'Listening' to black holes form with gravity waves

Aug 16, 2013 by Geoff Vivian
‘Listening' to black holes form with gravity waves
Gravity waves are ripples in space generated by extreme cosmic events such as colliding stars, black holes, and supernova explosions, which carry vast amounts of energy at the speed of light. Credit: Werner Benger, NASAblueshift

New technology that breaks the quantum measurement barrier has been developed to detect the gravity waves first predicted by Einstein in 1916.

Professor David Blair was one of 800 physicists from around the world who announced a breakthrough in measurement science last month.

"Gravitational wave astronomy is going to be the new astronomy that's likely to really revolutionise our understanding of the universe," he says.

"It will allow us to listen to the big bang and to black holes forming throughout the universe.

"These are detectors that can allow humanity to explore the beginning of time and the end of time."

According to current theory, time began with the big bang and ends in black holes.

Specialised equipment known as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) uses to measure gravitational ripples of space and time.

The detector consists of an L-shaped vacuum system, four kilometres long, with mirrors at the ends.

Lasers directed at the mirrors are isolated from irrelevant vibrations by a vibration .

He says the addition of a new technique called 'quantum squeezing' at the world's largest allowed researchers to eliminate a lot of the 'noise' caused by .

"The recent announcement is the first implementation in a multi-kilometre detector."

"It proves that the quantum barrier [that] physicists thought would limit sensitivity can be overcome."

The new equipment has allowed the physicists to break the barrier, defined until recently by Heisenberg's .

"This is a major breakthrough that makes us even more confident that in a few years we will begin to directly measure the ripples in space," he says.

As a result there is no lower limit on the amount of measurable energy, and extremely subtle will become detectable.

"These instruments represent the pinnacle of technology," he says.

"They've got the most perfect mirrors ever created, they've got the most powerful laser light that's ever been used in any measuring system.

"They've got a vacuum that is so good that the size of any leak would represent less than a teaspoon full of air leaking into it in about 300 years.

"They can measure the smallest amounts of energy that has ever been measured but the new method enables them measure even less.

"The uncertainties from empty space can be suppressed so as to measure something even smaller."

David Blair led a team of 16 physicists in Western Australia along with 800 physicists from around the world who announced the breakthrough in a paper just published in the journal Nature Photonics.

Explore further: Closing in on Einstein's window to the universe

More information: www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v7/n8/full/nphoton.2013.177.html

Related Stories

Closing in on Einstein's window to the universe

Aug 01, 2013

(Phys.org) —Nearly a century after the world's greatest physicist, Albert Einstein, first predicted the existence of gravitational waves, a global network of gravitational wave observatories has moved a ...

Improving measurements by reducing quantum noise

Jun 27, 2013

If you want to measure something very precisely, such as slight variations of a length, then you are very likely to use light waves. However, many effects, such as variations of gravity, or surface forces, ...

New experiments set to detect gravitational waves

May 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —Over the next five years, Mansi Kasliwal writes in an astrophysics perspective in the journal Science, researchers will begin setting up experiments designed to detect gravitational waves. Kasliw ...

Recommended for you

Precise control of optical frequency on a chip

20 hours ago

In the 1940s, researchers learned how to precisely control the frequency of microwaves, which enabled radio transmission to transition from relatively low-fidelity amplitude modulation (AM) to high-fidelity ...

User comments : 95

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2013
The new equipment has allowed the physicists to break the quantum measurement barrier, defined until recently by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

If I understand it correctly squeezing doesn't break the barrier. It 'only' confines the uncertainty in one component of a conjugate pair to a narrower interval at the expense of introducing more uncertainty in the other. But the fundamental uncertainy relation when both uncertainties are multiplied still holds.
no fate
2.1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2013
If gravity waves exist, they would be the first gravity related phenomenon I am aware of to propegate away from the source. Would it not make more sense that they would be detected as ripple towards the source? This is not my arena but if they exist, perhaps the detector has to be oriented in the opposite direction of the proposed source which is why we haven't detected them yet. More likely I think it is due to the fact that gravity is a mass dependant force so the total gravity of any given region is proportionate to the sum of the mass within the region, regardless of whether the mass is 2 neutron stars 1 AU apart rotating around a center of gravity, or one neutron star created from the merger of two. There is a boundary outside of which the inverse square law won't permit differentiation between how the mass is configured when using gravity. If the sun became a black hole, the planets would still orbit as normal as long as the mass is equivalent.
indio007
1.2 / 5 (24) Aug 16, 2013
Lord, here we go again.
Michelson Morley nullified aether with a single (allegedly) negative result. We have had umpteen failures to detect gravity waves. Some from LIGO itself. I guess if they keep coming up with new techniques they won't get defunded and fired.

shavera
4.7 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2013
no fate: Gravitation is a *result*, a by-product of space-time curvature. It's not really a true force, but what is known as a "fictitious force," a force that exists because of choosing a non-inertial reference frame. Much like a turning car *feels as if* there's force pushing you to the outside door, even though it's really just your inertia and the door pushing you around in a circle. So too is standing on the ground and it *feels as if* there's a force of gravity pulling you down, even though your inertia is directed towards the center of the Earth, and the ground is pushing up on you away from the center.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2013
Would it not make more sense that they would be detected as ripple towards the source?

No, that wouldn't make sense as that would mean gravity waves start somewhere 'out there' far away from an event that causes them. Which would require instantaneous information transmission accross universe-wide scales.

This is not my arena but if they exist, perhaps the detector has to be oriented in the opposite direction

It's an L shape. Doesn't matter which way the gravity waves come/go (as long as they don't come from straight above/below)

If the sun became a black hole, the planets would still orbit as normal as long as the mass is equivalent.

After the fact the gravity profile would be the same (except for the volume smaller than the current surface of the sun). DURING the collapse things would look markedly different., as you get a second order term. It is those events that they're trying to find (neutron stars crashing into each other, etc. )
shavera
4.7 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2013
indio007: gravitational waves are no kind of aether. They're changes in measurements of space and time which we are already quite familiar with existing. We're just looking for a specific kind of change in space-time measurements associated with certain physical processes in the universe.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (35) Aug 16, 2013
And the Hulse / Taylor result is justification enough to keep looking.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (32) Aug 16, 2013
New technology that breaks the quantum measurement barrier has been developed to detect the gravity waves first predicted by Einstein in 1916.

Professor David Blair was one of 800 physicists from around the world who announced a breakthrough in measurement science last month.

"This is a major breakthrough that makes us even more confident that in a few years we will begin to directly measure the ripples in space," he says.


We hope to hear the good news soon, anyway it seems that Einstein did not tell us how it works, maybe this working mechanism could help us to visualize it….
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
no fate
2 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2013
Antialias- Apologies if I am wrong, but isn't the second order term what they are trying to detect? Also, since gravity is an effect that is 'out there' away from the cause of the field and it's effect is felt first at a distance and increases toward the source, it is difficult for me to fathom why waves would travel in the opposite direction.

Shavera - Does this mean if we can't detect them then the assumption of curved spacetime is wrong and that gravity is a mass effect in 3D volumistic space?
shavera
5 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2013
no fate: if we _never_ find gravitational waves, then it likely means we need better understanding of space-time. To date, the curvature model works amazingly well, so it would be interesting to see what corrections would be necessary for it to work but not produce waves. I don't think there's sufficient data to abandon the model by any means yet.
indio007
1 / 5 (19) Aug 16, 2013
indio007: gravitational waves are no kind of aether. They're changes in measurements of space and time which we are already quite familiar with existing. We're just looking for a specific kind of change in space-time measurements associated with certain physical processes in the universe.

I wasn't saying gravity waves are aether. I'm saying how damn times do gravity waves have to be falsified before we stop dumping money into looking for them. The M&M experiment caused aether to be thrown out on the first try.
brt
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 16, 2013
indio007: gravitational waves are no kind of aether. They're changes in measurements of space and time which we are already quite familiar with existing. We're just looking for a specific kind of change in space-time measurements associated with certain physical processes in the universe.

I wasn't saying gravity waves are aether. I'm saying how damn times do gravity waves have to be falsified before we stop dumping money into looking for them. The M&M experiment caused aether to be thrown out on the first try.


This is a little more complex than what M&M were doing. Some things are easy to test, others are very hard.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2013
I'm saying how damn times do gravity waves have to be falsified before we stop dumping money into looking for them.


Once would be a start. They have never been falsified. Early detectors were always meant to drive towards higher and higher sensitivity putting upper limits on strong gravitational wave signals. These detectors are not at the limit where current they would predict an detection be likely. The lack of detection does not falsify them yet. We can see their effects on binary pulsars, there is reason to believe they exist.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2013
The search for gravitational wave is analogous to Big Bang cosmology. We already know, both ideas are fringe both from (lack of) experimental evidence... but the mainstream science industry cannot change the direction so easily.


And in the very same post you quote the evidence of their existence and completely ignore it. Irony. The BB too has evidence you can find is any textbook, ignoring it doesn't address that.
philw1776
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2013


Once would be a start. They have never been falsified. Early detectors were always meant to drive towards higher and higher sensitivity putting upper limits on strong gravitational wave signals. These detectors are not at the limit where current they would predict an detection be likely. The lack of detection does not falsify them yet. We can see their effects on binary pulsars, there is reason to believe they exist.


I'm confused. Supposedly 2000 era LIGO was supposed to be at the edge of detectability for once a year or so big events. I THINK it simply never met its detector specs. Then we needed an upgrade to Super LIGO to detect the space time ripples. Now in the above article we've supposedly gone even further in sensitivity, exceeding the quantum limit in one parameter. My specific question is...is the new Super LIGO sensitive enough to detect waves and a what approximate order of magnitude of occurrence per year before we're worried about current theory.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2013
but isn't the second order term what they are trying to detect?

Yes.
Also, since gravity is an effect that is 'out there' away from the cause of the field and it's effect is felt first at a distance and increases toward the source, it is difficult for me to fathom why waves would travel in the opposite direction.

Gravity is an effect of mass. But gravity waves are an effect of accelerated mass (I'm not an expert on the subject, mind, this is just deduced from what I read on the subject).
Here's the part that I THINK happens, but this may be totally wrong as I haven't done the math on this: If you you have a periodically fluctuating field (like that created by two heavy bodies orbiting each other where the common center of gravity is always on the move) you will get gravity waves. With neutron stars orbiting each other closely these waves should be noticeable. Linear motion (or spehrical implosions/explosions) will not generate gravity waves.
indio007
1 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2013
What ever happened to Gravity Probe B?
They declared victory then recanted and now are hiding the data.

I don't know how anyone can defend this state of affairs.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
What ever happened to Gravity Probe B?

All the data and papers on it are published (the last one is from 2011). You can read them online. What exactly is your problem with the Gravity Probe B data?

so it would be interesting to see what corrections would be necessary for it to work but not produce waves.

It would be amazing if gravity could travel at other speeds than c. In that case there'd be all kinds of neat things to look at (information transmission. The assumption of causality, ... )
LIGO will hopefully give us a first clue as to the nature of gravity. That still is one of the more enigmatic things out there.
brt
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2013
What ever happened to Gravity Probe B?
They declared victory then recanted and now are hiding the data.

I don't know how anyone can defend this state of affairs.



Gravity Probe B had nothing to do with gravitational waves.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2013
Gravity B had to do with 'frame dragging', and it backed that up. An Italian physicist with an alternative cosmology theory with no 'c' 'speed limit' postulated that the neutrino would be proved nonexistent by grav probe B, but have not heard from him in quite some time. He did have a lot of followers.
We will find that gravity 'waves' obey the quantum mechanical laws of non locality....'spooky action at a distance', and basically laugh in the face of Einstein worshipers. I expect to be flamed and ignored here but that goes with the territory. Franklins will be proved right eventually when some in the scientific community with more huevos than a cucaracha pull their collective heads out of their derrieres.
For those who doubt...see that the same also deny life off our little blue ball too (no dinosaurs either), and no less than Stephen Hawking says that based on size alone, it is entirely rational for other folks than us to exist. Our govts KNOW and do not tell!
brt
4 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2013


For those who doubt...see that the same also deny life off our little blue ball too (no dinosaurs either), and no less than Stephen Hawking says that based on size alone, it is entirely rational for other folks than us to exist. Our govts KNOW and do not tell!


you sound so credible. I'm in. Where do we meet?
Osiris1
1 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2013
Actually believe that gravity does have a force carrier, but this is in all or most matter as a 'preon', the next 'layer of the onion' that we have not peeled back yet as we did the quark. Preons are compononts of quarks and have their own VERY high energy 'chemistry' and physics. Personally I believe that Albert Einstein either divided by zero somewhere or accepted the wrong exact solution for some partial differential equation set...one that DOES account for a lot of things, but not ALL things. One poster quoted gravity as a function of the second derivative of motion of matter, but rather believe it is matter in first derivative motion that gives rise to variations in grav fields resulting in waves. Oscillation IS motion. If we mistakenly allowed a nonsense 'speed limit' for this, the universe would quickly tear itself apart, and we would have never existed as no universe subject to this would last very long. Rogue waves would tear the fabric of space at a confluence.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (33) Aug 16, 2013
Also, since gravity is an effect that is 'out there' away from the cause of the field and it's effect is felt first at a distance and increases toward the source, it is difficult for me to fathom why waves would travel in the opposite direction.


What do you mean "felt first at a distance"? For a static field there is no propagation, so the field isn't felt 'first' anywhere. It just is.

If the source of gravity, mass-energy, is dynamic enough, the waves should travel from the source. Recall that gravity not only effects space, but time also. Theoretically, if you were able to remove the sun instantly, changing the field, the earth would continue to orbit what would be nothing, for another eight minutes,... (assuming there is a velocity of gravity of c).
Noumenon
2 / 5 (35) Aug 16, 2013
We will find that gravity 'waves' obey the quantum mechanical laws of non locality....'spooky action at a distance' -Osiris1


You ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter,.. but only if I get to wear a funny hat.

Maybe there is no dark matter then, but instead, regular matter is entangled with matter away from the galaxy, giving only the impression of missing matter. Do I get a hat?
Urgelt
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2013
All hat, no cattle!

Just kidding, Noumenon. Go ahead and wear a shiny hat. I think most of the posters here do. It's okay if they don't have any cattle.

Gravity intrigues me. Does it obey C? What will gravity waves, assuming we find any, tell us about space-time that we don't yet know? Is space-time quantized? Is there lager under quantum foam, and if so, can we throw a party and get drunk on it for free?

There's something really terrific about using quantum squeezing to wring more information out of experiments. It's kind of like 'special interrogation techniques' for physicists. I suppose someone will suggest that we appoint a commission to look into the ethics of it.

No, wait, I didn't say that. I don't want to give anyone ideas.
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2013
In this particular case the physicists are detecting non-existing objects (black holes) with nonexisting waves, so that the outcome is predictable easily.


So now ya have come to believe that black holes are not-existing objects? (Ya Zephyrs should get together once and awhile to get your stories straight.)

Zeph, theories, such as the AWT and the Unified Water Rippling Surface Theory, need one quality above all others, they must be self-consistent. Meaning ya can't have black holes in your theory on one day, and on another day make them non-existing objects.

Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (15) Aug 16, 2013
BTW Einstein did believe in black holes neither.


So? Ya realized he died long before any of the observational evidence started to come in?
Protoplasmix
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2013
Good tutorial on GWs from Caltech here: http://www.tapir....ave.html

Nice figure of merit showing the improved sensitivity attained using the squeezed vacuum can be seen at the LIGO Scientific Collaboration here: http://www.ligo.o...ndex.php

From the above FOM, it looks like they're down to a strain sensitivity of h ~ 10^-22 (1/√Hz) for most of the range of frequencies over which the interferometers were designed to operate.

The strongest waves expected to be observed passing the earth will come from the merger of two "typical" black holes (10x mass of sun, ea.) and will have h ~ 10^-20. Out to a range of 20 megaparsecs (a volume of space with radius 6 x 10^20 km) such events are predicted to occur about once a year.

The LIGOs have already put limits on the stochastic background and thereby constrained some of the more exotic versions of various newer theories that go beyond general relativity and the Standard Model. Good reasons to be optimistic about the future of Advanced LIGO either way, but finally detecting GWs directly will truly open a powerful window for viewing the universe - that includes viewing what's happening to mass *inside* a black hole during a merger.

@antialias - you're right, it's the acceleration of mass. I was surprised to learn that additional candidates include events occurring on magnetars and also neutron 'starquakes'. Even if the mass happens to be accelerated in a straight line it will make waves, so long as it's accelerating.
Egleton
1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2013
Thanks everyone.
I have just leaned over the edge of the dark chasm of unknowing and survived.
What I have found is that Spooky action at a distance is the same thing as wormholes, saving the day.
Relativity survives,
Information survives,
Quantum mechanics survives.
And my God, the God of the Yawning Chasm, laughs.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (22) Aug 17, 2013
Come one, come all, right over heeere! the most fantastic, stupendous, amazing phenomena ever imagined
It warps space, it bends time, it twists light, and even it makes noisy waves.
It'll cure what ails your theory, just add, shake, and the peer review will go down as easy as pie!
Some claim its the weakest force, nonsense! Just add mass, as much as you need and voila, all your problems solved.
The black holes are simply irresistible, except when the jets appear, but never mind that.
Get your gravity over heeere!

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2013
We will find that gravity 'waves' obey the quantum mechanical laws of non locality....'spooky action at a distance', and basically laugh in the face of Einstein worshipers

People laugh at that not because it would fly in the face of GR, but because anyone who jumps to a "we will find..." based on no data is to be laughed at.
We haven't got the data yet. Just wait.

One poster quoted gravity as a function of the second derivative of motion of matter

No. I said second order TERM (which is the FIRST derivative). And I didn'it say that gravity was due to that I said that gravity CHANGES that manifest as waves were due to that. (Gravity itself is due to mass and not related to velocity).

Even if the mass happens to be accelerated in a straight line it will make waves, so long as it's accelerating.

The part I'm still a bit vague about is why exactly this is happening (with orbiting masses it seems plausible). Is this an effect of GR mass increase?
Puppetgrimm1
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2013
correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the fact that we can detect frame dragging mean we should be able to detect gravity waves?
indio007
1 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2013
What ever happened to Gravity Probe B?
All the data and papers on it are published (the last one is from 2011). You can read them online. What exactly is your problem with the Gravity Probe B data?

Maybe you can post a link? All I can find is the so-called result.
They were supposed to put out the raw & processed data in a total of 3 phases.
They never released anything other than the "final result".

There are papers after 2011 about the experiment. They are still trying to figure out the accuracy and proper technique to calculate the reference stars that are used to calibrate/interpret the Gravity B data.
So how can there be any result?
The experiment is incomplete ATM

Infinum
1 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2013
News about any actual and relevant measurement results would be much more interesting than a news about new possibilities for obtaining those measurement results. Almost a non-event really.
Greenwood
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2013
Supposedly 2000 era LIGO was supposed to be at the edge of detectability for once a year or so big events.


Most studies don't put the rate nearly that high, that's high even for the "best possible case" rates. That was enhanced LIGO, LIGO is now being upgraded to advanced LIGO which will be enough to either detect them or rule out current models. The article does not state aLIGO will not be enough. Squeezed light sources could be made as a minor upgrade between runs not a major one.

To quote from the most recent meta study. Initial/enhanced LIGO rates are most realistically estimated at 0.03 events per year. Advanced LIGO will have 40 according to the same statistics. For initial the max rate is 0.6 per year, for advanced it is over a thousand,
Greenwood
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2013
They cannot exist in rigorous relativity.

As Eddington pointed out already before many years, gravitational waves do not have a unique speed of propagation and the speed of the alleged waves is coordinate dependent. A different set of coordinates yields a different speed of propagation and such waves would propagate like noise.


As you have been shown in the past, Eddington never said that. His paper never claimed gravitational waves did not exist and said some types of gravitational waves have no fixed velocity. Not the type however that LIGO/VIRGO detect.

All existing observations can be attributed to very large and dense, but still classical objects


If you completely ignore the fact that such objects cannot be that massive without collapsing under the very theory that predicts their existence.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (18) Aug 17, 2013
Are Black Holes Necessary?
Absolutely not!
http://www.plasma...sCLR.pdf
Greenwood
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2013
when many mainstream scientists too. Argue your problems with these people, not with me. If you don't know about their arguments, it's just your problem of your private ignorance.


A Nobel prize winner may well believe that but his opinion is worth no more than anyone else's. It's speculation. I did not state that black holes must exist, I stated your argument was wrong. I'm not arguing with their statements I'm arguing with yours. Calling me ignorant on the basis of other peoples work for rebuking your claims is nonsense. Restating those claims about Eddington after you have been shown he did not say that is willful ignorance.
Greenwood
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2013
They is not speculation, it has faced the test of peer review and self consistency. Your claims of ignorance are completely unrelated. I told you why you were wrong, you didn't reply to that. You merely gave a vague statement about quantum mechanics which proved nothing. You don't need a singularity to have a black hole, totally different argument. "it's sorta quantum mechanic effect" more vague baseless claims, QM says nothing about gravity.

In GR curvature is due to energy density. Curvature is proportional to energy density, it does not generate energy density. The information paradox has nothing to do with that, it's about entropy and conservation.

Greenwood
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2013
As you have been shown before Zephyr the comment of Weyl's you quote isn't in there. Nothing in that paper casts doubt on gravitational waves.

This field correspond the portion of so-called dark matter actually and its total mass can be larger, than the original mass.


Mass is not the only term in the stress tensor metric, mass does not grow. Curvature is proportional to mass, it does not create mass. You're just repeating yourself

If some gravity field is generated


But the only way curvature can be created is by energy density, In GR it does not just appear as you suggest. You're claims of dark matter are thus unfounded.

But at very large or very small gravity field intensities the Newton's law gets broken


Unfounded. Nonlinear terms only become significant in the strong field case, not the weak field case.
beleg
1 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2013
An event assigned location is classical.
A hybrid wave equation will give you the debate you read about today.
Hybrids are not fundamental. Information is conserved and we provide the paradox.
Greenwood
5 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2013
MOND and TeVeS are not more complete derivations, they are fudges. They simply introduce into newtonian gravity a function which is used to fit the data (eg galaxy rotation curves). TeVeS is actually relativised newtonian gravity not GR at all.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (13) Aug 18, 2013
Great thread, guys, but Franklin, you are getting a bit too verbose. 5 comments in a line are over the top.
Meanwhile, anybody want to place bets on them finding gravity waves by, say, the end of 2015?
Gravitons? Gravitinos? I'm all ears!
C'mon Q-Star etc., put your money where your mouth is!
My belief in the non-existence of gravity as a force and the best alternative for the gravitic effect remains valid.
If anybody is interested, I will post a simple experiment that proves gravity as defined by the equation force=GmM/rr is not a force.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (34) Aug 18, 2013
If anybody is interested, I will post a simple proof that this sentence is not true.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2013
@Franklins
Why not to simply jump from window? If the gravity is not force, you shouldn't feel any acceleration and you should survive comfortably....

That's an effect we perceive, not a force.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (29) Aug 18, 2013
In GR every curvature of space-time around massive body has its non-zero energy density assigned. ... This field correspond the portion of so-called dark matter actually [..]. It's gravity field results into additional curvature of space-time, which is known as a dark matter lensing, ...


Curvature is proportional to mass, it does not create mass

This is nonsense [..] most of dark matter mass estimations are based on gravitational lensing measurements. So that the people who estimated the mass of dark matter assumed, that the curvature of space observed corresponds [to] mass.


Your being needlessly recursive and redundant. If they were making use of the mass-equivalence of the gravitational field energy to derive the gravitational lensing effect,... why would they have needed DM then? They're not doing so. 'Even' Newton, had he SR could have known of the lensing effect. There is no general way of determining the self-space-time curvature energy anyway.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2013
@Franklins
What prohibits you to say after then, that the magnetic force is not a force, just an effect, which we can perceive? Where is the criterion for which effect causing acceleration still is the force and which already isn't?

For magnetic force and all others but gravity, you can deflect it, shield against it, associate a particle with it.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2013
@Franklins
......violates the Occam's razor economy of our thinking.

If you are going to bring Occam's Razor into this, then why "invent "gravity, with all its experimental anomalies and observed discrepancies, to explain the gravitic effect, when simpler explanations which do not require a mysterious undetectable force are available, and which actually fit the observed universe without inventing DM, DE, etc.?
Gmr
3 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2013
@Franklins
What prohibits you to say after then, that the magnetic force is not a force, just an effect, which we can perceive? Where is the criterion for which effect causing acceleration still is the force and which already isn't?

For magnetic force and all others but gravity, you can deflect it, shield against it, associate a particle with it.


Bingo! Which is why gravity is awesome. It's a maverick in terms of forces, or the way we expect forces to behave.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2013
@Noumenon
If anybody is interested, I will post a simple proof that this sentence is not true.

Go on, then!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (12) Aug 18, 2013
@Franklins
What prohibits you to say after then, that the magnetic force is not a force, just an effect, which we can perceive? Where is the criterion for which effect causing acceleration still is the force and which already isn't?

For magnetic force and all others but gravity, you can deflect it, shield against it, associate a particle with it.


Bingo! Which is why gravity is awesome. It's a maverick in terms of forces, or the way we expect forces to behave.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a ... wait a minute! It doesn't! It ain't a duck at all! Its a dragon! (or another mythical beast we can invent for the purpose...).
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) Aug 18, 2013

If anybody is interested, I will post a simple proof that this sentence is not true.

Go on, then!


In other words, your statement,...

I will post a simple experiment that proves gravity as defined by the equation force=GmM/r² is not a force.


....doesn't make any sense. Newton's theory of gravity models it as a force. It is not something that is logical to deny.

P.S. no ones says "gravitic".

Greenwood
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2013
So that the people who estimated the mass of dark matter assumed, that the curvature of space observed corresponds the mass.


And what part that implies that the curvature caused extra mass? They assumed there was an exact proportionally, no extra mass. If curvature and mass are proportional then they are always exactly proportional, the curvature is never greater than the mass so it does create extra mass.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 18, 2013
Bingo! Which is why gravity is awesome. It's a maverick in terms of forces, or the way we expect forces to behave.


Magic, it sells! Gravity and it's magic reduce people to mysticism, that's why GR is such a dangerous religion.

There is a far simpler possibility, one in which high school students could solve the maths involved.
http://www.holosc...niverse/
Greenwood
5 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2013
How is it possible after then, that the amount of dark matter exceeds the amount of normal matter by 600% percents?


Dark matter is not hypothesised to be this extra mass you describe, It is a complement of the energy-momentum tensor so it is not a creation of curvature. Proportionality is exact, there is no extra matter created because there is never more curvature than the mass would require. Understand that before you request that people think logically.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) Aug 18, 2013
If they were making use of the mass-equivalence of the gravitational field energy to derive the gravitational lensing effect,... why would they have needed DM then?

Because the gravitational lensing of DM is larger, than the lensing of matter, which the DM surrounds.


I must have misread your post then. I thought you appeared to have attributed the appearance of DM as resulting from the energy of curvature due to regular matter,...

It's gravity field results into additional curvature of space-time, which is known as a dark matter lensing

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) Aug 18, 2013
If the deflection of EM by the sun is predicted by GR to high measurable accuracy, it stands to reason that if such accuracy fails in other cases as in gravitational lensing, the data is likely wrong (amount of mass), not necessarily the theory. It's not the first time that theory predicted matter previously unknown, and there is nothing in theory that says all possible mass must radiate detectable EM.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2013
Cool to see uses of quantum squeezing of the vacuum a mere few years after they discovered quantum squeezing of light.

"According to current theory, time began with the big bang and ends in black holes."

Not in inflationary standard cosmology, which has no prediction of the beginnings of spacetime as of yet. It _can_ begin in a singularity before the CMB big bang horizon. But we don't know, inflation is past timelike incomplete but there are ways to circumvent that.

And time can, locally, end in black holes. But right now the standard particle model may imply that the vacuum tunnels to a new state, with a new spacetime, before then. (Still too little precision out of LHC to pin Higgs et cetera down.)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2013
Oh, the troll brigade is out in force. Still complaining about the new cosmology, I see. Never mind that gravity waves are useful for other observations. :-/

@cantdrive: "GR is ... religion."

Since you can study the physics of GR at the university but you can't study any form of magic at a physics department (due to lack of observations of such, mind), your claim falls on its own fat ass.

Inefficient trolling, the bane of every anti-scientist. But if they had studied science in the first place they wouldn't be trolling for their nutty alternatives. Moment 22...
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2013
Oops. It is "Catch-22" in english. My spell checker is as intelligent as the average troll. :-/
IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2013
So that as the result the whole galaxy has 6x higher mass than before the finding of dark matter lensing/


People understand what you're getting at but it's wrong, it is not mainstream at all. You are suggesting curvature creates mass, which is very different from using curvature to infer mass. The key point which has been explained to you is that the proportionality forbids such "extra mass", any curvature is caused by real mass. It is always exact, there is never more curvature than mass so there is no extra mass. The whole idea of your extra mass is completely wrong because of this.

And no, you've completely misrepresented those news stories they aren't even about dark matter. It's not the case that dark matter is measured and then tested against the same ruler, CDM is a model it makes predictions which can be tested.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2013
Cool to see uses of quantum squeezing of the vacuum a mere few years after they discovered quantum squeezing of light


Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. Whether they actually detect what they are looking for, or not, is really only half the point. Just proving that you can build this type of device is fantastic. Finding ways around the Heisenburg limit will be crucial in the not-so-distant future of technology.

The really cool thing about building a device like this is that you just don't know what it will tell you until you use it, and even then, you've gotta be clever enough to interpret what you get.

Even if this device doesn't find anything, that will tell us something.

I wonder how you verify anything you get from a unique machine like this though, whether a positive or negative, it's awefully difficult to verify it without building another device. I guess someone eventually will though.
GSwift7
3.1 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2013
the proportionality forbids such "extra mass", any curvature is caused by real mass. It is always exact, there is never more curvature than mass so there is no extra mass


If expansion is accelerating, doesn't that imply the proportions are not in balance though?

Assuming that the Universe as a whole (whatever that means) has a curvature exactly in proportion to the mass/energy it contains (whatever that means), then an area of accelerating expansion would have to be balanced by areas with a porportionally opposite acceleration. Acceleration/deceleration is synonomous with curvature. So, if accelerating expansion is really happening, then curvature isn't uniform, even on large scales.

Right?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (29) Aug 19, 2013
the proportionality forbids such "extra mass", any curvature is caused by real mass. It is always exact, there is never more curvature than mass so there is no extra mass


If expansion is accelerating, doesn't that imply the proportions are not in balance though?


There is the cosmological term for that.

I believe there IS mass-equivalence energy due to the curvature of space-time which is why the field equations are non-linear,..... but apparently it is difficult to quantify,.... and certainly nothing to do with Franklins recursive mass increase he seemed to imply.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2013
If expansion is accelerating, doesn't that imply the proportions are not in balance though?..then an area of accelerating expansion would have to be balanced by areas with a porportionally opposite acceleration.


No, what needs to be exactly proportionate is curvature and the terms of the energy-momentum tensor. There is no requirement that positive curvature be in balance with negative curvature, only that curvature reflect the contents of the space. If we assume the distribution of contents is homogeneous then curvature will be too and so will acceleration.
Kron
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2013
There is no one correct theory. Be it gravity waves intercepted with probes, be it something else intercepted and interpreted as 2 black holes spinning on a way to a merger, perhaps black holes do not exist - black holes being an imprint into the very fabric of space and time. Some believe a point of infinite density resides within the imprint. A black hole is mass-less mass, there is a gravitational field as if there is something present, but there isn't. Like feeling the Earth under your feet, but nothing being there. But do black holes truly form? What if the degeneration stops at a highly dense state of equilibrium. The density of the body relates to the temperature. The more dense the body becomes the higher its resistive force. So if the black hole is infinitely dense then the resistance is infinite and the dense centre explodes and nothing is left in place because nature balances. A white hole follows the creation of every black hole. Due to vorticity, 2 plumes jet out.
Kron
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2013
The problem with theories is they are based on perceptions and intuitions of theorists. There is no truth because the theorist is inside of the physical world he is describing. There is no way of looking at reality from another angle. There is only 1. So the theories I prefer are the beautiful yet simple ones which work to describe the world around us. The important attribute being the predictive element because if the theory accounts for all the physical details, it is an ultra simulation. If the numbers in your theory match the measurements in the physical world, and the theory has simplistic beauty, then it is complete. A good story behind the theory helps in the learning process. (These are the pesky why questions, the 'philosophy' within physics.)

The important part in physics is the math. Discoveries are subjective. Experiments rely upon an unreliable factor. Human mind. The human mind is quite imaginative. It could infer an unreal image of the reality it is reading.
Kron
1.9 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2013
If the mathematical model works your theory is possibly true, if it doesn't, you're wrong. Plain and simple. If you can explain the relationships (equations) in a simple yet easy to learn way, you create a way of providing people with predictive power which they can then use to move forward.

If you can simply explain it...its beautiful.
Kron
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2013
The type of imprint that a massive body exerts is easy enough to read. 1.The satellite detects the strongest gravity at the point closest to the centre of mass of the body it is detecting, the satellite point furthest from c.o.m. experiences the lowest gravitational pull, spaghettification - to some degree. So the detectors read whether gravity is influencing them. If the detectors feel the gravity at different times a wave passed by. 2.The satellites detect the transmission of a beam between them. An unaccounted for optical distortion presents possibility of a gravitational lens. A delayed speed of transmission could suggest a type of spacial stretch. If the signal took longer to arrive it would mean that more space came between the two satellites. This is evidence in support of a gravity wave passing through. Captured evidence, deformation of space-time.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2013
No, what needs to be exactly proportionate is curvature and the terms of the energy-momentum tensor. There is no requirement that positive curvature be in balance with negative curvature, only that curvature reflect the contents of the space. If we assume the distribution of contents is homogeneous then curvature will be too and so will acceleration


As a whole, yes, but that doesn't need to be true locally. Just as with quantum physics, you can break the rules locally as long as you conserve everything as a whole. Areas of acceleration versus areas where mass in concentrated implies that the balance isn't uniform. We appear to see this on intergallactic scales, since our local group isn't accelerating, but more distant objects are.

If there is a differential, or gradient, then there's an imballance that should attempt to correct itself by the rules of entropy. It is trying to equalize and reach the lowest potential energy state. What that means in terms of gravity is???
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2013
The problem with theories is they are based on perceptions and intuitions of theorists


Yes, if you're talking about classical era theory, where they didn't bother with observations and math. An example of this would be the idea that God loves perfect circles, so the cosmos must be composed of circles (which held back the discovery of eliptical orbits for centuries), or the idea that God wouldn't create things that Man cannot observe, so it must not exist (Which kept people from looking into a telescope for decades).

Our modern theories differ from internet forum posts in that they require mathematical predictions that match the observations. And, they must obey all the laws of conservation and such, or they need to figure out why they don't, or they do observations to figure out what we're missing. The search for gravity waves falls into this category.
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2013
Spacetime doesn't exists.
Ripples on spacetime don't exist.
Gravitational waves are waves of acceleration or force.
They must be detected with accelerometers.

Antonio Jose Saraiva
IMP-9
3 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2013
As a whole, yes, but that doesn't need to be true locally. Just as with quantum physics, you can break the rules locally as long as you conserve everything as a whole. Areas of acceleration versus areas where mass in concentrated implies that the balance isn't uniform. We appear to see this on intergallactic scales, since our local group isn't accelerating, but more distant objects are.


It does need to locally, that's how GR works. The evolution of the Hubble constant locally depends on the local contents. As I said if we assume the distribution is homogeneous then so will the acceleration. If it is not it does not need to be uniform, but on large scales distribution is. Below the scale where the expansion of the universe dominates over gravity we will of course not see acceleration. Acceleration does not itself imply the proportionality is off.
martin_ciupa
1 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2013
There are many technical errors in the researchers quotes. Saying gravitational wave research will enable us to "hear" the universe's beginning is confusing the word BANG in Big Bang as an acoustic thing, and gravity waves as being like sound waves, putting the word "listen" in quotes is not enough. As an analogy it really does not work.

Likewise stating that Gravity Wave research will enable us to understand the beginning and likely end state of the universe is overstating its potential. We may indeed be able to use the experimental data to better differentiate cosmological models, but the Planck Era state at the very earliest stages of the models remains opaque to Gravity Waves. In that state a Higgs field has not formed, space-time as we know it, i.e., based on General Relativity, breaks down into Quantum Superposition.

Some experimental physicists often overstate their projects scope in ways that make theoretical physicists noxious!
martin_ciupa
1 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2013
In the attached detailed article on this research it says...

"Until now, the AEI scientists used so-called squeezed laser light in GEO600. They decrease (squeeze) the uncertainty in either phase or amplitude of the light. This comes at the cost of increased uncertainty in the other property. Thus, either the phase or the amplitude can be measured more precisely. "Squeezed light is our instrument of choice for laser-based precision measurements using just one quantum property of light. But we were wondering if there was useful information hidden in the other variable as well," says Schnabel.

Therefore, the researchers applied another trick. By superimposing two squeezed laser beams, they created two new laser beams which are quantum mechanically entangled. One of the beams is used to perform the precision measurement, the other one is used as a reference beam. By comparing measurement and reference beam, the scientists can now determine both phase and amplitude with decreased uncertainty. This allows them to detect tiny changes in both variables.

"We can now for the first time outsmart Heisenberg's uncertainty principle because we're measuring all variables relative to an entangled reference system," explains Sebastian Steinlechner, lead author of the study published in Nature Photonics. He is a PhD student in Schnabel's group within the Collaborative Research Centre/Transregio 7."

Again, this PhD student is overstating the case to say "We can now for the first time outsmart Heisenberg's uncertainty principle", in actuality the experiment is in full compliance with Quantum Mechanics, just not a simplistic understanding of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.

See...
http://www.mpg.de...sitivity
catstarr228
1 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2013
Look on YouTube for "Blue Ball's"


For those who doubt...see that the same also deny life off our little blue ball too (no dinosaurs either), and no less than Stephen Hawking says that based on size alone, it is entirely rational for other folks than us to exist. Our govts KNOW and do not tell!


you sound so credible. I'm in. Where do we meet?

catstarr228
1 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2013
People understand what you're getting at but it's wrong, it is not mainstream at all. You are suggesting curvature creates mass, which is very different from using curvature to infer mass. The key point which has been explained to you is that the proportionality forbids such "extra mass", any curvature is caused by real mass. It is always exact, there is never more curvature than mass so there is no extra mass. The whole idea of your extra mass is completely wrong because of this. And no, you've completely misrepresented those news stories they aren't even about dark matter. It's not the case that dark matter is measured and then tested against the same ruler, CDM is a model it makes predictions which can be tested.

So how are they able to measure dark matter? How can we even expect our concepts to be correct enough to calculate any means of measurement? There are still theories in question about other types and forms of Matter. How is it we are able to skip to the mid?!
catstarr228
1 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2013
Cool to see uses of quantum squeezing of the vacuum a mere few years after they discovered quantum squeezing of light.

"According to current theory, time began with the big bang and ends in black holes."

Not in inflationary standard cosmology, which has no prediction of the beginnings of spacetime as of yet. It _can_ begin in a singularity before the CMB big bang horizon. But we don't know, inflation is past timelike incomplete but there are ways to circumvent that.

And time can, locally, end in black holes. But right now the standard particle model may imply that the vacuum tunnels to a new state, with a new spacetime, before then. (Still too little precision out of LHC to pin Higgs et cetera down.)

So True!There are definitely different elemental chemical biological etc, components at play.What is happening now may not have anything to do with what has or will happen.We are so far away from even predicting what we are begun from or end with.I for 1, only desire the TRUTH!
HenisDov
1 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2013
On The Essence And Matrix Of The Universe-Life
The following three sentences are the shortest data-based TOE…seriously. Very seriously.
The clearer the shorter

Natural Selection to Self Replication is Gravity

- Self-replication is the ultimate mode of natural selection is the essence and drive and purpose of the universe. Period.
- The pre-Big-Bang singularity is the ultimate self-replication (SR) of the cycling mass-energy universe. Period. (mother of universal SR mode…)
- Earth's RNA nucleotides life is just one of the myriad modes of self-replication.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
http://universe-life.com/2012/11/14/701/
-The 20yrs development, and comprehensive data-based scientism worldview, in a succinct format.
-The Genome is a base organism evolved, and continuously modified, by the genes of its higher organism as their functional template.
- Everything in the universe derives from mass-energy duality, from the universe cycle between its two poles all-mass/all-energy.
- The Origin Of Gravitons is the ONLY thing unknown-unexplained in the Scientism Universe.

PS: Spoon feeding

The universe is a (circa 20 hillion yrs?) cyclic affair between all-mass and all-energy poles. NATURAL SELECTION of a mass format mandates energy intake because since the big-bang the resolved mass is reconverting at a constant rate from inert mass to energy, to moving mass. The mass that reconverts to energy SELF-REPLICATES to mass, in black holes, for the eventual re-singularity. The energy-to-mass SELF-REPLICATION process is GRAVITY. All this is enabled and goes on and mandated by/due to the small size and shape and inter-attraction of the gravitons that enable zero distance between them to re-form singularity.

I hope that now you understand what gravity is and why it is the monotheism of the universe…DH
indio007
1 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2013
"Gravitational wave astronomy is going to be the new astronomy that's likely to really revolutionise our understanding of the universe," he says.

Uhm.... you might want to confirm gravitational waves exist first....
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2013
"Gravitational wave astronomy is going to be the new astronomy that's likely to really revolutionise our understanding of the universe," he says.

Uhm.... you might want to confirm gravitational waves exist first....


Hulse and Taylor already did.

What is needed now is a space based system that can work down to 1mHz, HM Cancri is the acid test.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2013
Hulse and Taylor already did
In AWT the gravitational waves are forming the CMBR noise,


As I have pointed out many times, the "M" stands for "Microwave" which is EM, not gravity. You really should stop making a fool of yourself with this statement, even you know better than that (I think).

"In AWT" just means "by the way of thinking" ..


Yes or "IMO" as everyone else uses. Thanks for making that clear again.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2013
CMBR noise is an analogy of the Brownian noise at the water surface


Rubbish, it has a black body spectrum.

which is just the way, in which the longitudinal waves of the underwater manifest itself, being faster than the surface waves.


Rubbish, longitudinal waves underwater are simply sound.

The CMBR photons are ..


.. photons. They are electromagnetic, not gravity.

you cannot have pure transversal wave even at the water surface,


You cannot have (horizontal) transverse waves at a water surface at all, or in any bulk liquid or gas, as has been pointed out to you many times because liquids and gasses have no shear strength. You're wasting your time posting this drivel yet again, why not spend it trying to learn some basic physics instead.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2013
I don't think,,,,


Ya are still doing that thing.

,,, I just argue.


Ya should think more, and argue less. Because,,,

Brownian motion at the water surface has a black body spectrum. Of course the underwater waves are sound waves - after all, this is why they're much faster than the surface ones. Photons aren't electromagnetic stuff, but the gravity stuff too. After all, in pure electromagnetic Maxwell's theory simplified with Heaviside the photons cannot exist. Photon is not EM phenomenon, it's quantum phenomenon.


,,,,,,,,, is nonsensical gobbledygook.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Oct 05, 2013
Brownian motion at the water surface has a black body spectrum.


Nope, it's brown noise, a straight line:

https://en.wikipe...trum.svg

from:

https://en.wikipe...lanation

The black body curve is this:

https://en.wikipe...body.svg

Photons aren't electromagnetic stuff, but the gravity stuff too.


ROFL, be serious.

You cannot have (horizontal) transverse waves at a water surface at all


Why not?


As I said, fluids and gasses have no shear strength.

What else are the Capillary_wave?


Vertical, not horizontal.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Oct 05, 2013
Nope, it's brown noise, a straight line
Yes, if you observe the Brownian noise with light waves.


The spectrum of the motion itself is brown noise. If you get something wrong, learn from it and move on, don't just go on the defensive and try to justify your error, you just end up making the situation worse. The saying is "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

ROFL, be serious.
Of course I do, this is conceptual thing.


No, it's just a stupidly wrong thing.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2013
The spectrum of the motion itself is brown noise
Yes, if ...


There is no "if" involved, the spectrum of the motion itself is brown noise regardless of how it is observed.

it's just a stupidly wrong thing
Well, future will tell us, who was stupidly wrong here...;-)


No need to wait, they are two different things. The effect of gravity that allows the Moon to create the tides on Earth is not microwaves.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2013
From perspective of hard-core relativists such an interaction sounds nonsensical,


Wrong again, relativity doesn't require any particular particles. It simply tells us how they move if they have mass or if they don't.

So, if the photons have mass and they exhibit the attractive field equivalent to gravity, we may ask for example, which speed the gravity interaction must be for being able to hold together the photons, who are allegedly moving with speed of light


If they had mass, they would not travel at the speed 'c', you can't have it both ways.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2013
Of course, the speed of gravity force between photons must be faster than the speed of these photons, or it couldn't manifest itself.


Apparently you aren't aware that individual photons don't interact gravitationally.

Which brings a two possible solutions, which are both equally correct in AWT: if the photons do propagate with speed of light, then the speed of gravity must be superluminal.


Nope, photons follow the curvature of spacetime which is already in place due to whatever stress-energy (usually mass) is present. It is only changes in the curvature that propagate at c.

And/or the speed of gravity remains luminal, as the classical general relativity considers - but after then the photons itself cannot propagate by speed of light, but with slower speed. You can make a choice by now...;-)


Both your options are wrong.
HenisDov
1 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2013
A.
Three old guys :
First one "Windy, isn't it?"
Second "No, it's Thursday!"
Third "So am I. Let's go get a beer."
B.
Aisle seat bus passenger to his window seat neighbor:
"Why are you tearing your newspaper and throwing the shreds outside?"
"To drive away attacking elephants."
"But there aren't any elephants out there!"
"See?!, it works OK!"…

Dov Henis
HenisDov
1 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2013
A.
Three old guys :
First one "Windy, isn't it?"
Second "No, it's Thursday!"
Third "So am I. Let's go get a beer."
B.
Aisle seat bus passenger to his window seat neighbor:
"Why are you tearing your newspaper and throwing the shreds outside?"
"To drive away attacking elephants."
"But there aren't any elephants out there!"
"See?!, it works OK!"…

Dov Henis
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2013
Simplicio: These spectra have the same shape

https://en.wikipe...body.svg

https://en.wikipe...trum.svg

Salviati: No they don't.

What does Sagredo think?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2013
There is no "if" involved, the spectrum of the motion itself is brown noise regardless of how it is observed
The AWT is strictly based on observational perspective.


No, as you said yourself, it is nothing more than your personal opinion, pure intuition with no scientific basis.

If the Brownian motion is observed with waves, which are much faster than this motion, then indeed the spectrum of Brown noise is good for its description. But if the Brownian motion is observed with slower waves, then indeed its spectrum will be different.


No, the spectrum will be identical, but we are talking about the spectrum of the motion itself, not some secondary observation. You don't seem to understand the difference.

Just face it - the AWT has no room dedicated for blind ideology.


As you said yourself a few posts back, AWT means nothing more than your opinion so it is nothing more than your own "blind ideology".
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2013
..it is nothing more than your personal opinion, pure intuition with no scientific basis..
AWT is based on dense aether model of Oliver Lodge,


Lodge's model of the aether was nothing more than a model for the propagation of light and was not a theory. You make random statements about lots of topics which have nothing to do with anything of Lodge's speculation and cannot be derived from it.

but we are talking about the spectrum of the motion itself, not some secondary observation
Who is "we"?


You said "CMBR noise is an analogy of the Brownian noise", I pointed out that it is not, the spectra are completely different. That makes "we".

I'm talking about experimental observations only


The observed spectra are completely different, they are not analogous.

AWT means nothing more than your opinion
The validity of theories ..


You have no theory, as you said yourself: " 'In AWT' just means 'by the way of thinking' ", i.e. your opinion.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2013
Of course, the mainstream scientists still don't realize the connection of CMBR noise to the gravitational waves,


They don't realize it as no one realizes it. It is impossible to realize a thing that doesn't exist.

If you would compensate/eliminate this smog and if you would integrate the intensity of the residual noise, you will get the fully fledged gravitational wave detector.


Detectors are frequency dependent. Gravitational waves would not be in the microwave region.

Which is why I'm fighting with expanding universe model for example, because this model doesn't fit the AWT logics.


The AWT logics=nothing more than a porridge of illogical mutterings.

It's not just my "opinion",


That part ya got right, it's not just your "opinion", it's your obsession/compulsion/delusion. The DAMN (dense aether model nonsense) are nothing more than the gobbledygook of a schizoid mind.

Down vote me twice now. Both the Franklins & Teech2. There is no AWT or DAMN.

More news stories

When things get glassy, molecules go fractal

Colorful church windows, beads on a necklace and many of our favorite plastics share something in common—they all belong to a state of matter known as glasses. School children learn the difference between ...

FCC to propose pay-for-priority Internet standards

The Federal Communications Commission is set to propose new open Internet rules that would allow content companies to pay for faster delivery over the so-called "last mile" connection to people's homes.

SK Hynix posts Q1 surge in net profit

South Korea's SK Hynix Inc said Thursday its first-quarter net profit surged nearly 350 percent from the previous year on a spike in sales of PC memory chips.