Gravity indeed does warp space and time? Einstein Prediction

[CaptRobertApril]

Wow,very deep gentelman...Though very intresting for someone that has limited knowledge in these areas,I find the explanation graspable for the average joe(particularly the Captains...I imagine you make it fun to learn where you teach),and absorbeing it is an experience I actually enjoyed...Kudos guys

Thanks for the props Ninjaz! I'm completely up for a team-teaching assignment with CapnBFG. Can't be sure anyone would learn anything, but I think it would be a lot of fun for both the teachers and the students!

 

[Rripperr]

Au contraire, mon chere! That's exactly what I was referring to as the "we expanded to this position via the unfolding of the universe's space boilerplate." I've been thrashing that ol' dawg for 30 years, and it still holds as much water as a colander.

Acknowledged that the universe has no finite edge although the recent hypothesized dark matter/energy calculations (and I say hypothesized since if dark matter/energy and/or 11-dimensional strings are ever proven I'll gladly marry Richard Simmons) point to a closed system rather than an open or saddleshaped topology. However, we still have to look at the fact that a photon left Star A 13.something B years ago and has just reached Hubble. No matter how you cut that mustard, that photon was there then and is here now.

Since the path of the photon has to be on the "surface of the balloon" and we're disregarding the first few hundred million years or so where we have absolutely no visual or radiographic evidence (funny about that, huh... almost like there's something there that we aint supposed to see) and the actual space was in extreme "deflated balloon" stage, the fact that the star was developed enough to be recognizeable as a star equals that space was already "well expanded" at that point when our famous photon left.

I'm even willing to acknowledge an expansion rate of approx. 60% (yeah, the math is somewhere in books, but I can't be bothered to dig it up) but that still equates to the atom in my butt travelling at impossibly high velocities for the past 14 billion years, something that is not confirmed by galactic Dopplers.

Please mail the Nobel check (you can keep the stupid medal) to Capt. Robert April... :lol:

Now you're confusing particle formation patterns with radiation! Bad boy! Down. No check for you! :twisted:

The atoms that constitute your body, and indeed most of our planet, were formed in the later stages of stars, paticularly massive stars (which have a mucher shorter life span). A current theory postulizes that early galaxy formations included huge protostars that were able to form huge amounts of more massive atoms in a shorter time span than previously thought. Thses massive protostars can still still be seen (though, very indirectly) in various Quasars. Quasars seem to be the most distant objects we can see. These early formation proto-galaxies have befuddled scientist for decades, producing huge energies that seem much larger than their size would suggest.

As new stars formed in the resultant 'aftermath', they incorporated the heavier elements in their solar discs. The heavy elements are drawn to the outer areas by centrifugal forces. The stars, and their near objects, then developed and played out their life span. Many stars are in our galaxy are in their 7-8th generation (based on Hydrgen/helium density to heavier elements).

 

[capnbfg]

@ all:
Thanks for the comments. I enjoyed writing my response because it was about a topic in which I am very interested. I just want to clear up though that I am a student and not a teacher. To be honest, I don't know how good of a teacher I would be. As of now I plan on going the industry route immediately after graduation, so whether or not I'll ever end up as a prof is questionable.

@ CaptRobertApril:
You clearly have a more expansive knowledge of modern physics concepts than I do. I may have to do some reading this weekend on some of the topics that you mentioned in this thread. I'd like to read up on the stuff now, but I have three exams to deal with this week. Just took my Electromagnetic Fields and Waves exam this morning, and I have Fourier Series Boundary Value Theorem tomorrow, followed by Intel x86 Microprocessors on Thursday. Studying = blah.

@ eric54:
Everything you said made sense. The mobius strip analogy was especially good. I remember in Calc 3 when we learned about surface integrals and the special considerations that have to be made for the case of a mobius strip.

@ StrangeStranger
As far as I know, Einstein always talked about light rather than EMR in general because it's much easier to imagine. There's no doubt that most people think of light as being something unique and separate from EMR, and people tend to be much better at understanding light concepts than other EMR concepts. You are correct, Einstein thought about what would happen if he could run at the speed of light, and what it would look like from both his standpoint and that of an observer.

You are correct that our measurements are limited by the viewpoint of Earth and that perhaps some of the ideas that we embrace fall apart under circumstance that we cannot currently imagine. That's why it's all considered theory, because we can't entirely prove it. My physics teacher in high school always said "physics is truth +/- 20%." It's all about descibing what we see in a way that is reproducable. There is still much to be explained such as strong/weak nuclear forces, and quantum approaches to magnetic and gravitational fields. I read an interesting article a year ago about the concepts of gravito-electric and gravito-magnetic fields, and how the gravito-magnetic field produced by an angular-accelerating superconductor is actually much stronger than Einstein predicted. There are other examples in which Einstein's ideas fall short, but that's to be expected since he was one man working a long time ago. Still, his contributions are to physics what Euler's contributions are to math...tremendous.

 

[CaptRobertApril]

Now you're confusing particle formation patterns with radiation! Bad boy! Down. No check for you! :twisted:

The atoms that constitute your body, and indeed most of our planet, were formed in the later stages of stars, paticularly massive stars (which have a mucher shorter life span). A current theory postulizes that early galaxy formations included huge protostars that were able to form huge amounts of more massive atoms in a shorter time span than previously thought. Thses massive protostars can still still be seen (though, very indirectly) in various Quasars. Quasars seem to be the most distant objects we can see. These early formation proto-galaxies have befuddled scientist for decades, producing huge energies that seem much larger than their size would suggest.

As new stars formed in the resultant 'aftermath', they incorporated the heavier elements in their solar discs. The heavy elements are drawn to the outer areas by centrifugal forces. The stars, and their near objects, then developed and played out their life span. Many stars are in our galaxy are in their 7-8th generation (based on Hydrgen/helium density to heavier elements).

Damn. I was really counting on that Nobel $1.3 million to pay off my credit cards and take my lady out to a special dinner where I can sauce her up and get her to do the ONE thing she has so far refused. The posters who know just how kinky I am can start scratching their heads now... :twisted:

Absolutely correct on the atomic formation, yet the matter/energy in the atom in my butt originated from the BB, so there is little doubt that it travelled from there to here, otherwise I could fit into much smaller jean sizes.

Even the most advanced theories for protostar formation call for a minimum of 700 MY from the Planck Era. Now, if we're gonna believe Cornish and friends, the smallest the universe can be is about 25 gigaparsecs which is over 80 B LY. That would mean that at the time of the very initial protostar formations, the size of the universe would certainly be no smaller than a gigaparsec, and likely much larger. Given these parameters, we still have the same problem that my butt atom's "matter/energy" got here before that protostar photon. And I can assure you that my butt is very lazy and it doesn't move anywhere fast, let alone faster than c! :lol:

Q: How many cosmologists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 73. 1 to change the bulb, and 72 to argue that it should weigh about 3 times as much, now that it's cold dark matter.

 

[CaptRobertApril]

@ all:
Thanks for the comments. I enjoyed writing my response because it was about a topic in which I am very interested. I just want to clear up though that I am a student and not a teacher. To be honest, I don't know how good of a teacher I would be. As of now I plan on going the industry route immediately after graduation, so whether or not I'll ever end up as a prof is questionable.

@ CaptRobertApril:
You clearly have a more expansive knowledge of modern physics concepts than I do. I may have to do some reading this weekend on some of the topics that you mentioned in this thread. I'd like to read up on the stuff now, but I have three exams to deal with this week. Just took my Electromagnetic Fields and Waves exam this morning, and I have Fourier Series Boundary Value Theorem tomorrow, followed by Intel x86 Microprocessors on Thursday. Studying = blah.

Don't sell yourself short, Capn! Judging by your writing, your students would be very lucky to study with you. You might wanna consider turning down the Armani suits, BMW X5 company cars and corporate expense accounts for the worn tweedy jackets, rusty Volvo 480s and peanut butter sandwiches of academia. After all, I didn't. :lol:

Three killer exams in three days. Ah, now I remember why I get itchy all over whenever I pass an University. Or maybe it's because of the miniskirts on the coeds. 8)

I'd be proud to share a podium (and maybe a coed or two) with you anytime. After all, how many chances would I get to lecture alongside an intelligent informed scientist with cool blue shades, spacesuit and crowbar? :lol:

 

[capnbfg]

After all, how many chances would I get to lecture alongside an intelligent informed scientist with cool blue shades, spacesuit and crowbar? :lol:

Touché salesman...* :lol:

I never really sell myself short, it's just that I'm very modest. I tend to take credit only where I've earned it, and whenever I'm unsure of something I leave room for other people to correct me. It's just my personality/temperament I suppose. Regarding the BMW, I'm kind of partial to the Subaru Impreza WRX STi 8)



* reference to Family Guy episode 322

 

[dasickninja]

Regarding the BMW, I'm kind of partial to the Subaru Impreza WRX STi 8)

I wuv you man.

 

[irishsk8rpatrick]

Ah, Captain Robert April, your a smart man, would you look at my physics paper?well....more towards a arguement paper over physics, bbut nevertheless, would ya?

 

[irishsk8rpatrick]

I heard about some test where they put an atomic clock on a plane and an atomic clock on the ground and flew the plane about half way round the world and found that the clock on the plane was slower than the one on the ground.
Btw atomic clocks are the most accurate clocks.
And also (not 100% on this heard different takes on this) Einstein didn't believe in quantum theory and set about trying to disprove it and create a theory of everything which didnt include quantum theory.
Which leads onto string theory which is an attempt to unite relativity and quantum together but that gets abit mental with 11dimensions.
Sorry rambling on a bit there.

one clock in motion and the other not. Not a very rational test. Id rather see what the atomic clock does outside of gravity. still the observations on atomic clocks keeping time under different circumstances dont mean much to bipeds who rely on time for measuring on a constant basis in a set field of circumstances.

I dont know that placing a time measuring machine upon something like a plane does anything other than show how the matter that keeps time was affected.

ah sorry for the long delay i just forgot,

a clock in motion is slower than a clock at rest, it'scalled time dilation, im sure you know of this, but even a small small faction of a second proved they are different times, but i dunno what would happen if one placed a clock outisde of gravity, maybe that is called true proper time, no idea though.
read Great Ideas in physics, alan lightman, he explain it very well...

 

[cal7]

personally i think einstein is the most overrated person ever.

i think so too although not exactly for the reasons you mention.I`ve read a lot about how he actually "discovered" his studies but nothing is certain and not really worth discussing.But makes you wonder , how certain people came up with a theory out of nothing . And there are a lot of them.

 

[CaptRobertApril]

@cal7 & StrangeStranger

Sorry to respectfully disagree with you, but IMHO, Einstein may just have been the most brilliant man of the 20th century, or at least tied with Doc Johnson.

@irishsk8rpatrick

Irish, I'd be honoured. Just keep in mind that I'm a far cry from a conventional scientist by any stretch of the imagination so my input may be worth exactly what you're paying for it!

@CapnBFG

Unfortunately I didn't see that FG ep. I'd say I'd go download it but that is illegal and Homey Don't Do Dat.

Modesty is often the sign of greatness. Showoff bigmouth m*****f*****s like me would do well to learn that valuable lesson.

WRX STi, great car as Ninja will tell ya, but you might find a bit of resistance from the Accounting Dept. on choosing that as your company car! You might wanna consider my company car: 300C SRT-8. Ninja's got the same engine but he's got his in an SUV, so I'm looking forward to The Great Race Of The Mopars!

 

[hergieburbur]

I am not very familiar with Einsteins work, so I would not go as far as saying he is overrated. But I do know that his IQ was "only" about 160. It is still high and he was a genious, but usually a genious has an IQ of at least 180.

Sweet, I'm almost as smart as Einstein (or maybe smarter, can't remember the exact number last time I was tested)! You genius definition is wrong, Its actually 140 or so. I know because I qualify, or at least did when I was taking all those stupid tests

PS, IQ is not really a measure of intelligence, but rather relative intelligence, and therefore breaks down as a measurement at the extremes. Absolute IQ also gets lower as you age, though that eventually levels off.

 

[Scott99]

Microwaves, radio waves, light, UV, gamma rays, and all other waves you hear about (with the exception of mechanical vibrations, ie sound waves, water ripples, etc) are all electromagnetic radiation.

There are plenty of waves which are neither mechanical nor electromagnetic. De Broglie, Gravitational waves etc.

Despite all the fancy names given to different frequency bands, all electromagnetic radiation is the same stuff - pure energy that moves both as a wave and as a particle.

Well I wouldn't say it was 'pure energy'.

Also, when people speak of "c" being the speed of light (2.998x10^8 m/s), they are actually referring to the speed of electromagnetic radiation because it all moves at the same speed.

(Only in a vacuum though, c is the speed in a vacuum).

Basically, Einstein states that the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic radiation, c) is the absolute fastest speed that can be achieved, and in order to get there, you need to have zero mass.

That is a consequence which follows from the invariance of c and conservation of momentum. From that, you get that the 'relativistic mass' increases as the velocity increases, tending to infinity as v->c.

In other words, light moves at this speed because it has no mass and is entirely energy. More specifically, Einstein defines the relationship between mass, energy, and the speed of light (E=mc^2).

What you mean is it has no 'rest/invariant mass'. Because the energy of a photon is h\nu its 'relativistic mass' is h\nu/c^2.

If you doubt the idea that only zero mass can reach c, I give you the example of a positron (beta+ radioactive decay particle). Positrons have nearly zero mass (9x10^-31 kg) yet move at only .9c.

Or better still high energy accelerators get elementary particles to 99.9999%c.

Similarly, fiber optic lines are popular over electrical lines for long-distance data transmission because it is the only way to actually move data at the speed of light.

Fiber optic lines typically have a refractive index of 1.5 and so move data at 0.66c. Thick coax is about 0.75c. The band width of fiber optic of course is much larger.

 

[capnbfg]

There are plenty of waves which are neither mechanical nor electromagnetic. De Broglie, Gravitational waves etc.

I took my generalization too far. What I meant to say, for the purpose of shortening the explanation, was most other waves. It's fixed now.

What you mean is it has no 'rest/invariant mass'.

You're right again, I'll fix that in my post.

Or better still high energy accelerators get elementary particles to 99.9999%c.

Cool, I was not aware of what speeds particle accelerators could achieve.

Fiber optic lines typically have a refractive index of 1.5 and so move data at 0.66c. Thick coax is about 0.75c. The band width of fiber optic of course is much larger.

Now you've got me beat. I clearly need to read up on this because it sounds interesting.

 

[Scott99]

Or better still high energy accelerators get elementary particles to 99.9999%c.

Cool, I was not aware of what speeds particle accelerators could achieve.


That's nothing compared to ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays. They don't happen very often, but one was observed with a speed of (1 - 5*10^-24)c. A single particle with the energy of a fast baseball. After travelling for a year it would only be 46 nm behind a photon (if one had left at the same time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray

 

[biohazard420420]

Just surfing slashdot and found a link to this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6561391.stm

Dealing with Einstein's prediction of frame dragging. If this has already been posted I am sorry.

edit: Sorry I should not have said it was Einsteins theory specifically honestly I don't know specifically who first came up with the frame dragging theory.

 

[Ninjaz7]

Great guys but all this Einsteinanalogy has twisted my fragile eggshell mind,But as I'm fragging my opponent in Counterstrile tonight I will not disagree that the space and time nor the speed of light that my bullet is in ratio with will enter my thoughts as I enjoy a mindless round or 2 thanx.

 

[Seraphiel]

AFAIK:

- Einstein got the idea of warped space from a theory by Georg Riemann.
- Einstein explored this theory with the help of Marcel Grossmann, and they wrote a paper together that theorized spacetime was warped, not only space itself.
- David Hilbert discovered / found the mathematical equations of general relativity, a week before Einstein did.
- Einstein insisted the universe was static for many years after 1915, even though it couldn't be, if the theory of general relativity was to be correct.

I could be wrong or have misunderstood something. I love to be wrong

One thing that I have been wondering about is this (forgive the simplication):

If a strong Casimir effect/field was generated in a local space, and within/through this effected space a photon was travelling from point A to point B, is it possible under any circumstances, that the photon would travel the distance between A and B faster than it would without the field in effect?

I am not suggesting that the photon would exceed the speed of light, but that perhaps the distance between point A and point B (fig 1) is less than the distance without the field present (fig 2):

http://i83.imagethrust.com/images/4m64/view-image/puzzle.html

Sorry about the grammatical and spelling errors, or if this is just an outright stupid question

Any thoughts on this one?

 

[cal7]

WRX STi, great car

i`ve seen one on fire :lol:

 

[irishsk8rpatrick]

Ah yay thankie, Now im just stuck on what to add more so to it, it's Newtonian physics vs. Einstein, of course i took the side of GR, but I've hit every major point in it... and im about 4 pages...=/

 

[Scott99]

AFAIK:
- Einstein got the idea of warped space from a theory by Georg Riemann.

Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann alway referred to himself as Bernhard Riemann. His ideas go back to the earlier work of Lobachevsky and Bolyai. Gauss may even have taken the possibility of non-Euclidean geometry serious enough to have set about testing for it in a survey he was involved in. The biggest contribution is probably the classic text 'absolute differential calculus' by Levi-Civita. Without the mathmatical tools, he and Grossmann would have got nowhere.

- Einstein explored this theory with the help of Marcel Grossmann, and they wrote a paper together that theorized spacetime was warped, not only space itself.
- David Hilbert discovered / found the mathematical equations of general relativity, a week before Einstein did.

It's generally accepted that Einstein got there first but published second.

If a strong Casimir effect/field was generated in a local space, and within/through this effected space a photon was travelling from point A to point B, is it possible under any circumstances, that the photon would travel the distance between A and B faster than it would without the field in effect?

I am not suggesting that the photon would exceed the speed of light, but that perhaps the distance between point A and point B (fig 1) is less than the distance without the field present (fig 2):

Why is the distance different?

 

[choknuti]

Edited ** My bad should have read the whole thread b4 answering

can anyone tell me why light would be so important, if we saw the world through radio waves would radio waves then be the speed barrier of the universe?

Light is just the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that we are able to "visualize". Radiowaves are also part of the same spectrum. I guess that the scientists use the term "light" when referring all electromagnetic radiation from x-rays to radiowaves because it is easier to say and that it is easier for the general populace to understand

is there more to light being chosen of radio waves than we see by it?

That might take a rather large eyeball considering the wavelength of radiowaves

 

[warezme]

well, sorry to be so blunt but....duh, gravity warpage is nothing new.

on that note, unless you plan to develop stable micro black holes that would have the mass to actually effect electronics which I'm not saying is impossible, just not likely in our lifetime.

 

[choknuti]

on that note, unless you plan to develop stable micro black holes that would have the mass to actually effect electronics which I'm not saying is impossible, just not likely in our lifetime.

The problem would be to stop the little buggers from going out of control and gobbling everything up.
Actually a lot of people raised that concern when the latest collider (was it the CERN "hardon" collider? Cannot remember exactly) was going into action. Obviously (and I should add fortunately) their concerns weren't proven right.

 

[Whizzard9992]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2057529,00.html

Could this discovery eventually help future CPU's to warp time and space to actually accept input and compute results while warping time and space to actually speed up results and present them theoretically before they were requested?

Irregardless, good reading...

Irregardless is a double-negative wrapped in a word (ir- and -less).

Sorry, I'm OCD with this stuff The American education system sucks (Below college. Even then, most colleges are merely overpriced day-cares).