<a name="3-1-04.dta"> page= 3-1-04.dta aka ?/?
On 2003-01-04 05:15, Prince wrote:
3:41 A.M. ? bad data?
anyway lots of Questions to answere to use FORum {boo1,2,&3}

Prince:

Thank you for the article. However, I am not worried about the effect on General Relativity. New information is always fascinating, and I have a great trust in scientists being able to figure things out in time.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

A more illuminating article in regards to possible modifications of relativity is this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/sc...l?pagewanted=1

- a "related article" from the same day.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2003-01-04 12:20 ]</font>

This is very interesting. To my mind it may indeed be the the start of a turning point in relativity. Just like in the last century how increasing holes in Newtonian physics observations finally led to the formulation of relativity, we may be seeing the same cracks in relativity that will lead eventually to an even better understanding of the universe.

But just as Einstein didn't destroy Newton, but only redefined him, whatever happens here will not spell the "end" of relativity, as the title of this thread suggests. It will only redefine it's limits and give it a new place as a "subset" of the theory X that is to come.

But then again, this may just be a single anomaly that has a simple, but as yet unrecognised, solution. No need to go crying wolf just yet.

Finally, here's a hint to Prince and the others. Just because relativity fails at some point doesn't mean that your personal views are validated. Your opponent being wrong isn't the same as you being right. You can still be just as wrong yourself.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Cosmic rays that exceed the GZK cutoff energy are a problem if and only if they are obliged to pass through the few hundred kiloparsecs or so that are required to scatter off of CMB photons. If their source is closer, or "local" than it's not an issue.

Since the source of such cosmic rays has yet to be identified, I suggest that the death-knell of relativity (or whatever) may be a tad premature.

Concerning the implication in Prince's headline: "GZK limit exceeded: the End of Relativity?" I and others have commented on some poster's abrupt conclusions with regards to tests of Relativity before, but its worth repeating.

Suppose in theoretical physics, or in nature as observed in the sky, someone, or a team of people discovered a process or a new scientific principle that verifiably contradicted aspects of Relativity theory. Would science throw up its collective hands? Some within the news media might report it that way for a while, but in reality, no. People in many related fields would be clamoring to get more information. Would the textbooks all be thrown away? No again. Why? Because Relativity (Special and General) still makes perfect sense even if some (as yet discovered) process contradicts or enhances it. Einstein did not completely "overthrow" Newton. Just as Newtonian physics is still "right" within the zone of middle dimensions, and is still applied by engineers, designers, and scientists today, any theory or observation that breaks the principles of Relativity will, in reciprocal fashion, have to account for all the tests, and all observations that are now most accurately described or predicted by Relativity. This is an important point that sometimes seems to be easily missed.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2003-01-07 02:08 ]</font>