MigL

I assumed he meant 'radial'. emanating from a central point outward. Maybe not.

I'm not sure LIGO extracts energy from the gravitational waves. What it does is measure the distortion to space-time caused by the gravitational waves ( path differences ). If you picture space-time as a three-dimensional ( I don't think you can do four ) grid or co-ordinate system; then the gravitational wave would emanate from a central point outward, alternately stretching the grid along one axis, and compressing it along another. If there is a pre-existing 'warping' of the grid, caused by matter and its associated mass-energy, then the wave will be slightly modified in its path. so, sure, matter affects gravitational waves.

I am a creationist. In fact I created the universe yesterday. ALL reality exists only in my mind, such that all measurements/observations are consistent. ( I think I had some indigestion at the time I 'imagined' you, PrimalMinister ) My viewpoint makes everything you have posted totally wrong. "I have a different view, this is because believe I have a framework for a theory of everything. Now I could be wrong, fair enough, but if I am right, there is going to be a paradigm shift in physics and a dramatic reinterpretation of the cosmos." Oh, and I have just as much evidence for my conjecture as you do with yours. ( funny how nonsense posts generate nonsense replies )

Funny how you claim not to be Religious, BeeCee, yet, when stressed out, you invoke Religious names . ( we're already in an of-topic thread; What can this hurt ? )

That being said, it seems Iran has learned a few things from North Korea. The thinly veiled extortion demands "Lift the sanctions, or we start enriching Uranium again"

More gibberish ??? Mass and energy are not the only conserved quantities. What about charge ? And momentum ? Yet you still assert that a photon ( in sync ??? ) can transform into an electron ? And why not take a look at Zapatos' link for an "Incredible animation shows just how big supermassive Black Holes can get" https://www.businessinsider.com/black-hole-how-big-largest-universe-2019-5?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

Didn't think I'd have to defend my posts a month later, and you would have educated yourself in the meantime. "Yes, MigL claims to be one of those people. with the links he provided, but he doesn't seem to be aware that would end up making him a theoretical physicist and not just a physicist." I am certainly NOT a theoretical Physicist, my degree was in experimental, solid-state Physics, but I like to think I've learned a few things since then. I did not discard the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but used it according to the circumstances to describe the degeneracy it sets up, like any good Physicist would. You seem to think it only applies to electrons, but it applies to ALL fermions ( particles that obey Fermi-Dirac statistics ). And as I've mentioned before, there is ample experimental evidence for pairings ( and larger groups ) of fermions to obey Bose-Einstein statistics ( ie act like bosons ), in superfluids, superconductors and Bose-Einstein condensates. You seem to think theoretical Physicist just make stuff up, and discard principles and laws to suit their fancy. I assure you, that is NOT the case. ( if it was, it would make you a theoretical physicist ) As to your above post... Why not do a little reading to find out what the imaged ring actually is ??? ( before spouting nonsense )

There is no difference. Time and space ( distances ) are inextricably linked. The concept of an astronomically distant object, as it is 'now', is not valid.

Everything you see is in the past. Light, and any information, moves at a finite speed, such that an object 300,000 Km away is 'seen' as it was 1 second ago. But since we can never see it as it is now ( there is no universal 'now' ), the reality we experience ( even effects on us ) are governed by this speed of light limitation.

And, R Nixon was much more likable and sensible than D Trump...

Hummm. What is more plausible to you... a - You are delusional. b - The whole universe is 'flipping' around to satisfy YOUR whims or play tricks on YOU. ( Hint : It doesn't matter if you pick a or b ; you are delusional in both cases. )

You made it to 59 yrs of age with this stubborn attitude against learning ?? Not advanced science, mind you, but simple basics ( like the concept of quantifiable units ). I'm surprised you made it past puberty.

Didn't say anyone was 'guilty'. Just that we are using differing definitions. And although I defer to Eise when it comes to philosophical matters ( such as this ), I wanted to introduce my opinion and receive other members reactions to it. Edit: Ok then. Disregard 1st two lines

I'm glad your last post was more friendly. You'll find that if you treat people and their ideas with respect, they, in turn, will treat you and your ideas with respect. Now let's move on to some of your ideas... You've mentioned Einstein's parallel universe theory, several times. I, and the others, know of no such theory, perhaps you can provide a source for this idea. There are, however, a few multiverse/many worlds concepts/interpretations kicking around. Some are strictly interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, but some others are very similar to your idea. An off-shoot of inflationary theory originally developed by P Steinhardt, and later filled out by A Linde, had inflation ending in many 'hot bubbles' ( universes ), while the original 'universe' continued its inflation. These 'hot bubble' universes multiplied in space as well as time, and have been termed Chaotic or Eternal inflation. The thing to keep in mind though, is that these multiple 'universes' are causally disconnected. They are unobservable, and cannot affect each other. So why do you propose they determine the shape or extent of our universe ?

What seems to be the problem is our differing definitions of 'free will'. From my POV, if everyone can determine my choice/reaction to a stimulus, then that reaction is not free, but dictated by circumstances. The unpredictability allows ( or forces ) you to make a choice/reaction not dictated by circumstances; And that is 'free will'. From your POV, the ability to think " I was going to do this, but choose, instead, to do that" is 'free will'. But how do you know that thought process isn't part of the 'clockwork' and you were always going to choose to do 'that' ?

Thanks for 'stepping up', Studiot. While I've used ( OK, played with ) tensors before, I've never really had the "Ahaa" moment, where they suddenly make sense.

The 'clockwork' reality I'm considering, means that the elementary particles that make us up have determined paths once the initial conditions are specified, and at any time thereafter, their positions can be computed, like clockwork. If you want to consider the particles making up your brain, then specifying initial conditions, one would be able to calculate ( with an extremely powerful computer ) every future position, interaction and path, and from that, every thought that you may have. Even the thought that you should change your mind. So when you say that you have the 'free' will to choose differently, although circumstances favor a specific decision, that is already pre-ordained by the initial conditions. IE it is not free will at all. What QM does, more specifically the HUP, is destroy the 'clockwork'. You can no longer compute the future position, interactions and paths of the elementary building blocks of your brain. Any decision made is not necessarily based on previous conditions, and information. Now, you could say this is just the appearance of free will, as we still have no control over the decision we ultimately make. But that's probably as close as we're gonna get.

Interesting strategy. Introduce in the OP that you've been kicked out of other sites because of bias against your 'facts', so that you have a backup when you introduce nonsense to explain things and effects already explained by the accepted science. If we balk at your 'facts' you can claim we are just like the rest ( conspiracy ) and move on to the next site. All the while calling anyone who disagrees with you a 'troll'. Are you also gonna claim you were booted from the other sites because of your friendly disposition ?? ( its not that we don't like Americans; I loved to party in the Buffalo area in my younger days. We just dislike arrogant/ignorant Americans; Your president for one.)

I don't believe in determinism as that implies a 'clockwork' reality. Up to a century ago, your stick could hit a cue ball at a specific speed, to hit the 8ball in a specific position, and send it into the corner pocket. W Heisenberg changed that paradigm. After QM, if you hit the cue ball to give a well specified speed to the 8ball, you have no idea where the 8ball is. And if you are sure where the 8ball is, you have no idea how hard to hit it so that it drops in the corner pocket. ( OK, I exaggerate a little to make my point ) The message is clear, at a basic level there is no determinism. And I've had this discussion with Eise before, but what are your thoughts on how this relates to 'free will' ?

Where is Markus when you need him... This is way above my pay grade, but, since Electomagnetism is a vector force, the explanation that Markus gives for a tensor as a black box which takes a vector input, processes it, and produces a vector output completely independent of co-ordinate system, seems to make sense. Thanks a lot, now I have to do some research. Or maybe someone more knowledgeable will step up.

As to the question of range of gravity... Lets consider again QFT, the 'marriage' of Quantum concepts with Special relativity. All forces are thought to be mediated by virtual bosons, such as photons, W and Z particles, gluons, and gravitons. Photons and gravitons are massless, and must travel at c. They can also be extremely low energy/long wavelength such that when we apply the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to them, as their energy approaches zero ( wavelength approaches infinity ), the HUP says they can exist for a time approaching infinite. IOW they can approach infinite distance when their strength approaches zero because there is no time constraint; and this is evident in the inverse square law which the obey. Now consider the weak force, mediated by massive virtual W and Z particles. The fact that they have to have a minimum amount of mass-energy to exist means that their time is limited by the HUP. Since their mass-energy cannot approach zero, they can't have an amount of time approaching infinite to travel to infinite ranges. The distance they can reach is limited by the HUP and SR ( as they are subluminal ). The same analysis can be done for the strong force when it is modelled as a Yukawa potential with massive Pion exchange. But I'm incapable ( without doing some research ) of doing this analysis with massless gluons mediating the color interaction and residual strong force between protons and neutrons.

There is a difference between the 'fossil' field and 'changes' to the gravitational field. Changes propagate at the speed of information, c , while the fossil field is pre-existing, and no new information needs to be transferred. IOW changes have to obey causality, and have a limited range of observability that is time variant, because of the limited speed of light, while the pre-existing fossil field is simply the existing space-time curvature, and if our measurements could be made accurate enough, we could know the 'overall' curvature of the universe at large ( not just the observable part ). Our current best measurements indicate the Universe is essentially flat ( to a very high degree ), indicating that it is extremely large compared to the observable part we see, such that curvature is trivial ( analogous to the Earth appearing flat at short ranges ), or, it was extremely 'fine-tuned' at the beginning, such that even after 13+ billion years of expansion, it is still essentially flat.

In a Bose-Einstein condensate, many identical particles act together as a single particle. This is also evident in lepton pairings which act as bosons, in superconductors and superfluids. Once large groups of quarks obey Bose-Einstein statistics, you can stack as many as you want in a single place. I was afraid you might not understand the library/Interstellar reference, but now you have me interested in J L Borges' Library of Babel. ( or at least, its English translation )

I can't answer your question, Eise. And don't know if anyone can. The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit was calculated to be LESS than the Chandrasekhar limit at first, which made little sense. It was only after a fuller understanding of the strong force that it was revised upward to its currently accepted value. S Chandrasekhar crudely merged the relatively new field of quantum mechanics with special relativity in 1930, during his boat voyage to England to study under A Eddington ( who screwed him over; a very interesting story, if you ever have the chance to read it ). Once the degenerate electron gas is set up in a white dwarf star, adding further mass to it increases pressure, and forces the electrons into tighter spaces. Using the HUP, Chandrasekhar resoned that as position of the electrons is tightened, their momentum ( and so, speed ) becomes more variable. The point where their speed becomes superluminal is non-physical ( as pper SR ), and a mechanism must prevent that from happening. At this Chandrasekhar limit, electrons merge with protons to form neutrons, a particle 2000 times heavier. That allows momentum ( mass x velocity ) to remain sensible as speeds of neutons can be 2000 times less. This next part is pure speculation on my part, and should the admins feel the need, please move to Speculations. It has been suggested that neutron stars which exceed a certain mass limit, would become degenerate quark stars, however, quarks are much lighter than neutrons. And since I would assume the laws of physics to hold except at the possible singularity ( edge of space-time ), then the HUP and SR would still require a more massive composite particle whose momentum remains sensible ( according to SR ), not a much lighter one such as single quarks. Perhaps at such pressures and energies, composite particles composed of hundreds, thousands, billions or even of the totality of quarks composing the whole collapsed star, are stable. And one or more of these composite quantum particles are a replacement for the non-physical singularity. This would imply a possibly macroscopic quantum particle ( composite, not fundamental ) at the center of a Black Hole. As I said, pure speculation, without much to back it up. But if you ever have the chance to cross an Event Horizon, try to get to the library, and let me know what you find. ( hey, it worked for M McConaughey in Interstellar )

If you could be bothered to read further in that link... Near the end of the section on electron degeneracy "There is an upper limit to the mass of an electron-degenerate object, the Chandrasekhar limit, beyond which electron degeneracy pressure cannot support the object against collapse. The limit is approximately 1.44[7]solar masses for objects with typical compositions expected for white dwarf stars" In the section on neutron degeneracy "There is an upper limit to the mass of a neutron-degenerate object, the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit, which is analogous to the Chandrasekhar limit for electron-degenerate objects" In the section on quark degeneracy "Quark-degenerate matter may occur in the cores of neutron stars, depending on the equations of state of neutron-degenerate matter. It may also occur in hypothetical quark stars, formed by the collapse of objects above the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff mass limit for neutron-degenerate objects" And finally, in the section on singularities "At densities greater than those supported by any degeneracy, gravity overwhelms all other forces. The stellar body collapses to form a black hole, though this is not well modeled by quantum mechanics" Does one of us feel foolish now ???