bn880 5 Posted January 9, 2003 Einsteins speed of gravity proven It seems that Mr. Einstein has been very consistent! Do any members here think we will have more people like Albert? If so, how many are born per year/decade/century. Procedure It is funny that such a straight forward test is used to prove the theory. EDIT: How about this, is kinetic energy simply a displacement of some mass in another dimension? Is gravity also a shift of certain matter through yet another dimension we can not interpret? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Renagade 0 Posted January 9, 2003 In the future they may not be born at all for example they may be geneticly engineered or may be super computer instead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Jan. 08 2003,22:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the future they may not be born at all for example they may be geneticly engineered or may be super computer instead <span id='postcolor'> Well, I think you are right about the computer, but when we will se a computer of that capabilities... not soon. Genetically engineered, that would be something. EDIT: Apparently someone is attempting to build a supercomputer with the processing power of a human brain, but I forget the details. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,22:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: How about this, is kinetic energy simply a displacement of some mass in another dimension? Is gravity also a shift of certain matter through yet another dimension we can not interpret? <span id='postcolor'> Could these dimensions the same one? 4-th, time? Or another same one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted January 9, 2003 Damn... I was still hoping that gravity propagates faster than light and that, some day, gravity waves would be discovered to be the chief means of interstellar communication that we've failed to tune into all these years. Oh well... beam me up! Â Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted January 9, 2003 too bad for many peoples theories out there. At least it will bring some people back to "earth" with all the 25 dimensions stuff. That 1.06 looks very interesting, maybe there is something to the way we measure c. 317,780,006m/s? 314,159,265m/s, should be no relation Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted January 9, 2003 LOL bn880, why is this not your avatar? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 08 2003,23:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL bn880, why is this not your avatar? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> <span id='postcolor'> I know.... Just how I feel I guess. Sometimes I should switch it. EDIT: Good night folks, hope to see some neat theories here in the morning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
//relic// 0 Posted January 9, 2003 Someone summarise that Nature article for me - did they use gravitational lensing? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 09 2003,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is gravity also a shift of certain matter through yet another dimension we can not interpret?<span id='postcolor'> Gravity is a displacement of the time space continuum. That's what the general theory of relativity is about. Accoding to Einstein there is no such thing as a gravitational force, but it is a contraction of 4-D space. An energy dent, so to say. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Damn... I was still hoping that gravity propagates faster than light and that, some day, gravity waves would be discovered to be the chief means of interstellar communication that we've failed to tune into all these years.<span id='postcolor'> As it looks today, the solution to that lies in quantum mechanichs. QM is today still completely incompatible with both the special and general theory of relativity. We know that there is something wrong, but we don't know what. Numerous UFT's (Unified Field Theories) have so far failed to produce any measurable results. A very interesting thing is the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox (EPR Paradox) that was first suggested by Einstein to show that QM was flawed. According to the special theory of relativity nothing can travel faster then the speed of light. All particles (electrons, photons etc) have a property called 'spin' which can be visualised as a rotational direction. These particles are always created in pairs, with opposite spin (up and down). QM states that the sum of the spin of the particles must always be zero. So if you 'flip' one particle, the other will automatically flip too, instantly. This is a clear violation of Einstein's special theory of relativity since no information should be able to travel faster then the speed of light. The EPR paradox has been experimentally proven. They have in CERN (Geneva) Â separated a pair of particles and set a distance between them of several kilometers. They measured the time on both locations with atomic clocks. And indeed: when they changed the spin of one of the particles, the other changed simultaneously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
//relic// 0 Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 09 2003,06:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As it looks today, the solution to that lies in quantum mechanichs. QM is today still completely incompatible with both the special and general theory of relativity. We know that there is something wrong, but we don't know what.<span id='postcolor'> See below Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 9, 2003 The problem is that QM's energy definitions (energy states) don't work with classical electrodynamics (ED) which is the base for relativity. According to ED a moving electron induces an electrical and magnetical field. Doing that it loses energy. QM states that in an atom the electrons are in discrete energy states while they are moving. If ED was correct all atoms would implode since its electrons would lose their energy and collaps towards the nucleus. Also the statistical nature of QM, including Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is not compatible with the causality axioms of the theory of relativity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 09 2003,08:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem is that QM's energy definitions (energy states) don't work with classical electrodynamics (ED) which is the base for relativity. According to ED a moving electron induces an electrical and magnetical field. Doing that it loses energy. QM states that in an atom the electrons are in discrete energy states while they are moving. If ED was correct all atoms would implode since its electrons would lose their energy and collaps towards the nucleus. Also the statistical nature of QM, including Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is not compatible with the causality axioms of the theory of relativity.<span id='postcolor'> We must have had the same lecturer in university. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
//relic// 0 Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 09 2003,07:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem is that QM's energy definitions (energy states) don't work with classical electrodynamics (ED) which is the base for relativity. According to ED a moving electron induces an electrical and magnetical field. Doing that it loses energy. QM states that in an atom the electrons are in discrete energy states while they are moving. If ED was correct all atoms would implode since its electrons would lose their energy and collaps towards the nucleus. Also the statistical nature of QM, including Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is not compatible with the causality axioms of the theory of relativity.<span id='postcolor'> That's all so wrong. Quantum mechanics is incomaptible with gravity. Quantum mechanics was developed to explain shortcomings in classical physics - for example the ultraviolet catastrophy. QM explains what classical physics could not - it provides a way in which electrons can assume stable orbits, by introducing matter waves and requiring that a stable orbit be composed of an integral number of wavelengths of the electron. QM explained this successfully - this is not the reason the two theories are incompatible. The primary reason that relativity and quantum mechanics cannot be united into a GUT (as well as g + strong/weak nuclear force) is because the uncertainty principle does not work well with gravity fields and attempting to introduce gravity into quantum mechanics equations just results in an infinite loop integral. It couldn't be renormalized either. One such infinite is where virtual particles that are a consequence of the uncertainty principle would curve the universe into an infinitely small singularity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (//relic// @ Jan. 09 2003,11:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 09 2003,07:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem is that QM's energy definitions (energy states) don't work with classical electrodynamics (ED) which is the base for relativity. According to ED a moving electron induces an electrical and magnetical field. Doing that it loses energy. QM states that in an atom the electrons are in discrete energy states while they are moving. If ED was correct all atoms would implode since its electrons would lose their energy and collaps towards the nucleus. Also the statistical nature of QM, including Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is not compatible with the causality axioms of the theory of relativity.<span id='postcolor'> That's all so wrong. Quantum mechanics is incomaptible with gravity.  Quantum mechanics was developed to explain shortcomings in classical physics - for example the ultraviolet catastrophy.  QM explains what classical physics could not - it provides a way in which electrons can assume stable orbits, by introducing matter waves and requiring that a stable orbit be composed of an integral number of wavelengths of the electron. QM explained this successfully - this is not the reason the two theories are incompatible.<span id='postcolor'> Of course it's the reason. The Schrödinger wave equation due to the discrete states has discrete effective mass m*. One of maxwell's equation says on the other hand that div grad V = 0 with V being the potential barrier. For anybody with some knowledge in math or physics, you will recognize this expression - it's the Laplace boundary value equation. It guarantees a smooth continuous gradient. This equation is valid in classical electrodynamics, but not in QM. That's the source of the incompatibility. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The primary reason that relativity and quantum mechanics cannot be united into a GUT (as well as g + strong/weak nuclear force) is because the uncertainty principle does not work well with gravity fields and attempting to introduce gravity into quantum mechanics equations just results in an infinite loop integral. It couldn't be renormalized either. One such infinite is where virtual particles that are a consequence of the uncertainty principle would curve the universe into an infinitely small singularity.<span id='postcolor'> Gravity in the Newtonian sense works quite fine. In the general relativity it does not due to the fact that the causality principle is violated because of the statistical nature of QM. You can't separate cause and effect because of it. The hidden variables theory provides a solution, but it has other flaws (such as non-locality problems) and very few people still give it credit today. I know that google is a powerful thing, but it might be a good idea to know what you are talking about before cutting and pasting texts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cam0flage 0 Posted January 9, 2003 This thread made me understand why I study English philology instead of physics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 09 2003,00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 09 2003,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is gravity also a shift of certain matter through yet another dimension we can not interpret?<span id='postcolor'> Gravity is a displacement of the time space continuum. That's what the general theory of relativity is about. Accoding to Einstein there is no such thing as a gravitational force, but it is a contraction of 4-D space. An energy dent, so to say.<span id='postcolor'> Really?? He already came up with that? SO in a way we did know what gravity is already. This proves I don't do nearly enough research, and finally I came up to that dimensional conclusion on my own. Kind of a waste of time, but it's an addictive experience to try and figure out things like this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 09 2003,16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Really?? Â He already came up with that? Â SO in a way we did know what gravity is already. Â This proves I don't do nearly enough research, and finally I came up to that dimensional conclusion on my own. Â Kind of a waste of time, but it's an addictive experience to try and figure out things like this. Â <span id='postcolor'> Yes, now go forth and invent the wheel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 09 2003,11:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 09 2003,16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Really?? He already came up with that? SO in a way we did know what gravity is already. This proves I don't do nearly enough research, and finally I came up to that dimensional conclusion on my own. Kind of a waste of time, but it's an addictive experience to try and figure out things like this. <span id='postcolor'> Yes, now go forth and invent the wheel <span id='postcolor'> Yea, exactly... LOL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted January 9, 2003 The answer is 42. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spinor 0 Posted January 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem is that QM's energy definitions (energy states) don't work with classical electrodynamics (ED) which is the base for relativity.<span id='postcolor'> I think you are right about the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics (i.e. opposed to classical mechanics) and classical electrodynamics/special relativity. This can be reconciled though by quantizing electrodynamics ---> QED. QED is an example of a quantum field theory (i.e. not dealing with point particles but with fields like the electromagnetic one). Such theories succesfully combine Quantum Theory with Special Relativity. The greatest problem in physics is indeed: How to merge quantum theory with Einsteins general relativity. Thats also the reason why many physicists like string theory because it can achieve it (though only by introducing additional dimensions ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
//relic// 0 Posted January 9, 2003 lol owned You obviously know a lot more than I do, but what I said wasn't the result of casual googling - everything I've been taught and read in books on quantum physics has stated that quantum mechanics and gravity are currently irreconcilable hence theories like superstring theory Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
der bastler 0 Posted January 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 09 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The answer is 42.<span id='postcolor'> Fine! Now find the question... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philcommando 0 Posted January 10, 2003 einstein had no illusion? er...at least he got a brain, i got none and i am always in the dark about what u folks talkin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted January 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (philcommando @ Jan. 10 2003,08:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">einstein had no illusion? er...at least he got a brain, i got none and i am always in the dark about what u folks talkin <span id='postcolor'> Then comes the question, have you been studying physics for a long time? Not too many people are born with physical relations and concepts as an understanding instinct. that might explain a bit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
