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.
Indeed, dear brother in Christ, thank you so much for your testimony!
I am hard pressed to understand how information (successful communication) has any bearing whatsoever on quantum entanglement. Maybe you can enlighten me?
I am hard pressed to understand how information (successful communication) has any bearing whatsoever on quantum entanglement. Maybe you can enlighten me?
***It is basically Quantum Entanglement which generated the paradox because experiments show you can change the spin on one side and the entangled-spin of that particle-system changes INSTANTly across great distances. What Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”. It is the State of the Spin that was communicated faster than the speed of light.
That was what generated the EPR paradox in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooky_action_at_a_distance
The EPR phenomenon is that measuring one of two entangled photons determines the other. It is determinism or physical causation only, not successful communication. Indeed, that is precisely why it cannot be used for FTL computing, the sender can only measure, not control what the measurement will be (No Cloning Theorem.)
I'm extremely firm in insisting that we not allow the meaning of words to be altered in any debate, especially here among fellow conservatives.
History has shown us the potential for deadly consequences by controlling the dictionary in politics. Two cases come to mind off the top of my head. In Germany, they meticulously referred to Jews, Gypsies and other unwanted sorts as "untermenschen" which literally means "under men." So much did the people buy into this new word that they did not believe they were killing humans in the holocaust, merely untermenschen. Likewise today we have stood by and let the press and politic define the unborn child as a fetus and likewise, the would-be mothers have not been killing babies but fetuses.
Control of the dictionary it also is a tool in ideological, theological and philosophical debate as if to manipulate how people think.
We see in the never-ending debate over the philosophical and political consequences of Darwinism when our correspondents use the term "creationist" to mean Young Earth Creationism only - an easier subgroup for them to smear. The truth however is that all people who believe in God the Creator are creationist! We must not permit such tactics.
And, as I'm sure TXnMA can attest, I've been hard as nails on the misappropriation of math terms.
I freely admit to being a math geek, but math terms such as "information" and "randomness" should not be misappropriated for the same reasons.
For instance, the term "random" has been misappropriated to describe unpredictable natural phenomena. But in math, one cannot say something is random in the system unless he knows what the system "is."
In physical systems, both the full number and types of dimensions are unknown and unknowable for the same reason we cannot say that particles and fields do not exist simply because they have no measurable direct or indirect effect!
As an example, a series of numbers extracted from the extension of pi may appear to be random when they are, in fact, highly determined by calculating the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
Allowing that misappropriation of the term "random" would inadvertently help atheistic activism.
Likewise, allowing "information" to be misappropriated to mean determinism or physical causation inadvertently advances the atheistic activism - in this case, as if to say that information is a naturally occurring phenomenon which could give rise to life from non-life when there is no naturally occurring evidence of the elements in the Shannon model (message, sender, encoding, channel, noise, receiver and decoding!)
Ok, off the soapbox now...
(No Cloning Theorem.)
***From wikipedia’s page on Faster Than Light Communication
(You can rage against Wikipedia all you want to for misusing the term “information”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_communication
Birgit Dopfer’s experiment
Although such communication is prohibited in the thought experiment described above, some argue that superluminal communication could be achieved via quantum entanglement using other methods that don’t rely on cloning a quantum system. One suggested method would use an ensemble of entangled particles to transmit information,[3] similar to a type of quantum eraser experiments.[4][5][6]
Birgit Dopfer, a student of Anton Zeilinger’s, has performed an experiment which seems to make possible superluminar communication through an unexpected collective behaviour of two beams of entangled photons, one of which passes through a double-slit, utilising the creation of a distance interference pattern as bit 0 and the lack of a distance interference pattern as bit 1 (or vice versa), without any other classical channel.[4][7] Since it is a collective and probabilistic phenomenon, no quantum information about the single particles is cloned and, accordingly, the no cloning theorem remains inviolate. Physicist John G. Cramer at the University of Washington is attempting to replicate Dopfer’s experiment and demonstrate whether or not it can produce superluminal communication.[8][9][10][11]
You are assuming that communication [successful transmission of information] between entangled particles [e.g., photons] is what facilitates the matching of their respective states of spin. Yet this is what seems doubtful to me. The theory holds that entangled particles could be separated by a distance as great as can be measured from one "side" of the universe to the other (i.e., by ~47 billion light years). Yet experiments show that the spin matching takes place instantaneously, regardless of separation distance. This would seem to suggest that velocity — superluminal or just plain ol' C — is irrelevant to quantum entanglement.
At least in theory. Indeed, that would be "spooky action at a distance." But it's hard to see what communication has to do with it.
Anyhoot, in what sense is it reasonable to say that photons "communicate?" I mean, we're talking about photons — light quanta — here....
If they actually do, then this phenomenon needs to be elucidated.
Call me a little skeptical. Just trying to think through the problem. And it makes my head hurt! LOLOL!
Thanks so much for writing, Kevmo!
Post #205 should address your question. There are no doubt other experiments being performed along similar lines.
Oh dearest sister in Christ, you are my favorite "math geek!" Thank you so much for this splendid essay/post!
It seems to me that, in general, the debasement of language — of the meaning of words — eventually leads to a condition where people cannot even understand one another. Talk about constructing a new Tower of Babel (Babble)!!!
It really doesn't.
There are no doubt other experiments being performed along similar lines.
Delighted to hear it. Please do let me know how they turn out.
My hunch is that the reason this line of inquiry will hit a wall is that such scientists assume that there are only four dimensions — three of space, and one of time.
But that may not be the actual case.
Thanks for writing, Kevmo!
LOL!! Now, just where did you find that "random" comment, Dear Sister in Christ?
It really doesn’t.
***The requirement for the answer is so non-obvious that the folks at Wikipedia do not address it while they write their articles on this stuff. Other sources seem also to use the word “information” in the same way when dealing with Entanglement and FTL communication.
You are assuming that communication [successful transmission of information] between entangled particles [e.g., photons] is what facilitates the matching of their respective states of spin.
***That seems also to have been Einstein’s assumption, as well as others. The issue does not seem to be resolved in physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_realism#Local_realism
Well not yet at least, dear Kevmo! Here's a closely relevant problem that needs to be addressed IMHO:
Local RealismLocal realism is Newton's main assumption, and Einstein's main assumption. It only gets you so far — conveniently within four-dimensional reality....
Local realism is the combination of the principle of locality with the "realistic" assumption that all objects must objectively have a pre-existing value for any possible measurement before the measurement is made.
Somehow I sense we are on the verge of a paradigm shift....
Thanks for the link, and for writing, dear Kevmo!
LOLOL! I just knew you’d remember, dear brother in Christ!
(One of the joys of our "overriding relationship in Christ" is that we can find fun [rather than rancor] in such issues...)
LOLOL! Yes indeed, dear brother in Christ!
I don’t think Wikipedia cares much about the Shannon model. It appears that other articles do not adhere to it as well. This thread is the first I’ve heard of it. So, to impose the Shannon model on people who have been using the word “information” for decades is a bit much for me to go along with at this point in time.
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.