Einstein makes extra dimensions TOE the line

AI Thread Summary
Albert Einstein's principle of the constancy of the speed of light has been reaffirmed, ruling out certain theories that propose extra dimensions and a complex structure of space. This finding is supported by evidence from high-energy astrophysical phenomena, such as absorption in the spectra of nearby BL Lac objects, which suggests that quantum gravity scales exceed the Planck mass. The discussion also touches on the implications for models like loop quantum gravity, which are deemed incompatible with current observations. Additionally, the phenomenon of blazars, which are active galactic nuclei viewed along their jets, is mentioned as a point of interest in understanding cosmic structures. Overall, the conversation highlights significant constraints on theoretical models of physics based on empirical data.
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
2,535
Scientists say that Albert Einstein's principle of the constancy of the speed of light holds up under extremely tight scrutiny, a finding that rules out certain theories predicting extra dimensions and a "frothy" fabric of space.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
What I want to know is why are those two black hole particle beams "aimed directly at the Earth"? Coincidence? I think not...
 
That's funny, but maybe you should take a look at this,

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0308214

"Some models with large extra dimensions are ruled out by the existence of absorption in the very high energy spectra of nearby BL Lac objects. The fact that more distant brighter sources are not seen can also be taken as indirect evidence of intergalactic absorption by pair production interactions. The constraints based on analysis of the Crab Nebula γ-ray spectrum, discussed in the previous section, imply that the quantum gravity scale is orders of magnitude above the Planck mass scale. This indicates that the class of models considered here with linear Planck scale suppressed terms in the dispersion relations cannot be reflective of physics at the Planck scale. Models such as loop quantum gravity with a preferred inertial frame are ruled out by this line of reasoning. Alternative models to consider might be models with quartic momentum terms with M_{QG}^2 supression in the dispersion relations, Lorentz invariant quantum gravity models, or really new Planck scale physics such as string theory, which preserves Lorentz invariance."[/color]
 
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
What I want to know is why are those two black hole particle beams "aimed directly at the Earth"? Coincidence? I think not...
Ah blazars! They're really no different from other active galactic nuclei (AGNs), just that by chance we're looking straight down the jets. You can use data on the observed blazar sky density to do several consistency checks of AGN models; e.g. if the jets have an opening angle of x radians, then the sky density of AGNs should be \frac{4\pi}{x}.

A good collection of links:
http://wwwospg.pg.infn.it/blazarsintheweb.htm

BTW, there are several threads with related discussions (including reference to the very same Stecker paper) in our very own PF Special & General Relativity board.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top