Gravity waves and the aether

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Smolin had publsihed works on loop quantum gravity for sure. Loop quantum gravity is not something I know much about.

When I read up on Smolins work on loops , it was a while ago but I thought it was based on something , a thing that was circular , it began with ' a' . And if you did a function on these rings , they end up making loops in set shapes , differerent for the fundamental particles .

 

Mike

[ajb]

When I read up on Smolins work on loops , it was a while ago but I thought it was based on something , a thing that was circular , it began with ' a' . And if you did a function on these rings , they end up making loops in set shapes , differerent for the fundamental particles .

Loop quantum gravity does not by itself say anything about the particles of the standard model. I know that people have worked in including matter in this picture, but I don't know details here.

 

String theory is more ambitious in that respect - it is 'large enough' to include all the particles of the standard model, and a whole lot more!

[blue89]

Smolin had publsihed works on loop quantum gravity for sure. Loop quantum gravity is not something I know much about.

 

hihi

 

what a nice expression !..

 

:-)

 

but yes ,being honest is the best.

I intimately appreciate it.

Edited July 13, 2016 by blue89

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

When I read up on Smolins work on loops , it was a while ago but I thought it was based on something , a thing that was circular , it began with ' a' . And if you did a function on these rings , they end up making loops in set shapes , differerent for the fundamental particles .

Mike

Remembering this now ( Lee Smolin constructed a shape , whatever these 'a' particles were they were very , very , small and loopy , when they built up one on top of another they became some of the fundamental Particles, like Quarks etc . And other very small particles . The backdrop to this was somehow independent of time .

 

Whether they, ( Lee Smolin and Carlo Rovelli are revamping this subject , I am not sure . ) .

 

But something appears to , being proposed as ( time invariant ) , independent of time , I think .

 

Mike

Edited July 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Mike

 

This thread is on gravitational waves and aether - it has wandered a bit already - but I am not going to let it become your handwavy exposition of half-remembered and poorly-understood loop quantum gravity

 

Please get back onto the topic. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

[MigL]

Loop Quantum gravity is closer to GR than string theory in concept because it doesn't make use of a 'background stage' on which events happen.

It recognizes the fact that the geometry of space-time IS gravity. As a result it doesn't try to quantize gravity, but rather space-time.

It attempts to do this by considering Planck length 'loops'. These interwoven loops are called spin networks.

And, no, like string theory it hasn't made any testable predictions yet.

 

I believe these things that L. Smolin and C. Rovelli speak of, that you can't remember Mike, but start with 'a', are Ashtekar variables, which ( and AJB correct me if I'm wrong ) are canonical variables which replace GR's canonical metric variables that have a non-linear response.

If I remember correctly, use of these variables enable the calculation of Black Hole entropy from first principles.

Edited July 13, 2016 by MigL

[ajb]

As the moderator has noted, this has wondered off a bit - someone could start a new thread on loop quantum gravity if they really want to continue.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

As the moderator has noted, this has wondered off a bit - someone could start a new thread on loop quantum gravity if they really want to continue.

.

Well, as you know , I have been attempting to track back through the time span of the universe,

 

In order to uncover , quite what " anything of some form of substance , could have been the origin of a 'medium ' , which could lead to the vehicle for ' Gravity Waves ' or Gravity / Space-Time , for that matter "

 

I would have thought that 'IF' ....? ...these ' Ashketar Variables' realy are responsible for twirling up to become rings, to become quarks and other sub atomic particles as Prof Lee Smolin suggests . ( Carlo Rovelli, suggests this is one of the Seven major Lessons of Physics) to quote him " here, in the vanguard, beyond the borders of knowledge, science becomes even more beautiful - incandescent in the forge of nascent ideas, of intuitions, of attempts. Of roads taken and then abandoned, of enthusiasms. In the effort to imagine what has not yet been imagined " unquote

 

 

And if these loops do also make up the " space or space - time " itself . Then this surely is the very area we have been seeking?

 

I appreciate some of this is untested as is string theory , but surely this is the very source , of what we , ( I ) am looking for , is that not so ?

 

Mike

Edited July 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

And if these loops do also make up the " space or space - time " itself . Then this surely is the very area we have been seeking?

Without getting into loop quantum gravity - it is another subject really - you will then ask 'what makes up these loops?'.

 

 

I don't think that a truly satisfactory answer can be found for 'what is space-time', even when it comes to quantum gravity.

Edited July 14, 2016 by ajb

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Without getting into loop quantum gravity - it is another subject really - you will then ask 'what makes up these loops?'.I don't think that a truly satisfactory answer can be found for 'what is space-time', even when it comes to quantum gravity.

.

But ( although I agree it is another subject ) surely this area of reconciling , if it is necessary to reconcile ( quantum and gravity ) , is none the less tied centrally into the question we have been discussing ( gravity waves and the aether) , it is inseparable, is it not?

 

 

Perhaps I should just leave it HERE, for the time being ! .....( now there's a pun )

 

Mike

Edited July 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

But ( although I agree it is another subject ) surely this area of reconciling , if it is necessary to reconcile ( quantum and gravity ) , is none the less tied into the question we have been discussing , it is inseparable, is it not?

Well, we can describe gravitational waves classically, so there is no reason to go into quantum gravity. But you are right that a quantum theory of gravity should exist and that this will give some new insight into space and time. However, we are not there yet.

[swansont]

Well, we can describe gravitational waves classically, so there is no reason to go into quantum gravity. But you are right that a quantum theory of gravity should exist and that this will give some new insight into space and time. However, we are not there yet.

 

 

But there's not likely to be an aether in any quantum treatment.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Well, we can describe gravitational waves classically, so there is no reason to go into quantum gravity. But you are right that a quantum theory of gravity should exist and that this will give some new insight into space and time. However, we are not there yet.

If I go the Classical route , back to the beginning , unlike the quantum route . Will I find anything equivalent of Ashketar variables , . What is the most fundamental particle , going the classical , even including its smaller derivatives ?

 

Mike

Edited July 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

But there's not likely to be an aether in any quantum treatment.

True.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

True.

But there may be some form of dust , or mush

 

Mike

[ajb]

 

 

If I go the Classical route , back to the beginning , unlike the quantum route . Will I find anything equivalent of the ayisthenia , or whatever they were called. What is the most fundamental particle , going the classical , even including its smaller derivatives ?

I don't quite follow your question here. But for sure the quantum nature of particles has little to do with gravitational waves and their detection. The not at all understood quantum nature os space-time has even less to do with this.

 

 

But there may be some form of dust , or mush

At some level space-time maybe discrete or fuzzy - but this is not the same as a mechanical aether.

[swansont]

But there may be some form of dust , or mush

 

Mike

 

 

Interstellar dust doesn't really need a quantum treatment to account for it. It's not a medium that's required for transmission of EM or gravitational waves, just like it was not required the last half-dozen times it's been discussed.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Interstellar dust doesn't really need a quantum treatment to account for it. It's not a medium that's required for transmission of EM or gravitational waves, just like it was not required the last half-dozen times it's been discussed.

.

Are you saying that ' Space ' is absolutely :- nothing , zero , no field , no nothing , absolute VOID. Drop off the end of the universe VOID .

 

For some reason or other , I can not just accept that .

 

If that were the case then a photon of light/em wave could disappear out of the universe and go on for ever ,

 

And to some extent , ( even if subject to an inverse cubic law ) so would Gravitational waves go out of the Universe , getting weaker and weaker and weaker , but still going on , for ever weaker and miniscule .

 

Unless , both waves were quantised , and particle-ised , then they could . But if they were quantised , and Particle-ised then there would need to be a medium of sorts there , would there not ? Even if this medium ,is like nothing we now know ,

 

it's own ( space time ' 'Ashketar '' type loop , quantised , timeless particle , medium )

 

BUT ,

 

I really can't see how these two sets of waves can do that , either , within the universe , or outside the universe , without some form of MEDIUM .

 

It is totally counter intuitive , if nothing else, to me .

 

" he said , being carted off screaming ! "

 

Mike

Edited July 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[geordief]

.

Are you saying that ' Space ' is absolutely :- nothing , zero , no field , no nothing , absolute VOID. Drop off the end of the universe VOID .

 

For some reason or other , I can not just accept that .

 

If that were the case then a photon of light/em wave could disappear out of the universe and go on for ever ,

 

 

Isn't that what the "expansion of the universe" is supposed to do?

Edited July 14, 2016 by geordief

[swansont]

.

Are you saying that ' Space ' is absolutely :- nothing , zero , no field , no nothing , absolute VOID. Drop off the end of the universe VOID .

As I have previously stated that space is not empty, one should conclude that no, that's not what I'm saying.

 

For some reason or other , I can not just accept that .

 

If that were the case then a photon of light/em wave could disappear out of the universe and go on for ever ,

Yes, a photon will go on forever if it doesn't encounter something. How do you think we can see distant galaxies?

 

Gravity, too. But leave the universe? No.

 

 

BUT ,

 

I really can't see how these two sets of waves can do that , either , within the universe , or outside the universe , without some form of MEDIUM .

 

It is totally counter intuitive , if nothing else, to me .

Counter-intuitive is not the same as wrong, and it's a poor excuse. In science, we go with what the evidence tells us, and it tells us that there is no medium.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Counter-intuitive is not the same as wrong, and it's a poor excuse. In science, we go with what the evidence tells us, and it tells us that there is no medium.

.

I am not convinced of that .

No evidence of any medium , does not necessarily mean , that there is not one .

It could mean there is one , but we have not discovered it yet ? And in fact there is more likely to be something rather than nothing ?

 

We are faced with a lot of maths symbols and geometric figures . But in themselves they are just maths and geometry . They might well be predicted geometry , which Says that something is , or is not a certain shape , or should be a certain shape , but surely that is not a real entity, until it is actually found , and I don't think anything has been found yet ?

 

I suppose if I could believe a maths formula or a geometric point is as good as it is ever going to get , then I must concede we will never know .

 

But with string theory , there are supposed to be minute strings made of what ? Then loop quantum gravity , there are supposed to be little loops , made of what ? Presumably general relativity says there is curvature in something , but in what ?

 

Some say the 'what'' is nothing , something , or whatever .

 

Why can the something or whatever, not be the medium not yet clearly defined , or not yet clearly found ?

 

Mike

Edited July 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[geordief]

.

I am not convinced of that .

No evidence of any medium , does not necessarily mean , that there is not one .

It could mean there is one , but we have not discovered it yet ? And in fact there is more likely to be something rather than nothing ?

 

 

If there is an ether that contains all the matter in the universe, what is the ether in?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

If there is an ether that contains all the matter in the universe, what is the ether in?

May be the ultimate expanse of Nothingness or of something much ,much , bigger and better , that we don't understand or can in anyway relate to directly ?

 

Mike

[Professional Strawman]

I keep hearing gravity waves described as ripples in space time. Does this suggest that space time is a substance like the discredited notion of the aether? It seems to me that if space time can be said to ripple then a preferred reference frame is suggested by this "ripple" I know I must be off base here but how am I mistaken?

 

Aether was assumed to be a medium that freely penetrates through matter; and that it was stationary (sort of like Newton's master frame). Aether is only a theoretical artifact. You can't detect it even if it did exist, given its properties (that it "freely" penetrates through matter). What you can detect is: your relative motion to it. Michelson Morley used the phenomenon of aberration to detect our Sun's velocity relative to it. They did not record an interference fringe shift they were expecting. But it wasn't null. They measured aberration in the apparatus. Michelson called, it a second order effect.

 

I made an animation and started a thread about it. See if that helps you.

Prof Strawman.

 

PS. www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1M-L9jKo3w

.

I am not convinced of that .

No evidence of any medium , does not necessarily mean , that there is not one .

It could mean there is one , but we have not discovered it yet ? And in fact there is more likely to be something rather than nothing ?

 

 

Mike, aether was assumed to freely penetrate through matter and it was thought to be stationary. (Evidence: Aberration of light). One could not detect a medium, even if one wanted to. It freely penetrates through matter. Michelson was not trying to detect a "medium". He was trying to detect the velocity of our Sun relative to a medium that was thought to be stationary (with properties equivalent to vacuum). Aether is only a theoretical construct. Just like spacetime is. The idea of a ripple in aether is about real or unreal as a ripple in a spacetime. Spacetime and aether are not "material" in origin. Einstein's spacetime is math.

 

In my opinion, LIGO is probably detecting this second order aberration effect that Michelson mentioned here: "It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;"

 

Prof Strawman

Edited July 15, 2016 by Professional Strawman

[geordief]

May be the ultimate expanse of Nothingness or of something much ,much , bigger and better , that we don't understand or can in anyway relate to directly ?

 

Mike

So not a subject for scientific study as such? (if we cannot relate to it then we cannot make measurements that describe it)

 

By the way this "ultimate expanse of Nothingness" sounds suspiciously like we are cling filming our ether and maybe double wrapping again to be sure