it isn't "there."
Maybe P. S. Wesson will have better luck!
If found, it could help to elucidate many currently intractable problems in theoretical physics.... In particular, the reconciliation of the general relativity and quantum theories.
Sounds like a nifty plan, dear Kevmo. The only problem I see is we can't truncate the universe to fit the categories of our present understanding without falsifying the report we get from observation of what is real, outside our minds.
Which is to say that, not only is man not the Measure of God; He is not even the Measure of the World God made. The theoretical scientist's job, it seems to me, is to seek the Measure as a guide to his work. [See Romans 1:20]
Then he might get somewhere. That, BTW, is the route that, among many others, Newton and Einstein took....
And mathematics is the tool for the job. P. S. Wesson presents an excellent example of this.
Sounds like a nifty plan, dear Kevmo. The only problem I see is we can’t truncate the universe to fit the categories of our present understanding without falsifying the report we get from observation of what is real, outside our minds.
***My problem with using SPace*Time is that Matter is a part of space, and multiplying it out to space*time & manipulating it just makes it more of a fancy mathematical trick. Matter is moving faster than the speed of light if it is a part of space*time during that inflationary period. So, yes, maybe I’m truncating, but it’s better than handwaving with smoke & mirrors.
Also, I agree that the cosmological constant could be key in reconciling a number of issues, as you suggest.
Thank you so much for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!
Shannon's model, for instance, does not require bits to be binary or digital. The model has been quite effective in molecular biology (cancer research and pharmaceuticals) where the message is in Genetic Code and the sender/receiver are molecular machinery.
Information in Shannon's model is the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver (or molecular machine) as it moves from a before state to an after state. The model entails these specific elements: message, sender, encoding, channel, noise, receiver, decoding.
I cannot accept the use of term "information" in an application where all these elements do not exist, e.g. when it means no more than determinism or physical causation.
Again, information is the successful communication of a message not the message itself. It doesn't matter what the message "is."
EPR is strictly deterministic. Information cannot occur via EPR simply because the sender cannot encode a message by measurement (the No Cloning Theorem.) The sender has no control over the outcome of the measurement to encode a message for the receiver, Lorenz frames (No Communication Theorem) notwithstanding!
By the way, Rosen extended Shannon's model for biological systems to a circular model. It's very promising. If you're interested, pick up a copy of "Life Itself."
My suspicion is that during the initial inflationary period, matter had not yet "congealed" into anything that we today could even recognize as "matter." First we need to "wait for" quark "confinement" to be able to speak about the thing we call "matter." That is, stuff with mass. And that took "a while"....
What is the criterion of your distinction between "faster" and "slower" in the immeasurable initial "no time, no space" of the earliest universe [immeasurable, since the initial conditions fall short of description in terms of Plank length and Planck time — the tiniest incremental measures of space and time that the human mind is capable of registering]?
Here's an interesting problem. For much of human history, the concept of "absolute space" has been dominant. That is, "space" is regarded as a pre-existing space, just waiting to be filled by matter as it comes along.
Modern physical cosmology has pretty much refuted that possibility, finding that both space and time are created from the universal expansion primordially driven by the big bang, on an ongoing basis. That is, space and time do not precede materiality, but are contemporaneous with its emergence.
To put it crudely, as new "stuff" emerges, space is created to accommodate it. And this is a process that is described temporally by human beings.
Hence Einsteins's unification of space and time.
I'm sure I'm missing a whole lot of the details. But I do think I have sound reasons for rejecting the idea of "absolute space."
The theory of "absolute space" cannot account for cosmic inflation.
Really. I so agree. I really can't see any extension of the idea of "information" to non-living systems in nature. Non-living systems are captives of the deterministic physical laws, especially the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
What makes living systems different, is their sustained defiance of the second law, maintaining maximal distance from its effects for as long as possible. They need "information" to do that. And as Shannon correctly notes (it seems to me), it is only successful communication — understood as the reduction of uncertainty in the hands of the receiver, not primarily the content of the message itself — that can accomplish this. (Not to say the content is not important. Only to say the content could be, say, the Declaration of Independence itself which, if not successfully communicated, would have no effect on the receiver of the communication.)
Well 'nuff for now. Time to sleep.
Good night to you, dearest sister in Christ — and to all a good night!
He said there would be a rethinking of the assumptions because they could not account for the mass to energy theory.
***I have posted this before on other threads. It sounds like E=M*C^2 isn’t quite accurate, it is more of E = M*[C(t)]^2, where C is no longer a constant but a function of time.
Discussions on this thread would suggest that the M would not be M for the first few moments of the universe, but it now becomes a function of ???what??? uncongealed mass vs. congealed mass? or a function of M * Information? Or maybe M[CongealedInformation(t)] where the congealed information becomes mass and the uncongealed information moves faster than light. It gets pretty complicated pretty fast.
So now we might have something like E = M[CongealedInformation(t)]*[C(t)]^2 where congealed information as a function of time becomes mass, and C is a function of time as well... and these complications drop out of the equation very rapidly to become E=M*C^2.
I really can’t see any extension of the idea of “information” to non-living systems in nature.
***We send trillions of bits of information across non-living silicon chips every day, every second, and even now as I type this.
This fixation on the supposed misuse of one word, information, doesn’t seem to hold when I read the wikipedia articles on quantum entanglement.
When I lived in NM, I had several physicist friends.
Most of them were Ham Operators like myself. Most of them worked at NMSU, White Sands, Los Alamos or similar places.
The one I referred to, was not connected to those places. I laughed and called him a semi hippie dropout. He was not a hippie, but he was pretty much a dropout. But very very bright.
Theoretical Physics are above my head. But I rely on the judgement of the “non phoney” scientists I knew.
Obviously, dear Sister in Christ, I agree with you re Romans 1:20, and, on another FR thread, I did so with enthusiasm!
I see this thread as seeking to "see the invisible", using (or, misusing) tools provided by application of our knowledge of things we have learned in the past -- of His works...
Such (measurement) efforts, I see as worthy (and perhaps, even worthwhile) applications of the principles of Romans 1:20.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
So far I have not seen a naturally occurring non-living physical phenomenon that has all the elements of Shannon's model. Artificial intelligence systems, computers, telecommunications do but they are not naturally occurring.
Abiogenesis theories must show how information (successful communication) emerges serendipitiously in nature. Any theory omitting that would be dead on arrival (Pattee, Rocha et al)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.