classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

[mharratsc]

mharratsc wrote:
Wow, where did that come from? o.O

Spectroscopy and highly ionized elements can be studied in a lab, ma'am.

"Five-dimensional gauged Supergravity"... not so much.

Gravity can be studied in the lab too, and the results of all lab experiments, to date, are consistent with a theory of gravity (General Relativity, GR for short). However, the expected deflection of light by a mass of a few thousand kg cannot be observed in any lab experiment (to take one example), at least using current capabilities, because it is too small.

The behaviour of atoms and ions can be studied in the lab, and results the results of all lab experiments, to date, are consistent with a theory of electromagnetism (Quantum Electrodynamics, QED for short). However, the expected 500.7 nm electronic transition of doubly ionised oxygen cannot be observed in any lab experiment (to take one example), at least using current capabilities, because it is too rare.

The behaviour of neutrons and nuclei can be studied in the lab, and results the results of all lab experiments, to date, are consistent with a theory of the behaviour of particles (the Standard Model, SM for short). However, neutron degeneracy cannot be observed in any lab experiment (to take one example), at least using current capabilities, because it is too extreme.

And so on.

Now, as I understand what you have written, you reject the first, accept the second, and reject the third (is that correct?); if so, why?

I didn't say a thing about 'gravity', ma'am- I was referring to "five dimensional gauged supergravity".

What makes this concept immediately unpalatable to me is:

1. 'supergravity' implies that 'normal' gravity is inadequate, so they gave it superpowers!

2. 'Five dimensional' implies that their concept was so rediculous within the parameters of 3D space that they had to create two additional levels of freedom for their mathematical operators to even sound sensible...

3. Why would I want to consider anything sounding this rediculous, when existing physics can explain observation, albeit not directly tested? Not like this 'thought experiment' is any more proven, is it?

Of course gravity can be tested in the lab, as can ionization. Even if we cannot match the scale of cosmic events, we can extrapolate knowing the scalar functions/characteristics of both gravity and EM force, correct?

My point is- I am not going to waste my time reading the work of some mathematician trying to get a paper published if he is going to talk about extra dimensions, or 'super' forces. These things are not necessary, nor productive to think about.

To me, and I would think to any rational empirical scientist as well- they appear patently rediculous. :\

Personal opinion, so please forgive me. I speak for no one but myself here.

[Nereid]

mharratsc wrote:
Wow, where did that come from? o.O

Spectroscopy and highly ionized elements can be studied in a lab, ma'am.

"Five-dimensional gauged Supergravity"... not so much.

Gravity can be studied in the lab too, and the results of all lab experiments, to date, are consistent with a theory of gravity (General Relativity, GR for short). However, the expected deflection of light by a mass of a few thousand kg cannot be observed in any lab experiment (to take one example), at least using current capabilities, because it is too small.

The behaviour of atoms and ions can be studied in the lab, and results the results of all lab experiments, to date, are consistent with a theory of electromagnetism (Quantum Electrodynamics, QED for short). However, the expected 500.7 nm electronic transition of doubly ionised oxygen cannot be observed in any lab experiment (to take one example), at least using current capabilities, because it is too rare.

The behaviour of neutrons and nuclei can be studied in the lab, and results the results of all lab experiments, to date, are consistent with a theory of the behaviour of particles (the Standard Model, SM for short). However, neutron degeneracy cannot be observed in any lab experiment (to take one example), at least using current capabilities, because it is too extreme.

And so on.

Now, as I understand what you have written, you reject the first, accept the second, and reject the third (is that correct?); if so, why?

I didn't say a thing about 'gravity', ma'am- I was referring to "five dimensional gauged supergravity".

What makes this concept immediately unpalatable to me is:

1. 'supergravity' implies that 'normal' gravity is inadequate, so they gave it superpowers!

2. 'Five dimensional' implies that their concept was so rediculous within the parameters of 3D space that they had to create two additional levels of freedom for their mathematical operators to even sound sensible...

3. Why would I want to consider anything sounding this rediculous, when existing physics can explain observation, albeit not directly tested? Not like this 'thought experiment' is any more proven, is it?

Of course gravity can be tested in the lab, as can ionization. Even if we cannot match the scale of cosmic events, we can extrapolate knowing the scalar functions/characteristics of both gravity and EM force, correct?

My point is- I am not going to waste my time reading the work of some mathematician trying to get a paper published if he is going to talk about extra dimensions, or 'super' forces. These things are not necessary, nor productive to think about.

To me, and I would think to any rational empirical scientist as well- they appear patently rediculous. :\

Personal opinion, so please forgive me. I speak for no one but myself here.

Got it; sorry for the misunderstanding.

There is still an interesting point (don't you think); namely, are you OK with gravity deflecting (bending) light, even if it cannot be demonstrated in the lab (but the Sun's bending can be clearly demonstrated)? I think you wrote - somewhere else - that you're not OK with this.

[Nereid]

In regard to testing the results of gravity as it relates to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Stanford is conducting the Gravity Probe B experiments, and some of its findings articulate the problems of resolving these questions on a cosmological scale:

More troublingly, in recent decades it has become impossible to match the predictions of big-bang cosmology with observation unless the thin density of matter observed in the universe (i.e. that which can be seen by emission or absorption of light, or inferred from consistency with light-element synthesis) is supplemented by much larger amounts of unseen dark matter and dark energy that cannot consist of anything in the standard model of particle physics. The observations are quite clear: the required exotic dark matter has a density some five times that of standard-model matter, and the required dark energy has an energy density some three times greater still. To date, there is no direct experimental evidence for the existence of either component, and there are strong theoretical reasons (the "cosmological constant problem") to be suspicious of dark energy in particular. There is also no convincing explanation of why two new and as-yet unobserved forms of matter-energy should be so closely matched in energy density (the "coincidence problem"). While the majority of cosmologists seem prepared to accept both dark matter and dark energy as necessary, if inelegant facts of life, others are beginning to interpret them as possible evidence of a breakdown of general relativity at large distances and/or small accelerations.

Thirdly, existing tests of general relativity have been restricted to weak gravitational fields (or moderate ones in the case of the binary pulsar). Major surprises in this regime would have been surprising, since Einstein's theory goes over to Newton's in the weak-field limit, and we know that Newtonian gravity works reasonably well. But surprises are quite possible, and even likely, in the strong-field regime. The reason why is closely related to the fourth motivation for continuing to test Einstein's theory: general relativity as it stands is incompatible with the rest of physics (i.e. the "standard model" based on quantum field theory). The problem stems from the fact that the gravitational field carries energy and thus "attracts itself" (by contrast the electromagnetic field, for example, carries no charge). In field-theory language, quantization of gravity requires an infinite number of renormalization parameters. It is widely believed that our present theories of gravity and/or the other interactions are only approximate "effective field theories" that will eventually be seen as limiting cases of a unified theory in which all four forces become comparable in strength at very high energies. But there is no consensus as to whether it is general relativity or particle physics—or both—that must be modified, let alone how. Experimental input may be our only guide to unification, the last great remaining problem in theoretical physics.

I provide this link not as a justification, but only to demonstrate the the establishment science does see and foresee problems of the accepted models.

Gravity Probe B

Evidently, the mainstream consensus science felt obligated to resort to tests outside the lab.

I'm not sure what this post is really about, Aristarchus, but it's interesting in any case.

That General Relativity (GR) and quantum field theory are mutually incompatible, at a very deep level, has been known almost since the 1920s, shortly after each became accepted by the physics community.

A serious experimental programme to test this fundamental incompatibility is impossible with today's capabilities, because the physical regimes in which the mutual incompatibility is most evident - at Planck scales - are impossible to create in any lab.

However, nature seems to be able to readily create environments far, far, far more extreme than those we can create in our labs! The example I like best perhaps is UHECRs (ultra-high energy cosmic rays); several of these have been observed with energies of ~1021 eV, which is far, far, far greater than that of particles even the Large Hadron Collider will ever be able to make.

Hence physicists who are interested in testing theories such as GR really have no choice but to look to 'laboratories in the sky'.

[Aristarchus]

I'm not sure what this post is really about, Aristarchus, but it's interesting in any case.

That General Relativity (GR) and quantum field theory are mutually incompatible, at a very deep level, has been known almost since the 1920s, shortly after each became accepted by the physics community.

A serious experimental programme to test this fundamental incompatibility is impossible with today's capabilities, because the physical regimes in which the mutual incompatibility is most evident - at Planck scales - are impossible to create in any lab.

First, you state you don't what my previous post was about, and then you comment in contradiction of your assertion. I believe you think that throwing in such caveats will somehow qualify as a substantiation of your argument without doing the leg work of definitive research.

Secondly, you then demonstrate your willingness to reply with a comment that is simply evidence that you will not debate the premise of my previous post. We're not discussing the issues of the 1920's, or what is the capability of what can be produced in the lab today. We're discussing a major funding project to one of the top physics research institutions in the United States, i.e., the Gravity B Probe, which has stated that its research is not only inconclusive, but also that it might bring into question positing on dark energy: "to date, there is no direct experimental evidence for the existence of either component, and there are strong theoretical reasons (the "cosmological constant problem") to be suspicious of dark energy in particular."

Finally, you continue your line of reasoning and deflection by restating something that doesn't address my post, and you completely defy the reasons behind the Gravity Probe B project with a response from you that fails to rise to even the level of "don't believe our lying eyes."

A Brief Overview of Gravity Probe B

The idea of testing general relativity by means of orbiting gyroscopes was suggested independently in late 1959-early 1960 by Stanford physicist Leonard Schiff and MIT physicist George Pugh. Pugh’s Proposal for a Satellite Test of the Coriolis Prediction of General Relativity appeared in an unusual location for scientific papers: the U.S. Department of Defense Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG) Memo #11 (November, 12, 1959). Schiff, then chairman of the Stanford University Physics Department, published a paper summarizing the experiment, Possible New Experimental Test of General Relativity Theory in the March 1, 1960 issue of Physical Review Letters. Also during this time, Schiff teamed up with two colleagues from the Stanford faculty: low-temperature physicist William Fairbank and gyroscope expert Robert Cannon of the Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics. Thus was born the collaboration between the Stanford Physics and Engineering departments that has been essential to the success of Gravity Probe B.

The Gravity Probe B Bailout

As this story went to press, GP-B project head Francis Everitt notified IEEE Spectrum that ”a significant non-NASA agency” had committed $2.7 million to continue Gravity Probe B. This, Everitt hopes, will enable his group next year to reach a conclusion on a par with its original goal of testing the two Einsteinian effects down to the 1 percent confidence level.

The project was on very shaky ground, because even after years of data massaging, GP-B had weakly confirmed one of the effects, frame dragging, to only the 25 to 33 percent range. But as Everitt and GP-B spokesman Bob Kahn, of Stanford, told IEEE Spectrum via e-mail, a recent breakthrough in the modeling of behavior of the satellite’s instruments has increased the data’s accuracy ”by a factor of 5 to 10”. The new results are to be presented early this month at an International Space Science Institute workshop on the nature of gravity.

NASA’s science advisory committee for the project has called the recent effort ”heroic.” With this summer’s work, says the report, the GP-B team ”has brought the experiment from what seemed like a state of potential failure, to a position where the [committee] now believes that they will obtain a credible test of relativity, even if the accuracy does not meet the original goal. In the opinion of the SAC Chair [Washington University physics professor Clifford Will], this rescue warrants comparison with the mission to correct the flawed optics of the Hubble Space Telescope, only here at a minuscule fraction of the cost.”

The issue at hand is that the experiments have moved out of the lab to seeking the perfecting of intrumentation in a space probe, and it still has become inconclusive and even brought into question comcepts to our understanding of dark energy.

Gravity Probe B Webcast: Mission and Science Q&A

I think Luis' question is probably relating to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says that any time you observe an experiment, you affect it in some way. That's true, but that affect really only matters on the quantum mechanical level. In other words, if you get to the atomic or subatomic scale, then Heisenberg's principal can come into play.

In the case of Gravity Probe B, the real issue that we had was trying to make sure that so-called classical disturbance torques, the Newtonian torques, are absolutely minimized or eliminated, because the relativity effects that we’re trying to see are so subtle and so small that we really have to get rid of any other systemic noises.

That's the kind of issue we had to deal with and Heisenberg doesn’t really play into that significantly here.

Furthermore ...

Actually, it could not. In principle, what you need for Gravity Probe B is a very quiet platform, and the ISS does give you a microgravity type of environment (in other words, a very low-gravity environment), but GP-B requires an even quieter environment. Probably three or four orders of magnitude, in other words 1,000 or 10,000 times less noisy or less motion oriented than the space station is. So you really couldn't do it on the space station, even though that platform is suitable for other kinds of high-precision instrumentation.

Obviously, the experimentations have moved out of the lab, thus the onus is on you to provide information contrary to the Gravity B Probe.

[mharratsc]

Nereid said:

There is still an interesting point (don't you think); namely, are you OK with gravity deflecting (bending) light, even if it cannot be demonstrated in the lab (but the Sun's bending can be clearly demonstrated)? I think you wrote - somewhere else - that you're not OK with this.

Color me 'not convinced that it's gravity', I suppose.

We know that light can be bent, deflected, and even stopped cold in a laboratory setting by the medium of it's conduction. So therefore it is not unreasonable to consider that there may be a characteristic of the medium surrounding stars (or our Sun) that might also be the culprit of the distortion we see in remote light sources?

That's my thinking on it, anyway.

[Grits]

Wow...

It's customary not to quote well in excess of the original content in a post. When you quote a post that's eighty (80) lines long and add twelve to the end (to take one example), you're basically making a lot of noise and drowning out your signal. I didn't even bother to read your response because I was so irritated at seeing the same text copied into the forum for the third time.

[Grits]

However, nature seems to be able to readily create environments far, far, far more extreme than those we can create in our labs!

I disagree with your contention that "nature" can create environments that are "far more extreme than those we can create" in labs. While I agree the energy levels we see in space dwarf anything we can yet produce, I disagree with the conclusion that this means we can't create these conditions. We know that electromagnetic forces scale across many orders of magnitude. The laws governing electromagnetic forces don't change with scale. Consequently we can create these conditions, in miniature, in the lab. This is one indication that the model is valid, it applies everywhere, all the time. One needn't invoke novel and untested physics to explain anything we see in space. If you do start positing untestable models, you immediately stray off into hallucinatory terrain. That "standard cosmology" is off the rails is readily apparent, if one looks at the menagerie of imaginary beasts and powers invoked to explain even the most mundane of observations, to say nothing of the denial of established principles of physics in favor of flights of fancy and wishful thinking.

[Grits]

The issue at hand is that the experiments have moved out of the lab to seeking the perfecting of intrumentation[sic] in a space probe, and it still has become inconclusive and even brought into question comcepts to our understanding of dark energy.

The concept of "dark energy" is patently absurd on its face, we didn't need a phenomenally expensive experiment with "perfect" gyroscopes in space to tell us that. There's one thing I don't get, are you claiming the "Gravity Probe B" is a success or a failure or is the jury still out?

And why do you imply that observations (not experiments in this case) in space should somehow be more "perfect" or "conclusive" than experiments in a lab?

Obviously, the experimentations have moved out of the lab, thus the onus is on you to provide information contrary to the Gravity B Probe.

To my knowledge the "Gravity Probe B" hasn't provided any real information at all, at least nothing that's been publicly released. I've examined the claims made by the research team behind that "probe", to me it seems so obviously silly that it looks like a sham, and makes me wonder as to the true purpose of the device.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, unless I misunderstood it, basically the claim is made that these gyroscopes are so "perfect" that it's almost impossible to use them, because there's really no way to detect their motions. The further claim is made that they using an effect that they're trying to verify in order to read the gyroscopes...so that they can verify the effect exists. It's circular. No explanation is given for how other sources of noise are factored out, and the "noise" is basically being treated as the signal, which, as you mention, only "weakly" "verifies" the notions put forth as the impetus of the mission, and only then with a lot of massaging, with the prime assumption always being that the observation is the sum of their prediction plus "noise" that can be identified by subtracting their assumptions from the observations. This team goes one step further in their public announcements by claiming the "noise" (that they only infer by subtracting their assumptions from the observations) is then used to to infer the signal (that they assumed from the beginning). And also worthy of note is the overwhelming reliance on electromagnetic forces and models to explain how their gyroscopes even work and the forces they measure, not one single mention is made of "gravity".

I don't know what these people are up to, and I can say the same about any team of researchers involved with launching vehicles into space, but I know their public proclamations don't in any way accord with established methods of scientific investigation. And it would seem that they're not investigating "gravity" at all, but electromagnetic force interactions.

[Aristarchus]

The concept of "dark energy" is patently absurd on its face, we didn't need a phenomenally expensive experiment with "perfect" gyroscopes in space to tell us that. There's one thing I don't get, are you claiming the "Gravity Probe B" is a success or a failure or is the jury still out?

And why do you imply that observations (not experiments in this case) in space should somehow be more "perfect" or "conclusive" than experiments in a lab?

I agree with you. What I am attempting to demonstrate in my posts is that contrary to what Nereid is claiming, is that such experiments have proceeded beyond the limitations of the confines found in the lab - I'm assuming he/she means those that are limited to the environments produced on earth or already orbiting space labs - and yet, the Gravity Probe B supplies little, despite all its tweaking and kludge factors, proving inconclusive to what it was set out to prove or provide evidence for, even going so far as to bring into question the strongly held beliefs, such as dark energy, which I concur that the latter is absurd and not based in quantified science.

Nereid attempts to negate anything proffered by the EU/plasma cosmology by using the modus operandi that those in the consensus/establishment science are on the right track. I'm supplying evidence from the very same establishment science to reveal to Nereid that the latter is sorely wanting in defending its own principles and claims of evidence.

If I simply offer counter claims using EU/plasma cosmology evidence, Nereid merely dismisses these out of hand as something not grounded in proper scientific methodology. It becomes a discussion based on contradictions, rather than an argument founded in a true debate. I started reading Hannes Alfven's refutations regarding the Big Bang Theory back in 1988, and I am glad through the course of my reading and research into the matter to discover the EU model.

[Grits]

I started reading Hannes Alfven's refutations regarding the Big Bang Theory back in 1988, and I am glad through the course of my reading and research into the matter to discover the EU model.

The EU model definitely has firmer roots in experimental verification and a longer history of successful anticipation of future discoveries. GR has produced nothing but a bunch of ad hoc post facto metaphysical justification for discoveries that already have ready explanation in real physics.

[Nereid]

Nereid said:

There is still an interesting point (don't you think); namely, are you OK with gravity deflecting (bending) light, even if it cannot be demonstrated in the lab (but the Sun's bending can be clearly demonstrated)? I think you wrote - somewhere else - that you're not OK with this.

Color me 'not convinced that it's gravity', I suppose.

We know that light can be bent, deflected, and even stopped cold in a laboratory setting by the medium of it's conduction. So therefore it is not unreasonable to consider that there may be a characteristic of the medium surrounding stars (or our Sun) that might also be the culprit of the distortion we see in remote light sources?

That's my thinking on it, anyway.

(I hope my quoting the full text of your quote, mharratsc, does not result in a post by Grits to the effect that the signal to noise ratio of this post is too low ...)

May I be so bold as to ask what, in principle, would convince you that it's gravity?

For example, gravitational bending is achromatic; the deflection is the same, no matter whether the 'light' is gammas, x-rays, UV, visible light, IR, microwaves, or radio. As far as I know, deflection (or bending) due to passage of electromagnetic radiation through a material medium (i.e. one made up of atoms, electrons, ions, etc; specifically a plasma) is chromatic: the amount of bending of red light (say) is different than the bending of blue light, where the light is passing through the same medium (this is why, in part, a prism splits white sunlight into a rainbow, or why raindrops do). So an obvious test, irrespective of what the medium might be, is the extent to which the observed bending is chromatic ...

[Grits]

(I hope my quoting the full text of your quote, mharratsc, does not result in a post by Grits to the effect that the signal to noise ratio of this post is too low ...)

Here's some advice that might help, since the entirety of your new content was responding to the comment about not being convinced it's "gravity", maybe you could just quote that. If you're not going to respond to 95% of a post, just quote the 5%.

[Nereid]

However, nature seems to be able to readily create environments far, far, far more extreme than those we can create in our labs!

I disagree with your contention that "nature" can create environments that are "far more extreme than those we can create" in labs. While I agree the energy levels we see in space dwarf anything we can yet produce, I disagree with the conclusion that this means we can't create these conditions.

How, then, could we create conditions that produce particles with energies of ~1021 eV?

We know that electromagnetic forces scale across many orders of magnitude.

How many (orders of magnitude)?

Specifically, how many do we have good experimental results for?

The laws governing electromagnetic forces don't change with scale.

What are they (the laws governing electromagnetic forces)?

[Nereid]

I've been reading this thread, and have a couple of questions; I hope they are not off-topic.

My questions are probably more for Aristarchus than anyone else who has posted in this thread, but of course I'd welcome anyone's response!

Much of the key work on thermodynamics was done before the atomic nature of ordinary matter was confirmed. Then around a century or so ago many of the key conclusions in thermodynamics were explained in terms of vast populations of atoms (and, as appropriate, ions and electrons), using an approach called statistical mechanics.

Now the relevant laws of thermodynamics are very simple, and they account for essentially all relevant lab-scale (i.e. macroscopic) experimental results; however, can one say that these laws are, in fact, emergent properties (of matter, including plasma), and that the fundamental forces and processes are actually very different (QED - quantum electrodynamics - I think)?

In this Thunderbolts Forum, and in the works of Hannes Alfvén and Anthony Peratt (among others), I see that the properties and behaviours of plasmas are often described as extremely complex, even almost life-like. Yet the underlying physics - mostly classical electromagnetism - is extremely simple (little more than just Maxwell's equations). How does the reductionist/emergence dichotomy (if it can be called that), and Laughlin's ideas (per his book), relate to plasma physics?

I'm not sure if you missed this post of mine, Aristarchus, or if you haven't yet had time to respond to it (or, perhaps, you think this thread has finished discussing reductionism and emergent phenomena) ...

[Grits]

How, then, could we create conditions that produce particles with energies of ~1021 eV?

We don't need to, we can study the effect on a smaller scale, since the effect is scalable.