Robittybob1

Could you use neutrons as in #1?

Today I listened to the 1 hour long announcement by LIGO team on the discovery of the G-waves ('We have detected gravitational waves!', breakthrough discovery confirmed (FULL PRESSER)) Two things were confirmed: The LIGO team had to compare the results of computer simulations to the chirp trace. This is how they were able to put masses to the BHs i.e. from the analysis of graphs. Their simulations were made using Einstein's equations i.e. relativity and I never heard anyone use the word "barycenter", hence I will try and communicate with the LIGO team and let them comment on my speculation. If my speculation is correct the orbital plane and the Earth were somewhat aligned. How else would the effects of the delayed and the advanced waves be picked up by LIGO unless the BHs were orbiting in near alignment with the Earth? So that is a prediction that can be tested/verified. Has anyone got their address? An email address will do.

EFE = Einstein Field Equations

I'll see if I can get a translation.

But if I want to relate gravity back to fundamental particles is there anything wrong with that? Bremsstrahlung radiation seems to be an effect of electrons acting on protons even though the result of that you do get more tangible effects like an x-ray beam. So why not do the same thing for analogous gravitational radiation? Why not go back and look at the smallest everyday subatomic particles and see if they are the source of gravity? You might even see the similarity to magnetism, they relate magnetism to the alignment of atomic nuclei, so why not do something similar for gravity? Would there be some theoretical physicists trying to make it a quantum theory? If they were to discover a graviton would this alter your views?

Are there ones like that for gravitational radiation? Wasn't it from the same analogy that Einstein made the prediction of G-rad? The fieldlines would be more like lines of gravitational force wouldn't they?

What do you think about the the diagrams in this article? http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html Especially the ones titled "The Schwarzschild waterfall" and the "The Reissner-Nordström waterfall"

I would like to discuss how gravitational radiation is produced to see if we can understand the mechanism behind it. This graphic in the link http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html "Electromagnetic field of an accelerated charge" Does this picture of fieldlines assist our understanding?

On the surface that seems logical. Then we could also check the non equidistant clocks. I wonder if Janus can see a fault in that?

Yes even photons are affected by gravity but do they contribute to the gravity? It is probably sufficient to think that protons, neutrons and electrons are affected by gravity and contribute to gravity. Why I wanted to know this was thinking at what level of structure would gravitational radiation come from. Accelerate a kilo of mass, in effect you are accelerating many protons, neutrons and electrons and maybe each unit produces part of the overall radiation.

How do you know that is not what is happening within their programs already? Look at their animations which are completely computer generated and these results are very noticeable. The GW graphs at the bottom of the animation were absolutely equal even when the 2 BHs were considerably different in mass. Do you accept that one series of peaks comes from one body and the next one to it from the other body? Like two graphs overlying each other. I feel a little bit offended by that comment. Other than the results from the LIGO graphs what have they to go on. All the information is in the results recorded by these two machines and they make their calculations from those recordings.

Are you saying the lighter body will be radiating more energy? Why? I think the answer must be because it is being accelerated. So where does the force come from? It can only come from the gravitational attraction of the more massive BH. If energy and mass are equivalent will the loss of energy from the smaller BH mean it is losing mass at a greater rate and will this change the orbital dynamics? I am learning math too but it isn't something you can jump in at the deep end and learn to swim. I do think in words rather than equations, you're right about that.

No, each observer is able to read any of the other clocks, so observer 6 would be checking the pairs 5&7, 4&8, 3&9, 2&10, etc. observer 7 is checking pairs 6&8, 5&9, 4&10, 3&11 etc. So there is cross-checking Even in your answer pairs of clocks they are even with even, odd with odd. And how does he do that? We seem to have confused the quoting system. @ Janus - Even in your answer your pairs of clocks they are even with even, odd with odd.

Each observer is motionless with his own inertial frame, but who said each observer has to read all the clocks at once? So even if the observer 28 checked clocks 27 & 29, then 26 & 30, then 25 & 31 ..... he is always checking an even numbered clock against another even numbered clock, the same with the odd ones. The odds and the evens could be out of sync and you can't tell. Quote Janus The observer is only comparing equidistance clocks, in other words an odd with an odd and even with even.

When you said "If so, each mass would not produce the same radiation in a binary of unequal masses" I was just confirming whether you are looking at these effects on mass on a per kilogram basis. I accept my question was unnecessary now, sorry. Do you know the answer whether or not it had "changed conditions"? The whole discussion is difficult, for we are talking about accelerations, so there are forces, and these are acting on masses, to cause an effect called G-rad predicted by Einstein who explained gravity without forces. Why - I'm looking for the keywords to look up. All day I'm looking into these effects. But my background in maths is not good enough ATM to read detailed papers loaded with math. So those sorts of explanations don't work for me.

There is the direction of space idea to explore yet. I have just woken up and replying to you ATM. We see the arrows with the directions of space on the animations and I'd need to understand what effect that has on all our measurements. Do you understand those arrows? @Swansont could you please make your claims and questions more clear please? Take this post you say I "claimed" something earlier, that is not that clear as there have been many things claimed earlier, so I end up guessing what you are on about. I find I am spending a lot of effort to be really clear in what I say in reply to any of your questions. Behind the scenes I am looking at LaTex so soon hopefully I will be able to present more math in my replies. This whole discussion that has been going on over several threads now has been an enormous learning curve for me. My claims are in some way based on looking at the LIGO graphs and taking actual measurements from them. The effects I'm talking about seem to be visible to the eye, but so far no one has said whether they see the same differences as I do. If you or anyone else said they can't see those differences that I speak of, I would then need to show them in some other way, but I'm not getting enough feedback to know where the discussion is going.

Could you explain your reasons better please? Even if you are wrong it will give me an avenue to look into.

I was really making sure mass was not some measurement of mass like a kg . So you are sure that more mass won't make up for the lack of acceleration. I'm a bit taken back by that sorry. How could you convince me 2 * 1kg masses accelerated at half the rate won't produce the same GE as a single 1 kg mass accelerated at the full rate? They are definitely oscillating at the same frequency but the waves are grouped, there is a slight change (1 millisec approx) in phase (that might be the right terminology). I have done my best in trying to explain it before and it is late here I'm just too tired to have another go at it ATM. Thanks for your views even if we still disagree.

In #3 I asked for the thread to moved if you thought it was in the wrong section. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93875-warped-spacetime-around-bh-and-the-barycenter/#entry910042 I still feel the evidence is there, the G-Rad comes from both bodies in proportion to their mass and acceleration, except for the times when the orbits become chaotic. The principle of mass energy equivalence means the energy is in a form of mass. The Chirp graphs and the animations produced by reliable sources seem to confirm both bodies produce an equal strength GE wave. The figures of mass loss during the BH merger back it up. What have I seen others on the forum say? 1. All the mass was in the Event Horizon. 2. All the mass loss was at the ringdown (right at the end in a single moment). 3. All the energy loss is from the orbital energy OK all these alternatives seemed speculative to me for there was never any evidence given for them. I know it seems strange to say the 2 BH binary lose mass as their orbits decay, but I don't think it is an impossible situation, for there is evidence suggestive of the barycenter changing position resulting in disruption of the orbital features of the lighter BH as seen in the chirp wave pattern.

Light = photons thanks. The next bit I still don't agree with yet. "Each mass" are you saying that to mean "each body in a binary"? For the lighter mass in your thinking was that lighter mass going to produce more or less radiation? The larger mass has more matter and if each component of each atom produces some part of the G-rad a larger mass even though not accelerated as much may still overall produce the same amount as the lighter body. Force = mass * acceleration so mass or acceleration will produce the product. Smaller acceleration could be countered by increased mass. The two bodies of the binary are pulling with equal force. They have the same centripetal force. Besides that if the waves are produced from individual bodies in the binary the "chirp" amplitudes didn't show any tendency to peak at every second wave crest (even though it wouldn't be the easiest thing to pick as the intensity is rising up till the ringdown). If you thought that there was a second wave peak does it correspond to the wave produced by the less massive of the two BHs? http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 On the other thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93875-warped-spacetime-around-bh-and-the-barycenter/page-2#entry910467 I identified peaks 4, 6 8 as coming from the more massive BH and these crests look slightly lower than the preceding ones depending on what part of the reconstructed waves you look at, so you could be correct. I would take this to mean that the BHs are not acting as true binary objects and a degree of chaotic behaviour is happening. Do you agree with some parts of that? Are you familiar with the terms "numerical relativity" "reconstructed (wavelet)" and "reconstructed (template)" as used in the LIGO paper?

I know light paths are bent in a gravitational field but I haven't heard of light being attracted to light. What is the smallest mass proven/known to fall in a G field? Is it the electron? Gas molecules combined mass produce atmospheric pressure so even atoms as small as Hydrogen fall due to gravity. So masses smaller than Hydrogen only need to be considered. This report talks of gravity effect on neutrons: http://www.nature.com/news/bouncing-neutrons-probe-dark-energy-on-a-table-top-1.15062 .

I would like to discuss how gravitational radiation is produced. There is a formula for the amount. But I what to try and uncover the mechanism behind it. Why is it produced and so I have started this thread so even the most speculative ideas can be thrashed out. Is there anyone who has got a clue as to how to begin answering the question? Here is a paper mocking us with a clue: Solve this riddle: "Gravitational Radiation is to gravity what light is to electromagnetism". Do they really mean that as "light" and not photons? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_radiation.html They then say "It is produced when massive bodies accelerate". Is that in anyway similar to light? They also say "gravity waves are fluctuations in the tensorial metric of space-time." Does that mean gravity waves and gravitational radiation are the same? "The speed of gravitational radiation (Cgw) depends upon the specific model of Gravitation that you use." Is this the same as the speed of gravity? We need to know about bosons as well! I'm tending to the thought that there are gravity waves and the waves are waves of gravitational energy. Would that be like a light beacon with a pulse frequency and intensity made up of photons with a wavelength and energy that has some relationship with the pulse frequency and intensity, inasmuch as the total power output is contained by the frequency and intensity is within the emitted photons. Paper http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Boughn/boughn.html seems to answer the previous questions.

@Janus - what I have just noticed is that if you number all the clocks in one frame , 1,2,3, .....n and the first person sitting in front of clock 1 would have only one clock to check that is clock 2. The second person would check clocks 1 & 3 and the third person would check 2 & 4 so in effect you could have two series of clocks the odd numbered ones showing a different time to the even numbered ones and no one would know.

In this part of the discussion we have linked to two sites one the BH merger and the other BH mergers using simulation , both links in this post http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93875-warped-spacetime-around-bh-and-the-barycenter/page-2#entry910467. I hadn't made inferences about the scale in the animation but the timing of the waves only, see post #33. Why would they lose mass? Is that your question? The merging BHs did lose mass. In just 0.3 seconds or less they radiated away 3 solar masses of it. Mass-energy equivalence. Why would they lose mass? If they are radiating energy they are losing mass. The barycenter changes as the mass changes as consequence of how it is calculated and the physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#Two-body_problem r = a * m1/(m1 + m2) a = distance apart, r = distance to barycenter, m1, m2 are the binary masses. Why would they lose mass at an equal rate? Was that your question? Why would each member of the binary produce G-rad at an equal rate, even when their masses, speeds and radii are different? That is the question I was trying to answer. If the waves are of equal strength as measured by Advanced LIGO can we deduce they are radiating equal amounts away per orbit from each body in the binary? My initial assessment is yes "they lose mass at an equal rate". So then I'm asking what do others think? Trouble was if they lose mass at an equal rate the barycenter changes and that will cause some imbalance in the binary orbit. If they were equal in mass then the barycenter would not change. OK so if there was 2 equal mass BHs in binary orbit, the barycenter is not changing (AFAIK) yet they still radiate GE so G-rad is not due to barycenter changes. We can just about rule that one out. I see the reason now. If the orbit precesses severely the orbital plane can turn over so you are seeing the orbit from the "other side", so what looked clockwise now appears anticlockwise.

My initial thought to this is that it is a physical impossibility. Is this physically possible? Do they check the neighbouring clocks by sight? Seeing involves the speed of light so you see something as it was and not as it is. The two clocks either side of me could be reading the same time. One of these two clocks is also read by you and the two clocks either side of you could be reading the same time. So this could be extended indefinitely. Logically it can be done. Now I have to get my head around accepting that all those clocks will reading the same time. OK yes they are. That was my question to you wasn't it. If clocks are synchronised in one frame and then accelerated will they still be synchronised? If I turned your animation over the top row becomes the bottom and the animation will work just as well. But if I was to slow the top row and accelerate the bottom row right to left? Look I'd stabbing in the dark. They won't be in sync top and bottom any longer. But along the line they could still be in sync.