1
   

Nasa launches Einstein Gravity Probe B

 
 
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 06:51 pm
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 938 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 06:54 pm
WOW!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 06:55 pm
How to test Einstein's theory
How to test Einstein's theory:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3640901.stm
0 Replies
 
Heliotrope
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 03:45 am
YEEEEEEEEE HARRRR !!!
Man I've been waiting YEARS for this thing to be launched.
I am a very happy bunny and I can't wait so read the results.
I watched the launch on a website too.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 May, 2004 05:33 pm
Any results yet?
0 Replies
 
Heliotrope
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 03:36 am
Preliminary calibration and alignment is all.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl.html
Cool
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2004 03:54 pm
g__day wrote:
Any results yet?


I read somewhere that it will take about a year to get measurable results.

The possible defflection of the spheres due to frame drag is so minute that it will have to accumulate for a year before it even becomes measureable (if they deflect at all).
0 Replies
 
Heliotrope
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 01:23 pm
True.
It is going to take a lot of data for the effect to show up, if indeed it does.

I'm kind of hoping it doesn't Wink
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 08:14 pm
Heliotrope wrote:
True.
It is going to take a lot of data for the effect to show up, if indeed it does.

I'm kind of hoping it doesn't Wink


That would be interesting, but it probably isn't going to happen because Frame Dragging has already been detected, but in an "uncontrolled" experiment: http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06nov97_1.htm

The link above wrote:
And speaking of different approaches, what of the second method for measuring frame dragging?

Zhang said that it remains as important as ever. NASA is developing it as Gravity Probe-B, a satellite containing precision gyroscopes inside a liquid helium bath. GP-B will point at a selected star, and sensitive instruments will measure how much the gyros precess after conventional effects are nullified. The leftover effects should provide a precise measure of frame dragging.

Zhang pointed out that the Rossi satellite observations are not a controlled experiment. The exact mass of the star and other effects around it are not known with great detail. Gravity Probe-B, though, will be the controlled experiment which gives physicists the precision they need for filling it blank spots in our understanding of how the universe works.


It seems likely that Gravity probe B will only confirm previous observations. And then LIGO is going to confirm gravity waves and GR will stand unscathed... leaving us with the terrible schism between GR and QED. How can they both be right?

QED and GR remind me of the two shadow example where there are shadows on the wall and on the floor. One shadow shows a triangle, so you might deduce that the object casting the shadow is a triangle. But the shadow on the floor shows a circle, so you might deduce that the object is a sphere. But only be seeing both shadows and combining deductions from both can you deduce that the object is a cone.

When we look at QED and GR, I fear that we are looking at two shadows which are both correct, but neither of which are the actual thing we're looking for. And to make matters worse, there could be many more shadows which we don't yet see.
0 Replies
 
Heliotrope
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2004 12:37 am
The frame dragging information so far gained really only consists of indications of the effect.
It's not direct. There too many variables still unknown for one thing and remember that was only a calculation based in indirect information gained from very, very remote data.
It's not a measurement.
I'm still hoping that GBP won't find frame dragging as I reckon there needs to be a major league breakthrough so we can perhaps get a glimpse of the "cone".

M-Theory is promising and already the shape of an overarching theory is starting to be definied.
There's a lot of great stuff coming and I can't wait to see it.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2004 06:27 am
Heliotrope wrote:
M-Theory is promising and already the shape of an overarching theory is starting to be definied.
There's a lot of great stuff coming and I can't wait to see it.


I hope I live long enough to see the next great breakthrough. I would love to see that cone before I die.

What are the basics of M-Theory? I'll have to do some Googling on it. Is it related to the M-Brane stuff which I vaguely remember?
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 08:22 pm
M-Theory links five variants of supersymmetry theory (with different topologies) and supergravity into a single theoretical framework but many of its properties are yet to be understood!

Type I (strings)
Type IIA (rings/torus topology)
Type IIB
Heterotic-0
Heterotic-E
11-dimensional supergravity
0 Replies
 
Heliotrope
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 May, 2004 05:29 am
To get an idea of some of the details you'll have to read one of the more accessible works such as : The Elegant universe.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Nasa launches Einstein Gravity Probe B
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 02:03:00