The Absurdity of Detecting Gravitational Waves

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for clearing that up. I googled around a bit too before posting the OP and saw that the Navy's laser wasn't quite that powerful yet which confused me. How did LIGO get to 1 MW but the naval warfare research center has not? But I decided to take the guy in the videos word for it.

a reply to: intrptr

The waves which are created by two black holes coming together, as well as other gravity wave propagating events, literally warp the fabric of space and time, they create a wave in IT as opposed to being waves of particles within that stretched and warped space and time.

Think of it like this. The sun is sitting there in space time, and it has a gravity well associated with it. Its presence depresses or displaces space time to a certain set degree, so if it creates any ripples on the skin of space and time at all, they are small. Other than those imperceptible wobbles, its just a relatively small dent in space time, mostly constant in terms of its scale.

However, in the event LIGO detected, two black holes were involved. The birth of a black hole would probably create a gravity wave, but two of them converging? At one point these things were orbiting one another at phenomenal speed, before their eventual merging. Thats one object of twenty something solar masses, and another of thirty something solar masses, coming together in a rapidly spinning dance which wound up creating a sixty two solar mass black hole.

Now, because these were massive objects, and because their orbits were so tight and fast, they created such waves in gravity, which bent the space and time around them, propagating outward at the speed of light, that the LIGO detector was able to record them. This would be like chaining two powerboats together, on a chain which steadily becomes shorter in length, on a flat calm lake. The waves would come out in concentric circles, as the black holes churn up the otherwise placid surface.

Now, is it necessary for gravity to have particles in order to become a wave? No. Gravity is a force, not a particle or collection thereof. It just so happens though, that when you throw two massive objects together, and they orbit one another very closely, that gravity and by extension the fabric of space and time, warp and wave in response to these masses being so chaotically conjoined.

I would imagine that star birth, star death, the creation of black holes, collisions between neutron stars and other massive events, will also be recorded in time, as detection methods improve. But none of this necessitates that gravity be particulate in order for it to be as the scientists say it is.

a reply to: moebius

So the powering of 650 homes and the vaporizing head statements are total nonsense, coming from people who should know better.

Thanks for 'splaining that.

I thought 1 MW refers to the amount of electric power required to operate it?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: intrptr
A lcd continuously streams light.

It depends on a polarizer.

Excuse me, an LCD screen emits polarized light. Point being if light radiates in all directions, its impossible to make a photon gun that shoots streams (like a machine gun) of individual photons in a single direction and therefore, the two slit experiment doesn't prove electrons or photons are waves.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Thank you TrueBrit, TIL...

But none of this necessitates that gravity be particulate in order for it to be as the scientists say it is.

So thennn... like earths magnetic field, there are no particles associated with the field just an observable 'field effect' produced by a field generator, in the case of the merging blackholes the effect we detect is the ripple of the laser interferometer at the passage of such intense gravity waves, the 'field effect' of the collision, the 'field effect' generator that produced the waves.

A shock front of gravity waves moving thru space, from an event that produced an 'explosion' of gravity. Like dropping pebbles in a pond. Except like your explanation of the well of gravity in the plane of space surrounding massive objects, gravity doesn't just effect things in a plane (one dimensional), because space is 3D.

So the gravity shock wave that moved out from the collision produces waves of gravity radiating uniformly in all directions the way an atom bomb or supernova 'explodes'.

This shock front is unlike a 'field' in that it propagates freely thru space, again making me wonder about the 'medium' of 'space', the ether the 'shockwave' disturbs, and what it is comprised of.

Did I make a point, its more a question.

How can ripples of anything propagate / move through a vacuum unless there is substance to it? Not just a force (like a magnetic field) but substance, referred to as "space", "space time", "ether", etc.?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: moebius

So the powering of 650 homes and the vaporizing head statements are total nonsense, coming from people who should know better.

Thanks for 'splaining that.

I thought 1 MW refers to the amount of electric power required to operate it?

They are feeding light into the device at 200 W, it is bounced around a few thousand times, so you get the 1 MW power number, fresh photons together with the bounced ones...

The issue is that the 1 MW number does not say much and the whole thing would certainly not contain enough energy to vaporize anything.

a reply to: intrptr

That is one of the interesting things about gravity, a question which LIGO is devoted to the purpose of one day answering. How CAN a wave propagate through a vacuum, without some substance to transmit that wave? And yet gravity is a force, not a collection of particles, so regardless of the many examples otherwise of waves propagating through a medium which has substance to it, that STILL does not mean that gravity is a substance made of parts, simply that we do not know quite enough about it to explain HOW it achieves the things it achieves.

Waves of forces... interesting concept I know, but none the less it is the one with which we are dealing!

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bedlam

You don't need something to "wave" to have a wave. EM is composed of photons, but the "waves" are electric and magnetic fields. There are no particles "waving" like water and air waves.

Tilt.

So far, everything that makes waves is comprised of particles. In the case of light-- photons, water and sound-- molecules, sand dunes-- grains, clouds-- water drops.

Every spectrum detectable from both ends inclusive is detected as waves of particles...

But that's not to say the force of gravity itself is a wave or a particle.

The way I see it is this...

Variations/fluctuations of the gravitational force is needed to cause waves in the fabric of space-time. The only thing we know of so far that can cause waves large enough for us to detect is merging black holes.

Picture a pan of Jell-O (space-time ) carefully place a baseball on top. The baseball will indent/curve the Jell-O with a steady smooth tug of gravity causing not waves. Now tap your finger on top of the baseball. This fluctuation on the Jell-O (space-time )now causes the Jell-O (space-time to wave).

I might be wrong but that'll take on it.

Some of your other questions I would like an answer too myself such as....

Are there really that many black hole mergers that we detected one in such a short period of time?

Here is a few questions of my own...

Did they observe the gravitational waves traveling at light speed?

Did the Earth experience a "bounce back" affect? meaning after the wave passed through the earth did the Earth "vibrate" like a guitar string being plucked?

or was it more like the "water drop affect" where the water drop (the wave) distorts the light (earth and space-time) as it rolls down the window (moves through the universe?

Thanks for the thread!

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Are there really that many black hole mergers that we detected one in such a short period of time?

Even rare events become common when the vast scale of the Cosmos is considered. If your odds of winning the lottery are 300 million to 1 then you have to enter 300 million lotteries to win one time so those odds don't seem very good.

But if the odds are 300 million to 1 that a stellar event will happen in our galaxy this year and there are 200 billion stars in our galaxy, then it becomes likely that such a rare event will happen not just once this year but many times. Not only that, but our galaxy is just one out of billions of others.

Did they observe the gravitational waves traveling at light speed?

I don't think they are set up to measure the speed of the gravitational wave but I could be wrong. Based on other observations they would be expected to travel at the speed of light.

Did the Earth experience a "bounce back" affect? meaning after the wave passed through the earth did the Earth "vibrate" like a guitar string being plucked?

Any such effect would be too small to measure with current technology.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bedlam

You don't need something to "wave" to have a wave. EM is composed of photons, but the "waves" are electric and magnetic fields. There are no particles "waving" like water and air waves.

Tilt.

So far, everything that makes waves is comprised of particles. In the case of light-- photons, water and sound-- molecules, sand dunes-- grains, clouds-- water drops.

Every spectrum detectable from both ends inclusive is detected as waves of particles...

I think this is another reason why it is so important. It isn't particles. Its a wave in space-time itself! If you think about it they are only detecting it because of the effect it has on other things.

True.

Here is something to ponder.

Is space-time really waving?

What if the traveling gravitational force created by the merging black holes isn't a wave until it comes into contact with mass?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

Are there really that many black hole mergers that we detected one in such a short period of time?

They can also detect them from neutron stars and are estimating they will be able to detect up to 40 events a year or more once the machine is tuned all the way and operating at full capacity.

Did they observe the gravitational waves traveling at light speed?

They said "at near light speed" but I don't know the specific speed or percentage of light speed.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Interesting thanks. And thanks for answering questions

a reply to: Alien Abduct

It is all very interesting and like everything in these cosmic subjects I always leave with way more questions than answers.

a reply to: moebius

Thanks again. TIL...

The issue is that the 1 MW number does not say much and the whole thing would certainly not contain enough energy to vaporize anything.

a reply to: TrueBrit

How CAN a wave propagate through a vacuum, without some substance to transmit that wave?

And how can a field produce waves. A magnetic field does't send out waves if it is a field. So the term gravity 'field' is also useless. Besides which gravity 'attracts' instead of repelling.

Also, light is affected / bent by this, but light 'has no mass'?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

But that's not to say the force of gravity itself is a wave or a particle.

A form of energy, like a wave moves through water by bumping molecules, propagating. The energy wave is a transference, through the fabric of water.

Variations/fluctuations of the gravitational force is needed to cause waves in the fabric of space-time.

That "fabric' again. there must be a medium, we just haven't detected it yet. The gravity energy wave propagates thru the medium we call "space time".

Did they observe the gravitational waves traveling at light speed?

Did they specify? I ass/u/me the 1.6 billion years ago was a light speed equivalent.

Did the Earth experience a "bounce back" affect? meaning after the wave passed through the earth did the Earth "vibrate" like a guitar string being plucked?

One would think(?) that if the space time 'continuum' that has gravity wells and all that holding the mass of planets in orbit were suddenly to be bounced by the ripples of 'gravity' waves passing thru the medium, it would make the earth bounce (like a ship on the ocean) when the wake of a boat passes underneath it.

No?

Again the question arises, how does it affect light that is massless, produce waves if its a field, and not disturb objects held in the gravity of other objects.

I'm grumbling again.

originally posted by: intrptr

How can ripples of anything propagate / move through a vacuum unless there is substance to it? Not just a force (like a magnetic field) but substance, referred to as "space", "space time", "ether", etc.?

EM moves through a vacuum, and it has no substance. Per se.

In the late 1800's, early 1900's, this was a big deal for physics and engineering. Electric fields and magnetic fields create each other, and that's how baby photons are born.

a reply to: Bedlam

EM moves through a vacuum, and it has no substance. Per se.

neither does light, per se... so theres that.

The vacuum of space isn't empty, it is filled with light for one and other dimensions, potentially.

Lol about what else you said, "baby photons".

I still would like this answered if anyone can..


Is space-time really waving?

What if the traveling gravitational force created by the merging black holes isn't a wave until it comes into contact with mass?

a reply to: intrptr

neither does light, per se.

That makes no sense. Neither light nor electromagnetic radiation has no substance?
Light is electromagnetic radiation. You are either redundant or self contradictory. I'm not sure which.