General Relativity Might be Wrong.

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
EVER since Arthur Eddington travelled to the island of Príncipe off Africa to measure starlight bending around the sun during a 1919 eclipse, evidence for Einstein's theory of general relativity has only become stronger. Could it now be that starlight from distant galaxies is illuminating cracks in the theory's foundation?

Everything from the concept of the black hole to GPS timing owes a debt to the theory of general relativity, which describes how gravity arises from the geometry of space and time. The sun's gravitational field, for instance, bends starlight passing nearby because its mass is warping the surrounding space-time. This theory has held up to precision tests in the solar system and beyond, and has explained everything from the odd orbit of Mercury to the way pairs of neutron stars perform their pas de deux.

Yet it is still not clear how well general relativity holds up over cosmic scales, at distances much larger than the span of single galaxies. Now the first, tentative hint of a deviation from general relativity has been found. While the evidence is far from watertight, if confirmed by bigger surveys, it may indicate either that Einstein's theory is incomplete, or else that dark energy, the stuff thought to be accelerating the expansion of the universe, is much weirder than we thought (see "Not dark energy, dark fluid").

The analysis of starlight data by cosmologist Rachel Bean of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, has generated quite a stir. Shortly after the paper was published on the pre-print physics archive, prominent physicist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena praised Bean's research. "This is serious work by a respected cosmologist," he wrote on his blog Cosmic Variance. "Either the result is wrong, and we should be working hard to find out why, or it's right, and we're on the cusp of a revolution."
If it is wrong, we should be working hard to find out why, but if it's right, we are on the cusp of a revolution

"It has caused quite a furore in astronomy circles," says Richard Massey of the Royal Observatory Edinburgh in the UK. "This paper has generated a lot of interest."

Bean found her evidence lurking in existing data collected by the Cosmic Evolution Survey, a multi-telescope imaging project that includes the longest survey yet by the Hubble Space Telescope. COSMOS, which detected more than 2 million galaxies over a small patch of sky, takes advantage of gravity's ability to bend light. Massive objects like galaxy clusters bend the light of more distant objects so that it is directed towards or away from Earth. This effect, called gravitational lensing, is at its most dramatic when it creates kaleidoscopic effects like luminous rings or the appearance of multiple copies of a galaxy.

The sky is also dominated by the distorting effects of "weak lensing", in which intervening matter bends light to subtly alter the shapes and orientations of more distant galaxies, creating an effect similar to that of looking through old window glass. Since galaxies come in all shapes and sizes, it is difficult to know whether the light from an individual galaxy has been distorted, because there is nothing to compare it with. But by looking for common factors in the distortion of many galaxies, it is possible to build up a map of both the visible and even unseen matterMovie Camera that bend their light.

The weak lensing technique can also be used to measure two different effects of gravity. General relativity calls for gravity's curvature of space to be equivalent to its curvature of time. Light should be influenced in equal amounts by both.

When the COSMOS data was released in 2007, the team - led by Massey - assumed these two factors were equivalent. Their analysis revealed that gravitational tugs on light were stronger than anticipated, but they put this down to a slightly higher concentration of ordinary and dark matter in the survey's patch of sky than had been predicted.

To look for potential deviations from general relativity, Bean reanalysed the data and dropped the requirement that these two components of gravity had to be equal. Instead the ratio of the two was allowed to change in value. She found that between 8 and 11 billion years ago gravity's distortion of time appeared to be three times as strong as its ability to curve space. An observer around at the time wouldn't have noticed the effect because it only applies over large distances. Nonetheless, "there is a preference for a significant deviation from general relativity", says Bean (www.arxiv.org/abs/0909.3853).

One idea is that the entire universe exists on a membrane, or brane, floating inside an extra dimension. While matter will be confined to three dimensions, gravity could be leaking into this extra dimension. When the universe becomes large enough, this gravity could interact with matter in the brane, to produce acceleration on large scales.

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...time-out-of-joint.html
 

xSauronx

Lifer
Jul 14, 2000
19,586
4
81
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Marked so I can read it when I have both eyes open. Did you seriously post this before 7AM?

yeah my caffeine hasnt kicked in yet, marked for later
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
Interesting with the whole gravity bending light and time. Where does dark matter come into play? I can't see the connection.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Could this finally point the way to the unification of relativity and quantum physics?
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,852
6
81
Wow, awesome. I have held this view of the universe since I was little, it's good to see cosmologists reinforcing it. My view also allows for other universes to exist on a separate dimensional level than our own, where the branes float through the multiverse like bubbles in a glass of champagne.
 

Delita

Senior member
Jan 12, 2006
931
0
76
Yeah I've heard of this theory before and find it fascinating. The membrane exists in the 11th dimension and that the gravity force from gravitrons are leaking between universes. That's why gravity, as a force, is so much weaker than the other forces. I think its called M-Theory, which came out of string theory. It's been a while since I looked at that so feel free to correct anything that is wrong.

For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,852
6
81
I think using the term "wrong" is misleading in the common sense of the word. To most people using the term "wrong" seems to mean that the whole thing is invalidated, which isn't the case; it's more something along the lines of the data is being modified that we do know to include more than it did before. Sort of the equivalent of cooking a great dish, and improving upon it ever so slightly to make it better.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Yeah "wrong" is too strong a word. Newton and Maxwell weren't wrong. Their theories are internally consistent and work for what could be examined in their day. GR and quantum theories didn't prove them incorrect but rather incomplete. We've long known that our latest ideas aren't complete either since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity or the equivalent. This is a new twist if the interpretation of the data is correct.

Fascinating
 
S

SlitheryDee

I thought the assumption from the start was that general relativity is an approximation of reality rather than a complete description. Newtonian physics still works even though General relativity describes some situations where it breaks down. Similarly, it's not unlikely that we'll find situations where general relativity no longer applies. That's when we prove what was known from the start; That the universe is more intricate and finer grained than our rough models are. I think the nobel prize was once awarded to someone who attempted to prove general relativity wrong and ended up proving it right, if this case actually does the job then I think the same accolade is warranted.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
So now we have relativity breaking at very large scales, it was already known to not work at very small scales, like atoms. So it seems that relativity works right in the middle, not too big, not too small, just right
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Regs
Interesting with the whole gravity bending light and time. Where does dark matter come into play? I can't see the connection.
While dark matter has no photo-electric effect (which is why it's "dark") it does create a gravitional effect so it bends light, which is how we detect its presence (along with its gravitational effect on visible matter on large scales like galaxies).
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Can someone laymanify the article? I'm a dumb anti-science conservative that doesn't understand.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
I'm fairly sure this whole universe this is an elaborate hoax. Some assholes in some unknown universe created a super advanced computer simulation that projects a holographic universe that behaves according to their wishes. We are simply the AI that was self-populated by the super advanced computer in accordance with the physical simulations.

put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,943
542
126
Originally posted by: JS80
Can someone laymanify the article? I'm a dumb anti-science conservative that doesn't understand.

Summarized: "God works in mysterious ways"


You're welcome.
 

ChrisIsBored

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
3,400
1
71
Originally posted by: destrekor
I'm fairly sure this whole universe this is an elaborate hoax. Some assholes in some unknown universe created a super advanced computer simulation that projects a holographic universe that behaves according to their wishes. We are simply the AI that was self-populated by the super advanced computer in accordance with the physical simulations.

put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Douglas Adams did it.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,010
1
0
I don't know if it's some subtlety in the maths that I don't understand or if it's a case of New Scientist trying to make sensational headlines, but I read the paper and it doesn't seem to say very much at all about the time dimension being curved more than spacial dimensions. The paper actually addresses the question of whether dark energy is best explained by a cosmological constant or a modification to GR, and uses cosmic microwave background radiation data and other sky surveys to determine that a modification to GR is more likely.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |