Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report
From: Mark Martin (qed100_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Uncle Al: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Next in thread: Lady Chatterly: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Reply: Lady Chatterly: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Reply: Uncle Al: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Mar 2005 08:10:53 -0800
Uncle Al wrote:
> > That's a truly deep insight. In this sense alone the experiment is
also
> > a test of the equivalence principle, of general relativity, under
> > extreme conditions.
>
> How do you figure that? If the EP were violated by 10% or it were
> not, what difference would it make in the cited example? If GR were
> incorrect by 10% or it were not, what difference would it make in the
> cited example?
To be more clear, the specific experimental run may or may not have the
precision to do so. I was more in the mindset of suddenly being shown
something that was dangling in front of me all this time, that high
energy accelerators may, at least in principle, be used to create
extreme "gravitational" conditions. It's cool.
-Mark Martin
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Uncle Al: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Next in thread: Lady Chatterly: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Reply: Lady Chatterly: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Reply: Uncle Al: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
