|
Post by caseagainstfaith on May 5, 2011 11:38:50 GMT -5
source - www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384948,00.asp So does this mean we might be one step closer to being able to make a time machine even if its a one way time machine into the future?
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on May 5, 2011 15:21:07 GMT -5
Only if we learn how to manipulate gravity to a large extent, as we'd need to make something of very, very large equivalent mass (larger than our sun), while making sure that equivalent gravity doesn't crush the Earth, or cause it's orbit to rapidly decay, and/or make the moon crash into the Earth, and/or other problems of having a sudden increase in gravitational pull.
The problems of the above aside, this is a very interesting find, and definitely has a bunch of impacts that I can't think of since I'm not a physicist.
|
|
tempus
Full Member
Alien Ant Farmer
Posts: 212
|
Post by tempus on May 5, 2011 16:21:17 GMT -5
source - www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384948,00.asp So does this mean we might be one step closer to being able to make a time machine even if its a one way time machine into the future? Probably not, but it's nice to know that our technological tools are becoming sophisticated enough to prove Andy Schlafly is an idiot on ever-finer physical scales.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 5, 2011 20:23:01 GMT -5
So if we can learn to warp space........we will be one step closer to a WARP DRIVE!
|
|
|
Post by Shano on May 5, 2011 21:03:18 GMT -5
1. Since positive proofs are impossible in science, the experiment did not prove that Einstein was correct. 2. While a very nice result on its own it only continues to improve the evidence that locally GR is sufficient to explain the observable effects. 3. Unfortunately the problems of GR are not local, but global. It has a major problem explaining (aside from postulating a particular value for the cosmological constant) the currently observed accelerated expansion of the universe. This of course led to the development of modified GRs (which, if correct, would mean that Einstein was not correct ). Not that modified gravities are fairing better at not postulating things . And on the particle side looking for something that produces the properties of dark energy is as of now incomprehensible (as in we have no concept for it let alone an idea how to test it.)
|
|
|
Post by arrowdeath on May 6, 2011 5:09:26 GMT -5
It doesn't need to explain it. In fact it's what predicts the accelerating expansion of the universe, which we have confirmed with observations (and is a mark for the theory). Einstein himself disagreed with his own math when it gave him that conclusion. It doesn't try to explain why the expansion happens, just that mathematically, it has to. We explained it in other theories with dark energy as a force pushing the universe out, because we have no idea what's doing it otherwise. Coincidentally, the same thing happens with dark matter, because we have no idea what's keeping galaxies together otherwise.
And on the particle side you will never be able to explain particle physics with GR until you understand quantum physics entirely and are able to combine the two. And that's looking more and more to be completely impossible.
From what I've been told, GR is just really, really complex classical mechanics with some crazy twists. It just predicts things better than classical mechanics can, which is why we've adopted it and only use classical mechanics in schools to introduce physics.
I could be wrong, though, I haven't looked at relativity for quite a while other than some stuff about the speed of light. Most of my brainpower has been devoted to other pursuits (read: trying, and failing, to understand quantum physics).
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 6, 2011 6:34:07 GMT -5
1. Since positive proofs are impossible in science, the experiment did not prove that Einstein was correct. Wait......what?
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on May 6, 2011 7:05:42 GMT -5
1. Since positive proofs are impossible in science, the experiment did not prove that Einstein was correct. Wait......what? It didn't prove him correct because you can only falsify claims with science (hence why a theory has to be a falsifiable claim). This experiment gave more supportive evidence for Einstein's theories, but that's the extent of it.
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on May 6, 2011 7:12:50 GMT -5
It didn't prove him correct because you can only falsify claims with science (hence why a theory has to be a falsifiable claim). This experiment gave more supportive evidence for Einstein's theories, but that's the extent of it. SEE, the theory of evilution PROVES NOTHING!!! *waves bible spastically* *screams hallelujah, handles snake, gets bitten* *dies*
|
|
|
Post by Shano on May 6, 2011 7:41:48 GMT -5
It doesn't need to explain it. In fact it's what predicts the accelerating expansion of the universe, which we have confirmed with observations (and is a mark for the theory). Einstein himself disagreed with his own math when it gave him that conclusion. It doesn't try to explain why the expansion happens, just that mathematically, it has to. We explained it in other theories with dark energy as a force pushing the universe out, because we have no idea what's doing it otherwise. Coincidentally, the same thing happens with dark matter, because we have no idea what's keeping galaxies together otherwise. And on the particle side you will never be able to explain particle physics with GR until you understand quantum physics entirely and are able to combine the two. And that's looking more and more to be completely impossible. From what I've been told, GR is just really, really complex classical mechanics with some crazy twists. It just predicts things better than classical mechanics can, which is why we've adopted it and only use classical mechanics in schools to introduce physics. I could be wrong, though, I haven't looked at relativity for quite a while other than some stuff about the speed of light. Most of my brainpower has been devoted to other pursuits (read: trying, and failing, to understand quantum physics). Um... A theory HAS to explain the observable evidence and that includes why things happen the way they do. GR only produces accelerated expansion with a postulated cosmological constant. The problem with postulating is that there has to be a reason for assuming a particular value for it. Numbers are completely egalitarian; none of them is more preferable than another. So a physicist will always try to give a reason for why a particular number is the value it is (unless it is a fundamental constant and believe me it is very hard to achieve that status). Aside from a particular property (that it drives the accelerated expansion) there are no other known things about dark energy. We have much better understanding about what dark matter is. And we may even have particle candidates for it. You cannot explain particle physics with GR. What many people try to do is to create a quantum theory of gravity so that we can unify all interactions, which combined will explain particle physics. It doesn't really look like doing that is completely impossible. What is currently impossible is testing the ideas we have. GR is classical mechanics in it's exact form. Everything in it starts with a nice simple action term. Understanding QM is a daunting task indeed.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 6, 2011 8:59:55 GMT -5
It didn't prove him correct because you can only falsify claims with science (hence why a theory has to be a falsifiable claim). This experiment gave more supportive evidence for Einstein's theories, but that's the extent of it. OK, for some reason the "positive proof" statement threw me for a minute.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 6, 2011 20:23:14 GMT -5
To invent the time machine, we just have to send the time machine back to the time we're trying to invent it.
DUH.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on May 6, 2011 20:48:08 GMT -5
To invent the time machine, we just have to send the time machine back to the time we're trying to invent it. DUH. When I was a kid, I resolved to do this very thing, to grow up, build a time machine, and send it back so that I would have a time machine and not have wasted my life building a time machine. Unfortunately, I've been a constant disappointment to myself on this matter. I ought to teach myself a lesson.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 6, 2011 21:35:47 GMT -5
Finish that time machine, go back in time, & kick that punk's ass for coming up with a stupid idea. Or, even better: Go back in time, explain your situation, & shoot yourself in the head so that your past self has to live with the knowledge that he'll eventually die by shooting himself in the head.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on May 8, 2011 13:10:03 GMT -5
Yeah, fuck that little bastard. WHO IS HE TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE?!
|
|