Astronomers Strike Gravitational Gold In Colliding Neutron Stars

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: ErosA433

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Science is intuitive.

Like hell it is! Progress in physics throughout centuries has been about rationality, numbingly difficult work, insight of a few geniuses, combined with striking experimental evidence, showing how completely wrong is the typical intuition of the good folk of that day and place.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: greenreflections

The speed of light makes sense. Its a rate of induction, specific to a medium.

Yes, I agree. The problem is to find logical source of 'c' rate limit...which process in nature can logically put a limit to the speed of light?

What seems most perplexing to you in nature?

To me, it's the fact that I can witness motion.

a reply to: greenreflections

Light is a wave, so think of sound waves as an analogy to light. Sound has a set speed in our atmosphere, but the speed of sound is really dependent on the stiffness-to-density ratio of its associated medium. Water has a different ratio than air, so sound travels through water much faster in than air, never the less, sound moving through water at sea level will only move at one constant speed (never faster or slower). So it makes sense for light to have a fixed constant speed as well, as it is a rate of induction.

Now, my problem is that most physicists will tell you that sound is a mechanical wave which needs a medium for propagation, but that light is non-mechanical, and therefore does not need a medium, but can propagate through empty space. If so, then why is there even a constant for light? I think light has to be mechanical. We know that space really is not empty. There is no such thing as a "true vacuum", so fill in the gap....

It is more likely that light is traveling through a medium (often called "space-time), which has a specific stiffness-to-density ratio. If "gravity waves" also travel exactly at light speed then it is either traveling through the same medium in the exact same way as light, or there is another medium with an identical stiffness to density ratio as that of the "vacuum".

This is but one reason why I think LIGO is detecting an electromagnetic shock wave put out by a collapsing incoherent magnetic field.

Can there be faster than light travel? Sure, but its probably in another medium, occupying another dimension.

a reply to: greenreflections

I think the most perplexing thing about nature is the quantization of energy. The energy spectrum is not a smooth taper. It looks more like a stair case. I know that without the quanization of energy, nothing could exist. Matter would have no magnitude, but why does it happen? How does something come from nothing? How can mass/energy have no Alpha or Omega?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

..most physicists will tell you that sound is a mechanical wave which needs a medium for propagation, but that light is non-mechanical, and therefore does not need a medium, but can propagate through empty space. If so, then why is there even a constant for light? I think light has to be mechanical. We know that space really is not empty. There is no such thing as a "true vacuum", so fill in the gap....

I would agree its mechanical in a way that space-time's geometry is a subject to coordinate metric stretch in a gradient manner toward source of gravity.

Space-time has physical properties as GR/SR said.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: greenreflections

I think the most perplexing thing about nature is the quantization of energy. The energy spectrum is not a smooth taper. It looks more like a stair case. I know that without the quanization of energy, nothing could exist. Matter would have no magnitude, but why does it happen? How does something come from nothing? How can mass/energy have no Alpha or Omega?

Yes, there is no study of the forces within space. Anyone game?

Actually, gravitational wave only proves space-time is not rigid (LEGO experiment)..
Which should correspond to Einstein's GR model where stress tensor increases the 'curve' toward gravity source, 'stretching' spatial coordinate metric. With solid structure of space-time gravity would not be possible in principle.

cheers

originally posted by: greenreflections
Actually, gravitational wave only proves space-time is not rigid (LEGO experiment)..
Which should correspond to Einstein's GR model where stress tensor increases the 'curve' toward gravity source, 'stretching' spatial coordinate metric. With solid structure of space-time gravity would not be possible in principle.

cheers

So, just to add...to see if I get it right....Gravitational wave in essence travels as ghost physical body with hypothetical 'mass' that was shed into space during BH merge?

I mean, if only mass can bend space-time, then it is safe to assume that some sort of energy-mass was released and spreading outward carrying space-time distortion along?

a reply to: greenreflections

What is "mass"?

Where does it begin and end?

Is there really a difference between relative mass and rest mass?

What if mass can only bend mass?

I know what the Standard Model says about these things. I'm asking rhetorically.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Mass, imo, is clamped energy. Rest mass, as I've heard, is no longer in use in modern physics, instead relativistic mass is meant when reference is needed.

What if mass can only bend mass

What is going to happen then, in your opinion?

a reply to: greenreflections

What is going to happen then, in your opinion?

I agree that mass is "clamped" energy. I prefer to say confined energy. I do believe that mass/energy can only bend mass/energy. So I believe that what the Standard Model calls "space-time" must have mass.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I agree that mass is "clamped" energy. I prefer to say confined energy.

Exactly. To me the question is what is that confinement constitutes of and what it does to what?
Does it make energy to loop? Or may be energy is trapped in geometrical condition where it has to loop forming more complex 'loops' positioned in QM energy layers in onion layers fashion?

a reply to: greenreflections

I think energy simply flows in the shape of a toroidal magnetic field. If we could zoom in to the flux lines of a magnetic field, I think we might find that they are actually rivers of even smaller magnetic fields. Just like fractals, I doubt there really is limit to the scales, large or small.

I would say there are multiple (probably infinite) permeating layers, and that might explain quantum entanglement. What looks like instantaneous action at a distance could be two particles entangled in a field that exists in a much lower external energy layer (a layer in which energy is much less confined), which has a much faster induction rate than the speed of light. Compared to light speed, it would seem instantaneous, but I don't think anything can truly be "instantaneous".

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I think energy simply flows in the shape of a toroidal magnetic field.

At which point energy flux can be called 'matter'? 'Matter' made of energy must differentiate from the rest of energy 'sea'. It is energy that 'got caught' in some sort of a loop, imo, and formed a stable energetic 'knot'. Let that 'knot' look like a toroidal field, fine, but guess my question is as what makes energy to stop propagating outward normally and start traveling in circles at some given location? If that's the case, of course.

What looks like instantaneous action at a distance could be two particles entangled in a field that exists in a much lower external energy layer (a layer in which energy is much less confined)

Even if these two particles are light years apart? That has to be very strong field at it's core to extend effects light years away. May be action at the distance is something else?...Don't know yet, but fun to think about, and any idea has a right to be, at this point.




cheers)

a reply to: greenreflections

At which point energy flux can be called 'matter'? 'Matter' made of energy must differentiate from the rest of energy 'sea'. It is energy that 'got caught' in some sort of a loop, imo, and formed a stable energetic 'knot'. Let that 'knot' look like a toroidal field, fine, but guess my question is as what makes energy to stop propagating outward normally and start traveling in circles at some given location? If that's the case, of course.

Those are the questions that physics has yet to answer. I wish I knew. Personally, I think energy is equivalent to matter. Its just that what we call matter is a higher density of energy, so our labeling of what is energy vs matter is somewhat arbitrary, though not entirely. We do know that energy is quantized, therefore so too is matter. The concept or rest energy is also somewhat relative. Nothing is truly at rest.

Even if these two particles are light years apart? That has to be very strong field at it's core to extend effects light years away. May be action at the distance is something else?...Don't know yet, but fun to think about, and any idea has a right to be, at this point.

According to QM, quantum entanglement results in instantaneous action at any distance (even if light years apart). That's what frustrated Einstein, as it breaks the light speed limit. The entanglement field simply has to be very low energy. By low energy, I mean free, unconfined energy. An external field which suspends our field, like cream suspended in coffee. If the bulk modulus-to-density ratio of that external low energy field is just right, it can cause what appears to be instantaneous action across light years, as its induction rate would be much faster than light speed. Its not hard to imagine. Just think of the onion layer analogy.

At which point energy flux can be called 'matter'? 'Matter' made of energy must differentiate from the rest of energy 'sea'. It is energy that 'got caught' in some sort of a loop, imo, and formed a stable energetic 'knot'. Let that 'knot' look like a toroidal field, fine, but guess my question is as what makes energy to stop propagating outward normally and start traveling in circles at some given location? If that's the case, of course.

Those are the questions that physics has yet to answer. I wish I knew. Personally, I think energy is equivalent to matter.

Physics has answered these questions very clearly. But people don't understand physics.

Let's start from the beginning. Energy is NOT equivalent to matter. Didn't you read the books by Feynman?

Energy is a measurement of collection of physical entities and fields. If you have three children, you can count them, the number is three. Three is not equivalent to children, and children are not a higher form of three.

Physics says that the universe is a certain number of fields and their excitations in the Standard Model and interaction terms. When there are symmetries, there are conserved quantities from Noether's theorem. In some approximations (locally flat space time, i.e. not full GR) one of them is known as energy which comes from time-translation invariance.

Certain fields have excitations such that these things (particles) have persistence because of conservation laws and mass. We call that 'matter' and it's pretty useful because we wouldn't be here without it and the Universe would be boring without it.

a reply to: mbkennel

In your reply you forgot to whom you address each quote. First quote is mine, second is someone's else.

To address mine, how do you explain gravitational wave is traveling on it's own? Knowing only mass is capable to bend space-time, it is logical to assume physical entity is traveling and is causing space-time distortion signature on it's wake. No?

a reply to: mbkennel

Feynman wasn't even able to explain how magnetic attraction and repulsion worked. I have respect for him but he was by no means all knowing on the subject.

I contend that energy and matter are two different arbitrarily labeled states of the exact same phenomenon. They are both quantized, therefore we assume they are different, but that does not make them fundamentally different.

Feel free to disagree with me, but don't deceive yourself into believing that your lecturing me will somehow change my opinion.