Gravitons and the bending of SpaceTime

[sanctus]

So what you are doing is quantizing space in the sense that you do the same as when one passes from the square to the circle always adding more sides (i.e. square,pentagone, exagone, etc which eventually converges to a circle). So you say there is a minimal length during which the particle moves on a straight line and then at the subsequent minimal length it moves again at a straight line but with angle with the preceeding element. Do you agree on how I interpret your reasoning?

[KALSTER]

So you say there is a minimal length during which the particle moves on a straight line and then at the subsequent minimal length it moves again at a straight line but with angle with the preceeding element. Do you agree on how I interpret your reasoning?

Sounds like we'll be deriving pi soon... The vector of movement at any instant is a straight line, but these minute angle changes with movement would near infinity with added precision.

 

Anyway, hasn’t the GR space curvature idea been verified with the solar eclipse observation many decades ago already?

[dkv]

The actual values vary greatly from the theoretical predictions...

[modest]

Anyway, hasn’t the GR space curvature idea been verified with the solar eclipse observation many decades ago already?

 

The weak equivalence principle and local position invariance were measured accurate to 70 parts per million of Einstein's predictions with gravity probe A which was indeed decades ago.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1127v1.pdf

 

~modest

[dkv]

The weak equivalence principle and local position invariance were measured accurate to 70 parts per million of Einstein's predictions with gravity probe A which was indeed decades ago.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1127v1.pdf

 

~modest

What actually Gravity Probe A predicted was that

At this height, general relativity predicted a clock should run 4.5 parts in 10^10 faster than one on the Earth.

4.5 parts in 10 billion discrepancy in the measurement of time.

 

BUt the experiment only measured accuracy upto 70ppm

 

the link provided has this to say

The clocks confirmed Einstein’s prediction to 70 ppm, thereby establishing a

limit of |µ |< 2 ×10 −4 . More than 30 years later, this re-mained the most precise measurement of the gravitational red-shift [21]. Currently the the most stringent bound on possible violation of the LPI is |µ |< 2.1 ×10 −5

reported in [117]. The ESA’s ACES misison is expected to improve

the results of the LPI tests (see Fig. 7)

 

 

There is scope of improvement.. I dont know how you interpret the results.

The gravity probe B has been a total failure and is facing financial crisis.

 

Many recent experiments have also confirmed GR but those are consequences of a special metric called schwarzchild metric which can be a solution of any type of differential equation....(for example whitehead's theory also predicts the same metric more elegantly but fails under the weight of its own prediction like varying constant G)

[KALSTER]

The weak equivalence principle and local position invariance were measured accurate to 70 parts per million of Einstein's predictions with gravity probe A which was indeed decades ago.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1127v1.pdf

 

~modest

Actually I was referring to a 1919 expedition led by Arthur Eddington that confirmed general relativity's prediction by observing the deflection of starlight by the Sun during an eclipse. This was only qualitative though. I'll rummage through your link, thanks.

 

Anyway, HERE they achieved a low standard error I think (can't read the notation), after measuring of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves.

[modest]

Actually I was referring to a 1919 expedition led by Arthur Eddington that confirmed general relativity's prediction by observing the deflection of starlight by the Sun during an eclipse. This was only qualitative though. I'll rummage through your link, thanks.

 

Anyway, HERE they achieved a low standard error I think (can't read the notation), after measuring of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves.

 

Oh, yeah, I know you were. I was actually trying to point out (though I was lazy and didn't say this at all) that gravitational redshift and gravitational time dilation test the same physics as the eclipse. In the early 20th century, there was no way to test redshift or time dilation, so they went with the eclipse.

 

The Harvard Tower Experiment was the first to make a kind of direct experiment to test Einstein's predictions and now we have atomic clocks (Hafele and Keating Experiment) that make direct measurements. So, there is a progression of confirmation that has gotten better and better with time. If you had the money, you could in fact rent an atomic clock, strap it to your back, climb up a mountain and test the physics yourself. You wouldn't be the first:

 

Project GREAT: General Relativity Einstein/Essen Anniversary Test

 

Einstein would be proud :naughty:

 

So, I agree with you, I was just saying we've come a long way since the eclipse confirmation.

 

~modest

[alexander]

Geodesics are the smallest possible distance between two points..

Aww, and I always thought that the smallest possible distance between two points was..... zero? :naughty:

 

The actual values vary greatly from the theoretical predictions...

Yeah, i remember seeing something on that. They related it also to predictions of how much star light we were supposed to see from some stars, too, and that didn't coincide with what we observed. Though they blamed that one on space dust... could there be something with the gravitational force as well, something similar that we didn't account for when calculating predictions?

[KALSTER]

Right then, thanks Modest;)

[Natural]

Actually I was referring to a 1919 expedition led by Arthur Eddington that confirmed general relativity's prediction by observing the deflection of starlight by the Sun during an eclipse. This was only qualitative though. I'll rummage through your link, thanks.

 

Anyway, HERE they achieved a low standard error I think (can't read the notation), after measuring of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves.

 

Or how about instead of bending space maybe we could use the simple theory that the photons traveled in a partial orbital pathway as they passed close to a massive object? (like all other objects in the universe do) And because of their velocity were not able to be pulled very far off of their trajectory thus hitting the telescopes here on earth.

Seems simple to me... start at point A... travel close to massive object curving your vector... ending at point B which was behind the massive object in between.

:( :hihi:

[modest]

Or how about instead of bending space maybe we could use the simple theory that the photons traveled in a partial orbital pathway as they passed close to a massive object? (like all other objects in the universe do) And because of their velocity were not able to be pulled very far off of their trajectory thus hitting the telescopes here on earth.

Seems simple to me... start at point A... travel close to massive object curving your vector... ending at point B which was behind the massive object in between.

:( :hihi:

 

This is known as Newtonian light deflection and it predicts a value of deflection half that of General Relativity. Accurate tests have revealed the amount of deflection is equal to Einstein's prediction of twice the Newtonian value to a high degree of accuracy.

 

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

So in GR there is no electrical field since there are no forces ??????????????????????????

 

Ah, didn't Maxwell describe the magnetic field as a bending of space time through five dimensions in much the same way that gravity does? Some might say Einstein was inspired by Maxwell. This completely from memory so it could be wrong.

[lawcat]

Why look for Gravitons when gravity is meant to be the result of the bending of Space Time?

Instead shouldn't one look for something that causes mass to bend spacetime?

 

Switchy:shrug:

 

 

Reason and logic are complex. In law, it takes many revisions to come up with a solid court brief. One that addresses all arguments and counter arguments, in as few words as possible, and in a clearly logical manner.

 

Same goes with science. Often, the proof is complex--as it is derived, it leads the scientitist in different directions. Sometimes it leads one to too many assumption where the original proposition ends up hardly related to the proof in a concise logical way. Neverthless, these proofs are recorded as long as they are reasonable to a few. And, we are left with a chaos of formulas; some related, and some unrelated--although attempting to be related.

Some are empirically proven to a reasonable certainty for a given set of circumstances; but do not work for other circumstances or are inconsistent with some related formulas.

 

In the end, the correct answer is elsewhere, and always simple.

 

To decide which complex equation is closest to proof, and warrants attention, is the chellenge.

 

The theory of gravity is no different. The answer in the end is simple and does not involve any extra assumptions or complex formulas. It just needs to be sorted out in a logical way.