Physicists want to check a possible anomaly in the basic building blocks of the theory of relativity known as the Lorentz variation, according to which the laws of physics are not exactly the same throughout the universe
Physicists from Indiana University have developed an innovative and promising method to identify a possible anomaly in the basic building blocks of Einstein's theory of relativity known as "Lorentz variation". If the findings are confirmed, the anomaly would disprove the belief that the laws of physics remain the same for two objects traveling at a constant speed or rotating relative to each other.
Indiana University physics professor Alan Kostelki and PhD student Jay Tyson have taken the exact symmetry implied by relativity and shown in an article to be published in Physical Review Letters that there may be an unexpected violation of Lorentz invariance that can be detected with experiments.
"It is surprising and heartening that there are relatively many violations of relativity, which can still be discovered, even though a century of precise experiments has already passed," says Kostelki. "Discovering them is like finding a camel in a haystack instead of a needle."
If the findings help reveal the first evidence of Lorentz violations, it will prove that relativity is not an exact theory. Space-time will not look the same in all directions and there will be measurable relativity violations, although they will be tiny.
The violations are like a direction preference in an empty time space caused by a grid-shaped vacuum of the background fields. The fields are separated from the set of particles and forces known to us which are explained by the theory known as the "Standard Model". A theory that includes Einstein's theory of relativity.
The background fields are a concept derived from the generalization of the theory developed by Kostelki and it is called the "extended standard model". This model comes to explain all violations of relativity.
The background fields are hard to detect, but they offer their own standard model for determining whether or not an object is moving and in which direction it is traveling. If a field is applied to certain particles, then the behavior of the particles changes and this may reveal a violation of relativity caused by the field. Gravity distorts the fields, and this affects the behavior of particles that would otherwise reveal a hidden violation.
The new violations change the gravitational properties of objects based on their motion and composition. Objects on the surface of the earth always move differently in different seasons, because the earth revolves around the sun. Apples will fall faster in certain seasons. And, different objects like apples or oranges can fall at different rates.
"No experiment has been devoted to the search for seasonal differences and their effect on the fall variables of objects in the gravity of KDA," says Kostelki. "Since Newton's time 300 years ago, it has been assumed that apples fall at the same rate in summer and winter."
Detecting the change in time is another problem, since the change in the rate of fall will be tiny because gravity is a weak force. The new paper suggests possible experiments that might find the effects. Among them is also the measurement of the characteristics of gravity and their effect on matter on Earth and in space.
The Extended Standard Model predicts that particles and antiparticles will react differently to each other in the background fields. Matter and antimatter will be affected differently by gravity. So apple and anti-apple will fall at a different rate too!
"The gravitational properties of antimatter remain largely unexplored," Kostelki says. "If an apple and an anti-apple are dropped simultaneously from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, no one knows whether they will hit the ground at the same time or not."
26 תגובות
Yehuda:
I wasn't trying to devalue your words.
In my opinion, your words mislead the public and defame the website, so I found it appropriate to point this out.
I didn't think you would try to argue that defamation is a more appropriate act than pointing out that it is defamation.
Thanks for the birthday wishes.
The trip to Portugal almost made me miss it when the bike seat broke and left me flat on the road.
And besides Michael, I understand that this week is your birthday, so I wish you a happy birthday, and continue interesting comments, whatever they may be, and all in a good spirit and for the sake of science!
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Michael
Just look at the hints that appear in your response. Words such as: "we started again", "uncivilized reactions", "man on the street". What is the purpose of this approach in your words?, to lower the value of my words?, I think it is unnecessary.
I, as an engineer in industrial management, think that there is a certain value (big or small) to the things I say about the way things are conducted in scientific theories.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Noam:
Below is the response of a physics professor from Tel Aviv University (relationship expert).
I am not mentioning his name because I did not request (and therefore did not receive) permission to publish his words on his behalf:
Shalom
I am not familiar with the history of this argument. This is a published
paper so someone must have approved it (the editor of the journal
"progress in physics"). The claim is extreme and so is the claim that
gravitational waves have been detected by the same experiment. None of it
is considered true but this, in itself, is not a proof of a failure or
inaccuracy in the experiment. Real specialists ought to be consulted
Judah - and in relation to the moon moving away from the earth - there is a conventional explanation based on the known forces.
If you knew how to do the calculations, you would see that the exact same distance also results from La Sage's gravitation (because it gives the same gravitational force) and this has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe.
From the laws of gravitation it can also be concluded that under certain conditions the moon would also approach the earth instead of moving away (this would happen if its orbit was lower than the geostationary orbit) and such phenomena (which contradict your idea) were also observed.
Yehuda:
We started again?
Your comments that laugh at the accepted theory are not censored here either. Why did you raise the question of censorship on the comments? Have you forgotten that this censorship only applies to uncivilized comments?
And to the question why scientists are allowed what yours is not allowed - I suppose you can answer for yourself as soon as you ask yourself why you don't allow every person on the street to analyze you.
Noam,
Cohill talks about general relativity in the context of gravity.
Relativity sees gravity as a curvature of space-time, while in the innovative theory he proposes there is another creature - gravitational waves. If you enter the entry "gravity" in Wikipedia you will see that every theory presents this force, gravity, as something else. According to quantum theory, these are particles - gravitons. According to relativity, it is a curvature of space. According to other innovative theories - gravitational waves.
And it is clear that Einstein's theory is not perfect. Just as quantum theory, Newtonian theory, and every other theory of physics is not perfect. The day we discover the true theory that represents reality, we won't need so many theories, each of which predicts results only in a certain area. But there will be one theory that will simply explain everything.
The theories in the standard model are not fully proven, and with all of them there are problems, this is something that many here forget, and tend to speak as if the physics we know is the one and eternal truth given at Mount Sinai.
By the way, could you interpret this sentence you wrote down - "If it is possible to find changes in the speed of light as a function of the direction of measurement, then the speed of light is not constant for all inertial systems, from this it follows that time is not an additional dimension, therefore in his opinion there are only 3 dimensions and not a 4-dimensional space-time ."
And I forgot another nice thing:-
In my opinion, the universe is expanding even in small rocks and the distance of the moon from the earth is a result of the expansion of the universe and proves it. Two and a half centimeters per year due to the expansion of the universe and another 13 mm per year due to a change in the speed of light which causes a measurement error in the laser beam used for measurement.
Again, unacceptable.
I have a few more unacceptable things but I think what I said is enough.
But, what a dark night.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I read the article and the comments and find it hard to believe that the science website allows itself to tell us about things that do not meet the accepted scientific consensus.
My dear father - what will happen to the innocent souls of our dear students???
And where is the "blessed" censorship???
Two days ago Danny forwarded to my website the address of an article that appeared in Universe Today about a new concept in the science of cosmology - the "dark sinks" that join dark mass and dark energy.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/22/dark-matter-dark-energy-now-theres-dark-gulping/
What impressed me the most was the set of comments given to this article over there at Universe Today which is a "slightly" more important site than is known. No one there thought to censor the commenters who laughed at the article itself and the idea of dark mass, dark energy and black holes.
Isn't it about time you stop the censorship here???
When I see these articles that are quoted here, they all talk about unacceptable things, so why on earth are the respected professors here allowed to say that the speed of light is not constant and when your faithful servant says so, it is unacceptable?
Why was an article censored that I wrote that if the dark mass is made up of particles as they hypothesize, then in fact the dark mass has all the properties of a gas with everything that follows? Is it so illogical to say such a thing?
I repeat - in my opinion:-
The speed of light varies on the order of XNUMX cm per second per year.
The weight of small bodies is also a function of time,
There is no such thing as a singular point because it is outside the scope of definition of existing physical laws.
Newton's law of gravitation is modified for large distances and actually zeroes out at large cosmological distances.
The movement of the galaxies is due to pressure arising from the many particles moving in the universe and not from gravity.
Does this sound crazy to you??, do you want to censor it??, I really don't care and you can do what you want there in the knowledge.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Science and Nature - Sabdarmish
Noam:
We are in good company because it turns out that even very serious people haven't really heard of it.
Below is an answer sent to me by Professor Ran Dungi - an expert in string theory from the University of Pennsylvania:
Hi Michael,
Sorry, I have no expertise whatsoever in experimental physics, so I'm clearly the wrong person to evaluate this. My only two comments are:
* I thought the conventional speed is 299792.458km.s, or something like that – its central value seems to be exactly 300,000?
* Being on the jaded/conservative side, I tend to become rather suspicious when someone declares that "These developments completely change fundamental physics and our understanding of reality." 🙂 It's clearly someone on the outside trying to get in.
We are arriving in Israel May 14th and leaving the 28th. It would be great to see you. Please call me at my parents' place and we'll make plans.
Lehitraot,
Ron
Michael,
Regarding the last sentence - it is almost certainly true.
His findings undermine one of the two axioms of the theory of special relativity, therefore I do not understand the claim that there is no contradiction to this theory.
I would love to hear more comments and clarifications
Noam:
I started looking at the article.
He himself claims that he does not contradict the special theory of relativity and even emphasizes that its findings have been tested in many experiments and found to be correct.
I don't know what to say anymore.
I will try to delve further and involve friends who are actively involved in the subject.
On the face of it, it seems to me that if there was something serious about it, we would have already heard more noise.
Yael
What I meant was to ask your opinion about his conclusions, which actually undermine the basis of special relativity.
If it is possible to find changes in the speed of light depending on the direction of measurement, then the speed of light is not constant for all inertial systems, from this it follows that time is not an additional dimension, therefore in his opinion there are only 3 dimensions and not a 4 dimensional space-time.
The question is whether this is a meaningless esoteric article or a serious article that undermines the theory of relativity
Michael, Yehuda - what do you think?
(By the way, Lorentz contraction is related to special and not general relativity)
Hi Noam,
I reviewed the introduction and conclusions of the article and according to what I understood
Mr. Cahill is actually trying to wonder if the speed of light is the same in any direction we measure it. And in the end he comes to the conclusion that light does not move in every direction at the same speed. When he measures the speed of light in the direction of the center of our galaxy for example, where there is a very large mass, there is a deviation in the light measurement compared to the other directions. And he concludes that it is because of higher gravity waves in that direction. So this is his proof of the existence of gravitational waves.
And he also says that this contradicts arguments in Einstein's general relativity and that perhaps these are corrections in the theory since the speed of light specifies a constant name.
He also mentions the Mickelson Morley experiment, which I think was the first experiment they performed to measure the speed of light, where they used a pulse back and forth. Unlike the pulse that is sent in this experiment - only back and forth without back and forth.
And then he mentions Miller who also tried to measure the speed of light moving inside the aether (a theoretical substance that fills the entire space) because in fact they tried to prove the existence of the aether according to an anomaly in the measurement of light, a deviation they hoped to find in the speed of light measured relative to the direction of movement of As DHA, but at the time they found no deviations and proved that the "site" did not exist.
He also claims regarding relativity that space-time should be viewed as 3-dimensional, and not as 4-dimensional as Einstein suggested (that is, 3 dimensions of space and one of time) because time, in his opinion, is a different characteristic in essence. Time describes a process and not a geometric axis like space.
He also mentions the concept of length shortening of Lorenz-Fitzgrand which is a claim that comes out of general relativity and says that if you move at very, very high speeds you will get shorter and you will also see your entire environment shorter in length.
In conclusion,
Mr. Cohill's claims in the article:
1) The speed of light is not a constant
2) Gravitational waves exist
3) Gravitational waves affect the speed of photons
4) The universe is made of three dimensions and not four as relativity suggests, and time describes a process and not a geometric dimension.
Maybe I misunderstood Mr. Cohill's arguments, I would love to hear your response on that.
I came across an article, which appears in the link...
Sorry for the dyslexia
Yael Peter,
I came across the article in the following link:
http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Cahill_Experiment.pdf
In short, the author claims that Einstein's basic assumption regarding the uniformity of the speed of light in all directions, regardless of the frame of reference - is simply not true.
According to him, if the measurement is performed correctly, i.e. measuring the speed of light not by the "go-back" method but only by "go-go", you get a significant deviation that depends on the direction of the measurement.
I would be very happy if you would find time to review the article (which is not easy at all) and express your opinion.
In my opinion the laws of physics must be exactly the same throughout the universe
To Muti, then how is it that when the anti-Semites and the Jews met, the Jews became radiation and the anti-Semites nothing happened?
There is a beautiful story I heard about a universe made of anti-matter - we will call it anti-universe for that matter. Within the anti-universe is the anti-Milky Way, and within it is the anti-Earth. In the anti-Earth there is an anti-building, inside the anti-building there is an anti-room. Open the anti door and next to the anti sit a table... antisemitic
Will an anti apple fall far from an anti tree?
If his tree is anti then no significant change will be seen,
But in the case of a normal tree,
The anti-apple falls far from the tree, or it even takes off... depending on which part of the sentence its anti-ness is expressed.
An anti-apple will always fly in the opposite direction to an apple in the third power, so it will tip up.
An anti apple will fall at the same anti speed as an apple will fall
Yael
A haystack and not a slaughterhouse
Besides, maybe we should climb the tower in Pisa again and repeat Galileo's experiment in an exact way
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To God….
General relativity talks about a space that contains only a gravitational field that is not disturbed by other fields, obviously if there are other fields that disturb the gravitational field then we will get a "violation" but this is not a violation of the theory of relativity, it is a violation of the conditions.
The theory of relativity does not predict if the universe fulfills the emptiness conditions of the theory of relativity, only the experiment can prove that. So there is no violation.
: )