NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

[Dave Lane]

"This is an epic result," adds Clifford Will of Washington University in St. Louis. An expert in Einstein's theories, Will chairs an independent panel of the National Research Council set up by NASA in 1998 to monitor and review the results of Gravity Probe B. "One day," he predicts, "this will be written up in textbooks as one of the classic experiments in the history of physics."
Time and space, according to Einstein's theories of relativity, are woven together, forming a four-dimensional fabric called "space-time." The mass of Earth dimples this fabric, much like a heavy person sitting in the middle of a trampoline. Gravity, says Einstein, is simply the motion of objects following the curvaceous lines of the dimple.

If Earth were stationary, that would be the end of the story. But Earth is not stationary. Our planet spins, and the spin should twist the dimple, slightly, pulling it around into a 4-dimensional swirl. This is what GP-B went to space in 2004 to check.

The idea behind the experiment is simple:
Put a spinning gyroscope into orbit around the Earth, with the spin axis pointed toward some distant star as a fixed reference point. Free from external forces, the gyroscope's axis should continue pointing at the star--forever. But if space is twisted, the direction of the gyroscope's axis should drift over time. By noting this change in direction relative to the star, the twists of space-time could be measured.
In practice, the experiment is tremendously difficult.

The four gyroscopes in GP-B are the most perfect spheres ever made by humans. These ping pong-sized balls of fused quartz and silicon are 1.5 inches across and never vary from a perfect sphere by more than 40 atomic layers. If the gyroscopes weren't so spherical, their spin axes would wobble even without the effects of relativity.

According to calculations, the twisted space-time around Earth should cause the axes of the gyros to drift merely 0.041 arcseconds over a year. An arcsecond is 1/3600th of a degree. To measure this angle reasonably well, GP-B needed a fantastic precision of 0.0005 arcseconds. It's like measuring the thickness of a sheet of paper held edge-on 100 miles away.

"GP-B researchers had to invent whole new technologies to make this possible," notes Will.
They developed a "drag free" satellite that could brush against the outer layers of Earth's atmosphere without disturbing the gyros. They figured out how to keep Earth's magnetic field from penetrating the spacecraft. And they created a device to measure the spin of a gyro--without touching the gyro. More information about these technologies may be found in the Science@NASA story "A Pocket of Near-Perfection."

Pulling off the experiment was an exceptional challenge. But after a year of data-taking and nearly five years of analysis, the GP-B scientists appear to have done it.

"We measured a geodetic precession of 6.600 plus or minus 0.017 arcseconds and a frame dragging effect of 0.039 plus or minus 0.007 arcseconds," says Everitt.

For readers who are not experts in relativity: Geodetic precession is the amount of wobble caused by the static mass of the Earth (the dimple in spacetime) and the frame dragging effect is the amount of wobble caused by the spin of the Earth (the twist in spacetime). Both values are in precise accord with Einstein's predictions.

"In the opinion of the committee that I chair, this effort was truly heroic. We were just blown away," says Will.

The results of Gravity Probe B give physicists renewed confidence that the strange predictions of Einstein's theory are indeed correct, and that these predictions may be applied elsewhere. The type of spacetime vortex that exists around Earth is duplicated and magnified elsewhere in the cosmos--around massive neutron stars, black holes, and active galactic nuclei.

"If you tried to spin a gyroscope in the severely twisted space-time around a black hole," says Will, "it wouldn't just gently precess by a fraction of a degree. It would wobble crazily and possibly even flip over."

In binary black hole systems--that is, where one black hole orbits another black hole--the black holes themselves are spinning and thus behave like gyroscopes. Imagine a system of orbiting, spinning, wobbling, flipping black holes! That's the sort of thing general relativity predicts and which GP-B tells us can really be true.
The scientific legacy of GP-B isn't limited to general relativity. The project also touched the lives of hundreds of young scientists:
"Because it was based at a university many students were able to work on the project," says Everitt. "More than 86 PhD theses at Stanford plus 14 more at other Universities were granted to students working on GP-B. Several hundred undergraduates and 55 high-school students also participated, including astronaut Sally Ride and eventual Nobel Laureate Eric Cornell."

NASA funding for Gravity Probe B began in the fall of 1963. That means Everitt and some colleagues have been planning, promoting, building, operating, and analyzing data from the experiment for more than 47 years - truly, an epic effort.

What's next?

Everitt recalls some advice given to him by his thesis advisor and Nobel Laureate Patrick M.S. Blackett: "If you can't think of what physics to do next, invent some new technology, and it will lead to new physics."

"Well," says Everitt, "we invented 13 new technologies for Gravity Probe B. Who knows where they will take us?"

This epic might just be getting started, after all.

Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA

[notorious]

Awesome.

[Ebolapox]

just another reason we should keep nasa around and not let them be a budgetary shortfall. amazing.

[milkman]

That's exciting!

I don't know what the hell it means, but I know that it has to be exciting!

[CoMoChief]

That's exciting!

I don't know what the hell it means, but I know that it has to be exciting!

:LOL:

biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig woooooooooooooords

[Reaper16]

The list of technologies that we wouldn't have if not for NASA is impressively long. People that want to drastically cut funding to NASA are largely ignorant.

[Dave Lane]

The list of technologies that we wouldn't have if not for NASA is impressively long. People that want to drastically cut funding to NASA are largely ignorant.

You are actually being quite kind :)

[notorious]

I believe that we will figure out how to travel faster then light without the use of wormholes someday.

[Dave Lane]

I believe that we will figure out how to travel faster then light without the use of wormholes someday.

That would be so awesome. We could have a shuttle to Mars that would be there in minutes instead of months. We could actually visit other solar systems. The possibilities would be awe inspiring.

[cdcox]

The list of technologies that we wouldn't have if not for NASA is impressively long. People that want to drastically cut funding to NASA are largely ignorant.

There is tremendous cutting of science programs across agencies. Technology. education and infrastructure are the only way to grow our economy in the long term. We are eating our seed corn. I'll stop there since this isn't DC.

[milkman]

:LOL:

biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig woooooooooooooords

There's a big difference between lack of intelligence and lack of knowledge.

I never took a physics class, so this is all foriegn to me, and I have no problem admitting I don't know.

You, on the other, are too stupid to ever admit when you don't know something, which is almost always.

[Ebolapox]

There's a big difference between lack of intelligence and lack of knowledge.

I never took a physics class, so this is all foriegn to me, and I have no problem admitting I don't know...

hell, I've taken a few physics courses (requirements for my undergrad degree), and I only have the faintest of ideas of what exactly this is talking about

[cdcox]

hell, I've taken a few physics courses (requirements for my undergrad degree), and I only have the faintest of ideas of what exactly this is talking about

Ditto.

[notorious]

That would be so awesome. We could have a shuttle to Mars that would be there in minutes instead of months. We could actually visit other solar systems. The possibilities would be awe inspiring.

The current laws of physics would need to be broken, but that's only happened 11tybillion times in the last 100 years.

Very few people understand the basics about light, time, and relativity. Thank goodness you guys think it's cool.

[Dave Lane]

Basically this is a experiment to test whether space and time is curved by gravity as predicted by Einstein.

Thats the crux of it.

[Dave Lane]

The current laws of physics would need to be broken, but that's only happened 11tybillion times in the last 100 years.

Very few people understand the basics about light, time, and relativity. Thank goodness you guys think it's cool.

I think its way cool. And even though it would require tossing e=mc2 out the window I'm good with that :)

[milkman]

Basically this is a experiment to test whether space and time is curved by gravity as predicted by Einstein.

Thats the crux of it.

I don't really understand what that means, so let me see if I can get the gist.

If space and time are curved, then in theory, a wormhole is a straight line from one point to another, like a bridge over a river, rather than having to travel around it?

[BigMeatballDave]

SUCK IT! FLAT EARTHERS!

[notorious]

I don't really understand what that means, so let me see if I can get the gist.

If space and time are curved, then in theory, a wormhole is a straight line from one point to another, like a bridge over a river, rather than having to travel around it?


Thats a decent way of putting it.


Theoretically one can bend time/space to shorten the distance they need to travel if they have a large enough gravity source.


Quantum Singularity, anyone?

[Dave Lane]

I don't really understand what that means, so let me see if I can get the gist.

If space and time are curved, then in theory, a wormhole is a straight line from one point to another, like a bridge over a river, rather than having to travel around it?

In a nut shell you pretty much have it. Einsteins theories are constantly tested to see if they are true in many different ways. This is one. If you look at the picture you can "see" space-time curved underneath the earth. More mass equals more curvature of space-time. The larger the Mass (M) or Energy (E) the more you can alter light (C).

E=MC2

But according to the theory as you get closer to the speed of light your mass becomes infinite so speeds greater then the speed of light are not possible. One cool thing is as you approach the speed of light time virtually stops. So if you traveled 100 years at 99% the speed of light and returned, earth time may have advanced 5000 years.

[Rausch]

So they want to find out more specifically "where" we are.

If you can find out exactly "how stretched" you are in space/time it becomes a starting point.

It would be the first point on the x/y axis...

[Discuss Thrower]

So if you traveled 100 years at 99% the speed of light and returned, earth time may have advanced 5000 years.

And KC STILL would be without a playoff win. :/

[milkman]

In a nut shell you pretty much have it. Einsteins theories are constantly tested to see if they are true in many different ways. This is one. If you look at the picture you can "see" space-time curved underneath the earth. More mass equals more curvature of space-time. The larger the Mass (M) or Energy (E) the more you can alter light (C).

E=MC2

But according to the theory as you get closer to the speed of light your mass becomes infinite so speeds greater then the speed of light are not possible. One cool thing is as you approach the speed of light time virtually stops. So if you traveled 100 years at 99% the speed of light and returned, earth time may have advanced 5000 years.

I'm still lost.

They've apparently proven a theory.

Does this mean that, in time, they may be able create technologies to build "bridges" in space?

[Dave Lane]

Right now if Einsteins theories stay true, while it is possible, the energy requirements are frightening. You would have to convert a planet to pure energy to open a worm hole, so we are a long, long way off from making that happen.

I'm still lost.

They've apparently proven a theory.

Does this mean that, in time, they may be able create technologies to build "bridges" in space?

[cdcox]

Right now if Einsteins theories stay true, while it is possible, the energy requirements are frightening. You would have to convert a planet to pure energy to open a worm hole, so we are a long, long way off from making that happen.

Dilithium crystals, my friend, dilithium crystals.

[Rausch]

Right now if Einsteins theories stay true, while it is possible, the energy requirements are frightening. You would have to convert a planet to pure energy to open a worm hole, so we are a long, long way off from making that happen.

Blah blah blah and man will never fly.

The same way you can make one like Columbus' ship, or an air ship, we'll cruise with physics to make a viable space ship.

It's all about understanding teh "sea" you're sailing...

[BigMeatballDave]

Right now if Einsteins theories stay true, while it is possible, the energy requirements are frightening. You would have to convert a planet to pure energy to open a worm hole, so we are a long, long way off from making that happen.
They already have a device for this. Haven't you seen Event Horizon? :)

[Dave Lane]

Blah blah blah and man will never fly.

The same way you can make one like Columbus' ship, or an air ship, we'll cruise with physics to make a viable space ship.

It's all about understanding teh "sea" you're sailing...

I didn't say it wasn't possible just not yet.

[Rausch]

I didn't say it wasn't possible just not yet.

I think it's closer than most believe...

[notorious]

So if you traveled 100 years at 99% the speed of light and returned, earth time may have advanced 5000 years.


That's why we need to adopt Star Trek's version of warp speed. "Capture" a bubble of normal space around the spacecraft so that time for the travelers will progress at the same rate as those around them.

[Dave Lane]

That's why we need to adopt Star Trek's version of warp speed. "Capture" a bubble of normal space around the spacecraft so that time for the travelers will progress at the same rate as those around them.

But think how cool it would be to debrief a crew about things 5,000 years ago. Or be on the crew and live to see 5,000 years of progress.

[Rausch]

That's why we need to adopt Star Trek's version of warp speed. "Capture" a bubble of normal space around the spacecraft so that time for the travelers will progress at the same rate as those around them.

That wouldn't work.....nevermind.

What we're doing right now is finding ways to measure just how much space/time is bent by planets/the sun/etc.

Well, not even so much the sun but just how much it's stretched around us.

Just the gravity of this planet.

Later on we have to measure the pull of the sun and other planets and how their orbits and mass fit...

It's complicated $3it.

But once we find out where "0" truly is...........that's when things get interesting.

[alnorth]

47 years of effort to prove Einstein's space-time theory? cool.

[BigMeatballDave]

H. G. Wells just came.

[Rausch]

47 years of effort to prove Einstein's space-time theory? cool.

Math is the hurdle a genius must suffer to prove himself.

It's why we're so fucking backward.

[notorious]

But think how cool it would be to debrief a crew about things 5,000 years ago. Or be on the crew and live to see 5,000 years of progress.


Planet of the Apes or The Time Machine? :D

Seriously though, their technology would be 5000 years behind. The future generation will probably meet them at their destination and ask the old generation,"What took you so long?" :)

[DaFace]

So...what you're saying is the Einstein was a pretty smart dude. Who'd a thunk it?

[Rausch]

So...what you're saying is the Einstein was a pretty smart dude. Who'd a thunk it?

No, they did "measure a geodetic precession of 6.600 plus or minus 0.017 arcseconds and a frame dragging effect of 0.039 plus or minus 0.007 arcseconds."

So there's that...

[BigRedChief]

I took some quantum physic courses in college. Actually got A's some how.....

There isn't a "standard" belief. But several strands, again this is a very generalized list that I found because if I did the list I'd screw it up badly...

Your consciousness affects the behaviour of subatomic particles.
Particles move backwards as well as forwards in time and appear in all possible places at once.
The universe is splitting, every Planck-time (10 E-43 seconds) into billions of parallel universes.
The universe is interconnected with faster-than-light transfers of information.
In general, as of right now. most consider parrallel universes more of a possibility than time travel. Basically because anything that promotes time travel as a possibility will disprove E=MC2. No legitamate physicist is prepared to challenge that dogma.

[notorious]

Your consciousness affects the behaviour of subatomic particles.
Particles move backwards as well as forwards in time and appear in all possible places at once.



I didn't know our consciousness affected particles. How did they prove that?

Maybe we will be able to move mountains with a thought.

[Rausch]

In general, as of right now. most consider parrallel universes more of a possibility than time travel.

No, most consider this the most realistic method of time travel.

You can always go back but doing so ruins your forward.

[Rausch]

I didn't know our consciousness affected particles. How did they prove that?

It's been disproven.

In a way...

[BigRedChief]

I didn't know our consciousness affected particles. How did they prove that?

Maybe we will be able to move mountains with a thought.Nothing has been proven. There are sides of the debate that are absolutely certain without a shadow of doubt that they are correct.

I think we will see some discovery in the future that will alter how we view these theory's including the dogma on E=MC2. but, I do think we will see space travel in the future. It's a matter of when not if.

[Braincase]

This pleases Dr. Sheldon Cooper.

[Braincase]

Nothing has been proven. There are sides of the debate that are absolutely certain without a shadow of doubt that they are correct.

I think we will see some discovery in the future that will alter how we view these theory's including the dogma on E=MC2. but, I do think we will see space travel in the future. It's a matter of when not if.

Are you referring to the double-slit experiements?

[teedubya]

just another reason we should keep nasa around and not let them be a budgetary shortfall. amazing.

Exactly. Humanity should learn how to get along on this rock, so we can spend billions on space exploration instead of killing each other.

Space and physics are amazing, two of my favorite research topics.

[DRU]

I took some quantum physic courses in college. Actually got A's some how.....

There isn't a "standard" belief. But several strands, again this is a very generalized list that I found because if I did the list I'd screw it up badly...

Your consciousness affects the behaviour of subatomic particles.
Particles move backwards as well as forwards in time and appear in all possible places at once.
The universe is splitting, every Planck-time (10 E-43 seconds) into billions of parallel universes.
The universe is interconnected with faster-than-light transfers of information.
In general, as of right now. most consider parrallel universes more of a possibility than time travel. Basically because anything that promotes time travel as a possibility will disprove E=MC2. No legitamate physicist is prepared to challenge that dogma.

I'm no Pro, but I have read quite a bit about this stuff and I'm a little confused on why you say proving time travel possible would disprove e=mc^2..??

If energy (e) = mass (m) times the speed of light (c), squared, then that works both ways like any other math equation. So if an object with mass is moving at or near the speed of light time would slow down and you would simply age less than everything not moving at that same speed (special relativity). The object moving through space at that speed and gaining mass would be creating more energy.

I may be showing my ignorance here, but I thought that was part of the magic of the equation...it's sort of the answer to life itself, not just energy. Everything is simply energy, and space has all sorts of heavy objects flying around at insane speeds generating all the energy that has transformed into everything we know today.

Again, I may be completely off track there. I'm just trying to comprehend things I've read personally (no classes or anything.) I've just never come across any info that says if one is true the other gets negated. From everything I've read they seem to work hand in hand.

Is there some simple concept I'm missing?

[DRU]

Basically this is a experiment to test whether space and time is curved by gravity as predicted by Einstein.

Thats the crux of it.

Actually, I think you worded that incorrectly. The mass of an object in space bending the fabric of space-time was proven when they did that light bending test years ago, like 1920 I think..?? So that proved general relativity (gravity).

What they still weren't sure of was whether or not space time actually got twisted (not just bent) because of the rotation of the planets. That is what has apparently been confirmed now, further proving the theory.

As I mentioned in my other post, though, I may be showing some ignorance here.

[BigRedChief]

I'm no Pro, but I have read quite a bit about this stuff and I'm a little confused on why you say proving time travel possible would disprove e=mc^2..?? I didn't mean to say that, I meant most people think that for time travel to be possible that E=MC2 wasn't fully correct. Who am I or they to question Einstein? He probably killed more brain cells with his moderate drinking than I've ever had to start with.

[BigRedChief]

Are you referring to the double-slit experiements?I was generalizing but my own worthless personal opinion is that time dilation will be the answer but again, WTF do I know.:hmmm:

[DRU]

I was generalizing but my own worthless personal opinion is that time dilation will be the answer but again, WTF do I know.:hmmm:

Time dilation and length contraction...both confirmed. So yes, I'm with you. Just a matter of when.

Something that's been on my mind lately is the talk of using light to move data on computer networks (ie. the internet). With data moving at the speed of light we'd essentially have our first time traveling "thing". Who knows what they could do with that.

[teedubya]

If you are interested in Quantum Physics... check out these courses on AcademicEarth.org, by the best and brightest professors from the best universities in the world.

Unreal. All free.

http://academicearth.org/subjects/physics

[BigRedChief]

Time dilation and length contraction...both confirmed. So yes, I'm with you. Just a matter of when.

Something that's been on my mind lately is the talk of using light to move data on computer networks (ie. the internet). With data moving at the speed of light we'd essentially have our first time traveling "thing". Who knows what they could do with that.We have been moving data packets at the speed of light on fiber networks for over 10 years now. Because the ends of the cables need to cleaved I don't see how this would help time travel?

[DRU]

If you are interested in Quantum Physics... check out these courses on AcademicEarth.org, by the best and brightest professors from the best universities in the world.

Unreal. All free.

http://academicearth.org/subjects/physics

Standford posts their stuff on YouTube for free, too. Lots of Leonard Susskin's courses are on there. One example is his course on special relativity. The first lecture is almost 2 hours long (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY) and I think it's a 12 lecture course. All of them are on there, and that's just one course. They offer lots more, too.

My problem is I stopped math at Algebra 2. To really understand what they're talking about you gotta know the trig, calculus, etc.

A more simple series that I loved on YouTube was by cassiopeiaproject. They had an entire collection of awesome stuff but for some reason it's all been taken down.

I did find a shortened version of their series on special relativity, though. If you've got about 40 min this 4 video series will blow your mind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rl3Z9yCTn8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgsKlSnUO0k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6o_-yTa168

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSOPq9rZYcU

[Dave Lane]

Actually, I think you worded that incorrectly. The mass of an object in space bending the fabric of space-time was proven when they did that light bending test years ago, like 1920 I think..?? So that proved general relativity (gravity).

What they still weren't sure of was whether or not space time actually got twisted (not just bent) because of the rotation of the planets. That is what has apparently been confirmed now, further proving the theory.

As I mentioned in my other post, though, I may be showing some ignorance here.

Actually it showed that light could be bent by gravitational forces, not the actual proof of a bending of space-time. The Coma cluster of galaxies bends light because of its strong and massive gravity and "lens" galaxies far behind it. This proved that light (which has no mass) can be acted upon by gravity.

What they are trying to show by the "twist" is that the earth actually is dimpling the 4th Dimension (space-time). Its a way they can show that space-time is affected by the gravitational forces of the earth.

[DRU]

We have been moving data packets at the speed of light on fiber networks for over 10 years now. Because the ends of the cables need to cleaved I don't see how this would help time travel?

Well, I knew I'd make a fool of myself at some point trying to talk about this stuff. :)

Is fibre really the speed of the light..??? Seems like I was reading a little while ago about using glass tubes to send data at speeds far greater than what's available today.

Even with fibre and even with the ends cleaved, the data is still traveling much faster than anything else we've ever accomplished, right? During that time (or no time) it's traveling from one end to the other its only relative to itself. So when the data reaches the other end it's actually "younger" than everything else around it.

Maybe I'm just digging myself deeper into the fool hole, but it seems like it could fit to me. Maybe the factor I'm not thinking about is that data has no mass..??

[DRU]

Actually it showed that light could be bent by gravitational forces, not the actual proof of a bending of space-time. The Coma cluster of galaxies bends light because of its strong and massive gravity and "lens" galaxies far behind it. This proved that light (which has no mass) can be acted upon by gravity.

What they are trying to show by the "twist" is that the earth actually is dimpling the 4th Dimension (space-time). Its a way they can show that space-time is affected by the gravitational forces of the earth.

Ok, makes sense.

[notorious]

Actually it showed that light could be bent by gravitational forces, not the actual proof of a bending of space-time. The Coma cluster of galaxies bends light because of its strong and massive gravity and "lens" galaxies far behind it. This proved that light (which has no mass) can be acted upon by gravity.

What they are trying to show by the "twist" is that the earth actually is dimpling the 4th Dimension (space-time). Its a way they can show that space-time is affected by the gravitational forces of the earth.


This. It proved that light could bend, not time/space.


The light being bent by the gravity of one object changes our perception of that object.

Time/Space is a different monster.

[notorious]

Well, I knew I'd make a fool of myself at some point trying to talk about this stuff. :)

Is fibre really the speed of the light..??? Seems like I was reading a little while ago about using glass tubes to send data at speeds far greater than what's available today.

Even with fibre and even with the ends cleaved, the data is still traveling much faster than anything else we've ever accomplished, right? During that time (or no time) it's traveling from one end to the other its only relative to itself. So when the data reaches the other end it's actually "younger" than everything else around it.

Maybe I'm just digging myself deeper into the fool hole, but it seems like it could fit to me. Maybe the factor I'm not thinking about is that data has no mass..??

No, you are correct.

Besides, we are all fools on CP.

[BigRedChief]

No, you are correct.

Besides, we are all fools on CP.:thumb: I doubt there are any people here on Chiefs Planet actually working in the Quantum physic field. We are a bunch of hobbyists.

[BigRedChief]

Well, I knew I'd make a fool of myself at some point trying to talk about this stuff. :)

Is fibre really the speed of the light..??? Seems like I was reading a little while ago about using glass tubes to send data at speeds far greater than what's available today.yes and fiber is really glass.

Wikipedia looks like it has reliable info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber

[notorious]

yes and fiber is really glass.

Wikipedia looks like it has reliable info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber

That's is exactly right. Don't ever never ever never bend a Optical Digital cord or you will screw it up.

[Buck]

Do you have a link to this story Dave?

[Adept Havelock]

From my limited understanding of the article, very cool.

I didn't know our consciousness affected particles. How did they prove that?

Maybe we will be able to move mountains with a thought.

For some reason, that makes me think of this Chuck Lorre vanity card from "The Big Bang Theory":

We exist to bear witness.

We had to be.

The infinite needs us to see it.

Without the perceiver,

the perceived does not exist.

That gives us leverage.

Don't look until you get what you want.

[Dave Lane]

Do you have a link to this story Dave?

Here you go Buck...

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

[JD10367]

Does any of this mean I can go back and change the outcome of the Giants-Patriots 2007 Super Bowl?

[Valiant]

Does any of this mean I can go back and change the outcome of the Giants-Patriots 2007 Super Bowl?

You already did, you just do not remember it..

[Dave Lane]

There would be a lot of outcomes I'd like to change :)

[petegz28]

I believe that we will figure out how to travel faster then light without the use of wormholes someday.

It is possible we will if we ever perfect the warping of space-time. It's corny, I know, but it is the same philosophy as a warp drive in Star Trek. I believe it is theoretically possible but of course you have to have the technology to do it.

[Fish]

Does any of this mean I can go back and change the outcome of the Giants-Patriots 2007 Super Bowl?

It really depends on which parallel universe you're talking about... The outcomes are infinite...

[ChiefaRoo]

Meh, this isn't so cool. They should have studied time travel/disgraced drafturbators

[teedubya]

This is an epic space image... zoomable to all areas of the image.... unreal.

http://media.skysurvey.org/openzoom.html

[Inspector]

Hopefully with these latest scientific triumphs, we'll get to answer mankinds 2 greatest questions:

If a car is traveling at the speed of light and turns on the headlights, does anything come out?

and

If a car is traveling at the speed of sound and honks the horn, will anyone be able to hear it?

Lets get the important stuff figured out first, mkay?

[Pants]

Yes and yes.

[crazycoffey]

did this experiment cause the recent natural disasters?

[Pants]

did this experiment cause the recent natural disasters?

Not sure if serious....

[crazycoffey]

Not sure if serious....
LMAO

[beach tribe]

Well, I knew I'd make a fool of myself at some point trying to talk about this stuff. :)

Is fibre really the speed of the light..??? Seems like I was reading a little while ago about using glass tubes to send data at speeds far greater than what's available today.

Even with fibre and even with the ends cleaved, the data is still traveling much faster than anything else we've ever accomplished, right? During that time (or no time) it's traveling from one end to the other its only relative to itself. So when the data reaches the other end it's actually "younger" than everything else around it.

Maybe I'm just digging myself deeper into the fool hole, but it seems like it could fit to me. Maybe the factor I'm not thinking about is that data has no mass..??

If I'm not mistaken, the information sent over fiber is in the form of light. So it would pretty much have to travel at the speed of it.

[notorious]

It is possible we will if we ever perfect the warping of space-time. It's corny, I know, but it is the same philosophy as a warp drive in Star Trek. I believe it is theoretically possible but of course you have to have the technology to do it.

Screw it. I love Star Trek.


They have predicted a quite a few technologies.

[notorious]

Hopefully with these latest scientific triumphs, we'll get to answer mankinds 2 greatest questions:

If a car is traveling at the speed of light and turns on the headlights, does anything come out?

and

If a car is traveling at the speed of sound and honks the horn, will anyone be able to hear it?

Lets get the important stuff figured out first, mkay?

The next generation Chevy Volt will answer both questions.

[Discuss Thrower]

If I'm not mistaken, the information sent over fiber is in the form of light. So it would pretty much have to travel at the speed of it.

Speed of light changes depending on the medium, so the speed of light through glass is probably different than speed of light in a vacuum.

[Dave Lane]

The next generation Chevy Volt will answer both questions.

And here I thought it would be Star Trek the next generation that would cause that.

[notorious]

And here I thought it would be Star Trek the next generation that would cause that.

A little from column A, a little from column B.


:D

[notorious]

I have a GOOD question.


Is the speed of light affected by air density?

The speed of sound is affected, but light is a different animal.

[Dave Lane]

I have a GOOD question.


Is the speed of light affected by air density?

The speed of sound is affected, but light is a different animal.

No but it can block or diffuse it. I'm sitting out back with one of my scopes now testing a new motor in the mount and the light is really hard to gather due to high haze.

[Dave Lane]

You know this thread is getting dangerously close to Skips magical 100 post count. And for a science post thats extremely awesome

[notorious]

No but it can block or diffuse it. I'm sitting out back with one of my scopes now testing a new motor in the mount and the light is really hard to gather due to high haze.

Thanks.


Light does have mass, correct? We can make a sail that can be used to propel a ship, so I thought that density might effect the speed of light.

But then it hit me, light is relative, so light would still be traveling at 186000 mps in relation to air particles.


..... brain meltdown coming shortly........:)

[Dave Lane]

Thanks.


Light does have mass, correct? We can make a sail that can be used to propel a ship, so I thought that density might effect the speed of light.

But then it hit me, light is relative, so light would still be traveling at 186000 mps in relation to air particles.


..... brain meltdown coming shortly........:)

Its a weird object photons. They have no mass.

It has relativistic mass (meaning that it has energy which can be transformed into mass E = mc^2

It does not have rest mass though since it cannot _be_ at rest (meaning that it does not exhibit/experience a gravitational pull)

It can be affected by gravity though because gravity essentially curves space-time. Since light always goes in a straight line relative to space-time, if it encounters a curvature in space-time it will continue going straight but since space-time is curved, "straight" will be curved as well. In the case of black holes, the curve is so steep that the "straight" path actually spirals down to a single point from the perspective of an outside observer.

[milkman]

Screw it. I love Star Trek.


They have predicted a quite a few technologies.

I don't think Star Trek predicted technology.

I think it inspired it.

[Dave Lane]

Actually they had a few ideas inspired by fantasy at the time that seem more and more workable today.

[Easy 6]

Reading stuff like this always drives home to me just how friggin dumb i really am, compared to people like this.

[BigRedChief]

Reading stuff like this always drives home to me just how friggin dumb i really am, compared to people like this.I think thats why us hobbyist use our free time to learn this material. We are hoping by some sort of osmosis that the intelligence of the people who really understand this some how rubs off on us. ;)

[Pedro]

Reading stuff like this always drives home to me just how friggin dumb i really am, compared to people like this.
Yeah, but those guys probably never get laid.

[Dave Lane]

Yeah, but those guys probably never get laid.

Well I think you could be right on Hawkings but the rest might just surprise you. Oddly sometimes women like brilliant men.

[Discuss Thrower]

Well I think you could be right on Hawkings but the rest might just surprise you. Oddly sometimes women like brilliant men.

So what's your excuse? /hyuk hyuk hyuk

[notorious]

Well I think you could be right on Hawkings but the rest might just surprise you. Oddly sometimes women like brilliant men.

LOL, you just reminded me of Real Genius.


" Look at it this way. Considering the type of people you are and the environment you're in, you have to admit the strong possibility this may be the only chance you ever have in your entire lives... to have sex. Think about it."


"Yeah!"

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y5JECrtNMJc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Dave Lane]

So what's your excuse? /hyuk hyuk hyuk

Like I said things just might surprise you :)

[Discuss Thrower]

Like I said things just might surprise you :)

Doesn't surprise me; I used to be intelligent. Then I found booze and videogames so taking advantage of the "women like smart guys" ship sailed years ago.

[Dave Lane]

Doesn't surprise me; I used to be intelligent. Then I found booze and videogames so taking advantage of the "women like smart guys" ship sailed years ago.

Well there's always time to learn more, read more, enjoy more. :)

[DMAC]

So without reading through this thread and not really understanding the article but loving shows on The Science Channel...

Does this pretty much say that Einsteins theory that the universe has a fabric to it is proven?

[Dave Lane]

Pretty much. Its another proof that the concept of Space-Time is accurate and that it actually twists from gravitational forces.

100 replies! Awesome but it is the off season

[Jack]

If time travel was a reality, then CP'ers would relive one year and quit wasting time waiting;
donky fans would have only two; and steeler fans would have so many from which to choose.

Time travel would be extremely unfair for the Chiefs faithful. . .

[Fish]

This pretty much proves that Matt Cassel will suck in the future.....

[FishingRod]

Someone smart explain this to me. Light is affected by gravity which demonstrates it has mass. According to Einstein as an object nears the speed of light the mass of that object changes to near infinite. So when one turns on a flash light why doesn’t the beam suck up the universe?

[Pants]

Someone smart explain this to me. Light is affected by gravity which demonstrates it has mass. According to Einstein as an object nears the speed of light the mass of that object changes to near infinite. So when one turns on a flash light why doesn’t the beam suck up the universe?

Read the thread first. :)

[Dave Lane]

Someone smart explain this to me. Light is affected by gravity which demonstrates it has mass. According to Einstein as an object nears the speed of light the mass of that object changes to near infinite. So when one turns on a flash light why doesn’t the beam suck up the universe?

This might be quicker

Its a weird object photons. They have no mass.

It has relativistic mass (meaning that it has energy which can be transformed into mass E = mc^2

It does not have rest mass though since it cannot _be_ at rest (meaning that it does not exhibit/experience a gravitational pull)

It can be affected by gravity though because gravity essentially curves space-time. Since light always goes in a straight line relative to space-time, if it encounters a curvature in space-time it will continue going straight but since space-time is curved, "straight" will be curved as well. In the case of black holes, the curve is so steep that the "straight" path actually spirals down to a single point from the perspective of an outside observer.

[Discuss Thrower]

This might be quicker

Its a weird object photons. They have no mass.

It has relativistic mass (meaning that it has energy which can be transformed into mass E = mc^2

It does not have rest mass though since it cannot _be_ at rest (meaning that it does not exhibit/experience a gravitational pull)

It can be affected by gravity though because gravity essentially curves space-time. Since light always goes in a straight line relative to space-time, if it encounters a curvature in space-time it will continue going straight but since space-time is curved, "straight" will be curved as well. In the case of black holes, the curve is so steep that the "straight" path actually spirals down to a single point from the perspective of an outside observer.

Sounds like Xeno's paradox with the flight of the arrow.

[Easy 6]

I think thats why us hobbyist use our free time to learn this material. We are hoping by some sort of osmosis that the intelligence of the people who really understand this some how rubs off on us. ;)

Couldnt agree more BRC, i love to ponder hard science & even though i'll never have more than a laymans understanding, its better than no understanding at all.

[Graystoke]

This is good news. But I got lost at the trampoline part.

[4th and Long]

This is good news. But I got lost at the trampoline part.
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2011/05/05/sm-250-gravity-probe-b-nasa.jpg
Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time.

[DRU]

This is good news. But I got lost at the trampoline part.

Imagine putting a bowling ball on a trampoline. The bowling ball is heavy enough that it would bend the trampoline down into sort of a cone shape with the bowling ball in the middle.

Now imagine tossing a tennis ball onto the trampoline. The tennis ball will roll around the bowling ball and fall towards it because of the curvature in the trampoline.

That whole concept is essentially the same thing going on in space with gravity (general relativity.) Space itself has a shape and acts like the trampoline. A planet acts as the bowling ball and bends the shape of the space around it causing other smaller planets to orbit around it like the tennis ball orbiting around the bowling ball.

If the bowling ball (planet) were heavy enough that it bend the shape of space so drastically into a cone so narrow and deep that nothing could escape you'd have yourself a black hole.

Anyway, this article explains that they've now confirmed it also swirls like the previous honey example. I just wanted to follow through with the trampoline example so you understand before changing it to honey.