The Absurdity of Detecting Gravitational Waves

a reply to: Alien Abduct
Does a falling tree make a noise if no one is there to hear it?

a reply to: Phage

No.

a reply to: Phage

i was actually thinking more aling the lines of the double slit experiment.

a reply to: Phage

That makes no sense. Neither light nor electromagnetic radiation has no substance?

I was being facetious, per se.

Bout time you showed up. You expect me to learn anything when you're not around?

a reply to: Phage

If the tree fell, then it displaced air on the way down, and its impact with the ground caused a shockwave to propagate through the air. Whether anyone was there to hear it, does not change that fact. In this case then, observation is not necessary in order for the physical process of the creation of sound to occur.

a reply to: intrptr

A magnetic field is not a gravity field. They are not the same thing, and do not operate the same way. A gravity fields behaviour need not have everything in common with a magnetic field.

Also, with regard to gravity attracting instead of repelling, that is true, however space time has elasticity to it, so if gravity creates a trough, a peak will result as a direct consequence of the creation of the trough, especially if the trough is created with some significant speed, as in the case of the waves of gravity thrown off by the collision of two black holes, for example.

Furthermore, yes, lights path can be bent by gravity, and light has no mass. That is exactly the situation at hand.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Phage

If the tree fell, then it displaced air on the way down, and its impact with the ground caused a shockwave to propagate through the air. Whether anyone was there to hear it, does not change that fact. In this case then, observation is not necessary in order for the physical process of the creation of sound to occur.

I think he was just doing a cameo. Usually he teaches us stuff, he knows the suns coronasphere is so hot because the sun is really Loud.

a reply to: TrueBrit

A magnetic field is not a gravity field. They are not the same thing, and do not operate the same way. A gravity fields behavior need not have everything in common with a magnetic field.

I know they are two different things. But you just used the word 'field' with gravity too.

How can a 'field' make the pulsed waves Ligo detected?

a reply to: Bedlam

gravity waves could be longitudinal imo

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TrueBrit

A magnetic field is not a gravity field. They are not the same thing, and do not operate the same way. A gravity fields behavior need not have everything in common with a magnetic field.

I know they are two different things. But you just used the word 'field' with gravity too.

How can a 'field' make the pulsed waves Ligo detected?

I don't think of it as a field. I think of it as the fabric space time itself having waves going through it. Like this:



The grid represents space time and its warped in places where objects reside because of their gravity. The amount of warping is relative to the mass of the object. The waves would be tiny, tiny ripples traveling along this grid.

a reply to: FauxMulder

I am familiar with the model. Except the 'plane' of gravity is a 2D representation, real gravity is 3D, right? So the well becomes spherical.

We live on the surface of Earth which for all appearance appears flat to us in all directions, so our field analogy is also flat.

The gravity 'waves' arriving from the black hole merger are spherical, spreading in every direction like shock waves from an atom bomb. They pass by us detected as waves by our instruments, unlike light and radio waves that stream from their sources.

Gravity 'fields' from other sources also 'stream' from I mean, "to" their respective sources.

Theres this conundrum, it doesn't fit any model we know.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Answering again...

I don't think of it as a field. I think of it as the fabric space time itself having waves going through it. Like this:

I agree wth that. Like a tsunami moves through water, the energy from the source pushes the wave outward thru the medium of the water (you said "fabric" of space time). The propagation of the wave is a transference of energy thru the medium, the molecules of water (space time?). Again raising the question of what particles 'space time' is comprised of.Bearing in mind gravity attracts and space time isn't 'empty'. It is filled wth the entire ELM spectrum which, except for visible light is invisible to our naked eye. It also may include other dimensions...

Point i think being missed here is the finite speed of propagation. Two object rapidly rotating around each other will create an interference pattern based on their movement. The LIGO experiment looks for ripples in space-time, not gravity directly.
The theory being that a gravitational wave passing through the detector will cause its dimensions to expand and contract.


As for statements made about single photons. intrptr you are quite wrong in insisting that photons propagate in all directions from a source. Because there is a photon in one location doesn't mean its source is actually some kind of spherical pulse. If it was, part of my PhD would not exist. It is also quite easy to make a single photon source, the point is to understand Poisson statistics.
Make a photon source with % level pulse to pulse variation, filter it down to a small fraction of being zero and observe it using a photodetector capable of observing single photons, and trigger your DAQ on the theoretical emission time of the photon.

You will not see a photon every single attempted fire, but after collecting statistics, you will basically see that you are observing photons in a very narrow time window (depending on the accuracy of the signal generators used to trigger the photon source)

If you place multiple sensors around your source... you will find that (if it is laser source) that unless the is a sensor located directly in its line of fire.... you will not observe any photons in the other sensors.

You are just making statements that are absolutely incorrect, inconsistent or just... out there as already suggested

a reply to: FauxMulder

Unfortunately most everything is weaponized

Whole thing is stupid. Idiocracy. There are no gravity waves or gravity particles.

originally posted by: BrainActivity00
Whole thing is stupid. Idiocracy.

Yes, that sums your comment up perfectly.

There are no gravity waves

Well LIGO and people way smarter than us, including Einstein, says there is but we'll take your word for it

or gravity particles.

Nowhere in the OP or the video does it mention "gravity particles"

a reply to: BrainActivity00

There most certainly are gravity waves, but you are right, no such thing as gravity particles.

Gravity is not a substance, but a force. That does not mean that it cannot have a wave in it, just that there are no particles associated with it.

a reply to: BrainActivity00

well thats me convinced, such an amazing argument with irrefutable evidence! lol new account for trolling?

On the graviton as a particle... it is often tagged onto the Standard model's 'Particle Zoo' but it is not really part of the standard model but represents physics beyond the standard model. Thus far all forces and fields we are aware of in the standard model are mediated by a particle OR their field can be excited to the point of producing a gauge boson.
If the graviton exists, it would exist in this state. With the weakness of the gravitational field in relation to everything else in the standard model, id say the production chance would basically be zero if it was to exist... more zero than the higgs

originally posted by: BrainActivity00
Whole thing is stupid. Idiocracy. There are no gravity waves or gravity particles.

Oh the arrogance of ignorance.

a reply to: GetHyped

Funny how y'all are like they're TRYING to prove it they're trying to prove it, therefore it must exist.

Whereas as im like, there is no proof, therefore it doesn't exist.

And I'm the ignorant one? Lol