The Conservative Cave
Interests => The Science Club => Topic started by: Erasmus on September 22, 2011, 04:12:54 PM
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/science-light-idUSL5E7KM4CW20110922
This could be interesting. Results of three years of measurements will have to be verified and peer-reviewed, so it's not final by any means.
-
Roll over Einstein.
-
60 nonoseconds and it wasn't a side by side comparison? I wonder if man-made instruments are even capable of being able to differentiate that small of a difference. Then again, how sure are we of the speed of light itself?
Wasn't there something earlier this year about decay rates varying for radioactive materials? Could that effect what they use to measure the time?
-
60 nonoseconds and it wasn't a side by side comparison? I wonder if man-made instruments are even capable of being able to differentiate that small of a difference. Then again, how sure are we of the speed of light itself?
Wasn't there something earlier this year about decay rates varying for radioactive materials? Could that effect what they use to measure the time?
From the articles I read, it sounds like they calculated the distance between emitter and detector with radio waves, as the line of sight is through rock and such.
I'm no physicist, but it may not mean that Einstein had the idea of a speed limit wrong, just what the measuring rod was. Not sure what the implications to the "standard model" of physics would be if this turns out to be a repeatable event.
Not to be outdone, though, Bill Gates announced that next month they will be unveiling Light 2.0, which will travel at twice the speed of Einstein's light.
-
I've been saying for years that Einstein made several mistakes. The speed of light as being impenetrable being one.
-
From an article I read it's going to be presented to other scientists tomorrow. If verified, it will release science from a long-held belief and it is really the limitation of what we allow ourselves to think that is the biggest barrier.
-
It's broken? I didn't do it.
It must have been Bush. :sarcasm:
-
Not to be outdone, though, Bill Gates announced that next month they will be unveiling Light 2.0, which will travel at twice the speed of Einstein's light.
Yeah, but it'll be all buggy until the patch, Light 2.1.1, comes out. Better to go with Apple's iLight--fewer security risks.
-
Yeah, but it'll be all buggy until the patch, Light 2.1.1, comes out. Better to go with Apple's iLight--fewer security risks.
1970's we knew when an atom was spit a piece of it was unaccountable. Neutrino"s a piece of matter gone somewhere. [20]
-
1970's we knew when an atom was spit a piece of it was unaccountable. Neutrino"s a piece of matter gone somewhere. [20]
Well, My daddy spit enough atoms in tobacco juice it's a damn wonder there's anything left in this the third orbital ring of the sun.
-
Well, My daddy spit enough atoms in tobacco juice it's a damn wonder there's anything left in this the third orbital ring of the sun.
Or around Uranus.
-
Haven't they been postulating for decades that tachyons were FTL?
-
Haven't they been postulating for decades that tachyons were FTL?
I'm pretty sure that several science fiction writers have used that premise. SF sometimes leads reality.
-
Just as intriguing, what's the speed of gravity?
Since we cannot generate or eradicate it at any point, how could we measure it? Does it even have a speed, or is it immanent (Which would raise a whole series of space-time issues about the nature of matter and conversion of any of it to energy)?
-
Just as intriguing, what's the speed of gravity?
Since we cannot generate or eradicate it at any point, how could we measure it? Does it even have a speed, or is it immanent (Which would raise a whole series of space-time issues about the nature of matter and conversion of any of it to energy)?
It's a curvature of space.
-
It's a curvature of space.
Ah, but what lies beyond the curve? And why does it curve?
-
It's a curvature of space.
Or is it time related?
-
It's a curvature of space.
That's like saying 'It's a thing,' you goofy rabbit. For all we know, space-time might be an incidental side effect of immanent gravity. And calling it a curvature of space tells us nothing about the speed of propagation of gravitational field effect.
-
That's like saying 'It's a thing,' you goofy rabbit. For all we know, space-time might be an incidental side effect of immanent gravity. And calling it a curvature of space tells us nothing about the speed of propagation of gravitational field effect.
Well, the more mass an object has the more it curves the space around it. The more space is curved the greater the gravitational attraction. Therefore gravity wouldn't be a force that has a speed as one might assign speed to a photon moving through a vacuum. You might as well ask, "what is the speed of a race track?" The race track doesn't provide the speed of those racing upon it but it may influence their speed the way a decathelete would see his speed change if he were suddenly set to a cross-country course.
-
Well, the more mass an object has the more it curves the space around it. The more space is curved the greater the gravitational attraction. Therefore gravity wouldn't be a force that has a speed as one might assign speed to a photon moving through a vacuum. You might as well ask, "what is the speed of a race track?" The race track doesn't provide the speed of those racing upon it but it may influence their speed the way a decathelete would see his speed change if he were suddenly set to a cross-country course.
Ahem, red/blue-shift.
-
Ahem, red/blue-shift.
If you're referring to the Doppler effect, thats a phenomenon of light and its frequency observed relative to the angle and speed of the observer. I'm not sure how that would play into determining if gravity had a speed and if so what it might be.
-
Well, the more mass an object has the more it curves the space around it. The more space is curved the greater the gravitational attraction. Therefore gravity wouldn't be a force that has a speed as one might assign speed to a photon moving through a vacuum. You might as well ask, "what is the speed of a race track?" The race track doesn't provide the speed of those racing upon it but it may influence their speed the way a decathelete would see his speed change if he were suddenly set to a cross-country course.
Well now, no. You are talking about a second-order or even lower effect of gravity, not the properties of the thing itself.
-
Gravity has an instantaneous speed when it measures even a 1/4 pound gain in my weight! :-)
-
Well, the speed of the propogation of gravity waves in GR was equal to the speed of light in a vacuum. That may be off the table now.
What bothers me about Einstein is not that he made calculation errors or had something grossly incorrect. It's that he, and pretty much everyone since him, have assumed that Minkowski space actually represents reality, instead of a very clever mathematical shortcut equivalent. It relates to A-theory vs B-theory of time and whatnot. Einstein basically eliminated the necessity of Lorentz's aether, but then still insisted that something is being "curved" by objects with mass. A bit confusing.
-
What if gravity is a true "God Particle" force?
-
Well, the speed of the propogation of gravity waves in GR was equal to the speed of light in a vacuum. That may be off the table now.
Such is indeed the theory, but it is really merely a working hypothesis, since first-order measurements of gravitic waves are currently untestable. All that we are accustomed to thinking of as gravity are only second, third, etc. order effects when it interacts with matter or EM-spectrum energy in ways that we can measure.
-
[quote]If you're referring to the Doppler effect, thats a phenomenon of light and its frequency observed relative to the angle and speed of the observer. I'm not sure how that would play into determining if gravity had a speed and if so what it might be.[/quote]
Yes. With the amount of shift observed near a mass (black hole, galaxy, etc) from a background star, the gravity well can be calculated. Now, wether or not you could also infer the relative speed of gravity from that, I donno.
Now if gravity is considered instant, that could open a whole can of worm holes.
-
Gravity is interesting, how and at what speed does the earth move that keeps us attached to it.??
Why do we on the a spinning object not notice the spin of the earth, true we are born into a grativitalion field, we know things do drop into the ground, but to us we in the middle notice no movement , we do not fly into the air, how is the weather brought into all this planet gravity.??
We know all about gravity holding the moon in place our outer planets staying in their place, so, this system is stable all due to spinning objects and their Mass. Mass generates some kind of gravity,
Then one takes a bucket of water and places say, balls of doe on the sides and spins it in the air, no water is lost, but slow down the spin and the doe falls off before the water slouches out. Ask Mr. Wizard he can tell us why. Then the fact that one is worrking against earths gravity and causing a secont gravity brings more questions into mind.
Give me a break, only few humans can figure this out--or so they think---But the simple humans cannot expect to understand all this, the Math and theroys are above understanding. Fun for us to think about all this on a sub leavel but it would not surprise me if a 8 year old on a computer finds the ansewers and turns science upside down.