Ce post a une pièce jointe.
На Большом адронном коллайдере обнаружено поведение частиц, которое не укладывается в рамки Стандартной модели – теории, многие десятилетия успешно прогнозировавшей результат любого эксперимента с элементарными частицами. Вероятность ошибки пока не исключена, но статистика уже заставляет физиков насторожиться и искать объяснения.
Речь идёт о распаде b-мезона.
Речь идёт о распаде b-мезона.
Post partagé.
Post partagé.
Neutrinos are tiny, ghost-like particles that habitually change identity. A measurement of the rate of change in high-energy neutrinos racing through Earth provides a record-breaking test of Einstein’s special theory of relativity.
The IceCube Collaboration (2018) Neutrino interferometry for high-precision tests of Lorentz symmetry with IceCube: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0172-2
The IceCube Collaboration (2018) Neutrino interferometry for high-precision tests of Lorentz symmetry with IceCube: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0172-2
Ce post a une pièce jointe.
Ce post a une pièce jointe.
Ce post a une pièce jointe.
Post partagé.
I am looking for something more technical than link below on what the James Webb telescope 2021 will do for Cosmic Ladder measurements. I had heard it might blow a lot of the measurements out of kilter. More so than Gaia is doing with Hubble as discussed in previous post.
http://webbtelescope.org/articles/12?collection_name=Universe
Terry tau's blog provides usable slides on Cosmic ladder
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/the-cosmic-distance-ladder-ver-4-1/
http://webbtelescope.org/articles/12?collection_name=Universe
Terry tau's blog provides usable slides on Cosmic ladder
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/the-cosmic-distance-ladder-ver-4-1/
The two major methods of measuring Hubble "constant" give incompatible results.
One method is direct, building a cosmic “distance ladder” from measurements of stars in our local universe. The other method uses the CMB to measure the trajectory of the universe shortly after the big bang and then uses physics to describe the universe and extrapolate to the present expansion rate. Together, the measurements should provide an end-to-end test of our basic understanding of the so-called “Standard Model” of the universe. However, the pieces don’t fit.
Using (observed) Hubble ( to measure apparent brightness) and newly released data from Gaia ( to measure disnace by parallax) , team measured the present rate of expansion to be 73.5 kilometers (45.6 miles) per second per megaparsec. This means that for every 3.3 million light-years farther away a galaxy is from us, it appears to be moving 73.5 kilometers per second faster.
However, the Planck (extrapolation from CMBR and Standard Cosmology model) results predict the universe should be expanding today at only 67.0 kilometers (41.6 miles) per second per megaparsec. Error "model" version observation is about four times the size of their combined uncertainty.
One method is direct, building a cosmic “distance ladder” from measurements of stars in our local universe. The other method uses the CMB to measure the trajectory of the universe shortly after the big bang and then uses physics to describe the universe and extrapolate to the present expansion rate. Together, the measurements should provide an end-to-end test of our basic understanding of the so-called “Standard Model” of the universe. However, the pieces don’t fit.
Using (observed) Hubble ( to measure apparent brightness) and newly released data from Gaia ( to measure disnace by parallax) , team measured the present rate of expansion to be 73.5 kilometers (45.6 miles) per second per megaparsec. This means that for every 3.3 million light-years farther away a galaxy is from us, it appears to be moving 73.5 kilometers per second faster.
However, the Planck (extrapolation from CMBR and Standard Cosmology model) results predict the universe should be expanding today at only 67.0 kilometers (41.6 miles) per second per megaparsec. Error "model" version observation is about four times the size of their combined uncertainty.
Ce post a une pièce jointe.
If we say a massive object moves in a circular path,it must need an external force to make it's path circular.Its is due to whole classical vector story .but according to Einstein's general theory of relativity , circular orbits is due to curved space time .by comparing these cases, what really is inertia?is inertia is a property of space or property of a massive object?
Post partagé.
“I’m admittedly a fan of time-travel movies (however they explain it). What movie makes the best case for using this plot device accurately?”
Time travel has been a staple of fiction for centuries, as the notion of either traveling forward in time to explore the future or back in time to right a past wrong have been a part of humanity’s imaginings for perhaps always. But we have explicit laws and rules for traveling through time, and how our motion through space affects it. In General Relativity, the possibilities of wormholes and closed-timelike-curves arises, opening up a whole new set of avenues for success. From Bill & Ted’s excellent adventure to Idiocracy, from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to Interstellar, and from Back to the Future to Groundhog Day, the science of time travel is one of the most fascinating ones out there.
Which movies get it right, and which ones get it egregiously wrong? Find out what my evaluations are on this edition of Ask Ethan!
Time travel has been a staple of fiction for centuries, as the notion of either traveling forward in time to explore the future or back in time to right a past wrong have been a part of humanity’s imaginings for perhaps always. But we have explicit laws and rules for traveling through time, and how our motion through space affects it. In General Relativity, the possibilities of wormholes and closed-timelike-curves arises, opening up a whole new set of avenues for success. From Bill & Ted’s excellent adventure to Idiocracy, from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to Interstellar, and from Back to the Future to Groundhog Day, the science of time travel is one of the most fascinating ones out there.
Which movies get it right, and which ones get it egregiously wrong? Find out what my evaluations are on this edition of Ask Ethan!
Post partagé.
#Today on 18th of #July 1853, Hendrik Lorentz was born. He was a #Dutch #physicist who shared the 1902 +Nobel Prize in #Physics with Pieter Zeeman for the #discovery and theoretical explanation of the Zeeman Effect. He also derived the transformation equations underpinning Albert #Einstein's theory of special #relativity.
Veuillez patienter pendant le chargement des autres posts.
