The probe must still prove a second point of Einstein’s, but this additional confirmation of the geodetic effect demonstrates the validity of Einstein’s calculations to all but the most skeptical.
Although this “geodetic effect” has already been proven with greater accuracy through other measurements, the Gravity Probe team claim that their successful analysis paves the way for using data from the satellite to make a very accurate measurement of a second, much subtler consequence of general relativity called “frame-dragging”.
The big problem is that even if we prove all of special relativity it won’t help us much to reconcile it with quantum theory. Or will it?
Sure, because special relativity just describes the space-time fabric, not the constituent parts of it. Quantum effects when predicted at any scale larger than a single atom act in accordance with special relativity, no?
Frame dragging? Sounds like the universe needs a new graphics card. Perhaps even SLI?
“Einstein was right: space and time get pulled out of shape near a rotating body.
The effect is incredibly small, about one part in a few trillion, which means that you have to look at something very massive, or build an instrument that is incredibly sensitive and put it in orbit.”
— from NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06nov97_1.htm
Quantum Theory, is neither here nor there.
Won’t prove or disprove special relativity at all. This experiment concerns general relativity.
There are theories of gravity that are consistent with current experiments but which do not predict frame dragging. In the sense, then, that this experiment helps to pin down the correct theory of gravity, then it helps. You can’t reconcile things unless you know which ones you need to reconcile.
Special relativity is already reconciled with quantum theory, by the way. We call the merger of the two quantum field theory. The problem is that the same techniques cannot be applied to general relativity, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the most significant has to do with the fact that physical law has always been formulated on the assumption that spacetime forms a continuous manifold so that it makes sense to take limits as spacetime separations go to zero. In other words, to formulate physical law as differential equations. Finding a role for both the quantum principle and general relativity necessarily entails introducing fundamental length and time scales. This makes it impossible to formulate differentials of any sort. What do you then use for equations of motion?
String theory dispenses with this problem by asserting that there is a flat special-relativistic background spacetime that is unobservable, and that gravity is a spin 2 field propagating on that background which looks like geometry but is not. The spin 2 field is quantized and the flat background is left as before. That, in my opinion, is a copout and violates the spirit of the general theory, if not the actual letter. Furthermore, there is no real observational or theoretical reason to make such an arbitrary split.
So anything that provides further support for the ideas of general relativity is at least oblique experimental evidence casting doubt on strings. That seems useful however it comes out.
The primary point where relativity and quantum theory diverge is in their definition of space. According to relativity, spacetime without external forces applied is “flat”, but according to quantum theory this “flat” space is a seething mass of virtual particles. The maddening part is the math for each supports the phenomenon that occur at the scales described, but do not correlete with one another. (Some aspects such as the “quantum foam” behavior of virtual particles have also been proven experimentally.)
#4 – edwinrogers
“Quantum Theory, is neither here nor there.”
Very droll. 🙂
I haven’t kept up to know, has any of Einstein’s equations been shown incorrect?
Even though Einstein self proclaimed “biggest blunder” was his cosmological constant, he introduced it into his equations for General Relativity; I don’t consider this counts as an incorrect equation, as the equation is correct when the correct value for the constant is used.
Now imagine this effect around, say, Saturn.
What could be possible applications of this? Time travel?
Perhaps some of those small moons are caught in space-time eddies that maintain eccentric orbits?
#5, pjcamp,
There is a caveat to string theory experiments , though. “If a light Higgs boson is discovered, we’d have to redo all our calculations. While the Higgs particle is suggested in theory, it still has yet to be discovered, and therefore its mass is not known.”
I’m anticipating the new collider data to enlighten us further. Exciting times.
[Ed. – Link removed since the page asked for User Name and Password]
OK, let’s try another link. Thanks, Ed., forgot the site was protected. Darned cookies. My bet is on the Higgs boson.
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) currently under construction at CERN is the greatest basic science endeavor in history. By Lisa Randall, Harvard University —
http://tinyurl.com/2r8yzk
7, 4 – Actually, quantum theory is both here and there, at least for the time being.