tar

OK I really do have to reread a bunch of stuff, I am completely confused. I thought, in the LIGO chart, the amplitude up on the black lines was considered H+ and the amplitude down was considered Hx. I was trying to visualize what that meant, in regards, to the merger and am now completely clueless. What was that about space squishing along one arm of the LIGO while stretching on the other? Are not H+ and Hx inversely related on the 90 degrees? The amplitude of the one high while the other low? better yet, I will bow out...this stuff is obviously way beyond me

imatfaal, "Obviously not that well - because your conclusion was this "The highest amplitude waves are going out, in a equatorial disk," which is the exact opposite of what I was explaining. The highest amplitude are axial - ie at the poles not on the equator." I thought your equations meant the highest amplitude H+ would be at the equator and the highest amplitude Hx would be at the poles, and my question was simply in GW150194 what percentage of the energy went out the top and bottom and what percentage went out on or near the equatorial disk. Regards, TAR

Well thank you Imatfaal. I do comprehend English words better than Greek letters standing for whole bunches of English words. But I still have the percentage question. The highest amplitude waves are going out, in a equatorial disk, the thickness initially of the diameter of the larger BH, whereas the axial power is going out at a max amplitude in exactly polar directions which I suppose is in two directions something like a barbershop pole coming out top and bottom, with two spirals on it, but the diameter of the orbit that put out the wave. Drawing a hypothetical sphere around the event, most of the power would hit the equator, not the poles. I am visualizing a couple degree size moon being the area of half the power going polar and a degree wide band on the horizon going 360 degrees around, putting maybe 100 times more power out on the equator than on the axis. If you were under water, had a stick and you put it straight above your head and turned around in a little circle it seems that would take a lot less energy than holding the stick out making a big circle... but maybe I am thinking about conservation of angular momentum which probably does not apply here.

no doubt I was not able to see it, and was hoping for an English translation. Stange had said one of the GWs we saw was 30 degrees from edge on which is also 60 degrees from axial what percentage of the energy is going axially and what percentage is going edge on, in the case of GW150914? I am trying to think in terms of radiation count, as if gravity was quantized into gravitons. Some distant stars we "see" we piece together photon by photon over time. We have no such luxury in this case, as all the gravitons were released in particular directions within about a second.

​"If we integrate this flux over a sphere around the source, we get the total luminosity, or energy emitted per unit time. The result cannot depend on the TT quadrupole moment, since "tranverse" can only refer to a specific direction of propagation. Instead it depends just on the traceless quadrupole moment IT, whose components are:" SwansonT, So what does that mean? Is the energy of the strain propagated only edge on, only in the direction of the axis or both in some combination where being 45 degrees from either position you would get some lesser but calculable energy? That is the luminosity seems to be figured on a sphere, but the wave propagates in certain directions, not all directions. Regards, TAR

I am sorry for the misdirection. The validity of our gravity wave detection is in NO WAY challenged by an inability to read another GW embedded in the signal. There is very little chance that such a signal is even present (even if two rings cross paths it is not likely they do so at the same time...that is one ring could pass were another was or will be, but in the expanse of space, the chance of meeting is near nil), much less that it would be strong enough to register on the equipment. The use of gravity waves as plumbs of the space they transversed, is likewise lessened in likelihood. "That's a speed, not a distance." but the whole signal, the 20 revolutions prior the merge happened in a second so the path either took to get around each other could not be longer than 118,000 miles divide that by pi and that by 20 and the diameter of the larger mass has to be less than that

.6c

so the strong wave would be in a plane less than 6 thousand miles thick, expanding out in that plane, the chances of that thin ring intersecting another thin ring of the same sort might be good, but it would only happen twice, for any two rings, max and this is definitely not enough interaction to be seen from 1ly which is the closest such an interaction could be and its imprint would NOT be on the part of the next ring that came through Earth from another direction...so SwansonT you are absolutely correct, there is no way to sense an intersection of two gws 1ly away. My expanding shell model is not how it would be. It is expanding rings.

if the gradient energy stayed on the plane, mostly coherently for billions of lys, then the thickness of the plane would be max the diameter of the larger of the two BHs, and the diameter of the larger of the two had to be much less than the travel path of either mass during that last second which at .6C would be 118,000 miles

I just thought experimented away my expanding shell image. Or have another question. When two BHs are spiraling in on each other, is there an orbital plane, or is it a crazy 3d dance like an electron orbit? That is, if you are positioned at a pole of a gradient event caused by a flat orbit, and the two masses were the very close together that they would have had to be to get around each other 20 times in a sec at max .6 c. then you would see no wave, where to see the full wave you should be on the equator of the dance. The power of the wave would be mostly on the plane of the equator...? or at least on the plane of the last orbit so what assumptions are made about the shape of an expanding impulse? like a gamma ray burst is sort of aimed like a spreading shot gun pattern, where you can be within range of the blast, but missed, does a GW expand out in sort of an expanding ring, where you could be within range of the merger, but be missed by the ring?

swansont, I admit it is real handwavy but it goes to the consideration of how confident are we in the data. That is, how "clear" is the data. Can we see signals within the signal that we are not expecting, or can we only see what we are expecting to see? My "math" to suggest one might be able to pickup a gw crossing another gw 1 ly away is a general figuring that a gw gradient stayed coherent after traveling 1.3billion lys and is "spread out" in terms of power in an inversed cubed type of way that results in the wave (initially with the force of the mass of multiple suns turned instantly to energy) only having the power to distort space the width of a partial proton over the distance leveraged by the experiment, yet we can read the effect that this distortion has on space through monitoring the interference of some EM waves that took two orthogonal routes to the detector...whereas the gw we sense today HAD to either have been crossed by or is soon to be crossed by another GW that we just saw or are about to see. So the impulse, the wave of one gw should be embedded in the next. And this fluctuation, this "interference" had to happen within a couple lys of here because the two waves crossed earth within a year of each other. So space is curved within curved space, and the interaction should still have some coherence because relatively few other GWs have had a chance to add or subtract their impulse, and the interaction had to be a billion times closer than the original gradients. But again, I am trying to box in the answer to the thread question. Either we can pick up GWs or we can't. If we can, then we can make further study of them, and possibly use them as probes of space...able to in essence "feel" the universe around us. And while having a fourth, or building 12, would be stupid if we cannot detect GWs, if we CAN detect GWs we should be able to learn a lot more about gravity than we know today, by studying in detail, GW waves. If we can see a strong one from 1.3 billion lys, mathwise, we should be able to see a weak one from 1 ly. Regards, TAR I am having a hard time, mentally. figuring what the intersection of two GWs would look like in space. It would not be one event, but an infinite number of events happening continually, at an infinite number of locations, within, at a particular instant, that area of space where the two expanding shells coexisted. So while one GW passes through a spot on Earth in a sec, another portion of that expanding shell has to already be passing through another "close" GW...so depending on how precisely we can see one wave embedded in the prior, or the next, we might, with 12 detectors, be able to map gravity waves that passed through already, before we had any detectors up. (by reading the record of other gws on the passing one)

dimreeper, Neither is highly religious but one believes in God and the other not so much. Both are kind and generous and have been taught the Protestant work ethic (even though they went to Episcopal church and my mother took us to Presbyterian Sunday School and church.) The younger, the not so much one, just got her PhD in chemical research and the older one that believes in God more, works in the old age rehabilitation field. And to the idea that even scientific millennials can hate I point to the vitriol the progressives in the U.S. have for Republicans. Especially for older white Anglo-saxon Protestant heterosexuals that live in the Suburbs. I am thinking that it does not work to create a religion/morality out of whole cloth. You have to use the stuff that has worked for generations, and you have to still attempt to go by a morality that 90% of the people around you also subscribe to. There is no such thing as objective morality, it all has to accrue directly to human needs, wants, hopes, and dreams, and be structured to please others, as well as yourself, or it will not work. (at least will not work for long) Regards, TAR I am sort of contradicting myself by saying that morality consists mainly of talking to an unseen other that exists in the objectively true waking world at the same time I am saying there is no such thing as objective morality, but I mean that when you take humans as a whole, we can not all together come up with a morality that does not serve humans. Like we cannot come up with worm morality or rain drop morality or discern some morality that serves all neutrons equally.

and interestingly there were good people before the morality/life lessons courses, when the morality/life lessons courses were taught in Sunday School I also am an atheist. My wife is religious, but not fanatical. We sent two on the bottom right to church and Sunday school with their mom, to learn the morality/life lessons, and let them choose on their own whether to be believers or not as they aged.

swansont, Understood, any point in space can be located with 3 dimensions and a fourth time dimension can be charted by mathematically wedging in a 45 degree, so plotting something on 6 axis gains you nothing, the point in space can still be located. But I am envisioning a 3d matrix where both 90degrees and 60degrees are present in the relationship between any single point, and its isotropically related 12 neighbors. Same grid of course can be found with x,y,z coordinates, but here you surround yourself with a cube, and look at the middle of the twelve edges, not the eight corners. Same space, same reality, and as you say you would get the same answer, but you can ask a more detailed question with more detailed directional and timebased information. What for instance is this? The data we get from each LIGO, or VIRGO is somewhat noisy, and when one goes to line it up with the others one does not know whether to delay or advance the black line to get the picture of the waves. And how much to compress or expand the lines to show an accurate portrayal. With six axis to line up, one gets both clues as to the matchup, and once aligned can see details of the waves that would have been thrown out as noise. Maybe. If you are matching a template, you just find the carrier. If you are picturing the carrier you have a better chance of seeing an unknown signal on it Regards, TAR for instance, suppose the wave has characteristics that triangulate to a source in a particular direction as if a flat plane came through with the source merger being the cause of the characteristics and this source was 1.3 billion lyrs away, but figuring in the curvature of the Earth, and the direction from which the wave had to come, there is another characteristic in the wave that triangulates to a source in the same direction, but only 1 ly away. Perhaps the characteristic was caused by a gw that passed through Earth in the other direction, two years ago

SwansonT, If I had a math for the situation I think it would have to be based on a different vector calculus than we usually use. For the last three years or so my mental 3D space has been aligned to the twelve sections of the sphere built around the geometry of an almadine garnet, (it turns out.) A 6 axis isometric grid. Vector matrix calculus based on such a six axis figure would, in my estimation form a "better" view of the kind of squishing and stretching space is capable of, as a dense packed matrix of spheres can be modeled with intersecting hexagonal and square planes that would keep their anistropic relationship in all directions. Alas, I have no practicum, with which to describe my ideas. But it surrounds the need I have for more than three stations. I would like six, with one of the arms of each, along one of the six axis. Perhaps this could be built in space, or at six appropriate places on the surface of our sphere. The direction is important, the timing is important, but I don't mean to lecture anyone, I am just trying to imagine what is happening to space as a gw comes through...what are the implications...what has to be the case, since the world HAS TO fit together flawlessly. Regards, TAR

OK

SwansonT, I have no math. I do not know how gravity waves work. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, Understood. But what you say only matters in an amplitude modulation analogy. In a frequency modulation setting, at the peak of the chirp, when the BHs are spiraling together, there is information in the double integral, or double derivative (which ever way that goes, I forget.) And in this case, when you overlap the second long black wave form, with a detector 196,000 miles upstream, you would find the complex just starting in the one case, while just finishing in the other. So the same event would be noticed at both locations, but not the same portion of the wave complex, and analyzing these types of aspects of the wave is exactly the kind of pursuit that will yield information about what it means to be a quadrapole wave in 3D space, squishing and stretching the place as you go. Regards, TAR And having an understanding of the changing contour of space while a GW is coming through allows a one second window, the next time a wave comes through to perform other EM experiments, within the waveform. Surf it. AND if the wave started pure and simple, assuming that it is still pure and simple, rejects the possibility that it has been affected by the space through which it has traveled, including the occasional bits of space being warped by masses and other GWs. Regards, TAR and suppose you have two detectors receiving the wave at the same time, as in not upstream of the other, but next to the other, or at some angle to the wave front, somewhat like getting your eye right up next to the corner of the garage and looking across the face, to notice any contour, from flat, that might be present

"Really??? What of those lucky few that are content because of their religion?​" dimreepr, This made me wonder whether to a certain extent one is alone when self absorbed, in science, and facts or mathematical models, or consumed with an addiction, and no longer alone when religion, whether deistic, or Spinozian or humanist in nature is added...when someone takes strength from the outside, from an unseen other. That is, one is lame without religion. , Regards, TAR

That is exactly where I think you are underestimating the promise of gravity wave study. There is a complete difference in the strain of space at point A and point B 5,000 miiles away as a wave is coming through, and every 20th of a second this situation is flipped. In the actual data link above, with the black lines given as the signal from the GW I counted at least 20 transitions from H+ to Hx. If this many transitions can be sensed within a sec that means that the experiment can tell which way space is stressed and what the gradient is between one point and another during the wave's duration to an amazing precision. that is, if you know what the H+ is and the Hx is at a particular instant at point A and point B you could interpolate and figure what it has to be inbetween then if you actually have an experiment in between you could verify your interpolation, and or see where there is another aspect to the wave that you did not predict after all the GW151226 is a very complex thing with at least 20 ripples and that is just taking a reading on a 3 dimensional event in one direction, at one spot on the shell it matters how the wave is oriented to the experiment in several different ways, that have to do with timing and distance squaring everything up and seeing what the wave looks like can not be done with only one station

Strange, That is the part that worries me a little. That they look too much like what was expected, and we did not learn anything new from the experiment Regards, TAR

"But I don't see why that's not true of the second one. The second signal is used as confirmation that it's not noise. You're adding redundancy on top of an existing redundancy. What does it add?" Considering we know very little about gravity waves, except for what we have seen in the last few years, I would think any data that would increase our knowledge of a single one, would increase our knowledge of what to expect in the future, how to recognize one amongst the noise, and how to see new things we did not expect to see in the data from the experiments. Given the fact that we know now better what the signal will look like, we should be able to recognize one faster. It would be good to get so good as to be able to ring a bell when the first part of a known kind of event is crossing and run other experiments, during the crossing to learn more about the characteristics of warped space. If we are already happy that we have a working model, in Einstein's equations, we can just say "there" we have all we will ever need. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, Once you DO get the third, to triangulate you then KNOW the second of time in which you will find the wave pattern and you know the wave pattern frequency and timing and amplitude you are looking for. You don't have to find it, it exists, there in the fringe signal of the fourth LIGO during that second. If you don't see it there, then it was not what you thought it was. If it is there you can gleen more information about the wave, as you can see how space was actually warped at that spot at that time and line it up with how space was warped at the other locations. You get a higher resolution image of the wave, and you verify your method and can make required adjustments to your model. Regards, TAR What is true is usually true in more than one way. reality does not have to match the model, but the model has to match reality

raw garnet shape https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=nowVWIX1&id=C007BF16FABC5E16D6B36DCC9973301243F428EF&thid=OIP.nowVWIX1VsYoEfOxVWtUVgEsEs&q=garnet+shape&simid=608004509805773192&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0 almadine Garnet https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=almandine+garnet&id=0C7E8E6902765A577EC8D82E8674F7CCD2F4DE60&FORM=IARRTH chemical composition, crystal category, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almandine

SwansonT, So the analysis required to get the black waveform is to remove local noise and experimental dust and such, right? Not to match the black line with a gw template. The match has already been made, by the time you then look at a third detector, right? I understand the need to analyze the original signal, and pull out the black line, but is this analysis done blind, or is it done expecting to pull out a known pattern? That is, can you pull the black line from the third detector, during the target period, by lining it up with the black lines of detector 1 and 2, without reference to any GR template? Regards, TAR I do not need a fourth, as long as the black line on the third can be found by looking at the time period 1 and 2 had a match, without reference to any GR model. that is, again the gravity wave was actually in detector 3. Whatever it did to detector 3 during that particular second is evident. Without reference to anything else.