Einstein's theory fights off challengers (w/ Video)

Apr 14, 2010
This composite image of the galaxy cluster Abell 3376 shows Chandra and ROSAT X-ray data (gold), an optical image from the Digitized Sky Survey (red, green and blue), and a radio image from the VLA (blue). Two different teams used Chandra observations of galaxy clusters -- including Abell 3376 -- to study the properties of gravity on cosmic scales and test Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Such studies are crucial for understanding the evolution of the universe, both in the past and the future, and for probing the nature of dark energy, one of the biggest mysteries in science. Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/SAO/A. Vikhlinin; ROSAT Optical: DSS Radio: NSF/NRAO/VLA/IUCAA/J.Bagchi

(PhysOrg.com) -- Two new and independent studies have put Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to the test like never before. These results, made using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, show Einstein's theory is still the best game in town.

Each team of scientists took advantage of extensive Chandra observations of galaxy clusters, the largest objects in the Universe bound together by gravity. One result undercuts a rival gravity model to , while the other shows that Einstein's theory works over a vast range of times and distances across the cosmos.

The first finding significantly weakens a competitor to General Relativity known as "f(R) gravity".

"If General Relativity were the heavyweight boxing champion, this other theory was hoping to be the upstart contender," said Fabian Schmidt of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, who led the study. "Our work shows that the chances of its upsetting the champ are very slim."

In recent years, physicists have turned their attention to competing theories to General Relativity as a possible explanation for the accelerated expansion of the universe. Currently, the most popular explanation for the acceleration is the so-called , which can be understood as energy that exists in empty space. This energy is referred to as dark energy to emphasize that it cannot be directly detected.

In the f(R) theory, the cosmic acceleration comes not from an exotic form of energy but from a modification of the . The modified force also affects the rate at which small enhancements of matter can grow over the eons to become massive clusters of galaxies, opening up the possibility of a sensitive test of the theory.

Schmidt and colleagues used mass estimates of 49 galaxy clusters in the local universe from Chandra observations, compared them with theoretical model predictions and studies of supernovas, the cosmic microwave background, and the large-scale distribution of galaxies.

They found no evidence that gravity is different from General Relativity on scales larger than 130 million light years. This limit corresponds to a hundred-fold improvement on the bounds of the modified gravitational force's range that can be set without using the cluster data.

"This is the strongest ever constraint set on an alternative to General Relativity on such large distance scales," said Schmidt. "Our results show that we can probe gravity stringently on cosmological scales by using observations of galaxy clusters."

The reason for this dramatic improvement in constraints can be traced to the greatly enhanced gravitational forces acting in clusters as opposed to the universal background expansion of the universe. The cluster-growth technique also promises to be a good probe of other modified gravity scenarios, such as models motivated by higher-dimensional theories and string theory.

A second, independent study also bolsters General Relativity by directly testing it across cosmological distances and times. Up until now, General Relativity had been verified only using experiments from laboratory to Solar System scales, leaving the door open to the possibility that General Relativity breaks down on much larger scales.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
The simulation shows how the universe has evolved from soon after the Big Bang to the present day. As the universe expanded and cooled, matter began to clump together due to the effects of gravity, and large structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies formed, over billions of years. This growth has been suppressed by dark energy over the last 5 billion years, as the expansion of the universe accelerates. Chandra observations of the growth of galaxy clusters over time, and of the weight distribution of galaxy clusters in the nearby universe, have been used to test Einstein's theory of General Relativity and test an alternative theory of gravity on cosmic scales.

To probe this question, a group at Stanford University compared Chandra observations of how rapidly galaxy clusters have grown over time to the predictions of General Relativity. The result is nearly complete agreement between observation and theory.

"Einstein's theory succeeds again, this time in calculating how many massive clusters have formed under gravity's pull over the last five billion years," said David Rapetti of the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC) at Stanford University and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, who led the new study. "Excitingly and reassuringly, our results are the most robust consistency test of General Relativity yet carried out on cosmological scales."

Rapetti and his colleagues based their results on a sample of 238 clusters detected across the whole sky by the now-defunct ROSAT X-ray telescope. These data were enhanced by detailed mass measurements for 71 distant clusters using , and 23 relatively nearby clusters using ROSAT, and combined with studies of supernovas, the cosmic microwave background, the distribution of galaxies and distance estimates to galaxy clusters.

Galaxy clusters are important objects in the quest to understand the Universe as a whole. Because the observations of the masses of galaxy clusters are directly sensitive to the properties of gravity, they provide crucial information. Other techniques such as observations of supernovas or the distribution of galaxies measure cosmic distances, which depend only on the expansion rate of the universe. In contrast, the cluster technique used by Rapetti and his colleagues measure in addition the growth rate of the cosmic structure, as driven by gravity.

"Cosmic acceleration represents a great challenge to our modern understanding of physics," said Rapetti's co-author Adam Mantz of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. "Measurements of acceleration have highlighted how little we know about gravity at cosmic scales, but we're now starting to push back our ignorance."

f(R) Gravity

One possible way to explain the observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe is to change Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The simplest modification is to introduce a cosmological constant, which can be explained by energy that exists in the vacuum. In f(R) gravity and other modified gravity models, scientists go beyond this simple modification. In the f(R) gravity model, spacetime reacts differently to the matter in the universe than it does in General Relativity.

In General Relativity, gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of space and time, where the source of this curvature are all of the forms of mass and energy in the universe. In the absence of any mass or energy spacetime can become completely flat. What f(R) gravity does is allow spacetime to act as a source of its own curvature, so there can still be some curvature even if spacetime is completely empty and the energy is zero. So, as the universe expands and empties out, some curvature remains, resulting in cosmic acceleration.

By making this modification to gravity an additional ("5th") force is introduced. By comparing observations of the masses of galaxy clusters with the predictions of f(R) gravity, the range of this 5th force can be estimated. On distance scales smaller than this range, gravity is stronger than predicted by Einstein's equations. The smaller that this range is, the less effect that this modification to gravity has on the growth of galaxy clusters.

If the cosmological constant is the explanation for cosmic acceleration then the acceleration will continue forever and all galaxies outside the Local Group should eventually disappear from view, resulting in a lonely universe. If f(R) gravity applies then the 5th force will die away in the far future, cosmic expansion will slowly decelerate and a lonely universe will be avoided. It will be many billions of years before either one of these future scenarios can play out.

Explore further: Serial time-encoded amplified microscopy for ultrafast imaging based on multi-wavelength laser

More information: The paper by Fabian Schmidt was published in Physics Review D, Volume 80 in October 2009 and is co-authored by Alexey Vikhlinin of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Wayne Hu of the University of Chicago, Illinois. The paper by David Rapetti was recently accepted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society and is co-authored by Mantz, Steve Allen of KIPAC at Stanford and Harald Ebeling of the Institute for Astronomy in Hawaii.

Related Stories

Galaxy cluster smashes distance record

Oct 22, 2009

The most distant galaxy cluster yet has been discovered by combining data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and optical and infrared telescopes. The cluster is located about 10.2 billion light years away, ...

Recommended for you

A transistor-like amplifier for single photons

16 hours ago

Data transmission over long distances usually utilizes optical techniques via glass fibres – this ensures high speed transmission combined with low power dissipation of the signal. For quite some years ...

User comments : 110

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
2 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2010
"Einstein's theory fights off challengers"

They never had a chance.
Alphakronik
5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2010
You mean the "Law of Relativity"?

Shouldn't that be what we call it?
Tepp
5 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2010
You mean the "Law of Relativity"?

Shouldn't that be what we call it?


No, its still a theory in the scientific sense, no matter how much evidence it gets. Just like the theory of evolution, theory of gravity, cell theory, the heliocentric theory, and so on. All just "theories" with mountains of evidence backing them up.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2010
Validity of relativity is just a matter of observational perspective - in the same way, like the validity of quantum mechanics. This animation bellow illustrates the problem clearly: locally the light is spreading along density fluctuations of vacuum in accordance to relativity. But at large scale the cumulative effect of many fluctuations means, the constant speed of light in vacuum is apparently violated, as everyone can see at the case of gravitational lensing.

http://tinyurl.com/y3frnbv

In such way, near black holes the light is spreading in circles, thus effectively staying at place from perspective of observer from outside - while from perspective of observer revolving black hole together with light everything vents normally in accordance to relativity theory. But the positions of both observers cannot be switched so easily: you cannot sit inside and outside of gravitational field at the same moment.

In Czech we have a proverb "A hundred times nothing killed the donkey".
seneca
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2010
Formal theorists have no good feeling for internal consistency of their theories in general. For example string theory is assuming Lorentz symmetry based on invariant light speed and the concept of extra-dimensions. Unfortunately, both these postulates cannot be never applied at the same time, because the extra-dimensions would manifest just by violation of Lorentz symmetry in 4D space-time (by subtle CMB noise in particular).

This principal inconsistency leads to famous landscapes of many possible solutions (about 10+500 solutions) of string theory, thus making it unfalsifiable and fringe from Popper's perspective of scientific method. And of course, it makes such approach a complete waste of money of tax payers, because by considering of various ratio of both postulates during derivation you can derive whatever prediction you want.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2010
The attempt to confirm relativity by CMB noise, dark energy and/or dark matter is fringe approach as well, because just all these phenomena are violating classical relativity significantly. In this way, when you're using these violations of relativity for confirmation of it, you're just validating the fitting of relativity to these corrections, which could be made infinitely exact. You cannot prove relativity by measurements of gravitational lensing of dark matter, because such lensing could be computed just by using of amount of matter involved, which is computed from lensing observed just by using of relativity. In this way we are dealing with circular proof (circular argument, circulus in probando) - only the complexity of math involved prohibits scientists to see it clearly.

http://en.wikiped...finition
http://en.wikiped...question
seneca
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2010
The same mistake was done before five hundreds years by proponents of Ptolemy's model of epicycles, the parameters of which were fitted to observed path of planets. In such way, the epicycle model was always fitted the observations of planets automatically like sort of complex regression - so there was no apparent reason to replace it by heliocentric models: its predictions were always as exact, as the observation used for determination of epicycle parameters.

As we can see, the evolution of science repeats in huge circles - less or more lately every theory becomes a subject of its own falsification, which is indeed impossible, because - as Einstein once said:

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
baudrunner
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2010
Einstein's theories are based on a couple of assumptions: first - the rate of propagation of light waves is constant (frequency relates to velocity), regardless of the distance over which that velocity is measured; second, that atoms retain their dimensional characteristics over time. Both assumptions are wrong (the second is proved by observation and measurement). But so long as we agree with those assumptions, we continue to validate GR.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 14, 2010
The somewhat funny point is, we could still confirm general relativity by their violations if we could modify their equations slightly in accordance to f(R)theory, TeVeS or other modifications (Cartan, Heim, Yilmaz, etc..) - thus reversing the article meaning completely. Because just these modifications are able to predict dark matter phenomena at least partially.

Of course, when we fit dark matter exactly to observations by using of relativity and some freely adjustable parameter (mass of lensing object), then any formal correction of relativity has no chance to prove its relevancy, because it will remain always less exact, then the free parameter, which was fitted experimentally to the observation exactly.
baudrunner
1.3 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2010
It should be remembered that GR was confirmed, and applied, actually, to correct for the original discrepencies in determining ground based locations using GPS, because of the absence of gravity in the environment wherein the GPS satellites orbit, and their velocity. Corrections to the onboard clocks of the satellites was necessitated, to the order of about 35 microseconds per day.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 14, 2010
Einstein's theories are based on a couple of assumptions
The understanding of the above controversy is relatively simple despite the complexity of math involved. What the Einstein's field equations of general relativity basically say is, there is direct proportion between curvature of space and energy distribution around massive bodies. But what Einstein "forget" to include into his derivation is the famous E=mc^2 equation. This equation says, every energy distribution has assigned by certain mass distribution, which is indeed the source of additional weak gravity field and subsequent subtle curvature of space, which modifies the curvature of space, which has caused this modification.

This accounting could be done recursively, which would lead into complex implicit math equations and their solution, which has structure of fractal nested foam of dark matter. Einstein was aware of this behavior of his theory, but he wasn't able to solve it mathematically from apparent reasons.
baudrunner
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2010
That being said, GR appears to break down on the colossal scale, in the same (?) way that classical physics breaks down on the quantum scale, according to the anomalous results of observations of quasi-stellar objects.

That particular problem might be resolved by reviewing Lee Smolen's articles concerning the holographic Universe. It might be that quasars, which are the farthest objects from us, and all more or less the same distance away from us, might be the vertices where the edges of a colossal crystalline structure which represents the creation front of the Universe meet. Their ostensible x-ray flare emissions might be refraction phenomena of the edges of the facets, which border on nothing.

Now there's pseudo science for ya! But isn't it all, anyway, until we can establish certainty of anything and discard all theory?
seneca
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2010
I'm not discarding any theory, I'm just illustrating its limits and the way, in which it could be (and really is) extended. It's evident, by proper adjusting of experimental conditions (by constraining them to the strictly local/nonlocal measurement, in particular) we could demonstrate relativity (nearly) infinitely exact in the same way, like quantum mechanics - albeit both these theories differ in their predictions of cosmological constant or energy density of vacuum in many orders of magnitude.

http://en.wikiped...astrophe

We simply cannot consider these two theories so exact, if they're differ in their predictions so much.
seneca
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2010
At the first glance we can say, if we can see something clearly and undistorted inside of our Universe, then the space-time inbetween fulfills general relativity well. If we can see this space distorted, fuzzy and foggy, it's probably influenced by quantum mechanics. In this way, the scope of relativity corresponds the visibility scope inside of our Universe (some 13,7 GLyrs).

Interesting consequence of such insight is, the common relativistic aberration and/or gravitational lensing is quantum mechanics phenomena, rather then the relativity phenomena. Einstein would be definitely surprised, if he would realize, he proved his theory by phenomena of competitive theory, which he fighted against for most of his life.

The understanding, why gravity lensing is not relativity phenomena is easy, if we realize, we never measured the curvature of space-time inside of lens by using of clock- only the curvature of light path from outside. We never visited the place, where lensing really happens.
seneca
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2010
When we would visit the center of some distant galactic cluster (where the lensing is most pronounced from outside perspective) with clock to measure actual curvature of space-time there, we would probably see, no gravitational lensing occurs there, because space-time is relatively flat there.

In such way, the gravitational lensing and curvature of space are mutually exclusive phenomena - which basically means, lensing actually doesn't belong into realm of relativity theory - albeit just this theory enables to predict & compute it in formal way. We could say, gravitational lensing is rather quantum gravity phenomena, instead - it can be observed only at the boundaries of space-time curvature.

While this all is quite clear at logical level, for formally thinking physicists such logics forms an uncrossable barrier, because they cannot understand, they're dealing with inconsistent data, obtained at quite different and distant places of curved space-time, thus violating locality.
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2010
GR appears to break down on the colossal scale
Actually, while using the above consequential thinking we can get into conclusion, the requirement of constant speed of light prohibits light from any lensing at all.

If we can see some refraction, we can be sure, quantum mechanics gets into place as a result of Lorentz symmetry violation. Such refraction can be interpreted too like manifestation of extra-dimensions, which violate the three-dimensionality of our space (which is considered by relativity in quiet). And as we know, refraction is all around us, not just at the distant cosmological scale - it's quite common phenomena. The scope of relativity basically ends at the distance scale, corresponding the wavelength of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB, about 1.9 cm) - everything bellow this scale is driven rather by quantum mechanics and pressure of radiation, instead of gravity of relativity theory. This is why the wavelength of CMB is so significant in aether theory.
JayK
3.3 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2010
Isn't anyone going to ask Seneca where she plagiarized all of that from? Everyone needs to remember that seneca isn't a scientist, nor is it educated. It uses copy and paste technology to appear as if it has an educated opinion, when in fact it is nothing more than a comment forum troll.
seneca
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2010
Currently only one human in the solar system presents such things, so that the actual name calling is quite redundant here.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 14, 2010
Currently only one human in the solar system presents such things, so that the actual name calling is quite redundant here.

JayK's point is further evidenced here as the retort was nonsensical, or of original author credit as some of us would say./
Bloodoflamb
5 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2010
But at large scale the cumulative effect of many fluctuations means, the constant speed of light in vacuum is apparently violated, as everyone can see at the case of gravitational lensing.
Special relativity is the zero field limit of GR... GR predicts (and correctly) that the speed of light in a vacuum is modified by the presence of external mass-energy.
But what Einstein "forget" to include into his derivation is the famous E=mc^2 equation.
Uh, no? E=mc^2 is contained within GR and is part of the T00 element of the stress-energy tensor. It predicts gravitational effects of all energy, but is typically ignored in the case of light in pen and paper calculations to them more tractable.
fuzz54
5 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2010
Seneca, why don't you just write a book with preprogrammed responses and simply refer to the appropriate response number when commenting? It would save these forums lots of disk space. Reading through 5 or 6 posts of you responding to yourself with random links here and there destroys the thread.
broglia
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2010
..simply refer to the appropriate response number when commenting..
I checked this - it doesn't work, because links to anonymous sites are deleted from threads. Anyway, repetetion is the mother of wisdom.
..E=mc^2 is contained within GR and is part of the T00 element of the stress-energy tensor..
Neverthelles it must by applied once again to stress energy tensor, which is the source of another matter. It considers introduction of new hyperspace-time metric (Mofat, STVG), but other approaches are possible, too. The most conscious derivation I found is there:

http://arxiv.org/...1110.pdf

http://en.wikiped..._gravity

..Special relativity is the zero field limit of GR..
Does it mean, general relativity allows violation of Lorentz symmetry?
broglia
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2010
In his "Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" on page 185 Einstein says "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitationally in the same way as any other kind of energy".

http://www.albert...-200.pdf

The fact, Einstein's was aware of this consequence of relativity we can demonstrate further by famous Einstein’s 1920 Leyden lecture, where he talks about the stress-energy of space itself, and says its inhomogeneous: ".. the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic.."

http://www.zionis...vity.htm
broglia
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2010
It's logical, because for gravity be able to work the space-time must be filled by noise, the shielding of which results in gravity force, but the existence of the same noise means, space-time cannot be completelly flat and universe must be curved and closed into itself. In this point relativity violates itself, because such noisy space violates Lorentz symmetry at large scales / high energies.
broglia
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2010
By classical general relativity the space-time inside of black holes should be curved ad-infinitum into singularity. But if curvature of space-time exhibits it's own gravity field, then the things would happen a quite differently.

At the case of massive bodies the highest curvature of gravity field is always at the surface of object, which means, when this field becomes sufficiently curved, the gravity field of this curvature would ballance the gravity field of the massive object itself because it would surround this object like supersymmetric cloud of dark matter.

At certain density the buyoance condition will be reached - which basically means, the space-time near surface of collapsar would become more dense, then its interior. This results into undulations of surface, which would change into giant quantum wave. It means, the classical black holes predicted by Schwarzschild solution can be never formed. The same mechanism results into formation of stable micro-black holes at LHC.
broglia
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2010
I presume, the same controversy hindered Einstein to admit existence of singularities. Despite the mainstream propafganda, Einstein never believed in Schwarzchild solution, but he wasn't able to derive explicitelly, why it's wrong. But his intuition was better, then the intuition of most of contemporary physicists, not saying about his contemporaries.

http://www.eureka...0505.php

From the similar reason, he never believed in gravitational waves.

http://www.physor...104.html

He even hated the concept of space-time metric, on which modern relativity is based, because he didn't believed, relativity could act in 4D space-time only (and because he didn't like his math teacher, Minkowski, who proposed it).

Isn't it funny, when author of relativity didn't believed in most of its predictions and he based its experimental verification of quantum mechanic phenomena? Well, this is what the modern science is about...
Bloodoflamb
4 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2010
Does it mean, general relativity allows violation of Lorentz symmetry?
In GR, spacetime is only Lorentz covariant (symmetric) locally. In the presence of strong gravitational fields, Lorentz covariance no longer holds. At this point, you have to get into differential geometry, which I don't know enough about to speak of.
broglia
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2010
General relativity doesn't use Lorentz symmetry postulate at all. Instead of it, it uses Newton's inverse square law and equivalence principle. But the equivalence principle is violated by presence of strong gravitational fields or at cosmological distances as well - the action of dark matter is proportional to the surface ares/crossection of massive object, rather then their mass. This is why Casimir force violates inverse square law and Pioneer anomaly doesn't affect larger bodies.

In this way, rigorous relativity would always violate its own postulates and because existing relativity isn't rigorous, it simply violates observations.
SteveL
not rated yet Apr 15, 2010
I've wondered something for a while now... Could it be that the vacuum of universal space is not a complete vacuum? That a complete vacuum exists outside our universe that actually pulls our universe apart at an accelerating rate?

Perhaps our universe is a pressure bubble that is rapidly dissipating into a lower pressure environment. Just like our air pressure at sea level is 0 psig, yet about 14.7 psia. What if the pressure of space in our universe is greater then the surrounding environment, but only seems like a complete vacuum to us? Would that not pull our universe apart at an ever increasing rate?

My understanding, which obviously could be incomplete; is that Dark Energy is a theory used to explain the accelerating expansion of our universe. I wonder if it has to be that complicated.
baudrunner
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2010
".. the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic.."

This is so only because of the presence of massive bodies displacing "empty space", and thereby contributing to the non-isotropic nature now manifesting as space-time. If there were no matter displacing space, then it would in fact be homogeneous and isoptropic, because it is this tendency toward equilibrium which keeps us in a state of constant collision with Earth.
Bloodoflamb
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2010
General relativity doesn't use Lorentz symmetry postulate at all. Instead of it, it uses Newton's inverse square law and equivalence principle.

Inverse square law? What on earth are you talking about? GR treats spacetime as a Riemannian manifold and describes gravity through differential geometry as the curvature of that manifold. The inverse square law is simply a first order approximation to this.
broglia
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2010
.. If there were no matter displacing space, then it would in fact be homogeneous and isoptropic...

The stance of yours contradicts Mach's principle. I don't believe it: the space would still contain CMB noise, which is dispersing light at large distance, which leads into red shift.

http://en.wikiped...rinciple

Could it be that the vacuum of universal space is not a complete vacuum?
Why not, in aether theory the observable space is just a thin foam penetrating the volume of chaotic hyperspace in similar way, like water surface forms only thin layer of fluid, where waves are propagating in transversal way.

http://www.chem.l...co24.jpg

It corresponds the foamy phase, which is forming during condensation of supercritical fluid. Energy spreads along surfaces of this foam more slowly, which creates an illusion of large space for us - but this space is representing only subtle portion of the total volume of fluid.
broglia
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2010
Inverse square law? What on earth are you talking about? GR treats spacetime as a Riemannian manifold and describes gravity through differential geometry as the curvature of that manifold.
Try to answer, from which equation the gravitational constant "G" got into Einstein's field equations...

http://en.wikiped...quations

Actually - it's not so difficult to guess it, because only one fundamental law contains this constant, in fact. This insight makes Newton's gravitational law not only the first order approximation of relativity, but one of the fundamental postulates of it, in fact. Of course, mainstream propaganda is hidding this connection, pretending relativity is independent to Newtonian physics. You cannot express dependence of potential energy to distance in gravity field without usage of classical Newton's law.
broglia
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2010
As we can see, the propaganda of mainstream physics is very consequential in its hidding of superiority of classical physics over relativity: one mistake or even conscious lie generates another ones. It's very thoroughly elaborated ideology. In analogous way, whole quantum mechanics depends on Lagrange and Hamilton mechanics developed in 18th and 19th century as a part of classical mechanics and optics. It doesn't consider vacuum as a massive environment proclamativelly - but it handles it so.
seneca
2 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2010
People are like dogs. Whenever they see new things or look at themselves in the mirror, a part of their reality comes unscrewed..

http://www.youtub...dcx2WUcU
Shootist
Apr 15, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
broglia
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2010
Most of things, which I'm explaining here are quite trivial, in fact. I'm not extraordinarily smart, so if Universe would be just a bit more complex, I couldn't explain it here. This animation illustrates the path of photons near black hole, where concentration of vacuum fluctuations is increased. Each tiny fluctuation follows Fermat's principle, on which Hamiltonian mechanics is based, in which every photon is moving along fastest possible path, so called geodetic. So that locally the general relativity is always perfectly fullfilled.

http://www.aether...vity.gif

But the gradient of fluctuation density means, at average each photon is moving along the more longer path, the more close to black holes it is. As the result, the light is moving more slowly through vacuum near black hole, thus violating invariant light speed in vacuum apparently from perspective of outer observer.

http://en.wikiped...an_flows
broglia
2 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2010
The point is, general relativity can predict the path of photons across every fluctuation, it can even predict the path of photons accross gradients of fluctuations - but it still cannot explain the substantial thing - why around massive bodies the density of vacuum fluctuations increases, i.e. why space-time appears curved here. This is because general relativity borrowed this connection from ad-hoced Newton's law and Newton himself deduced it from the motion of planets in solar system, i.e. in solely empirical way.

The shielding effect of matter to distribution of density fluctuations, which manifests like gravity was predicted by Le-Sage theory instead and it manifests at all scales. For example the shielding effect of CMB fluctuations could be observed directly at distance due so called Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, at short scales as so-called Casimir force.

http://en.wikiped...h_effect
http://en.wikiped...ir_force
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2010
The point is, general relativity can predict the path of photons across every fluctuation, it can even predict the path of photons accross gradients of fluctuations - but it still cannot explain the substantial thing - why around massive bodies the density of vacuum fluctuations increases, i.e. why space-time appears curved here. This is because general relativity borrowed this connection from ad-hoced Newton's law and Newton himself deduced it from the motion of planets in solar system, i.e. in solely empirical way
That's completely untrue.

GR predicts lensing rather adequately by stating that spacetime is curved itself by the presence of mass. I think you need a remedial review of GR.
broglia
2 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2010
GR predicts lensing rather adequately by stating that spacetime is curved itself by the presence of mass...
Yep, but this statement itself is based on empirical Newton's law, from which Einstein borrowed the gravitational constant "G" into field equations. The corellation doesn't (always) mean causation, you know...;-) Any equation used in derivation of formal representation of theory becomes another postulate of it, despite their proponents say the opposite.

Relativity really cannot predict the level of curving in other way, then by referencing to the mass and gravitational constant from Newton law, face it. In this connection it cannot be considered as an extrapolation of Newton law, simply because relativity relies on it in full depth.
broglia
2 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2010
And this is the reason, why any observation & corellation involving dark matter cannot confirm the relativity, simply because the relativity remains invariant on it: general relativity cannot predict distribution on space-time curvature around massive object without mass used in Newton's law, the distribution of dark matter the less. If some theory cannot predict some quantity (mass density distribution in this particular example), it remains "gauge invariant" to it.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
Yep, but this statement itself is based on empirical Newton's law, from which Einstein borrowed the gravitational constant "G" into field equations. The corellation doesn't (always) mean causation, you know...;-) Any equation used in derivation of formal representation of theory becomes another postulate of it, despite their proponents say the opposite.

Great.....

The Gravitational constant is not a number, it's an equation that accurately states the force of gravity generated by the presence of a particular mass.

In order to develop General Relativity Einstein required knowledge of electricity, that doesn't mean his formula was developed by Franklin, Tesla, and Edison.

"Observations" of Dark matter can't be used in any theory as a solvative proof because Dark matter is indeterminant and may not be matter at all.

You're waxing the hypothetical carrot here.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2010
..Gravitational constant is not a number, it's an equation..
I'd say, a constant is an invariant number - whereas the equation is an equivalence relation between more constants and variables, too....;-) But it has no meaning to discuss it with trolls, who are able to say such things at public, like you're saying.
..his formula was developed by Franklin, Tesla, and Edison..
I'd prefer not to comment the rest of your post, because I know already, you're apparent Baron Munchhausen, who simply don't know, what he's talking about.

http://www.physor...649.html
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 16, 2010
I'd prefer not to comment the rest of your post, because I know already, you're apparent Baron Munchhausen, who simply don't know, what he's talking about.

Projection is merely the symptom of your overarching disease.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
I was at the following Physorg.com Web page titled:

New material is a breakthrough in magnetism

that can be found at the following link:

http://www.physor...257.html

checking into metamaterial cloaking devices and artificial monopole force-fields and then I started thinking wouldn't it be a great idea to come over here and get the flying saucer part of it figured-out?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
Anyone know how to make a flying saucer engine?

I also will need some ray guns and a death-ray.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2010
And I cannot forget about the replicator and a teleporter.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
Anyone know how to make a flying saucer engine?

I also will need some ray guns and a death-ray.
Try this here:
http://en.wikiped...e_Glocke
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
Einstein is King

Quantum Mechanics appears to have problems

TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
otto1923:

Thanks for the link.

I am looking for flying saucer engine designs by people who get really deep into engineering portion of it with drawings.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
otto1923:

Thanks for the link.

I am looking for flying saucer engine designs by people who get really deep into engineering portion of it with drawings.

No one deeper than occultist expatriot Nazi scientists. Snoop around on topics related to the Nazi bell, zero point energy, vacuum energy- lots of good alien potential there- the Kecksburg crash was purportedly one of these things.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
I hear that the word antigravity is incorrect in how most people refer to the word and its meaning.

Gravity generator is OK to use, but I like gravity engine best. Antigravity engine to me sounds incorrect.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
Pres Obama needs to start a flying saucer program.

That would be real change!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
otto1923:

Thanks for the Nazi info.

Adolph Hitler was a nut, but also a genus.

TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
If the German program caught an alien craft, then I can see the saucer program being of a higher technology.
If it was created from scratch by the Germans, then it would have been of a less complex design with less attractive capabilities.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
A scientist by the name of Noel Huntley published a small book in 1982 titled: The Secrets of Flying Saucer Propulsion.

It has some designs.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2010
So this article means that the theory MOG (Modified Gravity), by John W. Moffat, that can be found in the book, Reinventing Gravity, published in 2008, is incorrect?

TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2010
otto1923:

Your right. Several years ago on the Internet I founds lots of images of German flying saucer engine designs, etc. under the keyword searches; German Flying Saucers, and; German Flying Saucer Engines.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2010
seneca:

Explain to me the invalid points about quantum mechanics.

In a Physorg.com blog about a April 12, 2010 Physorg.com article titled: New material is a breakthrough in magnetism, johanfprins, a Physorg.com member, on April 14, 2010 stated: quantum field physics is totally nonsense! There are only fields: The light-quanta are waves having a minimum of energy; NOT particles. A light quantum can be any size!

So what can you add to that statement?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2010
seneca:

Please see the Discover Magazine article September 2009 issue; published online October 6, 2009 titled: Discover Interview Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics.

The link to the Roger Penrose article can be found at the following address:

http://discoverma...echanics

TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2010
I personally do not like string theory, but it is a good starting point.

Using M-theory to explain gravity I think is going to end with too many assumptions.

Lisa Randall's 'Gravitybranes' that can be found in the book 'Warped Passages' I think has an interesting perspective.

Dark energy and cold dark matter I think are keepers.
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2010
So what can you add to that statement?
Hi, TabulaMentis, the discussion bellow physorg articles is limited in both scope, both theme - so, while I appreciate your interest about physics, I'd recommend you a physorg forum for your OT style of discussion.

http://www.physforum.com

Maybe you just missed the meaning of discussion bellow articles or netiquette - but from above fifteen posts of your only one was about actual subject of article, which would indicate some mental disorder. Just think about it.
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2010
Only this post of yours was about subject, so I'm answering it:
So this article means that the theory MOG (Modified Gravity), by John W. Moffat, that can be found in the book, Reinventing Gravity, published in 2008, is incorrect?
The paradox of this article is in point, it states by using of dark matter observation, the theory, which can predict dark matter is wrong, while the relativity, which cannot predict it is correct. It's evident, every phenomena, which violates the relativity must be fitted into relativity by some parameter (mass density of dark matter observed at the above case) and after then you cannot reveal any violation of relativity, simply because this observation was fitted to relativity.

Was it clear for you?
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2010
Maybe Modified Gravity cannot predict distribution of dark matter around massive bodies quite exactly - but it could do it a definitely better, then the relativity. For classical relativity the existence dark matter or dark energy is completely unknown stuff. Anyway, until today at least dozen of various modifications of relativity (Cartan, Yilmaz, Heim, Beckenstein, Moffat) was proposed, each of which handles dark matter better, then the relativity itself - which was reason, why these theories were developed, after all.
TabulaMentis
2 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2010
seneca:

It was Friday night over here yesterday, so give me some slack.

It is discouraging that we are so far behind on gravity research.

So, what is the problem-mento?

I did not even read the article and I started typing away.

I was born in Dayton, Ohio. Over there we actually do things that others find amusing.
seneca
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2010
This article could comment at least two billions of people. Try to imagine, how its discussion would appear, if everyone wouldn't read the article and everyone would be "tired after Friday night". Here is nearly no space for such secular approach, actually and the boundary between personal freedom and vandalism is quite subtle here.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2010
and the boundary between personal freedom and vandalism is quite subtle here.
Is the usage of several nicks personal freedom or vandalism?
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2010
It depends, if it could restrict other people in some way. It could be a problem at some social club, but in the technical discussion bellow physorg.com articles all posts should be of quite objective value, independent to personality of poster.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2010
seneca:

Friday night is party night.

OK. So this article is also about dark energy and dark matter.

How about the idea that the big bang came from infinite cold energy (I.C.E.)?

Dark energy and dark matter are byproducts of I.C.E.!

Albert Einstein's invisible stuff is now known.

This may be one good way to get a gravity engine up and running?
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2010
all posts should be of quite objective value, independent to personality of poster.
You forgot to mention the advantage of being able to decorate yourself with stars by posing under several nicks. Why?
iFujita
not rated yet Apr 17, 2010
>>>>until today at least dozen of various modifications of relativity (Cartan, Yilmaz, Heim, Beckenstein, Moffat) was proposed,
iFujita
not rated yet Apr 17, 2010
I added another one; MEFE (Modified Einstein Field Equation). It is said by all the people that the gravity has the same intensity regardless of the direction of measurement and that it is isotropic. But I think that the gravity will work not only three dimensionally but also two or one dimensionally. In the two or one dimensional gravity, the gravity will be concentrated in one plane or line and will have a stronger effect than three dimensional gravity has. Then the separation forces are necessary in order to smash the gravity into two or one dimension.
Then the imaginary factor is necessary.
http://www.geocit...y01.html
Iori Fujita

TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2010
ifujita:

There may be hope after all. A multi-dimensional gravity engine. When can I see the designs?

I read John W. Moffat's book, Reinventing Gravity, for two days last year. I hope it was not all a waste if MOG (Modified Gravity) is incorrect.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2010
ifujita:

Edward Witten once said people should think in the terms of 11-dimensions.
Like you, I believe people should think in the terms of the first and second dimension.
I believe that the higher dimensions should be curled-up to satisfy Edward Witten.
seneca
Apr 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2010
I know, string theorists imagined cosmic strings in somewhat different, more ideal and thin way - but by Aether theory whole 1D string concept is just an idealization of real density fluctuations inside of dense gas.

http://tinyurl.com/y24twwr

This is how density fluctuations inside of dense supercritical fluid appears. They appear like 1D strings and 2D branes, albeit not quite ideal ones. But they don't differ from dark matter streaks so much.

http://www.scienc...zoom.jpg

We shouldn't not only develop new brilliant revolutionary concepts, but we should know, where to look for it. For example, string theorists are vainly looking for extra-dimensions, while ignoring CMB noise, which increases dimensionality of space-time from 1961 year, where it was observed first.

http://en.wikiped...adiation
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2010
In similar way, string theorists are vainly looking for force, which would violate inverse square law for gravity at short distances. Such force would confirm existence of extra-dimensions, too.

http://physicswor...rint/403
http://physicswor...ws/17025

In this particular case the trollism of mainstream physicists is particularly apparent, because scientists are spending a lot of money of tax payers for arranging these experiments invariant to weak forces, like the Casimir force or various dipole forces, which act at short distances only and which indeed disturb the sensitive gravitational measurements.

In another words, these very clever guys are eliminating laboriously just these forces, which they're supposed to measure. They don't see forest for the trees.

These examples are just illustrating, how important is to understand physics at the illustrative, intuitive level, i.e. not through abstract math only.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2010
And of course, every Casimir force or Van der Waals force violates relativity too, because it's acting in extradimensions - which effectivelly means, it's proportional to surface of objects, rather then volume and their mass, thus violating equivalence principle, on which general relativity is based.

It means, to demonstrate violation of relativity is as simple, as the demonstration of electrostatic force by using of charged plastic bag from supermarket. No wonder, every proponent of mainstream science is trying to censor my posts, whenever possible.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2010
seneca:

Who puts those stars on your posts?
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2010
Some religious mainstream physics proponent, I guess...

The physical theories are like memes or density fluctuations inside of particle environment. At the case when they survive, they're behaving like self-reinforcing objects: they grow like stars collecting evidence from outside and when they exhaust their fuel, they will collapse by their gravity, until they change into tiny black holes. The residual religious proponents of old theories are therefore very stable and obstinate ones, being stabilized by their surface curvature.

We can observe many similarities between material object and social meme evolution.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2010
How sad, talking to yourself again?
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2010
Indeed, this situation is quite symmetric, because the proponents of new ideas are as reluctant toward mainstream and obstinate, like the proponents of old ideas. We can call them antiparticles, because the direct contact of both extremists leads into dissipation of large amount of emotional energy on both sides.

Note that the every large community attracts the proponents of negative opinion, which are surounding it and parasiting on it like cloud of dark matter. It's example supersymmetric phenomena: every sufficiently massive object is surrounded by sparse clouds of antiparticles.

http://www.cesr.f...keV.html

We can observe it in human society like people, who are doing profit from mutual fight of alarmists and denialists, black & white minorities, creationists and proponents of evolution and so on. These people are attracted to gradients of social tension.
frajo
Apr 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
broglia
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2010
Currently, the human civilization is behaving like large system of chaotic particles without control. Individuals are clever, but their personal motivations are mutually contradicting, so as a whole, human society fullfills random aether model quite well. We don't understand well, why emergent phenomena like wars and social crisis begin. So I see these connections quite interesting. We could model relativity and dark matter phenomena by social systems and vice-versa, thus understand better both of them. We have many things to understand, yet.
TabulaMentis
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2010
Are seneca and broglia the same person?

It appears that Dark Energy and Dark Matter (aether) cannot be separated from General Relativity.
SteveL
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2010
Is there some distance where the pressure of solar and cosmic radiation exceeds the pull of gravity?

Phrased another way: Can galaxies get far enough apart so that the force of the sum of the pressure from their solar radiation exceeds the sum of their gravitational pull? Can galaxies get far enough apart from each other so that they are no longer held together by gravity? The earth seems to experience a "push" from our sun's solar radiation - can the "push" from billions of suns cause galaxies to move away from each other - and possibly at an accelerating speed?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2010
Check out this link titled Dark Flow:

http://en.wikiped...ark_flow
SteveL
not rated yet Apr 19, 2010
Well, this wouldn't be "Dark Flow" as I understand their theory of a stream of matter along a 20% angle in space.

This would be the pressure of cosmic background radiation acting as a repelling force in all directions, working against the heliospheres from each sun in each galaxy.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2010
Doesn't gravity win with distance?
Maybe there is some exotic stuff going on in a dark flow somewhere?
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2010
can the "push" from billions of suns cause galaxies to move away from each other
Such push would be very weak at the case of Andromeda. Whereas inside of quasar the radiation pressure is sufficient to defy gravity - it leads to spherical dust galaxies - most old ones, which we can observe. When the central white hole exhausts its matter, it will continue to shine via polar jets only and the spherical galaxy will change into flat one. Inside of old galaxies the central collapsar becomes completely dark and tidal forces will make galaxy elliptical again. IMO antigravity is basically just the radiation pressure of all possible bosons involved in extradimensions.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2010
The other end of a dark flow could be a white/black hole?
seneca
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2010
If our Universe is formed by interior of collapsar (giant dense star similar to black or white hole), then the dark matter streaks could be a convective cells, similar to those which appear bellow surface of Sun. Dense aether theory doesn't require some physical surface for boiling vacuum, though. The dark flow observed could vanish in more remote space-time seamlessly in similar way, like it was formed.
iFujita
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2010
>antigravity is basically just the radiation pressure of all possible bosons involved in extradimensions.<
The Einstein field equation;
Rab - 1/2 * Rgab = 8paiG/c^4 * Tab
Modified version;
Rab - 1/2 * Rgab = 8paiG/c^4 * (Tmab + i*Teab)
Here: Tmab is the stress tensor by matter
Teab is the energy tensor by emission energy
Then;
F = G ( Ma + i Ea / c^2 ) ( Mb + i Eb / c^2 ) / r^2
F = G Ma Mb / r^ - (G / c^4) Ea Eb / r^2 + i ( G Ea Mb / ( r^2 c^2 ) + G Ma Eb / ( r^2 c^2 ))
The real part is Re( F ) = Fg+s, but I don't know how to deal with the imaginary part ; Im( F ) = G Ea Mb / ( r^2 c^2 ) + G Ma Eb / ( r^2 c^2 ).
http://www.geocit...y01.html
Iori Fuijita

TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2010
So it is dark energy and dark matter
versus
Modified Einstein Field Equation (MEFE)?

I like all of that stuff: tenuous plasma, plasma in the form of emission and surface tension for forming large scale bubble structures.

Gravity engine engineerers will be excited that we agree to have something to work with to make a practical gravity engine work, to have something to push off of. Before now, all we had was aether.
TabulaMentis
Apr 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
broglia
Apr 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
broglia
Apr 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2010
Aether theory is so yesterday.
It is now dark energy and dark matter, plus modified Einstein equations.
Slotin
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2010
Some people prefer to deal with many mysterious & complex theories - the more, the better, some other prefer easy consistent explanations. Mainstream physicists are looking for jobs, so they would never fight for simplification of physics in similar way, like politician would never fight for transparency of their politics. In Czech we have proverb: "Carps never sew their pond."

But Einstein's grandma and Occam's razor principle are unatonable.

Albert Einstein: "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother".
OdinsAcolyte
not rated yet Apr 20, 2010
So far the general theory and special theory have withstood a century of challenge and have only been validated. This also tell us about the validity of its consequences. There is no time. Only measurement of interval. Cool.
Slotin
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2010
The message of relativity is just the opposite: the time and space are in duality and tightly connected in space-time concept. You cannot separate time from space.

And I'm quite convenient with this view: in aether theory space-time is flat density fluctuation analogous to water surface gradient (brane in string theory), the space dimension(s) are the direction(s) parallel to the surface plane and the time dimension (this one having an arrow) is perpendicular to the plane. The manifestation of this model is for example the fact, the objects are always spreading through space-time along fastest path (i.e. geodesics) like objects across density gradients.

http://en.wikiped...an_flows

So you cannot have time without space and vice-versa.
Slotin
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2010
You can say easily as well, the space doesn't exist, only time intervals between various events. For example the blind bats don't perceive space via space-intervals, but through time-intervals (they're using longitudinal waves for navigation instead of people, who are using transversal waves).

So you shouldn't explain your theory of timeless universe to such bat, or it will bite you.
SteveL
not rated yet Apr 21, 2010
So you shouldn't explain your theory of timeless universe to such bat, or it will bite you.


Or simply fly into you.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2010
Heim's theory is quite similar to aether ideas and it proposes both dark matter field, both antigravity drive, too. This drive based on gravitodynamic force (so called Heim's-Lorentz force) excerted by rotation of massive ring in magnetic field.

http://tinyurl.com/y2zymkv


That is one way of pushing off of something we can barely detect.
I would not want to be under that flying machine when it takes off or the person under it could possibly get a really bad sunburn.
I think it will be no more than fifty years before we figure out how to build a practical gravity engine.
We may even be able to figure it out sooner, but we will need large scale experiments to backup theory to eventually make it work.

How long do you think it will be before humans figure it out?
SteveL
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2010
Could another theory for the expansion of the universe simply be the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

As atoms lose energy the electron orbit increases in and inverse proportion to the loss of energy. The universe may simply be expanding because it is losing energy. We may not be able to detect this energy loss in a single atom, but on a universal scale it may be measurable.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2010
Nice Conservation of energy postulate violation there, Steve.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2010
SteveL:

The best approach would be to create a new law and leave the 2nd law alone.
Alizee
Apr 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2010
Nice Conservation of energy postulate violation there, Steve.
Which "energy postulate" do you mean?
Big Bang doesn't fulfill energy conservation law anyway.

It certainly does.

Tell me how the Big Bang violates conservation of energy. Show us how truly ignorant you are when it comes to introductory cosmology. This should be absolutely excellent.
Alizee
Apr 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2010
Some people prefer to deal with many mysterious & complex theories - the more, the better, some other prefer easy consistent explanations. Mainstream physicists are looking for jobs, so they would never fight for simplification of physics in similar way, like politician would never fight for transparency of their politics. In Czech we have proverb: "Carps never sew their pond."

But Einstein's grandma and Occam's razor principle are unatonable.

Albert Einstein: "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother".


Slotin:

Occam's razor appears to be alive and well in this discussion.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2010
The stance of yours is just another evidence of devotional character of proponents of mainstream science. We are basically facing sort of modern religion here, i.e. sectarian scientism.
I'm always excited to see certain account-hopping people using that special vocabulary which is precisely describing themselves.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2010
From where the initial singularity took it's energy to its explosion?

You can, according Einstein, create matter out of energy or energy out of matter. But the Big Bang theory states that BEFORE the Big Bang there was nothing. Therefore the THEORY of Big Bang indeed violates the law of conservation of energy and matter. Energy can not be created out of nothing and matter can not be created out of nothing.

And that's why you don't understand anything about cosmology.

FYI: BBT states that all the energy and matter of the universe was encompassed within the singularity. Something happened and whatever forces were holding the singularity in place gave out. The internal energy of the singularity burst forth, CONTAINING the energy that would become our Universe, NOT CREATING our Universe from nothing.

Thank you for proving that your formal education is not within the fields in which you profess to have understanding and deviation from mainstream science.
broglia
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2010
...something happened and whatever forces were holding the singularity in place gave out..
Bellow is link to nice infographics illustrating the evolution of "Big Bang" model. It differs quite significantly from original rather primitive Lemaitre's idea (1931), you're trying to describe.

http://img685.ima...rsel.jpg

Anyway, it doesn't contain any answer regarding the origin of matter and energy, we are observing by now.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2010
Thank you otto1923, seneca and broglia for the information on gravity engines.
Some of you people are very learned in physics.
SteveL
not rated yet Apr 22, 2010
Who said anything about violating the law regarding conservation of energy? I am maintaing that it is still in play. In fact it is required as part of the basis of my idea. I considered this a given.

It is evident that radiation is being sent out into the universe on a continual basis in every direction. This radiation comes from the breakdown of matter at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. As radiation is energy, then the energy level at the atomic level simply has to be reducing. As the energy level of the electron cloud reduces around the nucleus, the cloud expands in direct proportion to the amount of energy radiated.

Multiply this effect by the number of atoms in the universe and in my opinion this might explain to a certain extent the observed expansion of the universe. No new laws required.
SteveL
not rated yet Apr 22, 2010
Well, more correctly; the size of the electron cloud is inversely proportional to the energy level.
TabulaMentis
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2010
SteveL:

Check out this link regarding 'Quantum Fluctuations' at the following Wikipedia site:

http://en.wikiped...ctuation

It talks about conservation of energy and how it can appear to be violated, but only for short times, and not be violated.
Alizee
Apr 27, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.