Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
OK-Bruce Is Right - No Gravity Abberation

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on November 8, 2002 14:03:46 UTC

I just read Carlip's paper: "the field of a moving charge has a velocity dependent component the cancels the effect of propagation delay..."

This is an amazing property of nature. For example, the electric field of a charge points at where the the detector is going to be, no matter where that is, rather than where it was when the field was supposedly emitted- there is no retarded time in GR as a result [fundamentally because of Lorentz Invariance].

But this means that the field, in some sense, may be looking ahead in time- it predicts the future. EPR entanglement also has this property. suggesting that the entire electric field is in quantum coherence and behaving like it is a single particle- called the photon. [That is the explanation for the EPR experiment of Aspect that showed that two particles-electron and positron, created at a point and flying off in opposite directions, behave as one particle- they are in quantum coherence. This is called entanglement.]

Likewise, the electric field behaves the same way, like a single particle, the photon. In a single particle, things are known instantly, like the state of spin on one side of the double particle in the ERP experiment.

At first another amazing thing seemed that the equations for this epr type behavior may be found in the equations of relativity.

Carlip calls it the "miraclous cancellation". And from my perspective it first looked like a miracle. Carlip first implies that it is not miraclous because Kinnersley has provided an exact solution to the problem of an accelerating source, and this solution shows that gravity abberation is cancelled by velocity dependent terms up to velocity cubed. But the fact that complicated equations predict it should not take away any miraclous aspects of nature.

But Carlip goes on to argue that the cancellation must be exact if the changes in mechanical momemtum are to be balanced by the [momentum] energy of radiation.

So it's not a miracle just cause GR predicts it- well with Carlip's help (Nature needs the help of man to understand itself).

But is it a miracle of nature that momentum is conserved?

No. No miracle. Just the need to conserve momentum, all of it.

So why does Carlip lead us down this path of suggesting some sort of miraclous cancellation, like in going from vacuum energy to dark energy, a cancellation of 120 orders? The cancellation in the exact GR equations suggested a fundamental principle, like conservation of momentum in this case.

Not even Poincare realized this. Carlip is the first from what I read. Amazing that even Eddington got it wrong. Less amazing that Van Flandem got it wrong. Typical that I got it wrong.
So Bruce is right. GR is right. EPR is right.
I was wrong.

yanniru


So the Carlip paper reads like a historical novel, indicating the path he walked, just to show that conservation of momentum preserves Lorentz invariance [except where quantum coherence exists. The EPR effect is still valid. And so is the experimentally verified evanescent wave effect that should be predicted by GR as well as it is preicted by Maxwell's equations.]

Well it made interesting reading. And so I wrote the above post in a manner that reflects my thoughts as I read Carlip's paper.

So what are the miracles of nature predicted by science? The 120 orders of magnitude is one that is not yet predicted by physics.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins