Like Mark, I heard about the new Earth-like planet and immediately wondered at the power of general relativity. I suspect this puts us in the minority.

I was simply completely taken aback at the observational power required to see this effect, considering the tiny effect that gravitational lensing has when planetary masses are the source.

And sorry, I couldn’t resist:

“You can always count on Albert”

As true in physics as it is in baseball.

There is one thing I don’t understand about this microlensing. Presumably the distance from the planet to the red dwarf it orbits is very much less than the distance from the red dwarf to the star whose light is lensed?

If so, why does the effect of the mass of the planet vary as it moves through its orbit? Considering the large distances involved (again, this is a presumption) how can the planet and the red dwarf be “resolved” into separate bodies?

Sorry if this is not terribly clear, I’m not sure how to express it any better. (And I haven’t read Quantoken’s comment, but I can’t imagine the answer is contained therein – forgive me if it is.)

Hi Poppycock. It is remarkable, I agree.

Not sure what’s the right level for you, but here’s a technical article explaining the technique

http://bustard.phys.nd.edu/MPS/emplanet.pdf

I think the point is that as the two bodies pass across the line of sight, the relative positions of the star and the planet (if you like, the geometry of the two body system) change. This leads to small variations in the light curve expected from just a star alone. I expect they then fit this data to a model of a planet orbiting a star and play with the planetary mass and orbital parameters to get the best fit. (If any true experts on the details are reading, please chirp in here).

It is a difficult measurement, and has only become useful (for planet finding) in the last couple of years or so. See the link below for an earlier New Scientist article.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4889

(By the way, I deleted the earlier comment you referred to, not because it is dissenting, but because that commenter has been asked not to comment at all here after repeated poor and disruptive behavior)

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the article. If I understood correctly they talk a bit about why the point-lens approximation is (incredibly) not appropriate.

GR never fails to impress – mathematically and in application!

Thanks

Considering the large distances involved (again, this is a presumption) how can the planet and the red dwarf be “resolved” into separate bodies?

I don’t think my previous comment addressed this as directly as I would have liked, so I’ll try again.

The foreground system is moving relative to the background system. First, the planet’s parent star lenses the background star causing a prolonged (several weks) brightening due to its relatively large mass. As the star passes and its lens effect diminishes, the planet moves between us and the background star, causing a shorter (1 day or so), much smaller brightening.

That time delay is how the planet is resolved from its parent star.

At length scales of a cm and higher. Direct probes of gravity allow large extra dimensions up to tenths of millimeters, ne?

According to the two articles linked below, apparently modern techniques have confirmed Newton’s inverse-square law to distances at least as small as a few hundred microns, maybe smaller. I think, anyway…

I guess Hoyle, et al. claim they’ve got the measurement down to about 160µ for at least one large extra dimension, and 195µ for “Yukawa interaction”, whatever those are…

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0405262

Ah, I guess the Yukawa interaction in this case has to do with the coupling of matter fields with the Higgs field…

Thanks Mark. As I said, I didn’t really have time to read it properly but you’re right, it did seem to be needlessly confrontational.

Has anyone noticed that general relativity does not jive with vortex dynamics, even though the sun and planets follow the laws of vortex dynamics? We all know that the planets are orbiting the sun in a counterclockwise fashion with the sun as a foci. Consider any two of the planets as Mass A and Mass B (just two to simplify this but any number of masses will do.) Vortex dynamics says that the two masses orbit around a foci because they are caught in each other’s flow fields, and the foci is the RESULT of them being in each other’s flow fields. If you were to take away the two rotating masses then the foci between them would also disappear and in fact, the foci would not exist in the first place without the two orbiting masses that create it.
General relativity says the sun bends spacetime and gravity is the result, but according to the actual engineering law covering the motion of the sun and the planets, the PLANETS (masses A and B) create gravity because they are caught in each other’s flow fields and the foci between them, the sun, is the RESULT of this mutual attraction between the planets. And since vortex dynamics are LAW and general relativity is THEORY this should be taken as a serious flaw in how we view the solar system.
James Vanyo’s book ROTATING FLUIDS IN ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE has a great chapter on vortex dynamics.
BK (reached at a cool little lady’s email joanbayles@hotmail.com)

When vortex dynamics are applied to the solar system, as the field certainly is since it is nothing more really than looking at objects from the point of view of their spin direction and their size and how it relates them to each other. General relativity itself of course does not change, but our view of the solar system, when using general relativity does not take into account the complexities encountered when the the whole solar system is viewed as one big vortex, all spinning counterclockwise, like water in a drain with the sun in the drain hole. It is not as crude a comparison as one might think, because it shows us how connected every component of the solar system is, how dependent each component is on the others.
When two objects the same size spin in the same direction they cannot bind together and will create a foci point between them; mars and earth are somewhat comparable in size for instance, rotating counterclockwise and have the sun foci between them. But if mars, say, were to turn clockwise with earth close by then instead of a foci between them the pair would coalesce and move forward in one direction instead of in a nearly circular orbit. The point is that spin direction is very important. Electrons are the same size but they repel each other, not doubt because they all spin counterclockwise as components of a counterclockwise moving body, earth. Only when one of the electrons spins clockwise can it create an entangled electron. Gravity studies and equations must include the spin direction of the masses to be complete.

Let’s deal with spacetime fabric, mathematically so as to get rid of the “crudeness.” General relativity says spacetime fabric is composed of the sun in the center, bending the fabric of spacetime, and the planets on the outer edge of the spacetime fabric. Spacetime then is composed of no less than these three things; planet/masses on the outer edge (all of which happen to be moving counterclockwise,) the sun/foci in the center of them, and the fabric itself.

When we speak of entangled electrons which vortex dynamics says can only be entangled because one of the electrons moves counterclockwise and the other clockwise, we notice they do not have a foci between them; they would have to both be moving the same direction to have a foci. Therefore entangled electrons do not meet the criteria for existing in spacetime because they have no foci, one of general relativity’s three requirements. So what is the mathematical formula for spacetime? It is one that encompasses the sun, planets and the spacetime amongst them.
Vortex dynamics has the equation to describe a vortical unit as “Mass 1 + Mass 2, M1>M2 and both spinning the same direction and creating a foci between them, divided by the distance squared between them,” and this distance is measured from the center of each mass. If we call mass 1 earth and mass 2 mars, and the distance squared between them (measured from their centers) and containing their foci between them, the sun, then this equation from vortex dynamics describes general relativity but in a more precise manner. More precise because masses 1 and 2 are attracting each other because they are caught in each other’s flow fields (gravitation defined,) and the foci of their attraction, the sun, is quite electromagnetic don’t you think? Electromagnetism and gravitation are together in one vortical motion law! So there is every reason to consider vortical law when considering general relativity and again, this view does not contradict science because the solar system is already a vortex and so already falls under the mathematical law of vortex dynamics, but it goes further in explaining the workings of spacetime.

>E S

Occum’s-the simplest is correct. Crackpots quote theorists when simple LAW- vortical law, undisputable LAW which the solar system follows- is all that is needed.
Relativity has something wrong with it, otherwise it would match up with quantum. Its well known that the problem lies somewhere in relativity, not quantum, so relativity has something illogical going on and when spin is added to its equation it makes much more sense. If the sun were a gravitating body following the same laws as the planets, then where is the foci between it and the planets that vortical LAW says MUST be present? There is no scientific dispute that the solar system follows vortical law.
In these matters one must stick to law, not quotes that have no law backing them.

Here’s another one. Light contains energy, even when it is cold. According to relativity this energy should have generated mass and the mass should have generated gravity, but it does not and the reason why is not understood. UNLESS, of course, its role as the foci of two bodies is examined. Vortical law states the foci owes its existence to the masses surrounding it; take away the two masses and their foci disappears, therefore the foci does not have its own gravity, it is in essence “borrowing” its existence from the masses rotating about it.
Protons and electrons exchange photons so that the proton may hold the electron nearby (Feynman, Six Easy Pieces.) We aren’t studying protons and electrons in outer space somewhere, it’s being done right here on counterclockwise spinning earth, making protons and electrons actual constituents of earth therefore rotating with it. So the proton is rotating counterclockwise, the electron is rotating counterclockwise- lo and behold! hardly a coincidence that a photon, light, is found between these bodies.

Indeed, the LAWS are revealed and the machinery is simple. Its predictions are quite measurable.

Vortex dynamics is a science built on laws not theories. It is already in the public domain so any observations about it are just that, not new theories. I’m sure the alpha in all of us is looking for a new theory to name after ourselves! but the observations I bring up here are not new and anyone can look them up.

For instance. It is fact that our solar system rotates and is considered a vortex. Are usual concept of our solar system is that we are out here in space floating all alone in an isolated manner. But a theorem attributed to Helmholtz says that a vortex filament (also called a vortex tube, the small end of the vortex) cannot end in a fluid. It must extend to infinity, form a closed loop (like a smoke ring) or end at a solid wall of some sort. What does the vortex tube for our solar system do? We don’t resemble a smoke ring so we probably aren’t forming a closed loop. If our vortex tube extends to infinity so much the better, since this would solve the mystery of why so many of our equations result in infinity. String theory has been so popular because it resolves infinity but since it is riddled with problems many think it is likely not the answer.
There are so many stars in the night sky and if each one represents the foci of a vortex, as our solar system does, then each star has a vortex tube extending from it and coursing through space. Trillions of vortex tubes…could this be dark matter?