Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Einstein's Equivalence Principle Put to Test

slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 10:28:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
http://news.discovery.com...

Galileo believed that mass was immaterial to an object's falling speed. All would hit the ground at the same time no matter how much they weighed. From that, he deduced that in a vacuum, all bodies would fall at the same speed, an idea that underpins Albert Einstein"s general theory of relativity, published 100 years ago.

The concept, called the equivalence principle, has been well tested on Earth, but scientists wonder if it breaks down when measurements are precise enough.

Putting the principle under a proverbial microscope is the goal of a French-backed space experiment called, appropriately, Microscope. The 668-pound satellite flew as a secondary payload aboard a Soyuz rocket which launched last week from Europe"s Kourou, French Guiana, spaceport.

NEWS: Hubble's 'Einstein Cross' Supernova Strikes Back

Microscope contains two cylindrical test masses -- one made of titanium and the other a platinum-rhodium alloy -- which will be electrostatically levitated and stabilized so sensors can measure accelerations equal to a millionth of a billionth of Earth"s gravity. Experiments on Earth have been about 100 times less sensitive, mostly because of random, seismic vibrations from naturally occurring and human activities.

"We expect to open a new window beyond Einstein," Microscope lead scientist Pierre Touboul wrote in an email to Discovery News.

If the equivalence principle breaks down, the door opens for new physics to complement general relativity, maybe a new type of interaction or a new type of particle for this interaction, he said.

"If there is no violation, this is a new constraint for quantum gravity theory, and we open the way to perform a better physics experiment," in space, Touboul added.

ANALYSIS: Hawking: Gravitational Waves Could Revolutionize Astronomy

"Any violation of the equivalence principle would be of vital importance," the French space agency CNES wrote in a summary of the experiment posted on its website.

"It would be the first sign of new physical phenomena " which are not explained by our standard physics model. It would thus bring into question our knowledge at the interface between the field quantum theory and relativity theories of gravitation, as well as the application of these theories to astrophysics and cosmology," CNES said.

Scientists plan to compare the relative motion of the Microscope masses for two years. The instrument was switched on this week, the start of a two-month checkout. Science operations are slated to begin in July.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 10:36:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:30:35 PM, slo1 wrote:
This is going to be a great experiment. Anyone taking bets?

Nope, not me. Our knowledge derives from observation; not vice-versa. :)
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 1:11:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I am very confident if the results don't fit in with Einstein's predictions, then they will make computer adjustments until it does fit Einstein's predictions. That is my prediction! lol
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:26:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 1:11:44 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
I am very confident if the results don't fit in with Einstein's predictions, then they will make computer adjustments until it does fit Einstein's predictions. That is my prediction! lol

Never pass a chance to behave like a complete moron Akhenaten
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 1:55:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I think the experiment will prove very little to be honest, regardless of the results. The data, I believe, will be used to confirm equivalence. The issue is that they don't really understand the equation, merely know that it proves true in closed systems. Gravity will have an identical effect since it operates on each atom (or molecule) based on proximity at the boundary rather than mass.

We already know that both Newton and Einstein were only partially right in the cases of conservation and E=mc^2. The universe isn't a closed system and we already know that time is a by-product of the processes that create (either continuously create or created at one point) the universe as we know it. Entangled observer principle: any system which can be observed at all entangled the observer and the system. Thus the decay of neutrons into positrons through the mass-energy increase in the neutrino state must 'borrow' energy-as-mass from the quantum vacuum in order to do so. The claim that conservation isn't violated because the energy is returned to the vacuum merely serves to highlight the interchange as a part of the overall system, not to limit it.

We already know that mass affects velocity change relative gravity, but this is due to relative vector change rather than an overall change in the local frame. Gravity is a product of the frame, not a change within the frame.

waste of money in my honest opinion.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:49:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 1:55:21 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
I think the experiment will prove very little to be honest, regardless of the results. The data, I believe, will be used to confirm equivalence. The issue is that they don't really understand the equation, merely know that it proves true in closed systems. Gravity will have an identical effect since it operates on each atom (or molecule) based on proximity at the boundary rather than mass.

We already know that both Newton and Einstein were only partially right in the cases of conservation and E=mc^2. The universe isn't a closed system and we already know that time is a by-product of the processes that create (either continuously create or created at one point) the universe as we know it. Entangled observer principle: any system which can be observed at all entangled the observer and the system. Thus the decay of neutrons into positrons through the mass-energy increase in the neutrino state must 'borrow' energy-as-mass from the quantum vacuum in order to do so. The claim that conservation isn't violated because the energy is returned to the vacuum merely serves to highlight the interchange as a part of the overall system, not to limit it.

We already know that mass affects velocity change relative gravity, but this is due to relative vector change rather than an overall change in the local frame. Gravity is a product of the frame, not a change within the frame.

waste of money in my honest opinion.

I know what these words mean, but I have no idea what you said.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:40:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:49:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:55:21 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
I think the experiment will prove very little to be honest, regardless of the results. The data, I believe, will be used to confirm equivalence. The issue is that they don't really understand the equation, merely know that it proves true in closed systems. Gravity will have an identical effect since it operates on each atom (or molecule) based on proximity at the boundary rather than mass.

We already know that both Newton and Einstein were only partially right in the cases of conservation and E=mc^2. The universe isn't a closed system and we already know that time is a by-product of the processes that create (either continuously create or created at one point) the universe as we know it. Entangled observer principle: any system which can be observed at all entangled the observer and the system. Thus the decay of neutrons into positrons through the mass-energy increase in the neutrino state must 'borrow' energy-as-mass from the quantum vacuum in order to do so. The claim that conservation isn't violated because the energy is returned to the vacuum merely serves to highlight the interchange as a part of the overall system, not to limit it.

We already know that mass affects velocity change relative gravity, but this is due to relative vector change rather than an overall change in the local frame. Gravity is a product of the frame, not a change within the frame.

waste of money in my honest opinion.

I know what these words mean, but I have no idea what you said.

Language is analogy, and built around our 4-dimensional universe. I'm talking about 11 dimensions, or possibly 16 depending on how you split the frames of reference. String theorists call it 11, but I think they over-simplify in an attempt to encourage people to accept the theory.

In short, using english, or even traditional cartesian mathematics, quickly becomes a weak medium.

Have you ever looked at the mathematics by Feynman, Schr"dinger, Heisenberg, Higgs and Einstein? They all use different symbols to describe things according to a frame of reference that isn't described, but assumed. Understanding them all is far easier than EXPLAINING any of it.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 4:20:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:40:16 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:49:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:55:21 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
I think the experiment will prove very little to be honest, regardless of the results. The data, I believe, will be used to confirm equivalence. The issue is that they don't really understand the equation, merely know that it proves true in closed systems. Gravity will have an identical effect since it operates on each atom (or molecule) based on proximity at the boundary rather than mass.

We already know that both Newton and Einstein were only partially right in the cases of conservation and E=mc^2. The universe isn't a closed system and we already know that time is a by-product of the processes that create (either continuously create or created at one point) the universe as we know it. Entangled observer principle: any system which can be observed at all entangled the observer and the system. Thus the decay of neutrons into positrons through the mass-energy increase in the neutrino state must 'borrow' energy-as-mass from the quantum vacuum in order to do so. The claim that conservation isn't violated because the energy is returned to the vacuum merely serves to highlight the interchange as a part of the overall system, not to limit it.

We already know that mass affects velocity change relative gravity, but this is due to relative vector change rather than an overall change in the local frame. Gravity is a product of the frame, not a change within the frame.

waste of money in my honest opinion.

I know what these words mean, but I have no idea what you said.

Language is analogy, and built around our 4-dimensional universe. I'm talking about 11 dimensions, or possibly 16 depending on how you split the frames of reference. String theorists call it 11, but I think they over-simplify in an attempt to encourage people to accept the theory.

In short, using english, or even traditional cartesian mathematics, quickly becomes a weak medium.

Have you ever looked at the mathematics by Feynman, Schr"dinger, Heisenberg, Higgs and Einstein? They all use different symbols to describe things according to a frame of reference that isn't described, but assumed. Understanding them all is far easier than EXPLAINING any of it.

That's some low tier bait dude
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 9:43:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 4:20:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:40:16 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:49:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:55:21 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
I think the experiment will prove very little to be honest, regardless of the results. The data, I believe, will be used to confirm equivalence. The issue is that they don't really understand the equation, merely know that it proves true in closed systems. Gravity will have an identical effect since it operates on each atom (or molecule) based on proximity at the boundary rather than mass.

We already know that both Newton and Einstein were only partially right in the cases of conservation and E=mc^2. The universe isn't a closed system and we already know that time is a by-product of the processes that create (either continuously create or created at one point) the universe as we know it. Entangled observer principle: any system which can be observed at all entangled the observer and the system. Thus the decay of neutrons into positrons through the mass-energy increase in the neutrino state must 'borrow' energy-as-mass from the quantum vacuum in order to do so. The claim that conservation isn't violated because the energy is returned to the vacuum merely serves to highlight the interchange as a part of the overall system, not to limit it.

We already know that mass affects velocity change relative gravity, but this is due to relative vector change rather than an overall change in the local frame. Gravity is a product of the frame, not a change within the frame.

waste of money in my honest opinion.

I know what these words mean, but I have no idea what you said.

Language is analogy, and built around our 4-dimensional universe. I'm talking about 11 dimensions, or possibly 16 depending on how you split the frames of reference. String theorists call it 11, but I think they over-simplify in an attempt to encourage people to accept the theory.

In short, using english, or even traditional cartesian mathematics, quickly becomes a weak medium.

Have you ever looked at the mathematics by Feynman, Schr"dinger, Heisenberg, Higgs and Einstein? They all use different symbols to describe things according to a frame of reference that isn't described, but assumed. Understanding them all is far easier than EXPLAINING any of it.

That's some low tier bait dude

Ironic
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 7:22:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:26:13 AM, TBR wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:11:44 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
I am very confident if the results don't fit in with Einstein's predictions, then they will make computer adjustments until it does fit Einstein's predictions. That is my prediction! lol

Never pass a chance to behave like a complete moron Akhenaten

It looks like another gravity b probe to me! lol

http://spectrum.ieee.org...
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 9:59:30 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:40:16 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Language is analogy, and built around our 4-dimensional universe. I'm talking about 11 dimensions, or possibly 16 depending on how you split the frames of reference. String theorists call it 11, but I think they over-simplify in an attempt to encourage people to accept the theory.

Or 26 dimensions.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 12:56:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 9:59:30 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:40:16 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Language is analogy, and built around our 4-dimensional universe. I'm talking about 11 dimensions, or possibly 16 depending on how you split the frames of reference. String theorists call it 11, but I think they over-simplify in an attempt to encourage people to accept the theory.

Or 26 dimensions.

11=2*3+4 (2 x 3D h-spaces relative 4d space-time universe)
16=3*4+4 (3 x 4D h-spaces relative 4d space-time universe)

26=?

I'm curious.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 12:59:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
wups, I forgot that in the 11 dimensions I needed to add 1 dimension for boundary interaction. In the 16 dimensional model the universe is a result of field interaction between the 3, wile in string theory the interactions are described as a single vector of time split 2 ways at the quantum boundary.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 1:17:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 12:56:46 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/8/2016 9:59:30 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:40:16 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Language is analogy, and built around our 4-dimensional universe. I'm talking about 11 dimensions, or possibly 16 depending on how you split the frames of reference. String theorists call it 11, but I think they over-simplify in an attempt to encourage people to accept the theory.

Or 26 dimensions.

11=2*3+4 (2 x 3D h-spaces relative 4d space-time universe)
16=3*4+4 (3 x 4D h-spaces relative 4d space-time universe)

26=?

I'm curious.

https://www.google.com...
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 1:35:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
ty. I'd completely forgotten about the original model for string theory.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 3:04:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 7:22:04 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:26:13 AM, TBR wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:11:44 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
I am very confident if the results don't fit in with Einstein's predictions, then they will make computer adjustments until it does fit Einstein's predictions. That is my prediction! lol

Never pass a chance to behave like a complete moron Akhenaten

It looks like another gravity b probe to me! lol

http://spectrum.ieee.org...

And what is your massive conspiracy theory about this one? Did the sugar barons mess with the gyroscopes?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 4:02:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 7:22:04 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:26:13 AM, TBR wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:11:44 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
I am very confident if the results don't fit in with Einstein's predictions, then they will make computer adjustments until it does fit Einstein's predictions. That is my prediction! lol

Never pass a chance to behave like a complete moron Akhenaten

It looks like another gravity b probe to me! lol

http://spectrum.ieee.org...

And yet, another article you didn't read, but linked to anyways, even though the article makes you look the fool.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 8:34:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:02:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/8/2016 7:22:04 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:26:13 AM, TBR wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:11:44 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
I am very confident if the results don't fit in with Einstein's predictions, then they will make computer adjustments until it does fit Einstein's predictions. That is my prediction! lol

Never pass a chance to behave like a complete moron Akhenaten

It looks like another gravity b probe to me! lol

http://spectrum.ieee.org...

And yet, another article you didn't read, but linked to anyways, even though the article makes you look the fool.

And in further news:

Gravity Probe B finally pays off
Orbiting experiment confirms general relativity
May 4, 2011

The longest-running project in NASA"s history has completed its mission. Gravity Probe B has finally confirmed that the Earth drags spacetime around as it rotates like a spoon twisting in a jar of honey, mission scientist announced at a May 4 NASA press briefing.
[https://www.sciencenews.org...].

Final publication from this work also reported last year: [https://www.sciencenews.org...]
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 8:18:52 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:36:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:30:35 PM, slo1 wrote:
This is going to be a great experiment. Anyone taking bets?

Nope, not me. Our knowledge derives from observation; not vice-versa. :)

Clap clap.
Meh!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:16:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:28:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
http://news.discovery.com...

Galileo believed that mass was immaterial to an object's falling speed. All would hit the ground at the same time no matter how much they weighed. From that, he deduced that in a vacuum, all bodies would fall at the same speed, an idea that underpins Albert Einstein"s general theory of relativity, published 100 years ago.

The concept, called the equivalence principle, has been well tested on Earth, but scientists wonder if it breaks down when measurements are precise enough.

Putting the principle under a proverbial microscope is the goal of a French-backed space experiment called, appropriately, Microscope. The 668-pound satellite flew as a secondary payload aboard a Soyuz rocket which launched last week from Europe"s Kourou, French Guiana, spaceport.

NEWS: Hubble's 'Einstein Cross' Supernova Strikes Back

Microscope contains two cylindrical test masses -- one made of titanium and the other a platinum-rhodium alloy -- which will be electrostatically levitated and stabilized so sensors can measure accelerations equal to a millionth of a billionth of Earth"s gravity. Experiments on Earth have been about 100 times less sensitive, mostly because of random, seismic vibrations from naturally occurring and human activities.

"We expect to open a new window beyond Einstein," Microscope lead scientist Pierre Touboul wrote in an email to Discovery News.

If the equivalence principle breaks down, the door opens for new physics to complement general relativity, maybe a new type of interaction or a new type of particle for this interaction, he said.

"If there is no violation, this is a new constraint for quantum gravity theory, and we open the way to perform a better physics experiment," in space, Touboul added.

ANALYSIS: Hawking: Gravitational Waves Could Revolutionize Astronomy

"Any violation of the equivalence principle would be of vital importance," the French space agency CNES wrote in a summary of the experiment posted on its website.

"It would be the first sign of new physical phenomena " which are not explained by our standard physics model. It would thus bring into question our knowledge at the interface between the field quantum theory and relativity theories of gravitation, as well as the application of these theories to astrophysics and cosmology," CNES said.

Scientists plan to compare the relative motion of the Microscope masses for two years. The instrument was switched on this week, the start of a two-month checkout. Science operations are slated to begin in July.


I am still unnaturally excited by this.
Meh!