Are the speed of gravitational waves the same as light waves?

[OnlyMe]

Farsight, please don't respond to those kinds of posts on my thread.

QW you started the thread in Physics & Math, but Sciforims owns it!

As long as Farsight continues to post pseudoscience or his own alternative theories, if it were up to me it would be closed or moved. Aqueous for the most part has been challenging Farsight's crap.

 

[quantum_wave]

That doesn't mean that off topic attacks, or unsupported rejections of the OP and the on-topic content have to be responded to. Usually an attack supported by "you're just wrong" is just a personal attack. Quote on topic content and provide supporting rebuttal, and I will respond, as long as it isn't embedding and lost in rhetoric that I don't bother to read.

 

[quantum_wave]

You should actually discover what GR predicts a gravitational wave is. You're just calling nonsense a gravitational wave. You don't get to call your bullshit a gravitational wave. The term is already taken by Einsteins theory of gravity. You should export this thread to pseudoscience where you can be comfortable in your ignorance.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-search-for-gravity-waves-end-in-sight.140927/

We did have some discussion about gravitational waves in that thread. You participated without profanity, without making the ignorant remark about the use of the phrase gravitational wave being restricted to GR, and without starting with two wheels off the road like you did here.

 

[quantum_wave]

You have given up responding to me because I typically demolish your faulty logic and bald, unfounded claims...

That is not true. I stop reading your post when I come to the first absurd remark because of the history we have in previous discussions. Try to actually use the "quote" feature, limit the scope of your rant to something I said, and respond with a reasonable argument. I'll read until I reach the point in your post where you lose all credibility. If, by that time, there is something on-topic, that quotes me, and contains your argument, I'll consider responding if the rest of the post isn't laced with disparagement, and accusations that I hate science or that I'm a creationist trying to discredit real science.

 

[Farsight]

My depiction of the photon is that it is a wave-particle, i.e. both a particle with mass, and a wave emanating from the particle as out flowing gravitational wave energy.

I'm sorry quantum_wave, but this is too far away from what we know. A photon has a wavelength. It has an energy E=hf or E=hc/λ. It doesn't have a rest mass. It is a wave, there's no evidence whatsoever that's there's some gravity wave flowing in or out from some particle. Relativity is just about the best-tested theory we've got, and this doesn't match it. Or classical electromagnetism.

The particle follows a "straight" path, and the wave expands spherically. Additionally, in this hypothesis, all particles are wave particles, with inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components. Only the photon travels at the speed of light, and therefore only the photon must get all of its inflowing wave energy from the direction of motion because no gravitational wave energy can catch it from behind, lol. I cover this is my threads, The Big Wait, and in other threads in the fringe. But this thread is introducing the hypothesis that the curvature of spacetime and the gravitational wave energy in the medium of space are explanations for the same observational phenomena.

That hypothesis misses the fact that space is not spacetime. Curved spacetime is related to inhomogeneous space, but only where your plot of the inhomogeneity is curved.

The difference being that the GWEDH is mechanistic, and GR/spacetime is not.

My advice is to try to relate your own thoughts to what Einstein said. There's some considerable leeway in that some of what's presented as GR doesn't match what Einstein said, but you seem to be throwing it all out in favour of something new when you haven't read what Einstein said. I think that's the wrong approach.

Yes, lots of sources which I have given me an appreciation for the measurement of spin, and its role in quantum mechanics and various experimental set ups. Did you read the material in CptBork's thread on Bell's equations and non-locality

I'm not sure, I recall something where I referred to http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0401 where Travis Norsen said this:

"Many textbooks and commentators report that Bell's theorem refutes the possibility (suggested especially by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with additional ("hidden") variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. On this view, Bell's theorem supports the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. Bell's own view of his theorem, however, was quite different..."

In the CptBork thread I go on to explain my views about why I call QM incomplete, and like in the case of all theory or hypothesis, some things are not observational. We don't just shrug and say we don't know though, we theorize and hypothesize.

IMHO it's good to think for yourself, but it isn't good if you don't do the research and then come up with something that isn't supported by the evidence.

No one is helping me learn by just telling me I am wrong. Referring me to the theory they say is right is wrong headed, and I probably know more things wrong with some of those theories than they do. I have fair and valid questions about their "right" theories that they should be sure they can answer before they make such claims. But you can't talk with some people.

You can't. To learn, you need to talk to people who are sincere, and who will refer you to good material and give clear explanations.

 

[Farsight]

This looks like very good reading. I presume the link at Princeton.edu is the way to find it.

This looks like the link: http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu

...

It is. Use the advanced search option with quotes round a phrase to find things. For example if you search on "speed of light" you can find this:



NB: It's best if you don't respond to people who aren't sincere.

 

[quantum_wave]

I'm sorry quantum_wave, but this is too far away from what we know. A photon has a wavelength. It has an energy E=hf or E=hc/λ. It doesn't have a rest mass. It is a wave, there's no evidence whatsoever that's there's some gravity wave flowing in or out from some particle. Relativity is just about the best-tested theory we've got, and this doesn't match it. Or classical electromagnetism.

That hypothesis misses the fact that space is not spacetime. Curved spacetime is related to inhomogeneous space, but only where your plot of the inhomogeneity is curved.

My advice is to try to relate your own thoughts to what Einstein said. There's some considerable leeway in that some of what's presented as GR doesn't match what Einstein said, but you seem to be throwing it all out in favour of something new when you haven't read what Einstein said. I think that's the wrong approach.

I'm not sure, I recall something where I referred to http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0401 where Travis Norsen said this:

"Many textbooks and commentators report that Bell's theorem refutes the possibility (suggested especially by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with additional ("hidden") variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. On this view, Bell's theorem supports the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. Bell's own view of his theorem, however, was quite different..."

IMHO it's good to think for yourself, but it isn't good if you don't do the research and then come up with something that isn't supported by the evidence.

You can't. To learn, you need to talk to people who are sincere, and who will refer you to good material and give clear explanations.

Sorry for this bulk response, but it isn't productive to address every comment you make. You are repeating your self. You know what an hypothesis is, and yet you respond as if mine isn't accepted theory.

As for spacetime, I addressed the hypothesis in connection to GR. There is the issue of GR being incomplete, and inconsistent with QM, and there is the issue that GR has no mechanics. I mentioned that, and I said the hypothesis is supported with hypothetical mechanics, and have discussed them at length in my threads. If you were interested you would have responded to the threads where I present the details, and if you had read my past threads over time you would have a better appreciation of what research I have done. I have provided hundreds of links and references, all of which I have read. I take away from them what is consistent and observationally supported, and I study the incompleteness and inconsistencies.

As for the photon, they are referred to as wave-particles because, depending on the type of observation, they display wave or particle characteristics. Do I need to present examples since it is common understanding. As for if photons have mass, they seem to follow paths through the medium of space that shows they respond to the presence of massive objects, and the gravitational wave energy density hypothesis present a mechanistic explanation for how. If the thread continues, the details will unfold along with the discussion, if you don't want to read back through a long history of previous threads.

As for curved spacetime, I make reference to it having the same observational phenomena as the GWED hypothesis, i.e. that the gravitational wave energy density of the medium of space would produce the same observational evidence. I present it as hypothesis and not fact, and I discuss it in regard to its hypothetical mechanics, of which there are none in GR.

 

[quantum_wave]

It is. Use the advanced search option with quotes round a phrase to find things. For example if you search on "speed of light" you can find this:

View attachment 91

NB: It's best if you don't respond to people who aren't sincere.

If you search energy density you also get tons of hits. It is a great reference source.

 

[Farsight]

Sorry for this bulk response, but it isn't productive to address every comment you make. You are repeating your self. You know what an hypothesis is, and yet you respond as if mine isn't accepted theory.

The issue is how far the hypothesis is from "what we know" as borne out by scientific evidence, and whether it nicely solves some unknown. Your inward and outward waves are a long way from any scientific evidence, and relativity, and QED, and as far as I can tell don't solve anything. Sorry. They aren't even original, see Milo Wolff. But the varying energy density is in line with relativity and electromagnetism wherein we are confident that the fine structure constant varies with energy. See NIST for that:

""Thus α depends upon the energy at which it is measured, increasing with increasing energy, and is considered an effective or running coupling constant. Indeed, due to e+e- and other vacuum polarization processes, at an energy corresponding to the mass of the W boson (approximately 81 GeV, equivalent to a distance of approximately 2 x 10^-18 m), α(mW) is approximately 1/128 compared with its zero-energy value of approximately 1/137. Thus the famous number 1/137 is not unique or especially fundamental".

As for spacetime, I addressed the hypothesis in connection to GR. There is the issue of GR being incomplete, and inconsistent with QM, and there is the issue that GR has no mechanics. I mentioned that, and I said the hypothesis is supported with hypothetical mechanics, and have discussed them at length in my threads. If you were interested you would have responded to the threads where I present the details, and if you had read my past threads over time you would have a better appreciation of what research I have done. I have provided hundreds of links and references, all of which I have read. I take away from them what is consistent and observationally supported, and I study the incompleteness and inconsistencies.

I can only reiterate that you read up on the original material and try to ensure that any gravity idea you come up with is backed up by Einstein and the evidence. Or just the evidence, which trumps everything else.

As for the photon, they are referred to as wave-particles because, depending on the type of observation, they display wave or particle characteristics. Do I need to present examples since it is common understanding. As for if photons have mass, they seem to follow paths through the medium of space that shows they respond to the presence of massive objects, and the gravitational wave energy density hypothesis present a mechanistic explanation for how. If the thread continues, the details will unfold along with the discussion, if you don't want to read back through a long history of previous threads.

Photons have what's called a "passive gravitational mass". As for the how, Einstein gave a mechanistic explanation involving spatial energy density. You tend not to hear about it, and instead what you hear about is that light curves because spacetime is curved, which isn't right. But no matter, I'll follow the thread.

As for curved spacetime, I make reference to it having the same observational phenomena as the GWED hypothesis, i.e. that the gravitational wave energy density of the medium of space would produce the same observational evidence. I present it as hypothesis and not fact, and I discuss it in regard to its hypothetical mechanics, of which there are none in GR.

If you relegated the "gravitational wave" you'd be in line with Einstein. How cool is that?

If you search energy density you also get tons of hits. It is a great reference source.

I'm glad you like it. All the various battles you see me having here because I've read what Einstein said and others have not.

 

[Aqueous Id]

...

That is not true. I stop reading your post when I come to the first absurd remark because of the history we have in previous discussions.

I encounter so many cranks I can't recall anything in particular I said to you in the past. But to be clear, since you refuse the defenses of scientific knowledge posted here, an absurdity is a general class of fallacy in which statements like "True is False" are stated or implied. Evidently you took away some other interpretation. But if your intent is to post in Science and Math you need to pass the sanity check for logical absurdities. Otherwise, take this to pseudoscience.

Try to actually use the "quote" feature, limit the scope of your rant to something I said, and respond with a reasonable argument.

Stop lying. Are you Duffield's umpteenth sock puppet? Count how many times I quoted you, divide by the number of posts I addressed to you, then report back here with your quotient. And then retract this lie.

And stop characterizing the analysis of your errors as rant. That's another SPAZ tactic, esp. used by Farsight.

Instead, provide the evidence I repeatedly requested in the posts you are dismissing as rant.

I'll read until I reach the point in your post where you lose all credibility.

You will abide by the rules, namely, to retract lies and fallacies, and post evidence, or face the consequences.

If, by that time, there is something on-topic, that quotes me, and contains your argument, I'll consider responding

You are not obligated to respond. You are obligated to keep pseudoscience out of the main threads.

if the post isn't laced with disparagement, and accusations that I hate science or that I'm a creationist trying to discredit real science.

I only said your posts correlate in content with those of the SPAZ attackers. In particular your repartee with discredited member Farsight resembles a SPAZ tactic. Be advised that guilt attaches where the defendant fails to quickly distance himself from known thugs.

As for your attacks on science and academia, they are already on record here. You may retract them, but you can't deny them, not without painting yourself as a liar.

 

[quantum_wave]

...


I encounter so many cranks ...

I read this far as promised. Nowhere in those five words do you quote anything I said, nor do you present any argument at all, let alone a reasonable one. I stopped reading just like I said I would. If you want to participate other than with your ranting disparagement, I will continue to look at your posts for the time being, but will stop reading when your wheels go off the road. Five words, not the worst you have done.

 

[quantum_wave]

The issue is how far the hypothesis is from "what we know" as borne out by scientific evidence, and whether it nicely solves some unknown. Your inward and outward waves are a long way from any scientific evidence, and relativity, and QED, and as far as I can tell don't solve anything. Sorry. They aren't even original, see Milo Wolff. But the varying energy density is in line with relativity and electromagnetism wherein we are confident that the fine structure constant varies with energy. See NIST for that:

""Thus α depends upon the energy at which it is measured, increasing with increasing energy, and is considered an effective or running coupling constant. Indeed, due to e+e- and other vacuum polarization processes, at an energy corresponding to the mass of the W boson (approximately 81 GeV, equivalent to a distance of approximately 2 x 10^-18 m), α(mW) is approximately 1/128 compared with its zero-energy value of approximately 1/137. Thus the famous number 1/137 is not unique or especially fundamental".

I can only reiterate that you read up on the original material and try to ensure that any gravity idea you come up with is backed up by Einstein and the evidence. Or just the evidence, which trumps everything else.

Photons have what's called a "passive gravitational mass". As for the how, Einstein gave a mechanistic explanation involving spatial energy density. You tend not to hear about it, and instead what you hear about is that light curves because spacetime is curved, which isn't right. But no matter, I'll follow the thread.

If you relegated the "gravitational wave" you'd be in line with Einstein. How cool is that?

I'm glad you like it. All the various battles you see me having here because I've read what Einstein said and others have not.

It is a "he said", "I said" type of discussion. Let me suggest that we start with the gravitational wave energy density of the medium of space by looking at the thread that I gave brucep above. I explain why GR addresses gravitational waves, the conservation of energy and momentum, and make some comments about interactions that are big enough to have any chance of being detected by current experiments. I could quote mine a hundred links if I wanted to. Most everyone agrees there are gravitational waves from major events, traversing the medium of space. All particle interactions, on that basis, should emit gravitational waves, many orders of magnitude smaller. My premise is that they do, and that those minute waves originating from matter, constitute the energy density of the medium of space, in place of the curvature of spacetime. It is a search for the physical mechanisms of gravity that we all know are missing in GR.

Bite off one little bit of that, dispute it with mechanistic arguments, physical observations, or data, in place of my references, and we may be able to talk.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I read this far as promised. Nowhere in those five words do you quote anything I said, nor do you present any argument at all, let alone a reasonable one. I stopped reading just like I said I would. If you want to participate other than with your ranting disparagement, I will continue to look at your posts for the time being, but will stop reading when your wheels go off the road. Five words, not the worst you have done.

(1)Pseudoscience (2)prohibited. (3)Evidence (4) required. (5) Reported.

 

[quantum_wave]

(1)Pseudoscience (2)prohibited. (3)Evidence (4) required. (5) Reported.

This hypothesis has lots of connections to existing theory, and arguments contrary to existing theory are valid science topics, not prohibited. Evidence is the same as the generally accepted observational evidence readily available. Reporting a post or thread is your prerogative.

 

[Aqueous Id]

This hypothesis has lots of connections to existing theory,

Cite?

and arguments contrary to existing theory

Link to said arguments and theories?

are valid

Cite?

science topics, not prohibited.

Applicable forum rule?

Evidence is the same as the generally accepted observational evidence readily available.

Cite?

Reporting a post or thread is your prerogative.

Posting bald claims, founded in pseudoscience, is not a member's prerogative, but subject to the forum rules, as a matter of the moderators' prerogative.

 

[brucep]

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-search-for-gravity-waves-end-in-sight.140927/

We did have some discussion about gravitational waves in that thread. You participated without profanity, without making the ignorant remark about the use of the phrase gravitational wave being restricted to GR, and without starting with two wheels off the road like you did here.

It is restricted to the GR prediction. You can't make up your own version and call it gravitational radiation. Period. You should have learned what it means as predicted by GR by now [since I probably showed you a condensed version of a simple project, I did, that would clear up your cluelessness.] You also don't get to whine about my language until you quit bastardizing the physics to fit your bullshit model. Somehow you think your 'opinions' need to be respected just because you're alive. Ignorance is your 'buddy' since scholarship would put an end to your hobby cosmology.

 

[Farsight]

Let me suggest that we start with the gravitational wave energy density of the medium of space by looking at the thread that I gave brucep above. I explain why GR addresses gravitational waves, the conservation of energy and momentum, and make some comments about interactions that are big enough to have any chance of being detected by current experiments. I could quote mine a hundred links if I wanted to. Most everyone agrees there are gravitational waves from major events, traversing the medium of space. All particle interactions, on that basis, should emit gravitational waves, many orders of magnitude smaller. My premise is that they do, and that those minute waves originating from matter, constitute the energy density of the medium of space, in place of the curvature of spacetime. It is a search for the physical mechanisms of gravity that we all know are missing in GR.

Only the physical mechanisms of gravity aren't missing in GR. Einstein said a concentration of energy in the guise of a massive body alters the surrounding space, such that the speed of light varies with position and so light curves, and we all know about the wave nature of matter. I'm sorry quantum_wave, but you're advancing an unsupported hypothesis here without having read up on what Einstein said and without understanding gravity. If you did, you wouldn't be saying that gravitational waves constitute the energy density of the medium of space. Because you'd know that gravitational waves are variations in the energy density of the medium of space.

 

[Farsight]

Stop lying. Are you Duffield's umpteenth sock puppet? Count how many times I quoted you, divide by the number of posts I addressed to you, then report back here with your quotient. And then retract this lie.

I haven't got any sock puppets, quantum_wave is not me, I don't use SPAZ tactics, I am not discredited, and I don't rant or lie or peddle psuedoscience. I demand an apology for all your insinuations, you abusive anonymous ignorant troll.

 

[quantum_wave]

Only the physical mechanisms of gravity aren't missing in GR. Einstein said a concentration of energy in the guise of a massive body alters the surrounding space, such that the speed of light varies with position and so light curves,

All of that is true except for the part that says the physical mechanisms aren't missing. The rest of what you said, though it is all true, it isn't mechanistic. Look at each point:

"a concentration of energy in the guise of a massive body"
That is true, but it isn't mechanistic if you ask how the influence emanates from the mass, and the mechanics of containment.

"a massive body alters the surrounding space"
Very true, but not mechanistic if you ask how or what alters the surrounding space. What is the nature of the influence if it isn't wave energy?

"the speed of light varies with position and so light curves"
Again, true, but not mechanistic if you ask how light slows down, mechanistically.

I know I sound like a broken record, but none of the effects that you refer are new to me, and I don't see the mechanics in what you mention. The nature of the energy involved, and the "how" of the effects are not presented mechanistically. That is my point.

... and we all know about the wave nature of matter.

That is true, but the "how" of energy containment in particles and the nature of the waves might need some explaining, and I do know how to Google, so don't say look it up, lol. I have.

I'm sorry quantum_wave, but you're advancing an unsupported hypothesis ...

That is true, but I'm not a science professional trying to "do science", I'm a laymen, very science enthusiastic, well read, and thoughtful. I compare the various perspectives in the material I research, think about them, and decide how they could work together, without feeling I have to falsify the material that I don't see fitting in. All I am intending is that I post it for the record, listen to meaningful responses with content, like from you, review the content in the responses, decide if I have already thought the things through that you mention, and adjust my thinking as necessary, as determined by me :shrug:.

... here without having read up on what Einstein said ...

I've read plenty, and continue to do so. I appreciate the links and references you give on the subject.

... and without understanding gravity.

Oh yeah,

If you did, you wouldn't be saying that gravitational waves constitute the energy density of the medium of space. Because you'd know that gravitational waves are variations in the energy density of the medium of space.

After you think about it, and sort it out considering the alternatives, what do you conclude constitutes the rest of the energy in the medium of space?

 

[Farsight]

All of that is true except for the part that says the physical mechanisms aren't missing. The rest of what you said, though it is all true, it isn't mechanistic. Look at each point:

"a concentration of energy in the guise of a massive body"
That is true, but it isn't mechanistic if you ask how the influence emanates from the mass, and the mechanics of containment.

"a massive body alters the surrounding space"
Very true, but not mechanistic if you ask how or what alters the surrounding space. What is the nature of the influence if it isn't wave energy?

"the speed of light varies with position and so light curves"
Again, true, but not mechanistic if you ask how light slows down, mechanistically.

I know I sound like a broken record, but none of the effects that you refer are new to me, and I don't see the mechanics in what you mention. The nature of the energy involved, and the "how" of the effects are not presented mechanistically. That is my point.

It is presented mechanistically. Einstein said space isn't nothing. Look at the stress-energy-momentum tensor. See the shear stress? Space is like this gin-clear ghostly elastic thing. A gravitational field is what you get when you inject more space in the middle, then you get a pressure-gradient. See the energy-pressure diagonal? Note that injecting more space is like inserting energy, because at the fundamental level you can't distinguish the two.



Light slows down because the speed of light depends on the properties of space. The expression c = √(1/ε0μ0) is not unlike the mechanics expression v = √(G/ρ) where G is the shear modulus of elasticity and ρ is the density.

That is true, but the "how" of energy containment in particles and the nature of the waves might need some explaining, and I do know how to Google, so don't say look it up, lol. I have.

It does need some explaining, and whilst TQFT goes some way towards it, it just isn't in the Standard Model.

That is true, but I'm not a science professional trying to "do science", I'm a laymen, very science enthusiastic, well read, and thoughtful. I compare the various perspectives in the material I research, think about them, and decide how they could work together, without feeling I have to falsify the material that I don't see fitting in. All I am intending is that I post it for the record, listen to meaningful responses with content, like from you, review the content in the responses, decide if I have already thought the things through that you mention, and adjust my thinking as necessary, as determined by me :shrug:.
I've read plenty, and continue to do so. I appreciate the links and references you give on the subject.

Good stuff. I guess what I'm saying is that you need to read more and revise your current proposal.

Oh yeah, After you think about it, and sort it out considering the alternatives, what do you conclude constitutes the rest of the energy in the medium of space?

Space. Space is what energy is. When you inject energy you get this curvature of space, because energy and space are the same thing. Think about compressing a spring. Where is the stored energy? Not in the electrons and protons, but in the space between them. The energy is in space. Only if you could wave your hand around in that space, you would say that space is the only thing that's there.