Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gamma Ray Anomaly Could Test String Theory

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the finally-experimental-data dept.

Space 128

exploder writes "String theory is notorious for its lack of testable predictions. But if the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope team's interpretation is correct, then a delay in the arrival of higher-energy gamma rays could point to a breakdown of relativity theory. A type of 'quantum lensing effect' is postulated to cause the delay, which is approximately four minutes over a half-billion year journey." Ars's writeup is a little more fleshed-out than the Scientific American blog posting.

cancel ×

128 comments

ahem (2)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350371)

From the page...

Update (August 24th): We're starting to see bloggers weigh in, including the inimitable Lubos Motl and Chris Lee at Ars Technica, though I'm surprised there's not more. Here we finally get some observations that probe string theory, if only tentatively, and people who have been loudly complaining about the lack of such observations have gone silent.

Wow - if that's not a dare to be /.'ed, I don't know what is :)

String Theory is so 1999--Moving Dimensions Theory (0, Troll)

22RealMcCoy (864375) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350679)

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Moving Dimensions Theory accounts for the aetherless aether.

This simple postulate offers a physical model underlying and unifiying:

RELATIVITY: 1) length contraction 2) time dilation 3) the equivalence of mass and energy 4) the constant velocity of light 5) the independence of the speed of light from the velocity of the source

QUANTUMN MECHANICS 1) action at a distance 2) wave-particle duality 3) interference phenomena 4) EPR paradox

THERMODYNAMICS 1) Time's arrow 2) Entropy

STRING THEORY'S MANY DIMENSIONS / KALUZA/KLEIN THEORY 1) a fourth expanding dimension can be interepreted as many dimensions, each time it expands

THE UNITY OF THE DUALITIES 1) wave/particle duality 2) time/space duality 3) energy/mass duality 4) E/B duality

GENERAL RELATIVITY 1) Gravitational redshift 2) Gravity waves 3) Gravitational attraction

THE SPACE-TIME BACKGROUND 1) quantum foam 2) the smearing of space and time at small distances 3) Hawking's imaginary time

PARADOXES 1) MDT explains away Godel's Block Universe 2) MDT unfreezes time 3) Resolves Zeno's Paradox

ONE GETS ALL OF THIS FROM A SIMPLE POSTULATE:

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions in a sphereically symmetric manner, in units of the Planck length, at the rate of c.

This means that every point in three dimnesional space is always expanding into a fourth dimensional sphere with a radius of the plank length. A photon is matter caught on the surface of this quantized expansion, and thus energy is quantized. The expansion of the fourth dimension occurs at the rate of c, and thus the velocity of all photons is c.

Check out the t-shirt with a simple proof of MDT:

http://www.cafepress.com/autumnrangers.72464949 [cafepress.com]

"The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at the speed of light through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimenions."

How sad it is that when truth stares modern physicists in the face, they must close their eyes so as to get a postdoc or raise more funds for String Theory.

Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all experimental tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive from the same fundamental physical reality.

Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source, nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.

Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies formerly disparate phenomena within a simple context.

THE GENERAL POSTULATE OF DYNAMIC DIMENSIONS THEORY The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it. -Albert Einstein

But after thirty years of the absurdity of String Theory, millions of dollars from the NSF, and billions of complementary dollars from tax and tuition and endowments spent on killing physics and indie physicists, perhaps it's time for something that makes sense-for a physical theory that actually accounts for a deeper reality from which both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, from which time, entanglement, gravity, entropy, interference, the constant speed of light, relativistic time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of mass and energy emerge. It's time for Moving Dimensions Theory-MDT. -The Physicist with No Name

I know what you're thinking. Did he say there were thirty-six dimensions or only thirty-five? Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .45 Revolver-the most powerful hand gun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question--Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk!? -Clint Eastwood

I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood

Go ahead. Make my day. -Clint Eastwood

MDT IN BRIEF Without further adieu, allow me to present the beauty and elegance of MDT by showing both its simplicity and far-reaching ability to account for and answer fundamental questions. All of the below will be elaborated on throughout the book.

Questions Addressed by MDT:

Why does light have a maximum, constant speed independent of the source? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. A photon is momenergy that exists orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions. It is carried along by the expanding fourth dimension. So no matter how fast the source is moving when the photon is emitted, the photon travels at the rate with which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Thus c is always independent of the movement of the source.

Why are light and energy quantized? The fourth dimension is expanding in a quantized manner relative to the three spatial dimensions. Light and energy are matter rotated completely into the fourth expanding dimension, and as it expands in a quantized manner, light and energy are thus quantized.

Why is the velocity of light constant in all frames? Time is an emergent phenomena that arises because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The flow of time is inextricably wed to the emission and propagation of photons. In all biological, mechanical, and electronic clocks, the emission and propagation of photons is what determines time. The velocity of light is always measured with respect to time, which is inextricably linked to the velocity of light. This tautology ensures that the velocity of light, measured relative to the velocity of light, will always be the same.

How can photons display both wave and particle properties? The fundamental photon propagates as a spherical wave-front, surfing the fourth expanding dimension. This is because the fourth expanding dimension appears as a spherical wavefront as it expands through the three spatial dimensions. The act of measurement localizes the photon's momenergy, taking it out of the expanding fourth dimension and trapping it in the three stationary spatial dimensions, and it appears as a localized particle, trapped by electrons as it blackens a grain on a photographic plate.

How can matter display both wave and particle properties? The fundamental electron is abuzz with photons. Photons are continually being emitted into the fourth expanding dimension and reabsorbed by the electron. The continual dance with these photons gives the electron its wave properties. Nothing moves without photons which up the net probability that the combine momenergy will be in the expanding fourth dimension. The more photons one adds to an object, the greater the chance it has of existing in the expanding fourth dimension, and thus it moves.

Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That means that what begins as a point in the fourth dimension is a sphere with a 186,000 mile radius one second later. So it is that the entire spherical wavefront of the photon exists in the exact same place in time. Hence the non-locality observed in double slit experiments, the EPR effect, and quantum entanglement. Take two interacting spin ½ photons and let them propagate at the speed of c in opposite directions. They are yet at the exact same place in time! And too, they are yet in the exact same place of the fourth expanding dimension.

Why does time stop at the speed of light? Time depends on the emission and propagation of photons. If no photons are emitted, time does not occur. This holds true whether the clock is an unwinding copper spring, a biological system such as a heart, or an oscillating quartz crystal. No photom emission=no time! As an object approaches the speed of light, its ability to emit photons without reabsorbing them diminishes. An object traveling at the speed of light cannot emit a photon.

How come a photon does not age? A photon represents momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth expanding dimension. A photon stays the exact same place in the fourth dimension, no matter how far it travels. A photon stays the exact same place in time, no matter how far it travels. Again, time is not the fourth dimension, but in inherits properties of the fourth dimension.

Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing?

Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction? Movement is always accompanied by a shortening in length. This is because the only way for a body to move is for it to undergo a rotation into the forth dimension, which is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The more energy an electron has, the more photons it possesses, and the higher probability it exists in the expanding fourth dimension. Hence its length appears contracted as perceived from the three spatial dimensions.

Why are mass and energy equivalent? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That means that a baseball sitting on a lab table stationary in our three-dimensional inertial reference frame, is yet moving at a fantastic velocity relative to the fourth dimension. Hence every seemingly stationary mass has a vast energy, as given by E=mc2. In a nuclear reaction matter is rotated into the expanding fourth dimension, appearing as high-enegry photons (gamma rays) propagating at the same velocity of the fourth expanding dimension-c.

Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Hence every photon naturally expands in a spherically symmetric manner. Hence every electron, or piece of matter that interacts with photons, is naturally carried outward from a central point in a spherically symmetric manner. Hence the particles in a drop of dye in a swimming pool dissipate in a spherically symmetric manner, and are never reunited. Hence time's arrow and entropy.

Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling at a velocity c? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence photons, which are tiny packets of momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth dimension, appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts propagating at the velocity c.

Why is there a minus sign in the following metric? x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2 The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence the only way to stay still in the space-time continuum, and to achieve a 0 interval, is to move with the velocity of light.

What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of relativity? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. This single postulate assures that the speed of light is constant for all observers and that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws? Newton's laws are an approximation of relativity and quantum mechanics, and as MDT underlies QM & relativity, it underlies Newton's laws.

Why is an increase in velocity always accompanied by a decrease in length as measured by an external observer? All increases in velocity are accompanied by rotations into the fourth dimension. All particles can be represented by momenergy 4-vectors. The greater the momenrgy component in the expanding fourth dimension, the greater the velocity and speed of the particle. Rest mass is the invariant here. It never changes. It prefers the three spatial dimensions. In order for it to move, one must gain energy in the form of photons. These photons prefer the fourth expanding dimension. The more photons one adds, the greater the component of the momenergy 4-vector that appears in the fourth expanding dimension, the more energy the particle has, the shorter it appears, and the faster it moves.

How MDT Is Aiding Fellow Physicists

"The conclusions from Bell's theorem are philosophically startling; either one must totally abandon the realistic philosophy of most working scientists or dramatically revise our concept of space-time." - Abner Shimony and John Clauser

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this new concept of space-time. The vast ambitions of most tenure-track physicists, including string theorists and LQG hypers, causes them to focus on irrelevant, minute questions, and thus, though funded by millions for over thirty years, have not yet been able to string the bow. Deeper, true physicists, such as Abner Shimony and John Clauser are alert to the fact that physics need news ideas.

The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal.

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time.

http://physicsmathforums.com/ [physicsmathforums.com]

Re:ahem (2, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351399)

"if only tentatively,"

The process of peer review requires that you actually give your peers time to review.

"people who have been loudly complaining about the lack of such observations have gone silent."

If someone's going to get emo over cries of "tests or GTFO," they're in the wrong line of work.

Re:ahem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20351601)

The articles by Lobos Motl and Chris Lee are pretty interesting. Direct URLs: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/magic-dispersion -of-gamma-rays.html [blogspot.com] http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/0 8/23/probing-quantum-gravity-with-gamma-ray-burste rs [arstechnica.com] None of them seems to believe that this observation is connected with quantum gravity.

Re:ahem (0, Redundant)

Taco Meat (1104291) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351631)

what do bloggers know about string theory? Seriously? PUHLEEZE And can we stop talking about what the bloggers are saying? My word.

And now for your poetry reading, or blog entry, or pathetic ramblings ....

UVAZHAEMY CHITATEL!

                    on April 26, 1986, in one hour 23 minutes 40 seconds chief shifts block No. 4 Alexander Akimov Chernobyl reactor ordered silence on the end of the day, held before the power to stop the planned repairs. The team placed in a calm working atmosphere, centralized control does not fix any safety or warning signal of the rejection of the reactor parameters or servers. Reactor Operator Leonid Toptunov withdrew buttons A3 cap protective against inadvertent mistake clicking, and pressed the button. This signal 187 rods reactor began to move down in the active zone. At mnemotablo fire light bulbs, and come in motion arrow signs of rods. Alexander Akimov, standing vpoloborota to Remote Management reactor, seen this, also saw that "traffic" indicators Unbalance AR metnulis "left" (his phrase), as it should be, a decrease reactor power, turned to a panel of security for who watched for a pilot.
                    But beyond a thing not to predict and most unbridled imagination. After a small decline in the power reactor suddenly on the rise with increasing speed, there are alarms. L. Toptunov yelled an emergency increase in power. But do something, it was not in its power. All he could, made-controlled button A3, COR rods were active in the area. No other means at its disposal there. Yes, and all others. A. Akimov sharply yelled : "Glushi reactor! " Gbarpa to the desk and obestochil electromagnetic clutches drives rods. Step right, but futile. Indeed, the logic of COR, which is all the elements of logic, worked correctly, pins were in the area. It is now clear after clicking A3 action was not true, there was no means of salvation. Another logic refused!
                    In short followed by two large explosions. Refills A3 stop traffic going through half way. They go nowhere.
                    In one hour 23 minutes 47 seconds, the reactor was ruined as a result of thermal explosion caused by dispersing power to instant neutrons. This collapse, limit the catastrophe, which may be at Power Reactor. Her osmyslivali not, it is not prepared, no technical measures to localize to block and the station provided. No and organizational measures.
                    Confusion about, bewilderment and a complete misunderstanding of what and how much has happened, not owned by us. Navalilis absolutely urgent cases, which replaced the head of all other thoughts.
                    Looking back, I do not know how to say-long (it has been more than five years) or recent : Everything is still in front of you - is reasonable to say that we will do everything possible in the extreme conditions. More to do anything it can be useful. No panic, no psychosis, I do not observe. No individual is not an unauthorised left arm, leaving only on the order. All we got out of this test with serious injuries health for many fatal.
                    It must be emphasized. These were professionals, clearly aware of the danger in the environment. Do not walk away. While acknowledging the skills, courage, self-sacrifice on the brink of the staff after the accident, it should not be ignored. I am not objective traced the origins of this behaviour, to explore the subtleties of psychological consequences in the extreme, it is unacceptable conditions. This is so good for a writer. My task easier : to show why people find themselves in such circumstances that they have identified all their mental qualities. Was this inevitable because of the use of nuclear or other reasons.
                    Speaking practically, will be only the past, in strict adherence to the facts. All cited documented facts can confirm or indicate where documents. All too seriously. The question of the masses of people in several generations. Enough speculation. I do not see their own writing and gift would never have taken up the pen. However, five years have passed, and accurate description of the events and causes or not. It is the duty of the dead (the truth-dead) colleagues.
                    From the prosecution :
            "The prosecution filed against Akimova AF, Toptunova L. F. Perevozchenko and V. I. under Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says USSR on November 28, 1986 "

                    They have also tried and put to, without a doubt, so it died. They defend nothing to say. Their relatives little loss because prosecutors reminds them : your son, father, husband-offender remember! Indeed dead acumen. However, in those vtsepilis not.
                    No, I have not been silent all these past five years. Not recognizing neither ourselves nor the staff guilty of the bombing of the reactor, wrote detailed technical explanation. Where? Yes easier to say, not writing. All useless. Only R. P. Sergienko in his film "yes Ukrainian newspaper Komsomolskaya banner" provided an opportunity to speak a little. Naturally, because of the limited time in the film and place in the newspaper detailed explanation of this complex problem to be. And I think if that print?
                    Interestingly produced in our blessed country! As some have access to newspapers, magazines or other road has been closed. I do not know and can be? Why different views on the same issue? Zhang is one. It was in Germany, there was almost possible to organize a half on television, printed in a newspaper essay. And this without any initiative on my part.
                    In October 1990, read the report of IAEA team, released in 1986 after the Soviet information specialists in Vienna on the causes of the Chernobyl disaster. Since Soviet informants headed by academician VA Legasovym the truth is not sought in libel staff resorted to lies, turned a blind eye to known facts, the report of the IAEA an obvious deficiency. Comments on the report I sent to IAEA Director Mr. X. Blix now it is about. My comments are somehow caught the eyes of the magazine's editor, Nuclear Engineering, and in a letter invited me to write for the magazine article, which appeared in September 1995 as normal people, they want to learn from the mistakes of others. And we do not want in their, albeit each nabet a cone.
                    I read in "guerrilla" Ogonke (in the sense of perseverance, an established position in charge of personnel) interview academician AP Alexandrov, and has written an article to the editor. On the floor are not asked to believe - said, where you can check written. Agree was any change article, of course, saving the meaning. Not printed. They must be, but we are not. Understand, "in place of" Ogonke little, but then found the same place innuendoes staff for Kevroleva and Asmolova. Approved : defamatory. And so in 1991!
                    We can not, of course, to say that nothing has changed. Despite the powerful sinklitu doctors and academics by enthusiastic single VP Volkov, A. Yadrihinskogo, G. B. Dubovskogo, now and ensembles slowly, and if the resistance continues and will be unable to identify the true causes of the disaster. No, I was wrong-not investigated. They are long, but clear-creators reactor immediately after the accident. Having known cause, which previously not allowed. Yes, and now is only a narrow range. Must overcome obstacles. Strange in this podobralis doctors and academics : years of stress do not see the obvious. Yet trust will be unveiled truth, and even faith-not in 50 years, and sooner!
                    The official version of the cause of the crash on April 26, 1986 the city still remaining unchanged, clearly laid the blame on operational staff. Clarification view was later. Why is it so difficult to place, say, state, as I see it. so many issues are clear, there are strange.
                    Official findings on the causes of the disaster. It is all simple. It seems to me that at that time no other conclusions could not be, because the investigation from the beginning, it was unnatural given in the hands of the creators of the reactor, a potential perpetrators. None of the commission was not a person concerned a reactor accident causes, its properties. Conversely, directly, indirectly, in the last corporate, all arranged placing blame on the staff. And above all simple and understandable. Routine is on the most important track for the Soviet Union. No, we have other causes of accidents, carelessness and ignorance than serving people. Even if the commission concluded, a fact (because we can presume), it would ground of "political considerations" and announced that it was announced. No, the other could not have.
                    Press. Why are our insightful incident Correspondent so uncritically and unconditionally believe all? Why were they not alerted unilateral tendentious selection commission? Well, of course, the commission heavy, authoritative, unquestionable. But there were hesitant and with the view directly opposite the official. They paid no attention. The press has one : baiting staff. From different sides, with different intensity. In two articles in "Literaturnaya Gazeta explaining that there RBMK and okoloreaktornyh cases, nothing seems to be another area of thought was not. A correspondent M. Odintsa must be condemned even that A. Dyatlov defended in court, in our Soviet certainly justified, the court did not even defend humility. But on the other hand, it's much better this apparent misinformation, which the prosecution seems to be in a car. In the interview with a correspondent for "Arguments and Facts" is the boss's Chernobyl press Kovalenko. Man decided that if was to communicate with the press, it is in a reactor deal. With confidence said : "All textbooks and instruction indicated that the reactor can not explode under any circumstances." And yet : "It now seems so. They lived under the laws and concepts of time. And they were sure : neither do reactor - explosion is not possible. " There I found neither in textbooks or in the instructions that the reactor explosion is not possible under any circumstances. Moreover, in 1986, knew at least five cases, in fact, the bombing in our country. The operator of the reactor, and certainly RBMK clearly knows that the reactor can do what you want. The explosion did not explode, and the breakdown in this case will be just and severe. For durachkov put us, 'said that they would take. However, Dr. O. Kazachkovsky In contrast, "professional" named directly balsam for the soul shed on the soil. Yes, a lot of them pouprazhnyalos at our expense. And unpredictable, and unlikely to prevent violations of personnel. At these and scientists think they have inventive. A press all these allegations properly bring to society. In fact, a broad technical community and the public has an opinion on the causes of the accident at MVTS chaired by the President of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR AP Alexandrova. But somehow escape the press was that the President is the inventor and chief scientist topic RBMK. As fit as I say, with ethics? On the law and say that much.
                    The first suspected her with the official version of the causes of the accident exploiters of nuclear power plants with RBMK reactors. This is understandable : it cost only see and understand the technical activities performed on the remaining reactors, as they had clarified the condition of reactors in April 1986 they realized what they were all years. But it is narrow and most informed (reluctant) category of people.
                    The authorities thought that criminals discovered announced planted all in! Society responded unique, according to common sense, in the opposite direction. The disaster led to the deadly effects from the removal of the heavy use of a large period of time. There it as a result of error. Can I continue to delete mistakes? Of course not. No normal person not venture to answer affirmatively. What would be good or picked operators-assurance work is unmistakable and could not be otherwise. Operators of thousands. If so, it is unacceptable use of atomic energy. What is left, we know. What are otrygnetsya yet to be known. Is it possible to envisage such an eventuality? Of course, this is the normal reaction of people. Yes, anticipating the social consequences of the decisions has never been a strength of the Soviet government and party. There she developed, the party because of redundancy. The course started in propaganda machine, and black is white, and, if necessary, punitive squad ready. Have to think. Soviet Corps of Engineers, certainly a powerful and competent, a decision had not been possible because of the hunger for information. While seemingly obscure that if all reported to the IAEA?
                    The position taken by the IAEA, deserves special conversation. Under the new Soviet policy, the team prepared a report for the international community about the Chernobyl disaster, which consists of two parts : a small book on the causes of the accident and large-covering radiation and health problems. Second, we will not be dealt with. As the international community informed on the first part, as seen further details. Also consider not going into details. The reactor exploded in normal ordinary circumstances :
                    - There were no natural disasters : floods, earthquakes, or other Tungus meteorite;
                    - was not sabotage;
                    it is not terrorism.
                    Despite shortcomings, the information did the IAEA experts were reported in the actual circumstances of the accident and imaging parameters. In these circumstances, IAEA experts actually agreed with the Soviet informants, and the bombing blamed staff. Therefore, the question is : Does allow experts to the explosion (nuclear explosion) reactor, processed according to regulatory documents, as a result of human error? If allowed, the promotion of the development of nuclear power morally. And in the West operators wrong.
                    After the accident, I reviewed many times by the Soviet Union regulations on the design of nuclear reactors and did not find a situation in which to detonate the reactor, which is designed according PBYA and OPB. Natural anomalies and sabotage is not considered. Of course, entitled to a comprehensive review of the completeness of luck, one person can not do it alone. But not see such situations, and teams of documents, or would provide countervailing measures. Given the expertise of IAEA experts, they had easily on the basis of available material found numerous inconsistencies reactor instruments and to conclude it useless for use. It was easy for them to make a conclusion and that we assigned a violation of instructions (in fact they were not) in any case not exploded reactor, the rules of design. Perhaps osharashennye guys at the head of information, usually from the Soviet Union in other ways obtained, the experts rushed to release the report, just following the Soviet informants. Otherwise, nothing can explain, for example, a quote from the report :
            "The printout shows that from the reactor core had been removed too much control rods, and that it did not have enough flexibility to meet the requirements for the suspension. At that time, the operator should stop the reactor. "

                    What is wrong and why is not competent for such people :

                1. Printing was not, she received after the accident. It is classified at the conscience of informants.
                2. Printing of rods at the time, one hour and 22 minutes with 30. Button A3 hit in 1 hour 23 minutes 40 seconds. This is the time for analysis printouts must-see 211 rods. Even if Guy? Soviet informants clear that the need-to defame the staff. But why experts are reluctant even to think small? But it is another serious here.
                3. Do not see experts contradictions : "... that he did not have enough flexibility to meet the requirements for the suspension. At that time, the operator should stop the reactor ... " So, can be executed without any pardon - punctuation. Suppose that we saw on the printout small margin, according to the regulation in rejecting the option of dropping, we get an explosion. So it was on April 26, 1986 the city only protection we clicked the button in the end.
                4. And the main thing. It is understood that the reactor "... did not have enough flexibility to meet the requirements for the suspension ...? In books reactors provided that the reactor should be more reactive than dozvolyaemoy bodies impact on reactivity.

Chapter 2. CHERNOBYL NPP

                    The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is located near the river. Dnipro of Ukraine. Pripyat. In 1986 is a major energy hub capacity of 4 million kW. The first plant started on September 26, 1977, subsequent to December 1978, 1981 and 1983 biennium. respectively. Along with the construction of the station has grown and formed a team of operators. Specific problems with the maintenance staff has been, I think, due to good prospects for a flat and station locations. In reactor plant for the first block, basically, people come from such devices for the so-called industrial reactors. They formed the core. Later this source exhausting, but has been able to put a block transfer of workers. Normal challenges of the new business units reduced gradual entry into force.
                    The station has worked quite well. Prior to 1986 was one serious accident-channel gap at the first unit in 1982 It has long repair and maintenance staff significant exposure. Within the rules for working at the station. There was one case of contamination in the station, a few dozen square metres dezaktiviruyuschim solution after washing first contour because of a small leak pipeline. Surface soil removed buried. In general, at the Chernobyl plant incidents occurred less than the average number of nuclear stations in the country. Electricity production in the last time before the accident was about 28 billion kWh per year, only slightly less than the Leningrad nuclear power plant. But there was already an entrenched team. We have also been constantly move personnel and the influx of new people. And in the 1985-86 biennium. part of experienced operatives was transferred to the facility five blocks. Referring, of course, good employees because :

                    * station one, not on the side of favoring. Excellent understanding of the difficulties of launching period;
                    * usually go with the higher posts. In this case, people keep inconvenient;
                    * Yes superiors and the third class (fifth and sixth units), their standard of workers know who is who.

                    Indeed, at the Chernobyl plant technical managers appointed from station employees, not by outsiders. Something not remember outsiders, except for the first time. Is this mixed and minuses, but I think all the same advantages peretyagivayut.
                    All heads of units change, and shift supervisors shops, logged only at the Chernobyl station for at least five years. This is not some tables chiefs and the people directly implementing and monitoring the manufacturing process. After the accident, the entire operational staff was re-you know, biased and is fit to work. I refer here to the report of the commission Gospromatomenergonadzora of January 4, 1991 : "The writings of the psychological industrial research laboratories" Outlook "Minatomenergoproma (USSR were studies and others A. D.), the results of an evaluation of personal and behavioral characteristics to Chernobyl after the accident, which showed that personal data Chernobyl nuclear power plant operators had no such distinctions of data from other stations, which could be the direct cause of the accident. And the whole team down in 1986 described as a senior, mature created, consisting of qualified experts - level, as recognized in the country was satisfactory. Team was no better nor worse than other nuclear plants.
                    And why is that normal operators suddenly allow "extremely unlikely combination of disruption and operation", as Soviet informants provided to the IAEA? Could a change in the mix of 26 April was somehow particularly outstanding? No, normal change. Yes, and not too many "unlikely"? It certainly was, and I say this further.
                    One particular station included two power. But virtually every unit operated independently little respect. Major equipment unit : reactor, two TG, transformer.

REAKTOR RBMK-1000 There is a need for further understanding briefly tell that the nuclear reactor in general and in particular the RBMK reactor.
                    Nuclear reactor power is the machinery for the conversion of nuclear energy in the heat. Fuel in the vast majority of reactors is uranium enriched uranium. In the nature of the chemical element uranium consists of two isotopes : 0.7% isotope of atomic weight 235, the rest isotope of atomic weight 238. Fuel is the only isotope of uranium. With the capture of neutrons (absorption) core of uranium-235 is becoming unsustainable and zhiteyskim standards instantly dissolves into two, largely uneven, with the allocation of large amounts of energy. Each act of nuclear fission energy is emitted in millions of times higher than the combustion of oil or gas molecules. In such a reactor as the Chernobyl unit at full power "burned" about four kilograms of uranium per day.
                    Granted each division uranium nucleus energy is as follows :-the bulk of the kinetic energy of "fragmentation", so that the process of transferring its braking almost all of tvele reactor and its constructive shell. Out of the envelope any of the fragments is not visible. If you look at the Mendeleev table, we can see that the nucleus fragments division are abundant neutrons to be stable. As a result of the chain break, undergoing radiation making, they in the table of chemical elements moved to the right to a stable state. This process is accompanied by the emission of particles of - and -rays, for each fragment has a biography and their half. It fragments and dividing up the majority of radiation contamination in the accident after the destruction and the release of the bombing rods.
                    During the normal operation of the reactor beta particles also not beyond the fuel rods there to lose their energy; -rays also mostly absorbed within the reactor. After the end of a chain reaction, the suspension reactor, residual heat from the collapse of the products for a long time, have chilled fuel rods.
                    Each division of the nucleus of uranium emitted two or three, on average, about two and a half, the neutron. Their kinetic energy absorbed by the retarder, fuel and reactor design features, and then transferred to the heat.
                    Just neytrony- and make it possible to carry out nuclear fission chain reaction of uranium. If a neutron from each division create new divisions, the intensity of the reaction remain at the same level.
                    Most of the neutrons emitted immediately by dividing nucleus. This instant neutrons. Little of about 0.7% through in a short period of time, through the second and tens of seconds-lagging neutrons. They allow the intensity of uranium fission reactor power and control. Otherwise, the existence of power reactors would become problematic only atomic bomb. The rest of the energy division of instant--rays emitted directly to the division, and energy neutrino, which we did not and do not see the patient.
                    Typically used in power reactors is not natural, and several enriched isotope uranium-235. But do most is the uranium-238 and because a large number of neutrons absorbed them. The core of uranium-238, after absorbing neutrons, and the weak through the double beta decay of becoming an element of plutonium-239, also can share in the acquisition of thermal neutrons, and 235. Properties of plutonium as a fuel differs from the uranium in sufficient accumulation after a long work reactor slightly alter reactor physics. Blows accident plutonium also contributed to the pollution of the territory. It hopes to break his no (half of plutonium-239 over 24 thousand years), only migration into the earth. There are other plutonium isotopes.
                    Properties of uranium-235 :

                    * share in the acquisition of its core thermal (low energy) neutrons;
                    * provide a large amount of energy;
                    * emit neutrons when divided to self reaction.

Uranium-235 is the foundation of a nuclear power reactors.
                    Almost all nuclear reactors operating in thermal neutrons, ie neutron small kinetic energy. Neutron after dividing uranium or plutonium undergoes slow stage, diffusion and capture nuclei fuel and constructive materials. Part of neutrons flying out of the active zone-brain. Meanwhile, a large number of divisions, and hence the running reactor always in a large number of neutrons, of neutron flux, neutron field. Burnup nuclear fuel has been slow, and it is in a sufficiently long period of time, the number of fuel in the reactor can be considered constant. Then the number of neutrons absorbed fuel, and while the number of divided and the number of kernels of energy will be directly proportional to neutron flux in the core. Indeed, the challenge is to measure the operators and maintenance neutron flux required to maintain power.
                    If roughly into neutrons per successive generation (for now - because in the next division is incoherent, it is similar to the movement of irregular crowd, and not step Army columns) to the number of neutrons No. 1, No. 2 and so forth, with equal numbers of neutrons every generation power reactor will be permanent, such a reactor would be called critical factor reproduction neutron equal number of neutrons subsequent to the previous generation, unity. In reproduction rate greater than the number of neutrons and continuously increasing power-reactor nadkritichny. The higher reproduction rate, the more speed the development of power, and power is growing over time, not linearly and exponentially. In operational use, tend not to value ratio reproduction, and the so-called value reactivity, in which K, slightly different from units with sufficient accuracy to be equal (K-1). In normal practice, the operator deals with the reactor, ampoules or positive reactivity of not more than one-tenth per. With more flexibility, speed up power becomes too dangerous to the integrity of the reactor and service systems. All power reactors have automatic A3, glushaschuyu reactor at high speed increased capacity. At the RBMK reactor A3 works at a speed of the growing power twice during 20.
                    The key point. In dividing the nucleus of uranium approximately 0.7% of neutrons not born when divided, but with some delay. They are the total number of the generation of neutrons, and thus increase the lifetime of the neutron generation. Share lagged neutron usually denoted . If excess reactivity (positive) to (more) value, the reactor becomes critical only instant neutrons, the rate of turnover of generations of high-determined time and slow diffusion of neutrons, and thus speed is a big increase in capacity. Protection in this case is not only the destruction of the reactor can interrupt a chain reaction. It was on April 26, 1986 in the fourth block of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. In fact, because of advances in the core of plutonium and differences in the properties and instant lagged neutrons in the reactor core value is not equal to the effective - 0,7 and 0,5%.
                    RBMK-1000 reactor is the reactor channel types, neutron-graphite, heat-normal water. The fuel cartridge recruited from 36 fuel rods for three and a half lengths. Rods with spacer frames set forth in the central rod load, placed on two circles : 6 cups on the inner and the outer 12 pieces.
                    Each cartridge consists of two storeys in height. Thus, the active zone is the height of seven metres. Each fuel rod drawn from UO2 tablets placed in a sealed tube alloy of zirconium with niobium. Unlike reactors on board, where all the fuel cartridge located in the building with the full working pressure in the reactor core, each cartridge is placed in a separate technology channel, a pipe diameter of 80 mm.
                    Active area RBMK reactor height and diameter of 7 11,8 m come from the 1888 graphite columns with central holes each, which established channels. Of these, 1,661-technological channels of the fuel cluster, the other channels - COR, where 211 neutron absorber rods and 16 sensors. Channels COR evenly divided on the active zone in the radial and azimuthal directions.
                    Lower technological goes through heat-normal water under high pressure, cooling fuel rods. Water evaporates and partly in the form of vapor mixture is in the top baraban- separators where a couple is separated and sent to the turbines. Water from baraban- separators through GTSN again applied to enter the technological channels. Steam turbines after being in the condensed and returned to the circuit of the heat. Thus, the circuit closes in the water circulation.
                    If the design of the core set, which look devayutsya neutron division. Part of neutrons stay in the active zone and lost irretrievably. Part of neutrons absorbed by the retarder, heating, construction materials and products division fuel nuclei. This is a useless loss of neutrons. The rest is absorbed by the fuel. To maintain constant power of neutron absorption of fuel should also be unchanged. Consequently, emitted from each division fuel kernel two and a half (on average) for neutron leakage and seizure nedelyaschimisya material, we can lose half of neutrons. This will be critical reactor.
                    This reactor is not allowed, at least for the following reason : the division of uranium formed the nucleus of different chemical elements, among them a large number of xenon with the atomic weight of 135, has a very large neutron absorption cross section. When raising capacity begins to form xenon, and the reactor is stalling. This was the first American reactor. E. Fermi felt plane neutron capture xenon nuclei, and said in jest that the core values obtained with oranges.
                    To compensate for this and other effects of fuel in the reactor downloaded more than that with the continued diversion of neutron absorption and their nedelyaschimisya materials is increasing uptake of fuel. To prevent the build-up of a power reactor in the active zone impose so-called impact on the reactivity of containing materials intensely absorbing neutrons. Methods of compensation may be different, we will consider them only in the case of RBMK.
                    In channels COR posted rods containing strong boron - neutron absorber, which supports and the balance of neutrons, and thus power reactor. If necessary, increase the power of the rod is displayed in whole or in part from the core, thus increasing neutron absorption fuel rods and increasing capacity to achieve the necessary level of power again entered in the active zone. Typically, a new provision bars government is not identical with the original, which depends on a change in reactivity of the core-changing power of moschnostnogo reactivity coefficient. If necessary, reduce the power of the active zone imposed rods, ie enter negative reactivity, a subcritical reactor and the power starts to decline. At the new level of power stabilizes change of rods. This is AR. Operators touch alters given power level, and the rest is a regulator. However, in the case of the RBMK reactor is slightly different, and sometimes is not the case, the operator has to adjust its intervention in the work of the controller for a power in any part of the zone.
                    The newly built reactor technology channels are filled with fresh nevygorevshimi fuel cartridge. If all 1661 channel load tapes, the rate of reproduction will be so large that it repay its existing management rods would be impossible. So about 240 technological channels instead of fuel elements loaded special sterzhnyami- sinks neutrons. And hundreds more sink holes located in the central rod bearing fuel elements. As fuel burnup these sinks gradually removed and replaced with fuel cartridge.

Chapter 3. PROGRAMME

                    The full title is "Working test programme turbo No. 8 Chernobyl in the treatment of joint vybega load their own needs".
                    Nothing remarkable in the Programme no regular programme, normally written. Notoriety it was only in response to an incident that occurred from it. There is no technical link between the incident and the program is not, by chance their ties so bad researchers. If in the last minute before the test took place automatic operation for a given signal (you will not believe commissions and freestyle writers that we protect the disabled were all in action for the regime to power 200 MW), the accident occurred exactly alike same. An accident would be because of this programme, all the easy-to prohibitions on other reactors, and no more problems. But it is not.
                    Critics Programme.
                    "Tests on the program is not purely electric, they are integrated, on the whole block." And who thought their pure electric? Sami come or who wanted? A look at the signatures on the program, the question no longer is clear. If the test is purely electrical, why sign shops reactor, turbine, heat automation?
                    Harmonization program. That says Gospromatomenergonadzora Commission in 1991 :
            "Such testing should be classified as integrated unit testing, and program them to be agreed upon with the General Designer, Chief Designer, head of the Scientific and government oversight body. But acting before the accident PBYA-04-74 and OPB-82 does not require manual power plants agree to such programs with the above-mentioned organizations. "

                    I thought to be about to agree, and has said the chief engineer. Coordination with external organizations, technical competence of the station and the chief engineer. I am satisfied the signature by.
                    A nuclear accident, and the program is not consistent with the Division of Nuclear Safety Station.
                    But entering excess reactivity occurred not because of the programme. The above named Commission on the subject says :
            "The unique feature of the planned teplogidravlicheskoy regime was increased, the nominal, primary coolant flow through the reactor. Parosoderzhanie was minimal with little nedogreve heat to the boiling point at the entrance to the active zone. Both of these factors have been shown to have a direct bearing on the scope of unexpected effects in the tests. "

                    That is, in the commission's view, a programme, if not a cause of the accident, all the same effect. Not so. When coolant flow was more nominal, with the reactor had been no incidents. Indeed the entire project and ideology on the basis of written operational documents, including rules prescribe flow "not less" and never "no more". After examining all the documents, the commission found no deviation from the parameters of the rules, they were not on until you click A3. But the flow of coolant at the time was already equal to the nominal. A heat nedogrev what was, and so was, it did not deal with personnel. So, there is no reason to commission approval. Yes, and the difference in reactivity effects (for example, works six pumps) is : people drowned at a depth of 100 metres, is if 90 ...
                    This example shows that even people in large otreshivshiesya of false accusations personnel finding in the report complete mismatch reactor PBYA and OPB, stop outlive the barrier, could not refrain from accusing staff stereotypical language. And this report has found.
                    Security measures. CONEC all critics. And as the entire second section of the Programme? According to him, connected to the redundant power tools, which is sufficient not only to rasholazhivaniya bloc, but even for the reactor power. Only the blind could not see this. No reactivity effects that go for the largest, that of a normal operation of the Programme is not expected, they were not related to her conduct. Naturally, while operators use the entire operational documentation.

The level of power. By Programme power levels of 700 ... 1000 MW. We have to conduct its power was 200 MW. Why is - tell next. Yet what we bone thrown into the teeth of our prosecutors. Until now continue teeth. Even in sin entered Soviet informants in the IAEA. They are poor, lured by promises of a good chance to spray mud staff, headed by academician VA Legasovym face of the world lie, that the rules work for less than 700 MW power outlawed. Why are they doing? Just after the accident revealed that a small capacity for RBMK-1000 reactor, the most dangerous. Well, what we did without academics and doctors? It got them forward. Who suspected of solid-looking people in lies?
                    There is a programme, for which the power is important. So, check the main safety valves can be carried out at low power since the opening of valves pressure in the first circuit begins to decline rapidly and disrupt GTSN. The program vybega TG level of power has no meaning, and with the experience we have gathered reactor jam (see paragraph 2.12 of the Programme). According to the station programming instructions should be given power. When the programme was not clear that it will comply immediately prior experience, and established 700 ... 1000 MW as a maximum rather than minimum power. When capacity fell in the transition to regulators to raise its needs were. And for normal reactor, and processed according PBYA OPB, had no meaning. And we do not violated the allegations of commissions and informers.
                    The withdrawal of the emergency reactor cooling. The subject is exhausted itself long ago. Back in 1986 Commission GA Shasharina a lack of any reference to this fact with the emergence and development of the accident. Currently, only academician AP Alexandrov continued to develop this theme. Happiness him well. Informants in the IAEA claimed that the withdrawal of the facility was lost to reducing accidents. Without explanation here I quote the report of the commission NA Steinberg :
            "Thus," to reduce the accident "because of the cooling-off was not lost, but, in principle, not in the specific context of the city 26.04.86"

                    Including eight GTSN. Nothing we do not violated, there are instructions in such regimes. There is no technical reasons that prevent parallel with the permanent pumps turnovers and reduce turnover, zapitannyh of vybegayuschego generator. Once the pump head down, so the pump will be turned off his defence. Nothing is different from the usual stops pump.
                    Other comments of the critics will explain, in the course of the text. I am confident and in the light of accident, while writing programme is nothing substantial to add to it, nor removed. Well, would be some excerpts from the Rules or instructions.

Chapter 4. IT WAS

                    April 26, 1986 Zlopoluchny day. Many people he separated before and after. With already talk about my life-deep chasm is divided into two different parts.
                    A little healthy recent years, and only three or four days to a sick leave-disabled. A reliable law-abiding people - has become a criminal. And finally, a free citizen, a citizen convicted. This is now referred to as delivered. How sophisticated mind there is an unnatural combination of the words? Yu Feofanov in the newspaper "Izvestia" on the basis of recent laws in the protection of human rights must note : "So far, alas, the word citizen still have close to the word" proydemte. Then how much citizen convicted?
                    And at the end of the memory, perhaps, for a clearer separation of the two parts of life, virtually wipe events on April 25, remained vague memories, but the events of the accident, the same memory recorded clearly and without permits, all confirm or witnesses or testimony appliances.
                    Thus, nothing remember that, went to the station the evening of April 25. At work, and work has always walked the walk, four kilometres one way. This gave the 200 kilometres per month. Adding 100 kilometres regular probezhek runner-sufficient to maintain normal body. More importantly, perhaps, in walking is the preservation of the nervous system. So, disconnected from any unpleasant thoughts. Fumbled something in the head, add speed. Oh, how nervishki useful then. And walking and running were simply needed in those conditions. We somehow can not razmerennoy normal work. And definitely in a construction business. I get involved in the installation, commissioning and operation of four blocks of Chernobyl. In the post of Deputy Chief shop Chief reactor plant and Deputy Chief Engineer. The least-desyatichasovy day when all working Saturday, in time, hot and Sundays. But this vymatyvalo. Half a year after launching the fourth block all utryaslos and pursuing a regular job, but still earlier than six o'clock in the evening with no leaves, and it was fine, and the opportunity to work to update or supplement information technology, without which, I think, can not engineer do.
                    No, izmatyvala physically and forced soul unreasonable Labour Organization, unreasonable demands of workers, unrealistic plans.
                    Not once seen in the press and on the Chernobyl nuclear power plant that, because of the early delivery, poor quality of construction and installation. I do not know. I came to the station in September 1973 on the building cafeteria is the slogan to launch the first unit in 1975 has been a period of five-rewrote to six. In fact, the first nuclear power plant was launched September 26, 1977 - The second unit in December 1978, but is believed to have shifted its deadline because of delays start first. Also, and two consecutive blocks. On early delivery is non-existent. Interestingly, until December 31 to speak about the impossibility of starting this year is not. Then comes emissary and start a new unrealistic plans and schedules. Compiled, signed left emissary. It is the first time begins vain because of the tight control of the schedule, since the impossible. Hard operational meetings, night calls to work. The inevitable backlog increased control recedes, begins normal. Before the next visit of the head.
                    Never understand these vzbadrivayuschih injection. I think they are only harm. If appointed unrealistic limit, a diligent worker for a while trying to do. Then all aware of the impossibility. This allows unscrupulous employees can not perform the task. Noticed many times. The benefits of such laser is the same as the slogan of almost constant : "Otdadim all forces launch unit No. ___ k___ number." Normal people got put all forces, and that then?
                    I think T. V. Kizim and assemblers N. K. Antoschuk, AI Hare, VP Tokarenko all run seriously than perceived, though not as shown. They anyone can tell how and when, in fact actually be done. Generally, I think assemblers beyond AIDS. They have immunity against any foreign-educated biological or psychological origin of it. Otherwise, in terms of not long endure.
                    Here it is appropriate to say. Assembling at the Soviet Chernobyl nuclear power plant on the criteria of a good job. Despite the large number of welds on the first contour lines, recall only one serious cracked seam line. And we are probably due to stiffness and poor compensation for temperature increase. By accident on April 26 assembly and assemblers have no relationship.
                    At the station I came to the dockyard, participated in the submarines. There is not all went smoothly. And night work, and continuous-day and more. Recalling the event, almost anecdote. At delivery from sitting in the hotel, playing Preferans. Late in the evening comes mechanic V. Buyansky and appealed to the representative of service.
                    "We otladili system to be adopted.
                    - I can not, Victor, ill.
                    - Pozarez need, prize off. I transport.
                    - Well, huh, gone.
                    Voenpred returned minutes later and recognized that the disease it is increased Hiss. A. Buyansky invited him to a comfortable trip back seat of the motorcycle. This, of course, not ended, came in a bus. Yet there was wiser organized.

For example, at the station, I could never understand why I, we carry, you have to know constantly, but at what pipeline valves installed and how many metres of the pipe. I just want to support the entire pipeline, rods and other accessories. Then it can start some commissioning work. Not that it is useless knowledge, they are harmful because distract from the real work needed to be me, no one will. And to corner or angle tube paved, mounting even know it is a must for the job.
                    Cult knowledge to things, the cult of "ownership situation" brought to unwarranted heights than replaced this business competence worker. In a report to a superior, more often than not, such knowledge is not required. Harry Chief sheet of paper and paints, on what form they need help. Another is to require a different form. In our computer by using all these certificates up waste so much time.
                    A graphics. They, it turns out, can be on any different occasions, and all this without the support of workers, supplies and equipment. Only on the basis of the period named chief guest. Say that they are not respected. In the second set, the remaining pieces of 10 was graphs of renting. Visiting Chief Glavatomenergo "Nevsky" and there is a timetable for the delivery pipeline systems. The schedule is in June and in August, based on the time of launch, is already washing KMPTS first outline. Pipes contour diameter of 800 mm, welding responsible, a few certified welders. At each welded joints on the technology takes seven days. And interestingly : Nevsky, in the recent past, fitter, could not see the unreality of time. TSK Marin worker arrives, it seems, in the past elektromontazhnik, and the schedule is drawn up another tune-up electrified flaps. And so on.
                    But, as I said, seriously they may not even perceive themselves. Construction has been proceeding normally. Builders and engineers adapt to such ekspromtam. To me, the first time was dikovato. In previous work, it was not. Taught we Admiral Rikovera report, the father of American submarines, in a boat he had some problems. Of course, and we are there. But, except for the first two or three boats, and then schedule followed. Appointed term comprehensive test power plant means will shift no more than a week. And the deadline for delivery respected. Such an unrealistic perception of reality observed first hand, as has been the construction of the station, it is difficult to provide. Here are two examples - there and here.

Re:ahem (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353189)

what do bloggers know about string theory? Seriously? PUHLEEZE And can we stop talking about what the bloggers are saying? My word.

I don't know, but maybe a blog by a friggin' physicist would do, don't you think? If not, why not?

Life on the lattice [blogspot.com]

Re:ahem (1)

Taco Meat (1104291) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354841)

well sure, maybe. But that depends on whether he is actually a physicist. And if he is, is he really talking about anything or is he ranting about those stupid dog bone stickers on CD packaging or some other mundane bit of nothing that is sticking in his craw? I mean, that's 99% of all blogs anyhow.

I have gone to many blogs hoping to read something informative only to find a paragraph of real content and then a bunch of retarded rants about stuff I don't care about. I guess I am ranting about ranting now, so I'll spare you.

number 2 post (at least as I see it) and ... (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350397)

Wouldn't it suck to have to reboot during that 4.5 min? Oh crap, guys go home I'll see you in a few billion.

Re:number 2 post (at least as I see it) and ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20350461)

Re:number 2 post (at least as I see it) and ... (1)

buswolley (591500) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350717)

Figures. It would be a-ray that points to string.

Moving Dimesnions Theory Better Tested Than String (0, Redundant)

22RealMcCoy (864375) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350711)

Why does Peter spend so much time talking about Lubos et al, inestead of Moving Dimensions Theory?

MDT is the best-tested theory of all time.

MDT predicts that an object's velocity through spacetime is always c. This is because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

MDT's postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, in units of the planck length, at the rate of c.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment.

MDT predicts that the only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move with a velocity of c relative to the fourth expanding dimension. This is because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment.

MDT predicts that the only way to stay stationary in the fourth expanding dimension is to move with the velocity c relative to the three spatial dimensions. This is because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial diemnsions.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment.

MDT predicts the equivalence of mass and energy. Matter, when rotated into the fourth expanding dimension is foreshortened, and it appears as photons.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment.

MDT predicts the constant speed of light. The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c. Hence the speed of matter rotated into the the fourth dimension is c. No matter how fast the source is moving, the second the photon leaves thes ource, it is carried by the fourth expanding dimension, so its speed is always c, independent of the source.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment.

MDT predicts wave-particle duality. As matter expands in the fourth dimension in the form of a photon, it appears as a spherically-symmetric wavefront. Hence Young's double-slit experiment and interference. When the wave--the matter being carried along by the fourth expanding dimension--is perturbed, it is collapsed, and brought into the the three stationary spatial dimensions. Hence the quantum nature of all energy.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment.

MDT predicts entropy--the fundamental motion of the universe is the spherically-symmetric wavefront defiend by the fourth dimenion expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions--hence entropy. Two particles at a similar origin have a probability to move apart.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment.

Hence all radiation fundamentally appears as spheircally-symmetric wavefronts propagating in the three stationary spatial dimensions.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment.

MDT predicts the null vector for photons, as well as the - (minus) sign in the space-time metric. As the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, the only way to have zero interval is to move with the origin--at the speed of light.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment.

MDT unfreezes time. Time, as we consider it, is not the fourth dimension, but it is an emrgent property of a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. This confusion of time with the actual fourth dimension has lead to Godel's paradox and the block-universe, which although they have provided Paul Davies with a lucrative living for his fantasies and science fiction, are not real. Barbour gets close to this.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment.

General Relativity freezes time--it is a tiny loop at each given instant, but one second later, that loop has a radius of 186,000 miles.

Moving dimensions theory predicts that as objects move, they will become shorter. This is because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, so as an object is rotated into the fourth dimension, it will appear shorter in the three spatial dimensions, and too, it will translate or gain velocity in the direction of its forshortening.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment, including the Michelson Morely experiment.

Moving dimensions theory predicts that the measurement of the state of a photon can instaneously affect the state of a distant photon, when those two photons were initially interacting. This is because although they are now distant in space, they are yet at the same place in the expanding fourth dimension.

The above has been shown in experiment, after experiment, after experiment.

MDT does not predict wormholes, nor multiverses, nor stringy strings, nor M-theroy, which have never been supported by experiment, and thus it is to be utterly detested by the machine. MDT would underly all apsects of String Theory, and MDT does explain an interpretation of higher, numerous dimensions, if needed by Kaluza Klein et al.

In fact, an instanaeous snapshot of the foruth expanding dimension would look something like this--every point is becoming a three-dimensional sphere in units of the planck radius:

http://images.google.com/url?q=http...ouzF7PJ7broO Fww [google.com]

MDT predicts the gravitational red shift. A photon emitted in a region of streched spacetime will maintain its wavelength as it travels away from the mass, thus appearing red-shifted.

MDT unifies the dualities--space and time, energy and mass, waves and particles--all can be expalined by MDT's simple postulate--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Quantum mechanics, relativity, and entropy--interference, wave-particle duality, quantized energy, time dialation, Lorentzian contractions, the equivalence of mass and energy, and times arrow all derive from the physical model moving dimensions theory presents.

The purpose of physics has ever been to unify and explain via deeper, fundamental, physical models, and that's what Moving Dimensions Theory provides.

http://physicsmathforums.com/ [physicsmathforums.com]

Oh, hey it's MAGIC! Ya know! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20350459)

So much for skience. Magic is the true discpline explaining the meaning of the multiverse! Hokus Pokus-Meka-leka-High-Meka-Heiny-HO! Flim-flam-flim-al-kazim! This one has to be MY favorite. Just repeat after me: !WON HSUB HCAEPMI

Not specific to String Theory (5, Informative)

E++99 (880734) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350465)

While this is great research, even if it can be demonstrated that the higher energy particles traveled faster, this is not a prediction specific to String Theories, but as the arstechnica.com article points out, this is common to most quantum gravity theories. Still, it would be an awesome thing to prove.

Re:Not specific to String Theory (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350631)

I think that it is definitely important to note, as you did, that this isn't just a matter for string theorists.

I really wish that string theory wouldn't be glorified the way that it is. I am not aware of a single hypothesis that has been successfully tested and validated under it. And as you mentioned, string theory does predict something like this, but so do other forms of physics.

This is definitely a significant finding, because gamma rays should be traveling at the speed of light, and only that speed through a vacuum. I read through things quickly, but it doesn't appear that any reasoning was advanced in the article for the delay. But as long as the rays left at the same time, this would be a problem for relativistic physics. Unless it turns out that there is some sort of mass in the medium, in which case the relativity is still fine.

Re:Not specific to String Theory (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20351009)

I really wish that string theory wouldn't be glorified the way that it is. I am not aware of a single hypothesis that has been successfully tested and validated under it. And as you mentioned, string theory does predict something like this, but so do other forms of physics.

The neat thing about String Theory is that it is a coherent mathematical framework and a group of related models that unify the theories of several of the fundamental forces as they are currently understood. Essentially, it can't make predictions, because the if it does, in practice, the theories it unifies will have already made them. As of now, it is best understood as an "interpretation" in the sense that the Copenhagen or many-worlds interpretations are interpretations of quantum physics.

Note that individual string theories are falsifiable anyway. For example, there is a class of theories called the Super Symmetric String Theories that relies on the assumption of supersymmetry. If this assumption proves to be empirically false, the super symmetric theories will be abandoned.

If you're familiar with the methods of mathematical logic, an analogy can be useful. Some physicists have taken certain physical laws as axioms for something like a first-order logic. And many models (in the sense of model theory) have been created. Now the task is to figure out which models are representative of the physical world. This is kind of backwards from the scientific method, where a specific model (nature) is examined and attempts at an axiomatization of its working is attempted. But it is a logically sound technique, and as falsifiable as the axioms are.

Re:Not specific to String Theory (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20352161)

If my understanding is right, though, string theories usually predict an infinite spectrum of increasingly massive particles. What is equivalent to the standard model is the low-energy limit, where we can ignore all but a finite number of low-mass particles. Thus string theories do make predictions that are testable - namely, that we'll keep finding new particles.

Some physicists have taken certain physical laws as axioms for something like a first-order logic.

The great part about loop quantum gravity is that it takes tried and true principles of physics (specifically background independence) and works from there. Thus loop quantum gravity can be thought of as a somewhat "minimal" theory of quantum gravity: it takes Einstein's GR, which is well tested, based on solid principles, and has a wonderful economy in the sense that it is roughly the simplest nontrivial theory that fits those principles. This is a trait shared in many ways with LQG; this paper [arxiv.org] seems to be saying that under weak assumptions, the fundamental basis of LQG is in fact unique.

String theory, on the other hand, keeps seeming like it has the opposite properties. It throws out the principle of background independence, instead making ad hoc assumptions about the shape of spacetime. In addition to the string particles it hypothesizes, it must add an additional object (D-branes) to give a reasonable low energy limit. In addition, the specific assumptions about the shape of spacetime give wildly different low-energy limits, and the restriction that this must match up with our experience (which is a terrible principle to base physics on) doesn't even give us a unique theory, so the "theory" is even more resistant to falsifiability, as a slightly different configuration can be pulled out to explain why the previous test failed.

In short, LQG has going for it:
- mathematical elegance and economy
- strong, tested founding principles

Whereas string theory has:
- slightly less ugly than the standard model

Re:Not specific to String Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#20352663)

String theory have MANY testeble predictions. It predicts that our intire universe is exactly the way it is. The problem is that all of it's predictions came after we knew what it predicts.

Re:Not specific to String Theory (2, Informative)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 5 years ago | (#20352725)

Unless it turns out that there is some sort of mass in the medium, in which case the relativity is still fine.

Well, there's some mass in the medium: the vacuum in the outer space isn't perfect. In fact no perfect vacuum exists.

Relativists could argue this is enough for an effect of 4 min slowdown over 500 million years long travel.

Re:Not specific to String Theory (1)

SigmundFloyd (994648) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353265)

That's what I'm inclined to think. But then, since we don't know whether the hi-frequency component was emitted <i>at the same time</i> than the rest of the signal, this observation should be considered meaningless, IMO.

Re:Not specific to String Theory (1)

avtchillsboro (986655) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354983)

Not to mention that the logic they use to compensate for the lack of control they have over the timing of emissions assumes the existence of what they are trying to find.

Re:Not specific to String Theory (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353219)

Under GR, the effect of mass in the medium is to change the geodesic but this is achromatic. Are you thinking of electromagnetic effects that change the index of refraction as a function of wavelength?
--
Rent residential solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

Re: string theory tested... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#20354683)

I am not aware of a single hypothesis that has been successfully tested and validated under it.

... by lolcats. here [icanhascheezburger.com] . kthnxby

Re:Not specific to String Theory (1)

macdaddy357 (582412) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350761)

String theory ought to be called bong theory. I'm sure they were high when they came up with it.

String theory needs to be falsifiable (2, Insightful)

jinxidoru (743428) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350983)

The problem is not with finding a way to prove string theory so much as find a way to falsify it. There are many ways to prove string theory, but seemingly no way to falsify it. Because every failed prediction it has made so far has been alright because both the failure and success have been within the realm of possibility of the theory. This is why I'm not a huge fan of string theory and generally feel that it is more akin to religion than science. But, then again, I'm not a physicist. So, what do I know? (not very much is the answer)

Re:Not specific to String Theory (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351031)

I did not look closely enough to see this first (perhaps because it is a pet peeve of mine), so I added an entry similar to this.

Not only am I angry about Superstrings being hyped and taught as though they were fact, so-called "String Theory" is not even really a theory yet. As Ars pointed out, this is no more evidence for that than it is for other quantum gravity models.

There is an article on the Net (you can find it at YouTube, search for "Ring of Dark Matter" that uses similar propaganda to present a hypothesis as though it were a fact, an not just a hypothesis. The makers of the video said it demonstrated the existence of Dark Matter, but in fact the MoND hypothesis could explain it at least as well.

People need to stop evangelizing about their pet hypotheses, and get back to doing real Science.

Re:Not specific to String Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#20353065)

Where is superstrings being taught as fact? Or are you making things up again?

Re:Not specific to String Theory (3, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354581)

...even if it can be demonstrated that the higher energy particles traveled faster, this is not a prediction specific to String Theories, but as the arstechnica.com article points out, this is common to most quantum gravity theories.
Yeah, it's even possible to make a pretty reasonable model-independent argument that a variable speed of light must come out of any theory of quantum gravity. Lee Smolin makes a pretty simple model-independent argument that spacetime must be discrete in any theory of quantum gravity. The idea is that the Bekenstein bound [wikipedia.org] says there's a maximum amount of information that can be contained in any region of spacetime (e.g., a black hole has a certain entropy, which is proportional to the surface area of its event horizon). However, if spacetime was continuous, then you could store an infinite amount of energy in any volume of space. (Here [thymos.com] is a longer explanation.) Note that none of this requires any specific model such as string theory or loop quantum gravity. If spacetime is discrete, then there's a scale at which its discreteness occurs, and that corresponds to a certain minimum wavelength that a light wave can have. The propagation of light therefore has to be drastically modified as you approach that scale.

correction (2, Informative)

Fry-kun (619632) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350491)

the ars article says 3-4 seconds, not minutes

Re:correction (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#20352271)

Some people ask me why I hate the term "FTW" ("for the win"). Simple: because it's a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"

Boy, if you're that sensitive the Internet is going to be a very bad experience for you.

Re:correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#20353621)

If you read the actual primary article, it is clear that the time delay was in MINUTES, not seconds.

reading = !reading (1)

602 (652745) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350503)

Ars's writeup is a little more fleshed-out than the Scientific American blog posting.

I stopped reading Scientific American for the same reason I don't read USA Today. Because reading it is the same as not reading it.

Now I read American Scientist.

Layman Alert. (2, Interesting)

StickyWidget (741415) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350507)

What else could have happened over a 4.5 Billion year journey to slow this burst down by 4.5 minutes? Forgive me, but when two cars start at the same spot and report equal velocity over a certain distance, I don't question the fundamental laws of physics, I look for a small bump in the road. Maybe a construct from string theory is the bump, but hows about we work with what we got, then move on to creating a new physics?

But who am I to argue with quantum mechanics.

~Sticky

Re:Layman Alert. (2, Informative)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351623)

I don't know the details here, but if I had to guess, I'd say that the 4.5 minute variation in travel time (or possibly 3-4 second... depends on which article you read) even over a 4.5 billion year journey would correspond to a bump in the road the size of the Matterhorn... In other words, the travel time varies hardly at all (perhaps microseconds, usually) even for very large road bumps, so a variation on this scale is statistically significant. Once again, I don't know the details of this particular experiment, so I can't say for sure. But I do know how physics is usually done, and what I have suggested above is a quite reasonable thing to suppose, given that knowledge.

Re:Layman Alert. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#20353213)

But nobody trusts mechanics!

Relativity's Dead (5, Informative)

einsteindotcubed (1146801) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350515)

There is no need to confirm a breakdown of relativity. We already know that it is, at the least, incomplete, if not incorrect. Albert Einstein himself saw this, and was on his own quest for a "theory of everything" in his later years. String theory should become fully "testable" with the startup of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider, part of CERN) in May of 2008. Hopefully we may find proof for the God particle, also known as the Higgs boson. In any case, tremendous amounts of data will be reaped from this machine, and we may very well prove or at least expand upon string theory. (We could also completely disprove it, but I'm trying to be optimistic.)

No no no (3, Informative)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350755)

There is a need to confirm a breakdown of relativity. It's an incredibly well-supported theory that predicts things on cosmic scales down to the Hydrogen atom.

The Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model, not String theory. String theory will be no more testable with LHC than it ever was. It's not even wrong.

Re:No no no (2, Insightful)

little1973 (467075) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351461)

Actually, if the LHC does not find the Higgs boson that will be quite a win for String Theory. The Higgs boson is responsible for giving mass to the particles according to the Standard Model. String Theory explains the particles' mass in a different way.

I am not a physicist, but I am under the impression that finding the Higgs boson would be a major setback for String Theory. So, in this way String Theory is 'testable'.

Re:No no no (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#20352227)

String theory will be no more testable with LHC than it ever was. It's not even wrong.

Actually, parts of string theory (which is really M theory) can be tested by the LHC when it comes online. The part I'm referring to is the existence of extra dimensions. The strings that represent gravitons are the easiest strings to generate and then detect because they require the least amount of energy (because they are closed strings and thus not tied to the brane [part of M theory] of our universe). I forget the exact details (and can't find a reference at this time) but by creating gravitons and detecting where they go (if they go somewhere else we say they went to another dimension above spacial #3) we can determine the existence of the extra dimensions and if we can do that we confirm that particular aspect of string/M theory. Note that the extra dimensions are large dimensions, larger than normally thought to exist in string theory. Because of that the gravitons have a better chance of interacting with them. I hope I said all that right.

Re:No no no (1)

Xemu (50595) | more than 6 years ago | (#20352345)

by creating gravitons and detecting where they go (if they go somewhere else we say they went to another dimension above spacial #3) we can determine the existence of the extra dimensions

If we can create gravitons and send them to another dimension, and detect that, doesn't that mean that if people in the other dimensions can do the same, we can communicate with them?

Graviton telegraph. You heard it here first.

Re:No no no (1)

tripwirecc (1045528) | more than 5 years ago | (#20352669)

That's already been done in a science fiction novel. Forgot it's name though.

Re:No no no (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 5 years ago | (#20352793)

That's already been done in a science fiction novel. Forgot it's name though.

You thinking of The Gods Themselves by Asimov?

Re:No no no (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354697)

If we can create gravitons and send them to another dimension, and detect that, doesn't that mean that if people in the other dimensions can do the same, we can communicate with them?

Uh I guess. The "other dimensions" are about 10^(-19)m in size and these are the extra large dimensions. Regular size dimensions predicted to exist by string theory are about 10^(-34)m in size so if you happen to know of anyone capable of living in space of that size then I guess you can start holding your breath for that signal from beyond.

Correction,experiment will test the standard model (4, Insightful)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350577)

If the standard model fails, string theorists will laugh, jump and down, and point their fingers at their former naysayers.

If the string theory model fails, it will be replaced with a newer, better version of string theory, with bountiful opportunities for new books, conferences, papers, and maybe even some derivative specialities of study.

YOU CAN'T KILL WHAT LIVES ONLY THE MINDS OF MEN... BUWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

Re:Correction,experiment will test the standard mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20350605)

Wrong. You just kill all the men with the minds.

Re:Correction,experiment will test the standard mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20350953)

I'm afraid that the standard model failing wouldn't help string theory, you can't prove your own theory by disproving the other one. Theories are sadly not like detective games, where there are only so many options and if you just eliminate the other ones yours must be true, sadly they can be all wrong in science.

Re:Correction,experiment will test the standard mo (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351247)

This is exactly how I feel about relativity in general. I believe that yes, it passes every test we can throw at it right now, but one day it'll be shown that it's just plain silly. I don't have a better idea but do not prescribe to relativity.

(Time dilation due to speed? Pft hardly. Maybe there are subatomic particles such as electronics whose movement becomes dampened when approach speed because they have a fixed absolute speed, or even slow downs at the quantum level [maybe], but that doesn't mean time actually moves at a different speed. It just means that below our current ability to understand things are working more slowly so everything that we do understand seems be slower. Time warp? I think not.) Oh egocentric humans amuse me.

Re:Correction,experiment will test the standard mo (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20351383)

Isn't it also egocentric to assume upfront that you have the correct answer and all those other folks who worked on it all there life are a bunch of fools?

PS I just remembered, your idea of an underlying mechanism was a common idea for a long idea for many scientists including Einstein, it is just that every experiment conceived by them proved them wrong and showed that it was exactly as the theory portrayed. So I wouldn't bet on your idea of how things work to be so certain.

Re:Correction,experiment will test the standard mo (0)

hankwang (413283) | more than 6 years ago | (#20352317)

Time dilation due to speed? Pft hardly. Maybe there are subatomic particles such as electronics whose movement becomes dampened when approach speed because they have a fixed absolute speed, or even slow downs at the quantum level [maybe], but that doesn't mean time actually moves at a different speed.

I think you're talking about special relativity, not general relativity, and that you have never studied it in more depth than at a lay man level. The whole point of special relativity is that time is just another dimension in addition to the three space dimensions we already have, and that you need to use the correct coordinate transformation if you switch to a different basis set. If you express a point (x,y) in terms of axes that are at 45 deg angles with the original x and y axes, you end up with sqrt(0.5)*(x+y, x-y) in the new coordinate system, coupling the x and y coordinates with each other. In special relativity, there is a similar transformation when one coordinate system moves w.r.t. the other one. Rather than coupling just x with y, it couples all of x, y, z, and time. Now indeed this leads to counter-intuitive effects for humans that aren't used to moving at close to the speed of light, which you might describe as "time dilation" when you try to map the observations to the concepts of our non-relativistic everyday world. An example of why time dilation is not the right way to look at it is the case that one observer is standing at a fixed position, while the other one is moving. Both of them will think the time of the other observer is dilated, while their own time is normal. You can't point out for which of the two observers the time is dilated, simply because the concept of time dilation is inconsistent. (However, when one of the observers turns around and comes back, his clock will appear to be behind, but that has to do with the change in speed he underwent when turning around, not the speed on its own. Speed changes, i.e., acceleration, are described in general relativity, not in special relativity).

but one day it'll be shown that it's just plain silly. I don't have a better idea but do not prescribe to relativity.

A better theory will probably be developed at some time. But that will not degrade the current, established relativity theory to be "plain silly", just like Newton's laws didn't become silly after the development of quantum mechanics and relativity. The equations for the unified theory would look just like those of relativity if the length scale isn't too small, just like classical mechanics if in addition the energy is small, and just like quantum mechanics if both the length scale and energy are small. Physics is about describing nature quantitatively, not about attaching a deeper meaning to it or answering the question "why" nature is the way it is.

Re:Correction,experiment will test the standard mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#20352689)

Allright, but I wouldn't have taken the the time to write such a long reply to the grandparent who is obviously a n00b thinking he is on the same IQ scale as the theorists.

Re:Correction,experiment will test the standard mo (2, Informative)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#20352245)

If the string theory model fails, it will be replaced with a newer, better version of string theory, with bountiful opportunities for new books, conferences, papers, and maybe even some derivative specialities of study.

String theory doesn't really exist anymore or at least it is old news. String theory turned into superstring theory. Then there came to be multiple string theories that were very similar. About a decade ago Edward Witten created M theory [wikipedia.org] by reconciling the 5 string theory variations that existed. Maybe I'm wrong but my view is that M theory is the leading edge. I just got done reading Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos so it is pretty fresh in my mind but Wikipedia helped me remember a few things just now.

I think you proved the point actually (1)

untree (851145) | more than 5 years ago | (#20352905)

IMHO, the grandparent was just pointing out that string theory has morphed as necessary to prevent itself from being discarded. M theory is just the latest attempt, but when it loses steam, string theorists will jump on the next "variant" to keep producing the "books, conferences, papers, and maybe even some derivative specialties of study" mentioned by the grandparent, of which Brian Greene's book is an excellent example.

Re:I think you proved the point actually (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354641)

M theory is just the latest attempt, but when it loses steam, string theorists will jump on the next "variant" to keep producing the "books, conferences, papers, and maybe even some derivative specialties of study" mentioned by the grandparent, of which Brian Greene's book is an excellent example.

Right, because books, conferences, papers, etc. are only created for theories that can't be proven easily (or ever). String/M theory with regard to being researched and discussed in print is no different than any other theory. Brian Greene's book (Fabric of the Cosmos for those who didn't see my original message) is about more than just string/M theory. In fact, those topics aren't discussed until at least 75% through the book. I assume you haven't read it otherwise you would have known it isn't the sole reason for the book being published. String/M theory aren't topics that are used to make a quick buck. There are hundreds of books out there on multiple topics and from being at a brick/mortar Barnes and Noble last night, there aren't that many on string/M theory. After reading Greene's book, many aspects of M theory make sense, they just need proven, but that shouldn't imply the theory is any less valid than other topics that are published, at least in books for the layman.

Re:Correction,experiment will test the standard mo (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 6 years ago | (#20352343)

What if you kill all the men?

Re:Correction,experiment will test the standard mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#20352425)

How do you kill what which has no life?

If you kill a sand worm, it will only shatter into many sand trout to form other worms.

Re:Correction,experiment will test the standard mo (1)

NuShrike (561140) | more than 5 years ago | (#20352443)

weird interaction with noscript.

How do you kill what which has no life?

If you kill a sand worm, it will only shatter into many sand trout to form other worms.

Pah! (3, Funny)

Reed Solomon (897367) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350649)

Nothing can stop Hulk from Smashing string theory to bits. Hulk will destroy puny humans who betrayed him. Wait, that's a Skrull. Is nobody a human anymore?

Re:Pah! (1)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350833)

A universe without Sting Theory is chaos.

Re:Pah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20350985)

It's all about the Yarn these days. These measurements should help provide clarity:

Lace weight
Fingering = 32 -26 sts to 4 inches(10 cm)
Sport Weight-DoubleKnit = 22-24 sts to 4 inches
Worsted Weight = 20 sts to 4 inches
Wordted Weight = 16 - 18 to 4 cinhes
Bulky = 14 sts to 4 inches

Just imagine a sweater that looks absolutely fabulous with a quantum turtle neck? It's to die for!

More "String-Theory" Propaganda (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#20350957)

The research looks legit, but the Slashdot tagline does not. The existence of such phenomenon does not appear to favor Superstring hypotheses any more than it supports a number of other hypotheses that are currently under investigation. ("Hypotheses", because they have not yet earned the name "theory" via prediction or testability.)

Perhaps this will help sort things out, and even boost one or more of these ideas into actual theory status. Until then, it is premature to imply that this research constitutes evidence for "string theory" more than it is evidence for any of those other hypotheses. This is evidence for quantum gravity, but not yet for anything else.

Important caveat (5, Insightful)

jlkelley (35651) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351213)

IAAA [I am an astrophysicist], and I'd like to point out what I feel is an important caveat to this nevertheless very interesting work. From the paper itself:

      "We cannot exclude the possibility that the delay we find [...] may be due to some energy-dependent effect at the source."

What they are saying is that there are still details we don't understand about AGN [active galactic nuclei] like Markarian 501. So, while this effect could be a first sign of quantum gravity (*not* string theory in particular, as others have pointed out), it could also simply be something going on in the intrinsic spectrum of the flares themselves. I'd personally consider the second explanation more likely at this stage.

As they also point out, one approach to sort out the ambiguity would be to observe other flary AGN at different redshifts (distances). One could then, for example, see if the delay gets shorter or longer as the distance changes, as one would expect with a quantum gravity effect due to propagation to Earth.

Re:Important caveat (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354403)

What they are saying is that there are still details we don't understand about AGN [active galactic nuclei] like Markarian 501. So, while this effect could be a first sign of quantum gravity (*not* string theory in particular, as others have pointed out), it could also simply be something going on in the intrinsic spectrum of the flares themselves. I'd personally consider the second explanation more likely at this stage.
Yeah, could you say more about this? My basic picture of an AGN would be that you have a big black hole at the center of a galaxy, and it hasn't yet exhausted the cloud of gas and dust surrounding it. I'd imagine an accretion disk, with each part of it emitting blackbody radiation at its own temperature. For a million-solar-mass black hole, you get a Schwarzschild radius on the order of 10 light-seconds, so that's the shortest time scale on which anything can change globally across the whole event horizon, and that's fine because it's plenty short compared to the four-minute time scale of this experiment. What I'm not so clear on is how you get a sudden flare of any kind, since I'd imagine that it would be a very steady process of swallowing the accretion disk. Is it an effect of turbulence? Is it swallowing discrete objects, like stars or brown dwarfs? The preprint of the paper basically dismisses the whole thing in one sentence: "We cannot exclude the possibility that the delay we find...may be due to some energy-dependent effect at the source." Was the mechanism of these flares thought to be well understood, so that it really would be surprising to get different energies emitted at different times?

Re:Important caveat (1)

TMB (70166) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354941)

Most AGN are variable, most likely due to hydrodynamic instabilities in the accretion disk around the black hole (it's easy to get instabilities if the disk is massive enough, since clumps can then grow through gravity, but I think you can also get some due to the interaction with the wind and/or photons coming from right at the black hole/inner edge of the accretion disk due to self-shielding effects).

[TMB]

Re:Important caveat (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#20355397)

Most AGN are variable, most likely due to hydrodynamic instabilities in the accretion disk around the black hole
So why isn't it possible to have one flare that emits relatively low energies, and then four minutes later a second flare that emits relatively high energies?

Occam's Razor (2, Interesting)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351407)

The simplest explanation is most likely to be true. Here's a hypothetical that's simpler than any quantum effect.

The gamma rays are due to infalling material. Flares are due to sudden large amounts of material falling in. As it falls in it gets hotter. The frequency of the emissions increases as the material heats, going from lower gamma rays to higher gamma rays. These are all accepted as fact. The hypothetical: The 4 minute delay is the time it took for the material to fall in far enough to raise the emission frequency by the observed amount.

Much simpler and neater. Even if I had the observed data and the data on the mass of the galaxy observed, I'm not capable of the relevant calculations, but the logic follows.

On the other hand, Willam of Ockam didn't have a razor -- he had a beard. Einstein trumped Newton with a more complex theory, so the parsimony beloved by scientists doesn't always hold. But in this case, I suspect it will.

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351445)

> Einstein trumped Newton with a more complex theory

The CEO reminded me that Newton only described, and admitted he didn't know how it worked, but Einstein explained which led to testable hypotheses. Thus the former was not much of a theory if at all by the definition, whereas the latter is a very good example of a theory.

I had no idea she paid that much attention to my caffinated breakfast table rants. Obviously I don't.

Re:Occam's Razor (2, Insightful)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351487)

On the other hand, Willam of Ockam didn't have a razor -- he had a beard. Einstein trumped Newton with a more complex theory, so the parsimony beloved by scientists doesn't always hold. But in this case, I suspect it will.

Although it is true that sometimes the simplest explanation isn't the right one, the breakdown of Newtonian physics at relativistic speeds isn't an example of a failure of Occam's Razor. We say that the simplest explanation that fits observations tends to be the right one. Since Newton's equations don't work at relativistic speeds, it doesn't fit observations, so it's obviously incomplete. That's why it gets trumped. If relativity made the exact same predictions, then we'd say that this whole relative time and distance thing is way too complex and keep the classical view of space and time, as per Occam's Razor :)

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

WitfulThinking (796082) | more than 5 years ago | (#20352587)

Venturing off-topic here, but I can only imagine how many Einstein's and Newtons that have been killed by such a BS education system and societal upbringing. If find it very likely that the next Eianstein is collecting my trash and I just can't stand it anymore damn it.

So Darwin was right, but his whole theory is breaking down with time. Survival of the fittest my ass. Survival of the economic producers and consumers, nuts to everyone else. Only stupid people are breeding. I'd really like to think that there must be something better than we have. Just think if Einstein grew up now, would anybody listen to him at all?

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#20352625)

"Einstein trumped Newton with a more complex theory."

Is it "parsimonious" to say Einstein generalised Newton? - One of Newton's stated assumptions was "time is constant". :P

OTOH: 100 or so years after the Principa was published a (French?) woman of noble birth corrected Newton's kinetic energy equation by emprical means (ie: dropped steel balls into clay and mesured the craters).

Re:Occam's Razor (4, Interesting)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353321)

> OTOH: 100 or so years after the Principa was published a (French?) woman of noble
> birth corrected Newton's kinetic energy equation by emprical means (ie: dropped
> steel balls into clay and mesured the craters).

You're thinking of Emilie du Chatelet, paramour of Voltaire. I don't know how noble, but her family lived in a 30 room apartment overlooking Tuileries gardens in Paris. Certainly rich by birth, and married to a rich French military officer who conveniently left on a polar expedition.

And you're not quite correct about what she did; it was much better than that. The dropped ball and clay experiment was done by Willem 'sGravesande in the Netherlands, but he didn't have the theoretical background to understand what he had -- the craters got deeper with the square of the height (== energy). Liebniz had previously specified that energy should increase with the square of velocity, but that was somewhere between intuition, anti-Newtonian leanings (Newton got credit for calculus rather than he; Newton was pushing for mass times velocity, no square) and fortuitous guesswork. He didn't have the practical sense to develop a means to test it (or perhaps thought that beneath him). What du Chatelet did was put the two together and show the precise relationship between energy, mass and velocity that was supported by the data: E = mv^2.

Smiling Uncle Albert had it half written for him. What he plugged in was c for the Latin celeritas (rapidity), which he showed to have a limit of the speed of light, and that the E and m then equated completely and were thus interchangeable through it. Had she had the verification of Roemer's measurement of the speed of light to work with (said verification was just a few years old and not widely accepted yet) and had more time to work on it (she died from an infection after giving birth) she might have made progress towards that herself.

If she had done so, Poincare probably would have grasped the significance of his "theory of relativity" (Uncle A. never used that term until well after it became popularized, but Poincare used it explicitly in his own) and formulated the famous equation himself. He was, after all, right on the verge of it, and refused to talk about Ol' Al forever more because he failed to get all the way there first. It riled him no end, until the end of his days. Had he been younger and the age earlier, he might have challenged the young Bavarian Jew to a duel. A duel such as Francois-Marie Arouet threatened against a certain French nobleman, which resulted in his expulsion from France to England, where he learned of Newton and his work, which he brought back to France, along with his nom de plume, Voltaire. Or the duel (fencing match, actually) in which Jacques de Brun, the head of the King's bodyguards, was bested by a 16 year old girl named Emilie de Breteuil, as such was her family's name when they lived above Paris's Tuileries gardens.

If this was Connections, and I were James Burke, I'd be making a lot more money than what I'm getting for having written this. I am, however, every bit as pretty as Burke on camera, which is to say not at all.

Bravo! (1)

NoOneInParticular (221808) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353829)

Bravo!

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353473)

Actually that is not true. When you apply Newtonian physics on a large scale you have to deal with things like infinite velocity, and things get pretty weird.

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

Keys1337 (1002612) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353659)

The simplest explanation is most likely to be true.

The explanation for everything must be God then. That's as simple as it gets. I'm not sure how the mass interpretation of Occam's razor became going with the simple explanation. What does that have to do with a razor anyway? It seems to me the correct interpretation is Cut the crap.

Re:Occam's Razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#20353855)

I contend god isn't that simple. Can you write an equation that describes god?

String "theory" (2, Interesting)

MorpheousMarty (1094907) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351491)

Could someone explain to me a single phenomenon that is explained by string theory? Or a single predictive theorem, where thanx to string theory we expect to find x if conditions y are met? I need to know what I'm even looking for here.

Re:String "theory" (3, Informative)

JetJaguar (1539) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351599)

Actually, there are a great many phenomena that string theory explains, the subject of this story, for example is potentially one of them, there's also some things about black holes (like Hawking radiation) which string theory predicts, but other theories also predict Hawking radiation.... plus there's a whole host of things that it predicts that occur at very high energies. But that's essentially the problem with string theory. The kind of things string theory predicts that would confirm it require energies that we are simply incapable of achieving, and the more mundane predictions made by string theory also happen to match predictions by competing non-string theories, making it pretty much impossible for string theory to distinguish itself using modern technologies.

That being said, I think string theory is beautiful, however, it could very well turn out to be the most beautiful theory of physics ever constructed as well as the biggest dead end.

Re:String "theory" (1)

posterlogo (943853) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351693)

I too think it is a beautiful philosophy. Calling it science or even "theory" seems a stretch at best (scientists use the word theory a lot less loosely than other disciplines), and flat out insulting at worst, at least to the rest of us who bend over backwards trying to disprove ourselves, which is what any good theory does.

Re:String "theory" (1)

JetJaguar (1539) | more than 6 years ago | (#20351799)

Actually, I am a physicist by training. And while you are correct about the more formal definition of theory, colloquially most physicists and scientists in general are not nearly as precise talking amongst themselves as you suggest. I agree that it is sloppy though. mea culpa.

Re:String "theory" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#20353841)

Actually, there are a great many phenomena that string theory explains, the subject of this story, for example is potentially one of them

"Potentially"?

I assume you're not saying that if it turns out to be right then it was predicted and if it turns out to be wrong then it wasn't. So what do you mean?

How much use is a potential prediction?

Re:String "theory" (1)

JetJaguar (1539) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354545)

Well, the fact that other theories also predict the same effect means that a confirmation of the effect validates all the theories that predict the phenomenon, without really distinguishing one from the other. Although if the magnitude of the prediction varies between different theories then it is possible to distinguish one from the other. For example, this was how general relativity was confirmed for the first time during an eclipse. Both relativity and Newtonian gravity predicted that the sun would deflect the light of background stars, however, relativity predicted the amount of deflection was twice the amount of Newtonian gravity. The amount of deflection was measured during an eclipse and found to exactly match the prediction of general relativity.

So such observations potentially validate all the theories that predict them, but don't necessarily allow us to distinguish which one is right, unless there are details in the predictions that allow us to distinguish one from the other.

Re:String "theory" (1)

MorpheousMarty (1094907) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353843)

Thank you, do you have a link for something more specific? For Newtonian physics vacuumes proves things like inertia (no friction). For Einstinian, time dilation is strong evidence(and easy to understand, relatively). For string theory what kind of smoking guns/phenomenon work? I know you said Hawking radiation but that is pretty much heat from black holes, why would strings cause that? I'm just looking for a cause-effect relationship, doesn't have to be prove string theory, just show what it would predict in at least one case. In my entire life no one has been able to say string theory may equal x in cases y, not even theoretically. I know people are working hard on this, I just want to understand.

Re:String "theory" (1)

JetJaguar (1539) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354843)

Well, let's just take something really simple. String theory predicts the existence of...wait for it...strings (or branes depending on which form you are talking about) and extra dimensions. If the geometric structure of one of these things could be detected, that would be THE thing that would confirm the hypothesis beyond any shadow of a doubt. Directly detecting a string though runs into what I alluded to in my previous comment. The energies required to do this are beyond anything we are currently capable of, and may be beyond anything we will ever be capable of.

Detecting the extra dimensions is another route, but we haven't been able to detect these either, and there seem to be good reasons why we might not be able to see the extra dimensions, although there have been attempts.

So that leaves us with other predictions, like super symmetry, Hawking radiation, higher energy particles, etc, but none of these things are necessarily incompatible with any of the competing ideas. So making the string hypothesis stick is going to be very difficult without some other theoretical break through that predicts phenomena that are more easily within the bounds of our technologies.

Re:String "theory" (1)

MorpheousMarty (1094907) | more than 5 years ago | (#20355153)

Lol, I get it, vibrating strings, but there isn't any way to detect them without using, wait for it, strings. Same problem we have with sub atomic particles, you can't really detect them without using them, but you can make perditions, like protons are made of certain mixes of quarks. I will accept that it may take more powerful science to detect them, but I won't accept a science unless it actually claims something. Otherwise I propose my trapezoid theory of the universe, that the universe is made of trapezoids and the only properties they have is the length of their sides. Everything is described in terms of trapezoid interactions. Sarcasm added for effect and not meant to be mocking.

Re:String "theory" (1)

JetJaguar (1539) | more than 5 years ago | (#20355287)

Well, you're more or less correct, however what I was getting at is that, there is a detectable difference between a string and point particle at high enough energies. So scattering strings would have different properties than scattering point particles. That is how you would make the detection, theoretically.

Re:String "theory" (1)

MorpheousMarty (1094907) | more than 5 years ago | (#20355521)

I understand, but there is still a lack of E=mc^2 to the whole thing (testable hypothesis), but I probably wouldn't understand it if it was told to me anyways.

Re:String "theory" (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#20352275)

Could someone explain to me a single phenomenon that is explained by string theory? Or a single predictive theorem, where thanx to string theory we expect to find x if conditions y are met? I need to know what I'm even looking for here.

Have you taken a look at String theory [wikipedia.org] yet?

Re:String "theory" (1)

MorpheousMarty (1094907) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353793)

I purposefully did not, I find in it's own way the slashdot crowd knows how to cut to the chase faster than wiki. I went to wikipedia now and just don't have time to check the references. I'll try with I'm done researching Einstine's work.

The Full Paper (1)

davecl (233127) | more than 6 years ago | (#20352107)

can be found here:

http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/hep-th/0501117 [soton.ac.uk]

Variable lightspeed does not violate relativity (1)

tinkerton (199273) | more than 5 years ago | (#20352571)

By itself variable speed of photons does not violate relativity. Suppose one day experiments would have shown that photons had a mass, like neutrinos. Then photons would not travel exactly the limit speed C. Relativity relies on this limit speed, not on the actual speed of photons. Electromagnetism does use C as speed of light. But then again, who expects such level of precision from a classical theory.

Re:Variable lightspeed does not violate relativity (1)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353067)

By itself variable speed of photons does not violate relativity.

A variable speed of photons means a variable speed of light. And that does violate relativity theory since one of the postulates on which the theory is based is a constant speed of light in all reference frames.

If you look into the history of light-speed measurements, you'll see that there is actually quite a bit of other evidence for a variable speed of light. The measured variations are small but well within detection capability of the experiments. The Michelson-Morley experiment, for example, found variations on the order of tens of kilometers per second http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_expe riment [wikipedia.org] . Somehow this has gotten lost in the mists of time; theory has prevailed over experiment while it should really be the other way around.

Of course, this implies that string theory is also falsified since it is based on and extends general relativity theory.

Re:Variable lightspeed does not violate relativity (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354849)

Are you talking about the errors of the experiment? Well, no device is perfect, all of them create errors.

If you read the article, you'll see that the precision of similar experiments have grown a lot, and such errors never repeat on a highter precision experiment.

Re:Variable lightspeed does not violate relativity (1)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354989)

Are you talking about the errors of the experiment?

No, I am talking about deviations from c markedly larger than the expected error magnitude of the instrument in question. Another series of experiments you might want to look at are those of Dayton-Miller. In particular his original papers and what the man himself thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller [wikipedia.org] . There have been concerted attempts to explaining away those results by defenders of relativity theory...

Re:Variable lightspeed does not violate relativity (1)

opaqueice (602509) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353241)

The result was that higher energy photons arrived later, and therefore (IF they were emitted at the same time) moved slower, not faster (which is what adding a mass would do).

There is no even remotely conventional way to explain such a result.

Re:Variable lightspeed does not violate relativity (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354739)

First, photons have no mass. If you find some new particle with mass, well, it is not a photon. That is by definition.

Second, relativity says that particles without mass travel exactly at C. That includes photons.

Third, modern relativity comes directly from eletromagnetism. Both theories use the same experiments to calculate the light speed (actualy, C is defined, so those experiments ended up as the definition of a meter), so both have the same precision.

clarification (1)

opaqueice (602509) | more than 5 years ago | (#20353203)

There are a couple of confusions here.

First of all, this observation is FAR more likely to be due to variations at the source (which may have simply emitted the high-energy photons a little later than the low energy ones) then to some huge new discovery.

Second, if this really is due to fundamental physics, it's a violation of Lorentz invariance (special relativity) and it would be about the best possible *disconfirmation* of string theory you could ask for (IAAST). If there's one basic prediction of string theory, it's Lorentz invariance (the Ellis-Nanopolous stuff is, in just about every other physicist's opinion, nonsense).

But it goes much further than string theory. Lorentz invariance is something physicists - not just string theorists - are almost certain is true, and for good reason. It's been extremely well-tested in many different ways over the years and just about all our modern theories rely on it to constrain what might be possible. Without Lorentz invariance, the rules of the game shift fundamentally, so if this observation turns out to mean it isn't exact it's very, very important.

Additional possibilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#20354041)

Anyone else annoyed by the blog's use of, "Either the high-energy gammas were released later (because of how they were generated) or they propagated more slowly?"

It's always difficult to talk about propagation. It would seem that the only information we have is that the high-energy gamma rays traversed the net distance 'tween us and this galaxy more slowly.

One possibility, then, is that they took two different paths. There are a number of mechanisms which could result in this, although (off the top of my head) most of these could not be duplicated easily. Additional observations need to be made.

ST has been tested as much as the SM (1)

Alcyoneus (1107533) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354105)

String Theory ST) has been tested as thoroughly as the Standard Model (SM). It's an alternative model, and physics presents mathematical models of the world. The models aren't the world. Insofar as String Theory predicts the same things as the Standard Model, it is just as tested as the Standard Model. All this talk of "untested String Theory" misses the point. It is very difficult to create tests that distinguish ST from the SM. But the observations predicted by each have been throughly tested because their predictions are very nearly the same. Scientists are failing to distinguish between observations that validate the models and observations the distinguish the models. It may turn out that there are no distinguishing observations, in which case ST and SM would be equivalent models. Why does that prospect make physicists act like Creationists, calling ST "untested"? Some physicists balk at branes, but accept the existence of forces which have never been observed either! It's another example of slouching fundamentalism in science, caused by a lack of understanding (or an outright rejection) of model theory among physicists. Note to physicists: your math is a model, it 'aint the real world.

So, star maps may also be flawed (1)

Zareste (761710) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354175)

This could also mean the distance of the galaxy (and other objects) has been mistaken based on misconceptions of light. The distance is calculated with photons, but if the gamma ray follows a non-standard speed, who's to say the photons are going the right speed?

A potential problem for GEM (1)

sweetser (148397) | more than 5 years ago | (#20354201)

Hello:

Like a good /. nerd, I do have my own unified field theory which has several testable hypotheses. It is 4D, I've got the action, field equations, and exponential metric solution for a point source. A discussion of the idea happened here:
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/61876- gem-rank-1-unified-field-proposal.html [bautforum.com]
One test is to measure bending of light to second order PPN accuracy, basically a million times more than was needed to tell the difference between GR and Newton. Do that for GR, and there should be 10.96 microarcseconds more bending. For my GEM proposal, it should be 11.69, a difference of 0.73 microarcseconds. We can only make measurements to 100 microarcseconds today, bummer.

GEM also predicts that gravity waves should be the scalar and longitudinal modes of emission, since the transverse modes of emission are light. Cannot wait for those gravity waves to be detected!

I am pretty sure gravity is not going to mess with the speed of light in my proposal, where the vacuum state is linear, in gravity as in EM. In the GEM action, gravity lives in a second rank symmetric field strength tensor, and EM lives in a second rank antisymmetric tensor. The separate housing arrangements make sense since one is a spin 2 field, the other spin 1.

I hope it is the source.

doug
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...