Slashdot Mirror


Physicists Measure Gravity With Record Precision (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: A team of scientists in China are reporting that they have now performed the most precise measurement of gravity's strength yet by measuring G, the Newtonian or universal gravitational constant. G relates the gravitational attraction between two objects to their masses and the distance between them. The new measurement is important both for high-powered atomic clocks as well as the study of the universe, earth science, or any kind of science that relies on gravity in some way. The values measured by the team "have the smallest uncertainties reported until now," according to the paper published in Nature.

In the new study, scientists performed two independent calculations of G using a pair of pendulums in a vacuum, one pendulum setup for each test. Each pendulum swings back and forth between a pair of massive objects whose positions can be adjusted. The pendulums measure the force of gravity in two ways. First, they measure the difference between how quickly the pendulum swings to the "near," or parallel position, versus the "far," or horizontal position. They also measure how the direction of the pendulum's swing changes based on the pull of the test masses. The researchers ended up measuring 6.674184 and 6.674484 hundred billionths (10-11) for the time-of-swinging and angular acceleration methods, respectively. These measures were both very precise, but are still different from one another for unknown reasons. This might have had something to do with the string used for the pendulum.
The paper's reviewer, Stephan Schlamminger from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, wrote in a commentary: "Li et al. carried out their experiments with great care and gave a detailed description of their work. The study is an example of excellent craftsmanship in precision measurements. However, the true value of G remains unclear. Various determinations of G that have been made over the past 40 years have a wide spread of values. Although some of the individual relative uncertainties are of the order of 10 parts per million, the difference between the smallest and largest values is about 500 parts per million."

161 comments

  1. G Whiz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is pure G whizzardry!

  2. Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Gravity is inside of an object. Itâ(TM)s the objects desire to move downward, it is not a force that pulls an object downward

    1. Re:Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.

    2. Re:Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you explain a helium balloon's desire to move upward?

    3. Re: Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your mama's so fat, she emits Hawking radiation.

    4. Re:Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Einstein agreed that gravity was not a force. He noticed that it was directly proportional to mass just like fictitious forces were.

      As for the being inside an object and desire to move downward, those don't seem like testable hypotheses.

    5. Re:Gravity... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Funny

      Correct, in the same sense that an object's desire to release phlogiston causes it to catch fire.

    6. Re:Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not quite right. There are a few different models of gravity, but the most accepted is Einstein's interpretation, that what perceive as gravity is the warping of space-time caused by mass. In essence, the greater mass an object has the more the straight line paths of the universe curve inward towards it. An equally valid mathematical model (but less generally accepted interpretation), is that there is a fundamental field, much like the electromagnetic field, that has directions and imparts momentum where the direction and intensity is based on the presence of mass in an area.

    7. Re:Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere! Yes, even between the land and the ship!

    8. Re:Gravity... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Downward?

    9. Re: Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mama's so fat, she's the source of the next big bang.

    10. Re: Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo mama so fat that is not gonna happen ever again because she would eat it if it did.

    11. Re: Gravity... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thanks for this... my daughter has officially added this to her arsenal of mamma jokes that only a handful of people understand.

      I will admit though, she already had :

      "Your mamma's so fat that her spiritual guide refers to her aura as an event horizon"

    12. Re:Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Objects have desire?

      Gravity is objects following geodesics (literally shortest/straightest paths) in a curved spacetime whose curvature is a function of the various forms of mass/energy contained therein.

    13. Re: Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo mama so fat (proper form) she make 11-dimensional braneworld seem fuckable.

    14. Re:Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      How do you explain a helium balloon's desire to move upward?

      Well, it's got Helium inside instead of gravity. Duh.

    15. Re: Gravity... by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem is that quantum gravity and relativistic gravity can't be reconciled. Only one of these can be correct, at most. The other must be false. They cannot be reconciled.

      If QM gravity is false, QM is false.
      If relativistic gravity is false, relativity is false.

      Both underlying theories have stood up to every test thrown at them, but one of them is wrong.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    16. Re: Gravity... by jd · · Score: 1

      That is true. If and only if QM is false. QM specifically prohibits any such interpretation, which causes a severe problem.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    17. Re:Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the different readings are due to space-time fluctuations.

    18. Re: Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mama's so fat, even astronomers call her a black ho'

    19. Re:Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Max Planck was a true genius, the branding is just a humble acknowledgement of the scale of his contributions to the knowledge of humanity.

    20. Re: Gravity... by Vicious+Penguin · · Score: 2

      The problem is that quantum gravity and relativistic gravity can't be reconciled. Only one of these can be correct, at most. The other must be false. They cannot be reconciled.

      If QM gravity is false, QM is false.
      If relativistic gravity is false, relativity is false.

      Both underlying theories have stood up to every test thrown at them, but one of them is wrong.

      I don't think so. They may just be looking a different things and a "higher order" theory is needed to reconcile them. My example would be the wave vs. particle nature of light. They are both correct sort of, and both false, sort of.

    21. Re: Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are both valid within certain scales.

    22. Re: Gravity... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Your mama's so fat she doesn't emit Hawking radiation anymore.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    23. Re: Gravity... by Wargames · · Score: 1

      Solved!

      QM + R = G

      --
      -- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
    24. Re: Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you have pulled the wool of science over your eyes and failed to see the obvious.

      It's tiny angels pushing everything down.

    25. Re: Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me, this seems as likely, if not more, than one of the two being correct.

    26. Re: Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure why you say the field interpretation is âoeless accepted.â Einsteinâ(TM)s equations ARE field equations. The geometric metaphor thatâ(TM)s described to physics students is that space is like a rubber sheet that is warped by masses. A direct interpretation of the theory is that the gravitational field IS spacetime.

      One of the big problems is that general relativity, while it is a field theory, isnâ(TM)t a quantum field theory. All our other fundamental theories are quantum, and, for various good reasons, we think the gravitational theory should be as well.

    27. Re: Gravity... by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

      Yo Mama' so fat, they have to use the Large Hadron Collider to measure the mass of her atoms.

      --
      -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
    28. Re: Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAP (and based on your comments I can't imagine that you are either), but it was my understanding that the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics doesn't say anything at all about gravity and that there is no current theory of quantum gravity.

    29. Re: Gravity... by jd · · Score: 1

      In QM, gravity is transmitted by gravitons. It is key to the theory that all forces are handled by particle exchange.

      There is no quantum gravity theory, per second, only the requirement of gravitons as a particle grouped with other leptons. This is part of the standard model. You will find gravitons in the particle zoo.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    30. Re: Gravity... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should replace all Yo Mama' so fat with Trump is so fat or stupid jokes?
      Oh, I hit a nerve on some people I guess! /me runs and hides

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    31. Re: Gravity... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Question: Does mass reside within space time, or does it displace it?

      Could gravity be a pull, or a push? Perhaps gravity is nothing more than a manifestation of mass and space/time fighting for displacing each other. Of course, I'm not a physicist; hence my question.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    32. Re: Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "downward" in space.

  3. Dude! 1 G! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I win! What do I win? 1 G?

  4. Re:4th coast new tropics nny tourist trap seasonin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    105f here at 5 pm... later,, folks gathered on the beach to watch the sunset being sprayed over... some still call this 'weather',, around 65f now... truth+mercy=justice,, in the moms we trust..

    ^ This is your brain on drugs ...

  5. Re:Bullshit!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electric charge has two different polarities, so three objects will never all attract each other due to electric fields. Electric fields can never explain gravity.

    Magnetic fields probably don't exist. They are relativistic effects where moving charges cause time dilation.

    The weak force cannot explain gravity because it is too weak. The strong force probably cannot explain gravity because it is too strong. I can't rule it out completely, but perhaps somebody else could.

    Could you elaborate on why electrons cause everything to exist?

  6. Still copying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are still copying, they didn't invent G.
    America #1 America #1

  7. Well what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it be too much to ask that the bragged about more accurate value is actually mentioned in the summary?

    1. Re:Well what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are, but c'mon, it's lifted from a Gizmodo article. Do you read Gizmodo for anything even remotely scientific?

      In Nature it says...

      We obtain G values of 6.674184×10^-11 and 6.674484×10^-11 cubic metres per kilogram per second squared, with relative standard uncertainties of 11.64 and 11.61 parts per million, respectively.

    2. Re:Well what is it? by fisted · · Score: 5, Funny

      6.674184×10^-11 and 6.674484×10^-11

      This kind of cryptic number stuff isn't suitable for a mainstream news site like this.

    3. Re: Well what is it? by jd · · Score: 1

      I dunno, Slashdot does a lot with cryptographic numbers. There are articles on them regularly. It's just some are ROT13ed into articles about something else.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Well what is it? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      6.674184×10^-11 and 6.674484×10^-11

      This kind of cryptic number stuff isn't suitable for a mainstream news site like this.

      Those are not as accurate as they are precise. If they were, they would be identical.

    5. Re: Well what is it? by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      I've been through the data and the answer is obvious: someone wrote a 1 instead of a 4 or possibly (following Heisenberg) vice versa.

    6. Re:Well what is it? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      In theory, they should be identical. Which is what makes the difference interesting.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  8. Gravity / mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple question,

    Why does gravity scale with mass? It's awfully coincidental isn't it?
    That a property of matter (QUANTITY) scales with a force (GRAVITY). The more stuff, the stronger the gravity.

    And when the two depart, we decide its no longer matter (e.g. PHOTON), create a new energy type (ELECTROMAGNETIC) and do complicated workarounds to explain how it still bends under gravity.

    What if... the property of 'matter' (mass) isn't the measure of the quantity of stuff, its the net effect of the way the stuff is organized and the quantity of stuff. A photon is just a different organization of the stuff of matter it came from. An organization with a lower binding force than when it was a particle, and thus a lower 'gravity. What if there is only one energy, a derivative of binding force, not mass.

    You might be inclined not to question the relationship between matter and gravity, but you should. A photon must be the same stuff as the matter it came from, so mass as a measure of the quantity of that stuff needs to be re-examined.

    1. Re:Gravity / mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Einstein noticed the coincidence a long time ago.

      Photons do have mass and both cause gravity and are affected by gravity.

      Photons don't come from matter unless antimatter is involved. Usually photons are converted to or from kinetic energy (which also increases mass).

      Most mass is already known to be kinetic energy or binding energy. Allegedly for a hydrogen atom only around 2% of the mass is rest mass and the remainder is due to kinetic energy or gluons.

    2. Re:Gravity / mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A photon must be the same stuff as the matter it came from

      Why? You can't tell people to question things, then turn around and immediately try to dictate physics by fiat with a "must" premise.

    3. Re: Gravity / mass by jd · · Score: 1

      Think quantum gravity.

      Gravity is the exchange of particles between two particles.

      If you double the particles, you double the exchanges. Scaling.

      Where's the shock?

      If you prefer relativity, mass bends space. Space can be thought of as having elasticity, although that's not quite right.

      Then it's just a matter of applying Hooke's Law. Double the mass, double the bending. Again, scaling.

      I don't see coincidence, I see cause and effect.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re: Gravity / mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must... a thing is a thing unless you can show why it isnt. I.e. the must part stems from constancy.
      Photons must be the same stuff as the matter they came from.

    5. Re: Gravity / mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many exchange modes? Why are the exchanges not symetric? Why do they not cancel out.... saying its an exchange of particles (x) between particles (y) is an answer without thought.

    6. Re:Gravity / mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know when you heat something up until it's "red hot", no antimatter there.

    7. Re: Gravity / mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also know that gravity moves at the speed of light yet can escape a blackhole.

    8. Re:Gravity / mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know heat is kinetic energy, right?

    9. Re:Gravity / mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly all of the mass of matter is in the binding force of the gluons, aka strong nuclear force, that make up the protons and neutrons. The particle that constitute matter have very little mass, just all that binding energy.

    10. Re: Gravity / mass by jd · · Score: 1

      Gravitons are not affected by the Higgs field, and gravitons wouldn't emit gravitons so can't be affected by gravity themselves.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    11. Re: Gravity / mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had to do a quick google. The explanation that I found is that they would have to be virtual particles, the same way a magnetic field is created by virtual photons. Not being affected by other gravitons makes no sense because we know that space-time does warp because of gravity, and to escape a blackhole by saying they are not affected by gravity is akin to saying they're not affected by space-time. To not be affected by space-time is to not recognize time or distance. All gravity would reach all of space and all of time instantly.

  9. What about the friction of ether? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't the motion of the pendulum in vacuum be retarded by friction with the ether?

    1. Re: What about the friction of ether? by jd · · Score: 1

      There is no ether.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re: What about the friction of ether? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with the quantum vacuum field then.

    3. Re: What about the friction of ether? by jd · · Score: 1

      The average friction has to be zero, because the quantum foam averages for any value over any scale to zero. The particles in it are a product of statistical noise.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re: What about the friction of ether? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's that ? What is EtherNet then ?!

    5. Re:What about the friction of ether? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ether was decommissioned in 1897 due to budget cuts, don't worry.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re: What about the friction of ether? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planning of such was started at the 1893 World's Fair: Columbian Exposition..

    7. Re: What about the friction of ether? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's what the naughty kids use when they try to catch the Ether Bunny.

  10. Their precision isn't very precise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    ... or it would be repeatable.

    These measures were both very precise, but are still different from one another for unknown reasons.

    Also, precision is not accuracy.

    1. Re: Their precision isn't very precise... by jd · · Score: 1

      Experimental error is perfectly acceptable. It just has to be stated. Which it is.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re: Their precision isn't very precise... by jd · · Score: 1

      Also, they state there may be hidden variables. That means their measurements are fine, but the model is incomplete and so not all necessary measurements were made.

      Scientists do this all the time. It's how we discover unknowns, by comparing theory with observation and establishing how they deviate.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  11. Wer mist mist Mist by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Rough English translation: "Those who measure measure crap". Doing good measurements is difficult and you learn a lot refining your methods. You may also find effects you did not expect. That is why Physicists actually highly respect those that seem to do nothing than refine some measurement. It is effort well spent.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  12. *Newsflash* --- China stole Gravity from USA ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China steals everything and got away with it.

    This time, the embolden China has stolen GRAVITY from poor Uncle Sam.

    Paging Donald Trump --- Better do something, NOW !!

  13. Wer misst misst Mist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know that proverb as well, but the first two "mist"s have to be written "misst":
    http://canoo.net/inflection/messen:V:haben

    1. Re:Wer misst misst Mist by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You are right, of course. That happens when I write German (I am a native speaker) while thinking in English...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  14. A mystery by burtosis · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's actually quite interesting how the force required to accelerate one kilogram at 9.8m/s^2 is the same force required to keep it stationary under standard earth gravity whose free fall acceleration is (9.8m/s^2). The idea that they could be identical and indistinguishable is a significant part of what led Einstein to develop relativity. It seems simple, on one hand due the same force being applied, but to realize a theory relating accelerating reference frames would then also be a working theory of gravity was revolutionary. Its always bothered me that the majority of constants, like big G, must be measured and not derived, perhaps with enough precision measurement and enough eyes on it someone or some group will find a way to derive them with a unified theory. Until then, minor discrepancies can be quite interesting and provide valuable insight.

    1. Re:A mystery by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Its always bothered me that the majority of constants, like big G, must be measured and not derived

      There is no other way. Science is the description of what we see. A model is a systematic description of many events observed over time. Even if you could find a way to derive G, it would be ultimately derived from other things that were observed.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re: A mystery by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ultimately, G must be derivative, a consequence of some deeper theory. And it may well be that this accounts in part for the errors in measurement. If forces are to be unified, each force derives from a single common theory that can generate the somewhat bizarre strong nuclear force as well.

      Another likely source of errors is relativity. Relative velocity changes relative mass, relative time and relative distance. How to avoid Newtonian assumptions?

      Also, how to measure velocity accurately enough to not change things at the fifteenth or sixteenth decimal point? The act of measuring changes the system, as does the gear used to make the measurement.

      Time measurements are a problem, as the more accurate the clock, the greater it impacts the gravitational field. So a clock good enough to measure time accurately enough to give us the precision needed is a clock that isn't an inert part of the experiment but a direct contaminant.

      I'm sure some of this is explained in the article in Nature, but it does show the difficulty.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:A mystery by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The gravitational constant would only be constant relative to the part of the universe it is in. So it is likely to vary quite a lot in the space between galaxies, simply due to the absence of significant gravitational masses for quite an extensive relative distance. Then in terms of the multi verse, would also have to take into account surrounding universes and how they shift over time, all be it, extremely, extremely, slowly. Relative to us not moving at all, relative to the mutli-verse probably quite an intricate pattern of time and space. The more finite, the more specific the measurement, the greater the number of variables you will have to take into account and the greater the errors as a result of ignored variables. Acceptable errors takes into account unaccounted for complexity variables that have a limited impact on the scale the test but as you push for a finer scale of measurement, so those variables create greater errors.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:A mystery by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      To follow up on that, it is possible to derive G.
      From Wikipedia "The gravitational constant is taken as the basis of the Planck units: it is equal to the cube of the Planck length divided by the product of the Planck mass and the square of Planck time"
      In Planck units, by definition, they are all 1, so G=1. However, we still need precise measurements for everything else, I mean I can't tell your height in plank lengths without first knowing how long a plank length is.

    5. Re: A mystery by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      "Also, how to measure velocity accurately enough to not change things at the fifteenth or sixteenth decimal point?"

      Observing will change what you observe, but shouldn't it be possible to know 'how much' observing it will change and factor that in?

    6. Re: A mystery by jd · · Score: 1

      Well, the more accurate the observation, the greater the energy you put in and so the greater the error you create.

      Relativistically, the energy will depend on the actual relative velocity of the observer to the observed. So in order to calculate the energy and thus the error, you need the velocity. You can probably derive the value, since you know the range of possibilities and can get a computer to binary search that range for one where all the values match observation.

      That's before factoring in the gravity of the gear actually making the measurements. That's more complex, but you know the mass (which is static) and the energy (normally irrelevant, but we're talking about a chaotic system - pendulums are chaotic, a very large number of cycles and extreme precision, so energy may well matter). Still, you can measure the values and then calculate the effect.

      The other relativistic effect is the relativistic mass of the objects the pendulum is moving between.

      Yes, all these things can be calculated. Just don't use an Intel processor. You will certainly need the multiprecision libraries, though, as there are no maths processors capable of handling mantisas of the range needed.

      But calculating them isn't a matter of an instantaneous value, the velocity changes over time non-linearly and has perturbations as noted above. So you've got to simulate enough slices of time to smooth everything out. Because it's chaotic, you can't be certain you've succeeded, but you can probably get good enough.

      So, yes, everything can be calculated, although it's not trivial.

      The problem for a lot of physicists is that then you're looking at a simulation of the experiment and not the experiment itself.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re: A mystery by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Time measurements are a problem, as the more accurate the clock, the greater it impacts the gravitational field. So a clock good enough to measure time accurately enough to give us the precision needed is a clock that isn't an inert part of the experiment but a direct contaminant.
      The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is between time and energy, not between time and gravity.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re: A mystery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These pendulums are moving slowly. There are plenty of error sources, but relativistic velocity just isn't one of them.

      Usually light would be used to measure position and velocity. Hopefully they make at least an attempt to balance the light.

      Gravity falls off with the inverse square of distance, so the clock would only need to be far enough away. Objects more massive than the clock would make much more difference and be impossible to move far enough away.

      They are aiming for better than 44 parts per million, so the fifth or sixth digit, not the fifteenth or sixteenth.

    9. Re: A mystery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The velocity will be so low that the Lorentz factor will be 1 to well over 10 digits. Most of the trick to the accuracy of this experiment is measuring position or velocity well enough to derive the absurdly low acceleration. A Little Mermaid watch might be barely accurate enough.

      The rest of the trick is correcting for accelerations not due to gravitational force between the weights. They didn't do so well at that part since the results for the pendulum and the results with a turntable differed by more than the measurement error.

  15. high-powered atomic clocks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is a high-powered atomic clocks? Why does it need power if it works on radioactive decay? And how does more power help for these kinds of clocks?

    1. Re:high-powered atomic clocks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how does more power help for these kinds of clocks?

      To make it runs faster?

    2. Re: high-powered atomic clocks? by jd · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work off radioactive decay. It works off the spin of ultra-cooled atoms.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:high-powered atomic clocks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It needs more power for the LED display, the snooze function, and the USB port.

  16. Re:TDS by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    But where is the anti-Trump angle? How is slashdot going to get their ad impressions without the 30th Trump argument since Saturday?

    Goddamn guys. I have been here for nearly 20 years following the slide into obscurity and only in the last couple days have learned firsthand why people shitpost before they leave.

    It's constant anger, irrationality, denial or warping of reality to suit preference over and over and over. So much so that when a story comes up without the nonsensical hatred, it's striking.

    Why do any of us still go to this site aside from habit? There is no value here.

    It is a fascinating study in methods and thinking of the Trump trolls that in a story's comments section where there has not been one single mention of Trump, the very first mention of Trump is in a comment complaining about how there are nothing but Trump comments. Now, it's late here out West and maybe I'm too tired to notice that this is a bot's post, but for heaven's sake, if that's the case, the algorithm needs some adjustment.

    And if the comment is sincere and by an actual human, your wish is my command, so:

    Trump is so fat that gravity's going to pull him straight to prison. Now are you happy? See what you made me do? I'm not proud of it, but I feel a certain responsibility when someone makes a request for an anti-Trump angle.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  17. Re: Bullshit!!! by jd · · Score: 4, Informative

    If any of these forces could explain gravity, it would be unified by now.

    That's how we have the electroweak force. We do not have the electrogravitational force.

    Gravity cannot be unified with the other forces with standard physics. We know this. It requires superstrings or other new physics. And even then nobody actually has a grand unified theory.

    Anyone on Slashdot who claims otherwise had best produce the Nobel prize in physics and Fields medal in mathematics, because it's going to require just as many discoveries there.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  18. Re:TDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you see, we have a Trump particle and an anti-Trump particle. When we bring them together, we get a new element called Antifa, which results in a graviton of left, right, up and down quarks.

  19. Atomic clocks by jd · · Score: 1

    There seems to be some confusion over them. Since they're impacted by G and since you need them to measure G, they're an important part of the story.

    https://www.newscientist.com/a...
    https://www.sciencealert.com/p...

    Basically, they work off state changes. Caesium atoms that generated pulses of radiation as they changed energy level, the wobble of aluminium atoms, the motion in a quantum gas of strontium.

    They do not, and never have, work(ed) from radioactive decay.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Atomic clocks by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      Wow - thanks for that. For some reason I always thought it was atomic decay they were measuring (Now that I think about it I only recall being taught that the atomic clocks were extremely accurate and nothing about learning about the mechanism itself - maybe I just presumed that or crossed it with carbon dating methods...)

    2. Re:Atomic clocks by jd · · Score: 1

      I think secondary school/high school textbooks do teach it as decay, using very ambiguous language.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  20. Re: Bullshit!!! by jd · · Score: 1

    Electrons exist. So do positions. So do all other leptons. This suggests gravitons also exist.

    You cannot convert an electron into any other fundamental particle. They explain nothing other than themselves.

    If a Grand Unified Theory exists, it will use quantum loops or membranes, not electrons.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  21. Indeed by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    They dropped a Golden Delicious, because the old variant Newton used is difficult to find.

    1. Re: Indeed by jd · · Score: 1

      I know people who own trees grown from cuttings from Newton's.

      I've stayed in one of Newton's country houses. Whoever did the dendro date for the fireplace did a horrible job.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Indeed by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      Well DUH! Golden things are always better and more accurate. Just ask Monster cable whose gold tipped fiber optic cables offered better connectivity!
      Platinum is even better. Then black. No wait, that's credit cards...

  22. Re: Another LIE from China by jd · · Score: 1, Funny

    Tea is from China and Tea is the drink of the gods, second only to mead.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  23. Newton Agrees by buravirgil · · Score: 2

    |burtosis said: Its always bothered me that the majority of constants, like big G, must be measured and not derived...

    Hypotheses non fingo
    I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

    His critics went so far as to suggest his calculation for G was based on occult numerology because Newton was likely a savant and inexhaustibly explored patterns of all types and kinds.

    --
    Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
  24. Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    Although some of the individual relative uncertainties are of the order of 10 parts per million, the difference between the smallest and largest values is about 500 parts per million."

    Do any of these experiments keep running for a long period of time? Years for example, continually taking measurements.

    I am not suggesting that G does change, but to just assume it is a constant could be a gap in our complete understanding of the concept.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a reckless, unwarranted assumption that it's constant. If the value did in fact change under 500ppm over the years we've been measuring it, that might have been immediately apparent in areas other than pendulum experiments. For example gravitational lensing effects near the sun and the accuracy of GPS clocks.
      Part of science really is about sticking your neck out and using previous established laws to make predictions in new areas. You don't have to write a paper and hedge your words with every single statement you make, e.g. "assuming G is constant, such and such." So what if a later discovery proves you wrong? Oh well, science improves by such discoveries. Newtons equations were useful for hundreds of years before Einstein.

      Consider also inertia, the tendency for an object at rest to stay at rest, or for an object moving in a straight line to stay moving. Now it seems obvious that inertial mass is proportional to a gravitational mass, the heavier the object, the more force required to overcome its inertia (change its momentum)
      But people were not satisfied to just assume that they were equivalent and people have gone through the trouble to make sure that they were, accurate to less than a few parts per bilion. http://physics.princeton.edu/romalis/papers/Roll_1964.pdf , second page.

    2. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously because the people I work with don't like discussing it at all.

      At the company I work for we performed a very carefully designed experiment for six years. We did not publish the results, being a commercial entity we didn't need to, and frankly, the results were weird enough that publishing them would have been bad-news in terms of getting future projects, grants, or contracts. Either the experimental setup was bad; although we made many efforts to ensure it was solid or the results should be believed. We consulted widely with established parties the experiment design.

      After recording data for a year, we saw a variation in the samples that we could not isolate due to noise (and we tried very hard). The very obvious question was then "If G is not a constant and varies, and our measurements are correct, what is influencing it?"

      Now for a preface - about to make a few comments many will dislike. Frankly, I find them disturbing myself, I'd much prefer things were nice and "clean" or we could have identified a flaw in the experiments design.

      We found that G was not constant and found a very clear periodic oscillation, which by all rights, should have been easily attributable to noise or poor experiment design. We could find no such source for the signal. Since this was such a large signal, I spoke privately with a couple of colleagues whom I have known for many years. One of them told me that they had found the exact same thing, when he did a study that was unreported while working for a different company in a different country about two decades earlier. The precision of their experiment was a little lower but the signal was still clear. They used totally different methods for signal cleanup and their experiment design was significantly different from ours.

      The response to the participants in this experiment can be classified into three groups. The first response was "That's impossible, we screwed up". The second response was "We found something new, we should publish". The third response was we should look some more and be prudent and careful. I was in the first camp after one year. Slowly after time ticked on I became a member of the last group but if someone held a gun to my head I think the oscillation is not from experimental error.

    3. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >very clear periodic oscillation
      Well, spit it out, would you? What was the oscillation period? How did you account for all noise sources?
      For all we know the period was 12 hours (tides), 24 hours or 27.3 days (moon) or 365.242 days or 5.9 years (length of day oscillation) and your experiment didn't account for the most obvious causes of error.
      We don't know of course, because you haven't given any information besides your assurance that you were careful.

      >Posting anonymously because the people I work with don't like discussing it at all.
      This sounds like an elaborate troll to sucker in people to see how well they read between the lines.
      Uncomfortable scientific knowledge, wish to remain anonymous, money's at stake, "comments many will dislike", an unnamed professional colleague in a different country decades ago found the exact same thing, and nothing at all published to review, etc.
      If this is a troll, well done and fuck you.

    4. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about magma circulation. Even cheap atomic clocks are sensitive enough to track changes in density well below the Earths surface. The most accurate of atomic clocks can be placed right next to each other and drift due to constantly changing densities inside the Earth. When I was looking up info on how to configure an atomic clock, because you can get one for your computer for the cost of a new computer these days, they said you need to take into consideration the strength of gravity in your location. When I looked into this topic, I saw that adjacent cities can have a few percentage difference in gravity, resulting in a few pounds different for an adult. Quick way to gain/lose some weight.

    5. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      When I was looking up info on how to configure an atomic clock, because you can get one for your computer for the cost of a new computer these days, they said you need to take into consideration the strength of gravity in your location.

      Where did you find a personal atomic clock? Everything marketed by that name is nothing but a GPS receiver at best, or a radio synch receiver that may end up useless after NIST shuts off the beacons. It might help if I knew which technology it uses. Is it a cesium clock? Aluminum? Strontium?

    6. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand and can appreciate why you feel anger. We found several fundamental components in the oscillation. If you are doing this sort of thing you obviously know to look for things all the obvious stuff. E.g. Orbital parameters including tides, atmospheric pressure and temperature, and geologic causes. Solar effects were also included such as atmospheric mass changes due to solar wind. We also took into account geomagnetic and geological effects.

      The shortest period oscillation that we couldn't account for was ~1072 hours (Not counting obvious noise effects), but there were a couple of other components of longer periods. We looked at everything, and could not account for several of the oscillations. There was also a strong oscillation at about 1.7 years.

      The shorter period oscillation was close enough to the orbital period of Mercury that we investigated if there could be any way that Mercury could possibly influence our results. This is after accounting for everything "sensible". Questions like "OK If Mercury's mass is far too insignificant to account for the signal could Mercury's orbital position be modulating a greater effect, hey could Mercury modulate solar particle flux?"

      We never came up with a solution. It was a humbling experience. It was also somewhat of a turning point for me as an individual. Previously I'd been very harsh on scientists who reported "spooky" things. I'd considered them all poor scientists. Now I am not so quick.

    7. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The experiment used three primary sites that were on different continents. Once we saw the oscillation we also added two additional lower precision shorter-term sites. The equipment wasn't large or terribly expensive. Having multiple sites made removing local noise much easier. The short-term sites were moved a couple of times to both the northern and southern hemispheres, whereas the primary sites had two in the northern hemisphere and one in the southern hemisphere. The temporary sites were of lower precision than the primary sites and we the experiments were run for shorter periods, typically half a year or so. Even though the precision was lower we still saw the short term ~1072 hour oscillation.

      I'm confident magma doesn't account for what we saw. The different locations all had different values for g (small g) like you would expect. We were measuring big G.
         

    8. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First result on a quick google https://www.microsemi.com/prod...

    9. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      My wristwatch picks up time correction signals from somewhere in southern Germany, which is neither run nor funded by the US govt's NIST.

      I remember looking at "local" atomic clocks when I was following up on the whole question of "accurate local time" after the wife got me the radio-corrected watch. They're not cheap - a few thousand dollars - but comparable with a really chunky laptop or desktop gaming rig. But the structural work the house would have needed (basement room for thermal regulation, vibration-absorbing pedestal) would have cost more.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    10. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Where did you find a personal atomic clock? Everything marketed by that name is nothing but a GPS receiver at best, or a radio synch receiver that may end up useless after NIST shuts off the beacons. It might help if I knew which technology it uses. Is it a cesium clock? Aluminum? Strontium?

      Used HP cesium clocks are available and can be refurbished by a dedicated user. Used rubidium atomic clocks can be had for 100s of dollars.

    11. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's interesting. Might mean something previously undiscovered, might also just mean that measuring the gravitational constant is really, really difficult.

    12. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting if the value varied? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I remember looking at "local" atomic clocks when I was following up on the whole question of "accurate local time" after the wife got me the radio-corrected watch. They're not cheap - a few thousand dollars - but comparable with a really chunky laptop or desktop gaming rig.

      I did find the CSAC product the anonymous coward posted. It's a thick chip in size, with a carrier board considerably smaller than modern video cards. $6000 for chip and board.

      But the structural work the house would have needed (basement room for thermal regulation, vibration-absorbing pedestal) would have cost more.

      The basement, I have. A pedestal large enough to support a board that size together with a fanless computer to host the CSAC carrier board should be much less than $6000, with the most expensive part being the elastomer sheeting. Miniature air spring cylinders are only $16 each.

      I'm definitely tempted. Maybe some year.

  25. Branding Genius by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 3, Funny

    So Newton managed to get his name used for the unit of force, Joule for energy, etc. They at most one unit each. Until Planck comes along and somehow gets his name stamped on units for length, mass, time and according wikipedia pretty much all the others too. The man's a branding genius!

    1. Re:Branding Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A genius to the Max!

  26. Re: Bullshit!!! by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 2, Funny

    Electrons exist. So do positions. So do all other leptons.

    Remember a world without autocorrect? Peppermint Farm remembers.

  27. Re: Bullshit!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone on Slashdot who claims otherwise had best produce the Nobel prize in physics and Fields medal in mathematics, because it's going to require just as many discoveries there.

    This implies that the Nobel and Fields awards are fair, honest or well-intentioned. When it is quite apparent that approximately nothing in life is fair, honest or well-intentioned.

    nobody actually has a grand unified theory

    For non-zero values of "nobody".

    Abolishing the lunacy that is particle smashing would save the world tens of billions of dollars a year.

    The only thing worth debating is how long before the systems of control blocking progress in all important fields are dissolved. Work will have to begin with The Fed, of course. We're only up against trillionaires...how hard can it be?

  28. Not good for commercial apple growers by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    It is not difficult to find a cutting of the apple variety that inspired Newton.

    The real problem for commercial growers, however, is that the darned thing keeps dropping its apples . . .

  29. fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a farce, we measured something there are differences can't be explained lets call it hmmm let me think I need a letter hmmm how about G its really accurate and validates a "theory". Use your higher mind this is all nonsense.

    1. Re:fake news by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Is this rambling available in English?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:fake news by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Is this rambling available in English?

      No, because that would make it's incoherence even more obvious.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  30. Not just two test masses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While graviton fields are conservative, they are not uniform at all. The discrepancy can be easily explained by the existence of nearby massive objects that are not creating a completely uniform, symmetric field with respect to the experiment.

    I would think the presence of the Sun or Moon could easily sway the readings on the order of 10^-12 in such an experiment.

  31. ...but this is a crap measurement (currently) by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Except that this is really a bit of a crap measurement so far. The large discrepancy between the two measured values means that neither can be trusted with much accuracy. If you take the difference between the two values as due to an unknown systematic error, which seems likely, then the uncertainty you get (500 ppm) is MUCH larger than the currently quoted uncertainty on G which is 46 ppm.

    While the individual measurements may be very precise the clear systematic difference between the two means that neither is very accurate. Until they identify and fix the source of this systematic difference the measurement is worse than the one we currently have.

    1. Re:...but this is a crap measurement (currently) by SandorZoo · · Score: 2

      Except that this is really a bit of a crap measurement so far. The large discrepancy between the two measured values means that neither can be trusted with much accuracy. If you take the difference between the two values as due to an unknown systematic error, which seems likely, then the uncertainty you get (500 ppm) is MUCH larger than the currently quoted uncertainty on G which is 46 ppm.

      This aren't the only measurements that have done that. They are all over the place. There'a nice chart at the top of this page. As the Wikipedia page you linked to says:

      Some measurements published in the 1980s to 2000s were, in fact, mutually exclusive. Establishing a standard value for G with a standard uncertainty better than 0.1% has therefore remained rather speculative.

    2. Re:...but this is a crap measurement (currently) by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And that _is_ something interesting! Why are these measurements all over the place? Nobody knows at this time.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:...but this is a crap measurement (currently) by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Most likely because gravity is incredibly weak making measuring its coupling exceedingly hard to do because any gravitational effect can be very easily overshadowed by EM effects. I suspect this leads to many of these experiments underestimating their uncertainties.

  32. Re: Bullshit!!! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    If any of these forces could explain gravity, it would be unified by now.

    That is simply not true. Gravity becomes as strong as the other forces are energies of 10^18 GeV (or about 100 million million times higher in energy than the LHC). We have literally no idea what physics goes on at that energy scale and it might well be possible that there is a single, unified force of which gravity is one aspect.

    The incredible weakness of gravity (it is MUCH weaker than the weak force) means that we know almost nothing about its fundamental nature at the moment. We don't even have a working, testable theory yet.

  33. Physics by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Photons do have mass and both cause gravity and are affected by gravity.

    Photons do not have a mass. If they did then the EM force would be short range like the weak force (whose bosons do have mass).

    Photons don't come from matter unless antimatter is involved.

    Have a look up in the sky (provided you are not in the UK or Seattle). See that bright shiny thing there? That's the sun. Notice how it is emitting photons? There is no antimatter involved. It emits photons because it is really hot, just like old incandescent light bulbs (they did not use antimatter either!).

    1. Re: Physics by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Only photons at rest have no mass. Unfortunately we haven't found any. All photons we know of have energy and thus mass.

    2. Re:Physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reactions in the sun do release antimatter.

      The sun is also really hot, and heat is kinetic energy. The kinetic energy becomes photons. Matter does not become photons unless it comes in contact with antimatter. Photons do not become matter without also becoming antimatter at the same time.

    3. Re:Physics by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      The reactions in the sun do release antimatter.

      Yes, but the photons of visible light that you can see coming from the matter in the sun have absolutely nothing to do with the production of antimatter.

      Matter does not become photons

      The original quote was "Photons don't come from matter unless antimatter is involved."...and photons most definitely DO come from matter without any anti-matter being involved. If you heat up atomic matter sufficiently the collisions will promote bound electrons into higher orbitals and cause them to emit photons when they transition back. Hence photons can literally come from matter without any anti-matter being involved whatsoever.

      However, when it comes to creating matter from photons without antimatter we know that this process almost certainly does happen but we still do not know exactly how. The matter-antimatter imbalance of the universe requires something like this to exist (from the Sakaharov conditions on the Big Bang).

    4. Re:Physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trying one more time, the energy in the photons did not used to be matter, but rather used to be kinetic energy.

      I was originally refuting the claim that "A photon must be the same stuff as the matter it came from" by pointing out that all of the matter is still present while the kinetic energy is now gone. Seems the phrase "came from" is so imprecise as to be useless for internet discussion.

      Photons creating matter without antimatter has never been observed. Probably the antimatter is just elsewhere, but I admit there may be some other cause for the imbalance.

    5. Re:Physics by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Trying one more time, the energy in the photons did not used to be matter, but rather used to be kinetic energy.

      Well, technically that is still wrong. The kinetic energy is converted into mass-energy by exciting an atom in a collision, converting it into mass-energy. The photons are then emitted from the excited state of an atom transitioning to a less excited state. The mass of an excited state of an atom is slightly greater than that of the unexcited state by the energy of the photon emitted. Normally we do not worry about this mass difference because it is at the eV level while the atom's mass is at the GeV/c^2 level. However, in nuclear reactions where the photons are at the MeV energy region the mass difference is noticeable.

      Regarding the original claim gravity couples to 4-momentum and this is something that both photons and matter both have a 4-momentum. So, in that sense, as far as gravity is concerned it is "of the same stuff" if you take 4-momentum to be the "stuff".

  34. Re:Records are relics of the past. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Records are relics of the past"...said the pathetic loser who never achieved record-level status in anything.

  35. Scientific notation? by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

    Five hundred parts per million. Hundred billionths. Ten parts per million.

    In the following years, researchers would invent a clear and compact way of representing these numbers.

  36. Re: Allais Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can't explain why pendulums swing differently during a solar eclipse, you're not done.

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.

    Energeian Planes!

  37. Re: Allais Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, given that most of the experiments prepared to measure it never discovered anything (including the most ambitious one in 1999)... it's difficult to explain something for what you do not have measurements, for what we know it's not happening at all.

  38. Re:Records are relics of the past. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Low density analog information stored by scratching a fragile material and readable only with special equipment. Records are terrible and our future will be better without them.

    There is currently a CIA, NSA installation in Nevada and California deep underground. The purposes of this installation is not to hide gray aliens. Down there the US government has secretly installed huge earthen ware drums with sensitive microphones attached to see if the Chinese and North Korea are secretly tunneling under the Pacific to plant nukes under US cities. That is why Donald is not concerned about what "rocket man" is doing, he is concerned however about making sure there is no gap in the Pacific drilling by the Chinese and Korea to undermine the base of American cities. The more Americans think they are smarter than everyone else in the world the more the credibility of our democracy is undermined. YOU DUMB ASS!!!

    Chinese scientists investigating the measurement of micro gravity indicates that they are undertaking other important experiments in many fields that could use the data. FOR instance the physics necessary for the advancement of outer space propulsion systems on satellite systems.

    Do not assume that Chinese people are not interested in science, the arts and to a very great extent the peace and security that cooperative useful science can bring to us all. Especially when the war mongering idiots who rule this planet are finally put in their place. AND I AM NOT JUST talking about Lord Donald, Vladimir, Kim or Winny The Pooh. I mean all the idiots who think they are smarter than everyone else and manipulate others for to appease their inadequacies as humans.
    Written and edited by a relic from the past , the real Deviated_Prevert an ex slashdot login that has been hacked! If this post is modified in any way the modifications will be recorded.

  39. Re:Bullshit!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The weak force cannot explain gravity because it is too weak.

    This is false, the weak force cannot explain gravity because it is too strong.

    Gravity is by far the weakest force, the only reason we know it exists at all, is because it doesn't cancel out over long distances like all the other forces do.

    Btw, just to illustrate, EM pushes two electrons away, while gravity pulls them together. We usually ignore this second effect, the reason we do is because its strength is on the order of 10^-40 in comparison.

  40. Re: Records are relics of the past. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fear not, all-seeing Donald Trump is sending brave weirdo Elon Musk in his patented PedoTuneller (tm) to intercept them.

  41. Re: Bullshit!!! by bestweasel · · Score: 1

    Electrons exist, for some uncertain definition of existence.

  42. Re: Allais Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is out there if you look for it, especially if you read French.

    Or, you can see it, in the anomalous red and blurred inner edges of the moon during the solar eclipse.

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/how-scientists-predicted-corona-s-appearance-during-aug-21-2017-total-solar-eclipse

    https://vimeo.com/230976895

    The powerful delusion can be further detected in the seasonal changing of sunlight, particularly the winter sunlight. You find it when you realize the lie in the widespread belief that the 'tilt' or 'angle' of the sun is the reason for the change. When you realize the word planet comes from the same old greek root for planes.

  43. Re:TDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See? Look at this shit right here. This mindset is systemic on slashdot. When people use their own preference for their epistemic methodology, their measure of what constitutes true knowledge, a rectified logic structure is created.

    It works the same as an AC/DC converter. No matter what the input, the output is the same.

    If someone brings up Trump: must be a Trump supporter that I get to hate on. If someone doesn't: must be a Trump supporter that I get to hate on. Someone brings up a point I don't like: Russian troll or bot. Someone disagrees with me: Russian troll or bot.

    Even when we have articles on the frontpage about how stupid AI is people will still claim that nuanced language was written by a machine. Even when that poster makes a true claim about how slashdot isn't worth the time anymore and loses huge amounts of traffic every year and has done so for many years, oh it must be a troll from a non-western nation or a bot trying to influence me, I better dig in my heels and ignore reality to combat this threat. Nevermind the true statement of sliding into irrelevance is sufficient evidence to show that no one gives a shit about what happens on this website.

    If anyone bothers to read this, please do yourself a favor and abandon this website. If you want anti-Trump news you can get it nearly everywhere everyday. If you want to argue with Trump supporters, there are many better places. Think of the precious time you have in your life. Make the most of it. Invest it where you get the best return.

  44. Re:Bullshit!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops, my mistake. I oversimplified the weak force to the point of being incorrect.

  45. Re: Bullshit!!! by jd · · Score: 1

    I have no problem with a grand unified theory. I have a problem with it being based on the electron, which exhibits none of the behaviour you describe.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  46. Re: Bullshit!!! by jd · · Score: 1

    They have mass, energy, spin, charge.

    Now, how we define "exist" is a bit more ambiguous. I rather like the idea that the physical universe is emergent and a product of mathematics. "Exist" in this sense still means physical, it just means we have to be cautious if we examine closer than that.

    I also like M-Theory, where electrons are the protrusion of a single membrane into 4D spacetime. Again, the electrons still physically exist, but individual electrons don't exist in isolation.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  47. Re: Bullshit!!! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    I have no problem with a grand unified theory. I have a problem with it being based on the electron, which exhibits none of the behaviour you describe.

    I never said that a GUT should be based on an electron - although it had better include it along with all the other fundamental particles otherwise it is wrong. What I was pointing out is that your assertion that "If any of these forces could explain gravity, it would be unified by now." is wrong. It is entirely possible (even likely) that there is a unified force which could explain both these forces and gravity that we do yet know about.

  48. Mass is Invariant by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Only photons at rest have no mass....All photons we know of have energy and thus mass.

    You cannot have both! Mass is a Lorentz invariant i.e. it is exactly the same in all inertial reference frames. If a photon at rest has no mass then it must have zero mass at any energy. Just because a particle has energy does not mean it has any mass because the energy can be kinetic energy instead of mass-energy. Mass is literally the energy of the particle when it is a rest and, as you point out, a photon at rest would have no energy and hence no mass.

    1. Re:Mass is Invariant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only rest mass is Lorentz invariant. Mass in general is not.

      If a photon at rest has no rest mass then it must have zero rest mass at any energy.

      Anything with energy does have mass. Any kind of energy works.

      Only a small amount of all mass is rest mass (unless both they are correct about the amount of dark matter and it turns out to have a large percentage of rest mass). Leptons (including electrons and neutrinos) seem to have rest mass that is mostly or completely rest mass, but they are relatively light. Hadrons (including protons and neutrons) seem to have rest mass that is mostly gluons and kinetic energy rather than actual rest mass. Photons have no rest mass.

    2. Re:Mass is Invariant by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Only rest mass is Lorentz invariant. Mass in general is not.

      The only mass used in physics is rest mass because it is the only one which has any physical meaning. Relativistic mass has absolutely no physical validity and comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how relativity works. Einstein warned against using it. The gamma factor in relativistic momentum comes from the relativistic definition of velocity being different to what classically we think of as velocity. This is because relativity mixes space and time between reference frames and velocity depends on both.

      If it very easy to see that relativistic mass has no physical meaning if, instead of momentum, you look at the relativistic equivalent of Newton's second law...it is absolutely not "F=gamma*ma"!

      Only a small amount of all mass is rest mass

      In physics, all mass is rest mass. This is the only definition of mass which makes any physical sense.

      Hadrons (including protons and neutrons) seem to have rest mass that is mostly gluons and kinetic energy rather than actual rest mass.

      Rest mass is rest mass: it is literally the energy of a particle when it is at rest. What you are discussing are the sources of this rest mass which, in the case of some hadrons, is mainly due to the binding energy of the quarks (the energy of the QCD field between them). This is not the case for all hadrons though - ones including b or even c-quarks can be dominated by the mass of the quarks which itself comes from their coupling to the vacuum's Higgs field.

  49. Re: Records are relics of the past. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fear not, all-seeing Donald Trump is sending brave weirdo Elon Musk in his patented PedoTuneller (tm) to intercept them.

    Well played, for a shill sycophant. The truth does not hurt, it heals. Even when some still at the helm try to cover up extreme military secrets from the second world war!

  50. According to Bloomberg, citing people with knowled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Bloomberg, citing people with knowledge of the deal, Google purchased "a stockpile of Mastercard transactions" that allowed Google advertisers to see whether the ads they ran online led to a sale at a physical store in the U.S. This arrangement was never shared with the public. From the report:

  51. Is this Gizmodo's standard? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    This might have had something to do with the string used for the pendulum.

    Well, "Doh!", it took me about 3 minutes once I'd downloaded the paper (using my OpenAthens login via my professional body) to establish that in one of the two experiments (time-of-swing) they used a fused silica "piece of string", and in the other (angular-acceleration-feedback) they used a tungsten "piece of string". There were other treatments (e.g. a conductive germanium-bismuth coating on the silica fibres to reduce noise from stray electric charge on the suspension fibre.

    That such a vital part of the experimental forms differs is ... well, it's an obvious target to change when addressing the question of "why do the values from the two machines and methods differ?" I'd need to do more than a 3 minute scan of the paper (and Extended Data) to try to work out why they chose these two designs, but I think that'd be a damned good place to start.

    I note that their "Quality" factor for their silica fibres is higher than for their tungsten fibres. So they must have damned good reasons for using the tungsten. Also, Cavendish (who developed this method - it's good to see a 1798 paper being referenced 220 years later) used fused silica suspensory wires, again suggesting there is a damned good reason to use Tungsten in one of the apparati .

    Gizmodo - a "piece of string"? Really. Is this the level of popular science reporting in the US? I'm so glad I don't waste reading time on it. In fact, I think the only time I see it mentioned is here.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  52. Re: TDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet here you are writing pages of nonsense.