Gravity Waves

[paddoboy]

Past thinking .....is past thinking.

I accept on the evidence available cosmology as it is known today, while standing on the shoulders of giants of the past..
While you still cling to the long defunct refuted Plasma/Electric Universe theeeeeeory.
Why does Pot, Kettle, black come to mind?

Pad you dig and know your stuff as far Einstein goes. Good.

Wrong again as usual..... The basis if what Einstein said still stands.....Some points have been modified and I have pointed that out to another nut in Farsight.

But it is out-dated.

Wrong...SR and GR are overwhelmingly supported theeories as is the 300 year old Newtonian mechanics.

The good thing though it does no doubt make things easier to understand thinking outside the box.

Nothing wrong in thinking outside the box if you are qualified....you fail on both.

 

[river]

Can you question ?

 

[danshawen]

What is this 'Time' being bound and Unbound ? And if we 'unbind' the time how fast would it flow ? Just thinking loud.

For energy that is unbound, in the rest frame, time progresses as it propagates and 'spreads out', even though at c, for all intents and purposes, time is stopped. So for unbound energy, time is both moving in the rest frame and stopped at c.

For energy that is bound, as in a particle or an atom, the 'spreading out' stops (as far as we know), because entanglement is faster than c. Interior to the particle, say, an electron, additional unbound energy may briefly become bound by the process of being absorbed and remitted, but over time in the rest frame, the particle interior is stable because time is stopped or mitigated by entanglement. Time progresses at a faster rate in the rest frame outside of the particle.

We should probably invent some new terminology to capture the whole picture without thinking so hard. The two states of time dilation (at rest and at c) are not contradictory. Time dilation is different everywhere.

 

[OnlyMe]

And SR is a subset of GR.

I did not say that. In fact I made an effort to say that for something to be real, does not mean we need to be able to touch, see or smell it. So it certainly is not physical.
I stand by my claims.
https://www.quora.com/Is-spacetime-a-real-thing-or-just-a-mere-concept

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html

What is a space time continuum?
In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not.

The point is when Minkowski used the word spacetime, he was in fact speaking of a four dimensional coordinate system, it did not include, as defining components, the energy, mass and momentum, that GR requires to define spacetime as it relates to gravitation.... And SR is a subset of GR, as you put it, only where the affects and influence of gravitation can be ignored.

The word as used in those two contexts does not have a single definition...

 

[Farsight]

This idea about entanglement is changing, and not just in China. Better yet, it's something we can test with real world scientific experiments, something that has been lacking in physics for the last 40 years. No energy is bulk transported from A to B...

All points noted Dan. No energy is transported, and there's no actual evidence that anything else is either. Einstein rejected spooky action at a distance, just as I reject woo. But people want to believe in mystery and mysticism.

 

[danshawen]

All points noted Dan. No energy is transported, and there's no actual evidence that anything else is either. Einstein rejected spooky action at a distance, just as I reject woo. But people want to believe in mystery and mysticism.

Entanglement isn't woo. In order for energy to become bound as it is in a particle of matter, some mechanism acting faster than light in a vacuum must be able to act to bind it. Entanglement would be that something. An understanding of this is a powerful thing.

Relativity is not a complete theory, as you already understand.

 

[paddoboy]

The point is when Minkowski used the word spacetime, he was in fact speaking of a four dimensional coordinate system, it did not include, as defining components, the energy, mass and momentum, that GR requires to define spacetime as it relates to gravitation.... And SR is a subset of GR, as you put it, only where the affects and influence of gravitation can be ignored.

The word as used in those two contexts does not have a single definition...

It's still the same spacetime though and that's what this is about.

 

[paddoboy]

just as I reject woo. But people want to believe in mystery and mysticism.

Pot, kettle, black! You are one of the chief peddlers of woo we have, as well as untruths such as your TOE.

 

[OnlyMe]

It's still the same spacetime though and that's what this is about.

Paddoboy, there is no gravity in special relativity and the spacetime that Minkowski described is defined by 3 spacial dimensions and one of time. General realativity describes a gravitational field not a four dimensional coordinate system. How many of the ten unknowns.., or variables - are not Minkowski's spacetime coordinates?

The Minkowski quote you keep using within the context of GR, was made before GR was published....

Spacetime as it is used in GR refers to the field, not just the coordinate system.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, there is no gravity in special relativity and the spacetime that Minkowski described is defined by 3 spacial dimensions and one of time.
The Minkowski quote you keep using within the context of GR, was made before GR was published....
Spacetime as it is used in GR refers to the field, not just the coordinate system.

I know what SR covers as well as GR.
I also see the context in which spacetime is used, and the perceived reality of it as accepted as per my links.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html

I'm really at a loss to know exactly what you are getting at other than what you stated a while back. :shrug:
This being the science section as accepted by mainstream, I see it rather essential to correct gross errors such as "no evidence of gravitational waves"or no warping, curving and twisting and other such antics to attempt derision of accepted mainstream cosmology.
An example of the crank nonsense and pseudoscience I refer to......

That is right, in case we want to keep GR alive. Truthfully there is nothing like GR variety GW, its preposterous, the biggest hindrance to QGT/unification is the inability of key people to shake off GR, so IMNSHO GW of non GR variety will be detected, it makes sense, and then a very big hard look will be taken on GR and soon after we will have a workable sound unified theory. A decade maximum, before 2025..It will become untenable to sustain GR, if we do not get GR variety GW, so some fireworks and nasty stuff would be there.

Recall that question some popscience guy asked about Laura Mercini paper...then wtf we were looking for if no BH...

 

[The God]

And SR is a subset of GR.

Where did you read this ? Popo-science ?

You are driven by the term Special (in SR) and General (in GR), and trying to make an argument that 'special' must be the sub set of 'General'.......

Are you aware of color charge etc ? It will be nice to get your opinion on that, read, assimilate and then write. No copy paste allowed. And yes, write about this subset thingie, only after knowing fully what you are writing...

 

[paddoboy]

Where did you read this ? Popo-science ?

You are driven by the term Special (in SR) and General (in GR), and trying to make an argument that 'special' must be the sub set of 'General'.......

Are you aware of color charge etc ? It will be nice to get your opinion on that, read, assimilate and then write. No copy paste allowed. And yes, write about this subset thingie, only after knowing fully what you are writing...

Most sensible people know what is meant.....You fail on that first point.
Let me state it again.....SR is a subset of GR.
Whatever other nonsense your ignorance directs you to is your concern.
'Matter tells space how to curve.
Space tells matter how to move.'
-John Wheeler

 

[paddoboy]

Where did you read this ? Popo-science ?

Oh, and its Pop science. You probably picked up popo from some Bollywood trash or similar. ....And Something that you continually preach here both as the god and rajesh, and why at least three forumites that I know of have you on ignore.

 

[paddoboy]

And SR is a subset of GR, as you put it, only where the affects and influence of gravitation can be ignored.

Obviously.

 

[The God]

Oh, and its Pop science. You probably picked up popo from some Bollywood trash or similar. ....And Something that you continually preach here both as the god and rajesh, and why at least three forumites that I know of have you on ignore.

What ever you write has a new word..popo-science, this word is especially coined by me for your posts and copy pastes..

Popo-science is actually few steps below popscience, in popscience there are some generalizations but good enough for educated interested people, popo-science on the other hand is pure non sense, full of mistakes, meant for uneducated interested people like you...

for example, SR is subset of GR...this is popo-science...

And by the way its better that 'uneducable' people do not read my posts. It will do no good to them, they are just 'uneducable' with total reluctance to learn. You are improving, thats good.

 

[paddoboy]

What ever you write has a new word..popo-science, this word is especially coined by me for your posts and copy pastes..

Whatever you silly boy! All I see is another case you focusing on yourself in the mirror....
Again, like the old cocky on the biscuit tin, you just ain't in it.

 

[Farsight]

Entanglement isn't woo.

Can you point to an experiment that demonstrates it in a clear fashion that you can actually see? The answer is no. No energy is transmitted from A to B, nor information, nor anything else that can be detected. When you look for what's actually been measured it's always slippery, all you get is a whole load of handwaving and a graph.

In order for energy to become bound as it is in a particle of matter, some mechanism acting faster than light in a vacuum must be able to act to bind it. Entanglement would be that something. An understanding of this is a powerful thing.

It isn't bound by entanglement. Who told you this Dan?

Pot, kettle, black! You are one of the chief peddlers of woo we have, as well as untruths such as your TOE.

I don't peddle woo, you dismiss Einstein along with hard scientific evidence because it doesn't square with the woo you believe in.

 

[danshawen]

It isn't bound by entanglement. Who told you this Dan?

It (a fundamental particle like a quark or an electron) isn't bound by charge; it would simply fly apart. E=mc^2 tells us the matter that is bound energy is incontrovertibly energy, so what other mechanism could possibly bind energy that is known to real science and would be consistent with what we know about relativity?

I'm not talking about atomic structure, which is pinned together by EM, electroweak, strong nuclear force, and the Higgs mechanism. I'm talking about what keeps the particles that are bound within atomic structure together. Protons and neutrons, both made of quarks and gluons, behave much differently outside of an atom. The neutron decays. The proton does not. Elecrons are likewise stable, and are known to exist in entangled pairs in the inner shells, and even Cooper pairs of unbound electrons seem to be entangled, as, apparently, is the Higgs. If something inside a quark or an electron were entangled, how would we even know? You wouldn't. The only reason we know the inner electron shells are, is a long story.

 

[Fednis48]

Can you point to an experiment that demonstrates it in a clear fashion that you can actually see? The answer is no. No energy is transmitted from A to B, nor information, nor anything else that can be detected. When you look for what's actually been measured it's always slippery, all you get is a whole load of handwaving and a graph.

Since you're such a vocal opponent of entanglement, I'm curious how you explain Bell inequality violations. The fact that two measurement can have results more strongly correlated than any local, realistic variable could account for seems like pretty strong experimental evidence of entanglement.

 

[Farsight]

It (a fundamental particle like a quark or an electron) isn't bound by charge; it would simply fly apart. E=mc^2 tells us the matter that is bound energy is incontrovertibly energy, so what other mechanism could possibly bind energy that is known to real science and would be consistent with what we know about relativity?

The strong force. Note that the residual strong force is what keeps protons and neutrons together in a nucleus, whilst the strong force is what keeps quarks together in a proton. People don't talk about the strong force when it comes to the electron, but whatever it is that keeps it in one piece is surely related to the force that keeps the proton in one piece. Note that you can annihilate the proton and the antiproton to gamma photons just as you can annihilate the electron and the positron to gamma photons, whereafter the strong force has apparently vanished. See this image courtesy of CSIRO

I'm not talking about atomic structure, which is pinned together by EM, electroweak, strong nuclear force, and the Higgs mechanism. I'm talking about what keeps the particles that are bound within atomic structure together. Protons and neutrons, both made of quarks and gluons, behave much differently outside of an atom. The neutron decays. The proton does not. Electrons are likewise stable, and are known to exist in entangled pairs in the inner shells, and even Cooper pairs of unbound electrons seem to be entangled, as, apparently, is the Higgs. If something inside a quark or an electron were entangled, how would we even know? You wouldn't. The only reason we know the inner electron shells are, is a long story.

I think the interesting question is what keeps the photon moving at c? If you look at the bag model, it features a kind of tension. If you shake a rubber mat, you need a tension property for the wave to propagate.