info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
LIGO
158 views
Skip to first unread message
furthermo...@gmail.com
Jun 12, 2018, 1:29:13 PM6/12/18
to
The Caltech-MIT Laser Interferometric Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) (2009) experimentally detected celestial gravitational waves produced by a pulsar using a laser interferometer that forms a strain of 10-21 that represents the armature length contraction of 10-18 m which is less than the diameter of an electron and within the measurement uncertainty in determine the length of the armature.
Tom Roberts
Jun 12, 2018, 10:59:00 PM6/12/18
to
they do know that the length of each arm, measured with a bandwidth of a
few Hz, is N*𝛌/2, where 𝛌 is the wavelength of their laser, and N is
an integer on the order of 8 billion. They don't know the exact value of
N, and it is different for the two arms, but they do know it is an
integer for each of them because they servo the arm lengths to such a
value (any such value within the range of the servo). Due to the design
of their measurement, they don't need to know the value of N; they
measure variations in the difference in the lengths of the arms, modulo
𝛌, in a bandwidth that goes from a few tens of Hz up to a few thousand Hz.
BTW there are many more organizations in the LIGO
collaboration than the two you mentioned. And it
started long before 2009, is still VERY active
today, and will be for many years to come -- it is
just starting to get VERY interesting....
Tom Roberts
furthermo...@gmail.com
Jun 13, 2018, 2:09:35 PM6/13/18
to
Yes, the length of the arms is not known to nearly that accuracy. But
they do know that the length of each arm, measured with a bandwidth of a
few Hz, is N*𝛌/2, where 𝛌 is the wavelength of their laser, and N is
an integer on the order of 8 billion. They don't know the exact value of
N, and it is different for the two arms, but they do know it is an
integer for each of them because they servo the arm lengths to such a
value (any such value within the range of the servo). Due to the design
of their measurement, they don't need to know the value of N; they
measure variations in the difference in the lengths of the arms, modulo
𝛌, in a bandwidth that goes from a few tens of Hz up to a few thousand Hz.
___________________________________________
they do know that the length of each arm, measured with a bandwidth of a
few Hz, is N*𝛌/2, where 𝛌 is the wavelength of their laser, and N is
an integer on the order of 8 billion. They don't know the exact value of
N, and it is different for the two arms, but they do know it is an
integer for each of them because they servo the arm lengths to such a
value (any such value within the range of the servo). Due to the design
of their measurement, they don't need to know the value of N; they
measure variations in the difference in the lengths of the arms, modulo
𝛌, in a bandwidth that goes from a few tens of Hz up to a few thousand Hz.
So tell us.
Odd Bodkin
Jun 13, 2018, 2:40:53 PM6/13/18
to
answer on a discussion forum, wait for others to correct your post.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
numbernu...@gmail.com
Jun 13, 2018, 5:57:28 PM6/13/18
to
es, the length of the arms is not known to nearly that accuracy.. But
an integer on the order of 8 billion. .They don't know the exact value of
of their measurement, they don't need to know the value of N;. they
measure variations in the difference in the lengths of the arms,. modulo
𝛌, in a bandwidth that goes from a few tens of Hz up to a few thousand Hz..
__________________________________________________________________
The problem is that you are using the interferometer to justify the 10^-18 m measurement variation which is similar to an incident that occurred to me. I was in a grocery store and a six year old little boy had a baseball glove that was an adult size and I made a joke how he would wear the glove as a hat but he (the little boy did not think it was funny) so he said that when he was 13 year old that he was a pitcher on a baseball team his mother was about to scold him but I used my charm to start a conversation about how nice her hair looked and was able to save this little boy.
they do know that the length of each arm, measured with a bandwidth of a
few Hz, is N*𝛌/2, where 𝛌 is the wavelength of their laser,. and N is
an integer on the order of 8 billion. .They don't know the exact value of
N, and it is different for the two arms, but they do know it is an
integer for each of them because they servo the arm lengths to such a
value (any such value within the range of the servo).. Due to the design
integer for each of them because they servo the arm lengths to such a
of their measurement, they don't need to know the value of N;. they
measure variations in the difference in the lengths of the arms,. modulo
𝛌, in a bandwidth that goes from a few tens of Hz up to a few thousand Hz..
__________________________________________________________________
The problem is that you are using the interferometer to justify the 10^-18 m measurement variation which is similar to an incident that occurred to me. I was in a grocery store and a six year old little boy had a baseball glove that was an adult size and I made a joke how he would wear the glove as a hat but he (the little boy did not think it was funny) so he said that when he was 13 year old that he was a pitcher on a baseball team his mother was about to scold him but I used my charm to start a conversation about how nice her hair looked and was able to save this little boy.
furthermo...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2018, 2:00:24 PM6/14/18
to
The Laser Interferometric Gravitational-Wave Observatory LIGO depict stellar electromagnetic gravitational waves based on Maxwell's theory.
"The prediction of gravitational waves (GWs), oscillations in the space–time metric that propagate at the speed of light, is one of the most profound differences between Einstein's general theory of relativity and the Newtonian theory of gravity that it replaced." (LIGO Collaboration, § 2, 2009).
"The essence of general relativity is that mass and energy produce a curvature of four-dimensional space-time, and that matter moves in response to this curvature. The Einstein field equations prescribe the interaction between mass and space-time curvature, much as Maxwell's equations prescribe the relationship between electric charge and electromagnetic fields. Just as electromagnetic waves are time dependent vacuum solutions to Maxwell's equations, gravitational waves are time dependent vacuum solutions to the field equations." (LIGO Collaboration, § 2, 2009).
The LIGO is represented gravity with electromagnetic gravitational waves using Maxwell's equations that are derived using Faraday's induction effect that has absolutely nothing to do with gravity.
"The prediction of gravitational waves (GWs), oscillations in the space–time metric that propagate at the speed of light, is one of the most profound differences between Einstein's general theory of relativity and the Newtonian theory of gravity that it replaced." (LIGO Collaboration, § 2, 2009).
"The essence of general relativity is that mass and energy produce a curvature of four-dimensional space-time, and that matter moves in response to this curvature. The Einstein field equations prescribe the interaction between mass and space-time curvature, much as Maxwell's equations prescribe the relationship between electric charge and electromagnetic fields. Just as electromagnetic waves are time dependent vacuum solutions to Maxwell's equations, gravitational waves are time dependent vacuum solutions to the field equations." (LIGO Collaboration, § 2, 2009).
The LIGO is represented gravity with electromagnetic gravitational waves using Maxwell's equations that are derived using Faraday's induction effect that has absolutely nothing to do with gravity.
Edward Prochak
Jun 14, 2018, 2:22:01 PM6/14/18
to
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-4, furthermo...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Laser Interferometric Gravitational-Wave Observatory LIGO depict
> stellar electromagnetic gravitational waves based on Maxwell's theory.
NO, they measure gravitational waves based on General Relativity.
> The Laser Interferometric Gravitational-Wave Observatory LIGO depict
> stellar electromagnetic gravitational waves based on Maxwell's theory.
Why do you mix terms together to the point it is nonsense.
What the hell are
"stellar electromagnetic gravitational waves"?
>
>
>
> "The prediction of gravitational waves (GWs), oscillations
> in the space–time metric that propagate at the speed of light,
> is one of the most profound differences between Einstein's
> general theory of relativity and the Newtonian theory of
> gravity that it replaced." (LIGO Collaboration, § 2, 2009).
>
> "The essence of general relativity is that mass and energy
> produce a curvature of four-dimensional space-time, and that
> matter moves in response to this curvature. The Einstein
> field equations prescribe the interaction between mass and
> space-time curvature, much as Maxwell's equations prescribe
> the relationship between electric charge and electromagnetic
> fields. Just as electromagnetic waves are time dependent
> vacuum solutions to Maxwell's equations, gravitational waves
> are time dependent vacuum solutions to the field equations."
> (LIGO Collaboration, § 2, 2009).
>
>
>
> The LIGO is represented gravity with electromagnetic
> gravitational waves using Maxwell's equations that are
> derived using Faraday's induction effect that has absolutely
> nothing to do with gravity.
You seem to be specifically obfuscating the terms and
>
>
> "The prediction of gravitational waves (GWs), oscillations
> in the space–time metric that propagate at the speed of light,
> is one of the most profound differences between Einstein's
> general theory of relativity and the Newtonian theory of
> gravity that it replaced." (LIGO Collaboration, § 2, 2009).
>
> "The essence of general relativity is that mass and energy
> produce a curvature of four-dimensional space-time, and that
> matter moves in response to this curvature. The Einstein
> field equations prescribe the interaction between mass and
> space-time curvature, much as Maxwell's equations prescribe
> the relationship between electric charge and electromagnetic
> fields. Just as electromagnetic waves are time dependent
> vacuum solutions to Maxwell's equations, gravitational waves
> are time dependent vacuum solutions to the field equations."
> (LIGO Collaboration, § 2, 2009).
>
>
>
> The LIGO is represented gravity with electromagnetic
> gravitational waves using Maxwell's equations that are
> derived using Faraday's induction effect that has absolutely
> nothing to do with gravity.
claiming LIGO is wrong because of your mixed up terminology.
Learn to read.
Ed
furthermo...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2018, 2:40:05 PM6/14/18
to
"The essence of general relativity is that mass and. energy produce a curvature of four-dimensional space-time, and that matter moves in response to this curvature. The Einstein field equations prescribe. the interaction between mass and space-time curvature, much as Maxwell's equations prescribe the relationship between electric charge and electromagnetic fields.. Just as electromagnetic waves are time dependent vacuum solutions. to Maxwell's equations,. gravitational waves are time dependent vacuum solutions to the field equations.". (LIGO Collaboration, § 2, 2009).
____________________________________________________________
This statement proves they are using Maxwell's theory to depict electromagnetic gravity waves which is consistent with everything else that is based on the gauge. The problem is that radio waves do not produce a motion of the mirrors of the interferometer. IT MAY HAVE BEEN SOME KIND OF INTERNAL GAS CAUSE BY INTERNALLY DECOMPOSING Phaseolus vulgaris OF THE STELLAR INTERNAL INTESTINAL UNIVERSE.
____________________________________________________________
This statement proves they are using Maxwell's theory to depict electromagnetic gravity waves which is consistent with everything else that is based on the gauge. The problem is that radio waves do not produce a motion of the mirrors of the interferometer. IT MAY HAVE BEEN SOME KIND OF INTERNAL GAS CAUSE BY INTERNALLY DECOMPOSING Phaseolus vulgaris OF THE STELLAR INTERNAL INTESTINAL UNIVERSE.
Volney
Jun 14, 2018, 3:01:49 PM6/14/18
to
On 6/14/2018 2:40 PM, furthermo...@gmail.com wrote:
> "The essence of general relativity is that mass and. energy produce a curvature of four-dimensional space-time, and that matter moves in response to this curvature. The Einstein field equations prescribe. the interaction between mass and space-time curvature, much as Maxwell's equations prescribe the relationship between electric charge and electromagnetic fields.. Just as electromagnetic waves are time dependent vacuum solutions. to Maxwell's equations,. gravitational waves are time dependent vacuum solutions to the field equations.". (LIGO Collaboration, § 2, 2009).
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
> This statement proves they are using Maxwell's theory to depict electromagnetic gravity waves which is consistent with everything else that is based on the gauge.
NO THEY ARE NOT.
> "The essence of general relativity is that mass and. energy produce a curvature of four-dimensional space-time, and that matter moves in response to this curvature. The Einstein field equations prescribe. the interaction between mass and space-time curvature, much as Maxwell's equations prescribe the relationship between electric charge and electromagnetic fields.. Just as electromagnetic waves are time dependent vacuum solutions. to Maxwell's equations,. gravitational waves are time dependent vacuum solutions to the field equations.". (LIGO Collaboration, § 2, 2009).
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
> This statement proves they are using Maxwell's theory to depict electromagnetic gravity waves which is consistent with everything else that is based on the gauge.
First, "electromagnetic gravity waves" is gibberish. Gravitational waves
are not electromagnetic.
They wrote: "Just as electromagnetic waves are time dependent vacuum
solutions. to Maxwell's equations, gravitational waves are time
dependent vacuum solutions to the [Einstein] field equations."
That explicitly states that they are using the Einstein field equations
for gravitational waves, NOT Maxwell's equations. They are comparing the
general idea (Maxwell's equations : electromagnetism :: Einstein field
equations : gravitational waves). You claim is as wrong as if someone
said "Just as birds have feathers, mammals have hair" and someone
claimed that means mammals have feathers!
> The problem is that radio waves do not produce a motion of the mirrors of the interferometer.
> IT MAY HAVE BEEN SOME KIND OF INTERNAL GAS CAUSE BY INTERNALLY DECOMPOSING Phaseolus vulgaris OF THE STELLAR INTERNAL INTESTINAL UNIVERSE.
numbernu...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2018, 4:01:41 PM6/14/18
to
NO THEY ARE NOT..
First, "electromagnetic gravity waves". is gibberish. Gravitational waves
are not electromagnetic..
They wrote: "Just as electromagnetic waves ar.e time dependent vacuum
solutions. to Maxwell's equations,. gravitational waves are time
dependent vacuum solutions to the [Einstein] field equations." .
That explicitly states that they are using the. Einstein field equations
for gravitational waves, NOT Maxwell's equations..
__________________________________________________________________
Einstein field equations are Maxwell's equations. Wet the bed Jenny. Another Joda fist pump.
furthermo...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2018, 6:46:51 PM6/14/18
to
In Einstein's paper, "The Foundation of the Generalised Theory of Relativity" (1916), Einstein represents gravity with Maxwell's equations.
dh/dt + rot e = 0...............................................73
div h = 0...........................................................74
rot h - de'/dt = i................................................75
div e' = p"........................................................76
(Einstein5, § 20). Einstein is representing gravity with Maxwell's equations that are derived using Faraday's induction effect but a small stone that is affected by gravity is unaffected by a magnet which proves gravity is not an electromagnetic phenomenon.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 14, 2018, 7:31:12 PM6/14/18
to
> Relativity" (1916), […]
There I already stopped reading. That is _not_ one of Einstein’s papers on
general relativity; it is a *summary* of them written *after the fact*.
The original papers are here:
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/>
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/>
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-trans/>
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/>
I dare you to read *and* understand them. I strongly suggest you start with
*special* relativity (1905–1907) before you attempt to understand *general*
relativity (1907–1916).
This online course is helpful in doing that:
<https://coursera.org/learn/einstein-relativity/>
As are these physics lectures:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4&t=1583s> pp.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
There I already stopped reading. That is _not_ one of Einstein’s papers on
general relativity; it is a *summary* of them written *after the fact*.
The original papers are here:
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/>
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/>
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-trans/>
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/>
I dare you to read *and* understand them. I strongly suggest you start with
*special* relativity (1905–1907) before you attempt to understand *general*
relativity (1907–1916).
This online course is helpful in doing that:
<https://coursera.org/learn/einstein-relativity/>
As are these physics lectures:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4&t=1583s> pp.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
numbernu...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2018, 8:23:10 PM6/14/18
to
Tesla believed that radio waves (low frequencies) were longitudinal and
there is little evidence to the contrary though everyone pretends low
frequency radio waves are polarized Basically The theory is that
electromgnetic radiation is composed of. BOTH longitudinal and transverse
waves.
__________________________________________________________________
Someone acturally wrote this to me!!!!!!!!!!
there is little evidence to the contrary though everyone pretends low
frequency radio waves are polarized Basically The theory is that
electromgnetic radiation is composed of. BOTH longitudinal and transverse
waves.
__________________________________________________________________
Someone acturally wrote this to me!!!!!!!!!!
numbernu...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2018, 8:27:40 PM6/14/18
to
In Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (1905), Einstein is justifying Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light by altering the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations.
"§ 6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space. On the nature of the electromotive forces that arise upon motion in a magnetic field.
Let the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space be valid for the system at rest K, so that we have
dX/dt = dN/dy - dM/dz.................................................38
dY/dt = dL/dz - dN/dx..................................................39
dZ/dt = dM/dx - dL/dy..................................................40
......................................................................................
dL/dt = dY/dz - dZ/dy...................................................41
dM/dt = dZ/dx - dX/dz..................................................42
dN/dt = dX/dy - dY/dx..................................................43
where (X,Y,Z) denotes the vector of the electric force, and (L,M,N) that of the magnetic force." (Einstein2, § 6).
β = 1/(1 - v2/c2)1/2........................................................44
Applying equation 44 to the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations,
"X' = X.......................................... L' = L...................................................................45a,b
Y' = β[Y - (v/c)N].......................... M'= β[M + (v/c)Z]..................................................46a,b
Z' = β[Z + (v/c)M],..........................N' = β[N - (v/c)Y]"................................................47a,b
(Einstein2, § 6). Maxwell's uses Maxwell's equations (equ 2-7) in an electromagnetic theory of light (Maxwell, Part VI). Einstein justifies Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light by altering the coordinate system (inertial frame) of Maxwell's equations but altering the dimensions of Maxwell's equations does not change the fact that Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous nor is induction an ionization or particle effect.
"§ 6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space. On the nature of the electromotive forces that arise upon motion in a magnetic field.
Let the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space be valid for the system at rest K, so that we have
dX/dt = dN/dy - dM/dz.................................................38
dY/dt = dL/dz - dN/dx..................................................39
dZ/dt = dM/dx - dL/dy..................................................40
......................................................................................
dL/dt = dY/dz - dZ/dy...................................................41
dM/dt = dZ/dx - dX/dz..................................................42
dN/dt = dX/dy - dY/dx..................................................43
where (X,Y,Z) denotes the vector of the electric force, and (L,M,N) that of the magnetic force." (Einstein2, § 6).
β = 1/(1 - v2/c2)1/2........................................................44
Applying equation 44 to the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations,
"X' = X.......................................... L' = L...................................................................45a,b
Y' = β[Y - (v/c)N].......................... M'= β[M + (v/c)Z]..................................................46a,b
Z' = β[Z + (v/c)M],..........................N' = β[N - (v/c)Y]"................................................47a,b
(Einstein2, § 6). Maxwell's uses Maxwell's equations (equ 2-7) in an electromagnetic theory of light (Maxwell, Part VI). Einstein justifies Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light by altering the coordinate system (inertial frame) of Maxwell's equations but altering the dimensions of Maxwell's equations does not change the fact that Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous nor is induction an ionization or particle effect.
numbernu...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2018, 8:32:16 PM6/14/18
to
She Wet the bed --> another Yoda fist pump.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 14, 2018, 11:54:47 PM6/14/18
to
numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> In Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (1905),
> Einstein is justifying Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light by
> altering the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations.
No.
> In Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (1905),
> Einstein is justifying Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light by
> altering the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations.
What he does show is that the Lorentz transformation
x' = (x − v t) ∕√(1 − v²∕c²) = γ (x – v t)
t' = (t − v∕c² x)∕√(1 − v²∕c²) = γ (x − v∕c² t),
or, in natural units where c = 1, simply
x' = γ (x − v t)
t' = γ (t − v x),
with the Lorentz factor
γ = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²),
(and _not_ the Galilean/Newtonian transformation x' = x - vt, t' = t) make
Maxwell’s equations a law of physics inasfar as then they have the same form
in every reference frame.
And previously he had derived the Lorentz transformation solely from the two
postulates that
1. The principle of relativity always applies (is also applicable to
electrodynamics);
2. The vacuum speed of light is the same in every reference frame
(as observed),
whereas the second postulate is also a consequence of (predicted by)
Maxwell’s equations.
Later it was shown, in part by Einstein, that this Lorentz symmetry applies
to all of physics.
For example, Lorentz symmetry explains the equivalence of energy and mass:
why a radioactive specimen measurably loses mass when it emits gamma
radiation (light), according to the equation
∆m = ∆E∕c²,
or, as it is commonly known
E₀ = m c².
And it explains why fast moving clocks run slower than clocks that are
assumed to be at rest, as we can see, e.g. in GNSS like GPS.
All of modern civilization is built on it, including computers. So we would
have noticed if there would be something fundamentally wrong with it.
See also the aforementioned physics lecture where Leonard Susskind derives
this and more in an easily understandable way from first principles.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 14, 2018, 11:56:45 PM6/14/18
to
No, they are not. You have no clue.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 15, 2018, 12:04:55 AM6/15/18
to
numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tesla believed that radio waves (low frequencies) were longitudinal and
> there is little evidence to the contrary
Every radio receiver is evidence to the contrary.
> Tesla believed that radio waves (low frequencies) were longitudinal and
> there is little evidence to the contrary
> though everyone pretends low frequency radio waves are polarized
> Basically The theory is that electromgnetic radiation is composed of.
> BOTH longitudinal and transverse waves.
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Someone acturally wrote this to me!
> !!!!!!!!!
Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind.
-- Terry Pratchett
furthermo...@gmail.com
Jun 15, 2018, 2:19:37 PM6/15/18
to
ME: "Einstein field equations are Maxwell's equations."
No, they are not. You have no clue.
n Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (1905),. Einstein is justifying Maxwell's. electromagnetic theory of light by altering the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations..
"§ 6.. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space. On the nature. of the electromotive forces that arise upon motion in a magnetic field..
Let the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space be valid for the system at rest K,. so that we have
dX/dt = dN/dy - dM/dz..................................................38
dY/dt = dL/dz - dN/dx..................................................39
.......................................................................................
dL/dt = dY/dz - dZ/dy....................................................41
dM/dt = dZ/dx - dX/dz...................................................42
dN/dt = dX/dy - dY/dx...................................................43
where (X,Y,Z) denotes the vector of the electric force,. and (L,M,N) that of the magnetic force." (Einstein2, § 6)..
____________________________________________
Looks like it to ME.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 17, 2018, 10:19:54 PM6/17/18
to
furthermo...@gmail.com wrote:
> In Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (1905),.
Same answer as in <news:30d3fb91-b871-28ce...@PointedEars.de>
to numbernu...@gmail.com, possibly one of your sock puppets, from which
you copied the argument but messed up the punctuation (“,.”, “..”).
Learn to quote.
> In Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (1905),.
> Einstein is justifying Maxwell's. electromagnetic theory of light by
> altering the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations..
No, he is not.
> altering the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations..
Same answer as in <news:30d3fb91-b871-28ce...@PointedEars.de>
to numbernu...@gmail.com, possibly one of your sock puppets, from which
you copied the argument but messed up the punctuation (“,.”, “..”).
Learn to quote.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 17, 2018, 10:42:51 PM6/17/18
to
evidence* for an “intestinal universe” with “decomposing [plants]”
(what a nonsense), but there *is* evidence that energy–momentum density
is equivalent to spacetime curvature (the statement of GR) *aside from
gravitational waves*:
For example, gravitational lensing by stars and galaxies (1919+),
gravitational time dilation in the GNSS (1978+), relativistic jets
(supposedly) from black holes (1977+), and a presently only indirectly
observable extremely massive object in the center of the Milky Way which
is all looking like a black hole (2002+; see Event Horizon Telescope).
Also, there is evidence to the contrary of a universe filled with plants:
If our universe would be filled with plants instead of mostly nothing
(interstellar and intergalactic vacuum), we could not see stars.
IOW, decomposing plants in the OP’s intestines, which the OP calls "the
stellar internal intestinal universe", must be what is producing the
"internal gas" out of which the OP’s "brain" farts are made.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 17, 2018, 10:47:03 PM6/17/18
to
> 10^-18 m measurement variation […]
It is not a "measurement variation".
> which is similar to an incident that occurred to me.
No, it is not. In no way.
It is not a "measurement variation".
> which is similar to an incident that occurred to me.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 17, 2018, 11:05:19 PM6/17/18
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> x' = (x − v t) ∕√(1 − v²∕c²) = γ (x – v t)
> t' = (t − v∕c² x)∕√(1 − v²∕c²) = γ (x − v∕c² t),
Correction: The previous line contains an error from copy-pasting from the
line before it. Should be
t' = (t − v∕c² x)∕√(1 − v²∕c²) = γ (t − v∕c² x),
[People who have paid attention should have noticed that it cannot be
correct already because it is dimensionally inconsistent.]
> or, in natural units where c = 1, simply
>
> x' = γ (x − v t)
> t' = γ (t − v x),
>
> with the Lorentz factor
>
> γ = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²),
RichD
Jun 18, 2018, 1:04:39 AM6/18/18
to
On June 12, tjrob137 wrote:
> BTW there are many more organizations in the LIGO
> collaboration than the two you mentioned. And it
> started long before 2009, is still VERY active
> today, and will be for many years to come -- it is
> just starting to get VERY interesting....
I heard a presentation recently, from one of the LIGO team,
> BTW there are many more organizations in the LIGO
> collaboration than the two you mentioned. And it
> started long before 2009, is still VERY active
> today, and will be for many years to come -- it is
> just starting to get VERY interesting....
discussing the neutron star / black hole collision.
He said, following analysis of the gamma ray observations,
"Now we know the origin of gold."
huh???
--
Rich
Edward Prochak
Jun 18, 2018, 8:31:58 AM6/18/18
to
saw this mentioned here:
"Among other things, the merger gave observers a front-row seat
at the birth of a black hole, which the colliding neutron stars
likely produced. The discovery that most glitters, though, is
smoking-gun evidence that neutron star mergers—rather than
run-of-the-mill supernovae—are the cosmic crucibles that forge
the universe’s heavy elements: substances including uranium,
platinum and gold."
In article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-wave-astronomers-hit-mother-lode1/
Enjoy,
ed
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 18, 2018, 10:47:39 AM6/18/18
to
Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:04:39 AM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
>> I heard a presentation recently, from one of the LIGO team,
>> discussing the neutron star / black hole collision.
>> He said, following analysis of the gamma ray observations,
>> "Now we know the origin of gold."
>>
>> huh???
>
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:04:39 AM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
>> I heard a presentation recently, from one of the LIGO team,
>> discussing the neutron star / black hole collision.
>> He said, following analysis of the gamma ray observations,
>> "Now we know the origin of gold."
>>
>> huh???
>
> I am sure there are more focused articles, but I first
> saw this mentioned here:
>
> "Among other things, the merger gave observers a front-row seat
> at the birth of a black hole, which the colliding neutron stars
> likely produced. The discovery that most glitters, though, is
> smoking-gun evidence that neutron star mergers—rather than
^^^^^^^^^^^
> saw this mentioned here:
>
> "Among other things, the merger gave observers a front-row seat
> at the birth of a black hole, which the colliding neutron stars
> likely produced. The discovery that most glitters, though, is
> smoking-gun evidence that neutron star mergers—rather than
> run-of-the-mill supernovae—are the cosmic crucibles that forge
> the universe’s heavy elements: substances including uranium,
> platinum and gold."
>
> In article:
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-wave-astronomers-hit-mother-lode1/
As expected from a *popular*-scientific magazine (by contrast to a
> the universe’s heavy elements: substances including uranium,
> platinum and gold."
>
> In article:
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-wave-astronomers-hit-mother-lode1/
scientific journal) in an article that is filled with sensationalism,
that is an oversimplification.
To elaborate, elements "heavier" than iron (₂₆Fe) and nickel (₂₈Ni; by that
we mean the atomic mass which is related to the number of protons in the
nucleus, indicated by the subscript), such as gold (₇₉Au) cannot be produced
by stellar nuclear fusion because the reactions that could produce them are
endothermic: they would require energy rather than release energy to sustain
a star against its own gravity. So they do not happen.
However, since those elements do exist, the theory is that they have to be
produced in supernovae (accumulation of neutrons that partially beta-decay
into protons, or accumulation of protons) or when neutron stars merge (some
neutrons would beta-decay into protons). (That is an *inclusive* “or”.)
The discovery of merging neutron stars is *indication* that not all of the
heavier elements need to be produced in supernovae. In particular, it can
be assumed that gold and elements heavier than that are produced
predominantly when neutron stars merge as the neutron flux is obviously much
greater then.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Highly recommended (as also easily understandable for people with basic
knowledge in nuclear physics):
T. Rauscher, A. Patkos (2010): Origin of the Chemical Elements.
Handbook of Nuclear Chemistry, 2nd edition (Springer, 2011), p. 611-665.
<https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5627>
In particular section “4.5 Nucleosynthesis beyond Fe”.
Steve BH
Jun 18, 2018, 11:42:56 AM6/18/18
to
That last is my leading theory about your posts.
numbernu...@gmail.com
Jun 18, 2018, 5:48:28 PM6/18/18
to
And previously he had derived the Lorentz transformation solely from the two
postulates that
_____________________________________________________
postulates that
"the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity." (Einstein2, § 9).
"§ 6. We shall now shew how our general equations (Ic) — (Vc) may be applied to optical phenomena. For this purpose we consider a system of ponderable bodies, the ions in which are capable of vibrating about determinate positions of equilibrium. If the system be traversed by waves of light, there will be oscillations of the ions, accompanied by electric vibrations in the aether." (Loretnz, § 6).
Einstein is indirectly justifying Maxwell's EM theory of light since Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous.
furthermo...@gmail.com
Jun 18, 2018, 7:25:37 PM6/18/18
to
"Associated with an electromagnetic disturbance is a mass, the gravitational attraction of which under appropriate circumstances is capable of holding the disturbance together for a time long in comparison with the characteristic periods of the system. Such gravitational-electromagnetic entities, or "geons"; are analyzed via classical relativity theory." (Wheeler, Abstract).
"In electrodynamics, 21 the wave equation describing electromagnetic waves in vacuum is, in the Lorentz gauge....................Similarly, in general relativity, in the weak field limit, the wave equation describing gravitational waves in vacuum is equation (2.10.11)...........A similar analogy is valid for the gravitomagnetic field. 9 In electrodynamics, 21 from the Maxwell equations (2.8.43) and (2.8.44) and in particular from magnetic monopoles, ∇ · B = 0, one can write B = ∇ x A, where A is the vector potential. From Ampere's law for a stationary current distribution: ∇ x B = (4π/c)j, where j is the current density, one has then:" (Ciufolini and Wheeler, p. 317).
"In electrodynamics, 21 the wave equation describing electromagnetic waves in vacuum is, in the Lorentz gauge....................Similarly, in general relativity, in the weak field limit, the wave equation describing gravitational waves in vacuum is equation (2.10.11)...........A similar analogy is valid for the gravitomagnetic field. 9 In electrodynamics, 21 from the Maxwell equations (2.8.43) and (2.8.44) and in particular from magnetic monopoles, ∇ · B = 0, one can write B = ∇ x A, where A is the vector potential. From Ampere's law for a stationary current distribution: ∇ x B = (4π/c)j, where j is the current density, one has then:" (Ciufolini and Wheeler, p. 317).
Edward Prochak
Jun 19, 2018, 1:08:30 PM6/19/18
to
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 10:47:39 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:04:39 AM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
> >> I heard a presentation recently, from one of the LIGO team,
> >> discussing the neutron star / black hole collision.
> >> He said, following analysis of the gamma ray observations,
> >> "Now we know the origin of gold."
> >>
> >> huh???
> >
> > I am sure there are more focused articles, but I first
> > saw this mentioned here:
> >
> > "Among other things, the merger gave observers a front-row seat
> > at the birth of a black hole, which the colliding neutron stars
> > likely produced. The discovery that most glitters, though, is
> > smoking-gun evidence that neutron star mergers—rather than
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > run-of-the-mill supernovae—are the cosmic crucibles that forge
> > the universe’s heavy elements: substances including uranium,
> > platinum and gold."
> >
> > In article:
> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-wave-astronomers-hit-mother-lode1/
>
> As expected from a *popular*-scientific magazine (by contrast to a
And this is just a popular physics discussion group.
> Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:04:39 AM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
> >> I heard a presentation recently, from one of the LIGO team,
> >> discussing the neutron star / black hole collision.
> >> He said, following analysis of the gamma ray observations,
> >> "Now we know the origin of gold."
> >>
> >> huh???
> >
> > I am sure there are more focused articles, but I first
> > saw this mentioned here:
> >
> > "Among other things, the merger gave observers a front-row seat
> > at the birth of a black hole, which the colliding neutron stars
> > likely produced. The discovery that most glitters, though, is
> > smoking-gun evidence that neutron star mergers—rather than
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > run-of-the-mill supernovae—are the cosmic crucibles that forge
> > the universe’s heavy elements: substances including uranium,
> > platinum and gold."
> >
> > In article:
> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-wave-astronomers-hit-mother-lode1/
>
> As expected from a *popular*-scientific magazine (by contrast to a
Seems appropriate to me.
> scientific journal) in an article that is filled with sensationalism,
> that is an oversimplification.
Seems you are in a bad mood.
>
> To elaborate, elements "heavier" than iron (₂₆Fe) and nickel (₂₈Ni; by that
> we mean the atomic mass which is related to the number of protons in the
> nucleus, indicated by the subscript), such as gold (₇₉Au) cannot be produced
> by stellar nuclear fusion because the reactions that could produce them are
> endothermic: they would require energy rather than release energy to sustain
> a star against its own gravity. So they do not happen.
Right.
> To elaborate, elements "heavier" than iron (₂₆Fe) and nickel (₂₈Ni; by that
> we mean the atomic mass which is related to the number of protons in the
> nucleus, indicated by the subscript), such as gold (₇₉Au) cannot be produced
> by stellar nuclear fusion because the reactions that could produce them are
> endothermic: they would require energy rather than release energy to sustain
> a star against its own gravity. So they do not happen.
>
> However, since those elements do exist, the theory is that they have to be
> produced in supernovae (accumulation of neutrons that partially beta-decay
> into protons, or accumulation of protons) or when neutron stars merge (some
> neutrons would beta-decay into protons). (That is an *inclusive* “or”.)
>
> The discovery of merging neutron stars is *indication* that not all of the
> heavier elements need to be produced in supernovae. In particular, it can
> be assumed that gold and elements heavier than that are produced
> predominantly when neutron stars merge as the neutron flux is obviously much
> greater then.
>
> Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes the article did over state the merger case perhaps for the
> However, since those elements do exist, the theory is that they have to be
> produced in supernovae (accumulation of neutrons that partially beta-decay
> into protons, or accumulation of protons) or when neutron stars merge (some
> neutrons would beta-decay into protons). (That is an *inclusive* “or”.)
>
> The discovery of merging neutron stars is *indication* that not all of the
> heavier elements need to be produced in supernovae. In particular, it can
> be assumed that gold and elements heavier than that are produced
> predominantly when neutron stars merge as the neutron flux is obviously much
> greater then.
>
> Nothing more, nothing less.
simple fact that mergers would have to be more frequent than
supernovae. And we don't really know that yet.
And it was the LIGO researcher that really overstated it.
>
> Highly recommended (as also easily understandable for people with basic
> knowledge in nuclear physics):
>
> T. Rauscher, A. Patkos (2010): Origin of the Chemical Elements.
> Handbook of Nuclear Chemistry, 2nd edition (Springer, 2011), p. 611-665.
> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5627>
>
> In particular section “4.5 Nucleosynthesis beyond Fe”.
>
> --
> PointedEars
>
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
though my time for reading is limited right now.
Ed
numbernu...@gmail.com
Jun 19, 2018, 3:56:01 PM6/19/18
to
Why is it so so hard to post the dispersion rate of a radio wave verses the distance?
Also, there is a limit to everything but NASA does not seem to believe this. Example, if someone said that they drank 100 gallons of beer in one day and had 50 MIT physicists verify this fact would you not be skeptical. ALso, if a person said that they fucked 5,000 women in one month would you also not wonder. And, if a little boy that was six years old said he was a pitcher on a baseball team when he was 13 would you not think something was wrong? There are what 30,000 physicists on this earth today and they all still believe in the tooth fairy and wet their beds and wish they had their mommies rather then their significant other and they blame Trump for everything. Mirror are hard to hide from. You should take a close look once and a while.
Also, there is a limit to everything but NASA does not seem to believe this. Example, if someone said that they drank 100 gallons of beer in one day and had 50 MIT physicists verify this fact would you not be skeptical. ALso, if a person said that they fucked 5,000 women in one month would you also not wonder. And, if a little boy that was six years old said he was a pitcher on a baseball team when he was 13 would you not think something was wrong? There are what 30,000 physicists on this earth today and they all still believe in the tooth fairy and wet their beds and wish they had their mommies rather then their significant other and they blame Trump for everything. Mirror are hard to hide from. You should take a close look once and a while.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 19, 2018, 6:22:54 PM6/19/18
to
Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 10:47:39 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> As expected from a *popular*-scientific magazine (by contrast to a
>
> And this is just a popular physics discussion group.
No, it is not, even though one might get that idea given the number of
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 10:47:39 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> As expected from a *popular*-scientific magazine (by contrast to a
>
> And this is just a popular physics discussion group.
crackpots posting here.
With that said, you are completely missing the point.
> Yes the article did over state the merger case perhaps for the
> simple fact that mergers would have to be more frequent than
> supernovae.
dependent on that type’s number of occurrences.
> And it was the LIGO researcher that really overstated it.
were falsely paraphrased to serve the sensationalism of the layman author
of the magazine article.
furthermo...@gmail.com
Jun 19, 2018, 6:40:06 PM6/19/18
to
No, it is not, even though. one might get that idea given the number of
crackpots posting here..
With that said, you are completely missing the point..
____________________________________________________________
You understand electromagnetic gravity waves, Now?--------->geon
crackpots posting here..
With that said, you are completely missing the point..
____________________________________________________________
You understand electromagnetic gravity waves, Now?--------->geon
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 20, 2018, 1:09:28 AM6/20/18
to
As you have been told before: There is no such thing.
Electromagnetic (EM) waves are self-propagating excitations of the EM field.
They are transversal waves. The quanta of that field are photons.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation>
Gravitational waves (GW) are propagating changes in the curvature of
spacetime. They can be transverse and/or longitudinal. The quanta of a
gravitational field could be gravitons.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave>
Electromagnetic (EM) waves are self-propagating excitations of the EM field.
They are transversal waves. The quanta of that field are photons.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation>
Gravitational waves (GW) are propagating changes in the curvature of
spacetime. They can be transverse and/or longitudinal. The quanta of a
gravitational field could be gravitons.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave>
numbernu...@gmail.com
Jun 20, 2018, 11:59:44 AM6/20/18
to
Gravitational waves (GW) are propagating changes in the curvature of
spacetime. They can be transverse and/or longitudinal. The quanta of a
gravitational field could be gravitons.
The curvature of timespace is a representation of a CS not a structure.
numbernu...@gmail.com
Jun 20, 2018, 12:11:24 PM6/20/18
to
The quanta of a gravitational field could be gravitons.
_____________________________________
What kind of field is this? Baseball field, field of dreams, corn field, play field, snow field and a coal field.
_____________________________________
Steven Carlip
Jun 20, 2018, 12:38:11 PM6/20/18
to
On 6/19/18 10:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> furthermo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You understand electromagnetic gravity waves, Now?
> As you have been told before: There is no such thing.
> Electromagnetic (EM) waves are self-propagating excitations of the EM
> field. They are transversal waves. The quanta of that field are
> photons.
That's right.
> furthermo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You understand electromagnetic gravity waves, Now?
> As you have been told before: There is no such thing.
> Electromagnetic (EM) waves are self-propagating excitations of the EM
> field. They are transversal waves. The quanta of that field are
> photons.
> Gravitational waves (GW) are propagating changes in the curvature of
> spacetime.
> They can be transverse and/or longitudinal.
waves are transverse, with two polarizations. The polarizations
are different from those of EM waves, though. To rotate one
electromagnetic polarization to the other requires a 90 degree
rotation, while to rotate one gravitational wave polarization
to the other requires a 45 degree rotation.
So far, there is some observational evidence of this property of
gravitational waves from LIGO, but it's not yet very strong.
More observations, especially once additional gravitational wave
observatories are operating, should pin this down. (There is
also some fairly strong indirect evidence from binary pulsar
observations -- a longitudinal component would normally carry
away energy much more rapidly than we observe.)
> The quanta of a gravitational field could be gravitons.
the fact that photons have spin 1, gravitons have spin 2.)
Steve Carlip
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 20, 2018, 1:27:00 PM6/20/18
to
Steven Carlip wrote:
> On 6/19/18 10:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> They can be transverse and/or longitudinal.
>
> That's not right, at least in general relativity. Gravitational
> waves are transverse, with two polarizations.
,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave>
> On 6/19/18 10:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> They can be transverse and/or longitudinal.
>
> That's not right, at least in general relativity. Gravitational
> waves are transverse, with two polarizations.
|
| […]
|
| When Einstein published his general theory of relativity in 1915, he was
| skeptical of Poincaré's idea since the theory implied there were no
| "gravitational dipoles". Nonetheless, he still pursued the idea and based
| on various approximations came to the conclusion there must, in fact, be
| three types of gravitational waves (dubbed longitudinal-longitudinal,
| transverse-longitudinal, and transverse-transverse by Hermann Weyl). [12]
|
| […]
|
| [12] Cervantes-Cota, J.L.; Galindo-Uribarri, S.; Smoot, G.F. (2016). "A
| Brief History of Gravitational Waves". Universe. 2 (3): 22.
| arXiv:1609.09400 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016Univ....2...22C.
| doi:10.3390/universe2030022.
Wrong? If yes, why? If no, why is what I said wrong?
consequen...@gmail.com
Jun 20, 2018, 1:33:41 PM6/20/18
to
"History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300).
Zprávn Udoucih
Jun 20, 2018, 2:34:37 PM6/20/18
to
Steven Carlip wrote:
> On 6/19/18 10:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> furthermo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> You understand electromagnetic gravity waves, Now?
>
>> As you have been told before: There is no such thing.
>
>> Electromagnetic (EM) waves are self-propagating excitations of the EM
>> field. They are transversal waves. The quanta of that field are
>> photons.
>
> That's right.
Now ask him the site he grabbed it from.
> On 6/19/18 10:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> furthermo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> You understand electromagnetic gravity waves, Now?
>
>> As you have been told before: There is no such thing.
>
>> Electromagnetic (EM) waves are self-propagating excitations of the EM
>> field. They are transversal waves. The quanta of that field are
>> photons.
>
> That's right.
Steven Carlip
Jun 20, 2018, 4:46:39 PM6/20/18
to
that all but the two purely transverse polarizations were "pure
gauge," that is, merely coordinate effects. You can check this
in just about any GR textbook; for example, it's in section 4.4b
of Wald's _General Relativity_ or section 35.4 of Misner, Thorne,
and Wheeler.
Steve Carlip
RichD
Jun 20, 2018, 6:42:18 PM6/20/18
to
On June 20, Steven Carlip wrote:
> Gravitational waves are transverse, with two polarizations. The
> polarizationsare different from those of EM waves, though.
> Gravitational waves are transverse, with two polarizations. The
> To rotate one electromagnetic polarization to the other requires
> a 90 degree rotation, while to rotate one gravitational wave polarization
> to the other requires a 45 degree rotation.
i.e. quadrupole
> a 90 degree rotation, while to rotate one gravitational wave polarization
> to the other requires a 45 degree rotation.
> So far, there is some observational evidence of this property of
> gravitational waves from LIGO, but it's not yet very strong.
> More observations, especially once additional gravitational wave
> observatories are operating, should pin this down.
I thought the quadrupole model is built into LIGO from
the get go; that is, all inferences are based on this model,
axiomatically. The experiments don't test for such a
polarization, they assume it.
--
Rich
Tom Roberts
Jun 21, 2018, 11:33:38 AM6/21/18
to
quadrupole waves, but that is not the only type of wave they can observe. Any
experiment as large as LIGO will perform multiple analyses of their data. One of
them will assume GR accurately models gravitational waves, and that is surely
their primary analysis. But other analyses would be explicitly searching for
something/anything not predicted by GR; I would expect non-transverse and
non-quadrupole waves to be high on their list of things to look for.
While I am and have been a member of similarly large-scale experiments, I am not
a member of the LIGO collaboration, and do not know the details of their
analyses. Nor do I know how well they might be able to identify non-GR
properties of waves.
Tom Roberts
numbernu...@gmail.com
Jun 21, 2018, 12:51:49 PM6/21/18
to
The design of the LIGO detectors. is optimized for transverse-polarized
quadrupole waves, but that is not the only type of wave they can observe. Any experiment as large. as LIGO will perform multiple analyses of their data.. One of them will assume GR. accurately models gravitational waves, and that is surely their primary analysis.. But other analyses would be explicitly searching for.
_______________________________________________________
Babbly
quadrupole waves, but that is not the only type of wave they can observe. Any experiment as large. as LIGO will perform multiple analyses of their data.. One of them will assume GR. accurately models gravitational waves, and that is surely their primary analysis.. But other analyses would be explicitly searching for.
_______________________________________________________
Babbly
RichD
Jun 21, 2018, 1:06:11 PM6/21/18
to
On June 21, 2018 at 8:33:38 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> So far, there is some observational evidence of this property of
>>> gravitational waves from LIGO, but it's not yet very strong.
>>> More observations, especially once additional gravitational wave
>>> observatories are operating, should pin this down.
>
>> ?
>> I thought the quadrupole model is built into LIGO from
>> the get go; that is, all inferences are based on this model,
>> axiomatically. The experiments don't test for such a
>> polarization, they assume it.
>
> The design of the LIGO detectors is optimized for transverse-polarized
> quadrupole waves, but that is not the only type of wave they
> can observe. Any experiment as large as LIGO will perform multiple
> analyses of their data. One of them will assume GR accurately models
> gravitational waves.
>>> So far, there is some observational evidence of this property of
>>> gravitational waves from LIGO, but it's not yet very strong.
>>> More observations, especially once additional gravitational wave
>>> observatories are operating, should pin this down.
>
>> ?
>> I thought the quadrupole model is built into LIGO from
>> the get go; that is, all inferences are based on this model,
>> axiomatically. The experiments don't test for such a
>> polarization, they assume it.
>
> The design of the LIGO detectors is optimized for transverse-polarized
> quadrupole waves, but that is not the only type of wave they
> can observe. Any experiment as large as LIGO will perform multiple
> analyses of their data. One of them will assume GR accurately models
> But other analyses would be explicitly searching for
> something/anything not predicted by GR; I would expect
> non-transverse and non-quadrupole waves to be high on their list
> of things to look for.
>
> something/anything not predicted by GR; I would expect
> non-transverse and non-quadrupole waves to be high on their list
> of things to look for.
>
> Nor do I know how well they might be able to identify non-GR
> properties of waves.
In that case, I would ask, how they distinguish
> properties of waves.
a non-GR event, from noise; let's say a single arm
vibrates, how to interpret that?
The problem of noise and false alarms is often broached by the speakers.
--
Rich
numbernu...@gmail.com
Jun 21, 2018, 1:12:37 PM6/21/18
to
In that case, I would ask,, how they distinguish
a non-GR event, from noise;, let's say a single arm
vibrates, how to interpret that?,
The problem of noise and false alarms is often broached by the speakers,.
__________________________________________________
A 10^-18 meter measurement. Be serious. You shit is just babble. Right?
a non-GR event, from noise;, let's say a single arm
vibrates, how to interpret that?,
The problem of noise and false alarms is often broached by the speakers,.
__________________________________________________
A 10^-18 meter measurement. Be serious. You shit is just babble. Right?
Edward Prochak
Jun 21, 2018, 1:21:24 PM6/21/18
to
to sort local noise/vibrations from the gravitational signal.
And now with other detectors online, this part of the problem
is less hard (but not easy).
Ed
Tom Roberts
Jun 21, 2018, 9:29:46 PM6/21/18
to
On 6/21/18 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
> On June 21, 2018 at 8:33:38 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> So far, there is some observational evidence of this property of
>>>> gravitational waves from LIGO, but it's not yet very strong.
>>>> More observations, especially once additional gravitational wave
>>>> observatories are operating, should pin this down.
>>
>>> ?
>>> I thought the quadrupole model is built into LIGO from
>>> the get go; that is, all inferences are based on this model,
>>> axiomatically. The experiments don't test for such a
>>> polarization, they assume it.
>>
>> The design of the LIGO detectors is optimized for transverse-polarized
>> quadrupole waves, but that is not the only type of wave they
>> can observe. Any experiment as large as LIGO will perform multiple
>> analyses of their data. One of them will assume GR accurately models
>> gravitational waves.
>> But other analyses would be explicitly searching for
>> something/anything not predicted by GR; I would expect
>> non-transverse and non-quadrupole waves to be high on their list
>> of things to look for.
>>
>> Nor do I know how well they might be able to identify non-GR
>> properties of waves.
>
> In that case, I would ask, how they distinguish
> a non-GR event, from noise;
I don't know. Presumably they would find differences between the data
> On June 21, 2018 at 8:33:38 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> So far, there is some observational evidence of this property of
>>>> gravitational waves from LIGO, but it's not yet very strong.
>>>> More observations, especially once additional gravitational wave
>>>> observatories are operating, should pin this down.
>>
>>> ?
>>> I thought the quadrupole model is built into LIGO from
>>> the get go; that is, all inferences are based on this model,
>>> axiomatically. The experiments don't test for such a
>>> polarization, they assume it.
>>
>> The design of the LIGO detectors is optimized for transverse-polarized
>> quadrupole waves, but that is not the only type of wave they
>> can observe. Any experiment as large as LIGO will perform multiple
>> analyses of their data. One of them will assume GR accurately models
>> gravitational waves.
>> But other analyses would be explicitly searching for
>> something/anything not predicted by GR; I would expect
>> non-transverse and non-quadrupole waves to be high on their list
>> of things to look for.
>>
>> Nor do I know how well they might be able to identify non-GR
>> properties of waves.
>
> In that case, I would ask, how they distinguish
> a non-GR event, from noise;
and the GR model.
> let's say a single arm
> vibrates, how to interpret that?
detector, it would be visible as usual (with half the amplitude of a
quadrupole wave with that amplitude, but they wouldn't know that).
And, of course, if just one arm vibrates, it would not correlate with
the other detectors around the world.
> The problem of noise and false alarms is often broached by the speakers.
in all detectors that are operating at the time.
Tom Roberts
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 21, 2018, 10:37:06 PM6/21/18
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/21/18 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>> let's say a single arm vibrates, how to interpret that?
>
> Since they measure the difference between the two arms of a given
> detector, it would be visible as usual (with half the amplitude of a
> quadrupole wave with that amplitude, but they wouldn't know that).
They actually continuously monitor all the noise, so they can filter that
> On 6/21/18 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>> let's say a single arm vibrates, how to interpret that?
>
> Since they measure the difference between the two arms of a given
> detector, it would be visible as usual (with half the amplitude of a
> quadrupole wave with that amplitude, but they wouldn't know that).
out and know with good enough confidence when there is a signal and when
there is not.
> And, of course, if just one arm vibrates, it would not correlate with
> the other detectors around the world.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 21, 2018, 10:37:08 PM6/21/18
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/21/18 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>> let's say a single arm vibrates, how to interpret that?
>
> Since they measure the difference between the two arms of a given
> detector, it would be visible as usual (with half the amplitude of a
> quadrupole wave with that amplitude, but they wouldn't know that).
They actually continously monitor all the noise, so they can filter that out
> On 6/21/18 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>> let's say a single arm vibrates, how to interpret that?
>
> Since they measure the difference between the two arms of a given
> detector, it would be visible as usual (with half the amplitude of a
> quadrupole wave with that amplitude, but they wouldn't know that).
and know with good enough confidence when there is a signal and when there
is not.
is not.
> And, of course, if just one arm vibrates, it would not correlate with
> the other detectors around the world.
That, too.
> the other detectors around the world.
Dan Riley
Jun 22, 2018, 12:41:01 PM6/22/18
to
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> On 6/21/18 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>> On June 21, 2018 at 8:33:38 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> The design of the LIGO detectors is optimized for transverse-polarized
>>> quadrupole waves, but that is not the only type of wave they
>>> can observe. Any experiment as large as LIGO will perform multiple
>>> analyses of their data. One of them will assume GR accurately models
>>> gravitational waves.
>>> But other analyses would be explicitly searching for
>>> something/anything not predicted by GR; I would expect
>>> non-transverse and non-quadrupole waves to be high on their list
>>> of things to look for.
>>>
>>> Nor do I know how well they might be able to identify non-GR
>>> properties of waves.
>>
>> In that case, I would ask, how they distinguish
>> a non-GR event, from noise;
>
> I don't know. Presumably they would find differences between the data
> and the GR model.
LIGO by itself is relatively insensitive to different polarizations.
> On 6/21/18 12:06 PM, RichD wrote:
>> On June 21, 2018 at 8:33:38 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> The design of the LIGO detectors is optimized for transverse-polarized
>>> quadrupole waves, but that is not the only type of wave they
>>> can observe. Any experiment as large as LIGO will perform multiple
>>> analyses of their data. One of them will assume GR accurately models
>>> gravitational waves.
>>> But other analyses would be explicitly searching for
>>> something/anything not predicted by GR; I would expect
>>> non-transverse and non-quadrupole waves to be high on their list
>>> of things to look for.
>>>
>>> Nor do I know how well they might be able to identify non-GR
>>> properties of waves.
>>
>> In that case, I would ask, how they distinguish
>> a non-GR event, from noise;
>
> I don't know. Presumably they would find differences between the data
> and the GR model.
The two detectors have nearly the same orientation, so they would see
nearly the same linear combination of polarizations. GW170814, the
first GW observation with Virgo online, let them set some weak limits,
which should get stronger with more detectors. There's some discussion
in "GW170814: A Three-Detector Observation of Gravitational Waves
from a Binary Black Hole Coalescence" (arXiv:1709.09660). There's
also lots more on how LIGO generally looks for deviations from GR
in "Tests of general relativity with GW150914" (arXiv:1602.03841).
-dan
0 new messages