Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jan 12, 2016.
You can read?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Really? LOL. That's a pretty stupid analysis danshawen. Professor Weber claimed his measurement device had detected gravitational waves. His analysis turned out to be wrong. His claim wasn't a rumor. The interesting thing about the comments is Professor Krauss made them.
Need a help?
Or brucep no need to duck , it just went over your head.
Although it might surprise you, I'm an ardent fan of Professor Krauss also.
He is usually very credible, but has taken a few hits for rumor mongering on this one. At least he shut it down before it got out of hand.
Coincidence you ask that, I'm reading the book now. So far the science is interesting but the jokes (in the book, if not in the film )are spoiling it for me. Not seen the movie yet.
As I have pointed out in other threads on the subject of gravity waves (and been lambasted for crankism about it), it is a general principle of wave theory in applications like Ground Penetrating Radar that it will be impossible to resolve a "corner reflector" or ANY OBJECT that is SMALLER than 1/3 wavelength as compared to the wavelength of the energy you are using to resolve it.
1/4 wave antennas are possible of course, but to be resonant with a signal of a certain wavelength requires a loading coil, a technique which has yet to be successfully adapted to gravity wave detection, although that was the basic idea behind Joe Weber's design for his resonant Weber bars. Joe Weber was originally an engineer who received most of his technical training at the US naval academy. I have more formal physics training than he did, and I freely admit, that isn't very much.
The amplitude of a gravity wave for the Earth-Sun system is about 200 Watts and its wavelength is about 1 light year. The amplitude of the Jupiter-Sun system is about 1 kilo Watt and its wavelength is about 12 light years. The amplitude of the Hulse-Taylor binary, which we have been observing for decades, is the gravity wave equivalent of the visible light power output from our own Sun, and a wavelength of a small number of light years.
But since LIGO has no resonant element other than a pair of laser interferometric beams, the 1/3 wavelength rule for its baseline applies. And that would mean that even if the sensitivity issues were resolved, the interferometric elements would still require a baseline of several light years length in order to be able to detect or resolve any signal that is of interstellar origin.
What I have just provided is a wave theory equivalent of relativity's "proper time" axiom that no experiment performed locally can make an absolute determination of relative velocity to an all-pervading luminiferous aether. You may detect gravity waves iff you are observing their effects distantly, not locally.
I'm changing my prediction status to "no". If I'm wrong, what is there to lose? Hawking has lost bets about physics on several occasions, and he evidently had less fact to go on than I have just presented. Does that make him a crank? Is Professor Krauss a betting man, or just another rumor monger?
What is the matter with you? Will you never learn? It has been pointed out to you more than once that above radar-come-optical-microscopy type considerations have zero bearing on current and proposed GW detectors. Zero. Whether of resonant bar/sphere/shell type or laser interferometer type. The rest of your post is similarly askew.
Are you, or have you been, on medication for a psychological condition? Yes that's a serious question.
No. Have you? If I ever had, I would not have qualified for a security clearance, which I obtained. The Chinese can verify this also, evidently.
Furthermore, outside of a dentist chair or surgery, I have never nor am I now under the influence of any controlled substances which were not prescribed and/or administered without the advice and supervision of a medical professional.
If this experiment comes up squat, what will be your excuse? You must have a very strong idea it will succeed, or don't you?
Ad hominem attacks don't impress me very much. Stick to the science. Why is what works for other wave applications not applicable in this case? I have designed, constructed, and tested corner reflectors for GPR application at 50 MHz using the 1/3 wavelength minimum resolution convention. What have you done that is similar?
If I persist, it is because you have made arguments similar to the ones that have already squandered billions of research dollars and have nothing to show for it. I would need to be very medicated to fund another. Stick this post in a cardboard box next to Kip Thorne's trash bin with the other crank theories if you wish. I noticed, he was in that audience also.
What is the difference between a crank and a film flam artist? The latter gets paid.
Mark's a bit of a joker. I felt it was a strength of his facing up to the predicament he finds himself in. I cracked up when he revealed he was a botanist. His peers seemed to enjoy the banter. I really liked his character. Dude built a great grow room. He was so well trained. NASA is really solid. I'm a proponent for manned space missions. It reminded me of Apollo 13.
Clearly he's not interested in science. He has no respect for the scholarship folks worked hard to attain. He's only interested in his delusional worldview. His continuing need to denigrate brilliant scientists leads me to believe he has some serious self esteem issues. For the most part he's a crank with low self esteem in my opinion.
I watched it over the weekend....Enjoyed immensely! Although as yet I have not read the book.
Same sort of scenario when I first saw the greatest sci/fi movie of all time in 1968....2001: A Space Odyssey...Actually saw the film 4 times before I got the book, and still enjoyed both immensely.
I put the Martian film on par with Interstellar both up with the top echelons of sci/fi films, but imho still just short of 2001.
I'm waiting anxiously for The Martian to be released on dvd to add to my collection.
A crank? For sure. I did say I had no ego, and that could be perceived as the same as low self-esteem. I found that disposition to be of considerable benefit to an engineering career.
Better than alternatives: arrogant, credentialed AND a fraud, IMO.
It may take ten more years or more of measurements for this instrument, even if now sensitive enough, to reveal anything. My prediction is still that it won't.
Even a crank is entitled to an opinion.
A favorite of mine is 2010 space odyssey. I'm waiting for somebody to put the Rama books into film. Especially the last one. They could do a great long film covering the path of the first three books and then do the last book. It would be mind blowing.
Yep, 2010 a great follow up: Naturally being a fan of Clarke, I also have that in both book and dvd form.
Agree re the Rama series: That was also a great read.
"Rendezvous with Rama" and "Childhood's End" would be good, but I was also waiting for someone to finish the 2001 saga in movie form, and they never did.
My entire adult career was based on Intelsat's geostationary telecommunication satellite network, the fulfillment of Clarke's invention of the geostationary satellite.
During that career, I was at one point able to send some discarded technology from Comsat Labs to Clarke for use in a university in Sri Lanka. One of his aides brought autograph labels for his books, which I placed on my personal copy of "Fountains of Paradise".
The only bit in #29 worth responding to. To answer your own question there, go back and ponder the clues I gave first line in #28. Can't figure it? OK here's a further clue. Do any of the current or proposed GW detector designs work based on detecting secondary, re-radiation of expected incident GW's? Assuming you can eventually figure the answer has to be no, next step is - how then do such designs work? My suggestion - consult the literature. Learn the actual design principles, and stop making erroneous absolute pronouncements that at best mislead those here with insufficient knowledge to challenge you.
(As to my own oft stated position, your memory of that is evidently extremely poor.)
But it is re-radiation in the sense that an interferometer based gravity wave detector depends on the warpage of space to modulate the PHASE of an EM emission from a laser in one arm by means of shortening or lengthening it, but NOT to affect the phase of another beam at right angles to it, or to affect its relative phase to a lesser extent.
I have already pointed out in other threads that relativistic "space" in this universe is simply light travel time in every direction, not some mangled 4D covariant geometry of complex numbers and the Pythagorean theorem for static solids inappropriately applied to inertialess space with no real equivalent of a single origin on which to fix a contrived static geometric coordinate system.
Change just ONE of those coordinates to light travel time in the magnitude arm of spherical coordinates, and use two more non Euclidean phase angles not based on superluminal geometries to generate the rest of "space". Space may appear to have three non static dimensions, and it does, but ALL OF THOSE are simply light travel time.
Since "space" is simply light travel time, the way SR originally intended it to be treated, BOTH ARMS OF THE INTERFEROMETER, properly calibrated, will yield a null result. Orientation in space makes no difference, because light travel TIME is the only dimension that an interferometer of any practical dimension "light travel TIME" can possibly measure. To say otherwise, you must be using geometry that posits inertialess space as a static solid with an origin at the center of a large gravitating body. No surprise, that approximation only works locally, and with small orbits and velocities that are much less than the speed of light in a vacuum.
Now I have provided TWO complete analyses of the problem which agree with each other, as well as about TEN YEARS OF NULL LIGO RESULTS at a lower sensitivity. Perhaps sensitivity isn't the problem here. SR required no higher dimensions the way GR did, unless you use Minkowski/Hilbert intervals, that is.. There is good reason for not doing that. Wasting money endlessly repeating Michaelson-Morley is only one.
You have pointed out that you believe this, but you have not done the job of pointing out that this is the case. Since the actual relevant science is done using a geometry that requires a 4D relationship between points assigned 3D space and 1D time coordinates, it seems silly to simply accept your word that you have a better way when you have not yet been able to describe anything using your 1D method. I have no idea how you expect to describe directions in the word we live in using only one dimension, and I don't believe that is merely a failure of imagination on my part.
Why use "non Euclidean phase angles not based on superluminal geometries" Why not use "unicorn horn rulers" or "fairy dust lines"? These latter two units seem to have the same standing.
Hmmm... no. Light travel time over space is intended to synchronize clocks, not define space. Space is defined according to Newtonian mechanics. Please review: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(See Maxwell's Matter and Motion for the formulation of Newtonian mechanics that Einstein was probably thinking of specifically, along with the kind of reasoning that he likely appealed to when thinking of space and time.)
It requires no such fiction.
I can't make it any plainer mathematically than I already have. There is no mathematics or rules of geometry I know of which would REQUIRE that I use a more complex choice of coordinate system than is absolutely necessary TO DEFINE A PROBLEM.
I choose spherical coordinates because then there is no question of the speed of light as a limit because the concept is built into light travel time. The only problem I can see with it is that it also has an origin, and perhaps THAT NO ONE HAS EVER BOTHERED TO DEFINE THE REAL LIMITS ON THE RATES OF ROTATION OF THE TWO PHASE ANGLES. They also exist, and the limits are as real a limit as the speed of light is. But Minkowski and Hilbert, instead of admitting they had no clue, invented covariance. No one really needed covariance. Lengths are PERFECTLY WELL DEFINED in terms of light travel time ALONE. SO IS SPACE IN THE RELATIVISTIC SPACE WE ALL LIVE IN, in every direction.
PhysBang, you're just not getting it, and I'm never going back to the Minkowski rubbish I was taught, so let's just agree to leave it at that.
Separate names with a comma.