Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: mikhael on January 08, 2003, 05:46:37 am
-
Turns out that Gravity transmits at the speed of light (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993232), not faster. Among other possible ramifications, this may limit the number of possible physical dimensions the universe may have.
-
I'm not too confident about that margin of error. It's like someone saying "This GF FX can achieve 25,000 3DMarks, with a MOE of 6000 3DMarks." With those results they could claim it to fit into a lot of theories. I'll give it a few dozen years until they refine the technique - it took hundreds of years to get the exact speed of light.
-
On the other hand, this more or less proves that gravity isn't instantaneous, which was the main point of the experiement, no?
-
* wonders about the effects of that on the next Honor Harrington book *
:D
-
You just found this out?
The experiment only confirmed what is generally excepted my most physists anyway, so it's nothing new.
-
Originally posted by Eishtmo
You just found this out?
The experiment only confirmed what is generally excepted my most physists anyway, so it's nothing new.
her.. but it's important. coz unless it's proven right a theory is a theory, and as worth as crap when it comes to be used for anything, you know. Would have been another result, I would have laughed :p
-
Interesting stuff here, but I suppose this would upset some of the string theory, right?
her.. but it's important. coz unless it's proven right a theory is a theory, and as worth as crap when it comes to be used for anything, you know. Would have been another result, I would have laughed
Even then though, it is impossible to rigorously prove any physics law; even now, we just know that it is very likely true, which we already knew before anyway, just to a slightly lesser extent. :D
-
Originally posted by venom2506
her.. but it's important. coz unless it's proven right a theory is a theory, and as worth as crap when it comes to be used for anything, you know. Would have been another result, I would have laughed :p
Its still a theory, you can only disprove things concluesively in science.
-
A but is gravity constant... the more gravity the more powerful it becomes... all they have proven with their theory so far is that weak gravity moves proportional to the speed of light...
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Interesting stuff here, but I suppose this would upset some of the string theory, right?
Even then though, it is impossible to rigorously prove any physics law; even now, we just know that it is very likely true, which we already knew before anyway, just to a slightly lesser extent. :D
yeah I know, but at least it's proven right in certain circumstances.
I know it's been proven that 1+1 doesn't always equal2, for exemple ( it was a thing about star masses or something like that ). But when it's never been verified in any way, it can be complete bull****.
-
Verified bull****?
There's a point where science gets silly. It's about the point where the nature of time is theorized on, basic mathematics becomes insanely complicated, and everything becomes essentially guesswork.
If it's got "quantum" in front of the name, it's best assumed hokum until demonstrable or applicable.
-
Agreed. Science is good at what it is meant to do, investigating measureable physical phenomena. When a physicist, for example, steps outside of the realm of the physical, however, that's when science goes bad (http://permanentpeace.org/foundation.html).
That's right boys and girls, if we all get together and meditate, quatum mencahnics and Unified Field Theory (whaddaya mean no one has come up with an operational UFT? We've got one right here! Now go empty your mind, you!) will guarantee that we can stop all further terrorist actions. It's science, I tell ya! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
Verified bull****?
There's a point where science gets silly. It's about the point where the nature of time is theorized on, basic mathematics becomes insanely complicated, and everything becomes essentially guesswork.
If it's got "quantum" in front of the name, it's best assumed hokum until demonstrable or applicable.
Quantum Masturbation.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Agreed. Science is good at what it is meant to do, investigating measureable physical phenomena. When a physicist, for example, steps outside of the realm of the physical, however, that's when science goes bad (http://permanentpeace.org/foundation.html).
That's right boys and girls, if we all get together and meditate, quatum mencahnics and Unified Field Theory (whaddaya mean no one has come up with an operational UFT? We've got one right here! Now go empty your mind, you!) will guarantee that we can stop all further terrorist actions. It's science, I tell ya! :rolleyes:
That's... odd....
Sounds like an AT Field
-
*reads thread title*
*wonders why he is here*
Oh! The Absolute Terror Field!
-
LOL that was really hilarious; is it the same thing as that "peace waves" nut about a year ago? Science has a place everywhere as long as things are absolute, but this is just funny; if they are really "completely holistic," it should be obvious that "terrorism" is as much a part of the workings of the universe as anything else. But anyway, let's all meditate and create big nasty peace waves to ward off all the violence! They will not stand a chance! ;7
There's a point where science gets silly. It's about the point where the nature of time is theorized on, basic mathematics becomes insanely complicated, and everything becomes essentially guesswork.
Of course, what "insanely complicated" is varies between people; one might as well say that it is insanely complicated to assume 1+1=2. :p The new science is all about big scary equations. ;7 :D
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
Oh! The Absolute Terror Field!
* hums Evangelion theme *
-
*reads thread title*
*wonders why he is here*
It's because everyone loves physics and math, right? ;7
-
Obviously!
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
That's... odd....
Sounds like an AT Field
hehehe
-
Originally posted by Styxx
* hums Evangelion theme *
*CAMs Eva*
-
Originally posted by Shrike
*CAMs Eva*
Bah.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
*CAMs Eva*
*initiates Instrumentality and leaves Shrike behind*
Anyway, last I heard, there were 9 dimensions. What does this limit it to?
-
This doesn't limit the number of possible dimensions, Steak. Other math does that.
If gravity is proved to be propogate at c, that means that it is explicitly not instantaneous. Brane-world theory suggests that some phenomena (like gravity) could take shortcuts through "rolled up" dimensions to get around the lightspeed limit. It also intimates, but doesn not outright state, that Einstein holds true for rolled up dimensions.
I'm curious as to whether the speed of gravity is constant (ie exactly c) or if it is merely approaches the limit with the interval determined other factors.
Also, a limit to the speed of gravitational propogation also may prevent Alcubierre's "warp drive" from being possible (of course, some of its other requirements may render that impossible before gravity even comes into play).
From Eishtmo:
You just found this out?
The experiment only confirmed what is generally excepted my most physists anyway, so it's nothing new.
The whole point of such experiments is to try to find circumstances where the theory breaks. "generally accepted" things MUST be tested, else you're not performing science, you're adhering to religion.
Venom, had they shown a different result, I would not have laughed, I'd have wanted a deeper examination of the experiment, and repeats of the experiment. Finding a place where Einstein's theory breaks down would be the biggest news to date in the fields of cosmology and physics.
-
Maybe the speed of gravity is based on the mass of the object?
I dunno.. I slept through most of my phisics classes, so I really have no idea what the hell I'm talking about..
-
Originally posted by Setekh
*initiates Instrumentality and leaves Shrike behind*
Anyway, last I heard, there were 9 dimensions. What does this limit it to?
42? :D Joke.
I thot it was 11 or something like that.
-
26 "compressable" to 11 using supersymmetry.
-
yeah, 26 was the number I heard before too. So is it really 26 or 11? (i.e. how many actual properties are needed to describe a quark/string?) I wish I knew more about this stuff...
-
its generally accepted to be 11, because in the 26 dimensional model you need a number of totally different methods to come out with a hollistic idea, whereas in the 11-d method you wind up without all the "fiddly bits". dont ask me about the equations behind it - I don't have a sodding clue, i'm not into rows and rows of funny math symbols on blackboards.
-
nerds! nerds! nerds!
-
Originally posted by Styxx
* wonders about the effects of that on the next Honor Harrington book *
:D
You're right. There goes the grav sensors, the grav pulse communications, possibly the whole propulsion system.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
26 "compressable" to 11 using supersymmetry.
26, 14, 11, 10 or 12, depending on which version of A) string theory, B) brane-world theory and C) supersymmetric theory you personally seem to subscribe too. Switch up components and you end up with different numbers. Last I heard, the "accepted" number was 10 or 12, not 26 and 11.
-
Link the first (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2645691.stm)
Link the second (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2645611.stm)
Link the third (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2642065.stm)