Relativity

https://aegis.web.cern.ch/aegis/ https://home.cern/science/experiments/aegis https://aegis.web.cern.ch/aegis/research.html https://home.cern/news/news/physics/gbars-antiproton-decelerator-installed https://home.cern/news/news/physics/raising-gbar-antimatter-exploration https://home.cern/news/news/physics/first-antiprotons-elena https://espace.cern.ch/elena-project/SitePages/Home.aspx https://gbar.web.cern.ch/GBAR/results/publications.php this is a fascinating line of research at CERN .. if not already here, we need a New Topic dedicated to this set of experiments and associated equipment at CERN

I want to say yes, because he believed that the Universe was a static bubble or something, which Hubble proved him wrong on. However nothing Hubble said is factual either as the math that proves what the universe is doing doesn't add up. That said since math can not be wrong, then our understanding of the universe may be the error. Again you know that I am wrong, know how the universe began and where it's going but you still can't figure out what's in my pocket and we are actually touching in Universal terms

The holographic principal says that all of the information of the universe can be stored on the surface of a black hole. That doesn't mean that the entire universe is literally on the surface of a black hole. It would just appear as though the Earth did collapse inside of a black hole. The information of what is going on with the planet would be censored. Then people would see them convert into a black hole, so the information on the ship would be censored from them. Then in the holographic universe they are able to calculate what happens everywhere in the universe by looking at what it would look like on the surface of a black hole. It would be unavoidable for…

Is it okay for me to assume that the interior of a black-hole is not a vacuum? Is it okay for me to assume that if gravity is detected within a given volume of space that, that volume of space is not a vacuum? Is it okay for me to assume that whenever someone mentions something moving faster than light that their statement must mean a vacuum is implied? The third question is based upon a reply in another thread that stated nothing ever moves faster than light. Yet I had recently watched a video that seems to imply that in certain conditions well, yes somethings can move faster than light. I can only assume that the person that made the statement, assumed th…

Not expanded into yet? Everyone says that the universe is expanding, but what is it expanding into

Hello forum, I was thinking about gravitational lensing and was curious if it affects gravitational waves in the same time. We have just recently detected gravitational waves by LIGO but if there would be a neutron star crash at a large distance that would hypothetically emit photons and gravitational waves at the exact same time, would we "receive" them here on earth in the exact same time despite any "deflection" to the light (and gravitational waves?) caused by a massive object? If yes, are we using this effect to confirm LIGO results? "Photons of light are not technically affected by large gravitational fields; instead space and time itself beco…

I am learning that AE never accommodated himself to a geometrical interpretation of GR (stand to be corrected of course) Do any practical consequences flow from the adoption of his interpretation of GR as against what I understand is now generally accepted as the "best" interpretation. Or is it just you say "tomato" and I say "tomato"? For instance ,would it matter when considering any of the possible theories around Quantum Gravity whether Einstein was right or wrong?

Is the frame dragging effect dependant on the magnitude of mass? for example: the frame dragging effect has been measured to exist around earth after the results from gravity probe-B came to the public. does the same go for any size of mass? because i can think of some interesting things to do with space being bent by any size mass being able to produce a frame dragging effect when angular momentum is applied. i would think that you could stretch it from one side of you and place it on the other like a breast stroke but with ions. i can think of ways to compress and shape space, maybe even use it to naturally fuse things together at the micro levels. but thats o…

Calling the points A and B and considering established physics always applies then A and B move through time according to relativity. Point A stands still as B moves from A’s perspective and point B stands still as A moves from B’s perspective, if A and Bs’ perspectives can be considered a microcosm of the real universe then, if only in this relative way, we have a static universe where every point considers itself fixed at point 0,0. A spacetime graph is a concept of relativity that works only AFTER the perspective is chosen, choosing A as 0,0 on the graph I can then show how B is moving m/s, and choosing B as 0,0 needs to be done first before A can be shown to move…

Let's consider Bell's spaceship experiment. Forward and backward spaceships are simultaneously and instantly accelerated in frame S. l is distance between the spaceships.As soon as forward spaceship is accelerated it sends light signal for measurement of distance between the ships.As soon as backward spaceship is accelerated it sends light signal for measurement of distance between the ships. tf is time of measurement of the distance by forward spaceship tb is time of measurement of the distance by backward spaceship tf = l /(gamma(c+v))+l/(gamma(c-v))=2lc/(gamma(c2-v2))=2 l /(c2-v2)1/2 tb = l/(gamma(c-v)+l/(gamma(c+v))=2 l/(c2-v2)!/2 l'f is d…

I want to talk about a detail of General Relativity that has always puzzled me, with the hope of acquiring concepts that allow me to understand that detail naturally. Suppose a road operator declared the following. I have not caused the fall of the old woman. I have only dug the well where she introduced the foot. General Relativity proposes a logic similar to the operator's argument, since it implies the following idea. No massive object causes gravitational force on another. It only contributes to shape the spacetime and at the same time, in the place where it is, it obeys the local form of the molded spacetime. Example. In the vicinity of the sun, the form of …

I would like to know more about inertia, or laziness, and I have a question: Galileo was the first to discover that in a vacuum heavy objects don’t fall faster than lighter objects. That was a counter-intuïtive discovery, and I wonder: Is it possible that he also discovered that lighter objects fall faster than heavy ones, and this is also important for the orbits of satellites?

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-einstein-equivalence-principle-quantum-world.html How Einstein's equivalence principle extends to the quantum world has been puzzling physicists for decades, but a team including a University of Queensland researcher has found the key to this question. UQ physicist, Dr. Magdalena Zych from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems, and the University of Vienna's Professor Caslav Brukner have been working to discover if quantum objects interact with gravity only through curved space-time. "Einstein's equivalence principle contends that the total inertial and gravitational mass of any objects are equivalent, mea…

I have seen a few references between the equivalence principle and free fall, but I seem to be having trouble making the connection? An accelerating rocket does not seem the same as an object in free fall. I've seen the drawings and yes the drawings make sense the rocket man is compared to a man standing on Earth. So why do they keep referencing free fall with the equivalence principle?

So I was watching this show " How the Universe Works " and A very Interesting Thought went through my mind specifically because this episode was about The Dark and Violent History of the Milky Way and I had seen an episode before about Dark Matter But something really intrigued Me. And that Is " What even made the big bang start? " and then followed after that was "Did anything at all Begin the Big Bang? " Could you think of Processes that could of start such a violent explosion or Anything at that, that could explain why it even began? Or in simpler terms How did Nothing Become Something? And I literally mean NOTHING

if black holes had infinite gravity, since the force of gravity is limitless, wouldn,t it have infinite gravity throughout the entire universe?

Hello, I would like to know more about falling objects and Einsteins equivalence, and I have a question: The acceleration of falling objects with different weights differ on Earth when it is done in vacuum or not; Is that also the case with ‘falling objects’ as in Einstein’s rocket that is accelerating?

Photons are not mass therefore they don't create space/time. But when they are falling to big mass their energy is increasing. Does the increse of their energy create space/time field?

Hi. One girl in high school said the following: It bothers me a lot that the relativistic kinetic energy formula has [math] v ^ 2 [/math] tucked into a root that is in the denominator. That prompted me to look for a way to rewrite that relativistic equation in a way that has more Newtonian flavor. Welcome your didactic opinions, or the type that they are. Is the next. [math] T = m_o \ C^2 \left( \dfrac{1}{ \sqrt{ 1 - \dfrac{v^2}{C^2}} } \ -1\right) [/math] [math] T = m_o \ \ C^2 \ \dfrac{1- \sqrt{ 1 - \dfrac{v^2}{C^2}} }{ \sqrt{ 1 - \dfrac{v^2}{C^2}} } [/math] [math] T = m_o \ \ C^2 \ \dfrac{1- \sqrt{ 1 - \dfrac{v^2}{C^2}} }{ \sqrt{ 1 - \dfrac{v^2}{C^2}} } …

I came across this idea on a BBC documentary last night -already put out on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ESo5IPpBs at I hour 25 mins and 15 seconds onwards Although the idea does resonate with me , I am unable to discuss this intelligently and am hoping someone on this forum can see if the idea has merit. To me it seems to be putting (or seeing) gravity in a back to front way in regards to its relationship with the workings of time but I do not have a good grip on the processes involved. Here is the passage in the book that Khalili was clearly reading from ("The Science of Interstellar" by Kip Thorne) "Everything likes t…

I'm not sure this is in the right spot, but here it goes. 2 massive objects in space, object A has an angular momentum of X, while object B has an angular momentum of 0 in relation to the stars. the question is when does object A induce object B to have an angular momentum or greater than 0 in relation to the stars? When or does the dynamo effect apply? I attempted to find my answer within the explanations of frame dragging and I got as far as "list". thank you in advance.

I am Jackson, a high school graduate who is seeking a career in physics. I have been studying physics on a theoretical level and recently in a primitive mathematical level for as long as I can remember. I believe I have created a theory (which may or may not have been discovered already, probably the former) which I believe dictates that spacetime itself, in particular the slope/rate of change in spacetime, dictates a spacetime-induced force on any object which creates a runaway effect we know of as gravity. with this theory that I will describe, there are several key devices I have hypothesized about which utilize the physics from this theory. Please note: I am very open…

I heard a physicist say that it takes 8 mins for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth and that "gravitational information" travels slower than light and that therefore, if the Sun were to disappear, the Earth would continue to orbit around nothing for another 8 minutes. Now, what is the explanation of this? Is it that it takes that long for the bending of space time which the Sun had created to unbend? Is that the proper way to understand this? Often people describe bending of space time like a bowling ball (Sun) resting on an outstretched sheet, so this would be like the depression in the sheet caused by the ball taking 8 minutes to straighten itself …

I'm most probably being a bit silly here but unfortunately relativity doesn't come as easy to me as it does to others. My lecturer was saying that if event A happened then event B one observer can whiteness event A then event B but another observer can witness event B then event A. How can this happen. I'm guessing one of the observers has to be moving relative to the events. This isn't homework this is me being an idiot towards the concept. (I'm a second year undergrad in physics so don't shy away from the maths if it's needed)

Recently a perplexing line of thought came to me that I cannot get rid of. There must be a fault in it somewhere but I can’t find it. -Given: The effects of Einsteinian gravity are caused by a warping of spacetime, changing the geometry of space. -Thus: The fact that space can be warped is an intrinsic characteristic of space itself. -An object of mass approaching a larger mass has its momentum changed by encountering the warp caused by the larger mass, and proceeds to follow the topography of the contours of the larger warp, thus only appearing to being pulled. -This occurs without any force. No force, no force carrier. -Therefore, gravity cannot…