You may wonder at the title of this thread but it is a little misleading. It is not the facility called LIGO that this thread is aimed at. It is the physicists that run the facility that are laughable. Let me explain what I mean.
On Feb 1st 2007 there was a Gamma-ray burst (GRB) that took place in our nearest spiral galaxy neighbour, the Andromeda galaxy (M31) which was detected by the Konus-Wind, Integral, Swift and Messenger gamma-ray satellites. Because this explosion took place on our door-step, in galactic terms, LIGO should have been able to detect gravitational radiation from this event.
Gamma-ray bursts are thought to happen when two massive compact objects collide and coalesce and gravitational radiation happens when massive objects are accelerating. So something is clearly wrong here.
Either the models and theory behind GRB’s is wrong or Einstein’s view of spacetime is wrong. What amazes me is the reluctance of physicists to believe for one second that it may be Einstein that is wrong and not the GRB models.
According to LIGo’s executive director, Jay Marx, this non-detection of gravitational radiation is significant and he seriously believes by not ever detecting gravitational waves LIGO is now producing significant scientific results. What a load of claptrap. Talk about trying to protect your job.
The reason LIGO has never or will never detect gravitational waves is because they do not exist.
When massive object undergo acceleration the spacetime zone that they generate around themselves collapses and therefore no gravitational radiation will be produced, ever.
It is the reluctance of the scientific community to think of spacetime differently from that of Einstein that is laughable.
Tony
If they continue to not detect gravity waves then don't you think those result are valuable? That will be real trouble for GTR.
It will also mean that we have to find alternate explanation for all the indirect measurements of gravity waves that we already have.
It will also mean that we have to find alternate explanation for all the indirect measurements of gravity waves that we already have.
QUOTE (True Relativity+Jan 19 2008, 01:00 PM)
Either the models and theory behind GRB’s is wrong or Einstein’s view of spacetime is wrong. What amazes me is the reluctance of physicists to believe for one second that it may be Einstein that is wrong and not the GRB models.
There is a much simpler explanation, the current design is not sensitive enough. Several enhancements are planned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#Future. Neither GR, nor GRB or the LIGO design are wrong.
Stay tuned , you will get your turn in eating your rants against GR.
True Relativity,
I will accept some of the word eating. I agree with you no waves will be found. With the inverse square rule by the time they reach us they are just in the noise.
I will accept some of the word eating. I agree with you no waves will be found. With the inverse square rule by the time they reach us they are just in the noise.
Hi True Relativity, 4Dguy, Trout, PhysBang et al,
QUOTE (4Dguy+)
I will accept some of the word eating. I agree with you no waves will be found. With the inverse square rule by the time they reach us they are just in the noise.
With all due respect there is no "obscuring" noise... there is some thermal agitation. Matter waves which are the expression of "mass" at distance from the sources are not "noisy" and we see this in the way Holograms produce very good reconstructions of an illuminated dark space in quasi-stationary situations. Simple experiments can be performed (as noted below) which show that tiny changes in some spacial properties cause very significant effects (specifically the "routing" of photons resonant energy through the continuum, these can be caused by almost "trivial" arrangements of "distant matter"). Matter waves are identified with de Broglie Matter Waves and they are the expression of "mass" on the manifold. There are differences between "matter waves" and "light waves" and the way they "appear to propagate". This is because matter waves are the sources of mass and light are not sources of mass. In some respects they are opposite sides of the manifold, the electromagnetic phenomena that move in dimensional flatspace and exhibit no matter of their own and matter which exists only in the presence of curved space and are "tethered" to a spatially static standing wave whose geometry depends on relative velocity. Due to Wheeler Feynman Theory these waves are not going anywhere but have wavelengths depending on cavity size and exciting wavelength as well as relative velocity.
It is nobody's fault that they (LIGO) are not detecting Gravity Waves. It is an artifact of the scalar theory of gravity that has been in vogue for an awful long time. Einstein's Theory predicts Gravity Waves only by proxy and is not directly predicted. The idea that sudden arrangements of matter on the manifold will send out propagating waves like ripples in a pond is not right. There are gravity waves but they don't "ripple through space" like ripples on a pond. They are "quasi-stationary standing waves" in space due to matter wave interferences. There is a way to understand "electromagnetism" through space as a resonance. This is through the mechanism of Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis which is closely linked to the early theory of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory... The theory that underpins Feynman's Many Path Theory of Quantum Electrodynamics (... the theory that got him the "gong".. The Nobel Prize in Physics).
When a Hologram is made in a dark room illuminated by a single source of coherent light standing waves in space are filling space that are unique to that single frequency of light. The photographic plate records the standing waves in space as tiny fringes "in depth" in the emulsion plate. They are tiny spacial cavities satisfying all the Laws of de Broglie's Hypothesis. The arrangement of matter in the room is imprinted everywhere as standing waves... non-progressive waves. Photons of light see these cavities as the result of "every which way" and proceed as a resonant connection from the source to the sink (the resonant system from which a photon is emitted such as a tiny atomic shell to the point of absorption most probably another atom which is matched resonantly to it. At the instant the photon is emitting in a single event (end to end... resonant photon emission plus resonant absorption).
In the rest frame of this photon the emitter and the absorber instantly "communicate" through time such that the future absorption of the photon is uniquely transacted with the act of the retarded wave emission. These two waves travel in opposite directions in time forming the "path through space" for the particle to travel. This transaction cannot be interrupted by any intervening event since this process has "predicted the future" for this one single event and a transaction been brokered through application of the path of Least Action.
How does this communication occur? In the rest frame of the photon the massless photon is suddenly traveling at the speed of light this has two major influences that we already know about... Time Dilation and Length Contraction. For a "particle" suddenly traveling at the speed of light the Time Dilation is "infinite" so immediately the "quantum" propagates without time passing in its frame suffering infinite time dilation ... the instant it was emitted is the instant it is absorbed. At the same instant in time (as part of the same event) it also undergoes infinite Length Contraction bringing the distant "uniquely transacted" sink in "coincidence" with the source. Another way to say this is that photons travel along null geodesics of zero time and which brings all points in the forward light cone into mutual contact or superposition ... instantly... via instantaneous "infinite stellar aberration". This can be thought of as a resonance between the sink and the source at a frequency dictated by the relatively simple equation E = hf.
This event process proceeds by the mutual emission of matching waves in space, the normal retarded wave moving out from the source and the counterintuitive advanced wave traveling backwards in time from the sink to meet the oncoming energy of the "advancing photon" in space. Recall this process cannot be "observed" because it is a classical quanta that never ages or grows old and retains all the original aspects of the emitted photon even if it is traveling from a very distant star system. This transacted quanta is inviolate since the transaction has been made the instant it was emitted by the source atom (the one with the quanta of energy) with that unique atom that will one day absorb it because it has already emitted in the same instant the advanced wave traveling back through time forming a standing wave. This "couple" are uniquely destined for each other and no other process will do since it has already been emitted at the sink. This standing wave "appears" to us as causal beings as frozen matter wave ripples in space. Every particle of mass at low velocity... I mean really low relative velocity has a wavelength given by the de Broglie Matter Wave equation.
... Click to enlarge...
Notice that the obvious dependence on a low velocity effect due to Special Relativity. De Broglie's equation is the low velocity end of Special Relativity and the effects of special Relativity are as evident there as it is at the high velocity end. This is not a "Theory" but is a practical fact demonstrated in thousands of repeatable experiments. This is what mass really is as a stationary wavelet in space. A simple way to show this in one dimension is by the Sinc (or sync) Function.
... Click to enlarge...
Looking at the most simple case in a single dimension... Here we have two ways to describe a particle of mass. The impulse function and the sinc function (the first is what we usually call a particle and the second is a kind of wave... in this case in this context it is the de Broglie Matter Wave whose wavelength depends on its relative velocity and is subject to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. This is the way mass manifests as a matter wavelet frozen in space... In fact it fills the space because space is generally an "imperfect cavity" which has quite varied boundary conditions. It is why atomic theory obeys the wave equation and the wave equation has two ways to express ... one as "probability waves" and the other is electromagnetic waves.
... Click to enlarge...
this is Schrodinger's Equation...
... This is the Electromagnetic wave equation in cavities... Notice the similarity?
You can look this up in Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics (Cavity QED) on the Web. This is an experimentally derived theory and is in close agreement with this de Broglie Theory and Wheeler-Feynman Theory. Particles obey the same general theory as well but I will leave this aspect for now (you can hunt down these aspects in my previous posts or ask specific questions).
These equations are taken from Jian Qi Shen's Paper... "The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory" http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405007
... And this is in no way a "unique reference".
Here is an atomic force "image" showing a slice through a cavity waveguide at microwave frequencies in which "time symmetry" has been broken.
.. Click to enlarge...
These are the same structures you can find at different scales and at each different frequency in simple holograms. They are always "quasi-stationary" and not progressive waves. They are also naturally "space filling".
The relationship is derived through the Fourier Transform from the time domain (a sudden impulse in time) to a wave which most people would guess is in the frequency domain... the reciprocal domain to time. In fact this is true but because of Wheeler-Feynman Theory and de Broglie's Hypothesis these waves are quasi-stationary standing waves in space .... They re "frozen" relative to our time because we cannot see the advanced part of the wave going backwards in time and we only see the "progressive" frozen aspect of them as the sinc wavelet in space.
These add and subtract at every frequency possible on the manifold and for every source and sync responsible in the process of universal exchange forces due to these exchange of these packets.
+ 
= 
Advanced Potential + Retarded Potential = Standing Waves (oscillations). With Wheeler-Feynman Theory we don't "see" or notice these "oscillations", all we see is the standing waves that we see recorded in the emulsion of Holograms (entirely spatially stationary).
The more extreme expressions of this phenomena can be seen with X-Ray Illumination. It is not a source of coherent light but it is sometimes sufficiently monochromatic that it will diffract in a similar way to light through slits or small apertures as Young noticed in his original interference experiments in 1830 using sunlight. What this is indicating is visible light is able to move in space according to the mutual hybridization of the matter wavelets in three dimensions of all matter particles in space (and perhaps more) that form the inside and outside of mostly incomplete cavities. The spatial arrangement of matter dictates how the energy of a packet of light transfers in space through these resonant interferences (as seen in the image above). This is an experimentally derived image.
As you will already know the speed of "propagation" of light and gravity are the same (demonstrated by Kopeiken recently). What this Wheeler-Feynman Theory suggests is the matter waves define this volumetric space in the way that the moving near speed of Light defines the volumetric space supposedly experienced by very fast moving particles (and hypothetical space travelers). Space is contracted to a small compact region in the forward direction of the light cone while time has suffered almost the extreme of time dilation. If light contracts space and time (the extremum) from its massless frame of reference to a single "instantaneous" event the viewing of this "event" from other relatively moving frames which involve mass at less than the speed of light show the gradual reverse effect (through the conformal expansion of the space as the velocity "drops" to a velocity where the de Broglie Matter waves are most conspicuous by the way space has expanded through the reverse parametric process. The other extremum is the low relative velocity end where the "particles" wavelength fills the cavities of space (right on up to the cavity of the entire universe... Mach's Principle). The arrangement of a tiny amount of matter in space causes "interferences out of proportion to a purely scalar theory. An illustration of this process is indicated in Feynman's New Zealand Lectures on QED in 1979. "Distant" interferences of matter can affect the path of Least action that light takes in space ... critically.
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later: Good Elf
...more directly here...
Explanation Of Time Passage: Good Elf
I would like you all to examine the experiment that Feynman originally drew on the blackboard. The third plane which could be almost any distance away from the first two interference planes critically affects this "interference" and to the nature of the response. In one case on the LHS the waves could be completely "nulled" at the detector while in the second case RHS as shown the waves will sum such that the layer will "reflect" with a maximum effect and produce a detection (strong reflection) at the detector. This is critically dependent on the distance this detector is and interferences can be maxima or minima over one 1/2 a wavelength in space as shown in the thick emulsions of Holograms. The "collapse" of the wave state depends critically on the individual absorption of photons and the actual probability of that individual photon transaction in the space. This absorption is "spatially wavelike" as shown in Feynman's Many Paths Theory and absorption would naturally occur at a maximum in the Feynman Amplitude and not at a minimum, thus photons are absorbed at some points and not others. A detector placed at the wrong place will be incapable of absorbing certain photons because the Feynman Amplitude is at a minimum (between these maxima). You can see this by using a microscope and looking at these "waves" in the emulsion (after developing of course).
This is because the photon can only be absorbed whole and not in part... there is no such a thing as partial photon absorption. This is a staggering property of space that everybody "knows" but none will acknowledge except Feynman. These processes are due entirely to the distant effect of a tiny amount of correctly distributed matter.... nothing more. Feynman went on to describe this phenomenon can work over very great distances which critically determines the "notional" direction in which "photons" move in space unobserved. The "close" path of least action and time of travel is affected by the distant matter in space and its critical arrangement... Mach's Principle which Einstein placed great faith in.... and should have because he was right.
So we have the collective mass of large numbers of individual interfering mass particles being the same "gross" hybridized limit as you would guess from simple Newton's Theory of Gravitation or even through the simple application of General Relativity at low velocity. High velocity is obviously another realm. These individual three dimensional sinc functions (in at least three dimensions) sum vectorially as they do in Feynman's Many Paths Method of Quantum Electrodynamics. This is the origin of those "Amplitudes" and spatial phases by summing "vectorially" for all paths in space.
We can then connect the Theory of Gravity with the appearance of the mass. I have previously discussed this matter elsewhere on this Forum. The actual curvature of spacetime due to these visible "ripples" in space are the actual sources of all mass everywhere and are "space filling" and have distant influences as specifically noted from Feynman's original Lectures in Quantum Electrodynamics in New Zealand 1979. This means that matter is the stationary standing wave in space which is the hybridized "sum" from all possible paths in space that the wave can be summed from. Mass is the source of Gravity. They are the one and the same. Particles have mass because they have resulted from the introduction on mass on the manifold which allows events to be separate in space and time (by the reverse conformal process noted above). Light simply is a resonant process that follows the part of least action through the matter wave "jungle" existing in the empty space at the appropriate frequency and the position of the source. In this way the Advanced waves from matter distributed everywhere through has a vectorial summing influence for an amplitude as dictated by Feynman's Many Paths Theory which is after all based on Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory using the Cramer Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Therefore "Gravity" is the spatial and temporal expression of the propagation of light between places. Our entire Universe comes from this process. Gravity waves do not "propagate" in time like ripples on a pond but they do propagate "through" time as spatial waves with a fixed de Broglie wavelet whose "spatial frequency changes with relative velocity.
The Gravity wave detectors can't detect what is not there.... temporal ripples in spacetime... This is because of the advanced waves propagating backward from the "sinks" toward the "sources" and our measuring without the ability to "see" these temporal oscillations of these "massless" waves on the manifold. Einstein is right and Feynman, Cramer and Wheeler are all right .... the current theory of interpreting the spacetime is wrong. It is the only consistent approach to the problem that solves all the issues regarding quantum theory and the way it interacts with "matter".
All intelligent questions will be answered. I will not respond to criticism without a scientific basis. I am sure you all understand that.
Cheers
It is nobody's fault that they (LIGO) are not detecting Gravity Waves. It is an artifact of the scalar theory of gravity that has been in vogue for an awful long time. Einstein's Theory predicts Gravity Waves only by proxy and is not directly predicted. The idea that sudden arrangements of matter on the manifold will send out propagating waves like ripples in a pond is not right. There are gravity waves but they don't "ripple through space" like ripples on a pond. They are "quasi-stationary standing waves" in space due to matter wave interferences. There is a way to understand "electromagnetism" through space as a resonance. This is through the mechanism of Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis which is closely linked to the early theory of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory... The theory that underpins Feynman's Many Path Theory of Quantum Electrodynamics (... the theory that got him the "gong".. The Nobel Prize in Physics).
When a Hologram is made in a dark room illuminated by a single source of coherent light standing waves in space are filling space that are unique to that single frequency of light. The photographic plate records the standing waves in space as tiny fringes "in depth" in the emulsion plate. They are tiny spacial cavities satisfying all the Laws of de Broglie's Hypothesis. The arrangement of matter in the room is imprinted everywhere as standing waves... non-progressive waves. Photons of light see these cavities as the result of "every which way" and proceed as a resonant connection from the source to the sink (the resonant system from which a photon is emitted such as a tiny atomic shell to the point of absorption most probably another atom which is matched resonantly to it. At the instant the photon is emitting in a single event (end to end... resonant photon emission plus resonant absorption).
In the rest frame of this photon the emitter and the absorber instantly "communicate" through time such that the future absorption of the photon is uniquely transacted with the act of the retarded wave emission. These two waves travel in opposite directions in time forming the "path through space" for the particle to travel. This transaction cannot be interrupted by any intervening event since this process has "predicted the future" for this one single event and a transaction been brokered through application of the path of Least Action.
How does this communication occur? In the rest frame of the photon the massless photon is suddenly traveling at the speed of light this has two major influences that we already know about... Time Dilation and Length Contraction. For a "particle" suddenly traveling at the speed of light the Time Dilation is "infinite" so immediately the "quantum" propagates without time passing in its frame suffering infinite time dilation ... the instant it was emitted is the instant it is absorbed. At the same instant in time (as part of the same event) it also undergoes infinite Length Contraction bringing the distant "uniquely transacted" sink in "coincidence" with the source. Another way to say this is that photons travel along null geodesics of zero time and which brings all points in the forward light cone into mutual contact or superposition ... instantly... via instantaneous "infinite stellar aberration". This can be thought of as a resonance between the sink and the source at a frequency dictated by the relatively simple equation E = hf.
This event process proceeds by the mutual emission of matching waves in space, the normal retarded wave moving out from the source and the counterintuitive advanced wave traveling backwards in time from the sink to meet the oncoming energy of the "advancing photon" in space. Recall this process cannot be "observed" because it is a classical quanta that never ages or grows old and retains all the original aspects of the emitted photon even if it is traveling from a very distant star system. This transacted quanta is inviolate since the transaction has been made the instant it was emitted by the source atom (the one with the quanta of energy) with that unique atom that will one day absorb it because it has already emitted in the same instant the advanced wave traveling back through time forming a standing wave. This "couple" are uniquely destined for each other and no other process will do since it has already been emitted at the sink. This standing wave "appears" to us as causal beings as frozen matter wave ripples in space. Every particle of mass at low velocity... I mean really low relative velocity has a wavelength given by the de Broglie Matter Wave equation.
... Click to enlarge...
Notice that the obvious dependence on a low velocity effect due to Special Relativity. De Broglie's equation is the low velocity end of Special Relativity and the effects of special Relativity are as evident there as it is at the high velocity end. This is not a "Theory" but is a practical fact demonstrated in thousands of repeatable experiments. This is what mass really is as a stationary wavelet in space. A simple way to show this in one dimension is by the Sinc (or sync) Function.
... Click to enlarge...
Looking at the most simple case in a single dimension... Here we have two ways to describe a particle of mass. The impulse function and the sinc function (the first is what we usually call a particle and the second is a kind of wave... in this case in this context it is the de Broglie Matter Wave whose wavelength depends on its relative velocity and is subject to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. This is the way mass manifests as a matter wavelet frozen in space... In fact it fills the space because space is generally an "imperfect cavity" which has quite varied boundary conditions. It is why atomic theory obeys the wave equation and the wave equation has two ways to express ... one as "probability waves" and the other is electromagnetic waves.
... Click to enlarge...
this is Schrodinger's Equation...
... This is the Electromagnetic wave equation in cavities... Notice the similarity?
You can look this up in Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics (Cavity QED) on the Web. This is an experimentally derived theory and is in close agreement with this de Broglie Theory and Wheeler-Feynman Theory. Particles obey the same general theory as well but I will leave this aspect for now (you can hunt down these aspects in my previous posts or ask specific questions).
These equations are taken from Jian Qi Shen's Paper... "The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory" http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405007
... And this is in no way a "unique reference".
Here is an atomic force "image" showing a slice through a cavity waveguide at microwave frequencies in which "time symmetry" has been broken.
.. Click to enlarge...
These are the same structures you can find at different scales and at each different frequency in simple holograms. They are always "quasi-stationary" and not progressive waves. They are also naturally "space filling".
The relationship is derived through the Fourier Transform from the time domain (a sudden impulse in time) to a wave which most people would guess is in the frequency domain... the reciprocal domain to time. In fact this is true but because of Wheeler-Feynman Theory and de Broglie's Hypothesis these waves are quasi-stationary standing waves in space .... They re "frozen" relative to our time because we cannot see the advanced part of the wave going backwards in time and we only see the "progressive" frozen aspect of them as the sinc wavelet in space.
These add and subtract at every frequency possible on the manifold and for every source and sync responsible in the process of universal exchange forces due to these exchange of these packets.
+ = Advanced Potential + Retarded Potential = Standing Waves (oscillations). With Wheeler-Feynman Theory we don't "see" or notice these "oscillations", all we see is the standing waves that we see recorded in the emulsion of Holograms (entirely spatially stationary).
The more extreme expressions of this phenomena can be seen with X-Ray Illumination. It is not a source of coherent light but it is sometimes sufficiently monochromatic that it will diffract in a similar way to light through slits or small apertures as Young noticed in his original interference experiments in 1830 using sunlight. What this is indicating is visible light is able to move in space according to the mutual hybridization of the matter wavelets in three dimensions of all matter particles in space (and perhaps more) that form the inside and outside of mostly incomplete cavities. The spatial arrangement of matter dictates how the energy of a packet of light transfers in space through these resonant interferences (as seen in the image above). This is an experimentally derived image.
As you will already know the speed of "propagation" of light and gravity are the same (demonstrated by Kopeiken recently). What this Wheeler-Feynman Theory suggests is the matter waves define this volumetric space in the way that the moving near speed of Light defines the volumetric space supposedly experienced by very fast moving particles (and hypothetical space travelers). Space is contracted to a small compact region in the forward direction of the light cone while time has suffered almost the extreme of time dilation. If light contracts space and time (the extremum) from its massless frame of reference to a single "instantaneous" event the viewing of this "event" from other relatively moving frames which involve mass at less than the speed of light show the gradual reverse effect (through the conformal expansion of the space as the velocity "drops" to a velocity where the de Broglie Matter waves are most conspicuous by the way space has expanded through the reverse parametric process. The other extremum is the low relative velocity end where the "particles" wavelength fills the cavities of space (right on up to the cavity of the entire universe... Mach's Principle). The arrangement of a tiny amount of matter in space causes "interferences out of proportion to a purely scalar theory. An illustration of this process is indicated in Feynman's New Zealand Lectures on QED in 1979. "Distant" interferences of matter can affect the path of Least action that light takes in space ... critically.
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later: Good Elf
...more directly here...
Explanation Of Time Passage: Good Elf
I would like you all to examine the experiment that Feynman originally drew on the blackboard. The third plane which could be almost any distance away from the first two interference planes critically affects this "interference" and to the nature of the response. In one case on the LHS the waves could be completely "nulled" at the detector while in the second case RHS as shown the waves will sum such that the layer will "reflect" with a maximum effect and produce a detection (strong reflection) at the detector. This is critically dependent on the distance this detector is and interferences can be maxima or minima over one 1/2 a wavelength in space as shown in the thick emulsions of Holograms. The "collapse" of the wave state depends critically on the individual absorption of photons and the actual probability of that individual photon transaction in the space. This absorption is "spatially wavelike" as shown in Feynman's Many Paths Theory and absorption would naturally occur at a maximum in the Feynman Amplitude and not at a minimum, thus photons are absorbed at some points and not others. A detector placed at the wrong place will be incapable of absorbing certain photons because the Feynman Amplitude is at a minimum (between these maxima). You can see this by using a microscope and looking at these "waves" in the emulsion (after developing of course).
This is because the photon can only be absorbed whole and not in part... there is no such a thing as partial photon absorption. This is a staggering property of space that everybody "knows" but none will acknowledge except Feynman. These processes are due entirely to the distant effect of a tiny amount of correctly distributed matter.... nothing more. Feynman went on to describe this phenomenon can work over very great distances which critically determines the "notional" direction in which "photons" move in space unobserved. The "close" path of least action and time of travel is affected by the distant matter in space and its critical arrangement... Mach's Principle which Einstein placed great faith in.... and should have because he was right.
So we have the collective mass of large numbers of individual interfering mass particles being the same "gross" hybridized limit as you would guess from simple Newton's Theory of Gravitation or even through the simple application of General Relativity at low velocity. High velocity is obviously another realm. These individual three dimensional sinc functions (in at least three dimensions) sum vectorially as they do in Feynman's Many Paths Method of Quantum Electrodynamics. This is the origin of those "Amplitudes" and spatial phases by summing "vectorially" for all paths in space.
We can then connect the Theory of Gravity with the appearance of the mass. I have previously discussed this matter elsewhere on this Forum. The actual curvature of spacetime due to these visible "ripples" in space are the actual sources of all mass everywhere and are "space filling" and have distant influences as specifically noted from Feynman's original Lectures in Quantum Electrodynamics in New Zealand 1979. This means that matter is the stationary standing wave in space which is the hybridized "sum" from all possible paths in space that the wave can be summed from. Mass is the source of Gravity. They are the one and the same. Particles have mass because they have resulted from the introduction on mass on the manifold which allows events to be separate in space and time (by the reverse conformal process noted above). Light simply is a resonant process that follows the part of least action through the matter wave "jungle" existing in the empty space at the appropriate frequency and the position of the source. In this way the Advanced waves from matter distributed everywhere through has a vectorial summing influence for an amplitude as dictated by Feynman's Many Paths Theory which is after all based on Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory using the Cramer Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Therefore "Gravity" is the spatial and temporal expression of the propagation of light between places. Our entire Universe comes from this process. Gravity waves do not "propagate" in time like ripples on a pond but they do propagate "through" time as spatial waves with a fixed de Broglie wavelet whose "spatial frequency changes with relative velocity.
The Gravity wave detectors can't detect what is not there.... temporal ripples in spacetime... This is because of the advanced waves propagating backward from the "sinks" toward the "sources" and our measuring without the ability to "see" these temporal oscillations of these "massless" waves on the manifold. Einstein is right and Feynman, Cramer and Wheeler are all right .... the current theory of interpreting the spacetime is wrong. It is the only consistent approach to the problem that solves all the issues regarding quantum theory and the way it interacts with "matter".
All intelligent questions will be answered. I will not respond to criticism without a scientific basis. I am sure you all understand that.
Cheers
Hi PhysBang
First of all no I don’t think non-detection of gravitational radiation is that valuable if they are still considering building larger detectors because it is a total waste of resources. The fact that they never detected any from GRB070201 should have sent a real signal that there may be something wrong with Einstein’s view of the Universe but instead they put the fault at the modelling of GRB’s.
How can anyone say that LIGO is producing significant scientific results when it has detected absolutely nothing? And it will never detect gravity waves nor will LISA. It is just a waste of money and resources. If they were to spend a little time looking at alternative models of spacetime maybe they might realise there is an alternative way of thinking about spacetime.
I take it you are talking about the Hulse-Taylor binary. The loss of energy could be accounted for by the collapsing spacetime zones around each of the massive objects and the rotation of spacetime surrounding each object. All it would take is to work the math but unfortunately my knowledge of math is not up to it but I have managed to model gravity without using Newton’s gravitational constant along with gravitational redshift and time dilation simply by thinking of spacetime differently from that of Einstein. It is the almost religious way intelligent physicists cling to Einstein’s view that is so stupid in my opinion and in the long run I think history will show that Einstein had it wrong.
Tony
QUOTE
If they continue to not detect gravity waves then don't you think those result are valuable? That will be real trouble for GTR.
It will also mean that we have to find alternate explanation for all the indirect measurements of gravity waves that we already have.
It will also mean that we have to find alternate explanation for all the indirect measurements of gravity waves that we already have.
First of all no I don’t think non-detection of gravitational radiation is that valuable if they are still considering building larger detectors because it is a total waste of resources. The fact that they never detected any from GRB070201 should have sent a real signal that there may be something wrong with Einstein’s view of the Universe but instead they put the fault at the modelling of GRB’s.
How can anyone say that LIGO is producing significant scientific results when it has detected absolutely nothing? And it will never detect gravity waves nor will LISA. It is just a waste of money and resources. If they were to spend a little time looking at alternative models of spacetime maybe they might realise there is an alternative way of thinking about spacetime.
I take it you are talking about the Hulse-Taylor binary. The loss of energy could be accounted for by the collapsing spacetime zones around each of the massive objects and the rotation of spacetime surrounding each object. All it would take is to work the math but unfortunately my knowledge of math is not up to it but I have managed to model gravity without using Newton’s gravitational constant along with gravitational redshift and time dilation simply by thinking of spacetime differently from that of Einstein. It is the almost religious way intelligent physicists cling to Einstein’s view that is so stupid in my opinion and in the long run I think history will show that Einstein had it wrong.
Tony
Trout
You are wrong. LIGO is sensitive enough to detect gravity waves from GRB070201 but it failed to do so. That is the point! I am not saying that design of LIGO is wrong but GR is.
You are one of Einstein disciples are you? Well you have had a good run but when GP’B’ finally gives up its results for frame dragging and they turn out to be higher than expected by GR, because spacetime is rotating with the Earth and not being dragged around by the Earth, maybe it will shake your confidence in Einstein just a little.
Tony
QUOTE
There is a much simpler explanation, the current design is not sensitive enough. Several enhancements are planned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#Future. Neither GR, nor GRB or the LIGO design are wrong.
Stay tuned , you will get your turn in eating your rants against GR.
Stay tuned , you will get your turn in eating your rants against GR.
You are wrong. LIGO is sensitive enough to detect gravity waves from GRB070201 but it failed to do so. That is the point! I am not saying that design of LIGO is wrong but GR is.
You are one of Einstein disciples are you? Well you have had a good run but when GP’B’ finally gives up its results for frame dragging and they turn out to be higher than expected by GR, because spacetime is rotating with the Earth and not being dragged around by the Earth, maybe it will shake your confidence in Einstein just a little.
Tony
Good Elf
An interesting way of viewing the Universe! I see you are still in need of a manifold so I would like for you to answer a couple of simple questions
1. What is space?
2. Explain the arrow of time we all experience?
Tony
An interesting way of viewing the Universe! I see you are still in need of a manifold so I would like for you to answer a couple of simple questions
1. What is space?
2. Explain the arrow of time we all experience?
Tony
Hi True Relativity,
So ... why should we expect to see a gravity wave from an event that is only converting mass to energy? "g" stays the same? Yes? No?
Wouldn't you only see a gravity wave if the mass of "x" just magically disappeared?
No; mass / energy conversion is not necessary.
and "True relativity" is clueless about what produces gravitational waves according to Gen Relativity..
GW's don't need mass /energy CONVERSION.
In current GR theory GW's originate from acceleration of a non-symmetric mass distribution (or in more technical terms, a third time derivative of the quadrupole mass moment), (like, for ex., orbiting binary stars)... And the energy for the GW can come from the orbital energy....causing orbital decay as the GW is radiated.
However, this quadrupolar wave will be absorbed (and thus detected ) only by a suitable detector close enough to the source. For distant sources, other events are generally sought, like asymmetric mass explosions.
Lunar
No; mass / energy conversion is not necessary.
and "True relativity" is clueless about what produces gravitational waves according to Gen Relativity..
GW's don't need mass /energy CONVERSION.
In current GR theory GW's originate from acceleration of a non-symmetric mass distribution (or in more technical terms, a third time derivative of the quadrupole mass moment), (like, for ex., orbiting binary stars)... And the energy for the GW can come from the orbital energy....causing orbital decay as the GW is radiated.
However, this quadrupolar wave will be absorbed (and thus detected ) only by a suitable detector close enough to the source. For distant sources, other events are generally sought, like asymmetric mass explosions.
Lunar
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't pose my question in a clear context though.
Specifically, I was curious with regard to GRB's. It didn't make sense to me that gravity waves would necessarily be associated with such an event. Were any of my assumptions sound?
I have read/been exposed to the binary-star descriptions but the basis of gravity waves associated with those is convoluted ... (i.e... I'm not smart enough).
Since you say ... "mass/energy convesion is not necessary" ... does that mean that such conversions will not therefore result in gravity waves?
Thanks in advance.
Specifically, I was curious with regard to GRB's. It didn't make sense to me that gravity waves would necessarily be associated with such an event. Were any of my assumptions sound?
Well; since we're not 100% sure how GRB's originate then a definite Gravitational wave association ought not be presumed.
We do know that some GRB's appear to be associated with supernovae explosions; and so in that case, we can assume possible gravitational radiation associated with the mass ejections....(and so coincident detection of gravitational waves with GRB's are generally sought after).
However, there is no reason to suspect GW's from the GRB emissions themselves.
Since you say ... "mass/energy conversion is not necessary" ... does that mean that such conversions will not therefore result in gravity waves?
Not definitively, but in such a case the GW's amplitude is generally assumed to be negligible (at least in General Relativity) since the amount of mass in any conversion is typically so small.
However, Ive not seen the equations worked out for any possible GW from mass conversion.....and it may be possible in certain cases.
Good questions...
Lunar
QUOTE (True Relativity+)
Good Elf
An interesting way of viewing the Universe! I see you are still in need of a manifold so I would like for you to answer a couple of simple questions
1. What is space?
2. Explain the arrow of time we all experience?
Tony
An interesting way of viewing the Universe! I see you are still in need of a manifold so I would like for you to answer a couple of simple questions
1. What is space?
2. Explain the arrow of time we all experience?
Tony
I thought we explained that above. Maybe I was too technical... sorry.
1. What is space? The "space" have come from the "inverse" effect resulting in length contraction and time dilation. Where "infinite" length contraction and time dilation reduce space and time to a singularity... the reverse of lower than light velocity results in a foliation in which time and space has evolved. This foliation is our Universe of time and space. This curvature is an expression of mass... the only expression of mass.
2. Explain the arrow of time we all experience? Well you probably are looking for an explanation of why time is always proceeding 'forwards" and not apparently "backwards". The idea of an actual "arrow" is a more abstract idea. This must be viewed in the light of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory which is "time symmetric" in certain "reversible reactions". One of these "reversible reactions" is the creation of matter (electrons and positrons) from pure light which is entirely reversible and time symmetric. There would be other reactions of a similar nature as well but as yet only this one has been done in the Laboratory to my knowledge (fully time symmetric one). In the early Universe the energies were there to produce more exotic higher energy reactions... reactions which ultimately resulted in most of the protons and neutrons etc. we see around today as atoms.
Lets say when the Universe was started through an event (call it the Big Bang) in which space and time spontaneously arose through the process I have briefly outlined above and when mass was introduced (which prevents all events happening at the same instant and in the same place)... Equal amounts of matter and antimatter came into existence... In this "foliation". Feynman's idea of antimatter (and in my view the only correct view) is that antimatter is ordinary matter traveling backwards in time. When the Universe started all the so called "antimatter" was instantly traveling backwards in our time which was just starting at "zero" into a Universe "before" the creation of our Universe (an uncreated Universe) where it all now exists as a mirror foliation alongside of our Universe. This prevented the majority of the mass-anti-mass disappearing in matter-antimatter annihilation events. This is a Universe that is very similar to ours just containing all the antiparticles we had here originally and are now particles "there" traveling "forward" in that arbitrary direction of time "away from the Big Bang" just like we are. Note they will all still be "entangled" with the matter "cousins" on our side of this "foliation" to this very day.
I see you are still in need of a manifold Yes... I am still in need of a manifold. You can explain so much using Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics and the little left over can also be "mostly explained" by a similar technique. The problem of gravity is really a problem of the existence of mass and in this theory suggests it is simply curvature in spacetime while electromagnetism is the propagation of massless particles at the speed of light "relative to a flat manifold". Naturally the "flatness" or otherwise of a manifold depends on the relative frame from which observations are made. The greater the acceleration the more mass is present and the less flat the space is. This is simply the underlying simple rule on which Einstein's Theories are based that inertial and gravitational acceleration are the same... The principle of equivalence.
Wikipedia: Equivalence principle
It is hard to think of any real theory that could do away with this background independent way of explaining force.
It is also clear that Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis and also time symmetry in single atomic processes are still possible but because there is "a long way through time" to go to the "temporal edge" of the parallel foliation now (13.5 Billion Years away) so the "antimatter" (or the backwardly traveling in time particle) is likely to suffer matter-antimatter annihilation events along the way.
Cheers
1. What is space? The "space" have come from the "inverse" effect resulting in length contraction and time dilation. Where "infinite" length contraction and time dilation reduce space and time to a singularity... the reverse of lower than light velocity results in a foliation in which time and space has evolved. This foliation is our Universe of time and space. This curvature is an expression of mass... the only expression of mass.
2. Explain the arrow of time we all experience? Well you probably are looking for an explanation of why time is always proceeding 'forwards" and not apparently "backwards". The idea of an actual "arrow" is a more abstract idea. This must be viewed in the light of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory which is "time symmetric" in certain "reversible reactions". One of these "reversible reactions" is the creation of matter (electrons and positrons) from pure light which is entirely reversible and time symmetric. There would be other reactions of a similar nature as well but as yet only this one has been done in the Laboratory to my knowledge (fully time symmetric one). In the early Universe the energies were there to produce more exotic higher energy reactions... reactions which ultimately resulted in most of the protons and neutrons etc. we see around today as atoms.
Lets say when the Universe was started through an event (call it the Big Bang) in which space and time spontaneously arose through the process I have briefly outlined above and when mass was introduced (which prevents all events happening at the same instant and in the same place)... Equal amounts of matter and antimatter came into existence... In this "foliation". Feynman's idea of antimatter (and in my view the only correct view) is that antimatter is ordinary matter traveling backwards in time. When the Universe started all the so called "antimatter" was instantly traveling backwards in our time which was just starting at "zero" into a Universe "before" the creation of our Universe (an uncreated Universe) where it all now exists as a mirror foliation alongside of our Universe. This prevented the majority of the mass-anti-mass disappearing in matter-antimatter annihilation events. This is a Universe that is very similar to ours just containing all the antiparticles we had here originally and are now particles "there" traveling "forward" in that arbitrary direction of time "away from the Big Bang" just like we are. Note they will all still be "entangled" with the matter "cousins" on our side of this "foliation" to this very day.
I see you are still in need of a manifold Yes... I am still in need of a manifold. You can explain so much using Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics and the little left over can also be "mostly explained" by a similar technique. The problem of gravity is really a problem of the existence of mass and in this theory suggests it is simply curvature in spacetime while electromagnetism is the propagation of massless particles at the speed of light "relative to a flat manifold". Naturally the "flatness" or otherwise of a manifold depends on the relative frame from which observations are made. The greater the acceleration the more mass is present and the less flat the space is. This is simply the underlying simple rule on which Einstein's Theories are based that inertial and gravitational acceleration are the same... The principle of equivalence.
Wikipedia: Equivalence principle
It is hard to think of any real theory that could do away with this background independent way of explaining force.
It is also clear that Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis and also time symmetry in single atomic processes are still possible but because there is "a long way through time" to go to the "temporal edge" of the parallel foliation now (13.5 Billion Years away) so the "antimatter" (or the backwardly traveling in time particle) is likely to suffer matter-antimatter annihilation events along the way.
Cheers
QUOTE (TrueRelativity+)
The reason LIGO has never or will never detect gravitational waves is because they do not exist.
When massive object undergo acceleration the spacetime zone that they generate around themselves collapses and therefore no gravitational radiation will be produced, ever.
When massive object undergo acceleration the spacetime zone that they generate around themselves collapses and therefore no gravitational radiation will be produced, ever.
Interesting thread. I agree with you, though you might not agree with my reasoning: energy is always associated with gravity. We can liken energy to stress, and gravity to the tension that always accompanies stress. A photon is a wave that delivers energy, and as a result, it also delivers gravity. A wave of tension without stress is like action without reaction, so gravitational waves per se simply cannot exist. But something else might. I rather think we ought to be looking for something more like very-long-wavelength photons. LIGO, which uses light, does not sound suitable.
QUOTE
It is the reluctance of the scientific community to think of spacetime differently from that of Einstein that is laughable.
However I don't agree with this. The scientific community already think of spacetime very differently to Einstein. That's the problem.
If the gravitational waves warp space Time and matter why would they expect to measure the waves using light sent through the same warped space and time?
QUOTE (captain_obvious+Oct 17 2009, 04:02 PM)
If the gravitational waves warp space Time and matter why would they expect to measure the waves using light sent through the same warped space and time?
Yes; IOW, the phase of the light wave (in transit) would vary in direct proportion with the space-time variaton, and thus no phase difference should be detected.
I've asked this same question many times since the beginning of LIGO, even to LIGO physicists, and I never once got a pluasible or satisfactory explaination.
That is the main reason, in my opinion, for lack of detection, namely, that the LIGO METHODOLOGY is incapable of detecting GW's.
Its not about sensitivity, its about methodology.
Lunar
Yes; IOW, the phase of the light wave (in transit) would vary in direct proportion with the space-time variaton, and thus no phase difference should be detected.
I've asked this same question many times since the beginning of LIGO, even to LIGO physicists, and I never once got a pluasible or satisfactory explaination.
That is the main reason, in my opinion, for lack of detection, namely, that the LIGO METHODOLOGY is incapable of detecting GW's.
Its not about sensitivity, its about methodology.
Lunar
QUOTE (True Relativity+Jan 20 2008, 10:27 AM)
Trout
You are wrong. LIGO is sensitive enough to detect gravity waves from GRB070201 but it failed to do so. That is the point! I am not saying that design of LIGO is wrong but GR is.
You are one of Einstein disciples are you? Well you have had a good run but when GP’B’ finally gives up its results for frame dragging and they turn out to be higher than expected by GR, because spacetime is rotating with the Earth and not being dragged around by the Earth, maybe it will shake your confidence in Einstein just a little.
Tony
Actually you are clearly wrong and completely clueless about the GR model prediction of gravitational waves. People who are serious about science are NOT disciples of theoretical models. The only contributor to this thread who appears to know anything about the LIGO experiment is Trout. Your claim that GR is wrong is laughable since the gravitational wave experiment is in a very early stage and all completed experiments wrt GR predictions have confirmed the GR model. I would suspect you don't understand why the GR model predicts gravitational wave phenomena. or any details wrt to the phenomena it predicts. Most likely you only know the LIGO experiment hasn't directly detected the phenomena at this date. Boring.
You are wrong. LIGO is sensitive enough to detect gravity waves from GRB070201 but it failed to do so. That is the point! I am not saying that design of LIGO is wrong but GR is.
You are one of Einstein disciples are you? Well you have had a good run but when GP’B’ finally gives up its results for frame dragging and they turn out to be higher than expected by GR, because spacetime is rotating with the Earth and not being dragged around by the Earth, maybe it will shake your confidence in Einstein just a little.
Tony
Actually you are clearly wrong and completely clueless about the GR model prediction of gravitational waves. People who are serious about science are NOT disciples of theoretical models. The only contributor to this thread who appears to know anything about the LIGO experiment is Trout. Your claim that GR is wrong is laughable since the gravitational wave experiment is in a very early stage and all completed experiments wrt GR predictions have confirmed the GR model. I would suspect you don't understand why the GR model predicts gravitational wave phenomena. or any details wrt to the phenomena it predicts. Most likely you only know the LIGO experiment hasn't directly detected the phenomena at this date. Boring.
QUOTE (brucep+Oct 18 2009, 07:07 AM)
Actually you are clearly wrong and completely clueless about the GR model prediction of gravitational waves. People who are serious about science are NOT disciples of theoretical models. The only contributor to this thread who appears to know anything about the LIGO experiment is Trout. Your claim that GR is wrong is laughable since the gravitational wave experiment is in a very early stage and all completed experiments wrt GR predictions have confirmed the GR model. I would suspect you don't understand why the GR model predicts gravitational wave phenomena. or any details wrt to the phenomena it predicts. Most likely you only know the LIGO experiment hasn't directly detected the phenomena at this date. Boring.
BTW the GPB experimental results have ruled out nonsensical predictions such as you just made. What's fascinating is how so many folks are so willing to make fools of themselves over subjects they have no knowledge of.
This comment was meant for True Relativity [whatever that is supposed to mean].
BTW the GPB experimental results have ruled out nonsensical predictions such as you just made. What's fascinating is how so many folks are so willing to make fools of themselves over subjects they have no knowledge of.
This comment was meant for True Relativity [whatever that is supposed to mean].
You've got a mass of "x" which has a gravitational value "g" ...
A dynamic event converts the mass to energy ...
Now you've got "y" blazing across local space as energy ...
Does not the speed at which "y" propagates create an equivalent "g" ...
I know it's probably ridiculously funny to someone and they're likely to call me stupid for asking the question. But I'm assuming that energy has mass ... Einstein right? Mass and Energy have a proportional equivalence right?
So ... why should we expect to see a gravity wave from an event that is only converting mass to energy? "g" stays the same? Yes? No?
Wouldn't you only see a gravity wave if the mass of "x" just magically disappeared? Aren't there a fixed number of neutrons, protons and electrons in that mass of "x"? Does the conversion event creating energy "y" decrease the neutrons, protons and electons? Or does it just convert them to another state which cumulatively has the same "g" ... especially when you take into account the acceleration of "y"?
Yes ... I'm an incredibly simple fooker. And it's late here.
A dynamic event converts the mass to energy ...
Now you've got "y" blazing across local space as energy ...
Does not the speed at which "y" propagates create an equivalent "g" ...
I know it's probably ridiculously funny to someone and they're likely to call me stupid for asking the question. But I'm assuming that energy has mass ... Einstein right? Mass and Energy have a proportional equivalence right?
So ... why should we expect to see a gravity wave from an event that is only converting mass to energy? "g" stays the same? Yes? No?
Wouldn't you only see a gravity wave if the mass of "x" just magically disappeared? Aren't there a fixed number of neutrons, protons and electrons in that mass of "x"? Does the conversion event creating energy "y" decrease the neutrons, protons and electons? Or does it just convert them to another state which cumulatively has the same "g" ... especially when you take into account the acceleration of "y"?
Yes ... I'm an incredibly simple fooker. And it's late here.
good luck!
When I can link to the URL?
When I can link to the URL?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 18 2009, 09:38 AM)
So ... why should we expect to see a gravity wave from an event that is only converting mass to energy? "g" stays the same? Yes? No?
Wouldn't you only see a gravity wave if the mass of "x" just magically disappeared?
No; mass / energy conversion is not necessary.
and "True relativity" is clueless about what produces gravitational waves according to Gen Relativity..
GW's don't need mass /energy CONVERSION.
In current GR theory GW's originate from acceleration of a non-symmetric mass distribution (or in more technical terms, a third time derivative of the quadrupole mass moment), (like, for ex., orbiting binary stars)... And the energy for the GW can come from the orbital energy....causing orbital decay as the GW is radiated.
However, this quadrupolar wave will be absorbed (and thus detected ) only by a suitable detector close enough to the source. For distant sources, other events are generally sought, like asymmetric mass explosions.
Lunar
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Oct 18 2009, 06:09 PM)
No; mass / energy conversion is not necessary.
and "True relativity" is clueless about what produces gravitational waves according to Gen Relativity..
GW's don't need mass /energy CONVERSION.
In current GR theory GW's originate from acceleration of a non-symmetric mass distribution (or in more technical terms, a third time derivative of the quadrupole mass moment), (like, for ex., orbiting binary stars)... And the energy for the GW can come from the orbital energy....causing orbital decay as the GW is radiated.
However, this quadrupolar wave will be absorbed (and thus detected ) only by a suitable detector close enough to the source. For distant sources, other events are generally sought, like asymmetric mass explosions.
Lunar
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't pose my question in a clear context though.
Specifically, I was curious with regard to GRB's. It didn't make sense to me that gravity waves would necessarily be associated with such an event. Were any of my assumptions sound?
I have read/been exposed to the binary-star descriptions but the basis of gravity waves associated with those is convoluted ... (i.e... I'm not smart enough).
Since you say ... "mass/energy convesion is not necessary" ... does that mean that such conversions will not therefore result in gravity waves?
Thanks in advance.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 19 2009, 03:43 AM)
Specifically, I was curious with regard to GRB's. It didn't make sense to me that gravity waves would necessarily be associated with such an event. Were any of my assumptions sound?
Well; since we're not 100% sure how GRB's originate then a definite Gravitational wave association ought not be presumed.
We do know that some GRB's appear to be associated with supernovae explosions; and so in that case, we can assume possible gravitational radiation associated with the mass ejections....(and so coincident detection of gravitational waves with GRB's are generally sought after).
However, there is no reason to suspect GW's from the GRB emissions themselves.
QUOTE
Since you say ... "mass/energy conversion is not necessary" ... does that mean that such conversions will not therefore result in gravity waves?
Not definitively, but in such a case the GW's amplitude is generally assumed to be negligible (at least in General Relativity) since the amount of mass in any conversion is typically so small.
However, Ive not seen the equations worked out for any possible GW from mass conversion.....and it may be possible in certain cases.
Good questions...
Lunar
Are there assumptions for gravity wave dissipation? Would EM field dissipation laws be a valid analogy? Or instead is it assumed that there is no absorption or degradation in their strength with distance? I'm guessing it must be the latter since LIGO is hoping to see waves created from what would be non-local sources (i.e... binary systems light years away).
I have looked around the web before asking this. Wiki (the noob's best friend) only appears to have a entry for waves caused by gravity versus gravity waves. If you know of a good place for me to start reading I'd happily visit that link instead of asking here.
Edit: Nevermind ... I found the wiki page. I'm sure it will suffice.
I have looked around the web before asking this. Wiki (the noob's best friend) only appears to have a entry for waves caused by gravity versus gravity waves. If you know of a good place for me to start reading I'd happily visit that link instead of asking here.
Edit: Nevermind ... I found the wiki page. I'm sure it will suffice.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.