beecee

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-einstein-date-lorentz-violation-high-energy.html New study again proves Einstein right: Most thorough test to date finds no Lorentz violation in high-energy neutrinos July 16, 2018 by Jennifer Chu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology The universe should be a predictably symmetrical place, according to a cornerstone of Einstein's theory of special relativity, known as Lorentz symmetry. This principle states that any scientist should observe the same laws of physics, in any direction, and regardless of one's frame of reference, as long as that object is moving at a constant speed. For instance, as a consequence of Lorentz symmetry, you should observe the same speed of light—300 million meters per second—whether you are an astronaut traveling through space or a molecule moving through the bloodstream. But for infinitesimally small objects that operate at incredibly high energies, and over vast, universe-spanning distances, the same rules of physics may not apply. At these extreme scales, there may exist a violation to Lorentz symmetry, or Lorentz violation, in which a mysterious, unknown field warps the behavior of these objects in a way that Einstein would not predict. The hunt has been on to find evidence of Lorentz violation in various phenomena, from photons to gravity, with no definitive results. Physicists believe that if Lorentz violation exists, it might also be seen in neutrinos, the lightest known particles in the universe, which can travel over vast distances and are produced by cataclysmic high-energy astrophysical phenomena. Any confirmation that Lorentz violation exists would point to completely new physics that cannot be explained by Einstein's theory. Now MIT scientists and their colleagues on the IceCube Experiment have led the most thorough search yet of Lorentz violation in neutrinos. They analyzed two years of data collected by the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, a massive neutrino detector buried in the Antarctice ice. The team searched for variations in the normal oscillation of neutrinos that could be caused by a Lorentz-violating field. According to their analysis, no such abnormalities were observed in the data, which comprises the highest-energy atmospheric neutrinos that any experiment has collected. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-einstein-date-lorentz-violation-high-energy.html#jCp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0172-2 Abstract: Lorentz symmetry is a fundamental spacetime symmetry underlying both the standard model of particle physics and general relativity. This symmetry guarantees that physical phenomena are observed to be the same by all inertial observers. However, unified theories, such as string theory, allow for violation of this symmetry by inducing new spacetime structure at the quantum gravity scale. Thus, the discovery of Lorentz symmetry violation could be the first hint of these theories in nature. Here we report the results of the most precise test of spacetime symmetry in the neutrino sector to date. We use high-energy atmospheric neutrinos observed at the IceCube Neutrino Observatory to search for anomalous neutrino oscillations as signals of Lorentz violation. We find no evidence for such phenomena. This allows us to constrain the size of the dimension-four operator in the standard-model extension for Lorentz violation to the 1 0 - 28 level and to set limits on higher-dimensional operators in this framework. These are among the most stringent limits on Lorentz violation set by any physical experiment.

My thoughts? I believe you are simply frustrated and are now trolling to get a raise out of people. Even though you accept baseless myth in many things, I don't believe you are serious in this context.

I believe if I was in some different situation to what I am in now, that the possibility of me volunteering for such a mission would be likely. Whether I would be selected is another matter. I also greatly admire people such as Elon Musk, Bas Lansdorp and those involved in Mars One, the 100 Year Star Ship Company, Tau Zero Foundation are a few I am familiar with. The latter two have as their founders, reasonably knowledgable people such as ex NASA Astronaut and physician Mae Jamison, and Marc Millis, former head of NASA's breakthrough propulsion lab. The latter two again seem to be more attuned in experimenting and evaluating any break through physics concepts that could take us to the stars, rather then any permanent settlement on Mars. But I'm equally sure both those would be gladly involved if all critical concepts were taken onboard and a reasonable sound chance of success was envisaged with regards to Mars. They may yet all fail but at least they appear to be promoting humanity as a true space faring species. I enjoy their optimism and their realisation that what they are proposing to undertake, is dangerous in risky in the extreme. One thing for certain, if we don't try, we 100% don't succeed.

An Astronomer of some renown once told me that any future validated QGT will almost certainly encompass GR and the BB.

And what sort of action took place for this creator to come to being? Was there a previous magical spaghetti monster that created this being that created the universe. Why not be honest and answer that question as put by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU So please drop all your pretentious nonsense about god being mathematically proved..it is a whole lot of bunkum and you know that as I do and most on this forum knows. Some gullible people like you might prefer it this way in actual fact......That people may know that you, whose name is Allah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Koran verses 83:18 Either way it is a total myth.

Certainly agree with those sentiments, but remember I also had to go through that period as an amateur, which is why I always enclose the paper if there is one. I have come to expect that most all journalists and their articles can be expected to sensationalise to various extents. Certainly what you extracted from the article and the word "dragging" does make one cringe somewhat.

How bloody true!!and an argument I have put up many times. Perhaps they envisage themselves on some sort of crusade, with the object of converting us bloody heathen atheist detestable creatures to the true light? I mean I often wonder what the result would be if I went to church this Sunday, and stood up the back shouting/preaching about how the universe is the ultimate free lunch and arose from nothing, and any need for any magical spaghetti monster was simply superfluous at best. The mind boggles!

Certainly with regards to the word universe, but there has been numerous, speculative ideas around now re different "bubbles"of spacetime, or multiverses, parallel universes etc. I'm just surmising that if these hypothetical universes did collide or bump into each other, could/would gravitational waves be a possible result?

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-century-old-riddle-resolveda-blazar-source.html More than century-old riddle resolved—a blazar is a source of high-energy neutrinos An international team of scientists has found the first evidence of a source of high-energy cosmic neutrinos, ghostly subatomic particles that can travel unhindered for billions of light years from the most extreme environments in the universe to Earth. The observations, made by the IceCube Neutrino Observatory at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and confirmed by telescopes around the globe and in Earth's orbit, help resolve a more than a century-old riddle about what sends subatomic particles such as neutrinos and cosmic rays speeding through the universe. Since they were first detected over one hundred years ago, cosmic rays—highly energetic particles that continuously rain down on Earth from space—have posed an enduring mystery: What creates and launches these particles across such vast distances? Where do they come from? Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-century-old-riddle-resolveda-blazar-source.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/147 Neutrino emission from the direction of the blazar TXS 0506+056 prior to the IceCube-170922A alert: Neutrino emission from a flaring blazar Neutrinos interact only very weakly with matter, but giant detectors have succeeded in detecting small numbers of astrophysical neutrinos. Aside from a diffuse background, only two individual sources have been identified: the Sun and a nearby supernova in 1987. A multiteam collaboration detected a high-energy neutrino event whose arrival direction was consistent with a known blazar—a type of quasar with a relativistic jet oriented directly along our line of sight. The blazar, TXS 0506+056, was found to be undergoing a gamma-ray flare, prompting an extensive multiwavelength campaign. Motivated by this discovery, the IceCube collaboration examined lower-energy neutrinos detected over the previous several years, finding an excess emission at the location of the blazar. Thus, blazars are a source of astrophysical neutrinos. Abstract A high-energy neutrino event detected by IceCube on 22 September 2017 was coincident in direction and time with a gamma-ray flare from the blazar TXS 0506+056. Prompted by this association, we investigated 9.5 years of IceCube neutrino observations to search for excess emission at the position of the blazar. We found an excess of high-energy neutrino events, with respect to atmospheric backgrounds, at that position between September 2014 and March 2015. Allowing for time-variable flux, this constitutes 3.5σ evidence for neutrino emission from the direction of TXS 0506+056, independent of and prior to the 2017 flaring episode. This suggests that blazars are identifiable sources of the high-energy astrophysical neutrino flux.

Your delusional belief in a deity or magical spaghetti monster is a myth incorporated for your comfort and personal solace. The bible is nothing more then a collection of these myths, written in an obscure age by obscure men/women, to explain the universe around them. Then science came along.

No faith is a belief in something without any evidence...It probably sprang from ancient man, in his search for answers and comfort and solace in a universe he was unable to explain. Science is based on empirical evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ We arose/evolved because the universe is the way it is. If it wasn't, we would not probably have evolved. The BB does not tell us how the universe was created: More correctly it tells us how the universe/spacetime evolved from t+10-43 seconds. Brief summary probably goes like this: [1] In the first instant of the evolution of spacetime, the four forces were combined into one superforce. [2] As spacetime expanded, temperatures and pressures started dropping and as a result the superforce started to decouple into the four forces we know of today, gravity being the first. [3] This created false vacuums and phase transitions, and enabled our first fundamentals to evolve during this phase. [quarks and electrons] [4] As spacetime further expanded, pressures and temperatures continued dropping and these first fundamentals combined to form protons and neutrons, or simple atomic nuclei. [5] After 380,000 years temperatures were such that electrons were able to couple with the nuclei, forming our first element/s hydrogen and helium. [6] Gravitational collapse began and at the core of these gas clouds, fusion began...our first stars. [7] These stars went super and hyper nova, spreading further heavier elements throughout the universe. [8] More stars formed along with planets from left over debris by the same gravitational collapse process. [9] On at least one of these planets conditions were such that Abiogenesis occured. [10] Then evolution of these fundamental basic living organisms took place and voila!! here we are!!

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-gravitational-reveal-fast-universe.html Since it first exploded into existence 13.8 billion years ago, the universe has been expanding, dragging along with it hundreds of billions of galaxies and stars, much like raisins in a rapidly rising dough. Astronomers have pointed telescopes to certain stars and other cosmic sources to measure their distance from Earth and how fast they are moving away from us—two parameters that are essential to estimating the Hubble constant, a unit of measurement that describes the rate at which the universe is expanding. But to date, the most precise efforts have landed on very different values of the Hubble constant, offering no definitive resolution to exactly how fast the universe is growing. This information, scientists believe, could shed light on the universe's origins, as well as its fate, and whether the cosmos will expand indefinitely or ultimately collapse. Now scientists from MIT and Harvard University have proposed a more accurate and independent way to measure the Hubble constant, using gravitational waves emitted by a relatively rare system: a black hole-neutron star binary, a hugely energetic pairing of a spiraling black hole and a neutron star. As these objects circle in toward each other, they should produce space-shaking gravitational waves and a flash of light when they ultimately collide. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-gravitational-reveal-fast-universe.html#jCp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: Measuring the Hubble constant with neutron star black hole mergers: The detection of GW170817 and the identification of its host galaxy have allowed for the first standard-siren measurement of the Hubble constant, with an uncertainty of ∼ 14%. As more detections of binary neutron stars with redshift measurement are made, the uncertainty will shrink. The dominating factors will be the number of joint detections and the uncertainty on the luminosity distance of each event. Neutron star black hole mergers are also promising sources for advanced LIGO and Virgo. If the black hole spin induces precession of the orbital plane, the degeneracy between luminosity distance and the orbital inclination is broken, leading to a much better distance measurement. In addition neutron star black hole sources are observable to larger distances, owing to their higher mass. Neutron star black holes could also emit electromagnetic radiation: depending on the black hole spin and on the mass ratio, the neutron star can be tidally disrupted resulting in electromagnetic emission. We quantify the distance uncertainty for a wide range of black hole mass, spin and orientations and find that the 1-σ statistical uncertainty can be up to a factor of ∼ 10 better than for a non-spinning binary neutron star merger with the same signal-to-noise ratio. The better distance measurement, the larger gravitational-wave detectable volume, and the potentially bright electromagnetic emission, imply that spinning black hole neutron star binaries can be the optimal standard siren sources as long as their astrophysical rate is larger than O(10) Gpc−3 yr−1 , a value allowed by current astrophysical constraints. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The above article and paper, have prompted me to ask some questions. [1] Would our cosmological event horizon be instrumental in revealing how fast the universe is expanding? What I'm suggesting is that the closer to the cosmological EH we could monitor gravitational waves, from BH/Neutron star mergers, would our readings be more accurate? [2] I also vaguely remember reading or hearing something about gravitational waves from the BB itself, probably if I recall correctly at about the time when LIGO was first proposed. Could we detect gravitational waves from the BB? and are there such a variety of gravitational waves? and [3] what if anything would/could that reveal about that quantum/Planck period of t+10-43 seconds? [4] The speculative idea of multiverses is generally thought to be "non testable" but could gravitational waves hypothetically be caused by and evidence for colliding universes? The further discoveries of gravitational waves, and the types will by all reports open up a whole new field of cosmology and knowledge of our universe, and other questions that at this time remain more philosophical then scientific, such as us the universe finite or infinite? Was the BB simply an evolution of spacetime, or an evolution of spacetime as we currently know it, and of course the "nothing" from which our universe arose and the proper defining of what this nothing really is.

Not wise to wait for your own demise....... As I previously informed you as nice as possible...bullshit. The universe came to be the way it is because of the phenomenon we call gravity...EMF's resulted from that gravitational collpase and interactions. The stars on larger scales as per galaxies, orbit as per GR and DM contributions of gravity. I am not a professional, but I can add to your limited knowledge by informing you that spacetime is simply a unified multi-dimensional framework within which it is possible to locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant: It can be and has observed to be twisted, curved, warped and waved in the presence of mass. And please note carefully, something does not need to be physical to be real...Is a magnetic field a physical entity? No, I'm unable to do that as like you, I am not a professional. You must be getting desperate in the fact that now you claim untruths. Let me educate you as others already have...the 99% plasma is still governed by GR. got it? Gravity, as described by the BB and GR describe the universe/spacetime we inhabit to a high degree of accuracy. GR works admirably with that which in its first inception was a fudge factor...Of course with your desperate tactics and support of the defunct Plasma/Electric nonsense, you ignore the fact that since then evidence has been forthcoming as already given to you. The Plasma/Electric universe are both defunct. Why would I be scared? That's rather childish to even suggest. Gravity is responsible for the universe we see and inhabit. Gravity will be responsible for the final death of stars [plasma] and everything else. https://www.everythingselectric.com/plasma-cosmology-debunked/ https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universe https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/ Let me reiterate a couple of points you have ignored... [1] If you are so positive of this previously defunct hypothetical, gather your evidence and write up a paper for professional peer review. [2] Why so much obvious fanaticism when we can see at a single glance how every post of yours [not many granted] since you joined are out to attempt to invalidate and/or deride the current accepted cosmological model.

It is known as " The Twin Paradox" when there is really no paradox according to SR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect[1][2] and naive[3][4] application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged less. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the twins. Therefore, the twin paradox is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction.

Yep, that's about it..each person will always feel time passing as per normal at one second per second. But for example with the scenario I described above, If I can look back at you, I will see your time going slower and you looking at me, will see my time going slower. Now this may sound rather contradictory but it has something to do with the equivalence principal and the fact that it would be just as valid for me to say that you were the one moving at 99.999% c as it is for you. But the "difference" then becomes obvious when I need to accelerate/decelerate to turn around and return to Earth. That's putting it in basic layman's terms of which as I said, I am one, so if any of our experts and others with more knowledge would like to tidy up, then be my guest. PS: The first book that really got me interested in this stuff at this level was Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"

Time always passes at one second per second for every person and all mechanical clocks tick at the rate of one second per second within each one's own frame of reference. One will only ever see a clock or person age slower or quicker in another frame. If you and I were twins, and I being the more intrepid, decide to take off in a warp drive ship at 99.999% c and return 12 months later according to my on board ship's clocks, I will return having aged 12 months, but everything else on Earth will have aged 230 years approximately and you would be long dead and buried.

As has already been pointed out to you, GR applies to the observable universe as a whole and all states of matter including plasma. NB: The Plasma/Electric hypothetical that you seem to be championing was put to bed many years ago, as was all the claims of Eric J Lerner and his book " The BB Never Happened" and is off topic in science section and thread. Take it to speculations. l

Firstly, let's note that your hypothetical nonsense has been moved to where it should be...speculations. Let's also note secondly that while DM when first proposed was a " fudge factor" incorporated by reasonable professional astronomers to explain the anomalous rotational curves of galaxies as observed and measured, has of course since then been supported by many lines of evidence and observations, not the least being the bullet cluster...Thirdly as already pointed out to you, your mistaken belief that GR only applies to some small percentage of the universe, and not to plasma, fourthly of course to finally put your nonsense to bed, in that the Plasma/Electric universe hypothetical was debunked and discredited long ago. So much for your mirror and bullshit claims. Civilised of course but still recognising the bullshit content of your original claims and the fanaticism imbedded within, in the observation of your first five posts to a forum, in mainstream science, all set out to mistakenly attempt at some form of invalidation and/or derision of accepted incumbent science, and the fact that this has rightly been moved to speculation. Take it easy, OK?

No, DE is that concept which seems to be making the universe/spacetime expand at ever accelerating rates. DM is mostly some form of non baryonic matter [and unseen baryonic matter] that we need to explain galactic rotational curves. I certainly can relate to your first sentence. Like you I'm not a scientist, in fact I have no university education and am only a retired tradesman with a fanatical interest in cosmology and most other sciences. I have done plenty of reading though by reputable authors such as Weinberg, Carroll, Hawking, Rees, Sagan, Feynman, Thorne and others. Other knowledge I have gained has been through science forums such as this, and the obviously professional replies to questions, by obviously knowledgable professional members. I don't think of it like that. The BB in actual fact, [and according to what I have learnt] was the evolution of spacetime [as we know it] itself, from a period of t+10-43 seconds. Before that quantum/Planck period our theories and models fail as they lack the accuracy to measure at such scales. In the first few micro seconds the four forces we are familiar with, were united into one " Superforce" than as expansion took hold, and pressures and temperatures started to drop, this superforce started to decouple into the four known forces we are familiar with today, gravity being the first at around t+10-35 seconds. During this period and decoupling, phase transitions and " fa;se vacuums" were created and excesses of energy went into creating our very first fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons. As expansion continued and temperatures and pressures dropped even further, quarks united creating protons and neutrons and atomic nuclei. This scenario continued until around t+ 380,000 years, or until temperatures dropped to around 3000K, electrons were then able to be captured by atomic nuclei and our very first element was formed...Hydrogen. Do you see where this is going?? and the associated logic?? This hydrogen and some Helium started to collapse and in time at the core of these monsterious giant collapsing clouds of hydrogen, nuclear fusion started at the cores...our very first stars! From there the obvious continuation of what we know is obvious...super and hyper novas, creation of even heavier elements, more supernova, more stars, planets etc then abiogeneisis and evolution and here we are! PS: One important footnote, the closer we go back to the BB, the less certain we are of the exact mechanism and procedures of what I have just detailed. Up to the point of why and where the BB came from, and then all we can do is say we do not know, although even at that point, some reasonable speculation is available. Good for you! Some pointers I have learnt over the years is that [1] the BB should not be thought of as an explosion in the conventional sense...rather an evolution of space and time. [2] There is no center and no edge, other then the edge of our " observable" universe. [3] We are still ignorant to a large extent on whether the universe is finite or infinite, and [4] yes some aspects of cosmology and the early stages seem to defy common sense, like the BB arising from nothing, what is the universe expanding into etc etc and like you my head also sometimes hurts. With regards to a universe from nothing, you maybe interested in the following read....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Concluding, nonsensical supernatural and/or paranormal explantions are simply unnecessary and superfluous.

Well now does that mean in the near future, we will see a paper written up by you, for professional review, pointing out the error in the ways of cosmology over the last 50 years or so? I wait with great anticipation. Bullshit to put it in as polite terms as possible. But again, perhaps you can show how I am wrong, and far more importantly, how the scientific community on the whole is wrong, by more professional accepted means, rather then claiming nonsense on a forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry. You know, a scientific paper for peer review.

What sledgehammering are you referring too? At this stage of proceedings, we have overwhelming observational evidence for the existence of DM, although as yet we are unable to identify the exact nature of that matter.

Your reasonings and assumptions seem to defy what we have observed and the reasonable assumption of the isotropic and homegenous nature of the observable universe. https://phys.org/news/2018-07-einstein-againweak-strong-gravity-fall.html https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0265-1 And of course gravitational lensing of distant objects as dictated by GR have been confirmed many many times. Obviously the answer to your final question is that while certainly GR is an excellent aproximation that at this time we are unable to improve on, then certainly, no, it is not the wrong physics.

I couldn't agree more. A shame more International efforts are not forthcoming to further bigger, better and more potentially knowledge revealing scientific experiments. When the SKA is properly up and running, we maybe in line for more exiting revelations. https://www.skatelescope.org/australia/

Near aligning to what I actually thought...just needed some professional confirmation....thanks.