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
Aren't You Gonna Call Me A Crackpot First?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on November 27, 2002 21:38:43 UTC

Nicholas,

You are taking all the fun out of this:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0112090
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207049
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0008107

The basis of the non-conclusive evidence is a few issues:

1) Planck lengths in some quantum gravity arguments seem to suggest an observer-independent scale, but this is in apparent contradiction to SR as it is currently understood.

2) Discrepencies of the high amount of Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECRs) and our knowledge of the transparency of space in terms of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) suggest that there might be a violation of Lorentz invariance.

3) Discrepancies of 20TeV photons from Mk 501 indicate that according to Lorentz invariance these high energy photons should have disappeared due to pair production when interacting with the CMBR.

There are other more exotic philosophical reasons, but there are reasons to suspect that Lorentz invariance is violated (having more to do with the paradoxes between SR and QM).

Doubly Special Relativity, DSR as it is called, might be a way to resolve the above conflicts (i.e., as Amelino-Camelia, Smolin, and others contend). Fortunately DSR is subject to be tested by 2006 using the GLAST (Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope) and AMS program before 2006. If the postulates of SR need modification, we can find out rather soon (hint: if you are thinking of obtaining fame as a young Ph.D. in astrophysics, you might consider this project).

It's 1905 all over again! It could be an exciting time to say the least.

Warm regards, Harv

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