Einstein's Theory destroyed?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Einstein's Theory destroyed?

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10882
Credit: 1,580,086
RAC: 2,223
Israel
Message 1461024 - Posted: 6 Jan 2014, 2:09:20 UTC

Einstein's theory of general relativity could be in for a shake-up.

""Finding a deviation would indicate a breakdown of general relativity and point us toward a new, correct theory of gravity," she said"

Triple star system 'can reveal secrets of gravity'
____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2516
Credit: 1,175,477
RAC: 116
United States
Message 1461026 - Posted: 6 Jan 2014, 2:25:54 UTC

I don't know of any problems with Einstein's theory of gravity. It's called general relativity. Also the Three-body problem has 16 families of solutions--so good luck on that score as well.

LynnProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 20 Nov 00
Posts: 4071
Credit: 570,292
RAC: 2,842
United States
Message 1461027 - Posted: 6 Jan 2014, 2:39:06 UTC - in response to Message 1461026.

from Sirius B, link.

The system gives the scientists the best opportunity yet to look for violations of the equivalence principle described by Einstein - which states that the effect of gravity on a body does not depend on the nature or internal structure of that body.
____________

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 6779
Credit: 92,876,489
RAC: 75,382
Australia
Message 1461029 - Posted: 6 Jan 2014, 2:48:52 UTC

This could prove to be very interesting none the less.

Cheers.

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3660
Credit: 369,027
RAC: 222
Italy
Message 1461038 - Posted: 6 Jan 2014, 4:36:55 UTC
Last modified: 6 Jan 2014, 4:37:26 UTC

Einstein@home has found many double pulsar systems in data from Arecibo and Parkes in Australia. This is the first triple pulsar system, but I bet it will still confirm the validity of General Relativity.
Tullio
____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2516
Credit: 1,175,477
RAC: 116
United States
Message 1461147 - Posted: 6 Jan 2014, 14:59:46 UTC
Last modified: 6 Jan 2014, 15:00:32 UTC

effect of gravity on a body does not depend on the nature or internal structure of that body.


I think that your statement needs clarification. Mass tells space how to warp (Bend) which is an attribute of an object. This is "Gravity".

Profile JulieProject donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 19785
Credit: 3,580,146
RAC: 6,624
Belgium
Message 1461247 - Posted: 6 Jan 2014, 19:58:53 UTC - in response to Message 1461147.

[quote]effect of gravity on a body does not depend on the nature or internal structure of that body.


I tend not to agree there. The effect of gravity depends very much on the size of a body and its mass, wouldn't know if it has anything to do with internal structure of the body though. The elements of which the internal body consists do play a role too...
____________


rOZZ

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3660
Credit: 369,027
RAC: 222
Italy
Message 1461249 - Posted: 6 Jan 2014, 20:02:51 UTC - in response to Message 1461247.

I think instead that mass is the only parameter involved.
Tullio
____________

Profile JulieProject donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 19785
Credit: 3,580,146
RAC: 6,624
Belgium
Message 1461256 - Posted: 6 Jan 2014, 20:18:56 UTC

To summarize it:)
____________


rOZZ

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3660
Credit: 369,027
RAC: 222
Italy
Message 1461443 - Posted: 7 Jan 2014, 7:46:50 UTC
Last modified: 7 Jan 2014, 7:48:18 UTC

A pulsar and a close white dwarf, plus a white dwarf much more distant. This sounds like a 2 body system plus a perturbation. It should not be intractable by a computer.
Tullio
____________

Profile JulieProject donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 19785
Credit: 3,580,146
RAC: 6,624
Belgium
Message 1464285 - Posted: 14 Jan 2014, 11:36:41 UTC

Why Einstein Will Never Be Wrong

____________


rOZZ

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 6779
Credit: 92,876,489
RAC: 75,382
Australia
Message 1464296 - Posted: 14 Jan 2014, 11:57:09 UTC - in response to Message 1464285.

Why Einstein Will Never Be Wrong

Personally I believe that the title to that story really should have been, "The only 2 ways that Einstein's Theory of Gravity could be proved to be wrong", not that he'll never be proved wrong. ;-)

Cheers.

Profile JulieProject donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 19785
Credit: 3,580,146
RAC: 6,624
Belgium
Message 1464339 - Posted: 14 Jan 2014, 14:45:58 UTC - in response to Message 1464296.

Why Einstein Will Never Be Wrong

Personally I believe that the title to that story really should have been, "The only 2 ways that Einstein's Theory of Gravity could be proved to be wrong", not that he'll never be proved wrong. ;-)

Cheers.



The article's title doesn't say proved wrong though;)
____________


rOZZ

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31416
Credit: 12,098,950
RAC: 27,926
United Kingdom
Message 1464582 - Posted: 15 Jan 2014, 13:24:02 UTC
Last modified: 15 Jan 2014, 13:25:01 UTC

Einstein will never be wrong because his theory is correct AS FAR AS IT GOES. i.e. nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light, because at that speed, mass becomes infinite, and it would take an infinite amount of force to accelerate it any further. Correct with the knowledge available at that time. But what about negative or zero mass particles? Einstein wasn't aware of the results that we now now have from the LHC. Even today we do not know whether a photon has mass. We think Tachyons don't.

I am sure that if he were alive today, he would amend his theories.

anniet
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 3759
Credit: 173,210
RAC: 378
United Kingdom
Message 1501462 - Posted: 8 Apr 2014, 20:05:22 UTC

I am sure that if he were alive today, he would amend his theories.


...and would know the answer to this...

Profile cov_route
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 Sep 12
Posts: 290
Credit: 6,691,703
RAC: 17,336
Canada
Message 1501555 - Posted: 9 Apr 2014, 2:16:55 UTC - in response to Message 1501462.

The meme doesn't say what the speed of the car is relative to.

But let's say it is relative to some designated observer.

The occupants of the car would see the beam from the headlights propagating away from the car at the speed of light.

The "stationary" observer would also see the beam propagating away from the car at the speed of light.

How is this possible? Because the two observers see each others' time passing slower than their own.

How does that work? http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fjwkh/why_exactly_can_nothing_go_faster_than_the_speed/c1gh4x7

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31416
Credit: 12,098,950
RAC: 27,926
United Kingdom
Message 1502632 - Posted: 11 Apr 2014, 11:27:32 UTC

Yes, it is all about relativity. Here is an old favourite.

A train traveling at 60mph goes around a curve. The man in the guards van at the rear has a direct line of sight to the train driver. If the man has a rifle that can also fire a bullet at 60 mph, can he hit the driver? If his rifle was firing at 100 mph, could he hit the driver?

Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1503038 - Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 5:21:14 UTC - in response to Message 1502632.

Yes, it is all about relativity. Here is an old favourite.

A train traveling at 60mph goes around a curve. The man in the guards van at the rear has a direct line of sight to the train driver. If the man has a rifle that can also fire a bullet at 60 mph, can he hit the driver? If his rifle was firing at 100 mph, could he hit the driver?

As long a the guy in the calaboose and his bullet are traveling at the same speed as the train the bullet can hit the engineer as long a the shooter uses Kentucky elevation and Tennessee windage. At a muzzle velocity of 60 and 100 mph it won't do much damage though.

How about the same situation with a tra1n traveling at the speed of light?
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31416
Credit: 12,098,950
RAC: 27,926
United Kingdom
Message 1503581 - Posted: 13 Apr 2014, 14:21:12 UTC

Actually I believe that the answer is no. The catch of course is that in theory the bullet leaving the gun will be travelling at 60mph relative to the train, and 120 mph relative to the ground. But then of course air resistance and gravity comes into it. I'm sure I've seen it written, that even with a high speed rifle, with it aiming ahead and up, it couldn't be done.

Mind you, Red Indians in the Wild West films had no trouble with bows and arrows ...... :-))

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2516
Credit: 1,175,477
RAC: 116
United States
Message 1503607 - Posted: 13 Apr 2014, 15:40:05 UTC - in response to Message 1503581.

The original question was incompletely defined. Was the curve right or left handed ? What were the constraints ? How fast was the train going and relative to what .

1 · 2 · Next
Post to thread

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Einstein's Theory destroyed?

Copyright © 2014 University of California