Gravity waves detected in the local region. (was Re: Polarity of the local field?)
Ralph E. Frost
> Paul Arendt wrote:
> > It's a bit more complicated than that. A "pole" is just a region of
> > concentrated magnetic field lines going into or out of a magnetized
> > object. On the Sun, these can appear and disappear on the timescale
> > of a few days or weeks. (The above sites have more information than
> > I can provide here.) But there are general trends with how the
> > magnetic fields are oriented, and these switch polarity during the
> > different phases of the solar cycle.
The "magnetic" character of these spots is just what people can _see,
gauge or measure_ - like an observable. The spots are simply some type
of paired convergence point in several levels of the underlying field
systems. People and other scientists just happen to call the spots,
"magnetic poles". They are that, but they are _also_ evidence of MORE
than that.
> Are these pairs more or less like the entry and exit points of an
> ellipse "reaching into" the sun?
>
> Also, is the 11/22 earth orbit halving related to things in the sun;
> interactions with the local planets, interactions with the enfolding
> fields the sun interacts with, all or neither?
>
> What's your best guess? I say it is mostly due to enfolding field
> interactions.
Hey Paul!!
Recently, I found the following quote published in the July issue of
JSD,
"...the solar maxima/sunspot/polarity shift cycle
is direct evidence of gravity waves in
our local region".
That's right. Nature and the JSD article both show that gravity waves in
the local region, at this mass-density, have an apparent wavelength of
about 22 Earth orbits, aka, one solar cycle. Cool, huh?
Is this a common association known in this manner to informed
physicists?
It sounds strange at first but then I started seeing the sense in it.
Gravity waves are dynamic. Consider the record etched in the geologic
record. Every 22 light-years, the local field shifts.
Comments are encouraged and welcome.
Thanks for all your help!
Best regards,
Ralph E. Frost
John Baez
Ralph E. Frost <sci.physic...@agate-ether.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Recently, I found the following quote published in the July issue of
>JSD,
>
> "...the solar maxima/sunspot/polarity shift cycle
> is direct evidence of gravity waves in
> our local region".
What's the "JSD"? Could you give me a reference for this article?
I'm worried that you or they may be mixing up "gravity waves" and
"gravitational waves". These are completely different phenomena!
1) A "gravity wave" is a wave in the earth's atmosphere, analogous
to a large wave in the ocean, in that the restoring force that
keeps the waves going is the earth's gravity. More generally
one can speak of a gravity wave in the atmosphere of any planet,
or for that matter in the atmosphere of thus sun.
Gravity waves are comparatively easy to study. For some pictures
of gravity waves in the earth's atmosphere see:
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/misc/980319.html
http://whirlwind100.nssl.noaa.gov/~spc/coolimg/gwavepix.htm
2) A "gravitational wave" is a wave in the spacetime metric,
predicted to exist by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
There is no direct evidence for their existence; the main piece
of indirect experiment is the experiment of Hulse and Taylor on
the decay of the orbit of a binary pulsar. Currently people
are building a number of devices in order to detect gravitational
waves.
For the LIGO project to detect gravitational waves, see:
Now, the situation is slightly confused by the tendency for
people to colloquially call gravitational waves "gravity waves",
but the important thing is that we have two utterly different
phenomena here.
I can easily imagine gravity waves in the Sun's atmosphere being
relevant to sunspots. However, I wouldn't get excited about this
as "direct evidence of gravity waves in our local region", unless
I happened to live on the Sun, because we have plenty of easily
visible gravity waves much closer to home! - namely, in the Earth's
atmosphere. So I have trouble imagining that that JSD article
is trying to say, unless they are using "gravity wave" to mean
"gravitational wave".
On the other hand....
I cannot imagine gravitational waves being relevant to sunspots
or the solar cycle! First of all, gravitational waves are far
too weak to have any noticeable effect. Secondly, if they did
have an effect, it would have to be the best-kept secret on the
planet, because lots of people are spending millions of dollars to
detect gravitational waves, and all these people are under the
impression that gravitational waves have not yet been seen.
So either way, I don't understand what this quote is trying to
say.
John Baez
>In article <37D36CA...@dcwi.com>,
>Ralph E. Frost <sci.physic...@agate-ether.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>Recently, I found the following quote published in the July issue of
>>JSD,
>> "...the solar maxima/sunspot/polarity shift cycle
>> is direct evidence of gravity waves in
>> our local region".
>What's the "JSD"? Could you give me a reference for this article?
>I'm worried that you or they may be mixing up "gravity waves" and
>"gravitational waves". These are completely different phenomena!
After I posted this, I found out that the "JSD" is Ralph Frost's
own personal journal, the "Journal of Structured Duality". Heh.
Cute.
Aleksandr Timofeev
[snip]
>
> " 2) A "gravitational wave" is a wave in the spacetime metric,
> predicted to exist by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
> There is no direct evidence for their existence; the main piece
> of indirect experiment is the experiment of Hulse and Taylor on
> the decay of the orbit of a binary pulsar. Currently people
> are building a number of devices in order to detect gravitational
>
Can you summarize what the implications of direct measurement
of speed of gravitational interaction of substance are in a short
paragraph - perhaps geared for laymen like me?
I'm not sure I understand what is implied here. (Why so - c?)
So either way, I don't understand what this quote is trying to
say.
[snip]
---
Aleksandr Timofeev
http://solar.cini.utk.edu/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/
P.S. Some additional information -
In 1904 Henri Poincaré lectured at the St. Louis Exposition
about the concepts of SR and GR.
Always deeply interested in the philosophy of science,
Henri Poincaré wrote:
1. La Science et l'hypothèse (1903; Science and Hypothesis),
2. La Valeur de la science (1905; The Value of Science),
3. Science et méthode (1908; Science and Method), Paris,
Flammarion, 13 mille 1914, 14 mille 1918
These three writings can be found in:
The Foundations of Science,
containing Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science,
and Science and Method, trans. by George Bruce Halsted,
Lancaster(Pa), Science press, cop. 1946
4. Dernières pensées (1913);
This writing can be found in:
Mathematics and Science: Last Essays,
trans. by John W. Bolduc, New York, Dover, cop. 1963
Aleksandr Timofeev
John Baez
Aleksandr Timofeev <t...@alpha.dnttm.rssi.ru> wrote:
>John Baez wrote:
>> " 2) A "gravitational wave" is a wave in the spacetime metric,
>> predicted to exist by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
>> There is no direct evidence for their existence; the main piece
>> of indirect experiment is the experiment of Hulse and Taylor on
>> the decay of the orbit of a binary pulsar. Currently people
>> are building a number of devices in order to detect gravitational
>> waves. ..."
> Can you summarize what the implications of direct measurement
>of speed of gravitational interaction of substance are in a short
>paragraph - perhaps geared for laymen like me?
First of all, general relativity predicts that if a object wiggles
back and forth, it emits "gravitational waves": ripples in the
geometry of spacetime, which propagate at the speed of light.
In theory, these should be detectable by accurately measuring
the distance between two objects and seeing how the distance
oscillates as the gravitational wave passes by. Currently people
are hard at work building gravitational wave detectors such as
LIGO and VIRGO, in order to do precisely this! These will be
working in a few years, and as time goes by, people will keep
improving their sensitivity. These detectors will not measure
the speed of gravitational waves - instead, they will determine
whether they exist, how strong they are, and where they are coming
from.
There is so much evidence for general relativity that few
physicists doubt the existence of gravitational waves. This
is especially true because the Nobel-prize-winning experiment
of Hulse and Taylor gives excellent *indirect* evidence for
gravitational waves. What's really interesting about gravitational
waves is not so much whether they exist, or what their speed is,
but whether we can use them to learn things about astronomy.
People hope that gravitational wave detectors will be
especially useful for studying collisions between neutron stars
and/or black holes. LIGO has been designed so that under
conservative assumptions it should see one or two neutron
star collisions per year. But there may also be sources of
gravitational radiation that we don't know about yet!
Regnirps
>In article <37D7E1...@alpha.dnttm.rssi.ru>,
>Aleksandr Timofeev <t...@alpha.dnttm.rssi.ru> wrote:
>>John Baez wrote:
>>> " 2) A "gravitational wave" is a wave in the spacetime metric,
>>> predicted to exist by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
>>> There is no direct evidence for their existence; the main piece
>>> of indirect experiment is the experiment of Hulse and Taylor on
>>> the decay of the orbit of a binary pulsar. Currently people
>>> are building a number of devices in order to detect gravitational
>>> waves. ..."
>> Can you summarize what the implications of direct measurement
>>of speed of gravitational interaction of substance are in a short
>>paragraph - perhaps geared for laymen like me?
>First of all, general relativity predicts that if a object wiggles
>back and forth, it emits "gravitational waves": ripples in the
>geometry of spacetime, which propagate at the speed of light.
I don't think shaking back and forth will do the trick. You are thinking of
electrons and E&M and dipole moments. Gravitational radiation has to come from
a process with a quadrupole moment meaning roughly not sysmetric. e.g. a
spherically collapsing star and supernova don't make g waves. It has to have
rotation or some other factor.
Anyway, you would think shaking a mass back and forth might work, but I suspect
that the "shaker" plus the "shakee" become a dipole with no traceless
quadrupole moment. Now, a spinning dumbell is another case, especially if it is
a couple of neutron stars very close together and I think it helps even more if
their masses are a bit unequal. Generally, the more chaotic a system the
greater the quadrupole moment. If there is radial sysmetry, no radiation.
Charlie Springer
Aleksandr Timofeev
ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote:
> In article <37D7E1...@alpha.dnttm.rssi.ru>,
> Aleksandr Timofeev <t...@alpha.dnttm.rssi.ru> wrote:
> >John Baez wrote:
>
> >> " 2) A "gravitational wave" is a wave in the spacetime metric,
> >> predicted to exist by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
> >> There is no direct evidence for their existence; the main piece
> >> of indirect experiment is the experiment of Hulse and Taylor on
> >> the decay of the orbit of a binary pulsar. Currently people
> >> are building a number of devices in order to detect gravitational
> >> waves. ..."
>
> > Can you summarize what the implications of direct measurement
> >of speed of gravitational interaction of substance are in a short
> >paragraph - perhaps geared for laymen like me?
>
> First of all, general relativity predicts that if a object wiggles
> back and forth, it emits "gravitational waves": ripples in the
> geometry of spacetime, which propagate at the speed of light.
>
What do you think of the Henry Poincare's concepts about a role of
geometry in the description of interactions between bodies by inherings
to the system of many bodies?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.