 |
There are currently, 485 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
LaViolette prediction of Pioneer anomaly challenges energy conservation law
Posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 @ 21:18:38 UTC by vlad
|
|
 Sepp Hasslberger writes: In 1978, while still a doctoral student at Portland State University in
Portland, Oregon, Paul LaViolette made a prediction, which like
Einstein's prediction of the bending of starlight may one day be
destined to shake the world. At that time, he was developing a unified
field theory called subquantum kinetics.
Unlike string theory, which has never made any testable predictions,
LaViolette's subquantum kinetics theory makes several, ten of which
have thus far been confirmed. One in particular challenges the most
fundamental of physical laws, the law of energy conservation.
Subquantum kinetics predicts that a photon's energy should not remain
constant but rather should change with time, that photons traveling
through interstellar space or trapped within stars or planets should
continually increase in energy, although at a very slow rate. For
example, his theory predicts that a photon traveling through our solar
system should increase its energy at a rate of somewhat greater than
one part in 10^18 per second.
...
Read the whole article:
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/01/laviolette_prediction_of_pione.html
....
Kind regards
Sepp
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
| "LaViolette prediction of Pioneer anomaly challenges energy conservation law" | Login/Create an Account | 2 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
GRAVITATIONAL WAVE BACKGROUND (Score: 1)
by vlad on Monday, January 22, 2007 @ 22:28:24 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | In the standard model of cosmology, the early universe underwent a period of fantastic growth. This inflationary phase, after only a trillionth of a second, concluded with a violent conversion of energy into hot matter and radiation.
This "reheating" process also resulted in a flood of gravitational waves. (Interestingly, some cosmologists would identify the "big bang"with this moment and not the earlier time=0 moment.) Let's compare this gravitational wave background (GWB) with the more familiar cosmic microwave background (CMB). The GWB dates from the trillionth-of-a-second mark, while the CMB sets in around 380,000 years later when the first atoms formed. The CMB represents a single splash of photons which were (at that early time) in equilibrium with the surrounding atoms-in-the-making; the microwaves we now see in the sky were (before being redshifted to lower frequencies owing to the universe's expansion) ultraviolet waves and were suddenly freed to travel unimpeded through space. They are now observed to be mostly at a uniform temperature of about 3 K, but the overall map of the microwave sky does bear the faint imprint of matter inhomogeneities (lumps) existing even then.
What, by contrast, does the GWB represent? It stems from three different production processes at work in the inflationary era: waves stemming from the inflationary expansion of space itself; waves from the collision of bubble-like clumps of new matter at reheating after inflation; and waves from the turbulent fluid mixing of the early pools of matter and radiation, before equilibrium among them (known as thermalization) had been achieved. The gravity waves would never have been in equilibrium with the matter (since gravity is such a weak force there wouldn't be time to mingle adequately); consequently the GWB will not appear to a viewer now to be at a single overall temperature.
A new paper by Juan Garcia-Bellido and Daniel Figueroa (Universidad Autonoma de Madrid) explain how these separate processes could be detected and differentiated in modern detectors set up to see gravity waves, such as LIGO, LISA, or BBO (Big Bang Observer).
First, the GWB would be redshifted, like the CMB. But because of the GWB's earlier provenance, the reshifting would be even more dramatic: the energy (and frequency) of the waves would be downshifted by 24 orders of magnitude. Second, the GWB waves would be distinct from gravity waves from point sources (such as the collision of two black holes) since such an encounter would release waves with a sharper spectral signal. By contrast the GWB from reheating after inflation would have a much broader spectrum, centered around 1 Hz to 1 GHz depending on the scale of inflation.
Garcia-Bellido (34-91-497-4896, juan.garciabellido@uam.es) suggests that if a detector like the proposed BBO could disentangle the separate signals of the end-of-inflation GWB, then such a signal could be used as a probe of inflation and could help explore some fundamental issues as matter-antimatter asymmetry, the production of topological defects like cosmic strings, primoridal magnetic fields, and possibly superheavy dark matter. (Physical Review Letters, upcoming article; see also http://lattice.ft.uam.es/)
From: PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics
News
Number 809 22 January 2007 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein,
Turner
Brinton,and Davide Castelvecchi www.aip.org/pnu [www.aip.org]
|
|
|
New Theory of the Universe Marries Two of its Biggest Mysteries (Score: 1)
by vlad on Monday, January 22, 2007 @ 22:42:38 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Physicists have devised a theory that unifies two widely studied mysteries of
the universe: why there is an imbalance between regular matter and anti-matter
(scientists expect to see equal amounts of each, but observe less anti-matter),
and the identity of "dark matter" - the enigmatic particles thought to account
for the extra gravitational pull observed in distant galaxies.
Full story at
http://www.physorg.com/news88684585.html [www.physorg.com]
|
|
|
|
|
