The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong

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.

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.

Real scientists...

***I see this argument over and over again. It’s baloney.

If someone has a PhD in a field, they should be proud of it and post out in the open rather than anonymously. The reason they don’t is because they know they might be proven wrong, and their livelihood is placed in jeopardy.

That is the whole reason why Fellowships were established. So scientists could pursue whatever they wanted without being hounded out of their profession. But that has simply not been the case with several fields such as LENR. Science is in complete disarray because scientists cannot be trusted.

Matter cannot move faster than the speed of light. It will however be moved additionally at whatever rate the universe, the space/time continuum, is expanding.

In the very early universe of the inflationary model, the universe expanded from a singularity to about the size of a grapefruit at a rate faster than the speed of light.

The point is moot except for conjecture involving faster than light (FTL) travel whether spacecraft or photon.

The former case would entail a geometric solution thus scifi scripts involving bending of space/time, wormholes, etc.

The latter is a real world quandary when considering quantum entanglement which is to say where the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to one another regardless of the extent to which they may be spatially separated.

In sum, the measurement of one of two entangled photons will determine the other even if it is 10 kilometers away, on the moon, in another galaxy, etc. This violates the speed of light limitation but the solution, I suspect, rests with higher dimensional dynamics. In other words, the photon is not moving faster than the speed of light in 4D.

the measurement of one of two entangled photons will determine the other even if it is 10 kilometers away, on the moon, in another galaxy, etc. This violates the speed of light limitation but the solution, I suspect, rests with higher dimensional dynamics. In other words, the photon is not moving faster than the speed of light in 4D.
***That would suggest that the INFORMATION moves much faster than the speed of light. I’m not quite convinced that means that MATTER or or SPace (which includes Matter) or Space*Time moves faster than light. It suggests that “tachyons” are completely massless and also bound to eachother within photons, and perhaps within other particles or physical systems.

Matter cannot move faster than the speed of light. It will however be moved additionally at whatever rate the universe, the space/time continuum, is expanding.
***which is... faster than the speed of light, for a few microseconds.

In the very early universe of the inflationary model, the universe expanded from a singularity to about the size of a grapefruit at a rate faster than the speed of light.
***That means we’re stuck with a rapidly decaying Speed Of Light Function, doesn’t it?

Real scientists, not crackpots, really demolishing your anti-scientific piffle.

The square/cube law, like the Young Earther's typical, thoroughly hilarious, misapplication of the Second Law of Thermodyanmics, does not "prove" anything.

I am not anti-scientific, I am against hide-bound science. I see that in too many disciplines.

First of all, I see NOTHING in these discussion where I or the other participants have indicated any of us are "young Earthers" and the Cube/square law is NOT being misapplied at all in that is certainly applicable in biomechanics. I learned of it first in biology in junior high school.

Thank you for this link. I read this paper before. It is a good theory, but it does not address the issues. It is where I saw the arguments for gigantism being an evolutionary plus that BroJoeK dismissed so blithely.

Fred, this paper takes us back to the now abandoned theory the large raised their heads to forage in the treetops. Sorry. Real scientists have dropped that because it requires a BP too high to account for getting the blood up the neck. This paper addresses this issue by discussing the possibility of soft tissue structures in the neck ala Giraffe valves to postulating the addition of seven helper hearts located somewhere along the neck—despite no such adaptation being seen in nature anywhere—to attempt to account for the severe problem. The conclude such hypotheses are untenable, and leave it at that but accept the raised head foraging. Never do they address the strength problem of the shear strength of a cantilevered neck (apparently no structural engineer was involved in this study) made of hydroxyl apatite bone and sinew, even lightened by their hypothetical hollowed-out bird structure that really doesn't comport to the more solid cervical vertebrae found.

Nor do they really consider at all the real problem of the cube/square law and the diminishing muscle size/power returns except trying to lighten their sauropods but even their lightened weight chart puts the weight of the Argentinosaurus at ~73,000 KG or 160,600 lbs., with their one paragraph on the subject being of the begging 'begging the question" type where they agree that gravity DOES limit growth but then accept the upper limits based on observed fossil record while citing the peer reviewed work that established the problem. I.E., They kicked the can down the road and did not really address the issue. Their only addressed concern with cube/square scaling is thermodynamic. . .

It's an interesting paper but only in that it's not multidisciplinary. It is a paper from a paleontological viewpoint. . . but ignores other disciplines. There, it fails.

That would suggest that the INFORMATION moves much faster than the speed of light. I’m not quite convinced that means that MATTER or SPace (which includes Matter) or Space*Time moves faster than light. It suggests that “tachyons” are completely massless and also bound to eachother within photons, and perhaps within other particles or physical systems.
***The modern analogy is computer systems. They push electrons all over the place Really FAST but all of them at slightly less than the speed of light.

If we were to extend our current technology capability of pushing electrons over millions of pathways so quickly, one would be tempted that we could push CARS that fast across VAST DISTANCES. But the analogy breaks down quickly due to mass.

Electrons have negligible mass. If we were to expand an electron to the size of a the earth, its mass would still be less than an amoeba. Pushing an amoeba weight a hundred miles is no big feat in our society. No doubt, all of us could see the potential for development here, if we had materials as strong as steel that weighed as much as an amoeba.

But pushing other things that have mass is a different story. Pushing a small weight like a hundred kilos of water has its definite limits.

INFORMATION is massless. Other things have mass.
Pushing MASS faster than light does not make sense, but pushing INFORMATION faster than light certainly does.

I recall that some cosmologists posit that in the inflationary phase, mass wasn’t mass yet. Maybe the mass was just congealed information, too slow to catch up with the uncongealed racehorse-fast-info that established the boundaries of our universe.

I intentionally avoided commenting on your remarks about information because I am extremely biased in favor of the original meaning of the term as it was defined by Claude Shannon (father of Information Theory, a branch of Math) in his Mathematical Theory of Communication.

There the term "information" means the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver as it moves from a before state to an after state. It is not the message being sent but the successful communication of it.

Some branches of science have plucked the term "information" from its pure meaning in math to describe physical phenomena. That usage should more accurately be called "physical information" and to me is indistinguishable from determinism per se.

Photons are massless. They travel at the speed of light. Indeed, they travel a "null path." For the observer-photon, no time elapses at all.

A photon sent by a star when it was a billion miles away may arrive on earth 11 billion years later simply because space/time was expanding while the photon was en route. Indeed, many of the stars we observe no longer exist.

As already stated, I'm unaware of any accelerometer capable of detecting such a minuscule (10^-28 G) acceleration level. However, for this discussion, I will examine a microsensor that is extremely sensitive, and discuss what steps might be taken with it to eliminate anomalous acceleration as a viable measurand -- and retain and isolate other, spurious (error-source) signal effects to be identified and eliminated (if possible).

Figure 1: The silicon micromachined integrated accelerometer illustrated in my #75 Is fabricated from two silicon wafers, with "active components" (signal processing circuity [differential amplifiers, etc,] and strain-sensitive piezoresistors [the "sensors"]) on their respective "front" surfaces.

The "back" surfaces are then "micromachined" (selectively etched into patterns to define micromechanical elements and provide clearance for them to operate) and are then aligned, facing each other as depicted in "Figure 1", below:

The accelerometer structure can be perceived as a "mechanical 'ground'" (overtinted in pink), and a "sensing structure" (in blue) which is basically a "square 'wheel'" with a central "hub" and a (relatively massive) "square 'tire'" -- with nanometer-scale thin ribbon "spokes" connecting the "tire" or"wheel" to the "hub".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Figure 2: The microsensor is assembled by bonding the "hub" to the "mechanical ground" wafer -- immobilizing it, and fixing it at "mechanical ground", while leaving the "square wheel" moving mass free to move.. Electrical connections between the two "active component" surfaces are also established by this step.

Figure 3: The nanometers-thin, ribbon-like silicon "spokes" (overtinted in yellow) are where the sensing takes place. Each "spoke" has "piezoresistors" (resistors that change value, as a function of compressive or tensile stresses imposed on them) placed near the points where the "spokes" attach to the "Hub" and the "Moving Mass". The locations are where relative motion produces maximum flexure and stress on the piezoresistors -- ensuring maximum sensitivity to motion.

At this point, the microstructure is a complete, minute, but extremely sensitive and accurate, 3-axis accelerometer element. After it is packaged to provide protection, secure mounting, and interconnection to provide electrical connections to recording instrumentation, the microsensor becomes a fully-functional accelerometer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, we can look at what can contribute to measurement errors using such a micro-accelerometer -- and how to modify the microsensor structure to provide "control components" for isolating and identifying likely soures of measurement errors.

The questions I will be asking are precisely those I would ask the investigators in a Q&A session following a presentation of their work -- or around the coffee table, or, in front of the blackboard, with them, as I plan experiments to replicate their efforts.

What potential error sources can you foresee -- especially in proximity to moving magnetic fields?

Real scientists have dropped that because it requires a BP too high to account for getting the blood up the neck.

Nope. It doesn't. Read the paper.

This paper addresses this issue by discussing the possibility of soft tissue structures in the neck ala Giraffe valves to postulating the addition of seven helper hearts located somewhere along the neck—despite no such adaptation being seen in nature anywhere—to attempt to account for the severe problem.

Nope. You misunderstood what the paper says.

The conclude such hypotheses are untenable, and leave it at that but accept the raised head foraging.

Nope. They conclude that ONE hypothesis is UNTESTABLE. Not untenable. Those words do not mean the same thing.

Nor do they really consider at all the real problem of the cube/square law

They don't, because they don't need to. The upper limit posited by the FR Flat Earth Society of 20 tons is ridiculously small. The number theorized -- and modeled by paleontologists, biomechanical scientists, biomechanical engineers, and material scientists -- is 100 tons. Please see the citation in this review and read that article, if you're interested. [Hokkanen, J. E. I. (1986). The size of the biggest land animal. Journal of Theoretical Biology 118, 491–499. CrossRef | PubMed | CAS | Web of Science® Times Cited: 4]

with their one paragraph on the subject being of the begging 'begging the question" type where they agree that gravity DOES limit growth but then accept the upper limits based on observed fossil record while citing the peer reviewed work that established the problem.

Please actually read the paper. They don't say any such thing. They cite the original paper with the ridiculously flimsy limit, and proceed to demolish it with two more recent citations, both with much larger numbers, one a full 5 years later, which increases the estimate by a factor of FIVE. Citing a more recent paper that blows up your silly claim isn't "kicking the can down the road."

It's an interesting paper but only in that it's not multidisciplinary. It is a paper from a paleontological viewpoint. . . but ignores other disciplines. There, it fails

Thanks for proving for the fourth time in one post that you haven't actually read the paper.

It's A REVIEW PAPER. Do you even know what that means? Of course it's multi-disciplinary. They gather all the known evidence for large sauropod morphology and they cite the papers and briefly summarize the reasons for the current state of thinking; it isn't an original research work in paleontology [or anything else] AT ALL. It's a review paper, and in particular, the strength of materials cite is from experts in Biomechanics. NOT paleontologists. The Journal of Theoretical Biology isn't a dinosaur publication.

Wow.

Read the paper. Then check the citations. That's what a review paper is for.

This violates the speed of light limitation

It does not; there is no "speed of light limitation" in physics, per se. There is only a requirement that any two observers in different Lorentz frames observe causality in the same way. The state vector of entangled particles is one state vector. A measurement is the application of the operator corresponding to the entangled observable which requires the state vector to collapse to an eigenstate, but the observer who has not done the measurement has no idea what the eigenstate is. Therefore, no information has been transmitted from the location where the measurement was done to the correlated location, and the observer at the correlated location must still do a measurement, even if the state vector is now "known" to be an an eigenstate by the original measurer. Because no information has been transmitted, no causality violations can occur.

but the solution, I suspect, rests with higher dimensional dynamics. In other words, the photon is not moving faster than the speed of light in 4D.

Relativity is already four-dimensional, so you must mean five-D. But if the measurement produced an eigenstate of its operator in the entangled state vector by way of a higher dimension which was space-like or time-like, causality violations would be possible in 5-space. The hidden dimension [if that is your explanation for the violations of local realism present in EPR] would give rise to observers who were always inside each other's light cone in Minkowski space [4-D] but who could be in opposite domains of causality in 5-D.

Not outlawed, but it would be strange.

And you would have to have an explanation for why fundamental interactions [gravity, say] which ordinarily have dynamical effects do not propagate through a time/space-like dimension...

http://bioteaching.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/how-did-sauropods-get-blood-up-their-necks/

Describes the thesis of secondary "helper" hearts being needed to get blood to a sauropod's head. That is, if he held his head upwards. If he held his head outwards, then as I mentioned above, you're talking about a requirement for as much as three quarters of a million foot pounds of torque, that is, torque equivalent to the maximal torque of all of the engines of the Yamato or the Musashi, to be held by muscle and connective tissue (if you assume 1 G in the dinosaur's world).

In actuality, the brachiosaurids held their heads upwards and the diplodocids held their necks outwards, or at least that's what the bones indicate. Basically, assuming present gravity in the world of the dinosaurs introduces an unavoidable conundrum.

I've read the paper through twice, Fred. I know what the current state of paleontology is and this PAPER is not it. This paper is from September 2009, five years ago. They've dropped the idea that they lifted their heads to forage up in the trees. I'm not going to quote the exact words directly in the paper, but they did say exactly that was an issue and pointed out ideas to answer the problem. . . and of course they are untestable. I can read. Can you? Did you just skim it? Both hypotheses are untestable, Fred. The animals are DEAD!!! They are fossils.

As I said, they addressed it by begging the question. I've also read that paper that uses their evidence of the fossil record. . . But there still stands the issue of the KNOWN, tested, and accepted limitation of muscular strengths. This is why Paleontologists are revising so much about dinosaurs. Have you noticed how MUCH has been changed in the past thirty years? Now they are adding feathers! Why is the upper limit 100 tons in that Hokkanen paper? Because that was the largest reported sauropod they knew about in 1986. . . Had later discoveries of 200 tons found later in the '90s been available to Hokkanen, I suspect he would have declared the empirical upper limit to be 200 tons . . . how convenient. That's fudging your "theoretical" conclusions to fit the evidence you have. They've now scrambled around to reduce the estimated weights to get them below their 100 ton "limit." As I said, they begged the question. . . sweeping the issues under the carpet.

Finally, I know what a review paper is. . . it's still one written by mainstream Paleontologists about paleontology. It's a paper that supports your beliefs and what you are arguing. Fine. I could link you to a lot more. . . and other that have been superseded by materials in this one. It doesn't mean that it cannot be challenged. Try opening your mind a bit. . . and stop assuming people are stupid. Thanks for playing.

It’s A REVIEW PAPER.
***So you accept a review paper when it agrees with your bias but reject one when it disagrees with your bias. Not very scientific, no, not scientific at all.

Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated hundreds of times by more than a
thousand scientists, even in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com
.
Jing-tang He
• Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
• Frontiers of Physics in China
Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense
matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions,
self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications
.
Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the Pons
Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)

.
National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. After noting more than
150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of
anomalous heat generation...
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
• THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
innovation and discovery.

The current state of the science of LENR is that the Pons Fleischmann
Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated and it is an established
scientific fact. But it is not an established ENGINEERING field because the
effect is difficult to generate and there is still some lingering stigma
associated with the field. The level of pathological resistance this field
receives is unconscionable for those of us who seek scientific answers and
engineering solutions.

Again, I object to the use of the term "information" - which was originally strictly defined in Mathematics (Shannon) - being applied in this manner, i.e. as determinism or physical causality.

And yes, I do mean five dimensional physics as the most promising explanation for phenomena such as EPR (in my view.) For more, please see P.S. Wesson's Quantum Mechanical Consequences of Five-Dimensional Relativity

Roger Penrose also observed that a simultaneous measurement of a spatially separated entangled photon, would result in an unacceptable paradox where the measurement of each determines the other based on our current physics. He calls for a new kind of physics, but again I suspect the solution rests with a higher dimensional dynamic rather than a 4D or compactified extra dimensions (Kaluza/Klein.)

Again, I object to the use of the term "information" being applied in this manner, i.e. as determinism or physical causality.

Your objection is noted, and wrong. If we accept it, we have to accept a definition of "information" which has no capacity to model physical reality, which would be ironic given Shannon's original motivation, to say nothing of bizarre.

Spin flipping is the closest thing in the physical world to the transmission of bits, which is Shannon's basic definition. There is one possible symbol, and the channel is loss-less.

If an eigenvalue of a state vector could be deterministically measured locally based upon the collapse of an entangled state in a remote experiment, the remote measurement would indeed transmit 1-bit. That one bit of information could be used to effect -- there could be physical outcomes chosen by the experimenters. For example: if the bit flips, fire a laser which travels back to the source, killing the remote experimenter [or his cat.]

There is no difference in terms of the information transmitted in this Gedankenexperiment with one in which the experimenter transmits a laser pules which is pre-agreed to mean "kill me." [Are you of the opinion that Paul Revere's friend was not transmitting any information about the British by essentially using the same method?]

There is one important physical difference, even if there is not a mathematical one.

In the EPR version, the influencing events are not within each other's light cones. Consequently, there would be Lorentz frames in which some observers observed the measurement before it occurred, and observed the remote experimenter being killed by the laser before the spin flip occurred. That is the reason for the No Communication Theorem. Because we understand that if communication was possible via this method, information would be exchanged. It isn't, and it doesn't.

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.