https://www.sciencealert.com/16-year-study-of-extreme-stars-has-once-again-validated-relativity

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:57:56 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> https://www.sciencealert.com/16-year-study-of-extreme-stars-has-once-again-validated-relativity

Near the end they say something reasonable:

"General relativity is not compatible with the other fundamental forces,
described by quantum mechanics. It is therefore important to continue
to place the most stringent tests upon general relativity as possible, to
discover how and when the theory breaks down," explains astrophysicist
Robert Ferdman of the University of East Anglia in the UK.

"Finding any deviation from general relativity would constitute a major
discovery that would open a window on new physics beyond our current
theoretical understanding of the Universe. And it may help us toward
eventually discovering a unified theory of the fundamental forces of nature."

Although they still seem to be stuck on the idea that it is GR that mostly
needs to change, not QM. My hunch is the following needs to happen:

1. change both GR and QM, not just GR
2. something will have to be done to make space into some sort of "substance"
emergent from some "ur-thingy"
3. and something will have to be done to model "consciousness" although
in a VERY general abstract way (e.g. recall how "free will" is modelled in
the Conway-Kochen).

I also suspect when such a theory finally exists, several concepts we take
for granted today will likely disappear:

1. the dark matter
2. the Big Bang as it is understood today
3. spacetime singularities (although horizons may stay in some form)

--
Jan

On 15-Dec-21 10:03 am, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:57:56 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>> https://www.sciencealert.com/16-year-study-of-extreme-stars-has-once-again-validated-relativity
>
> Near the end they say something reasonable:
>
> "General relativity is not compatible with the other fundamental forces,
> described by quantum mechanics. It is therefore important to continue
> to place the most stringent tests upon general relativity as possible, to
> discover how and when the theory breaks down," explains astrophysicist
> Robert Ferdman of the University of East Anglia in the UK.
>
> "Finding any deviation from general relativity would constitute a major
> discovery that would open a window on new physics beyond our current
> theoretical understanding of the Universe. And it may help us toward
> eventually discovering a unified theory of the fundamental forces of nature."
>

The expectation is presumably that there is some unified theory that
reduces to general relativity on the large scale, and quantum mechanics
on the small scale with not much gravity.

So it would be something of a surprise if observations on the large
scale were to conflict with general relativity. Indeed, even if
deviations were found, that would really just point to a modification to
general relativity rather than giving direction towards a unified theory.

Sylvia.

On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 15:57:56 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> https://www.sciencealert.com/16-year-study-of-extreme-stars-has-once-again-validated-relativity

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:27:37 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 15-Dec-21 10:03 am, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:57:56 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> >> https://www.sciencealert.com/16-year-study-of-extreme-stars-has-once-again-validated-relativity
> >
> > Near the end they say something reasonable:
> >
> > "General relativity is not compatible with the other fundamental forces,
> > described by quantum mechanics. It is therefore important to continue
> > to place the most stringent tests upon general relativity as possible, to
> > discover how and when the theory breaks down," explains astrophysicist
> > Robert Ferdman of the University of East Anglia in the UK.
> >
> > "Finding any deviation from general relativity would constitute a major
> > discovery that would open a window on new physics beyond our current
> > theoretical understanding of the Universe. And it may help us toward
> > eventually discovering a unified theory of the fundamental forces of nature."
> >
> The expectation is presumably that there is some unified theory that
> reduces to general relativity on the large scale, and quantum mechanics
> on the small scale with not much gravity.
>
> So it would be something of a surprise if observations on the large
> scale were to conflict with general relativity. Indeed, even if
> deviations were found, that would really just point to a modification to
> general relativity rather than giving direction towards a unified theory.

Yes, that's what most people think but sometimes little QM details make
huge macroscopic differences. Historically it was classical electrodynamics
that had to change so it's expected the history may repeat itself with
GR (which is seen as a sort of "classical electrodynamics 2.0" in that
context) - but the more time passes, the more I doubt this will happen.
It's pretty clear by now that we are doing something very wrong in the
way we think about this problem, and I say that both GR and QM are
equally guilty here. GR ignores quantum phenomena and QM is
stuck with its linear spaces - it cannot continue like this.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:17:17 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
<snip>

> GR ignores quantum phenomena and QM is
> stuck with its linear spaces - it cannot continue like this.

No Sir, it cannot continue like this.

I, a first order retarded converted polish (or pole) affirm this with all my prestige backing what I state.
So it must be. It cannot continue like this.

Imbecile!

On 16-Dec-21 12:02 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:17:17 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> GR ignores quantum phenomena and QM is
>> stuck with its linear spaces - it cannot continue like this.
>
> No Sir, it cannot continue like this.
>
> I, a first order retarded converted polish (or pole) affirm this with all my prestige backing what I state.
> So it must be. It cannot continue like this.
>
> Imbecile!
>

As usual, you don't understand the issue. If we envisage a scenario in
which both quantum and gravitational effects would be significant, we
cannot predict the outcome because we have no way to combine the two
theories. So there is a theoretical hole - there are scenarios that
current theory cannot touch.

The practical problem is finding such scenarios that we can observe in
sufficient detail to obtain guidance about how to proceed.

Sylvia.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:27:44 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16-Dec-21 12:02 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:17:17 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >> GR ignores quantum phenomena and QM is
> >> stuck with its linear spaces - it cannot continue like this.
> >
> > No Sir, it cannot continue like this.
> >
> > I, a first order retarded converted polish (or pole) affirm this with all my prestige backing what I state.
> > So it must be. It cannot continue like this.
> >
> > Imbecile!
> >
> As usual, you don't understand the issue. If we envisage a scenario in
> which both quantum and gravitational effects would be significant, we
> cannot predict the outcome because we have no way to combine the two
> theories. So there is a theoretical hole - there are scenarios that
> current theory cannot touch.
>
> The practical problem is finding such scenarios that we can observe in
> sufficient detail to obtain guidance about how to proceed.
>
> Sylvia.

You are trying to reason with a steaming pile of shit. It will never work.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 10:27:44 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> As usual, you don't understand the issue. If we envisage a scenario in
> which both quantum and gravitational effects would be significant, we
> cannot predict the outcome because we have no way to combine the two
> theories. So there is a theoretical hole - there are scenarios that
> current theory cannot touch.
>
> The practical problem is finding such scenarios that we can observe in
> sufficient detail to obtain guidance about how to proceed.

Well, Sylvia. You have always the same explanation at hand as others here, but deadlier: AS USUAL, you don't understand.

Quite regrettable statement, but thanks anyway. It helps me to cement the opinion I'm forming about your persona.

Your line of thought is quite evident: Deterministic & failed wannabe theory + probabilistic & incomplete theory = stupid
non physical theory (within 10E+34 orders of magnitude in difference for domains of applicability).

So, a combined theory can posit that for a distant planet orbiting some star, there are infinite solutions for the orbit IF you
are not looking at the planet, and ONLY one solution when you look at it. Paradoxically, what you observed is CONTAMINATED
by you observing, so there is no way to know how valid is the solution unless you bound it within Δr Δp ≥ N h/4π.

And you wouldn't even know if N is an integer, a rational number or an irrational one OR how BIG is it.

Good, good. Keep feeding your mind with crap like this. At least, will allow you to forget about REAL current state of affairs in your world.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:02:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:17:17 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> <snip>
> > GR ignores quantum phenomena and QM is
> > stuck with its linear spaces - it cannot continue like this.
> No Sir, it cannot continue like this.
>
> I, a first order retarded converted polish (or pole) affirm this with all my prestige backing what I state.
> So it must be. It cannot continue like this.
>
> Imbecile!

You didn't "convert" me, you just don't read what I write. What I posted
above was something I've posting here since the 1990s, nothing has
changed. You have simply invented this nonexistent "Jan" in your mind
who is some kind of "Einstein worshipper"(TM) and who assumes
GR is some kind of Holy Writ (nothing in physics ever is).

But I'm glad you and I are in agreement about something.

--
Jan

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:02:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:17:17 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > GR ignores quantum phenomena and QM is
> > > stuck with its linear spaces - it cannot continue like this.
> > No Sir, it cannot continue like this.
> >
> > I, a first order retarded converted polish (or pole) affirm this with all my prestige backing what I state.
> > So it must be. It cannot continue like this.
> >
> > Imbecile!
> You didn't "convert" me, you just don't read what I write. What I posted
> above was something I've posting here since the 1990s, nothing has
> changed. You have simply invented this nonexistent "Jan" in your mind
> who is some kind of "Einstein worshipper"(TM) and who assumes
> GR is some kind of Holy Writ (nothing in physics ever is).
>
> But I'm glad you and I are in agreement about something.
>
> --
> Jan

How does science watch an atom in an atomic clock
orbiting the Earth. How do they observe one atom and
count...? how can science count a change that needs
to happen billions of times a second?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:57:56 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> https://www.sciencealert.com/16-year-study-of-extreme-stars-has-once-again-validated-relativity

How does GR measure relative motion?
There is more to gravity than its time...

On 12/19/2021 1:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:57:56 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>> https://www.sciencealert.com/16-year-study-of-extreme-stars-has-once-again-validated-relativity
>
> How does GR measure relative motion?
> There is more to gravity than its time...

Gravity is immune to time. It is, for given conditions, a constant.

Why do you keep coming up with this crap? Are you unable to understand
kindergarten lessons for things that belong together and things that do
not? This is a theme you keep repeating and has no valid place in these
discussion groups. I killfiled you in the physics group, and now here..

BTW, GR doesn't *do* anything. Get a grip already.

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
> On 12/19/2021 1:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:57:56 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> >> https://www.sciencealert.com/16-year-study-of-extreme-stars-has-once-again-validated-relativity
> >
> > How does GR measure relative motion?
> > There is more to gravity than its time...
> Gravity is immune to time. It is, for given conditions, a constant.

Then why does it change time dilation difference's?

Mitchell Raemsch

whodat wrote:

> On 12/19/2021 1:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:57:56 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>>> https://www.sciencealert.com/16-year-study-of-extreme-stars-has-once-again-validated-relativity
>>
>> How does GR measure relative motion?
>> There is more to gravity than its time...
>
> Gravity is immune to time. It is, for given conditions, a constant.

No; in general relativity, gravity is actually a consequence of (the
curvature of) time.

And “gravity is, for given conditions, a constant” is pseudo-scientific word
salad. And if by “gravity” you mean “gravitational force”, “gravitational
acceleration”, or “gravitational potential”: it is almost never a constant,
which is why we speak of the gravitational *field*.

PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)