Gravitational waves leave a detectable mark, physicists say

gravitational waves
A visualization of a supercomputer simulation of merging black holes sending out gravitational waves. Credit: NASA/C. Henze

Gravitational waves, first detected in 2016, offer a new window on the universe, with the potential to tell us about everything from the time following the Big Bang to more recent events in galaxy centers.

And while the billion-dollar Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detector watches 24/7 for gravitational waves to pass through the Earth, new research shows those waves leave behind plenty of "memories" that could help detect them even after they've passed.

"That gravitational waves can leave permanent changes to a detector after the gravitational waves have passed is one of the rather unusual predictions of general relativity," said doctoral candidate Alexander Grant, lead author of "Persistent Gravitational Wave Observables: General Framework," published April 26 in Physical Review D.

Physicists have long known that gravitational waves leave a memory on the along their path, and have identified five such memories. Researchers have now found three more aftereffects of the passing of a gravitational wave, "persistent gravitational wave observables" that could someday help identify waves passing through the universe.

Each new observable, Grant said, provides different ways of confirming the theory of general relativity and offers insight into the intrinsic properties of gravitational waves.

Those properties, the researchers said, could help extract information from the Cosmic Microwave Background—the radiation left over from the Big Bang.

"We didn't anticipate the richness and diversity of what could be observed," said Éanna Flanagan, the Edward L. Nichols Professor and chair of physics and professor of astronomy.

This computer simulation shows the collision of two black holes, a tremendously powerful event detected for the first time ever by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, which detected gravitational waves as the black holes spiraled toward each other, collided and merged. This simulation shows what the merger event would look if humanity could somehow travel for a closer look. It was created by the Cornell-founded SXS (Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes) project. Credit: Cornell University

"What was surprising for me about this research is how different ideas were sometimes unexpectedly related," said Grant. "We considered a large variety of different observables, and found that often to know about one, you needed to have an understanding of the other."

The researchers identified three observables that show the effects of gravitational waves in a flat region in spacetime that experiences a burst of gravitational waves, after which it returns again to being a flat region. The first observable, "curve deviation," is how much two accelerating observers separate from one another, compared to how observers with the same accelerations would separate from one another in a flat space undisturbed by a gravitational wave.

The second observable, "holonomy," is obtained by transporting information about the linear and angular momentum of a particle along two different curves through the gravitational waves, and comparing the two different results.

The third looks at how gravitational waves affect the relative displacement of two particles when one of the particles has an intrinsic spin.

Each of these observables is defined by the researchers in a way that could be measured by a detector. The detection procedures for curve deviation and the spinning particles are "relatively straightforward to perform," wrote the researchers, requiring only "a means of measuring separation and for the observers to keep track of their respective accelerations."

Detecting the holonomy observable would be more difficult, they wrote, "requiring two observers to measure the local curvature of spacetime (potentially by carrying around small gravitational wave detectors themselves)." Given the size needed for LIGO to detect even one gravitational wave, the ability to detect holonomy observables is beyond the reach of current science, researchers say.

"But we've seen a lot of exciting things already with , and we will see a lot more. There are even plans to put a gravitational wave in space that would be sensitive to different sources than LIGO," Flanagan said.


Explore further

Researchers uncover new gravitational wave characteristics

More information: Éanna É. Flanagan et al, Persistent gravitational wave observables: General framework, Physical Review D (2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084044
Journal information: Physical Review D

Provided by Cornell University
Citation: Gravitational waves leave a detectable mark, physicists say (2019, May 9) retrieved 19 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-05-gravitational-physicists.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2702 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 09, 2019
B.H. Skid-Mark detection algorithms.

May 09, 2019
Interesting to theorize that gravitational waves travel atop the vibration of gravity fields already existing...

May 09, 2019
@Whyde, it is called "superposition." It means that the total field measured at a point is the sum of the fields at that point, but it does not mean the fields interact, only that they sum to a total measurable field.

This is a canon of physics. It's implicit in the math, which is why you need to know the math.

May 09, 2019
And they are STILL referring to SpaceTIME instead of just Space. Have they ever been able to quantify Time without the use of manmade instruments such as clocks? Have they "observed" TIME as a solid object traveling at the speed of light? To MEASURE Time without an instrument is virtually impossible. Science is held back until scientists revise their dependence on the Time model. The Big Bang was an Event.
The video of the merging Black Holes is mesmerising, so I had to watch about 5 times while noticing how similar the combining is to a Mixmaster effect. Noticed also that off to the sides of the video, the faraway Stars were moving in a 'swaying' motion - almost in an 'ebb and flow' dance. Similar to waves moving towards shore on a lake that force floating leaves to bob up, down and sideways. It is my favourite artists' impression.
After the merger is done, some Stars on the outskirts are still moving about.

May 09, 2019
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the phenomena of Gravity Waves?

Because, like most everybody else who comments to these subjects, I am incompetent at advanced mathematics.

However, I do know how to interpret the language & I think the public misunderstanding is the use of the term "Gravity Wave".

I am of the opinion that we are not observing GWs but rather all the crap in Space that are swept up by passing gravitational attraction.

The mobs of space junk crowding together to interfere with the motions of clouds of debris.

This interference of colliding masses as they are dragged along by gravity fields results in wave formation.

I speculate that the main gravitational forces across long distances.
That are causing these formations, remain unperturbed.
While the additional mass of debris has a local effect to cause random fluctuations in the waves of debris clouds.

May 10, 2019
And they are STILL referring to SpaceTIME instead of just Space. Have they ever been able to quantify Time without the use of manmade instruments such as clocks? Have they "observed" TIME as a solid object traveling at the speed of light? To MEASURE Time without an instrument is virtually impossible. Science is held back until scientists revise their dependence on the Time model.

Even if they just said space and measured it only in meter scale, it would still be time dependent because meter is defined by a length that light travels in a SECOND. Can you quantify anything without man-made instruments?

May 10, 2019
And they are STILL referring to SpaceTIME instead of just Space
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Oh not your 'time doesn't exist' nonsense yet again.

Have they ever been able to quantify Time without the use of manmade instruments such as clocks?
Have they ever been able to quantify SPACE without the use of manmade instruments such as RULER?
-Answer; no. Thus according to your 'logic' space also doesn't exist. And yet you don't claim space doesn't exist. Why not?

Have they "observed" TIME as a solid object traveling at the speed of light?
What the hell does that gibberish supposed to mean? WHO says/implies that time is "a solid object" or that time is "traveling" and " at the speed of light", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean? What are you on?

May 10, 2019
Have they ever been able to quantify SPACE without the use of manmade instruments such as RULER?

It's even worse than that. Due to relativistic length contraction there exists only one 'universal ruler' that is valid in all inertial reference frames: the speed of light.
To measure any length unambiguously the only way to do it is to measure time it takes for a photon to travel along its length and multiply by c.

That c is the only universal constant with a unit that directly relates space and time is a pretty damning clue that they are inextricably linked (i.e. that it's "spacetime" and not "space and time")

May 10, 2019
And they are STILL referring to SpaceTIME instead of just Space.


And you're still trying to impose your misguided beliefs on others.

Have they "observed" TIME as a solid object traveling at the speed of light?


What a stupid question. What's worse is that people have tried repeatedly to explain how your logic is faulty, but you keep coming back and repeating the same things, like a false prophet desperate for some followers.

May 10, 2019
Gravity confirms Space/Time C. With the same measurement of the Speed of Light.

I guess the woomomger is back to denying "invisible" Time, tell it to entropy. "invisible"Gravity, tell your chiropractor.
"invisible"air. No air? All that is left for you to breathe, sillyeggjead?
is birdshit falling on your head & the water-vapor to wash it down with,

I consider it interesting that Gravity & Time. both seem to me, to share several characteristics.

Both Infinite & Eternal.
Though, if Time is effected by Gravity, i.e.
speeding up (Universal)
or slowing down (Local) at Light Speed?

Does that mean Time is subordinate to Gravity?
Or, perhaps we should be considering if there is a "spectrum" of gravity & time & unrealized phenomena still to be discovered?

May 10, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 10, 2019
lrshultis

@Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Do not forget that length, time, velocity, momentum, energy, etc. are all measurements of relationships with respect to some standards and do not exist as things other than numerical results. They are not interchangeable with the objects being observed in objective reality.

May 10, 2019
@Whyde, it is called "superposition." It means that the total field measured at a point is the sum of the fields at that point, but it does not mean the fields interact, only that they sum to a total measurable field.
........no. it is not "superposition". It is a time integrating response to changing flux density in accordance with the Inverse Square Law for Gravity. Gravity waves (if you think of gravity as being a wave) do not ride on top of one another, they interact with one another strengthening & weakening as the presence of mass varies.


May 10, 2019
I got this thingie here, measures time like a ruler measures space.

It's called a "clock." Maybe @Satan has heard of those.

May 11, 2019
I got this thingie here, measures time like a ruler measures space.

It's called a "clock." Maybe @Satan has heard of those.
says Da Schniebo

Why don't you ask him. He is skulking around physorg phorums looking for those to demand evidence from. But be sure to bow low and show respect so he doesn't eat your brains.

And you're right. Manmade Clocks do measure time. Maybe you can convince everyone else in this phorum of that, yes?

May 11, 2019
And they are STILL referring to SpaceTIME instead of just Space. Have they ever been able to quantify Time without the use of manmade instruments such as clocks? Have they "observed" TIME as a solid object traveling at the speed of light? To MEASURE Time without an instrument is virtually impossible. Science is held back until scientists revise their dependence on the Time model.

Even if they just said space and measured it only in meter scale, it would still be time dependent because meter is defined by a length that light travels in a SECOND. Can you quantify anything without man-made instruments?
says Cortezz

Space is measured in mm, metres, km, inches, yards, feet, miles, etc. Those are distances. To measure the LENGTH OF THE TIME IT TAKES to TRAVEL A DISTANCE, a RULER is used, or a tape measure or an instrument that does the measuring such as a laser. You also use a clock to measure how long it takes to cover the distance of that Space that is between 2 points.

May 11, 2019
lrshultis

@Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Do not forget that length, time, velocity, momentum, energy, etc. are all measurements of relationships with respect to some standards and do not exist as things other than numerical results. They are not interchangeable with the objects being observed in objective reality.
says irshultis

Also altitude and direction. You've already mentioned the others. But what is referred to as Time is the measurement of Events/Actions and the Distances in relation to the DURATION of those Events/Actions. That is all that the concept of Time is. Time doesn't form a Gravity Well around objects such as planets, but Space does.
The duration of 1 million yrs is the distance between year 1 to year 1 million and is measured by a clock.
Time has yet to be found as an object in the same way that Space is known from its own properties. The only property that the concept of Time has, can only be measured with a manmade instrument.

May 11, 2019
And they are STILL referring to SpaceTIME instead of just Space.


And you're still trying to impose your misguided beliefs on others.

Have they "observed" TIME as a solid object traveling at the speed of light?


What a stupid question. What's worse is that people have tried repeatedly to explain how your logic is faulty, but you keep coming back and repeating the same things, like a false prophet desperate for some followers.
says MrB

What's worse is that you repeated my question but couldn't or wouldn't answer it. You seem to be imposing your own misguided beliefs on others here, as you THINK that you have the right to censor the comments of myself because you disagree, without offering a better and convincing argument. That is the gist of your blowing hot air without logical facts to back it up.
Why are you even commenting in physorg?

May 11, 2019
Lots of things measure time. Among them, wavelength of light is the most important for this discussion. It's quite easy to measure with rulers. Once you know the wavelength and the speed of light, you know the frequency, and that's 1/time.

Of course you won't understand why because you don't know any math.

May 11, 2019
And they are STILL referring to SpaceTIME instead of just Space
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Oh not your 'time doesn't exist' nonsense yet again.

Have they ever been able to quantify Time without the use of manmade instruments such as clocks?
Have they ever been able to quantify SPACE without the use of manmade instruments such as RULER?
-Answer; no. Thus according to your 'logic' space also doesn't exist. And yet you don't claim space doesn't exist. Why not?

Have they "observed" TIME as a solid object traveling at the speed of light?
What the hell does that gibberish supposed to mean? WHO says/implies that time is "a solid object" or that time is "traveling" and " at the speed of light", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean? What are you on?
says humy

You appear to have lost your ability to comprehend easy ideas/concepts that I have put forth here. I might ask YOU the same - What are YOU on?

May 11, 2019
f = c/λ

That's how reality works.

May 11, 2019
Lots of things measure time. Among them, wavelength of light is the most important for this discussion. It's quite easy to measure with rulers. Once you know the wavelength and the speed of light, you know the frequency, and that's 1/time.

Of course you won't understand why because you don't know any math.
says Da Schniebo

The Speed of Light has its own DURATION which may be measured by an instrument. You must have one helluva ruler if you can use it to measure the velocity of light in flight from point A to point B with a possible side trip due to gravitational lensing.

May 11, 2019

You appear to have lost your ability to comprehend easy ideas/concepts that I have put forth here.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

No, I have never 'lost' my ability to comprehend your gibberish ideas you have put forth here, like time being a "solid object" and "traveling at the speed of light", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. That's because I never had the ability to comprehend complete gibberish and I cannot 'loose' what I never had in the first place. My mental health advice to you is to loose YOUR ability to comprehend complete gibberish. This is because to comprehend complete gibberish you must first think complete gibberish, which I for one asset is a BAD thing to do.

May 11, 2019
The Speed of Light has its own DURATION
Is this supposed to mean something?

You might as well say, continuing today's theme, that the purple smell of gravel has its own sound.

May 11, 2019
Surveillance_Egg_Unit, it's pretty simple. Put your ideas into formulas. If you can't - and you still believe in them - they're gibberish and that should give you a you a pretty big clue that you should seek help.

May 11, 2019
says humy

You appear to have lost your ability to comprehend easy ideas/concepts that I have put forth here. I might ask YOU the same - What are YOU on?
......he's on Pop-Cosmology Fantasy, another one of those who believes infinite gravity can exist on one of those finite stellar masses called a black hole.

May 11, 2019
Considering your arguments are nonsense like "duration of the speed of light" and suchlike bullshit, I think it's pretty obvious who's having fantasies. And that's not even mentioning the mind-reading alien bullshit.

Nutjob city.

May 11, 2019
The Speed of Light has its own DURATION
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

What does this mean? This above is gibberish. So, according to you, what IS the "duration" of c? 10 seconds? 10 years? And why that time period? And how can ANYTHING have a "DURATION" if, and according to you, time doesn't exist? A duration is, by definition, the TIME during which something continues. So how can there be any duration if no time exists?

May 11, 2019
We are always in motion, time is the quantity of 'stuff' it takes to go from A to B.

May 11, 2019
How is it that every time there has been an amazing discovery - gravitational waves displace objects despite spacetime is left flat after their passing - trolls want to discuss trivial things like that time like any other phenomena is observed?

Straight up quantum field theory implies observables do not exist - no hidden variables - until measured. That is why we can choose what correlations to observe during unbounded scale entanglement experiments, without breaking the relativistic universal speed limit.

May 11, 2019
The Speed of Light has its own DURATION
Is this supposed to mean something?

You might as well say, continuing today's theme, that the purple smell of gravel has its own sound.
says Da Schniebo

My full comment that you have truncated and misunderstood is:
"The Speed of Light has its own DURATION which may be measured by an instrument."
- meaning that the speed of light has a measurable LENGTH between where it began and where it ends. Gravitational lensing INCREASES that length where instead of traveling in a straight line, the light bounces off Matter and travels in a different direction.

"You must have one helluva ruler if you can use it to measure the velocity of light in flight from point A to point B with a possible side trip due to gravitational lensing."
- You mentioned, here and in another phorum, "the purple smell of gravel has its own sound.".
Does that statement come out of your own imagination, or is it from your reading comic book

May 11, 2019
^^^^Translator required. Does anybody speak a patois of BS and scientific illiteracy?

May 11, 2019
The Speed of Light has its own DURATION
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

What does this mean? This above is gibberish. So, according to you, what IS the "duration" of c? 10 seconds? 10 years? And why that time period? And how can ANYTHING have a "DURATION" if, and according to you, time doesn't exist? A duration is, by definition, the TIME during which something continues. So how can there be any duration if no time exists?
says humy

So you find my comments incomprehensible, eh? I will try to help you to understand it better.
A Duration is the LENGTH of an EVENT or Action from Start to Finish. What you call TIME is merely the Past, Present and Future EVENTS/ACTIONS that occurred Before, Now and What Is To Be.
"Time is an Indefinite Period.
Also, the concept is a more or less definite portion of time in history or characterized by particular events or circumstances"
Space is definable, while Time is indefinable since there are too many variables to explain it.

May 11, 2019
^^^^Translator required. Does anybody speak a patois of BS and scientific illiteracy?
says Castrovagina

You have described your own patois of BS well. We are all still waiting to read anything of scientific value in your own words that aren't tinged with expletives and ad hominem.

May 11, 2019
^^^^Translator required. Does anybody speak a patois of BS and scientific illiteracy?
says Castrovagina

You have described your own patois of BS well. We are all still waiting to read anything of scientific value in your own words that aren't tinged with expletives and ad hominem.


Lol. Want to talk science? You'll get your arse kicked. As usual. As others have been doing to you all through this thread.

May 11, 2019
^^^^Translator required. Does anybody speak a patois of BS and scientific illiteracy?
says Castrovagina

You have described your own patois of BS well. We are all still waiting to read anything of scientific value in your own words that aren't tinged with expletives and ad hominem.


Lol. Want to talk science? You'll get your arse kicked. As usual. As others have been doing to you all through this thread.


I rest my case. As said earlier - expletives and ad hominem.

May 11, 2019
Just one more -

"Time is an Indefinite Period."

Because Time, as a concept to describe the Lengths of Events/Actions is derived from the human mind and imagination, it can be placed anywhere and under most circumstances to measure what has, is, and will be taking place. with or without end.
Another thing about it is that Time is unstoppable and can only go forward. As long as there is Motion, Momentum, Motility occurring anywhere, it is impossible for Time to stop, and it cannot slow down. Events/Actions may stop or slow down, but it isn't Time that is doing it.

Time doesn't stop in Black Holes/Event Horizons. This is due to the continued Motion, Movement, Momentum, Motility of the Matter/Energy that is within the BH/EH. The same with OUTSIDE of the BH/EH. The TIME (EVENTS/ACTIONS) continues on and doesn't stop.
The suggestion that Time stops inside the BH/EH is illogical and irrational.

May 11, 2019
Refer back to the original article. Would SEU's idea have any actual impact on the rather extensive work they performed?

No. So, a soapbox idea with no actual utility to the topic at hand. Move on people.

May 11, 2019
Careful when 'correcting the trolls', guys!

As speed-of-light/photon-frequency for measuring/calculating SPACE dimension/distances is NOT a 'time-dependent' parameter, but rather a gravitational-strength/inertial-motion DETERMINED parameter.

Sure, we use maths algorithms/equations to calculate that parameter for SPECIFIC FRAMES of reference; BUT we mustn't forget what Einstein said about the REAL effective factors ACTUALLY at play.

Ie: ANY 'clock' motions/changes in one frame of reference may differ from a 'clock' in another frame of reference; so we CHOOSE WHICH 'standard' frame of reference 'clock' to use for the quantities/rates INPUT to the algorithms/equations!

Hence the 'output constant' is merely due to CORRELATED CO-VARIATION of 'clock rate' with Gravity/Motion EFFECTS on 'clock(s)' involved in any comparison/calculation/adjustment for light/photon speed/frequency between frames.

Hence Space is NOT 'time-dependent'; but merely 'correlated' with 'clock' rates. :)

May 11, 2019
Refer back to the original article. Would SEU's idea have any actual impact on the rather extensive work they performed?

No. So, a soapbox idea with no actual utility to the topic at hand. Move on people.
says animah

Why not? Do you honestly believe that Scientists/Researchers are so full of themselves that they wouldn't stoop to catch the opinions/ideas of laypersons such as I in order to make improvements (as needed) to their work, and ultimately their careers? They may be up there in the rarefied clouds of laboratories and research stations, etc. but in the long run, they look to us to find out what WE are thinking and if one of more or our ideas just happen to be something that THEY hadn't thought of that actually make perfect sense and JUST MIGHT WORK.
Your rush to judgement and criticism says a lot about you. There are others like you in physorg and it is easy to tell who they are and what they will say.

May 11, 2019
ANY 'clock' motions/changes in one frame of reference may differ from a 'clock' in another frame of reference; so we CHOOSE WHICH 'standard' frame of reference 'clock' to use for the quantities/rates INPUT to the algorithms/equations!
You don't get it. The physics are about transforms, to convert measured quantities from one frame to another. What I'm saying here (and what Einstein was saying with relativity) is that results from one frame can be consistently and completely used to predict results in another frame. You can choose one frame; but you'll always be able to predict the results in other frames from it using the transforms.

The best known transforms are the Lorentz transforms. They give results from one inertial frame in terms of another.

May 12, 2019
Lots of things measure time. Among them, wavelength of light is the most important for this discussion. It's quite easy to measure with rulers. Once you know the wavelength and the speed of light, you know the frequency, and that's 1/time.

Of course you won't understand why because you don't know any math.
says Da Schniebo

The Speed of Light has its own DURATION which may be measured by an instrument. You must have one helluva ruler if you can use it to measure the velocity of light in flight from point A to point B with a possible side trip due to gravitational lensing.

The fact that it is measurable should be proof enuff...

May 12, 2019
@Satan just picked the biggest bullshit it could find and started denying time.

It's quite transparent.

May 12, 2019
Over the last couple of years, we have had the final Gravity Probe B results, the direct detections of multiple black hole mergers, a significant and much more visible neutron star merger, detection of gravitational waves, and direct observation of a black hole event horizon. The trolls are out in force to deny reality. It's time and past time to make it clear what they are.

May 12, 2019
Lots of things measure time. Among them, wavelength of light is the most important for this discussion. It's quite easy to measure with rulers. Once you know the wavelength and the speed of light, you know the frequency, and that's 1/time.

Of course you won't understand why because you don't know any math.
says Da Schniebo

The Speed of Light has its own DURATION which may be measured by an instrument. You must have one helluva ruler if you can use it to measure the velocity of light in flight from point A to point B with a possible side trip due to gravitational lensing.

The fact that it is measurable should be proof enuff...
says Whyde

That's what I already said...in so many words/descriptions. Don't forget the 'side trip' and the lensing effect.

May 12, 2019
Perhaps you'd like to make some claims based on The Principia Mathematica, ISBN 13-978-0-520-08617-7. It has a royal blue cover and was translated from the original Latin and archaic English by I. Bernard Cohens and Anne Whitman. I'm holding it in my hand. Original publication date 1687.

You are an idiot.

May 12, 2019
Just a tip: if someone has The Principia Mathematica and Wheeler, Thorne, and Misner's Gravitation in their library, you're so far out of your weight class the spectators are laughing and don't care to watch the match.

And you already said you think math is wrong.

You are an idiot.

May 12, 2019
Just to pound the wooden stake home through the heart, quote something from page 1028 of Gravitation, on detection of gravitational waves. I'm now holding this in my hand, ISBN 0-7167-0344-0. Black cover with Newton's apple on the front.

You got some kind of bullshit you think can trump (and yes I mean the obvious pun) Wheeler, Thorne, and Misner? Do you have any idea how many tens ot thousands of relativists have learned from this book?

You are an idiot.

May 12, 2019
You should be cautious. You might meet up with someone who actually knows this stuff and has the textbooks to prove it. Announcing you're a mind-reading space alien doesn't help much, just like announcing you were anal probed by aliens when you were a kid.

May 12, 2019
The Speed of Light has its own DURATION
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

What does this mean? This above is gibberish. So, according to you, what IS the "duration" of c? 10 seconds? 10 years? And why that time period? And how can ANYTHING have a "DURATION" if, and according to you, time doesn't exist? A duration is, by definition, the TIME during which something continues. So how can there be any duration if no time exists?
says humy

...
A Duration is the LENGTH of an EVENT ...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

So your 'answer' to what "The Speed of Light has its own DURATION" (your quote) is that time is an "EVENT"? So the physical constant c, which is a speed, is an "EVENT"? So the meaning of your gibberish is yet gibberish; no surprises there.

May 12, 2019
My above misedit;
" So the meaning of your gibberish is yet gibberish"
should be
" So the meaning of your gibberish is yet more gibberish"

May 12, 2019
They may be up there in the rarefied clouds of laboratories and research stations, etc. but in the long run, they look to us to find out what WE are thinking and if one of more or our ideas just happen to be something that THEY hadn't thought of that actually make perfect sense and JUST MIGHT WORK.
Pathetic, arrogant nonsense.

They (Scientists/Researchers) would get more inspiration by inspecting the skidmarks in their underwear than they would from the likes of you and your numbskull buddies.

May 12, 2019
@Da Schneib.
ANY 'clock' motions/changes in one frame of reference may differ from a 'clock' in another frame of reference; so we CHOOSE WHICH 'standard' frame of reference 'clock' to use for the quantities/rates INPUT to the algorithms/equations!
You don't get it. The physics are about transforms, to convert measured quantities from one frame to another....
Yes, that is so. Which is why, if one read and understood my whole post in context, they would have noted that I effectively pointed that aspect out when I went on to say:
Hence the 'output constant' is merely due to CORRELATED CO-VARIATION of 'clock rate' with Gravity/Motion EFFECTS on 'clock(s)' involved in any comparison/calculation/ADJUSTMENT for light/photon speed/frequency between frames.
The overall point was that frames/rates differ; and that:
Hence Space is NOT 'time-dependent'; but merely 'CORRELATED' with 'clock' rates. :)
Thanks for your polite and helpful response, DS. Cheers. :)

May 12, 2019
The Speed of Light has its own DURATION
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

What does this mean? This above is gibberish. So, according to you, what IS the "duration" of c? 10 seconds? 10 years? And why that time period? And how can ANYTHING have a "DURATION" if, and according to you, time doesn't exist? A duration is, by definition, the TIME during which something continues. So how can there be any duration if no time exists?
says humy

...
A Duration is the LENGTH of an EVENT ...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

So your 'answer' to what "The Speed of Light has its own DURATION" (your quote) is that time is an "EVENT"? So the physical constant c, which is a speed, is an "EVENT"? So the meaning of your gibberish is yet gibberish; no surprises there.


As I said, which you willfully fail to comprehend, or are pretending not to, is that what is referred to as "Time" is only a "series of Events/Actions" that can be measured.

May 12, 2019
They may be up there in the rarefied clouds of laboratories and research stations, etc. but in the long run, they look to us to find out what WE are thinking and if one of more or our ideas just happen to be something that THEY hadn't thought of that actually make perfect sense and JUST MIGHT WORK.
Pathetic, arrogant nonsense.

They (Scientists/Researchers) would get more inspiration by inspecting the skidmarks in their underwear than they would from the likes of you and your numbskull buddies.
says SkyLight

Not very bright, are you.
Skidmarks in their underwear? What a cheap shot against real Scientists/Researchers. Fortunately, they don't share in your gross putrefied opinions of laypeople who understand science more than YOU apparently do.
Actually, real scientists are quite down-to-earth folks who are dedicated to STEM. as well as to improving "things". What do YOU do, besides coming into physorg ready to criticise your betters without understanding fully.

May 12, 2019
The overall point was that frames/rates differ; and that:... Hence Space is NOT 'time-dependent'; but merely 'CORRELATED' with 'clock' rates. :)
says RealityCheck

Precisely RC. I noticed that DS thought that he was 'schooling' you as he always thinks he is doing within that exchange between you two, saying that "you don't get it", which I found to be amusing. The process that DS was describing is basic logic that any fifth-grader could learn.
"Time" is just another word for a series of consecutive Events/Actions that take place in Space, whether on Earth or out in the Cosmos that are measurable by clocks. The clocks measure the Duration of each Event/Action; the Duration being the definition of its Length by way of the clock's ticking motion.
Thanks for your 'Time' :)

And what is referred to as 'Time' does NOT stop in BH/EH. Gravitational attraction of Stars into the disk, as well as spin of the disk is Motion and Momentum which are Events/Actions that are measurable.

May 13, 2019
The Speed of Light has its own DURATION which may be measured by an instrument. You must have one helluva ruler if you can use it to measure the velocity of light in flight from point A to point B with a possible side trip due to gravitational lensing.

The fact that it is measurable should be proof enuff...
says Whyde

That's what I already said...in so many words/descriptions. Don't forget the 'side trip' and the lensing effect.

No, you didn't say that in ANY words/descriptions.
The speed of light does NOT have it's own "duration", other than what we have assigned to it. Speed is as much a creation of the mind as time is. But it IS a good descriptor, useful for communicating a concept - as much as "time" is. So, actually.... TIME is the ruler, and therefore a "thing".
And, any side trips and lensing are circumstantially dependent on their proximity to a gravitational body that is warping spacetime sufficiently. Gravity does not directly effect the photon.

May 13, 2019
Fortunately, they don't share in your gross putrefied opinions of laypeople who understand science more than YOU apparently do.
Apparently? How about your own constant diatribes pushing your trite and baseless claim that time is what you say it is and does what you say it can do - flying in the face of all scientific evidence and accepted scientific theory?

My scientific credentials were handed down to me on the day I graduated from university, whereas you have none at all. How do I, and the other scientifically-trained commentators here, know that? It's "apparent" every time you open your mouth - you spew unsubstantiated rubbish and unscientific invective day in, day out, and in a manner which clearly identifies you as part of the sorry global trend in disinformation, attempting to sow the seeds of uncertainty and chaos.

You are very evidently insane, and a helpless slave to the powers of darkness and unreason.

May 13, 2019

No, you didn't say that....
The speed of light does NOT have it's own "duration", other than what we have assigned to it. Speed is as much a creation of the mind as time is. But it IS a good descriptor, useful for communicating a concept - as much as "time" is. So, actually.... TIME is the ruler, and therefore a "thing".
And, any side trips and lensing are circumstantially dependent on their proximity to a gravitational body that is warping spacetime sufficiently. Gravity does not directly effect the photon.
says Whyde

Light has its own duration, not only in the Cosmos. Ever turn a flashlight on and off? The speed of that Light is dependent on your pressing the button. When on, the Light emanating is at the speed of c. When you turn it off...no more Light.
Speed doesn't depend on the human mind to exist. Light has a beginning and an end and also doesn't depend on the mind to exist. Those are things of Nature, not manmade. Time is a descriptor, not a 'thing'. A concept

May 13, 2019
-contc-
@Whyde

I see that you are loyal to the Spacetime myth.
"TIme" is NOT the ruler, nor is the clock. Those are only instruments that Measure Distance and Duration. As I have repeated again and again, Time is ONLY a CONCEPT that was formed in the Mind of an early human observing the 24 hour cycle of Sunrise to Sunrise (or Sunset to Sunset).
In order to quantify the observation of Sunrise to Sunrise cycle, CLOCKS WERE MADE for the purpose of DIVIDING that 24 hours into smaller digits of hours, minutes and seconds that could measure the DURATION OF Events and Actions such as the Sunrise to Sunrise 24 hour cycle.

The concept of Time, and it is STILL ONLY A CONCEPT was somehow incorporated into Einstein's equations as though it was a Dimension. Time is NOT a Dimension. It is only a product of someone's vivid imagination who had a need to call the concept by a 'name'. The word itself is of Old English, but with Germanic origin.

May 13, 2019
@Satan_Dude, nobody cares about your psychotic fantasies about being a 500-year-old self-flagellating mind-reading alien.

May 13, 2019
Ever turn a flashlight on and off? The speed of that Light is dependent on your pressing the button.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

No, it isn't. You keep talking nonsense.
When on, the Light emanating is at the speed of c. When you turn it off...no more Light.
When you turn it off then the speed of light is NOT made less than c. Any light still existing from the flashlight after you turn of the flashlight will still be travelling at c. When and where there is no light, there is no light to be less than c thus the speed of light law isn't being violated when you turn off the flashlight.

May 13, 2019
c_vacuum is not just the speed of light. It's the speed of ANY massless particle.
https://www.physi....396044/
It's also the speed of causality.
c does not change. It is a universal constant. Every time we test relativity - and there have been a LOT of such test - we see that this is so)

May 13, 2019
@egg
Ever turn a flashlight on and off? The speed of that Light is dependent on your pressing the button
no

the physical action of pressing a button only has a causal effect on the mechanical device that is specifically designed to function on or for a purpose-designed tool

should you have an experiment that specifically shows otherwise, I suggest presenting it for validation

so, per your own request ...

May 13, 2019
When and where there is no light, there is no light to be less than c thus the speed of light law isn't being violated when you turn off the flashlight.

@humy is off his meds again

May 13, 2019
c_vacuum is not just the speed of light. It's the speed of ANY massless particle.
https://www.physi....396044/
It's also the speed of causality.
c does not change. It is a universal constant. Every time we test relativity - and there have been a LOT of such test - we see that this is so)
says antialias_p

That is correct. You and I seem to be in agreement on this. Hopefully, not the last time.

May 13, 2019
When and where there is no light, there is no light to be less than c thus the speed of light law isn't being violated when you turn off the flashlight.

@humy is off his meds again
says hat1208

LOL Yes, it shows that humy is capable of his own gibberish while accusing others of the same. :)

May 13, 2019
@Satan_Dude, nobody cares about your psychotic fantasies about being a 500-year-old self-flagellating mind-reading alien.
says Da Schniebo

Could you explain to everyone here just WHO IS this 500 year old mind-reading alien that you keep referring to in most every physorg phorum that you enter. Explain how you are able to read minds, while you're at it, won't you?
And why do you express such disdain and disrespect for your lord and master, Satan when he is able to read what you say about him. Do you find Satan repulsive, ugly and hateful?
The way that you keep on about your lord and master now that he has arrived, he just may eat your brain after all, @Da Schneibo.
ROFLOL

May 13, 2019
They may be up there in the rarefied clouds of laboratories and research stations, etc. but in the long run, they look to us to find out what WE are thinking and if one of more or our ideas just happen to be something that THEY hadn't thought of that actually make perfect sense and JUST MIGHT WORK.


Pathetic, arrogant nonsense.


Yes, that was truly pathetic.

How could scientists be aware what trolls are commenting, and why would they read it since there are no 'ideas' in it. As Da Schneib and others say, if you cannot express it in math it is neither an observation nor a testable hypothesis - it is literary *nothing*.

We all know what scientists do when trolls try to mail them, we have spam filters. In the old days scientist could send the meaningless paper bunts between the trolls and ask them to give each other 'opinions', real "peer review" of sorts, just to get rid of the spammers. That is how we 'look' at them (unless they ask for pointers and education).

May 14, 2019
Coincidental to @torbjorn's very perceptive remarks, and while musing on the ineffectuality of @egg's preposterous notion that scientists would heed his empty musings, I had the image in mind of one of those old men in shabby clothes one would see in the past standing beside a busy road and "directing" the traffic. Few people driving past would notice such a person, and exactly none of those would take notice of his pathetic gesticulations.

The impotent @egg, who appears to have nowhere else to go, and nobody willing to listen to his crazed outpourings, has found his piece of roadside pavement here in this unmoderated forum, insisting that science will take notice of him.

@egg - try the following: walk into a University physics department, and ask to talk to a physicist. Chances are you'll be granted a short interview - physicists are an inherently curious bunch - and you'll then discover just how untenable and unworkable your ideas actually are. Do us all a favor - try it.

May 14, 2019
And if they have to call security to get it to leave, it shouldn't come back.

May 14, 2019
This is a comment section, not a forum or a discussion board, and it has no "reply" option for that reason.

May 14, 2019
"Quote" works pretty good. If you know how text search works. You know, that Intertubes stuff. And stuff.

Just sayin'.

May 14, 2019
CLOCKS WERE MADE for the purpose of ... measure the DURATION...


Duration: the time during which something continues.

Your move, Einstein.

What's worse is that you repeated my question but couldn't or wouldn't answer it.


It was explained, but it went way over your head apparently. We already agreed in the past that the speed of light is finite, and that it is absolute in a vacuum. Time dilation is a necessary consequence of those two facts.The Lorentz Transformations deal with this concept, I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding.

May 15, 2019
CLOCKS WERE MADE for the purpose of ... measure the DURATION...


Duration: the time during which something continues.

Your move, Einstein.

What's worse is that you repeated my question but couldn't or wouldn't answer it.


It was explained, but it went way over your head apparently. We already agreed in the past that the speed of light is finite, and that it is absolute in a vacuum. Time dilation is a necessary consequence of those two facts.The Lorentz Transformations deal with this concept, I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding.


Ha Ha Another fake mind reader. Keep projecting what you think I don't already know.
Go ahead. Keep believing in time dilation. It's not MY problem what you believe.

May 15, 2019
Coincidental to @torbjorn's very perceptive remarks, and while musing on the ineffectuality of @egg's preposterous notion that scientists would heed his empty musings, I had the image in mind of one of those old men in shabby clothes one would see in the past standing beside a busy road and "directing" the traffic. Few people driving past would notice such a person

The impotent @egg, who appears to have nowhere else to go, and nobody willing to listen to his crazed outpourings, has found his piece of roadside pavement here in this unmoderated forum, insisting that science will take notice of him.

@egg - try the following: walk into a University physics department, and ask to talk to a physicist. Chances are you'll be granted a short interview - physicists are an inherently curious bunch - and you'll then discover just how untenable and unworkable your ideas actually are. Do us all a favor - try it.


I have acquaintances in the Physics department of several Universities

May 15, 2019
I have acquaintances in the Physics department of several Universities
Yeah, I bet. Do any of them allow you in any more without calling security?

May 15, 2019
I have acquaintances in the Physics department of several Universities
Yeah, I bet. Do any of them allow you in any more without calling security?


As I have said, I have acquaintances. Real fully employed scientists. Jealous much, are you?

May 15, 2019
Sure left a mark on @Satan. Teh mark of teh stoopit. From a hickory baton. I wouldn't go back, @Satan. If they hear you talking about being a 500-year-old person, or a mind-reading alien, you'll get to talk to the men in the white suits while they take you back to the cell where you get thorazine.

May 15, 2019
Ha Ha Another fake mind reader. Keep projecting what you think I don't already know.
Go ahead. Keep believing in time dilation. It's not MY problem what you believe.


Your question was answered, but you refuse or are incapable of understanding it. Why are you deflecting? Address the Lorentz Transformations.

I have acquaintances in the Physics department of several Universities

It's sad that you have resources to draw from, but you instead choose to be ignorant.

May 15, 2019
Ha Ha Another fake mind reader. Keep projecting what you think I don't already know.
Go ahead. Keep believing in time dilation. It's not MY problem what you believe.


Your question was answered, but you refuse or are incapable of understanding it. Why are you deflecting? Address the Lorentz Transformations.

I have acquaintances in the Physics department of several Universities

It's sad that you have resources to draw from, but you instead choose to be ignorant.
says MrB

No, I choose to do my own research and to come to my own conclusions which are generally correct. As for "time dilation", I still haven't seen any evidence that time is able to transmute or transpose into some "thing" with the ability to produce any sort of Motion, Momentum, and Movement in and of itself. Time doesn't 'Move" since it doesn't exist Only the hands or numbers of the clock move to inform that Events/Actions have CHANGED and for which such changes are recorded by the clock.

May 15, 2019
Your conclusions about physics cannot possibly be correct because you reject math.

It's like saying, I don't understand Sanskrit but I believe in the Bhagavad Gita. Psychotic ideation.

May 16, 2019
I...come to my own conclusions which are generally correct.


"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

May 16, 2019
I have acquaintances in the Physics department of several Universities
Yeah, I bet. Do any of them allow you in any more without calling security?


As I have said, I have acquaintances. Real fully employed scientists. Jealous much, are you?


Watch out everyone, we got a badass over here...

Jul 05, 2019
Lots of things measure time. Among them, wavelength of light is the most important for this discussion. It's quite easy to measure with rulers. Once you know the wavelength and the speed of light, you know the frequency, and that's 1/time.

Of course you won't understand why because you don't know any math.
says Da Schniebo

The Speed of Light has its own DURATION which may be measured by an instrument. You must have one helluva ruler if you can use it to measure the velocity of light in flight from point A to point B with a possible side trip due to gravitational lensing.
//says I
The fact that it is measurable should be proof enuff...
says Whyde

Of course it's measurable. But it's the distance and duration that is measured. The PURPOSE of those instruments is to MEASURE. In this case, it is to measure the VELOCITY OF LIGHT, whereas to measure the DURATION of the velocity of Light, a different instrument is used such as a clock.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more