I dont know about your work situation there but since you appear to be a Caucasian male in your photos, I would be a little suspicious as to why you were passed over. Unless you are incompetent. That would be the only other reason. People tend to back those that they perceive are "in their corner" in some respect. Its actually human nature and will happen and sometimes it occurs almost on a subconscious level.

It sounds to me like you are taking the analogies that authors use in books to try to convey the essence of Eintein's concepts too literally.

When Einstien talks about a 'flat' space he isn't speaking of a one-dimensional space at all. He's speaking about 'mathematical' flatness which is an entirely different thing. There is nothing one-dimensional about Einstein's General Relativity. In fact, the Tensor Caclucus that is used to describe it is quite complex.

The one-dimensional analysis that is given in books on the subject is for the sake of layman readers. Most people can't think in terms of a 'flat' 4 dimensional spacetime.

It's not dimensionally 'flat', it's mathematically 'flat' space which is something entirely different.

In fact, astronomers have indeed confirmed that the universe does indeed appear to have a 'flat' or Euclidian geometry overall.

This doesn't mean that there are places within the universe that aren't Euclidean. On the contrary there is nothing Euclidian about structure of a black hole.

It seems to be more hyperbolic than Euclidean.

Moreover, this fits right in with Einstein's theory. Einstein doesn't say that space has to be 'flat'.

He simply starts with the postulate the 'empty space' is flat. That is space that is devoid of a of any 'mass' (or energy) that is concentrated at a point.

Then, after assigning mathematical properties to the spacetime fabric, he goes on to describe what would happen to that fabric if mass were to concentrate at various points.

His result is a very detailed explanation of gravity that is far more precise than the equations that Newton gave us.

In fact this addresses your other comment:



Everyone believe that Newton's Classical physics ideas were correct. And they had indeed amassed a large amount of observational support for Newtonian physics.

However, they did run into problems. One of them had to do with the fact that Newton's equations were failing to properly describe various observation. A popular one was the precession of the orbit of planet Mercury.

Einstein's General Relativity succeeded in describing that precession perfectly. This also wasn't a 'driving force' behind Einstein's theory.

In other words, Einstein wasn't trying to build a theory that could correctly describe the orbit of Mercury. Instead he built his theory from other postulates. But then after he had finished his theory he quickly applied it to the orbit of Mercury and it described the orbit perfect. That was a beautiful confirmation that he was on the right track.

There have been many predictions of General Relativity that have been observationally confirmed.

Any new theory that is going to replace it is going to need to preserve any observations that have been made.

In other words, the universe isn't going to suddenly change its behavior to accomadate a new theory.

If you have ideas that can 'enhance' or go beyond General Relativity to add new things, then you might be on to something.

But if you have ideas that are going to reject the conclusions of GR, then you're in for big trouble, but most of the conclusions have already been confirmed.

Keep in mind, that 'science' never said that the world was flat. This is a big misconception. At one point in time people believed that the world was flat as a 'postulate' (or a given). In fact, that idea came from religions and mythologies.

But science never "observed" the world to be flat. Had that been the case, they could hardly have moved forward and to "observe" it to be a sphere.

Just because mankind in general had a misconception about something doesn't mean that 'science' believed to have either proven it or observed it. Science never claimed to have proven or to have observed that the world was flat.

Some scientific 'theories' may have been wrong, and thus overturned. But observations have never been overturned.

String 'theory' is a good example of a 'theory' that could be completely wrong. String theory doesn't even make precise predictions that could be observed directly yet. So String theory could be totally wrong because it has never made an observable prediction yet.

The predictions of both Special Relativity and General Relativity have been observed to be the true nature of the universe.

Therefore any changes to these theories are going to need to preserve these observations.

I think you'd be truly hard-pressed to make black holes go away at this stage of the game.

You might be able to come up with a theory that explains how black holes work. But I doubt that you're going to be able to make them go away.

In other words, you might be able to explain some mechanism in their center that prevents them from going 'infinite' at the singularity.

But other than that, I think you're stuck with the actual celestial phenomenon.

We already know that GR is 'incomplete'. Even Einstein knew that.

But to change it radically into something entirely different is highly unlikely, because you'd have to change the outcome of observations that have already been made.

In other words, you'd need the universe to actually change its behavior to accomadate your new theory. That isn't likely to happen.

I would like to suggest that you learn a little about how a holographic three dimensional object is reflected by a very flat surface.

Therefore, we can use a one-dimensional vision to recreate a multi-dimensional actuality.

It is the holographic Universe.

This holographic universe is reflected from a one-dimensional flat surface.

Space is not created until the three dimensional objects are projected (created) from the flat surface, so whether it (space) is "flat" or not is a moot point.

jb

nevermind

Well and when cosmologist say flat, then mean 4d flat . . . . whatever that means . . .

flat (flt)
adj. flat·ter, flat·test
1. Having a horizontal surface without a slope, tilt, or curvature.
2. Having a smooth, even, level surface: a skirt sewed with fine flat seams.
3. Having a relatively broad surface in relation to thickness or depth: a flat board. See Synonyms at level.
4. Stretched out or lying at full length along the ground; prone.
5. Free of qualification; absolute: a flat refusal.
6. Fixed; unvarying: a flat rate.
7. Lacking interest or excitement; dull: a flat scenario.
8.
a. Lacking in flavor: a flat stew that needs salt.
b. Having lost effervescence or sparkle: flat beer.
9.
a. Deflated. Used of a tire.
b. Electrically discharged. Used of a storage battery.
10. Of or relating to a horizontal line that displays no ups or downs and signifies the absence of physiological activity: A flat electroencephalogram indicates a loss of brain function.
11. Commercially inactive; sluggish: flat sales for the month.
12. Unmodulated; monotonous: a flat voice.
13. Lacking variety in tint or shading; uniform: "The sky was bright but flat, the color of oyster shells" Anne Tyler.
14. Not glossy; mat: flat paint.
15. Music
a. Being below the correct pitch.
b. Being one half step lower than the corresponding natural key: the key of B flat.
16. Designating the vowel a as pronounced in bad or cat.
17. Nautical Taut. Used of a sail.
adv.
1.
a. Level with the ground; horizontally.
b. On or up against a flat surface; at full length.
2. So as to be flat.
3.
a. Directly; completely: went flat against the rules; flat broke.
b. Exactly; precisely: arrived in six minutes flat.
4. Music Below the intended pitch.
5. Business Without interest charge.
n.
1. A flat surface or part.
2. A stretch of level ground. Often used in the plural: salt flats.
3. A shallow frame or box for seeds or seedlings.
4. A movable section of stage scenery, usually consisting of a wooden frame and a decorated panel of wood or cloth.
5. A flatcar.
6. A deflated tire.
7. A shoe with a flat heel.
8. A large flat piece of mail.
9. A horse that competes in a flat race. Also called runner.
10. Music
a. A sign () used to indicate that a note is to be lowered by a half step.
b. A note that is lowered a half step.
11. Football The area of the field to either side of an offensive formation.

Flat – adj., noboobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe


"Flat universe

In a flat universe, all of the local curvature and local geometry is flat. It is generally assumed that it is described by an Euclidean space, however there are some spatial geometries which are flat and bounded in one or more directions.

The alternative two-dimensional spaces with a Euclidean metric are the cylinder and the Möbius strip, which are bounded in one direction but not the other, and the torus and Klein bottle, which are compact.

In three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the 3-Torus.

Absent dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching some fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe."

Flat in 2D is different then flat in 3D is different then flat in 4D.

Flat means no appreciable amount of spacetime curvature. It does not mean lacking the 3rd dimension, or 4th, or 6th, or 11th . . . .

You guys make me look stuff up!!!!!

I liked my definition better. A flat universe is a universe with noboobs.

Our universe is basically boobless save for an itty titty place called Earth where space is curved and babes are served the milk their mother's have preserved.

Thanks to all who are continuing in the discussion at hand.

Built upon the electrodynamic theory of James Maxwell, which attempted to hold true to classical physics, GR fails in a number of ways.

Observations do not make the explanations of them true. Of course the mathematics fits, it has been designed around the notion that the concept is true. In short the claim is this...The Laws of Physics are the same for any and all frames of reference. It has to fit...lol

As a matter of fact, according to GR, from his/her individual frame of reference(which has uniform motion), one can observe two simultaneous events which have been produced in their own frame of reference exactly simultaneously, but.... depending upon the location of the observer within his/her own frame and in reference to the two events in the other frame, those events may or may not appear simultaneous. Most likely, they will not.


Observation does not always equate to actuality.


In order for a depression of any kind to exist in space, there must be a flatness of structure. No ifs, no ans, no buts.

That is what I claim to be untrue.

Black holes are depressions... The elliptical pattern of the orbits of satellites around a larger mass are attributed to this depression idea as well.

General Relativity extrapolated claims that there can exist a tear in the fabric creating a wormhole. Also a depression at first.

The entire construct uses the speed of light c as a constant. Light never travels unimpeded through a pure vacuum of empty space.


JB... your talking optics... holograms are cool, though.

As soon as you create a depression in a flat structure then the flatness disappears.

When talking about the flatness of space I'm still not understanding how it can be flat. Are we talking flat like an MRI creates an image of a slice through its target? Or are we visualizing flat in multiple dimensions? Flat in 4D was mentioned earlier but NASA says flat like a sheet of paper.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

In order for the equations to work, GR assumes that space is flat when devoid of any and all matter. This is a hypothetical misrepresentation, according to the theory itself. According to the Big Bang, space has never been devoid of any and all matter.

I am staggered by the obviousness of this absurdity in an attempt to cling to Euclidian geometry.

And the proposition that nothing can travel faster than light-speed.... All electromagnetic waves travel at light-speed.

So then, what is so special about c remaining constant that it has to alter all other perceptions of time and space with some make-believe fabric which can stretch and warp???

It is increasingly interesting,none-the-less...

This is a very common mistake that everyone makes when they first learn about relativity.

When you say, "Observation does not always equate to actuality," who's 'actuality' are you talking about?

This just indicates to me that you don't fully understand the concept of time dilation. You seem to be implying that it's just an illusion.

It's not. It's been measured. It actually happens.

Not at all. I'm talking about this reality.

I agree Abra, Creative you have very astutely found all of the common misconceptions that every physics graduate student encounters and riles against, feel proud!

I would love to interject some discussion on Phase transitions!!!!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081015183545.htm

So exciting!


Edit:
I would suggest a WONDERFUL lecture serious by UC Berkley Professor Richard A. Muller
Physics 10 - Physics for Future Presidents
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=095393D5B42B2266


Jeremy.

You guys are making my brain hurt! This just reminds me why I quit this stuff. There's just too much to study.

I've read about the Bose-Einstein condensates before. I confess I'm not well-verse on that topic. They only thing I recall about them is that they bring the microscopic behavior of the quantum world into the macro-world.

I found that to be quite intriguing. And now it appears that they are actually physically doing this in real experiments.

Because of this I would indeed think that Bose-Einstein condensates are 'where it's at' for the physicists interested in QM.

I'm sure that as technology progresses and these BECs are used to produce actual devices and tools our technology will change dramatically.

We could be looking at a new era where everyday technology appears to be performing genuine magick. In other words, technology may reach the point where it can do things that are counter-intuitive.

In the meantime, back to Relativity theory:



Yes Micheal, you're doing what just about every physics student does. I've certianly done it. It's part of the learning process. Very few students 'get it' instantly. That's really quite rare.

Relativitly is 'counter-intuitive' to what we've been raised to believe. And to our everyday experience. We simply to encounter time dilation in the normal course of our lives so we're not familar with it.

We want to cling to the 'absolute' space and time of Newtonian physics, and somehow explain away Relativity as a mere illusion, or misunderstanding.

The truth is that it's no illusion, and it's most certainly not a misunderstanding.

Moreover, you'll eventually 'get it', but it could take much time. This is natural. It takes lots of time for our brains to accept a totally new way of looking at things.

However, once you finally do 'get it', then you'll understand why it has to be that way, as well as feeling that it truly is 'intuitive' after all.

The "keys" to understanding it are indeed the following:

1. The Minkowski concept of a single 4-dimensional spacetime.

2. Time dilation really does occur. It's not just an illusion. This has been measured and cannot be refuted.

3. Another thing that can help is to understand why Relativity must be so via Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics.

Unfortunately it could takes years to sink in. I'm sure it took me many years before I could finally say that I truly understand relativity. I fought it tooth and nail. But now I'm comfortable with it.

By they way, I've met professors who actaully teach Relativity and don't truly understand it! So it's not an easy concept to comprehend.

I personally think it's all in the time dilation. Once you fully understand the concept of time dilation intuitively, then you're home free.

And keep in mind, the Relativity doesn't really have much to do with QM. Although, QM does incorperate the concept of time dilation.

I might also add that QM is indeed compatible with Special Relativity (time dilation). Where it breaks down is with the concept of General Relativity (the actual mathematical description of the behavior of the spacetime fabric).

So you really have three entirely seperate concepts here:

SR - Special Relativity = Time Dilation
GR - General Relativity = Spacetime Curvature
QM - Quantum Mechanics = Discrete Probabilistic Behavior

Take them one at a time.

And now with BECs - Bose-Einstein condensates we have a chance of actaully observing discrete probabilistic behavior on the macro scale!

That is quite exciting as Jeremy points out.

Well and to be able to visualize something we have to stand back from it . . . .

But to stand back from the universe would require you to be a higher dimensional being . . .


Its ok to not be able to visualize this lol. We are 3D and as such our brains are not evolved to visualize this . . hehe.

I think when you began your thought experiment by taking the 2d plane analogy that is common (rubber sheet stretched with an ball on it) and take and add slices from every angle that you are on to something that may help visualize a bit better, but it still doesn't help completely because for a 3D object to "sink" into a 2D plane makes sense, but a 3D object sink into 3D space . . again back to the head scratching ape that cant think in 4D (myself and all humanity included)

Here is what I do to overcome that issue with visualizations of space time. (if I can describe this in words vs draw it sigh . . .)

Take that same 2D plane but at first minus the ball for now . . .

Now imagine the plane as graph paper . . . it has discrete intervals. I will say that each line is now a rope (3D) and each interval is instead of a dot is not a bead (again 3d vs 2d)

NOW take this slice, and add in a 3D radial view with every degree having a slice. Now we add back in the ball and where the mass is at the spacing between the intervals is stretched, so the beads are farther apart the closer they get to the ball.

Greater spacing = greater gravitational attraction.

So I imagine a sphere pulling on these "ropes" with beads at each interval. So it would look like a basketball in a vacum held by ropes that have beads at each interval, these ropes connect at all angles to the basketball, and the beads are spaced further apart the closer they get to the basketball.

I tried to do a visual representation, but dam forum formatting ruined my picture ARH, im gunna try to make something and post the image somewhere.

I bet if i look this has been done before hmmm . . .

James and Billy...

Lol...

You both have been so sensitive regarding the possibilty that I may not understand time dilation or perhaps the differences between the two relativity theories. Your consideration deserves tremendous recognition, especially in a forum which displays little at times...

Thank you both!!!

Actually the purpose of my last response was to invoke the concept of observation into the mix. I fully recognize the fact that in my ambiguity it may have seemed as though I had not grasped the notion of time dilation. My looseness of terms is surely at fault sometimes...

My sincerest apologies.

The issue arises not from the notion concerning the validity of the different observations as much as it is within the concept of the observation itself playing a key role in furthered understandings of such an event. The relativity of the observers' motion resulting in the differences of distance measurements between the events is understood.

How dependable is any conclusion which has been extrapolated from an observation of an event which has a different point of origin than the observation, itself?

It requires knowledge of the event's frame of reference, which is impossible from the observation's frame without the mathematics that Einstein proposed.

The problem is that the mathematics itself revolves around a faulty foundational premise.

Light speed is not constant in any of the observable frames of reference that exist within our known universe.

Propositions must be possible.

Howz that for being rebellious???

The only difference between observation and experience is point of view.

jb

If a beam of light is traveling past me while I am moving at 99.9% the speed of light, then what speed is the light beam moving past me from my frame of reference?