http://www.physorg.com/news77373279.html
How do we know that the atomic processes which are being used to measure time aren"t being affected by the gravitational field?
Einstein"s assumption that gravity is intrinsic to space-time removes the possibility that it could be a form of energy itself. If this hypothesis is wrong, and gravity is a form of energy then the gravity field is ADDING energy to the local atoms. Adding energy will affect decay rates, slowing them down. This could give the impression that time itself is slowing down, when it really isn"t.
-G
Nice one Mrgrynch
Lets see them provide an answer to that.
Lets see them provide an answer to that.
Further to the last
with such measurement accuracy it sounds as though they are saying that Einstein was 0.05 percent wrong. The question is how wrong is that in relation to time dilation? Surely the time dilation theory is right or wrong not partly so. If Mrgrynch is correct re gravity being an energy source appearing anywhere in space surly this could have been the progenitor of bodies such as earth absorbing energy toward a gravitational well.
with such measurement accuracy it sounds as though they are saying that Einstein was 0.05 percent wrong. The question is how wrong is that in relation to time dilation? Surely the time dilation theory is right or wrong not partly so. If Mrgrynch is correct re gravity being an energy source appearing anywhere in space surly this could have been the progenitor of bodies such as earth absorbing energy toward a gravitational well.
Hey guys,
You seem to be confusing the experiments and what each measurement is verifying. The time dilation predictions are being tested with the redshift and Shapiro delay predictions. A pulsar is a very accurate clock and any change in it's rate and redshift associated with a larger gravitational field is what is being compared for time dilation verification.
The orbital decay (not to be confused with atomic decay) is being measured and compared with the energy loss of the binary system predicted by the emission of gravity waves.
As far as the accuracy and (Quote) "Surely the time dilation theory is right or wrong not partly so", you a have to understand that measuring such small changes in the rate (Quote from the article )"It is close to 90 millionths of a second and the ratio of the observed and predicted values is 1.0001 +/- 0.0005 - a precision of 0.05%." are very hard to measure and there is some inaccuracies associated with the measurements themselves.
Read the article a little more closely, it's a very complicated subject.
Later,
Ron
You seem to be confusing the experiments and what each measurement is verifying. The time dilation predictions are being tested with the redshift and Shapiro delay predictions. A pulsar is a very accurate clock and any change in it's rate and redshift associated with a larger gravitational field is what is being compared for time dilation verification.
The orbital decay (not to be confused with atomic decay) is being measured and compared with the energy loss of the binary system predicted by the emission of gravity waves.
As far as the accuracy and (Quote) "Surely the time dilation theory is right or wrong not partly so", you a have to understand that measuring such small changes in the rate (Quote from the article )"It is close to 90 millionths of a second and the ratio of the observed and predicted values is 1.0001 +/- 0.0005 - a precision of 0.05%." are very hard to measure and there is some inaccuracies associated with the measurements themselves.
Read the article a little more closely, it's a very complicated subject.
Later,
Ron
Hi Ron
You have to realize that some of us don't believe in time as a dilate-able entity at all. In fact I would argue that their is no such a thing as time, for if time were an entity it would have definable length "NOW" to enable proper distinction between the PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE.
If these observations are indeed showing a time dilation effect (based your belief) I would argue that this must be an effect which while obviously accurate in its incredible observations is an assumption based on a preconceived theory which in itself included assumptions being made then and now. Furthermore, one should consider if this so called time dilation has other causal reasons which do not include the supposition of time as an entity. (Please note I use the word "entity" in its loosest possible context).
because of this my thoughts move to what else could cause the objects to change speed based on position, the first of which is the orbit circular or elliptical? As Mrgrynch suggested are there gravitational effects coming into play? Is the mass decay consistent?
AR
You have to realize that some of us don't believe in time as a dilate-able entity at all. In fact I would argue that their is no such a thing as time, for if time were an entity it would have definable length "NOW" to enable proper distinction between the PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE.
If these observations are indeed showing a time dilation effect (based your belief) I would argue that this must be an effect which while obviously accurate in its incredible observations is an assumption based on a preconceived theory which in itself included assumptions being made then and now. Furthermore, one should consider if this so called time dilation has other causal reasons which do not include the supposition of time as an entity. (Please note I use the word "entity" in its loosest possible context).
because of this my thoughts move to what else could cause the objects to change speed based on position, the first of which is the orbit circular or elliptical? As Mrgrynch suggested are there gravitational effects coming into play? Is the mass decay consistent?
AR
Hi Artone,
All I was trying to do was clarify the experiment itself. I personally understand this to be a well thought out experiment to verify some of the predictions Einstein made almost a hundred years ago. You can take this information and interpret other ways if you like, but the scientific method is to hypothesize, design an experiment to verify, modify your hypothesis depending on results, and experiment again. If the results agree as well as these experiments, it gives more confidence in the original hypothesis. Making a theory around the results is mainly speculation.
As far as your questions, I'm not exactly sure what your asking. I know there are alot of questions about the nature of time itself, and, to me, it's a very difficult metaphysical argument that I don't have the answer to.
Later,
Ron
All I was trying to do was clarify the experiment itself. I personally understand this to be a well thought out experiment to verify some of the predictions Einstein made almost a hundred years ago. You can take this information and interpret other ways if you like, but the scientific method is to hypothesize, design an experiment to verify, modify your hypothesis depending on results, and experiment again. If the results agree as well as these experiments, it gives more confidence in the original hypothesis. Making a theory around the results is mainly speculation.
As far as your questions, I'm not exactly sure what your asking. I know there are alot of questions about the nature of time itself, and, to me, it's a very difficult metaphysical argument that I don't have the answer to.
Later,
Ron
ARtone,
Your lack of belief in time dilation because it doesn't act like other properties of the universe is not noticeably convincing IMHO.
Tiime dilation has been demonstrated with passenger airliners right here in the terrestrial atmosphere. No somplexity of neutron stars to confuse things.
Your lack of belief in time dilation because it doesn't act like other properties of the universe is not noticeably convincing IMHO.
Tiime dilation has been demonstrated with passenger airliners right here in the terrestrial atmosphere. No somplexity of neutron stars to confuse things.
@CactusCritter
How exactly was time dilation measured? I already know the answer, and as I mentioned in my previous post, you CANNOT rely on atomic processes as a measure of time. All things being equal, they are fantastically accurate at producing predictably discrete events (decays) which can be used as a relative measure of time, but to say that time itself can be measured in this way is flawed, and is based on several other unproven concepts.
Despite the fact the relativity predicts time dilation, that does not make it so. The assumption that gravity is intrinsic to spacetime assumes no energy is present in gravity. If this unproven assumption is false, then it is highly likely that gravity is a form of energy, and the addition of energy to any atomic process will affect the very mechanism by which time is being measured. The denser the gravity field (lower altitude) the slower atoms will decay because of increased energy input in the field. At higher altitudes, the gravity field drops off as predicted by the inverse square law, indicating a corresponding drop in energy input as well. As a result, the atomic processes (decays rate) speed up. Time dilation due to speed is equally unreliable. The energy of the accelerative force has the same affect on atomic processes, affecting measured decay rates as well.
Whether time exists or not is not the question here. What is called into question is the device used to measure time.
Regarding gravity waves. This is another unproven concept based on the equally unproven relativistic gravity model, so any result based on the assumption of their existence, and any effect presented by such unproven entitites is suspect. If gravity is not intrinsic to spacetime, then gravity waves do not exist.
Regarding redshift of light. There is increasing evidence to suggest redshift is not a valid measure of distance and/or velocity. A study of the works of Halton Arop, et. al shows the many problems with this metric. As a result, no definitive correlation can be made using redshift.
So, what is my point? Simple... to the lay person, this article seems to suggest that these findings in some way have PROVEN that relativity is 99.5% correct. This is misleading. Relativity remains today because it does a fairly decent job of describing observed phenomenon. If it didn't it would be gone already. All this article states is that nothing seen in these observations causes significant concern that the PREDICTIONS of relativity are flawed.
However, this is no indication that the mechanics behind these observations, has been verified to work as defined by relativity. You cannot look a this small microcosm of phenomena when evaluating relativity, since this same theory forces the existence of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and many other such questionable constructs. I find that plasma cosmology provides a much more compelling model for the universe, and can equally describe all of these events without any of the questionable entitites demanded by relativity.
-G
How exactly was time dilation measured? I already know the answer, and as I mentioned in my previous post, you CANNOT rely on atomic processes as a measure of time. All things being equal, they are fantastically accurate at producing predictably discrete events (decays) which can be used as a relative measure of time, but to say that time itself can be measured in this way is flawed, and is based on several other unproven concepts.
Despite the fact the relativity predicts time dilation, that does not make it so. The assumption that gravity is intrinsic to spacetime assumes no energy is present in gravity. If this unproven assumption is false, then it is highly likely that gravity is a form of energy, and the addition of energy to any atomic process will affect the very mechanism by which time is being measured. The denser the gravity field (lower altitude) the slower atoms will decay because of increased energy input in the field. At higher altitudes, the gravity field drops off as predicted by the inverse square law, indicating a corresponding drop in energy input as well. As a result, the atomic processes (decays rate) speed up. Time dilation due to speed is equally unreliable. The energy of the accelerative force has the same affect on atomic processes, affecting measured decay rates as well.
Whether time exists or not is not the question here. What is called into question is the device used to measure time.
Regarding gravity waves. This is another unproven concept based on the equally unproven relativistic gravity model, so any result based on the assumption of their existence, and any effect presented by such unproven entitites is suspect. If gravity is not intrinsic to spacetime, then gravity waves do not exist.
Regarding redshift of light. There is increasing evidence to suggest redshift is not a valid measure of distance and/or velocity. A study of the works of Halton Arop, et. al shows the many problems with this metric. As a result, no definitive correlation can be made using redshift.
So, what is my point? Simple... to the lay person, this article seems to suggest that these findings in some way have PROVEN that relativity is 99.5% correct. This is misleading. Relativity remains today because it does a fairly decent job of describing observed phenomenon. If it didn't it would be gone already. All this article states is that nothing seen in these observations causes significant concern that the PREDICTIONS of relativity are flawed.
However, this is no indication that the mechanics behind these observations, has been verified to work as defined by relativity. You cannot look a this small microcosm of phenomena when evaluating relativity, since this same theory forces the existence of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and many other such questionable constructs. I find that plasma cosmology provides a much more compelling model for the universe, and can equally describe all of these events without any of the questionable entitites demanded by relativity.
-G
Hi McGrynch,
You still haven't read the article or my other post carefully. The measurement that was used was ORBITAL DECAY not atomic decay, and this was used to measure the loss of energy of the binary system due to the propagation of gravity waves. The orbital decay had nothing to do with measuring time dilation. The measurements of red shift and Shapiro delay were used to measure time dilation.
You can argue all day long about the existence of gravity waves or time dilation, but the fact is these measurements agreed very well with the predicted values of all 3 measurements.
Ron
You still haven't read the article or my other post carefully. The measurement that was used was ORBITAL DECAY not atomic decay, and this was used to measure the loss of energy of the binary system due to the propagation of gravity waves. The orbital decay had nothing to do with measuring time dilation. The measurements of red shift and Shapiro delay were used to measure time dilation.
You can argue all day long about the existence of gravity waves or time dilation, but the fact is these measurements agreed very well with the predicted values of all 3 measurements.
Ron
Sorry Ron,
My response was meant more for CactusCritter and was not meant to address your message directly.
Yes, you are right.. the measurements agreed very well with relativistic predictions. I have no basis to argue that point, since the numbers don't lie. I actually have NO PROBLEM with what they did here, and it is good science regardless of my opinion on the validity of the basis. What I have a problem with is the way this press release gives the impression that this somehow validates relativity. To the lay person, this is how this article would be interpreted. All it does is confirm is that the predictions of relativity are in agreement with the observations and the interpretation of said observations through the lens of relativity. The implication of redshift, the existence of gravity waves etc, is still a topic of debate and has not moved any closer to resolution as a result of these findings.
-G
My response was meant more for CactusCritter and was not meant to address your message directly.
Yes, you are right.. the measurements agreed very well with relativistic predictions. I have no basis to argue that point, since the numbers don't lie. I actually have NO PROBLEM with what they did here, and it is good science regardless of my opinion on the validity of the basis. What I have a problem with is the way this press release gives the impression that this somehow validates relativity. To the lay person, this is how this article would be interpreted. All it does is confirm is that the predictions of relativity are in agreement with the observations and the interpretation of said observations through the lens of relativity. The implication of redshift, the existence of gravity waves etc, is still a topic of debate and has not moved any closer to resolution as a result of these findings.
-G
QUOTE (MrGrynch+Sep 14 2006, 02:06 PM)
How do we know that the atomic processes which are being used to measure time aren"t being affected by the gravitational field?
Einstein"s assumption that gravity is intrinsic to space-time removes the possibility that it could be a form of energy itself. If this hypothesis is wrong, and gravity is a form of energy then the gravity field is ADDING energy to the local atoms. Adding energy will affect decay rates, slowing them down. This could give the impression that time itself is slowing down, when it really isn"t.
-G
MrGrynch appears to be looking for a proof of GR that science never does give. By MrGrynch's logic the direct confirmation of gravity waves would not convince him, because it's yet another experiment which agrees with GR, but cannot prove it in the mathematical sense. He also seems to put abnormally high weight on the views of Halton Arp, and it is possibly from reading Arp's Apeiron that he came up with the incoherent question about gravity and nuclear decay rates.
More on the topic of what science is and what GR is at Relativity deniers and "challengers" , read this:. Warning, Pupamancur is by his own statements, meaner than me.
What time is: time is that stuff that looks like time.
What a change in time is: it's a change that affects all the things that are governed by time, and affects them in the same way as a change in time.
Is the statement "Adding energy will affect decay rates" supported by any empirical evidence: Not to my knowledge. I believe it to be false, because energy is well described at the particle level by Quantum Field Theory, and this statement seems to believe in a 19th century caloric fluid idea.
If the statement "Adding energy will affect decay rates" is true, is it necessarily true that it will slow all decay rates by the exact same amount: No, obviously not, for there are a wide variety of decay mechanisms, most of which depend on vacuum fluctuations which seem impervious to energy level changes.
So the fact that Cosmological redshifts are associated with Cosmological time dilation, suggests that the GR explanation is qualitatively correct. The question arises if it is quantitatively correct, which is answered in the affirmative by this news article and the 2005 document by Will.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072
Einstein"s assumption that gravity is intrinsic to space-time removes the possibility that it could be a form of energy itself. If this hypothesis is wrong, and gravity is a form of energy then the gravity field is ADDING energy to the local atoms. Adding energy will affect decay rates, slowing them down. This could give the impression that time itself is slowing down, when it really isn"t.
-G
MrGrynch appears to be looking for a proof of GR that science never does give. By MrGrynch's logic the direct confirmation of gravity waves would not convince him, because it's yet another experiment which agrees with GR, but cannot prove it in the mathematical sense. He also seems to put abnormally high weight on the views of Halton Arp, and it is possibly from reading Arp's Apeiron that he came up with the incoherent question about gravity and nuclear decay rates.
More on the topic of what science is and what GR is at Relativity deniers and "challengers" , read this:. Warning, Pupamancur is by his own statements, meaner than me.
What time is: time is that stuff that looks like time.
What a change in time is: it's a change that affects all the things that are governed by time, and affects them in the same way as a change in time.
Is the statement "Adding energy will affect decay rates" supported by any empirical evidence: Not to my knowledge. I believe it to be false, because energy is well described at the particle level by Quantum Field Theory, and this statement seems to believe in a 19th century caloric fluid idea.
If the statement "Adding energy will affect decay rates" is true, is it necessarily true that it will slow all decay rates by the exact same amount: No, obviously not, for there are a wide variety of decay mechanisms, most of which depend on vacuum fluctuations which seem impervious to energy level changes.
So the fact that Cosmological redshifts are associated with Cosmological time dilation, suggests that the GR explanation is qualitatively correct. The question arises if it is quantitatively correct, which is answered in the affirmative by this news article and the 2005 document by Will.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072
Light slows down because of slower time. That is Shapiro delay.
Qualitatively correct, but GR also adds the prediction that masses will cause this effect and gives quantitative predictions.
@cactusCritter
The point I am trying to make is that unless you can prove that time is an entity which can be dilated you don't have a basis for the theory.
Furthermore if you consider that time can be dilated then you are intimating that it is a flow, if so where does the additional time length fit into the standard flow of time? does it move sideways? Is it somehow speeded up again?
If time could be dilated would this not make our perception of the universe incorrect with timed differences for some events. But in reality we are not talking about time dilation at all in this article. What is really being considered is that it takes longer for an event to happen when the objects are in specific alignments which is far more likely to be a slowing of the signal.
You just cannot say that time does not fit in with common perceptions just because it fits some theory better if it doesn't.
AR
The point I am trying to make is that unless you can prove that time is an entity which can be dilated you don't have a basis for the theory.
Furthermore if you consider that time can be dilated then you are intimating that it is a flow, if so where does the additional time length fit into the standard flow of time? does it move sideways? Is it somehow speeded up again?
If time could be dilated would this not make our perception of the universe incorrect with timed differences for some events. But in reality we are not talking about time dilation at all in this article. What is really being considered is that it takes longer for an event to happen when the objects are in specific alignments which is far more likely to be a slowing of the signal.
You just cannot say that time does not fit in with common perceptions just because it fits some theory better if it doesn't.
AR
QUOTE (MrGrynch+Sep 14 2006, 05:06 PM)
Einstein"s assumption that gravity is intrinsic to space-time removes the possibility that it could be a form of energy itself.
Frankly, I don't understand fully your problem.
Whole the field equation of general relativity deals with the evaluation of gravity (expressed in terms of space time deformation, i.e. the metric tensor) in form of energy. The Einstein had supposed, just the linear motion doesn't requires the energy, so if the motion in gravity field requires energy even for apparently linear motion, the explanation is, the motion is in fact done along a linear path in curved spacetime. So he expressed the dependence of energy content of space to space curvature in corresponding volume area, that's all.
Of course, the general relativity doesn't solve the question, in what form such energy should be stored in space, but it's a different problem, outside the scope of your question. But the general relativity targets exactly your point concerning the decay rates and the other things. In high gravitational fields, the space appears more dense, so that all the inertial motion and the processes which are connected with it will proceed more slowly and both the relativity, both you can be true.
By Aether Wave theory (AWT) the gravity field is really manifestation of mass/energy density in form of foam bubble curvature and the GR can even be applied recursively. The AWT supposes, the smaller bubbles are having a greater tension due the larger curvature and the particles with lower curvature are pulled to the place with higher curvature to compensate this effect. By such way, the gravitation is the manifestation of sort of "energy concentration leveling", analogous to the diffusion of common matter.
Frankly, I don't understand fully your problem.
Whole the field equation of general relativity deals with the evaluation of gravity (expressed in terms of space time deformation, i.e. the metric tensor) in form of energy. The Einstein had supposed, just the linear motion doesn't requires the energy, so if the motion in gravity field requires energy even for apparently linear motion, the explanation is, the motion is in fact done along a linear path in curved spacetime. So he expressed the dependence of energy content of space to space curvature in corresponding volume area, that's all.
Of course, the general relativity doesn't solve the question, in what form such energy should be stored in space, but it's a different problem, outside the scope of your question. But the general relativity targets exactly your point concerning the decay rates and the other things. In high gravitational fields, the space appears more dense, so that all the inertial motion and the processes which are connected with it will proceed more slowly and both the relativity, both you can be true.
By Aether Wave theory (AWT) the gravity field is really manifestation of mass/energy density in form of foam bubble curvature and the GR can even be applied recursively. The AWT supposes, the smaller bubbles are having a greater tension due the larger curvature and the particles with lower curvature are pulled to the place with higher curvature to compensate this effect. By such way, the gravitation is the manifestation of sort of "energy concentration leveling", analogous to the diffusion of common matter.
No curvature is not energy zeph. Never was.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 16 2006, 07:25 AM)
No curvature is not energy zeph. Never was.
Are you definitely sure? Try to explain this ridiculous phenomena - liquid droplet merging...
Are you definitely sure? Try to explain this ridiculous phenomena - liquid droplet merging...
There is no gravity. Only real strings.
the dilatation of time and contraction of space is in the degrees of curvatures generated by very dense bodies in motion,that increase the curvatures of space-time with the increase of the velocity.then the proportion between the asymmetry of the space and time is due the degree of deformation of the region with mass that distort at the around.and contracte and dilate the gravitational waves.that in these deformations can appear a second coordinate of time,that define the presence of non-linear gravitons,in a fifth-dimension,with the 4-dimension,being
asymmetric,twisting the space-time to a omly one direction,left-handed,for examoples.perhaps for thar reason must not there is right-handed.but in fifth -dimension-with 3-D of the space and 2-D of the time,then the rotations of left-right appear giving symmetry to and non-coomutative and non-linear differential equations-with non-commutative and non-linear topologic geometry
but i believe that the metric of time is given in the torsion left -handed and right-handed,that produce curvatures,that is linked at speed of light.the define asymmetry between left-handed and right-handed in the transformations for rotations that are couoled by oprations of rotations of quaternions that break cpt,but generate together the both lorentz's transformations(ORTHOCHROUS and
NTICHROUS).
asymmetric,twisting the space-time to a omly one direction,left-handed,for examoples.perhaps for thar reason must not there is right-handed.but in fifth -dimension-with 3-D of the space and 2-D of the time,then the rotations of left-right appear giving symmetry to and non-coomutative and non-linear differential equations-with non-commutative and non-linear topologic geometry
but i believe that the metric of time is given in the torsion left -handed and right-handed,that produce curvatures,that is linked at speed of light.the define asymmetry between left-handed and right-handed in the transformations for rotations that are couoled by oprations of rotations of quaternions that break cpt,but generate together the both lorentz's transformations(ORTHOCHROUS and
NTICHROUS).
Hi ARtone, MrGrynch, Rpenner, mott.carl, Ivars, Zephir, Nick et al,
Firstly I must give my best salutations to ARtone. Long time no see. Must be in touch with you soon.
I actually expect "common" General Relativity to "fail" in certain extreme situations. One regime in which General Relativity will most likely fail is
Wikipedia: Einstein–Cartan theory
There are obvious "extensions" to General Relativity to handle this case.
Firstly I must give my best salutations to ARtone. Long time no see. Must be in touch with you soon.
I actually expect "common" General Relativity to "fail" in certain extreme situations. One regime in which General Relativity will most likely fail is
Wikipedia: Einstein–Cartan theory
There are obvious "extensions" to General Relativity to handle this case.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Einstein–Cartan theory+)
Einstein–Cartan theory in theoretical physics extends general relativity, to handle spin angular momentum correctly. As the master theory of classical physics, general relativity has one known flaw: it cannot describe exchange of intrinsic angular momentum (spin) and orbital angular momentum. There is a qualitative theoretical proof showing that general relativity must be extended to Einstein–Cartan theory when matter with spin is present. Experimental effects are too small to be observed at the present time. [...] In 1922 Elie Cartan conjectured that general relativity should be extended by including affine torsion, which allows the Ricci tensor to be non-symmetric. Although spin-orbit coupling is a relatively minor phenomenon in gravitational physics, Einstein–Cartan theory is quite important because it makes clear that an affine theory, not a metric theory, provides a better description of gravitation. The extension of Riemannian geometry to include affine torsion is now known as Riemann–Cartan geometry.[...]
Introduction
The basic mathematics underlying spacetime physics is affine differential geometry, in which we endow an n dimensional differentiable manifold M with a law of parallel translation of vectors along paths in M. (At each point of a differentiable manifold, we have a linear space of tangent vectors, but we have no way to transport vectors to another point, or to compare vectors at two points in M.) The parallel translation preserves linear relationships between vectors; that is, if two vectors u and v at the same point of M parallel translate along a curve to vectors u' and v', then
a u + b v
parallel translates to a
a u' + b v'.
Parallelism in affine differential geometry is path-dependent; that is, if you parallel translate a vector along two different paths with the same starting and ending points, the resulting vectors at the end point in general differ. The difference between parallel-translating a vector along different curves is the essential meaning of curvature, which is the central concept in differential geometry.[...]
The resulting field equations of Einstein–Cartan theory are:
where
* Spinabk is the spin tensor of all matter and radiation
* Sabk = Tabk + gakTbmm – gbkTamm is the modified torsion tensor
* Tabk is the affine torsion tensor.
The first equation is the same as in general relativity, except that the affine torsion is included in all the curvature terms, so Pak need not be symmetric. [...]
General relativity plus matter with spin implies Einstein–Cartan theory
For decades, it was thought that Einstein–Cartan theory is based on an independent assumption to include affine torsion. Since the effect of torsion is too small to measure empirically so far, Einstein–Cartan theory was considered one of many speculative (and largely ignored) extensions of general relativity.
It has been shown that general relativity plus a fluid of many tiny rotating black holes generate affine torsion and essentially the equations of Einstein–Cartan theory. The "proof" uses a standard Kerr-Newman rotating black hole solution of general relativity. It computes the non-zero time-like translation that occurs when you parallel-translate an affine frame (keeping track of translation as well as rotation) around an equatorial loop near the black hole. The word "proof" appears in quotes because, while it is intuitively compelling that this implies Einstein–Cartan theory, the proof of convergence to the equations of Einstein–Cartan theory has not been done.
Introduction
The basic mathematics underlying spacetime physics is affine differential geometry, in which we endow an n dimensional differentiable manifold M with a law of parallel translation of vectors along paths in M. (At each point of a differentiable manifold, we have a linear space of tangent vectors, but we have no way to transport vectors to another point, or to compare vectors at two points in M.) The parallel translation preserves linear relationships between vectors; that is, if two vectors u and v at the same point of M parallel translate along a curve to vectors u' and v', then
a u + b v
parallel translates to a
a u' + b v'.
Parallelism in affine differential geometry is path-dependent; that is, if you parallel translate a vector along two different paths with the same starting and ending points, the resulting vectors at the end point in general differ. The difference between parallel-translating a vector along different curves is the essential meaning of curvature, which is the central concept in differential geometry.[...]
The resulting field equations of Einstein–Cartan theory are:
where
* Spinabk is the spin tensor of all matter and radiation
* Sabk = Tabk + gakTbmm – gbkTamm is the modified torsion tensor
* Tabk is the affine torsion tensor.
The first equation is the same as in general relativity, except that the affine torsion is included in all the curvature terms, so Pak need not be symmetric. [...]
General relativity plus matter with spin implies Einstein–Cartan theory
For decades, it was thought that Einstein–Cartan theory is based on an independent assumption to include affine torsion. Since the effect of torsion is too small to measure empirically so far, Einstein–Cartan theory was considered one of many speculative (and largely ignored) extensions of general relativity.
It has been shown that general relativity plus a fluid of many tiny rotating black holes generate affine torsion and essentially the equations of Einstein–Cartan theory. The "proof" uses a standard Kerr-Newman rotating black hole solution of general relativity. It computes the non-zero time-like translation that occurs when you parallel-translate an affine frame (keeping track of translation as well as rotation) around an equatorial loop near the black hole. The word "proof" appears in quotes because, while it is intuitively compelling that this implies Einstein–Cartan theory, the proof of convergence to the equations of Einstein–Cartan theory has not been done.
Please read this article above further since it may be very important when dealing with General Relativity related to the other forces in nature. Note this "spoils" the beautiful symmetry that Micheu Kaku often describes as the most "perfect" equation in the Universe. I believe that we must be on guard when considering "Nature" and its way and looking for "beauty" thinking if we find one we have found the other. It may be there is beauty there but I think mankind may have several thousands of years to progress before that level of subtlety is discovered. When we do find "something" it will not be couched in these terms we presently use to describe the Universe. This applies to a host of other "beautiful" theories that presently have no convincing experimental verification. This "caveat" aside there are a number of surprising conclusions to be made from this theory (in the Wiki). I also think that the implications of Orbital Angular Momentum are not included as well. These effects provide macroscopic "chargeless" forces when dealing with these massless bosons (photons). Surely this connects with gravity, the perception of mass and with electromagnetism through the General Principle of Equivalence.
The next area in which I expect some divergence is very high speed "test masses". These are Relativistic particles so small in mass that they do not curve spacetime a lot and tend to "polarize" the vacuum... creating a preferred direction in the same way that Special Relativity has a special set of coordinates that must be orthogonal and directed along the primary vector of relative motion. General Relativity more of less assumes we are speaking about larger masses where significant spacetime curvature has occurred. One of the principles of General Relativity states "The principle of general covariance: The laws of physics must take the same form in all coordinate systems." You then need to ask the question regards Special Relativity cases "immersed" in curved spacetime... Are all generalized coordinate frames of reference totally equivalent at all relative velocities? For the reason above spherical coordinate frames of reference will not provide the affinely connected transformations we need to analyze relativistic motion. Of course if it did this would immediately provide unification between the laws of Electrodynamics and those of Gravity. Specifically at zero relative velocity the solutions would provide de Broglie Matter Wave solutions and as v -> © for any particle actually traveling at © would collapse the Universe into a Black Hole.
The next point is the caution that we know how to describe a Black Hole with a great deal of accuracy, and we think we understand it quite a bit. We can even "almost see" these objects with the aid of Hubble Images.... But.... a real big "BUT"... are Black Holes what we think they are "up close and personal". Until we have some nearly direct evidence of what exists on the other side of a real Black Hole this question remains hypothetical as to the real nature of what is truly inside the black hole. Who is to say that Einsteins Field Equations actually "fail" inside the Black Hole... there is no data from in there at present and Black Holes are not as "black" as people would like to describe them. Some have referred to them as "fuzzballs".
Wikipedia: Fuzzballs
New Scientist: Bye bye black holes? 12 March 2005
New Scientist: Fuzzballs
I am of the opinion that this stringy solution may be closer to the reality than the "classic" Black Hole. I can't help but post this information here almost in full because it is so very relevant...
The orbital decay (not to be confused with atomic decay) is being measured and compared with the energy loss of the binary system predicted by the emission of gravity waves.
Can you speak to the Binary system in the current thread in this forum...........
are you saying that the experiment explores... the possibility of the binary sun as a possibility for our current star system ? Por Favor?
Or am I confusing this statement?
The next area in which I expect some divergence is very high speed "test masses". These are Relativistic particles so small in mass that they do not curve spacetime a lot and tend to "polarize" the vacuum... creating a preferred direction in the same way that Special Relativity has a special set of coordinates that must be orthogonal and directed along the primary vector of relative motion. General Relativity more of less assumes we are speaking about larger masses where significant spacetime curvature has occurred. One of the principles of General Relativity states "The principle of general covariance: The laws of physics must take the same form in all coordinate systems." You then need to ask the question regards Special Relativity cases "immersed" in curved spacetime... Are all generalized coordinate frames of reference totally equivalent at all relative velocities? For the reason above spherical coordinate frames of reference will not provide the affinely connected transformations we need to analyze relativistic motion. Of course if it did this would immediately provide unification between the laws of Electrodynamics and those of Gravity. Specifically at zero relative velocity the solutions would provide de Broglie Matter Wave solutions and as v -> © for any particle actually traveling at © would collapse the Universe into a Black Hole.
The next point is the caution that we know how to describe a Black Hole with a great deal of accuracy, and we think we understand it quite a bit. We can even "almost see" these objects with the aid of Hubble Images.... But.... a real big "BUT"... are Black Holes what we think they are "up close and personal". Until we have some nearly direct evidence of what exists on the other side of a real Black Hole this question remains hypothetical as to the real nature of what is truly inside the black hole. Who is to say that Einsteins Field Equations actually "fail" inside the Black Hole... there is no data from in there at present and Black Holes are not as "black" as people would like to describe them. Some have referred to them as "fuzzballs".
Wikipedia: Fuzzballs
New Scientist: Bye bye black holes? 12 March 2005
New Scientist: Fuzzballs
I am of the opinion that this stringy solution may be closer to the reality than the "classic" Black Hole. I can't help but post this information here almost in full because it is so very relevant...
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Fuzzballs+)
The event horizon
Samir Mathur of Ohio State University calculated that the event horizon of a fuzzball agrees with the current theory of black holes, but in one way it is different. The event horizon of a black hole is very precise and strict while in a fuzzball the event horizon is very much like a mist; it is fuzzy, hence the name 'fuzzball'.
The essence of the black hole
Black holes have grabbed attention as the massive killers of the universe that destroy anything in their path - even light cannot escape their pull. However fuzzballs have redefined this idea. As described earlier a fuzzball doesn't have a prominent singularity at its centre, and so the destruction of data that is the essence of a black hole no longer exists in a fuzzball. Instead the data from the fuzzball marks the strings that carry the information in vibrations. This data can be given out by the escape of Hawking radiation.
The information paradox
Black holes create a problem; they cause a contradiction widely known as the black hole information paradox, which means that they don't obey the laws of quantum physics. The problem is that it is widely believed particles that enter a black hole release no information outside of the black hole. However, fuzzballs may solve this problem by the fact that information that enters a fuzzball is given out by the vibrations in the strings that make them up.
Samir Mathur of Ohio State University calculated that the event horizon of a fuzzball agrees with the current theory of black holes, but in one way it is different. The event horizon of a black hole is very precise and strict while in a fuzzball the event horizon is very much like a mist; it is fuzzy, hence the name 'fuzzball'.
The essence of the black hole
Black holes have grabbed attention as the massive killers of the universe that destroy anything in their path - even light cannot escape their pull. However fuzzballs have redefined this idea. As described earlier a fuzzball doesn't have a prominent singularity at its centre, and so the destruction of data that is the essence of a black hole no longer exists in a fuzzball. Instead the data from the fuzzball marks the strings that carry the information in vibrations. This data can be given out by the escape of Hawking radiation.
The information paradox
Black holes create a problem; they cause a contradiction widely known as the black hole information paradox, which means that they don't obey the laws of quantum physics. The problem is that it is widely believed particles that enter a black hole release no information outside of the black hole. However, fuzzballs may solve this problem by the fact that information that enters a fuzzball is given out by the vibrations in the strings that make them up.
Einsteins laws are valid in more dimensions than just the simple 4 and may be able to overcome this impediment. It may still be that error in current theory is in trying to quantize what is intrinsically un-quantizable ... the vacuum... no Planck Length. In String Theory the Black Hole is a special D6 Brane.
This concept links with the concept of a Weak Holographic Principle. This principle has significant mathematical and experimental basis that should not be ignored in the quest for "beauty". It just depends on what each of us considers "beautiful" that makes for an interesting discussion.
Wikipedia: Holographic principle - The Weak Holographic Principle
Cheers
This concept links with the concept of a Weak Holographic Principle. This principle has significant mathematical and experimental basis that should not be ignored in the quest for "beauty". It just depends on what each of us considers "beautiful" that makes for an interesting discussion.
Wikipedia: Holographic principle - The Weak Holographic Principle
Cheers
QUOTE (Ron+Sep 14 2006, 09:39 AM)
The orbital decay (not to be confused with atomic decay) is being measured and compared with the energy loss of the binary system predicted by the emission of gravity waves.
Can you speak to the Binary system in the current thread in this forum...........
are you saying that the experiment explores... the possibility of the binary sun as a possibility for our current star system ? Por Favor?
Or am I confusing this statement?
when a photon moves faster through curved space it is compressed and its mass is pushed out from the center of the molocule at a faster rate than its units momemtum but once the energy is past the units surface it then curves back toward the center of the unit, gravity and magnetic field is the same process of energy compression, when matter is compressed it needs to go somewhere. it is forced from the center at a rate the vibrates faster than the unit, the released compressed matter then travels from the center of the unit and it follows a course that uses the suface of the unit as a new centerpoint and spirals between the unit center, how far the released compressed matter travels from the surface in curvature depends on the momentum of the unit (inertia) electrons move faster as they move further out in the shells of electrons, compression of photons in high movement proves that photons are sperical with realtive distance from the center to the surface in all directon from center point lol I can understand but it would take me more than a paragraph to explain it. a picture is worth a thousand words this needs a monumental slideshow, I wish I could tell all I know but how can u believe that the parralell universes we dream about and exist within are each a photon or sperical force field of energy that if imagined properly in 2 dimensions can bring to light string theory, if you could take a slice of bubble it looks like a rubber band. if you would like to ask specific question e-mail me zedanielhallam@gmail.com , this space is too small for a general answer to creation.
Hi Tikay,
Quote"Can you speak to the Binary system in the current thread in this forum...........
are you saying that the experiment explores... the possibility of the binary sun as a possibility for our current star system ?"
No. As cool as that might be, I was referring to a binary pulsar system that was used in the experiment linked to the first post of this thread.
The article claims that the orbital decay of the system can be directly attributed to the loss of energy of the system due to the release of gravity waves. Hence they consider it more indirect proof of their existance.
Take care,
Ron
Quote"Can you speak to the Binary system in the current thread in this forum...........
are you saying that the experiment explores... the possibility of the binary sun as a possibility for our current star system ?"
No. As cool as that might be, I was referring to a binary pulsar system that was used in the experiment linked to the first post of this thread.
The article claims that the orbital decay of the system can be directly attributed to the loss of energy of the system due to the release of gravity waves. Hence they consider it more indirect proof of their existance.
Take care,
Ron
OP:
Yup, neither is a man fighting against religion at a Church ceremony wrong....
It all depends on:
WHOSE THE JUDGE!
People who pay to win cases of justice are hardly brainy or deceet enough to be judges now are they.
Tyrants
Yup, neither is a man fighting against religion at a Church ceremony wrong....
It all depends on:
WHOSE THE JUDGE!
People who pay to win cases of justice are hardly brainy or deceet enough to be judges now are they.
Tyrants
QUOTE (MrGrynch+Sep 14 2006, 02:06 PM)
http://www.physorg.com/news77373279.html
How do we know that the atomic processes which are being used to measure time aren"t being affected by the gravitational field?
Einstein"s assumption that gravity is intrinsic to space-time removes the possibility that it could be a form of energy itself. If this hypothesis is wrong, and gravity is a form of energy then the gravity field is ADDING energy to the local atoms. Adding energy will affect decay rates, slowing them down. This could give the impression that time itself is slowing down, when it really isn"t.
-G
[QUOTE]
To start with our existing system for measuring time is not useful for the purpose you are describing, as we assume that each duration of time measured in seconds remains static and unchanging.
This is a basic problem with modern physics because in order for each second to be of the same exact duration would require us to use an absolute term of reference to measure time. Unfortunately there is no absolute term.
No two seconds are of the same exact or absolute duration, so each one is different.
It has been suggested that a change in energy will not effect atomic decay.
Atomic decay corresponds to the condition of field associated with the atom in question, therefore atomic decay is a dynamic process.
The thinking that determines the accuracy of atomic decay for the purpose of time keeping involves circular reasoning, as the dynamic nature of the process is not considered, only the accuracy of the calculations intent of determining the accuracy of the time piece.
If each portion of any second is not the same as the portion of any other second and no two seconds are of the same exact duration, the idea of providing an absolutely accurate time piece is wishful thinking, as the measure of time in this fashion is nothing more than an abstract exercise of the human mind and has nothing whatever to do with the observation of nature.
In a very real sense time is change and different changes happen at different times and at different rates of change.
Gravity does not affect atomic decay, but as atomic decay remains proportional to the condition of field so must gravity also be affected by the condition of field.
So, both gravity and atomic decay are affected by the condition of field which is determined on the basis of the underlying energy of the system in question.
How do we know that the atomic processes which are being used to measure time aren"t being affected by the gravitational field?
Einstein"s assumption that gravity is intrinsic to space-time removes the possibility that it could be a form of energy itself. If this hypothesis is wrong, and gravity is a form of energy then the gravity field is ADDING energy to the local atoms. Adding energy will affect decay rates, slowing them down. This could give the impression that time itself is slowing down, when it really isn"t.
-G
[QUOTE]
To start with our existing system for measuring time is not useful for the purpose you are describing, as we assume that each duration of time measured in seconds remains static and unchanging.
This is a basic problem with modern physics because in order for each second to be of the same exact duration would require us to use an absolute term of reference to measure time. Unfortunately there is no absolute term.
No two seconds are of the same exact or absolute duration, so each one is different.
It has been suggested that a change in energy will not effect atomic decay.
Atomic decay corresponds to the condition of field associated with the atom in question, therefore atomic decay is a dynamic process.
The thinking that determines the accuracy of atomic decay for the purpose of time keeping involves circular reasoning, as the dynamic nature of the process is not considered, only the accuracy of the calculations intent of determining the accuracy of the time piece.
If each portion of any second is not the same as the portion of any other second and no two seconds are of the same exact duration, the idea of providing an absolutely accurate time piece is wishful thinking, as the measure of time in this fashion is nothing more than an abstract exercise of the human mind and has nothing whatever to do with the observation of nature.
In a very real sense time is change and different changes happen at different times and at different rates of change.
Gravity does not affect atomic decay, but as atomic decay remains proportional to the condition of field so must gravity also be affected by the condition of field.
So, both gravity and atomic decay are affected by the condition of field which is determined on the basis of the underlying energy of the system in question.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.