Einstein was wrong

Gennaro · 2004-07-04 17:01:39

There have apparently been observations of jets of gas from quasars moving faster than light, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find any comprehensive source about it on the net. Some compitation of such observations would have been nice to have.

Does anyone have further information on this?

If true, I cannot see how that could but utterly destroy special relativity, with excuses more or less bound to end up in the epicycle hole.

Euler · 2004-07-05 00:21:16

Do you think this increase (430 times) would be proportional to the amount of objects (quarks...) that a photon is made of?

No, a proton is made up of exactly 3 quarks no matter what velocity it is traveling at. Traveling at a velocity close to the speed of light does not mean that you gain particles, it means that the particles that you do have appear to be more massive. One thing that you have to keep in mind with relativity is that quantities like mass and time are dependent on your reference frame. Someone that is traveling at the same velocity as the particle would think that the particle has not gained any mass, despite the fact that people on Earth think that the particle has gained mass. In fact, someone traveling at the particle's velocity would think that it is the Earth that has gained mass, rather than the particle.

There have apparently been observations of jets of gas from quasars moving faster than light, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find any comprehensive source about it on the net. Some compitation of such observations would have been nice to have.
Does anyone have further information on this?

I have not heard about this, and I am skeptical that they have really seen this. Even if it is true, I can think of several ways that it could be happen within the framework of special relativity. For example, there is the varying speed of light theory that the speed of light has not always been the same. If this is true, then even if the gas was traveling faster than the current speed of light, it might not be going faster than what the speed of light was when it was released. Space in that area could also be warped, so that even though it is appearing to go faster than light, it might not be due to the distance it is traveling being less than it appears. Also, relativity does not necessarily rule out FTL particles, it just says that ordinary particles cannot be accelerated to a velocity that is faster than light, and that FTL particles (if they exist) cannot go slower than light.

dicktice · 2004-07-06 08:36:22

I love to circumvent a lot of calculation because mathematics is not what my mind does intuitively, so regarding the "speed of light" limitation imposed by the Special Theory, I think of photons as transiting space in zero time. In other words, a photon experiences no duration from source to impingement. Since zero is the limiting duration of time, lightspeed therefore cannot be any greater than what it turns out to be. It's no wonder that I suffer from "photon envy," as a result of the high-resolution Hubble photos of tiny fields of view that show multitudes of galaxies forever beyond the reach of anything other than those lowly photons!

Dook · 2004-07-06 09:37:29

If particles only APPEAR to gain mass as they near the speed of light then what is causing the resistance that particles encounter?

clark · 2004-07-06 09:57:40

If particles only APPEAR to gain mass as they near the speed of light then what is causing the resistance that particles encounter?

The Higgs-Boson field.

Gennaro · 2004-07-17 12:38:50

I have not heard about this, and I am skeptical that they have really seen this. Even if it is true, I can think of several ways that it could be happen within the framework of special relativity. For example, there is the varying speed of light theory that the speed of light has not always been the same. If this is true, then even if the gas was traveling faster than the current speed of light, it might not be going faster than what the speed of light was when it was released. Space in that area could also be warped, so that even though it is appearing to go faster than light, it might not be due to the distance it is traveling being less than it appears. Also, relativity does not necessarily rule out FTL particles, it just says that ordinary particles cannot be accelerated to a velocity that is faster than light, and that FTL particles (if they exist) cannot go slower than light.

Belatedly, I managed to dig up this article, or rather query, on the phenomenon. And of course, those are jets of radiation, why ever did I come up with gasses?

http://brahms.phy.vanderbilt.edu/~rknop … ...GN.html

Anyway, the point is at the bottom of text:

I am somewhat acquainted with astronomy and relativity. My question is this: Quasar 3C273 has a jet moving at 9 times light speed as seen from earth. This has been explained away by science by saying that the angle of the jet towards earth is just small enough to actually only give an illusion of faster than light speeds relative to earth.
However there must be a counter-jet and I have been told by an astronomer from Flagstaff, AZ that this is true. The existence of a counter-jet showing the same relative speeds would surely obviate the 'small angle' explanation and would then prove that faster-than-light velocities do exist in the universe relative to earth. This, then would indicate that relativity is wrong in its assertion that FTL relative to earth cannot be. Could you please tell me where I'm wrong. It is a major stumbling block in my acceptance of relativity. Thank you very much and could you, if possible, indicate who is answering if I should have a follow-up question. Again, thank you.
The Answer
I don't know offhand whether the counterjet for 3C273 has been seen. http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Reference/Bu … ...#764973 implies that it hasn't. It would be expected to be dimmer (since radiation tends to be beamed in the direction of motion) and not show apparent superluminal motion.
You are right that IF a superluminal counterjet were seen, that would mean that something is very wrong with our understanding of the system or of relativity.
I do know that the 'microquasar' in our galaxy 1915+105, shows both jets, and the one pointed towards us is apparently-superluminal while the one pointed away is not.

Judging by the reply, the phenomenon seems rather to support the relativity theories. Not what I had hoped for if I'm to be honest. Oh, well.

As for your reply, what would be the difference of something moving faster than light contrary to the speed of light once having moved faster? Sounds mostly like semantics to me or trying to fit observation into the theory instead of the other way around. Throwing in a few extra epicycles to make the planetary movements mathematically coherent with the preferred model.

You also write:

Also, relativity does not necessarily rule out FTL particles, it just says that ordinary particles cannot be accelerated to a velocity that is faster than light, and that FTL particles (if they exist) cannot go slower than light.

I don't agree. Special relativity relies on the assumption that a certain arbitrary velocity, being equal to that of electromagnetical waves, is an absolute in regard to which space and all the rest is relative. That's the only reason for the supposedly real time dilation effect etc. Anything moving faster than light must logically falsify Einstein's theory, mass or no mass.

SpaceNut · 2024-01-21 13:06:29

8 discoveries that prove Einstein was right about the universe — and 1 that proves him wrong Albert Einstein's theories of relativity have been proven to be true time and again in the more than 100 years following their publication.

Not bad...

AA1lOR8I.img?w=800&h=435&q=60&m=2&f=jpg

Wrong about 'spooky action-at-a-distance?'
©Getty Images
In a phenomenon called quantum entanglement, linked particles can seemingly communicate with each other across vast distances faster than the speed of light, and only "choose" a state to inhabit once they are measured. Einstein hated this phenomenon, famously deriding it as "spooky action-at-a-distance," and insisted that no influence can travel faster than light, and that objects have a state whether we measure them or not.
But in a massive, global experiment in which millions of entangled particles were measured around the world, researchers found that the particles seemed to only pick a state the moment they were measured, and no sooner.
"We showed that Einstein's world-view… in which things have properties whether or not you observe them, and no influence travels faster than light, cannot be true — at least one of those things must be false," study co-author Morgan Mitchell, a professor of quantum optics at the Institute of Photonic Sciences in Spain, told Live Science in 2018.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-07-04 17:01:39

Re: Einstein was wrong

#52 2004-07-05 00:21:16

Re: Einstein was wrong

#53 2004-07-06 08:36:22

Re: Einstein was wrong

#54 2004-07-06 09:37:29

Re: Einstein was wrong

#55 2004-07-06 09:57:40

Re: Einstein was wrong

#56 2004-07-17 12:38:50

Re: Einstein was wrong

#57 2024-01-21 13:06:29

Re: Einstein was wrong

Board footer