UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
CREDIT: MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR RADIO ASTRONOMY
Researchers at the University of East Anglia and the University of Manchester have helped conduct a 16-year long experiment to challenge Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
The international team looked to the stars – a pair of extreme stars called pulsars to be precise – through seven radio telescopes across the globe.
And they used them to challenge Einstein’s most famous theory with some of the most rigorous tests yet.
The study, published today in the journal Physical Review X, reveals new relativistic effects that, although expected, have now been observed for the first time.
Dr Robert Ferdman, from UEA’s School of Physics, said: “As spectacularly successful as Einstein’s theory of general relativity has proven to be, we know that is not the final word in gravitational theory.
“More than 100 years later, scientists around the world continue their efforts to find flaws in his theory.
“General relativity is not compatible with the other fundamental forces, described by quantum mechanics. It is therefore important to continue to place the most stringent tests upon general relativity as possible, to discover how and when the theory breaks down.
“Finding any deviation from general relativity would constitute a major discovery that would open a window on new physics beyond our current theoretical understanding of the Universe.
“And it may help us toward eventually discovering a unified theory of the fundamental forces of nature.”
Led by Michael Kramer from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany, the international team of researchers from ten countries, put Einstein’s theory to the most rigorous tests yet.
Dr Ferdman said: “A pulsar is a highly magnetised rotating compact star that emits beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles.
“They weigh more than our sun but they are only about 15 miles across – so they are incredibly dense objects that produce radio beams that sweep the sky like a lighthouse.
“We studied a double pulsar, which was discovered by members of the team in 2003 and presents the most precise laboratory we currently have to test Einstein’s theory. Of course, his theory was conceived when neither these types of extreme stars, nor the techniques used to study them, could be imagined.”
The double pulsar consists of two pulsars which orbit each other in just 147 minutes with velocities of about 1 million km/h. One pulsar is spinning very fast, about 44 times a second. The companion is young and has a rotation period of 2.8 seconds. It is their motion around each other which can be used as a near perfect gravity laboratory.
Seven sensitive radio telescopes were used to observe this double pulsar – in Australia, the US, France, Germany, the Netherlands and in the UK (the Lovell Radio Telescope).
Prof Kramer said: “We studied a system of compact stars that is an unrivalled laboratory to test gravity theories in the presence of very strong gravitational fields.
“To our delight we were able to test a cornerstone of Einstein’s theory, the energy carried by gravitational waves, with a precision that is 25 times better than with the Nobel-Prize winning Hulse-Taylor pulsar, and 1000 times better than currently possible with gravitational wave detectors.”
He explained that the observations are not only in agreement with the theory, “but we were also able to see effects that could not be studied before”.
Prof Benjamin Stappers, from the University of Manchester, said: “The discovery of the double pulsar system was made as part of a survey co-led from the University of Manchester and presented us with the only known instance of two cosmic clocks which allow precise measurement of the structure and evolution of an intense gravitational field.
“The Lovell Telescope at the Jodrell Bank Observatory has been monitoring it every couple of weeks since then. This long baseline of high quality and frequent observations provided an excellent data set to be combined with those from observatories around the world.”
Prof Ingrid Stairs from the University of British Columbia at Vancouver, said: “We follow the propagation of radio photons emitted from a cosmic lighthouse, a pulsar, and track their motion in the strong gravitational field of a companion pulsar.
“We see for the first time how the light is not only delayed due to a strong curvature of spacetime around the companion, but also that the light is deflected by a small angle of 0.04 degrees that we can detect. Never before has such an experiment been conducted at such a high spacetime curvature.”
Prof Dick Manchester from Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, said: “Such fast orbital motion of compact objects like these – they are about 30 per cent more massive than the Sun but only about 24 km across – allows us to test many different predictions of general relativity – seven in total!
“Apart from gravitational waves and light propagation, our precision allows us also to measure the effect of “time dilation” that makes clocks run slower in gravitational fields.
“We even need to take Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2 into account when considering the effect of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the fast-spinning pulsar on the orbital motion.
“This radiation corresponds to a mass loss of 8 million tonnes per second! While this seems a lot, it is only a tiny fraction – 3 parts in a thousand billion billion(!) – of the mass of the pulsar per second.”
The researchers also measured – with a precision of 1 part in a million(!) – that the orbit changes its orientation, a relativistic effect also well known from the orbit of Mercury, but here 140,000 times stronger.
They realised that at this level of precision they also need to consider the impact of the pulsar’s rotation on the surrounding spacetime, which is “dragged along” with the spinning pulsar.
Dr Norbert Wex from the MPIfR, another main author of the study, said: “Physicists call this the Lense-Thirring effect or frame-dragging. In our experiment it means that we need to consider the internal structure of a pulsar as a neutron star.
“Hence, our measurements allow us for the first time to use the precision tracking of the rotations of the neutron star, a technique that we call pulsar timing to provide constraints on the extension of a neutron star.”
The technique of pulsar timing was combined with careful interferometric measurements of the system to determine its distance with high resolution imaging, resulting in a value of 2400 light years with only 8 per cent error margin.
Team member Prof Adam Deller, from Swinburne University in Australia and responsible for this part of the experiment, said: “It is the combination of different complementary observing techniques that adds to the extreme value of the experiment. In the past similar studies were often hampered by the limited knowledge of the distance of such systems.”
This is not the case here, where in addition to pulsar timing and interferometry also the information gained from effects due to the interstellar medium were carefully taken into account.
Prof Bill Coles from the University of California San Diego agrees: “We gathered all possible information on the system and we derived a perfectly consistent picture, involving physics from many different areas, such as nuclear physics, gravity, interstellar medium, plasma physics and more. This is quite extraordinary.”
Paulo Freire, also from MPIfR, said: “Our results are nicely complementary to other experimental studies which test gravity in other conditions or see different effects, like gravitational wave detectors or the Event Horizon Telescope.
“They also complement other pulsar experiments, like our timing experiment with the pulsar in a stellar triple system, which has provided an independent and superb test of the universality of free fall.”
Prof Kramer added: “We have reached a level of precision that is unprecedented. Future experiments with even bigger telescopes can and will go still further.
“Our work has shown the way such experiments need to be conducted and which subtle effects now need to be taken into account. And, maybe, we will find a deviation from general relativity one day.”
“Strong-field Gravity Tests with the Double Pulsar” is published in Physical Review X on December 13, 2021.
JOURNAL
Physical Review X
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Observational study
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Not applicable
ARTICLE TITLE
Strong-field Gravity Tests with the Double Pulsar
Signals of unknown, unknowable fidelity, perhaps real effects. Science is, with cause, a limited frame of reference philosophy and logical domain.
No one seems to have any grasp of the full implications of ontology. It’s really a pity.
I didn’t down vote you, but you make a general assertion about everyone’s lack of understanding of the implications of ontology. If you have some unique understanding, it would be much more helpful if you would enlighten the rest of us.
An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization. What is it concerning that definition that I don’t understand? What is it that you are conceptualizing of which I don’t have a grasp? Throwing around obscure words is not a sign of intelligence.
As Einstein said, the most incomprehensible idea is that reality is comprehensible. That is close to Leibniz’s Preestablished Harmony.
We may well live in a steady state convecting universe in which there are simultaneously expanding bubbles of space moving away from a centre of gravity and contracting bubbles of space moving towards a centre of gravity.
Einstein’s work holds true in both types of bubble but the effects are reversed in each and all the puzzling distortions that we see are related to the interplay between expanding and contracting bubbles.
Maybe fanciful but worth exploring given the conceptual brick wall currently afflicting cosmology.
Personally, I like the bubbles in beer and champagne. They tend to give me puzzling distortions too.
Call Greta, they are CO2 bubbles! How dare you!
Smolin looks at that – and proposes cosmic evolution, even laws or constants changing to maximize progeny. See his Autodidactic Universe.
I wonder if a wandering “s” inserted itself against the author’s will in the seventh word of this comment…
Hand on a sec.
You’re telling me these so-called “scientists” devised an experiment, gathered data, examined the results, came up with a conclusion based on the data and published a paper!
And that’s considered to be science these days?
Apalling, isn’t it? No consideration as to government policy at all….
Appalling.
Still scientists saying whatever they feel will continue their paychecks….
You left out they didn’t insist upon immediate action based on there current activist status.
It’s a damned shame that they absolutely refuse to do this with the CAGW hypothesis, and indeed ‘cancel’ anyone who even suggests it.
You’re giving CAGW far too much credit, calling it a hypothesis. As a hypothesis, it’s already been proven wrong by failing to correlate with recorded temperatures. It is, at best, a conjecture, and that’s even a stretch, considering actual data. Maybe a dream? I would call it a nightmare.
AGW at least makes predictions. Climate change mostly “explains” events after the fact.
But wait, they were also testing the theory of another scientist to determine if his theory would fail!
And at UEA no less!
I saw that and wondered where the project emails are. I hope no fudging went on.
Not yet checked, but did they mention dark matter?
Because this just in :
https://phys.org/news/2021-12-evidence-emerges-dark-matter-free-galaxies.html
Interesting. Thanks.
And it comes to us
From EurekAlert!
Cats and dogs living together!
Relativity – it’s worse than we thought.
Surely, it’s relatively worse than we thought 😉
Is reality worse than your relatives?
No.
The more you know, the greater the sphere of ignorance you perceive around them.
Awfulness has an inverse cube relationship. Every time you double the number of relatives in your orbit, you need 8 times as much beer to ignore them. This is a dark matter, possibly stout.
Albert EinSTEIN took this very seriously, even taking “One Beer” as his surname.
He observed that the more you drink on Saturday night, the slower your metabolic clock until the point is reached when you become completely immobile. Numerous other researchers, amateur and professional, confirmed his observations. When the time dilation effect wears off, sometimes it is Tuesday.
Einstein would welcome this as he said (paraphrase) “….you only have to prove me wrong once….”.
Yep and his theory is still standing with the results of this work unable to find a deviation.
Einstein is pretty amazing. His brain was on another level.
The article says two pulsars could not be imagined in the past, but I’ll bet Einstein had a picture in his head of them mathematically.
To think all this started with Einstein musing what would it be like to ride a light wave – what the world would look like.
To find 2 orbiting pulsars to quite some work. To actually solve GR for this case, probably numerically, is beyond belief. They must have approximated.
It is impossible to solve GR the way these dudes trying to.
One main point of GR, in this particular case, and similar ones, is to show and point out to such academics, how wrong the belief in 15 miles across stars is… too erroneous.
Only authority to check out the validity and coherence of such hypothetical scientific stands, as of latest day science, in maters of space and gravity… guess who happens to be…
Newton’s physics plus Einstein’s.
cheers
He obviously wasn’t a real scientist. A real scientist would have just said “E=MC^2. Why would I want to give you my workings if you just want to prove it wrong?”
Yes, Michael Mann should say, “it only takes one to prove me wrong”.
And then admit he has been proven wrong.
Cannot be proven wrong – parameters are simply adjusted. Trouble is, this exact same problem was identified with String Theory by Smolin. In other words String Theory parametrization predates climatology.
No, Michael Mann would say, “It only takes 98% to prove me wrong”.
And then wait for the next Oreskes paper.
GR has not been proven wrong, but it cannot be right either. QM so far has not been proven wrong, but it cannot be right either. 30 years of quantum gravity has failed. Neither can be right since they cannot accommodate each other.
This gaping chasm in physics, the 600lb gorilla, is carpeted over in ways that make the IPCC look like rank amateurs – they cue from this.
The Trouble With Physics by Smolin gives an idea of the problem.
I would say that they both can’t be right, but that both are probably incomplete (depending on where you think one should end and the other begin, I suppose). Beyond that it’s just pure speculation.
I’ll bet UEA does nothing to challenge AGW theory. Can’t have that now can we. Let’s go after Einstein instead.
Funny! I was going to say “Why don’t they challenge the Climate department of their ow university”, would be a little more fruitful.
This was 16 years long experiment and they will take another 16 years to find another example to finally claim Einstein was wrong, ergo job for life. To disprove AGW would take minutes, a week to do a paper and good bye to employment for ‘climate change deniers’.
Not looking good though..
Quote:”More than 100 years later, scientists around the world continue their efforts to find flaws in his theory”
Please don’t say 100 years to admit that the emissivity of CO2 is 0.000x at atmospheric temps and pressures or Lord Help Us, that the theory itself violates Entropy.
(I think x is= 7 or 8 but like all the gases, varies with temp and pressure)
BBC ‘Reality Check’ are asking for things they can check the reality of – I’m tempted to ask them just that. Maybe if enough of us pitch in…….
Vuk, is even funnier;
“Any hypothetical hocus pocus exotic scientific subject, utilized to prove Einstein’s GR theory,
must then be truly considered as an indisputable fact, especially and regardless when/that in the same time or moment, the same subject can not even pass the sniffing test of Newtonian physics.”
Pure circular reasoning, at the very least.
New British academia against Newton.
Who wold have thunk it!
cheers
“ To disprove AGW would take minutes, a week to do a paper and good bye to employment for ‘climate change deniers’.”
So why don’t you spend the time to write such a paper? After all it would only take a week.
It would take too much humor. Just can’t deal with that level of nonsense.
General Relativity breaks down when you try to apply it at the quantum level.
Quantum Mechanics breaks down when you try to apply it outside the quantum level.
Both theories work well in their proper scope and have been confirmed via many experiments.
The big challenge in cosmology today is to find a way to link GR and QM. To create a single theory that covers both realms.
Newton’s laws still work perfectly well when limited to large objects moving at non-relativistic speeds. Einstein’s laws also work for large objects moving at non-relativistic speeds, a few parts per million better than Newton’s laws infact. However, solving Einstein’s equations is several orders of magnitude more difficult than solving Newton’s, which is why most high schools still teach Newton.
Exactly. Einstein was very much aware that his theories are most likely only applicable in certain ways, just as Newton was about his theories. Einstein didn’t accept quantum theories, but he accepted that what happens at the quantum level defied Relativity.
It’s like Climategate never happened.
Climategate? What Climategate?
If the Leftwing Media dismisses it, then it never happened.
“To our delight we were able to test a cornerstone of Einstein’s theory, the energy carried by gravitational waves, with a precision that is 25 times better than with the Nobel-Prize winning Hulse-Taylor pulsar, and 1000 times better than currently possible with gravitational wave detectors.”
So LIGO is BMW?
This was a single source long term study. LIGO aims at a cosmic scale survey, and has opened up the field of gravitational wave astronomy.
Gosh, I didn’t know a pulsar could win a Nobel Prize. 😉
““More than 100 years later, scientists around the world continue their efforts to find flaws in his theory.”
What happened to consensus and ‘settled science’?
Just try challenging the Standard Model – Climate consensus is the small sister.
So some major head scratching going on.
Extreme precision tests of General Relativity and extreme precision in Quantum mechanics.
Yet the 2 are utterly at odds, as Einstein well knew and said. Einstein’s Nobel prize was in quantum theory of the photoelectric effect. 30 years of quantum gravity have turned up empty. Here an interview with a quantum gravity physicist :
Troublemaker Lee Smolin Says Physics–and Its Laws–Must Evolve*
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/troublemaker-lee-smolin-says-physics-8211-and-its-laws-8211-must-evolve/
The fastest rotating pulsar with 44 rpm must be younger than the one with 2.8.
It is seconds not minutes, but why is faster one younger?
The slower spinning pulsar is younger.
Do you have an explanation for that?
Yes. Very rapidly rotating pulsars are old neutron stars whose spin rate has been spun up by the near presence of another neutron star.
sounds…. uh…. something….
Yes, I should have written 44 r/s.
One pulsar is spinning very fast, about 44 times a second. The companion is young and has a rotation period of 2.8 seconds.
Pulsars start out spinning fast, then slow down as they loose energy. 44r/s is 44ms/r. This is 123 times faster than 2.8 sec/r. Mass tranfer can increase the rotational speed.
Its not science unless there is a hockey stick graph.
Peer review should stop this sort of thing from ever reaching a journal.
and proxie data ought to be a requirement
Interesting that this site occaisionally has an astronomy topic- but the few times I mentioned the current big interest by the Pentagon in UFOs, I got slammed as if such a topic doesn’t belong here. We’re way past the point of silly Hollywood films on monster aliens. It’s a worthy topic of discussion. If its real- it’s a big deal- far bigger than the climate controversy.
As far as I know this site is not (yet) a Pentagon OP. These guys want war, love war, fund war, and could not stop 9/11 (which was not aliens).
A really interesting topic, is however the very famous Fermi Paradox.
Have a look here for the latest survey – and be prepared for a COVID shock (no kidding) :
Reconfiguring SETI in the microbial context: Panspermia as a solution to Fermi’s paradox
https://www.panspermia.org/microbialseti.pdf
Just because the Pentagon admits UFOs are a real thing they renamed UAPs, doesn’t mean it’s all about the Pentagon because it’s not. There are many investigators and most don’t trust the Pentagon at all. At least the Pentagon no longer automatically says UFOs are just weather balloons, Venus, flares and hallucinations. That’s helpful so that more scientists are willing to discuss the subject. Since few people trust what the Pentagon says- and many think the Pentagon has a great deal of knowledge of UFOs but won’t tell us- the best thinkers on the subject are calling for scientists to develop a world wide network of sensors to seek new data- that the Pentagon can’t control. This concept is led by Dr. Avi Loeb, past chair of the Harvard Astronomy Dept. It’s called, The Galileo Project. Read about it at: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/home. Dr. Loeb is interviewed on many YouTube sites- you can easily find him there.
It is the Fermi paradox – where are they, why the Great Silence.
Meanwhile this Pentagon is not scanning the skies for RNA, DNA cometary dust influx. This has been proposed for decades. I would consider such an influx much more potentially deadly than little green men – note what hit us in Oct. 2019.
In other words as in 9/11 the Pentagon is again AWOL.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIIOUpOge0LulClL2dHXh8TTOnCgRkLdU
Recommended watch.
Also someone has a campaign downvoting you on every comment, weird.
Joseph, UFO-ology is on par with CliSciFi.
That is not fair to UFO-ology!
It is more than fair; both are based on wild speculation.
not to Navy pilots who saw them flying in restricted zones- which they are concerned about because when you’re training you don’t want anyone in your zone- NOBODY is saying they aliens- but when pilots see them and they are seen on radar and heat sensors YOU MIGHT BE CONCERNED IF FLYING IN THERE- can you get that? So, your sarcasm is foolish- OUR pilots are flying hundred million dollar planes and they don’t care to get injured by WHATEVER THE HELL those things are- when even the Pentagon finally says there are things out there flying around, compared to 75 years of “balloons- Venus- flares- planes”- it’s worth noting. The reality is that their previous denial is what WAS on a par with CliSciFi
Actually 9-11 WAS aliens. many of whom were illegally in the country at the time of the attack.
They were very clever, though. At least one that was proved to be a perpetrator had never even visited the USA.
Whom is the one to which you refer? It seems all the actual perpetrators died. Schemers/planners are a different class.
Occam tells us that the ‘can’t hear them’ and ‘quiet jungle’ theories are the most likely solutions to Fermi’s paradox.
Either everyone is using a method of communicating that we cannot yet understand, or they are all keeping very quiet to avoid attracting predators.
Given the probability that most civilizations would only use primitive communication like light-speed limited and very easily diffused radio waves for a very brief period, and the necessarily vast distances between stars, the first is by far the most likely.
Fermi’s offhand question “But where is everybody?” is relevant for CliSciFi because nobody has revealed an increase in “bad” weather; everything is speculation as to future “bad” weather. [In the Fermi case, it was others’ excuses (speculation) as to why we haven’t seen aliens yet.]
It is my opinion that if we haven’t seen it (CAGW) yet it doesn’t exist in any realm requiring expensive action considerations. My nodding to my friend’s defense of the existence of aliens is not the same as my giving him my life savings to prove it. We are being asked to bet our entire society and economy on the speculative outputs of UN IPCC CliSciFi models. A bad bet no matter how one frames it.
“If its real- it’s a big deal- far bigger than the climate controversy.”
Yes, but we need good pictures first. We can’t tell anything from fuzzy pictures, and fuzzy pictures is all we get. We don’t gain much from discussing fuzzy pictures.
there’s other evidence- if you’re following the story, some Navy pilots have SEEN ufos and they’ve been tracked on radar and thermal imagery- the problem with trying to photograph them is that it’s very difficult- try to photograph a plane flying at high elevation- almost impossible- the issue of not having good photography/video is a good point, made by many people. One of the Navy pilots was a Top Gun- these guys are trained to identify anything in the air- he said it looked like a tic-tac and flew in crazy ways no plane can do- this is a fascinating development in UFOology
also, the Galileo Project addresses the problem of a lack of imagery- it will set up a world wide system of sensors- cameras, telescopes, radar and thermal sensors and many others- to run automatically- systematically- like good science- collecting new data, not based at all on old data and claims- then, says Dr. Loeb, astronomers and other scientists can “do the science”- then improve the sensors, etc. As of now, almost all astronomers dismiss the entire subject- yet they think it’s fine to look for life millions of light years away- but Dr. Loeb says it’s perfectly good astronomy for astronomers to look in our atmosphere too- when he first proposed this, somebody in his dept. asked if he’d do it on his own time, not for his Harvard teaching job, and he replied that it’s a serious proposal and real astronomy- he doesn’t yet hold any position on the subject- he’s a skeptic like a good scientist should be, but he says the topic should finally be taken seriously
Why?
Some people, no matter how well trained, are worse at identifying things than others. And anyone can fool themselves into thinking they saw something that they didn’t.
and that’s why Avi Loeb wants the Galileo Project to collect high quality data with remote sensing around the planet
as for those Navy pilots, those reporting such sitings were not flakey UFO fans- apparently you missed the story – these are guys and a woman pilot flying hundred million dollar jets- best trained pilots on the planet- and those radar screens and infrared detectors were not hallucinating- I could offer some links but I suspect nobody would look at them
I’ve seen them. Entertaining stuff, but it is pure speculation that aliens were responsible. When an alien comes up and taps you on the shoulder, Joseph, you then have proof. Whether or not aliens exist and governments can prove that they are zipping around, it matters not.
Nobody has said they’re aliens- only your defective brain thinks that- they’re just saying objects- seen by pilots and sensors.
I’ve seen three UFO’s
All three times, the objects were definitely flying, and I was completely unable to identify them.
Atmospheric ball lightning, is all.
I guess the joke wasn’t clear.
They absolutely were physical objects. They absolutely were flying (as opposed to falling). I had, and still have, no clue what they were.
Thus:
*U*nidenified
*F*lying
*O*bject
Projections or flying? I’ve seen many weird atmospheric phenomena.
]
CAGW seems to exist quite well by discussing extremely fuzzy data
That’s true.
What I want to see out of a UFO is a picture that is clear enough to identify some hardware on it, and then we can speculate on what that hardware does.
We can’t do that with fuzzy pictures.
I wouldn’t rule anything out. It’s a big universe. But we keep coming back to the evidence. We need the evidence, whether it is UFO’s or CAGW.
They are fuzzy because these are sightings of plasma balls in the atmosphere. Nothing otherworldly but nothing with a defined edge to identify.
Thought experiments are almost invariably wrong.
Scientific examples? “Almost” is a flexible term.
Absolutely wrong, or positing an “absolute” is problematic on a blog comment.
As in “never say, never again” 🙂
Let me make a correction: a hypothesis, is a thought experiment in a way; a crude observation of physical things and an idea of various relationships or causes of the observation, but it must be followed up by rigorous observation & measurement, best in a laboratory by controlled experiments, often by constructing new observational tools based on those ideas.
Look up history of the discovery of electromagnetic waves, i.e., radio waves.
The experimentors had to engineer & construct devices that could send & receive radio waves and could be demonstrated to actually observe & measure those radio waves.
So, thought experiments are a necessary & valuable start to the scientific method, but not an end in themselves.
Man asks why or how…?
James, why do you persist in bullshit deflections? What are the problems you have with experiments conducted to prove or disprove specific hypotheses?
What “absolute” did I post? I simply asked what scientific proof you have that almost all thought experiments are almost invariably wrong.
Some hypothesis work out (Scientific knowledge & technological ability have increased dramatically). However, the history of science is also littered with failed hypothesis.
The subject is relativity. Has Einstein’s hypothesis about relativity failed? What about it has your panties in a wad?
“General relativity is not compatible with the other fundamental forces, described by quantum mechanics. It is therefore important to continue to place the most stringent tests upon general relativity as possible, to discover how and when the theory breaks down.”
I would argue that it’s equally important to “discover how and when” quantum mechanics breaks down. To me, this statement illustrates a blind spot in the curiosity of the writer.
Why is there a seemingly endless slew of popular science articles, year after year, always claiming to have proven Einstein “right” for the forty-seven-thousandth time? If Einstein were so obviously right, we wouldn’t need this constant drumbeat of affirmation. It is because, due to the arcanery of the subject matter and the difficulty of observation, this is the sort of thing that the layman is incapable of checking for himself. He has to take the word of Big Science, and Big Science uses this power imbalance to perpetually feather its own nest.
Back in reality, it only takes a few minutes of principled reflection to demonstrate that Einstein cannot possibly be “right.” Time dilation, for instance, does not and cannot exist, since time is not a physical substance. There can be no curvature of spacetime, because there is no such thing as spacetime, anyway. These things are metaphors at best, but often they are not even that. They are an indication that scientists have long since abandoned thinking about the world and taken up thinking about their own chalkboards.
Einstein will never be proven wrong because his brand of mere crypto-metaphysical gymnastics is unfalsifiable. Relativity is now simply the bureaucratic proceedings of Big Science and its bottomless pool of institutional wealth.
“Time dilation, for instance, does not and cannot exist, since time is not a physical substance.” Can you say “non sequitur”? I knew you could!
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Thought experiments are not reliable.
That’s all Einstein ever did.
It’s even worse than climate “science”, they at least pretend to rely on physical observations.
All you guys & gals that are rightly skeptical of climate “science”, but accept authority regarding so-called “general relativity” need to focus on empirical observations, not century old speculations based on series of supposed mathematical equations based on mental imaginations.
That’s all Einstein ever did.
“need to focus on empirical observations, not century old speculations”
So please enlighten us with the empirical observations that refute the theory.
The quanta physical properties of the matter, itself.
I wont go through Quantum Theory and the many observations & measurements that support the theory.
Gravity is a property of the matter, itself, intrinsic to the matter, not based on some metaphysical properties (relationships) attributed to a so-called “space-time continuum.”
As others, here, have stated, time is not a thing.
Possibly (hypothetically) the intrinsic nature is due to the atomic structure of the atom in relation to other atoms.
Observation supports quantum theory (no need to go through it for me) AND it supports relativity. That they appear to contradict simply indicates that we don’t yet know everything.
Nothing you presented refutes relativity. I asked for empirical evidence, you did not provide any.
No, as you should know there is an irreconcilable conflict between Quantum Theory and so-called “general relativity”.
According to most learned proponents to Quantum Theory.
As I said, you can’t disprove a pink unicorn.
The proponents have the burden of proof.
Pointing to objects far, far, away, objects which are unknowns in themselves, does not constitute proof.
Got any laboratory experiments that can be replicated where you can actually point to observable & measurable evidence for so-called “space-time continuum”?
A force like, say, electromagnetic waves.
We can’t see them, but we know they are there… Wi Fi and radio waves… we can actually observe & measure them.
Oh, I forgot, we can see electromagnetic waves is the visible spectrum.
So all of this is wrong? https://www.britannica.com/science/relativity/Experimental-evidence-for-general-relativity
None of these actually happened? http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
I suppose we didn’t land on the moon either? Perpetual motion machines are possible?
There have been plenty of experiments showing relativity is a viable theory. I provided links for several. You have provided nothing other than handwaving to the contrary.
Yes, the theories as they are are incompatible. Guess what – that happens. That’s why theories are refined over time. Unless you think the “science is settled”?
Quantum theory has been at the foundation of a lot of developments over the last century. And so has relativity. But you seem determined to reject that.
I don’t know where you got your ideas but it is clear they are intractable.
Oh yes it is! It’s the universe’s way of stopping everything happening at once.
Disproving “space-time continuum” is like disproving a pink unicorn.
Hard to disprove something you can’t get your hands on.
Can you get your hands on geometry? Infinitesimal points, perfectly straight lines that stretch to infinity, perfectly flat planes (unless you want to do non-Euclidean geometry). And yet you can prove and disprove geometric statements (subject to the limitations found by Gödel).
Ah, mathematical logic… it can only take you so far… eventually you have to have physical objects in the universe and demonstrate physical relationships denoted as mathematical equations, consistent (invariant) with observed & measurable outcomes.
Can you get your hands on a deity?
Your rhetoric isn’t as clever as you think it is…
Bill thought he could but Hillary put a stop to that many years ago.
Uh, James, communicating with orbiting satellites depends on accurately assessing the “space-time continuum” mathematically. Do you deny we communicate with satellites?
Who is it that denies we communicate with satellites? Such communications rely on relativistic concepts.
“the intrinsic nature is due to the atomic structure of the atom in relation to other atoms”: This doesn’t even make sense, much less is it supported by experiments. It isn’t even a thought experiment, much less a theory. In sum, what you’re saying is less empirical than what Einstein said.
mcswell, I’m suddenly reminded of a discussion here some months ago about getting infinite energy from a battery powered drill driving a generator.
We know gravity exists between physical objects. Why is it so hard for you to conceptualize the idea that the attraction(force) exists in the bodies, themselves?
And if so, that it would have to do with the inner dynamics of the atoms, themselves.
Proponents of so-called “general relativity” seem to twist themselves in knots whenever they are actually challenged on the belief system.
So, James, you can prove that the attraction of two massive bodies have nothing to do with their mass’ distorting surrounding space/time? What is the nature of this gravity between two objects? What causes it? Describe the physical properties of gravity and its derivation, James. Please show us the physical theory and the mathematics that describe it. Can you top Einstein and his following physicists?
Einstein was not an experimentalist, however others at that time were, and there have been plenty of them–and plenty of experiments–since. And in particular, time dilation has been demonstrated in various ways since he predicted it. As these physical experiments have shown, Einstein’s thought experiments were reliable. Quite reliable.
Give me a specific experiment in a laboratory that shows so-called “time dilation”.
The only reliability is in your minds eye, your imagination, not in reality.
Are orbiting satellites enough of a “laboratory” experiment, James?
James, you are so full of shit. Beginning with Eddington’s 1911 observations of light bending during a solar eclipse, this and numerous other experiments have supported relativity theory. Please show me an experiment contradicting relativity in its realm of applicability. Paranoia is not proof, rather you should kiss Einstein’s dead ass for his improvements to your life.
Mr. Fair: Eddington’s 1911 observations is a misinterpretation.
What he was observing was the Sun’s atmosphere (yes, the sun has an atmosphere, called the corona) bending the light just as water in a bucket will make a stick look bent.
That has been known for decades… but not by you… apparently.
In other words Eddington has been shown to be wrong.
But in the so-called “general relativity” group-think club they either ignore it or were never told… par for the course.
James, I searched the internet (including stooping to Wikipedia) and could find no reference to the Sun’s atmosphere bending light affecting Eddington’s 1919 experiment. Unless you can provide some documentation supporting your assertion, I still call bullshit on you.
Additionally, James, please explain your apparent hard-on against Relativity. Eddington’s was just the famous first test of Relativity. Relativity has passed all of the tests to date and your paranoia can’t change the facts.
Einstein really pulled the rug out from under Newton.
Of course spacetime is not a thing or substance, it is an order of events that can be observed which does not follow Newton’s Euclidean order. This curved order in a gravitaional field is used every single day with GPS location satellites – they have a HPC center just to adjust the clocks, even your iPhone depends on it.
Problem is despite Hawking et al, it is at loggerheads with the Quantum, which GPS satellite atomic clocks precisely depend on. There is a genuine huge physics problem.
“it is an order of events” How so? Do tell.
Close observation has called into question your example, in fact, you, yourself, provide the falsification, “the Quantum, which GPS satellite atomic clocks precisely depend on.”
Too many scientists trying to verify ideas (or an agenda) fall into confirmation bias… very much like the “science” supposedly supporting AGW.
CliSciFi CAGW “determinations” are predicated on Western governments’ predetermined political stance (since the 1990s) that CO2 atmospheric increases lead to dangerous climatological impacts. Western governments only fund studies that confirm their established climate policy determinations. Having worked in high-level government positions, I assure you that politics determine scientific, economic and other government funded study outcomes.
Western governments have no policy on the dominance of classical, relativistic or quantum science. In other words they have no dogs in that fight. I’m unaware of large political influence on hard sciences as opposed to the politics of CliSciFi. They are not comparable in scientific bias conformation, James.
If you don’t think there are elites in the science world who act as the gate keepers and protectors of the status quo… I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Name the gatekeepers, James. Without that, STFU.
No he didn’t. Newton knew that his theories were only applicable within a certain range. He was absolutely correct.
It is not a “problem” of physics. Classical, relativistic and quantum theories all work in their respective domains. Their integration awaits further advancement of knowledge; it is not a problem in the sense that shit doesn’t work as we need it.
If spacetime does not exist, where are we?
Statistics says we don’t exist.
The universe is, statistically, entirely empty.
The few statistically irrelevant galaxies around are also statistically entirely empty.
The few statistically irrelevant solar systems around within galaxies are also statistically entirely empty.
The very few statistically irrelevant bodies that are within solar systems are made of statistically irrelevant atoms.
Look closely at an atom, and you’ll find that, statistically, it contains nothing.
Matter itself is a tiny anomaly in the universe. Life is an anomaly on an anomaly. Intelligence? An anomaly on an anomaly, on an anomaly.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Between Samuel Clemens and H. L. Mencken everything that needs to be said has been said.
Nowhere. We don’t exist. Aren’t you aware of that fact? I didn’t type this.
Gravity is not a “physical substance” either, yet I don’t see how you can deny its existence. And time is not just a “metaphor” since you can’t have motion without time, and clearly motion exists. In fact, I would argue that both gravity and time arise from the existence of mass and are thus linked in a fundamental way. But they are all physical realities that can be experienced and measured. Temperature, OTOH, is more of an idealized concept rather than an actual physical property.
Intelligent Dasein,
“Einstein will never be proven wrong because his brand of mere crypto-metaphysical gymnastics is unfalsifiable. Relativity is now simply the bureaucratic proceedings of Big Science and its bottomless pool of institutional wealth.”
—————-
Einstein theory is falsifiable actually.
The main point in the subject of the study discussed in this blog post is on the term of the falsification.
Problem with almost all hypothesis and theories is that none can be proven right or correct by the claim that falsification clause can not be detected, or somehow considered as non effective after validation.
The falsification stands only as with one outcome for theoretical validation, falsifying the theory or the hypothesis if the falsifying condition detected or observed.
My understanding is, that to detect or observe the possible falsification clause for GR theory,
there is only one method that could exist as possible, but only in the case that GR theory is valid and correct,
a method requiring the instant connection and instant communication/synchronization between two points in space, regardless of space and time distance.
There is no way for mathematical or other compensations applied hypothetically, to hypothetically apply such a method.
The GR theory paradox.
Hypothetical measurements and hypothetical observations, through non validated hypothetical models or not, can not properly validate a theory, one way or the other.
There is only two things that fully reside under the big R (relativity), very important as far as I can tell, in Newton physics too;
a) Time/moment,
and
b) motion.
As the absolute term of these two does not exist at all, as the absence condition for both is non existent to us, in reality, under any circumstance or even in consideration of some relative dependency.
cheers
Time is relative to the observer’s movement in space.
Space is relative to the observer’s movement in tine.
Space-time is relative to an observer’s movement in restaurants. Especially at lunchtime, because time is an illusion, and lunchtime doubly so.
This is true only during a lunchtime where the restaurant serves booze. In every restaurant that doesn’t serve booze, time is a measurement of your movement in space towards the bathroom at a walking pace. In restaurants that serve booze bad lunchtime space/time warpage leads to physical-plane leakage in the trousers.
In the cosmic instance that one connects up with a desirable physical object during lunchtime at a restaurant that serves booze, time stops while movement continues until the next morning to an undetermined pleasure outcome, a quantum effect. However, it is a relativistic fact that one often regrets such stoppages in time to the extent that one rejects reality by resorting to a quantum deniability of relativistic facts. In the vernacular – chewing off one’s arm is the coyote response to one’s inability to reconcile quantum mechanic’s duality with relativity.
Relativity is scientifically tested every 2 am at closing time. Standards of desirability contract as time approaches closing time. Einstein’s theory of relativity is empirically tested every day at closing time in every bar in the world.
Quantum theory is tested every morning-after in bedrooms. The harsh light of morning revels the deficiencies of relativistic theory. In proof of the quantum theory’s efficacity men are able to split their essence and simultaneously reassure their companions of their desirability and completely reject the possibility of ever seeing them again.
Thusly Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are reconciled.
And yet it’s been demonstrated. I wonder how, if it cannot exist. Hmmmm….
Give me the specific experiment, so I can look it up.
Here’s one that’s fairly recent using macroscopic clocks: http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf
There are others that use the half-life of muons entering Earth’s atmosphere at 0.99c.
I remember reading about the airplane experiment at the time. Apparently James is too young to have been aware of the massive worldwide coverage of such an important scientific experiment.
James has been provided with two lists of experiments and has chosen to ignore them. I’m sure he will find a way to ignore or excuse this one too, Dave.
The GPS system uses very accurate clocks to determine your position on the globe. The receivers actually have code that adjusts for the time dilation effect to increase positional accuracy; without these adjustments, car navigation systems would be practically useless because they wouldn’t be able to tell which road you were really on in higher density areas, nor give you adequate warning of an impending turn. The fact that these adjustments, which are based entirely on Einstein’s theory, work in the real world (i.e. improve measurement accuracy in a predicable way instead of degrading it) is pretty good evidence that the theory is correct.
Car navigation systems don’t use GPS for location. They use radiosonds and accelerometry. The old “your cell phone proves Einstein right” is one of the stupidest canards that the relativity-heads drag out over and over again. They don’t even understand the basic principles of the systems they discuss.
James, dude, what is this “principled reflection” to which you refer? Is it scientific, philosophical or religious? Principles are amorphous, at best.
From the article: ““More than 100 years later, scientists around the world continue their efforts to find flaws in his theory.”
This is what real scientists do. This is what skeptics do.
Science is trying to find flaws in established thought.
Look at the preamble in the article, read the actual tenor or read between the lines: These guys claim one thing to give cover and supposed objectivity, but in reality, it seems more an exercise in confirmation bias, the greatest obstacle in modern science.
Bullshit, James. They set out to systematically gather evidence as to the validity of Einstein’s theory of relativity. Do you deny the structure of their study? Do you deny the data accumulated during the study? Do you deny that the evidence they gathered supported Einstein?
James, you are an intellectual lightweight. Opinions about people’s tenor and “reading between the lines” are not scientific analyses. James, you are arguing from a pre-determined conclusion and should question your motives. Noble cause corruption is not limited to any side of a debate. Personal reflection is always a noble endeavor.
From the article: “The technique of pulsar timing was combined with careful interferometric measurements of the system to determine its distance with high resolution imaging, resulting in a value of 2400 light years with only 8 per cent error margin.”
That is within the 8,000 light year danger zone for colliding neutron stars. I wonder when they estimate these two will collide?
From the article it appears the pulsar’s poles are not aimed directly at the Earth, although we get flashes from the poles.
So how dangerous to Earth is this pair?
If this pair are Supernova remnants, when were they dangerous? The Crab is around 6000ly and was observed exploding. Supernova’s nearer than around 50ly can be dangerous, and there were at least 8 under 26ly in the last few million years.
I wonder how 2 supernova’s could put these in orbit, or were they type 1a ?
“If this pair are Supernova remnants, when were they dangerous?”
They may be dangerous in the future if they collide and the gamma ray burst coming from the magnetic pole is aimed at Earth.
Media is reporting that NASA’s Parker probe Enters the Solar Atmosphere for the First Time.NASA:https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/nasa-enters-the-solar-atmosphere-for-the-first-time-bringing-new-discoveries
Shouldn’t the headline be, Scientists Confirm Einstein’s Theory?
Well all I can say is that the fellow from University of East Anglia should immediately be fired as an Einstein Denier. Don’t they know that the science is settled!!.
Maybe it is only the Climate Research Unit that sticks to to that corrupt dogma. The rest of the university just does proper research and sets out to either vindicate or overturn existing hypotheses.
Fascinating! More articles like this, please!
I did a lot of spacetime work in grad school and I have a radical conjecture. The redshift is due to the curvature of time. Noneuclidean geodesics of stationery objects look like motion to a Euclidean observer. If so then the universe is not expanding, hence no Big Bang, etc. So now I have published it at last.
I hope you are being sarcastic, David. Redshift has to do with the lengthening of light waves in the visible spectrum due to velocity away from the observer. If time “curves” relativity has no meaning.
What about blueshifts?
So are these people going to be called deniers and cancelled from all forms of media and other communication because they have gone against the consensus of settled and approved science? Or maybe applauded for pushing the boundaries of our knowledge.
Einstein’s most famous equation, as he properly expressed it prior to peer review, was:
E = m *c^2 ± 3 dB.
The above article makes reference to Einstein’s formula as adjusted due to peer pressure.
/sarc off
Sarc or no sarc;
The “m” there stands for “mass”… and not for weight.
cheers
Sara or no sarc,
All mass has the characteristic of exhibiting weight when not free-falling in a gravitational field.
cheers back at you
That sounds really cool. I wonder how they made the radio telescopes with such incredible levels of precise detection. I would think the precision of measurement would be limited to the resolution of the radio wave. Any ideas how they could measure only 8% error in 2400 light years?
I always worry when something, anything comes out of East Anglia purporting to be science. Am I cynical in my old age? Cheers –
PS: apologies for messenger shooting. Sadly, this particular messenger (East Anglia University) needs to be shot on sight . Cheers –
Stopped reading at “UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA”.
Astronomers are so upbeat about the significance of measurements and mechanics of events 2400 lightyears away with heavy bodies 24km (not 25 or 23) across. Even though radio telescopes are spread, at the limit, 13,0000km apart, resolution is unquestionably desperately poor.
Bertrand Russell’s tiny orbiting teapot is no problem at all compared to this!
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1866:_Russell%27s_Teapot
Such as consensus climate science, all of science seems to be sliding into fanciful domains. The confidence of them all, the hubris! Was Star Trek the seed that made all this possible? Or was it way out computer graphics and modeling that brought back the Age of Dinosaurs by Spielberg. Amazingly, scientists from all over the globe collaborated and are single-minded on this. Yeah another consensus doing “experiments”!
Bertrand Russell didn’t have the advantage of today’s instruments.
Fascinating study, but who writes these press releases? Talk about burying the lead … you have to go to the 18th paragraph before you read “He explained that the observations are not only in agreement with the theory…” which is what everyone wants to know first.
all this “knowledge” yet we can’t go back to the moon, eh? Makes complete sense.
Sure, and their optimistic error estimate allows them to analyze Einstein’s theory for error…
Right. Same hubris as used in climate science.