Robittybob1

Yes OK I can see that, but wasn't it put down to a poor connection. It is that person who discovered that poor connection who has to have the courage to say "I think it was just a poor connection". That becomes the speculation.

I wasn't shifting the point just reducing its size till the diagram became a point. The central point won't be moving, it will just be a point. LIGO only works because the test particles are far apart (4 km). You can't reduce LIGO to a point on the z axis and expect it to work IMO.

[That's hard on your eyes. ] That image in Wikipedia was called "Linearly polarised gravitational wave" so that to me represents the effects on a plane of test particles above or below the orbital plane, and not a point head on to an approaching wave. One point head on toward the wave would be moved in an oscillation (OK RB which way would it move as the GW passed?) For if you reduced that image down to a point what would that mean? The center of it doesn't move so would the point be moving?

When you do speak about it to your colleagues (forum members) or your team, not all individuals will have the same set of skills. I'm sure the idea doesn't have to be fully developed when you first mention it, but you need to have a certain amount of conviction that you could be right otherwise you wouldn't even open your mouth.

The sources were Youtube lectures by Katie Mack. I have been told off for putting them up before, and I'm pretty shy at the moment. I am going to try and reverse-engineer the math in Wikipedia to see if it draws a 3D spiral. It seems we only need to be 1 wavelength back from the source to get some results. We could pick some known separation of the BHs so we could workout their periods etc so we would know how far the light (and the gravitation wave) has traveled in the period. Would you be willing to help me give each variable in those equations some value so we can work out an amplitude at all points around the source? That is all points above and below and on the orbital plane as well. (Each hemisphere should be a mirror image so we'd only need to consider the one half of the sphere.) If you attempt to draw the results of GR will we get to see the source of the GW and how the GW spreads out in space from the source? Strange only linked to the maths section of the Wikipedia article on Gravitational waves. That confused me too once the page is opened. I like your question and it is what I have been trying to do using a mental image but it would be really great to get a 3D image on paper. Just having a line representing the point of maximum amplitude would be sufficient. Then we could keep all the 2D effects in the 2D plane and then we could stack the planes one on top of the other to get the 3D effect.

Thanks Ajb - in the end it is the 3D structure I'm interested in. Hopefully seeing why the strength is greater perpendicular to the orbital plane. That increase in strength won't alter the shape. But a 3D spiral has issues where the spirals meet perpendicular to the orbital plane. It is difficult to see how the two sides meet just using my imagination. I need someone to make a 3D computer graphic to help me see what happens. Bombing me again. There is no 3D description there. If you think there was which formula was it? Some of that math could become useful. I see they work with assumption of a point source.

If we are talking about the same model, and I suspect we are, for I saw it being used in Katie's lecture, if you look at the dimensions of the model they are not what you'd get if the waves are moving at c. At c the waves would travel 2*pi times as far as the distance of r (the radius of the binary), if the binaries are traveling at 0.5c. At slower rates the distances are even greater. These longer distances are not evident in their model. In their model there appears to be overlapping GWs. Is that summation? Interference may not have been the right word, but it was something like the interference pattern of the two slit experiment where waves cross over each other. I have not seen a written description, only the animation model. If you know of a paper explaining the 3D model Katie Mack was using would you share that with the forum please? It doesn't feel right to knock it harshly if I'm uncertain that we are discussing the same model. [http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age14-16/Wave%20properties/text/Interference_/index.html from that page interference is the right word.] Would you ever get a GW interfering with another GW between the binaries? This seems to be the place where the wave originates rather than a place of interference as was evident in their animation.

I had written 1D and then amended it to 2D. If there is already a 3D model of the gravitational wave does anyone know where this is described? For then the problem may be solved already and I can use the 3D description of the wave in other science threads.

That is not fair. Please don't be so biased against me. If the waves were moving at the speed of light the spacing of the waves is so much larger than was shown in the model she used in her lecture. If the BH is going at even 0.5c and the orbit is r , circumference is 2 * pi() * r each of the waves should be around 6.28 times further than the radius apart.

If her team was the source of that ugly 3D animation we are definitely different. In their model the waves were not moving at the speed of light. This was evident by the spacing of the waves. The G-waves would not interfere in the patterns as they were showing.

One would think it is different. For if it was the same as we already have why doesn't someone just claim "that is what we already have"? That would have set me back a bit, but I'd still say "if it is the model "we already have" why isn't it described this way?", instead of using tubes, ripples and sinusoidal waves? I listened to Katie Mack a bit during my holiday, maybe she has it for she referred to that ugly 3D animation, and she said in that tweet "the GW was stronger perpendicular to the orbital plane" which shows she is thinking in terms of a 3D model.

The model the 3D spiral model is a model in itself. OK I can't animate it as yet but I can think of it. I hope all of you can comprehend what a 3D spiral is like for there is no image like what I want on Google images (so I can't show you). The predictions would follow once the model is envisioned. Firstly it explains how the same wavefront can be picked up in all directions around the BBHs. 3D tubes, 2D models of ripples or 2D sinusoidal waves will not do this.

There would have to be some physical logic behind the concept. OK the computer simulations may give a more accurate picture. Large distance allows for approximations to be used. I am not applying forces or energy calculations to the 3D model, but we are looking at how it is formed and therefore what shape it has as the wave spreads out in a 3D fashion. There has to be two waves per orbit those two wrap into each other as 3D spirals. The model is the 3D spiral I hope all of you can comprehend what a 3D spiral is like for there is no image like what I want on Google images (so I can't show you). The predictions would follow. Firstly it explains how the same chirp wavefront can be picked up in all directions around the BBHs. The 3D linearly polarized tubes, 2D models of ripples or 2D sinusoidal waves do not do this. Swansont asked me "How does your model, such as it is, differ from the model we already have?" One would think it is different from what we already have. If it is the model "we already have" why isn't it described this way? instead of using tubes, ripples and sinusoidal waves? Katie Mack has a similar 3D concept for she referred to that ugly 3D animation [similar to the one in "Have Gravitational Waves Been Discovered?!? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios" YT], and she said in that tweet "the GW was stronger perpendicular to the orbital plane" which shows she is thinking in terms of a 3D model. If her team was the source of that 3D animation, their model the waves were not moving at the speed of light. This was evident by the spacing of the waves. At the speed of light the G-waves would not interfere in the patterns as they were showing. If the two BBH are going at even 0.5c and the orbit is r , the circumference of the orbit is 2 * pi() * r Therefore each of the waves should be around 6.28 times further than the radius apart.

I have added an hypothesis. I notice a lot of speculative threads are started in the main science sections so they don't have that difficulty. The forum members are the peers that do the review on this site.

I'm not into guessing. Look it was the first of many articles I could have selected, it wasn't an extensive search. It could be right or wrong but it had the name of a reputable research university. It was a surprise to me that there would be a ringdown, but I have not had time to look into that , but Swansont mentions spinning as a possible cause.

it is a 3D spiral. The wavefronts form a spiral. It is a bit like the usual form of representation but they need to be drawn in 3D. This is a 2D representation, but there is no 3D representation of GW on the internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#/media/File:Wavy.gif The waves in the gif seem to have some 3D effect but even that is wrong. A 2D wave should have no depth. Amplitude could be represented by shading that falls off with the 1/r ratio. You would need to explain why they are stronger in those planes? They never draw 2D waves as concentric circles so why should we think of the 3D wave as concentric? Any suggestion they are spherical is just based on an approximation. Are you saying they have a point source, for if they did they would be spherical waves?

Well that post was funny. It made me laugh.

That seems a very high bar to get a thread moved from speculations. So are you questioning whether I have even made an hypothesis about the 3D shape of a BBH gravity wave? Do I have "an actual hypothesis"? There wasn't that much criticism on the actual thread in question, so I was wondering what that meant. Yes you can operate the forum however the owners want it to. I have no idea who various people here are in their daily lives. The steps #17 are good. I am happy with that opportunity. There was no way I could have started the 3D structure thread in any other forum for the 3D nature of GWs did not seem to have been discussed anywhere. I came to this conclusion after my extensive search for them. I have added an hypothesis.

Are you still standing on that statement? How are you going to get 2 wavefronts per orbit as well as having concentric spheres? Hypothesis: Binary orbiting masses produce gravitational waves that have a 3D structure. It is hypothesized this is a 3D spiral with the wavefronts moving outward at the speed of light. [it is right to have this hypothesis at the end of the thread for we started off with the concept of finding the 3D structure, and now I have formed an idea that fits in with the facts I have made the hypothesis.]

I wondered where Ed's post went to! http://cgwp.gravity.psu.edu/events/SrcSimDA/slides/Dimmelmeier.pdf that site seems to predict supernovae will produce a gravitational wave; one peak, a ringdown and a bounce.

We would have to check up on whether supernova produce gravitational waves. If they do it probably is spherical, one spherical wavefront, I'm guessing it won't have a chirp. Check it out.

I've got a bit of study to do before I can check your answers. Sorry. I'll come across it again and we'll check it out. I don't remember the source but the thought has stuck. I really wondered if what they said was right.

Exactly, you can't just closedown all new ideas. So how do you progress them. Step 1. Start the idea in a speculation thread. Develop model or math to support it. Step 2. See what sort of analysis it gets. Is it falsified? Step 3. Transfer the thread to a science section of the forum. Step 4. See what sort of analysis it gets. Is it falsified? .....

That was very clever of you. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fungi/fungimm.html I have been looking for a dietary source of chitin. Thanks I didn't know it was found in fungi yet I knew about being in the exoskeletons.

I do understand the notion of these gravity waves. The waves are not always going to come from binary orbiting masses 1.3 billion LY away. That is why I wanted to know the 3D shape of the wave. How is it that the wave can be detected in any direction? It has a 3D nature, and that 3D nature was not being described by anyone. That sentence shorter version "The waves propagate spherically .... at cosmological distances." Well I had agreed that at large distances the wavefronts would "look" spherical. Do the extreme reaches of a spiral look circular? On closer examination you can follow it back and find it is not quite circular. At a distance it approximates a sphere. So when you do the maths on it one can treat it as a sphere, but I'm looking at the structure of the whole wave. If it was spherical the center point of the GW spheres from one moment of time to the next is changing location. You would then have to consider where the center point is in relation to the binary bodies. The center point of the orbit is the barycenter, but the central point of a gravity wave??? That has never been defined. If it was defined to get the 3D structure I am proposing there would need to be two points that are moving around the barycenter for there are two wavefronts produced per orbit. [From logic these two points would become the centers of mass of the two binary bodies but that is another thread.]