Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Boydstun

Tests of General Relativity

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This seams to be based on space and time being an existent, right? Is that a valid? Or is it more a matter of convenience like in aerodynamics where the air or the aircraft is assumed to be moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space and time are definitely existents. An existent is a much broader concept than entity, and can refer to a thing, an attribute, a relationship, or an action. A non-scientific understanding of space and time refers to relationships between the directly perceived entities given by our senses, and that is still an existent.

(Extending 'existent' to encompass relationships is done by Rand in the appendix to ITOE 2nd ed pg. 241, where she is asked to distinguish between "fact" and "existent".)

So-called "empty space" has other measurable attributes such as vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability.

There is no such thing as nothingness. Existence, the universe, is a full plenum. Peikoff endorses Parmenides in his lecture course "Unity in Ethics and Epistemology". Parmenides: "What is, is. What is not, is not. What is not can neither be nor thought about." Nothing is not a type of something, leading to the principle that the universe is a plenum, solidly packed.

Peikoff also reports Ayn Rand used a concept of "the little stuff" posited as ultimate constituents of matter, smaller than even subatomic particles (that which is where nothing isn't).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Not only the geodetic and frame-dragging precessions, but Thomas precession is exhibited in GP B (§7).

Here is a nice summary report from Lockheed Martin.

NASA Press Conference – Excellent!

The Paper

What a piece of work is man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculty. –WS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is a review of experimental evidence for Einstein’s special relativity and general relativity as of 2005.

Here are experimental tests between the gravity theories of Whitehead (1922) and Einstein (1915), once thought to imply no experimental distinctions.

Edited by Boydstun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of related interest:

Isaac Newton’s Scientific Method:

Turning Data into Evidence about Gravity and Cosmology

William L. Harper (2012 Oxford)

“Newton's method endorses the radical theoretical transformation from his theory to Einstein's. Harper argues that it is strikingly realized in the development and application of testing frameworks for relativistic theories of gravity, and very much at work in cosmology today.”

Edited by Boydstun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demanding tests for theories of dark energy and the origin of the acceleration of cosmic expansion are being set by precise cosmic distance and size measurements relying on baryon acoustic oscillation signals.

Probing Dark Energy with Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations

Seo and Eisenstein (2003)

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

Bassett and Hlozek (2009)

Some Results

Anderson et al. (2012)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Oscar,

It was a long time ago. We never met. We corresponded on issues in relativity (especially GR) and metaphysics between 10/23/88 and 3/28/89. You were a physics major. You lived in Torrance. I lived in Chicago. You had written to me by referral from Ron Kagan. He knew of me because I had written him a letter responding to an essay he had in Objectively Speaking titled “The Foundations of Metascience.”

I still have all your letters and copies of mine. They were all hand written! They are fun reads. In your last letter, you had received a scholar award for graduate school in physics at UCLA. I hope you were able to take some advantage of that, and anyway, I am delighted to see you still have a lively interest in these topics.

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Stephen.

I would love to see some of our correspondence. Maybe you can scan them in one day and email me some copies.

Also, I did go to UCLA a couple of years, but I decided to go into business instead.

I did once want to do theoretical research as a living, but seeing the so-called scientific culture at UCLA was too much to bear. UCLA was inspired me like waiting at the DMV without a reservation inspired me.

Graduate work in Physics is too hard to not love the road you are on.

So now I study Physics as a hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolution of distance down to the level of about 5 times the theoretical Schwartzchild radius of a black hole has now been attained:

“Jet-Launching Structure Resolved Near the Supermassive Black Hole in M87”

MIT – Doeleman et al.

A future test, by the Event Horizon Telescope, of the GR prediction that only mass and angular momentum (and net electric charge, not likely large) are conserved in black-hole influx is summarized here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see time as a mathematical construct. Existence is perceived by the senses ,which always operate on the immediate temporal range. All consciousness must by necessity operate on the same level. Past is an intelligible abstraction, as well as future though present is fundamental.

Time is therefore an abstraction that denotes referents other than the present ,which can either be remembered or postulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see time as a mathematical construct. Existence is perceived by the senses ,which always operate on the immediate temporal range. All consciousness must by necessity operate on the same level. Past is an intelligible abstraction, as well as future though present is fundamental.

Time is therefore an abstraction that denotes referents other than the present ,which can either be remembered or postulated.

 

Time is another dimension, like the three spatial ones.  (I know it sounds like a cliché anticoncept, but it really isn't)  The difference is that you have no choice except to move through time.

You could imagine two-dimensional Mario as having a third, temporal dimension, which would be like depth.  He can move up/down and right/left, but no matter which way he moves, he is constantly moving through time.  It's handy for getting some idea of this fourth dimension.

I won't go into the specifics of it at the moment, but if you'd like I could explain it in more detail at some point.  But Einstein's relativity, which explained that gravity is the distortion of space and time by the presence of matter, identified spacetime as being a single four-dimensional existent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time is another dimension, like the three spatial ones.  (I know it sounds like a cliché anticoncept, but it really isn't)  The difference is that you have no choice except to move through time.

You could imagine two-dimensional Mario as having a third, temporal dimension, which would be like depth.  He can move up/down and right/left, but no matter which way he moves, he is constantly moving through time.  It's handy for getting some idea of this fourth dimension.

I won't go into the specifics of it at the moment, but if you'd like I could explain it in more detail at some point.  But Einstein's relativity, which explained that gravity is the distortion of space and time by the presence of matter, identified spacetime as being a single four-dimensional existent.

Let me start by saying that I would like to apologize to Mr B for muddying his thread with my late night pontifications from a wobbly soapbox. Lacking any theoretic knowledge of physics, and stemming from my purely layman perspective, I tend to flinch at the way or manner time seems to be spoken about in physics. As far as I can wrap my head around the concept of time, it seems to refer to a relation between entities(a desciption of a duration as it relates to specific actions of specific entities) and not a substance in and of itself. I have often wondered if the cosmological constant isn't actually a mathematical correction devise to rectify the noncausual aspect of 'time' in the methodology. I think I have a hard time(no pun intended) of separating science and philosophy.

Edited by tadmjones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein was the first to realize, in 1916, that his GR equations predicted the existence of gravitational waves under certain conditions. Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor obtained strong indirect evidence in 1981 for the existence of gravitational waves by observing a reduction in orbital energy from an orbiting pulsar system in the amount predicted by GR for dissipation of that energy in such a system were the energy carried away in gravitational waves.

 

LIGO aims to detect gravitational waves directly using laser interferometers sited far apart in the US mainland. The sensitivity of the LIGO detectors so far has been only enough to detect gravitational waves resulting from pulsar collapses (a big though rare event) at distances from us wherein hundreds of centuries could go by without a collapse. No waves have been detected at this sensitivity. LIGO is now being enhanced to achieve a sensitivity to binary-pulsar collapses in space much farther from us wherein the total volume would have hundreds of collapses each year. The advanced LIGO* is scheduled to get to work in 2016.

 

For a look at future interferometer detectors operating from outer space capable of detecting gravitational waves so pervasive that they could be used to infer activities inside the event horizon of a black hole or to infer conditions in the part of the cosmic expansion before the universe lighted up with what is now known as the cosmic background radiation, see the cover article of the October 2013 issue of Scientific American, authored by Ross Andersen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tadmjones you will glad to know that as one with a physics degree I tend to agree with you.

 

There is nothing in experimental or theoretical physics which relies upon an interpretation of space or time as "entities" in reality, separate and apart from existents, be they tables, stars, or positrons.  Space and time fundamentally are quantifications of relationships between existents.

 

All of physics is entirely consistent with an interpretation of space and time, or any other dimension (e.g. supersymmetry) as values or placeholders which are descriptive of relationships between existents.  A mathematical background which keeps track of those relationships.  To be sure this background is not necessarily "empty" but the activity occurring in any n-dimensional "volume" is to be distinguished from the values we associate with the position and time etc. of those activities. 

 

Those relationships, which we refer to with values of space and time, change in specific ways for specific reasons, but it is not space or time that changes (relativity dismisses any concept such as absolute space or the "ether"), it is the way entities behave in relation to each other under certain circumstances.

 

Length is not a thing, the space between two particles is not a thing, and neither is the position of an existent a thing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tadmjones you will glad to know that as one with a physics degree I tend to agree with you.

 

There is nothing in experimental or theoretical physics which relies upon an interpretation of space or time as "entities" in reality, separate and apart from existents, be they tables, stars, or positrons.  Space and time fundamentally are quantifications of relationships between existents.

 

All of physics is entirely consistent with an interpretation of space and time, or any other dimension (e.g. supersymmetry) as values or placeholders which are descriptive of relationships between existents.  A mathematical background which keeps track of those relationships.  To be sure this background is not necessarily "empty" but the activity occurring in any n-dimensional "volume" is to be distinguished from the values we associate with the position and time etc. of those activities. 

 

Those relationships, which we refer to with values of space and time, change in specific ways for specific reasons, but it is not space or time that changes (relativity dismisses any concept such as absolute space or the "ether"), it is the way entities behave in relation to each other under certain circumstances.

 

Length is not a thing, the space between two particles is not a thing, and neither is the position of an existent a thing.   

The Lorentz coefficient, or 'gamma', when added to the classical Newtonian makes time shrink as acceleration approaches 'C', the speed of light. mass likewise becomes infinite. This is the basic formulation fpr special relativity as cited by Einstein himself.

 

in this sense, yes, time is a reality, or a 'thing'.

 

General relativity puts this equation on a spacetime manifold (with Ricci curvature) and assesses the results with respect to a Riemian 4-tensor: gravity causes light to bend, therefore distorting time.

 

Because our working knowledge of gravity comes from the effect that it has on mass, spacecraft are basically trying to find gravatational waves in places where there is no mass to verify that said waves really do exist. The wave behavior would correspond, btw, to 'Weyl geodesics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Harley,

 

We do not add a coefficient. We multiply it. Accelerations do not approach the limiting velocity c. Velocities approach the limiting velocity c. Relativistic time dilation is not a shrinkage. Gravitational bending of light does not “distort” time. We have established vocabulary and concepts in such well-established physics, and you bring no education in science with your garbling.

 

Stop talking down to people all the time, whether talking of physics or Kant, pretending you know all and people here are just a bunch of ignoramuses from whom you could not learn anything. It’s gross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrutiny of BICEP2 evidence of cosmic inflation and primordial gravitational waves suggests signals could come from dust in our own galaxy. Science News follow-up is here. Further report from the Planck survey later this year may clear the BICEP2 proposed discovery or take it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×