Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ripping Apart Einstein
FQXI ^ | 3/7/10 | Bob Swarup

Posted on 03/07/2010 2:11:48 PM PST by LibWhacker

Cutting the threads of the spacetime fabric and reinstating the aether could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.

If there’s one thing Einstein taught us, it’s that time is relative. But physicist Petr Hořava is challenging this notion and tearing through the fabric of spacetime in his quest for a theory of quantum gravity. His work may also resurrect another entity that Einstein had seemingly buried—the aether.

Physicists have spent decades searching for a way to reconcile the seemingly incongruous twin foundations of modern physics: quantum theory, which deals with the infinitesimally small, and Einstein’s theory of gravity, general relativity, which deals with the vast cosmos. This effort has led to a dazzling array of candidate theories—including superstring theory, loop quantum gravity, and doubly special relativity—but none have succeeded in unambiguously bridging the quantum-gravity divide. The problem: When you try to do the math to work out the strength of forces on the quantum-gravitational scale, your calculations return a maddening proliferation of infinite answers that have no physical meaning.

Now Hořava, at the University of California, Berkeley, claims to have found a solution that is both simple and—in physics terms, at least—sacrilegious. To make the two theories gel, he argues, you need to throw out Einstein’s tenet that time is always relative, never absolute.

Hořava’s controversial idea is based on the fact that the description of space and time in the quantum and relativistic worlds are in conflict. Quantum theory harks back to the Newtonian concept that time is absolute—an impassive backdrop against which events take place. In contrast, general relativity tells us that space and time are fundamentally intertwined; two events can only be marked relative to one another, and not relative to an absolute background clock. Einstein’s subjective notion of time is well accepted and is the hallmark of Lorentz invariance, the property that lies at the heart of general relativity.

"Lorentz invariance is not actually fundamental to a theory of quantum gravity," says Hořava. "But the problem so far has been that many cosmologists are wedded to the concept."

Good Gravitons

By restoring the absolute nature of time at very high energies, such as those in the early universe where quantum gravity would be important, Hořava can treat variations in space and time differently. The upshot of this is that in your calculations at very short distances you do not get such dramatic spatial variations as you do in general relativity, taming the infinities that frustrate other candidate theories of quantum gravity. This makes it possible to describe gravity on the quantum level using a well-behaved graviton—the hypothesized quantum particle thought to mediate gravity, just as the photon mediates the electromagnetic force (arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775).

So far Hořava’s potential resolution of a decades-long physics stalemate has been creating a buzz. Last year, five of the top ten cited academic papers in high energy physics dealt in some form with Hořava’s model.

"The existence of an absolute time might ensure that the usual framework of quantum mechanics can survive even the most exotic regimes of quantum gravity," says physicist Ted Jacobson at the University of Maryland, College Park.

Surprisingly, Hořava’s trick is fairly commonplace in the laboratory. Condensed matter scientists looking at complex real-world systems, such as superconductors at low temperatures, have been using the idea that space and time are not on the same footing for years. Cosmologists do not usually take the lead from their condensed-matter cousins because of "sociological barriers," but the groups should look to each other for inspiration more often, says Hořava. He borrowed ideas from condensed matter models when developing his theory of quantum gravity. "In some condensed matter systems, relativistic behaviour and Lorentz invariance only emerge at lower energies," he says.

But while condensed matter physicists have shown that their models can recover relativistic behaviour as required at low energies, the big question is whether Hořava gravity can successfully morph back into the classical theory of relativity, in a way that agrees with all observations. In principle, general relativity should emerge at lower energies and larger distances. In other words: Look at a patch of the universe with infinitely powerful glasses and you would see that time and space are distinct from one another. Zoom out and the picture blurs, restoring Einstein’s more familiar spacetime fabric.

Knife-Edge

There is some support that this emergence does indeed happen from computer simulations of quantum gravity carried out by Jan Ambjørn of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen and his colleagues. Ambjørn’s simulations showed that at short distances, the familiar four-dimensional spacetime of our macroscopic universe seems to shrink to just two dimensions—one space and one time. Hořava believes that his theory can explain how those spatial dimensions disappeared.

According to Hořava, this vanishing point marks the knife-edge at which general relativity breaks down and his theory of gravity comes into play. As the fabric of spacetime rips, space and time start to stretch at different rates. The stronger constraints on short distance spatial variations mean that space now stretches only a third as quickly as time, effectively reducing the familiar three spatial dimensions into just one.

Since Hořava first proposed his theory in 2009, other researchers have used it to answer important cosmic questions about the nature of the Big Bang, dark matter and dark energy. Jacobson, however, feels there is much work still to be done before the theory can be widely accepted. "Hořava’s paper triggered a feeding frenzy, but most workers outside that frenzy remained wisely sceptical," he says.

Gustavo Niz at the University of Nottingham, UK, notes that physicists have found that in its original form, Hořava theory has plenty of "pathologies" and does not recover general relativity. "However, the idea behind the model is encouraging and scientists have ideas on how to cure all these secondary problems," he says.

Among those attempting to fix the original model are Diego Blas and Sergei Sibiryakov at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) in Lausanne, and Oriol Pujolas at CERN near Geneva. Their work has revealed a flaw in the model: Minor variations in the initial conditions used in calculations in Hořava gravity can give dramatically different results (arxiv.org/abs/0909.3525). The culprit is a unique and unstable "breathing mode" in which space can locally expand or contract, wreaking havoc with your answers. To address this problem, they’ve modified Hořava’s initial proposal, making it harder for this breathing mode to develop. They have dubbed their formulation "extended Hořava gravity."

“In my view, the extended version of Hořava gravity is the only currently viable approach and needs to be extensively analysed,” says Jacobson.

Einstein’s Aether?

Jacobson’s own current research, funded by FQXi, examines the short distance structure of space and the quantum vacuum as space expands. He is also now looking at connections between Hořava gravity and an earlier modification of relativity, dubbed "Einstein-aether theory" that he had proposed a decade back.

Nineteenth-century physicists believed light waves must move through an "aether"—a medium that permeates all of space, allowing light to propagate just as sound waves move through air. However, a series experiments by Michelson and Morley failed to find any evidence that Earth moves through an aether. Einstein’s theory of relativity was the final nail in the aether’s coffin, because it explained that light moves through a vacuum.

Jacobson does not believe that the nineteenth-century aether exists. However, within Einstein-aether theory—in contrast to general relativity—there is a preferred time that can be used as an absolute reference to mark events against. It is as if spacetime were filled with a fluid—an aether—which defines a "rest frame" at each event.

Like Horava’s theory, Einstein-aether theory breaks Lorentz invariance and may lead to a viable mechanism for producing gravitons. To get from the general Einstein-aether theory to extended Horava gravity, you simply assume that the aether rest frame arises from an absolute time.

Jacobson has shown that some of the tests proposed to confirm or rule out Einstein-aether theory over the years could also falsify Hořava gravity (http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4823). "The list of potential experimental signatures includes everything gravitational: from modified orbits to gravitational radiation—there is a new type of gravity wave in Hořava theory from the breathing mode—to the structure of neutron stars and black holes, and perhaps even more exotic stuff," says Jacobson.

For now though, Hořava remains modest, and is glad that others are examining his work. "My papers present the basic idea but don’t present a full theory yet," he says. "It is still unclear which of the possible different trajectories is best."


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: einstein; newton; physics; quantum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

1 posted on 03/07/2010 2:11:48 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

God liked Einstein and Einstein liked God.

“I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.”
“I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.”
“God is subtle but he is not malicious.”


2 posted on 03/07/2010 2:15:24 PM PST by sodpoodle (Despair - Man's surrender. Laughter - God's redemption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

Me too. I was never comfortable with the concept of relative motion. A simple thought experiment makes the problem clear. A friend of mine in physics class raised this and the teacher simply ducked it. If you have a bar, say 200 million light years long, and you push it, assuming incompressibility, you will get the same amount of motion on the other end. This becomes an argument for motion as absolute, not relative. As stupid and silly as this simple experiment appears, put in the frame of light years, it becomes different.

Also, dark matter brings back the idea of an ether.


3 posted on 03/07/2010 2:32:25 PM PST by bioqubit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

Me too. I was never comfortable with the concept of relative motion. A simple thought experiment makes the problem clear. A friend of mine in physics class raised this and the teacher simply ducked it. If you have a bar, say 200 million light years long, and you push it, assuming incompressibility, you will get the same amount of motion on the other end. This becomes an argument for motion as absolute, not relative. As stupid and silly as this simple experiment appears, put in the frame of light years, it becomes different.

Also, dark matter brings back the idea of an ether.


4 posted on 03/07/2010 2:35:41 PM PST by bioqubit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Ripping Apart Einstein


5 posted on 03/07/2010 2:45:30 PM PST by mikrofon (Ve are NOTT amoosed...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Hallelujah! I always figured there was an aether. How does matter distort the fabric of something that isn’t there.

Next, maybe the Big Bang can get a new look. How in the world do you know that the original singularity was the size of the head of a pin. Could have been the size of darn bowling ball. Or maybe even a star. Inabilities to measure the gaps between the non-simultaneity of events, doesn’t prove there is no non-simultaneity.

parsy, doubts the Big Bang anyhow


6 posted on 03/07/2010 3:01:44 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit
assuming incompressibility

Yes it's all in the assumptions...

7 posted on 03/07/2010 3:04:51 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit

Get outta heah;)


8 posted on 03/07/2010 3:15:37 PM PST by sodpoodle (Despair - Man's surrender. Laughter - God's redemption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit
assuming incompressibility

Why?

9 posted on 03/07/2010 3:25:48 PM PST by eclecticEel (The Most High rules in the kingdom of men ... and sets over it the basest of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; betty boop; Alamo-Girl

ping.


10 posted on 03/07/2010 3:30:30 PM PST by Quix (THOSE who worked to land us here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 21stCenturion

...


11 posted on 03/07/2010 3:35:11 PM PST by 21stCenturion ("It's the Judges, Stupid !")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit

Ignoring compressibility in your example is like saying “Suppose for a moment that water flowed up hill...”.

If you have a bar 200 million light years long, it’s impossible for it to be uncompressible, so your example is not really relevant. Because of compressibility (there may be deeper physics at work), almost any “bump” can be modeled in wave theory. Incompressibility rules out using wave theory which I would guess, make large parts of physics as we know it invalid as well. Luckily for us, incompressibility is not a real property of anything.

When matter reaches a true state of incompressibility, things either bounce off of it, or the matter in question will reorganize at the nuclear level (like fusion), and shed energy, and form something more dense -— which is really saying you compressed it :)


12 posted on 03/07/2010 4:12:11 PM PST by Aqua225 (Realist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit
If you have a bar, say 200 million light years long, and you push it, assuming incompressibility, you will get the same amount of motion on the other end.

The soonest that the other end of the bar can move in response to the pressure you exert on your end depends on the speed of sound in the material the bar is made of. Sound is a pressure wave propagating through a medium.

The speed of sound in an incompressible bar would be infinite....that isn't the universe we live in.

13 posted on 03/07/2010 4:32:29 PM PST by poindexter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit
I once asked a better version of that question, and got myself corrected.

Take a long laser beam, several light-years long. Now sweep the beam across an equally long screen. The projected spot will move with a velocity that could be greater than the speed of light itself.

The correction was that the laser beam is actually made up of photons, and no individual photon acquires a speed greater than that of light.

As for Einstein, his god was not the same god most here are familiar with. He was more of an agnostic than anything else.

“When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe, everything else seems so superfluous.”

- Albert Einstein.

14 posted on 03/07/2010 5:02:02 PM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Its depressing how often Einstein’s view of God comes up. He knew little of theology. Newton, Faraday and Lemaître were well versed in religion. Interestingly enough, Lemaître didn’t find cosmology theologically interesting at all. He said psychology, not his Big Bang theory, inspired him to think of the divine.


15 posted on 03/07/2010 5:17:47 PM PST by Brugmansian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

That’s great, but unfortunately the C in Einstein’s most famous equation isn’t constant.


16 posted on 03/07/2010 5:32:06 PM PST by Pan_Yan (Trolls: I R 1, R U 1 2?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Could you elaborate?


17 posted on 03/07/2010 5:58:33 PM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett; parsifal
ScienceDaily (Oct. 6, 1999) — A University of Toronto professor believes that one of the most sacrosanct rules of 20th-century science — that the speed of light has always been the same - is wrong. Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, physicists have accepted as fundamental principle that the speed of light — 300 million metres per second — is a constant and that nothing has, or can, travel faster. John Moffat of the physics department disagrees - light once travelled much faster than it does today, he believes.

Recent theory and observations about the origins of the universe would appear to back up his belief. For instance, theories of the origin of the universe — the “Big Bang”- suggest that very early in the universe's development, its edges were farther apart than light, moving at a constant speed, could possibly have travelled in that time. To explain this, scientists have focused on strange, unknown and as-yet-undiscovered forms of matter that produce gravity that repulses objects.

Moffat’s theory - that the speed of light at the beginning of time was much faster than it is now - provides an answer to some of these cosmology problems. “It is easier for me to question Einstein's theory than it is to assume there is some kind of strange, exotic matter around me in my kitchen.” His theory could also help explain astronomers’ discovery last year that the universe's expansion is accelerating. Moffat’s paper, co-authored with former U of T researcher Michael Clayton, appeared in a recent edition of the journal Physics Letters.

End quote.

Of course, it's all theory and I don't even qualify as an amateur physicist.

18 posted on 03/07/2010 6:17:16 PM PST by Pan_Yan (Trolls: I R 1, R U 1 2?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

parsy!
No! No! Don’t go near the ether! Stay in the 21st century, please. Enough knuckleheads around already.


19 posted on 03/07/2010 6:20:35 PM PST by campaignPete R-CT ("pray without ceasing" - Paul of Tarsus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

The Variable Speed of Light even has it’s own Wikipedia page. Of course that’s not necessarily the highest degree of peer review.

“The variable speed of light (VSL) concept states that the speed of light in a vacuum, usually denoted by c, may not be constant in some cases. In most situations in condensed matter physics when light is traveling through a medium, it effectively has a slower speed. Virtual photons in some calculations in quantum field theory may also travel at a different speed for short distances; however, this doesn’t imply that anything can travel faster than light. While it is usually thought that no meaning can be ascribed to a dimensional quantity such as the speed of light varying in time (as opposed to a dimensionless number such as the fine structure constant), in some controversial theories in cosmology, the speed of light also varies by changing the postulates of special relativity. This though would require a rewrite of much of modern physics, to replace the current system which depends on a constant c.”


20 posted on 03/07/2010 6:20:50 PM PST by Pan_Yan (Trolls: I R 1, R U 1 2?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
“I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.” Einstein.

"Stop telling God what to do." Fermi.

L

21 posted on 03/07/2010 6:22:17 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
“I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.” Einstein.

"Stop telling God what to do." Fermi.

Have a friend, calls me up
Says, "Hello" and then hangs up
He must have read my mind
These are the days of a different paradigm

Maybe once, even twice
He said "God does not play dice."
Yet if He's everywhere
He's in casinos with aces to spare.

-Tears for Fears
God's Mistake

22 posted on 03/07/2010 6:29:24 PM PST by Pan_Yan (Trolls: I R 1, R U 1 2?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Anybody notice a difference between the attitudes of the scientists doing this controversial work toward having their work questioned, versus those working in another controversial area of some current interest?


23 posted on 03/07/2010 6:44:32 PM PST by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Same here. I wonder though if “old” light may be tired, but fresh “new light” has plenty of get up and go. And does “old light” get a boost if you shoot it full of “new light.”

And, the Big Bang thing has always bothered me. It’s like science has to keep adding new things to support it, like dark matter, dark energy, and mass transit.

parsy


24 posted on 03/07/2010 6:49:10 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

OK. Ether makes me sleepy, anyway....

parsy


25 posted on 03/07/2010 6:50:22 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Unless you get into all that “sums over” stuff, that guy whose name started with a D?, said, then the little thingies traveled all possible paths including into the future at C+ and back.

Oh, what’s his name?

BTW, here is a cool site. I have the book somewhere. And the one by Machu Pichu, whatever, where he goes over all the quantum theory and string theory stuff. I get about 2 sentences into some of that stuff, and I have to go back and re-read.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

parsy, who also don’t believe life is an accident


26 posted on 03/07/2010 6:56:54 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
Hallelujah! I always figured there was an aether. How does matter distort the fabric of something that isn’t there.

But spacetime or the vacuum is "something". It has properties that can be measured. Permeability and permittivity for instance.

27 posted on 03/07/2010 6:57:54 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."

-- Albert Einstein

28 posted on 03/07/2010 7:03:22 PM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

But is it nothing? I thought M & M were trying to find a cross current or something, to discover which way the ether was blowing. And, would not a bullet fired in a vacuum go as at the same speed in any direction?

parsy, who is like getting this expansive feeling in his head, dude, like whoa......


29 posted on 03/07/2010 7:06:23 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

Same here, particle physics ans astrophysics are based on conjecture upon more and more conjecture . It’s like links in a chain, only the weakest one has to break to make all the others useless. If one of these links break I guess they just say “never mind”.


30 posted on 03/07/2010 7:11:20 PM PST by rsobin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Bump
To read later
31 posted on 03/07/2010 7:26:31 PM PST by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rsobin

True. And the Big Bang may be right, but its like they keep finding new ways to explain why the measurements don’t work. After a while, you have to kind of wonder is this all done just to keep from saying, “We don’t know how it all got started...”

parsy, who figures there is something beyond our senses——


32 posted on 03/07/2010 8:32:49 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Thanks for the ping!


33 posted on 03/07/2010 8:40:52 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
and no individual photon acquires a speed greater than that of light.

Relative to WHAT?*

*Unless you're into that absolute frame stuff

34 posted on 03/07/2010 8:49:30 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Like Horava’s theory, Einstein-aether theory breaks Lorentz invariance and may lead to a viable mechanism for producing gravitons.

Gravitons??

There are at least three elephant-in-the-living-room kinds of problems with what Einstein's ideas about gravity. One is that Einstein claimed that information could not be transmitted faster than C in the universe while we know that gravity or at least the FORCE of gravity propagates instantaneously to within our ability to measure. Two is that there is no way to start with Einstein's description of gravity as some sort of a four-dimensional differential geometry thing, and believe it could have ever changed much near the surface of our own planet; nonetheless it is an easy demonstration that it has, and that the super animals of past ages would be crushed by their own weight in our present world and could not live here. Three is that likewise, there is no way to believe the Podkletnov experiment ever could have worked in an Einsteinian world, or that the ESA could have reproduced that experiment under controlled conditions in 06, but we know that they did.

The one version of a theory of gravity which is basically comfortable with all of those things and in fact predicts them, is Ralph Sansbury's theory which is based on sub-electron particles and electrostatic dipoles created by them. Moreover, that theory is based on actual experiments and not "Thought Experiments(TM)".

35 posted on 03/08/2010 3:59:04 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
Next, maybe the Big Bang can get a new look.

The "Big Bang(TM)" idea is going away.

It was never based on anything more than a misinterpretation of redshift data and Halton Arp has basically provided the counter examples which destroy it.

36 posted on 03/08/2010 4:01:44 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

“Unless you get into all that “sums over” stuff, that guy whose name started with a D?, said, then the little thingies traveled all possible paths including into the future at C+ and back.

Oh, what’s his name?”

Richard Feynman


37 posted on 03/08/2010 4:27:22 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946


38 posted on 03/08/2010 4:37:57 AM PST by Pan_Yan (Trolls: I R 1, R U 1 2?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Nobody said this stuff was simple...
39 posted on 03/08/2010 4:51:46 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

I was in naval nuclear power for nine years, and even though reactor principles was my best subject gravitrons were not really something we worried about on a day to day basis.

I try to read threads like this every once in a while to see if my brain is still capable of scientific thought.

The answer appears to be ‘not really’.


40 posted on 03/08/2010 5:14:28 AM PST by Pan_Yan (Trolls: I R 1, R U 1 2?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Ralph Sansbury's ideas start off simply enough. He was doing experiments with currents and he noticed that currents create electrostatic fields, which is not supposed to happen, and that the fields reverse when the current reverses. The explanation: nuclear particles particularly electrons, previously thought to be indivisible as atoms once were thought to be, must have structure and sub particles of their own. At rest such electron-solar-systems would not create electrostatic dipoles but under the stress of a voltage the orbits of such particles would become eliptical and create dipoles, and the cumulative effect of such dipoles in their quadrillions would create an electrostatic field which would in fact reverse when the current reversed.

The computed necessary speed for a sub-electron particle would get you to one of the near galaxies in a couple of seconds. That leads to all kinds of interesting things, try linking to the link I provided above and download the PDF book file.

41 posted on 03/08/2010 5:32:22 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
Ah-ha! I think i've been in this ball field before, even though it was up in the cheap seats right behind a column.

Are we talking about pair production?

42 posted on 03/08/2010 5:40:53 AM PST by Pan_Yan (Trolls: I R 1, R U 1 2?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

What’s going on here? What’s with these deniers? This is “settled science” and as such is immune from criticism.


43 posted on 03/08/2010 5:49:30 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
parsy, who also don’t believe life is an accident

The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.
-Dante Gabriel Rossetti

44 posted on 03/08/2010 5:50:24 AM PST by Pan_Yan (Trolls: I R 1, R U 1 2?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
No, something more basic than that. Again:

http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/

The item you want is that first item about gravity and magnetism.

45 posted on 03/08/2010 6:33:12 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
We then show that 10-56 kg. orbiting negatively charged particles, inside the Angstrom diameter electron and atomic nuclei, excited into ellipses transverse to the sustained fields in the wires, that also cause the movement of free electrons, can account for these electrostatic dipoles.

Money quote:

The implications of this simple mechanism are many.

46 posted on 03/08/2010 7:14:59 AM PST by Pan_Yan (Trolls: I R 1, R U 1 2?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit
assuming incompressibility

There's your mistake. That's like saying "assuming light is infinitely fast..." - well, it isn't. The movement on the bar must propagate from one end to the other (as information if nothing else), which cannot propagate faster than light.

47 posted on 03/08/2010 7:21:27 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

My gut reaction is that this guy is somehow declaring X=Y, then going thru convolutions to achieve the startling discovery that X=Y.

I’ll grant that there’s probably more to Relativity than Einstein described, much as there is more to physics than Newton described. Nothing discovered in science has, so far, proven complete.


48 posted on 03/08/2010 7:25:04 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
we know that gravity or at least the FORCE of gravity propagates instantaneously

Care to elaborate? Link?

49 posted on 03/08/2010 7:28:31 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit; poindexter

Now, given such impossible contradictions as an indicator one does not adequately understand the issue, it is fun to re-approach the illustration with what IS known and determine what the consequences are. To wit:

One cannot assume incompressibility as a “push” amounts to a wave function manifest as sound propagating thru the bar; for the bar to be incompressible the speed of sound in the material would be infinite - which is absurd. HOWEVER, if we consider that the speed of sound within the bar cannot exceed the speed of light (a mathematically proven notion which is holding up when subject to reality), we could calculate a “maximum (minimum?) compressibility” for any physical substance. Give your 200 million mile long bar a kick, assume the impulse travels at the speed of light, and you can calculate how hard (i.e.: incompressible) your bar actually is (computation is left as an exercise to the reader).

In HS physics I once applied the same notion to heat: as heat is the movement of atoms, and atoms cannot move faster than the speed of light, I worked out what the universal “maximum temperature” is (pity, I can’t seem to find that calculation again; it was large but not staggeringly so), concluding that the temperature scale is in fact finite, with an “absolute hot” to match “absolute zero (cold)”.


50 posted on 03/08/2010 7:38:19 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson