Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Most Powerful Gamma Ray Burst Further Proves General Relativity Is Correct


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2774 posts

Posted 31 July 2020 - 09:26 AM

It seems a gamma ray burst from the most powerful gamma ray burst ever of 100 Tev has proven that light is constant in a vacuum along with General Relativity's correctness, read more at https://www.sciencea...eral-relativity


Edited by VictorMedvil, 31 July 2020 - 09:28 AM.


#2 Mutex

Mutex

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 31 July 2020 - 09:59 AM

The principle (and fact) that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of the basis of understanding the nature of space and time, relativity is correct but what does relativity tell us?

 

Along with the speed of light being constant (and observationally confirmed by this and other observations), we also know that the rate or length of time is NOT a constant, it is a variable. The variable nature of the length of time is also observationally confirmed and is as such a fact. 

 

We know what speed (or velocity) is as well, it is the length of space travelled over a period of time (10 miles per hour is a length of space over a length of time).

 

So if the speed of light is constant (it is) and the length of time varies (it does), then you also know that the length of space also varies by the same amount as the length of time.

 

So General Relativity tells us that matter/mass makes space (and time) longer in proportion to the amount of mass and the distance from that mass.

 

So with that understanding we can expect to see light from a higher 'gravity' (mass created space and time length) to be longer, and light from lower gravity (shorter length) as shorter. 

This is observationally confirmed and is known as Gravitational shift (or Einstein shift). 

 

You can debate if that length of space variance is due to space being warped or curved, or that space is simply flat but longer, but space is longer with gravity. 

 

The universe is relative, the theory is the correct description of how the nature of space and time work (and what it is), there is no evidence that suggests that it is incorrect, as such the theory does not need to be replaced, and if you did replace it, it would not change the fact that it is correct. (unless it was shown to be incorrect). 

 

We don't need a quantum gravity, and there is good reason why there is no viable quantum gravity model. 



#3 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1462 posts

Posted 31 July 2020 - 11:16 AM

 

We don't need a quantum gravity, and there is good reason why there is no viable quantum gravity model. 

 

Why do you not like looking more deeply into how gravity works at the quantum level? 

 

What is the good reason, you allude to, why you think there is no viable quantum gravity?  



#4 Mutex

Mutex

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 31 July 2020 - 12:38 PM

Why do you not like looking more deeply into how gravity works at the quantum level? 

 

What is the good reason, you allude to, why you think there is no viable quantum gravity?  

 

Good questions, firstly I think relatively is complete it is how nature is, if it is the correct 'nature of nature', then it does not need to be replaced, at best you could do a quantum mechanics interpretation of relativity, but that is just playing semantics with math. 

 

Plus quantum mechanics does not really deal with space and time, and it cannot explain why c is constant, or why time and space length are not constant. Quantum mechanics it more about matter. 

 

Quantum mechanics is not really a theory in the traditional sense either, and very little progress in  happening in the what is mostly a theoretical field. Quantum mechanics yields very little (almost zero) new insight or understanding of how nature works

 

Not a huge fan of quantum mechanics! 

 

As for 'the quantum level' know about how anything works at 'the quantum level' in reality, and it's not even close, 1x1020  Planck lengths exist in the size of what we think is the size of an electron, and we are only guessing that size (about the wavelength of a Gamma ray as well). 

 

So we can do nothing at the quantum scale except guess, we cannot get any useful information from the real world of the quantum scale world, so you can say anything you like (and they do).

 

I don't think quantum mechanics is the theory of everything. (I don't even think it is a theory of anything!).

 

For me, what is more interesting is what is it about energy that when it is in the form of matter with mass that gives space that length (or curve) property? But even then, there is much speculation and assumptions. The standard particle model does a good job, but it is only a speculation, we can never know how the machine actually works by smashing the machine apart and observing what comes out. 

 

I think the reason why matter creates a length of space to exist in, is because matter needs a length of space to exist in, matter cannot exist in the same point in space as other matter, but energy can. 

 

What gravity is, is the length of space (be it stretched or curved), what relativity explains is how matter gives space that length, what we feel as gravity is the gradient of that length, matter wants to be in as low an energy state as possible, the longer the space length the lower the energy (energy distributed over longer space and time). Matter 'falls' towards longer space. (because the same speed is faster in longer space, if the meter is longer then 1 meter per second is faster that 1 meter per second in shorter space). 

 

TL;DR I don't think a model of quantum gravity is necessary or justifiable. (or even possible). 



#5 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1462 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 04:22 AM

 

 

TL;DR I don't think a model of quantum gravity is necessary or justifiable. (or even possible). 

 

Eric Verlinde might disagree https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 and a short utube https://www.youtube....h?v=f_BRyS93ucg

 

"Recent theoretical progress indicates that spacetime and gravity emerge together from the entanglement structure of an underlying microscopic theory. These ideas are best understood in Anti-de Sitter space, where they rely on the area law for entanglement entropy. The extension to de Sitter space requires taking into account the entropy and temperature associated with the cosmological horizon. Using insights from string theory, black hole physics and quantum information theory we argue that the positive dark energy leads to a thermal volume law contribution to the entropy that overtakes the area law precisely at the cosmological horizon. Due to the competition between area and volume law entanglement the microscopic de Sitter states do not thermalise at sub-Hubble scales: they exhibit memory effects in the form of an entropy displacement caused by matter. The emergent laws of gravity contain an additional `dark' gravitational force describing the `elastic' response due to the entropy displacement. We derive an estimate of the strength of this extra force in terms of the baryonic mass, Newton's constant and the Hubble acceleration scale a_0 =cH_0, and provide evidence for the fact that this additional `dark gravity~force' explains the observed phenomena in galaxies and clusters currently attributed to dark matter."