Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: alright1234 on 20/04/2019 00:30:30
-
The LIGO detected celestial gravitational waves that originate from a 21,000 binary pulsar (PSR 1913+16) that produces a ΔL = 10-18 m disturbance of the interferometer mirror but Creswell-Jackson (2017) discredited the LIGO experimental results as background noise (Creswell-Jackson, Abstract) since the mirror displacement of ΔL = 10-18 m is less than the diameter of an electrons which is to small of a displacement to experimentally measure. The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. Einstein uses a space-time curvature to justify the formation gravitational waves using the varying relativistic (time-space) translational velocity v that is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions but gravitational waves that are propagating in stellar space are not effected by the earth's daily and yearly motions.
-
The LIGO detected celestial gravitational waves that originate from a 21,000 binary pulsar (PSR 1913+16) that produces a ΔL = 10-18 m disturbance of the interferometer mirror but Creswell-Jackson (2017) discredited the LIGO experimental results as background noise (Creswell-Jackson, Abstract) since the mirror displacement of ΔL = 10-18 m is less than the diameter of an electrons which is to small of a displacement to experimentally measure.
That so-called "discrediting" was based on faulty information: they based part of their conclusion on a graph published by LIGO that was meant for only illustrative purposes. Your claim that the change in length is too small to measure is also incorrect. It depends both on the sensitivity of the instruments and how well you can filter out noise. The more photons that a laser detector uses, the more sensitive to change it can be made. Here is an explanation:
The gravitational wave event you speak of was detected by both of LIGO's detectors in the United States (which are over 2,000 miles apart from each other) and the VIRGO detector in Italy. Since all of these detectors picked it up, we know that it could not have been a mere glitch in the system. The detection was accompanied by a gamma ray burst, which further confirmed its existence as a real phenomenon from outer space.
The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter
No it doesn't. Light alone demonstrates that.
yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter.
They are waves in space-time itself.
Einstein uses a space-time curvature to justify the formation gravitational waves using the varying relativistic (time-space) translational velocity v that is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions but gravitational waves that are propagating in stellar space are not effected by the earth's daily and yearly motions.
The motion at the source of the gravitational waves (the fast orbital motion of the neutron stars) is what created them. Earth's own motion is irrelevant.
-
less than the diameter of an electrons which is to small of a displacement to experimentally measure.
Is the "point" here that an electron is too small to measure, so you can't possibly measure something smaller still?
Well, there are two problems with that.
The first is that the electron is smaller than any available experiment can measure. As far as we can tell, it's a point charge.
So LIGO's displacement isn't smaller than the electron. That assertion's simply wrong.
The second point is that it's much easier to measure the mirror displacement than it is to measure an electron- simply because LIGO was deliberately designed to make such measurements possible.
-
A problem arises if you consider an electron to be a point charge with no radius: having a measurable mass, it would have infinite density. This would give it an infinite gravitational potential. There are quite enough black holes in the universe without postulating several more inside every atom.
Just one more example of the inappropriateness of classical modelling in a quantum universe.
-
A problem arises if you consider an electron to be a point charge with no radius
Then don't.
However, as far as any experiment is concerned they are point charges.
I apologize for not saying " As far as we can tell from measurements, it's a point charge.", but I thought that was a bit redundant immediately after saying "the electron is smaller than any available experiment can measure."
-
Wikipedia says
According to modern understanding, the electron is a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.
which I suppose is rather stretching the meaning of "understanding".
My inclination is to say that an electron probably has the same density as a proton or neutron, so its radius is probably calculable if not directly measurable.
We can also set a lower limit to its radius from the knowledge that you can't bind two electrons together by gravity, so the maximum gravitational attraction Gme2/d2 must be less than the electrostatic repulsion qe2/4πε0d2 where d is the diameter of an electron, with mass me and charge qe.
-
Empirical evidence suggests "smaller than a breadbox".
My inclination is to say that an electron probably has the same density as a proton or neutron
The proton radius is about 10^-15m
the electron mass is about 1000 times less, so, if the density is that same, that's about a 10 times smaller radius.
10^-16 metres.
Collision measurements give results that say less than 10^-18 metres.
My strong inclination is to say that you are wrong, but that's only based on experimental observation, while you have an inclination on your side.
It's all beside the point since the OP is talking cobblers.
-
And yet the damn things have a rest mass (about 1/1800 of a proton), so they can't have zero diameter.
-
I rewrote the original post to___>>>
The LIGO detected celestial gravitational waves that originate from a 21,000 binary pulsar (PSR 1913+16) that produces a ΔL = 10-18 m displacement of the interferometer mirror which is too small to experimentally measure. The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. Einstein uses a space-time curvature to justify the formation gravitational waves using the varying relativistic (time-space) translational velocity v that is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions but gravitational waves that are propagating in stellar space are not effected by the earth's daily and yearly motions.
-
Maxwell's theory is based on an ether composed of matter.
"If we adopt either Fresnel's or Maccullagh's form of the undulatory theory, half of this energy is in the form of potential energy, due to the distortion of elementary portions of the medium, and half in the form of kinetic energy, due to the motion of the medium. We must therefore regard the aether as possessing elasticity similar to that of a solid body, and also as having a finite density." (Maxwell, Part XCVII, p. 767).
Also, time-space is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions that do not effect a distance star's formation of GW's. Furthermore, I disagree that a 10^-18 m displacement can be measured. Time uncertainty is about 1/1000 seconds; therefore, distance would approximately 1/10,000 of a meter at the most which is 14 orders of magnitude difference. The standard candle method is fake.
-
Maxwell's theory is based on an ether composed of matter.
So you don't know what matter is either. Also, experiments designed to detect the aether either gave ambiguous results or negative results.
Also, time-space is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions
That doesn't make any sense. Space and time do not depend upon the Earth's existence.
Time uncertainty is about 1/1000 seconds; therefore, distance would approximately 1/10,000 of a meter at the most which is 14 orders of magnitude difference.
What is your source for this information?
-
Maxwell's theory is based on an ether composed of matter.
So you don't know what matter is either. Also, experiments designed to detect the aether either gave ambiguous results or negative results.
Also, time-space is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions
That doesn't make any sense. Space and time do not depend upon the Earth's existence.
Time uncertainty is about 1/1000 seconds; therefore, distance would approximately 1/10,000 of a meter at the most which is 14 orders of magnitude difference.
What is your source for this information?
First, what I am writing is my opinion and does not represent an absolute fact so don't take anything I state personal since it is only an opinion. Yes, I know matter as solid, liquid or gas. Yes, there is no ether, composed of matter but the wave theory of light that is used in college text books is based on an ether, composed of matter which is similar to the wave-particle duality theory represents a contradiction since a particle structure of light conflict with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field. I am just pointing this out which is a fact. Time-space originates from Einstein's relativity that is based on the earth's daily and yearly motions which is also a fact; therefore, you cannot use time-space to depict gravitational waves which is my opinion. The time uncertainty originates from Olympic skiing and the distance originates from a micrometer. The time uncertainty is a fact and the distance uncertainty is an approximation which is an opinion based on the time uncertainty order of magnitude.
-
First, what I am writing is my opinion
Facts are what matter, not opinions. Either we can measure it or we can't. There is no "in my opinion" to that. That's like claiming that the Earth's roundness is a matter of opinion. It isn't. The fact of the matter is that all of that money wouldn't have been wasted building LIGO if the scientists knew in advance that it wouldn't be sensitive enough to detect the very thing it was designed for.
The time uncertainty originates from Olympic skiing
At this point I'm going to have to ask if you are trolling. What does Olympic skiing have to do with LIGO?
-
matter which is similar to the wave-particle duality theory represents a contradiction since a particle structure of light conflict with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field
The debate about whether light was a particle or a wave raged for centuries, and engaged luminaries such as Huygens, Newton and Maxwell.
This was all resolved in the early 1900s with the development of quantum theory, which showed that the opposing camps were both right - light is both a wave and a particle.
- And indeed, with de Broglie in 1924, ordinary matter was also realised to have the characteristics of both a wave and a particle.
- This has been demonstrated with subsequent laboratory experiments
So I don't see your perceived contradiction.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave
-
Yes, there is no ether, composed of matter but the wave theory of light that is used in college text books is based on an ether, composed of matter which is similar to the wave-particle duality theory represents a contradiction since a particle structure of light conflict with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field.
Time to buy some new college textbooks.
The derivation of Maxwell's equations does not depend on the properties of an aether since, as Maxwell says in the passage you quote, said aether would (a) have a finite density and elasticity, whilst em waves propagate in a vacuum which has neither, and (b) whose existence was comprehensively disproved in 1887.
I take issue with my learned friend that light "is" a wave and a particle. In my experience, light can be modelled as a wave or a particle, but always behaves as light - we just don't have one comprehensive model for it.
-
Modern technology can accurately measure time to 3.5 parts in quintillion (1018): https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149568-the-most-precise-atomic-clock-ever-made-is-a-cube-of-quantum-gas/
Why you think we can only measure time to 1 part in 1,000 is beyond me...
-
Why you think we can only measure time to 1 part in 1,000 is beyond me...
Looking at his other posts gives everyone a clear understanding that he is somewhat clueless.
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+microscope&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS845US845&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu4uyip-ThAhWR_1QKHULLCgQQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=QwNWanSAwjmi0M:
100um = 10^-4 m
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+microscope&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS845US845&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu4uyip-ThAhWR_1QKHULLCgQQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=QwNWanSAwjmi0M:
100um = 10^-4 m
What was the purpose of this post?
-
Probably to complain about his micrometer (should be able to resolve 10^-5 m with a cheap one) or stopwatch (should be better than 1s per month for an electronic watch, 1s per day for a cheap mechanical one).
-
Damn, I can't help commenting on this one. First of all, a allcompasing eulogy to BC who made me very happy with his comment about electrons " Empirical evidence suggests "smaller than a breadbox"."
And then we have " The time uncertainty originates from Olympic skiing and the distance originates from a micrometer. "
All of this makes me very sure we're closing in on the matter in question..
Make no doubt about it.
-
Scientifically speaking a micrometer can measure even a bread box split in two, so there should be a reasonable chance for it to measure a electron, nes pa? Then we come to Olympic skiing, as we all know it's hard to watch ones wristwatch when accelerating down a steep hill, at least not very recommendable, so there will most certainly be a time uncertainty. But then again, isn't there clock towers in the end of the course? Measuring? Maybe we could use those to test it?
-
Face it, Galileo measured g by timing the swing of a censer against his pulse, and completely overturned Aristotelian physics thereby. So anyone with a stopwatch and a micrometer should be able to detect the collision of neutron stars, particularly as it happened 120 million years ago, so there was plenty of warning in the newspapers.
-
Heh, another scientific approach to the problem :)
I'm proud of us. It's a pleasure doing science
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+microscope&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS845US845&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu4uyip-ThAhWR_1QKHULLCgQQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=QwNWanSAwjmi0M:
100um = 10^-4 m
What was the purpose of this post?
I suspect we will never know. But there are some nice pictures.
-
Modern technology can accurately measure time to 3.5 parts in quintillion (1018): https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149568-the-most-precise-atomic-clock-ever-made-is-a-cube-of-quantum-gas/
Why you think we can only measure time to 1 part in 1,000 is beyond me...
You are mistaken the time that is produced by a clock with the measurement of a time interval. Example, to measure the time of a person running the 100 meter dash; the measurement uncertainty to measure the time interval to complete the race is dependent on the mechanism that determines when the person starts and stops. The uncertainty of the actual time (3.5 parts in quintillion) is trivial compared to the start-stop uncertainty.
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+microscope&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS845US845&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu4uyip-ThAhWR_1QKHULLCgQQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=QwNWanSAwjmi0M:
100um = 10^-4 m
What was the purpose of this post?
I suspect we will never know. But there are some nice pictures.
To show that the maximum length uncertainty is approximately 1/10,000 meters which is just my opinion but please give some direct experimental reason that it could be lesser. Certainty a couple of orders not 10^-18 m. I remember someone from Harvard did a seminar where the Weber bar formed a disturbance of 10^-128 or something like that.
-
the measurement uncertainty to measure the time interval to complete the race is dependent on the mechanism that determines when the person starts and stops
And, by using light gates we could fairly easily get that error down to a few tens of nanoseconds if we wanted.
That's a much easier job than measuring the length of the course to that precision.
You really don't understand science do you?
-
please give some direct experimental reason that it could be lesser.
Because that's the whole point of the measurement system they use.
As I said in the thread about the Cavendish experiment, the problem here is that you are not apparently clever enough to understand how people measure things.
-
You are mistaken the time that is produced by a clock with the measurement of a time interval. Example, to measure the time of a person running the 100 meter dash; the measurement uncertainty to measure the time interval to complete the race is dependent on the mechanism that determines when the person starts and stops. The uncertainty of the actual time (3.5 parts in quintillion) is trivial compared to the start-stop uncertainty.
And you honestly think that the clocks that are used in the Olympics are the best that scientists have access to?
which is just my opinion
Who cares what your opinion is? We only want facts. We can see individual atoms with scanning tunneling microscopes and those are much, much smaller than 1/10,000 of a meter.
-
Ah, the mark of a true scientist. He remembers that someone from Harvard did something. Clearly an authority on everything.
Here's my favorite story about that institution. A woman gets into a taxi at Logan airport and says "I've been away a long time. Take me somewhere I can get scrod."
Taxi driver says "I guess you're a Harvard alumna, English major"
"Why do you think that?"
"Nobody else uses the pluperfect subjunctive."
-
Modern technology can accurately measure time to 3.5 parts in quintillion (1018): https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149568-the-most-precise-atomic-clock-ever-made-is-a-cube-of-quantum-gas/
Why you think we can only measure time to 1 part in 1,000 is beyond me...
You are mistaken the time that is produced by a clock with the measurement of a time interval. Example, to measure the time of a person running the 100 meter dash; the measurement uncertainty to measure the time interval to complete the race is dependent on the mechanism that determines when the person starts and stops. The uncertainty of the actual time (3.5 parts in quintillion) is trivial compared to the start-stop uncertainty.
I think you should let this guy have the last word.
-
Modern technology can accurately measure time to 3.5 parts in quintillion (1018): https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149568-the-most-precise-atomic-clock-ever-made-is-a-cube-of-quantum-gas/
Why you think we can only measure time to 1 part in 1,000 is beyond me...
You are mistaken the time that is produced by a clock with the measurement of a time interval. Example, to measure the time of a person running the 100 meter dash; the measurement uncertainty to measure the time interval to complete the race is dependent on the mechanism that determines when the person starts and stops. The uncertainty of the actual time (3.5 parts in quintillion) is trivial compared to the start-stop uncertainty.
I think you should let this guy have the last word.
I think we should let the facts have the last word.
-
the Weber bar formed a disturbance of 10^-128 or something like that
Weber thought that it might be possible to detect gravitational waves causing a strain of 10-16.
- But generating that strain would take an extremely close black hole merger
- We now know from LIGO results to date that you would need to wait an extremely long time (on average) to detect an event this strong.
- The Weber Bar had specific resonances, so you would need a black hole of just the right frequency to trigger it. In contrast, LIGO has a frequency response of about 40Hz to 1kHz, so it can detect a wide range of events; the distinctive "chirp" signal helps to distinguish signal from noise and gives a lot of information about the colliding objects.
- To get a positive detection, a Weber bar would need to be much more sensitive than LIGO - after all, it was trying to measure changes in the length of a bar 1 or 2 meters in length, while LIGO is working with arms 4 kilometers in length x 400 reflections = 1600km
- No wonder Weber never managed to produce an unequivocal signal from black holes!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_bar
- Even replacing the aluminium bar with $9 million worth of niobium metal (most of a year's production) still didn't detect any black holes. Eventually the Australian government wanted it's money back, and the rare-earth bar was sold for market price.
See photo on page 9 here: http://www.gravity.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/2923380/BOOKLET_UWA_approved_130578_VICCHA_v2.pdf
The proposed "enhanced LISA" Project proposes to put an interferometer in space with million-kilometer arms, which would have a much better low-frequency response than LIGO, and should be able to detect mergers with supermassive black holes. But that is at least a decade away.
This article shows the relative sensitivity of proposed gravitational wave detectors, which can detect strain down to around 10-22.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna
-
You wrote " The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. " So does sunlight, propagates without a medium. And it has a wave particle duality. You searching for a aether? Einstein defined it as SpaceTime, and the way he looked at it this can't really be split into 'parts' theoretically, so the gravitational wave is more like a disturbance inside SpaceTime propagating at 'c'. As for starts and stops, it depends on what type of instruments you use to measure with and your setup. NIST have atomic clocks that are incredibly accurate https://phys.org/news/2018-11-nist-atomic-clocks-earth.html
=
I'll add this one for 'c' https://phys.org/news/2019-03-symmetry-space-time-atomic-clocks.html
Instead of thinking of it as a wave you could imagine it as displacements inside SpaceTime, as if you have two buoys being at rest relative each other, your instrument keeping a constant watch of the distance between them. When gravity passes them it change that distance momentarily. Just as Nist experiments of placing synchronized clocks at different elevations in a gravitational potential changes their synchronization. In this case the synchronization made is your 'instrument' for measuring the displacement, and the 'de-synchronization' of the clocks your proof for gravity passing/differing. It's also a proof of (gravitational) time dilation's naturally.
-
You wrote " The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. " So does sunlight, propagates without a medium. And it has a wave particle duality. You searching for a aether? Einstein defined it as SpaceTime, and the way he looked at it this can't really be split into 'parts' theoretically, so the gravitational wave is more like a disturbance inside SpaceTime propagating at 'c'. As for starts and stops, it depends on what type of instruments you use to measure with and your setup. NIST have atomic clocks that are incredibly accurate https://phys.org/news/2018-11-nist-atomic-clocks-earth.html
=
Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion that do not effect GW's formed by a Pulsar.
-
Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion
Please provide a link to a reputable source supporting this claim.
-
You wrote " The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. " So does sunlight, propagates without a medium. And it has a wave particle duality. You searching for a aether? Einstein defined it as SpaceTime, and the way he looked at it this can't really be split into 'parts' theoretically, so the gravitational wave is more like a disturbance inside SpaceTime propagating at 'c'. As for starts and stops, it depends on what type of instruments you use to measure with and your setup. NIST have atomic clocks that are incredibly accurate https://phys.org/news/2018-11-nist-atomic-clocks-earth.html
=
Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion that do not effect GW's formed by a Pulsar.
Marking your own implausible response as the best is a bit like laughing at your own jokes when nobody else does.
-
Really? Was Cavendish funny?
-
Really?
Really... what?
Where is the link I asked for?
-
Really? Was Cavendish funny?
Yes, it's really pointless to pretend that you have the expertise to judge your own ability.
Whether Cavendish was funny or not doesn't matter.
Why post dross like that?
-
Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion
Please provide a link to a reputable source supporting this claim.
The same method was used by scientists or more like philosophers to justify that the earth was the center of the Universe. I will give supporting evidence next time.
-
Was Cavendish funny?
This probably belongs more in the thread on Cavendish's experiment, rather than in a discussion of LIGO?
Note that Cavendish's personality isn't a primary criterion for assessing the quality of his science.
- And in fact, his science is severely underrated, because other people had published discoveries (and put their name on it) before he died.
- Many of his discoveries were never published, and only seen when his notes were reviewed after his death.
From what I have heard and read, Cavendish was excruciatingly shy.
I heard that one scientist who wanted advice from Cavendish was advised to:
- attend a meeting where Cavendish would be present
- to maneuver himself within earshot of Cavendish
- all the while without looking directly at Cavendish, as this would scare him off
- Then to speak his problem into the air
- If it was a problem that interested Cavendish, he would investigate and reply with a note
This may be a case of someone who was a high-functioning autistic savant.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish#Personality_and_legacy
-
I will give supporting evidence next time.
When you do, make sure you provide an actual link instead of just saying something without backing it up.
-
The same method was used by scientists or more like philosophers to justify that the earth was the center of the Universe.
Not really.
At that time tehe way to have a "reputation" was to be old.
Now, to be reputable you need to have evidence.
So, please provide some.
-
I will give supporting evidence next time.
When you do, make sure you provide an actual link instead of just saying something without backing it up.
..In most applications p would be the velocity of the earth in its yearly motion." (Lorentz, § 3).
"§ 9. Hitherto all quantities of the order p2x /V2 have been neglected. As is well known, these must be taken into account in the discussion of Michelson's experiment,........... in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." (Lorentz, § 9).
"the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity." (Einstein2, § 9).
Lorentz's term px represents the tangential components of the earth's daily and yearly motions.
-
..In most applications p would be the velocity of the earth in its yearly motion." (Lorentz, § 3).
"§ 9. Hitherto all quantities of the order p2x /V2 have been neglected. As is well known, these must be taken into account in the discussion of Michelson's experiment,........... in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." (Lorentz, § 9).
"the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity." (Einstein2, § 9).
Lorentz's term px represents the tangential components of the earth's daily and yearly motions.
I don't see a link.
I also think you might be confusing Lorentz ether theory with Einsteinian relativity.
-
..In most applications p would be the velocity of the earth in its yearly motion." (Lorentz, § 3).
"§ 9. Hitherto all quantities of the order p2x /V2 have been neglected. As is well known, these must be taken into account in the discussion of Michelson's experiment,........... in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." (Lorentz, § 9).
"the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity." (Einstein2, § 9).
Lorentz's term px represents the tangential components of the earth's daily and yearly motions.
I don't see a link.
I also think you might be confusing Lorentz ether theory with Einsteinian relativity.
"the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity." (Einstein2, § 9).
Einstein's relativity is originates form Lorentz's ether theory. What do you think physicists were grabbing with in around 1900.
-
Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion
For a start, Einsteins work was based on Lorentz; but it wasn't the same.
That's kind of the point.
Also, neither Einstein nor Lorentz supports this statement you made
"Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion".
So, once again, please supply some evidence to back up your claim.
-
"the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity." (Einstein2, § 9).
Einstein's relativity is originates form Lorentz's ether theory. What do you think physicists were grabbing with in around 1900.
I still don't see a link.
-
Einstein2 , Albert. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Annalen der Physik. 17:891-921. 1905. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
-
Einstein2 , Albert. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Annalen der Physik. 17:891-921. 1905. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
So where in that link does it say, "Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion"?
-
Einstein2 , Albert. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Annalen der Physik. 17:891-921. 1905. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
So where in that link does it say, "Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion"?
"Assuming then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, would depend on the direction in which it travels." (Michelson, p. 120).
Michelson, Albert. The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether. American Journal of Science. 22:120-129, 1881.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether
What motion of the earth do you think forms the ether wind at the surface of the earth?
-
What do you think forms the ether wind at the surface of the earth?
I don't.
There is no ether.
If there had been then the MM experiment would have had a different outcome.
That's the point.
M and M were expecting a different result- because they thought that there was an ether. For what it's worth, they thought that the Earth's spin and (solar) orbital motions would give rise to an ether wind. They didn't consider the galactic orbit.
They were mistaken; they learned better. they published the result.
The world moved on.
And now you are pretending it didn't happen.
-
"Assuming then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, would depend on the direction in which it travels." (Michelson, p. 120).
Michelson, Albert. The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether. American Journal of Science. 22:120-129, 1881.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether
What motion of the earth do you think forms the ether wind at the surface of the earth?
There is no aether in Einstein's relativity, which only proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Lorentz ether theory is not the same thing.
-
"Assuming then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, would depend on the direction in which it travels." (Michelson, p. 120).
Michelson, Albert. The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether. American Journal of Science. 22:120-129, 1881.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether
What motion of the earth do you think forms the ether wind at the surface of the earth?
There is no aether in Einstein's relativity, which only proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Lorentz ether theory is not the same thing.
"On the other hand, all coordinate systems moving relatively were to be regarded as in motion with respect to the æther. To this motion against the æther ("æther-drift") were attributed more complicated laws which were supposed to hold relative to. Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift ought also to be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an æther-drift at the earth's surface....Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above." (Einstein6, § 16).
Einstein6, Albert. Relativity: Special and General Theory. Brauschweig. 1917. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory
Einstein is justifying the existence of Fresnel's ether, composed of matter, based on Lorentz's theory, if I am not misstaken.
-
Einstein is justifying the existence of Fresnel's ether, composed of matter, based on Lorentz's theory, if I am not misstaken.
You are quote mining. If you had read further, you would have found this statement:
But on the basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more satisfactory. According to this theory there is no such thing as a "specially favoured" (unique) co-ordinate system to occasion the introduction of the æther-idea, and hence there can be no æther-drift, nor any experiment with which to demonstrate it.
So he's saying that relativity does not presume an aether.
-
Do you realise that this
Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift ought also to be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an æther-drift at the earth's surface....Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result
could be summed up as "we looked for the ether but couldn't find it" ?
That's what "Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result " means.
It really would be better if you tried to learn a bit about a subject before getting all shouty about it.
-
Einstein is justifying the existence of Fresnel's ether, composed of matter, based on Lorentz's theory, if I am not misstaken.
You are quote mining. If you had read further, you would have found this statement:
But on the basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more satisfactory. According to this theory there is no such thing as a "specially favoured" (unique) co-ordinate system to occasion the introduction of the æther-idea, and hence there can be no æther-drift, nor any experiment with which to demonstrate it.
So he's saying that relativity does not presume an aether.
Then why is Fresnel's diffraction mechanism used currently in college text books?
-
Then why is Fresnel's diffraction mechanism used currently in college text books?
(1) Fresnel diffraction does not require an aether.
(2) That has nothing to do with the fact that relativity doesn't assume an aether.
-
Then why is Fresnel's diffraction mechanism used currently in college text books?
(1) Fresnel diffraction does not require an aether.
This statement is incorrect since Fresnel's diffraction is based on a ether, composed of matter.
-
The Fresnel equations are purely geometric and apply to all waves, in a medium or no medium, since they do not invoke any explicit properties of a medium.
One can only assume that the "college textbooks" at Harvard are out of date or written by someone who never understood Fresnel's mathematics.
-
This statement is incorrect since Fresnel's diffraction is based on a ether, composed of matter.
If that's true, then provide a quote from a modern textbook that supports that claim.
-
Then why is Fresnel's diffraction mechanism used currently in college text books?
(1) Fresnel diffraction does not require an aether.
This statement is incorrect since Fresnel's diffraction is based on a ether, composed of matter.
I know Wiki isn't the ultimate reference, but how come the page about this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_diffraction
doesn't mention ether?
It seems that Fresnel diffraction does just fine without it.
-
"APPLICATIONS OF HUYGENS' PRINCIPLE TO THE PHENOMENA OF DIFFRACTION
43. Having determined the resultant of any number of trains of light-waves. I shall now show how by the aid of these interference formulae and by the principle of Huygens alone it is possible to explain, and even to compute, all the phenomena of diffraction. This principle, which I consider as a rigorous deduction from the basal hypothesis, may be expressed thus: The vibrations at each point in the wave-front may be considered as the sum of the elementary motions which at any one instant are sent to that point from all parts of this same wave in any one of its pervious* positions, each of these parts acting independently the one of the other. It follows from the principle of the superposition of small motions that the vibrations produced at any point in an elastic fluid" (Fresnel, § 43).
-
Showing that the maths which applies to waves in an elastic fluid is similar to the maths used in the propagation of light does not show that the propagation of light takes place in an elastic fluid.
-
"21. If we call λ the length of a light-wave, that is to say, the distance between two points in the ether where vibrations of the same kind are occurring at the same time" (Fresnel, § 21).
Make another wish.
-
"21. If we call λ the length of a light-wave, that is to say, the distance between two points in the ether where vibrations of the same kind are occurring at the same time" (Fresnel, § 21).
Make another wish.
What?
Nobody is questioning the fact that Huygens and Fresnel thought there wan ether.
So, obviously, they wrote stuff in terms of what was thought at the time.
Both of them were safely dead before the MM experiment showed that there was no ether.
What you have shown is that science moved on.
Why don't you move with it?
-
They did not move on since Fresnel's diffraction mechanism is still used in college physics text books.
-
They did not move on since Fresnel's diffraction mechanism is still used in college physics text books.
But... and this is the bit you missed... the mechanism and calculations still work without the ether.
So, when we found out that the ether isn't real, we stopped including that bit in the books.
What else would you expect to have happened?
-
The ether is part of the mechanism that effect is being represented with the mathematics.
-
The ether is part of the mechanism that effect is being represented with the mathematics.
Yes, but the maths works just fine without it.
-
How can the mathematics work without a mechanism?
-
How can the mathematics work without a mechanism?
What is 6 times 7?
Quite a lot of maths applies to things that have little or no physical meaning.
You might need a mechanism to understand things; maths doesn't.
-
You cannot apply mathematics to an entity that you have no idea what the mechanism or structure is.
-
"APPLICATIONS OF HUYGENS' PRINCIPLE TO THE PHENOMENA OF DIFFRACTION
43. Having determined the resultant of any number of trains of light-waves. I shall now show how by the aid of these interference formulae and by the principle of Huygens alone it is possible to explain, and even to compute, all the phenomena of diffraction. This principle, which I consider as a rigorous deduction from the basal hypothesis, may be expressed thus: The vibrations at each point in the wave-front may be considered as the sum of the elementary motions which at any one instant are sent to that point from all parts of this same wave in any one of its pervious* positions, each of these parts acting independently the one of the other. It follows from the principle of the superposition of small motions that the vibrations produced at any point in an elastic fluid" (Fresnel, § 43).
What is your source for this? What year was this published in? Before you answer, remember that I specifically asked for a quote from a modern textbook. If you got this from a textbook published before the year 2000, I consider that a failure of the very simple task I gave you.
You cannot apply mathematics to an entity that you have no idea what the mechanism or structure is.
Of course you can. You don't have to know what makes the Sun hot in order to measure its temperature.
-
"APPLICATIONS OF HUYGENS' PRINCIPLE TO THE PHENOMENA OF DIFFRACTION
43. Having determined the resultant of any number of trains of light-waves. I shall now show how by the aid of these interference formulae and by the principle of Huygens alone it is possible to explain, and even to compute, all the phenomena of diffraction. This principle, which I consider as a rigorous deduction from the basal hypothesis, may be expressed thus: The vibrations at each point in the wave-front may be considered as the sum of the elementary motions which at any one instant are sent to that point from all parts of this same wave in any one of its pervious* positions, each of these parts acting independently the one of the other. It follows from the principle of the superposition of small motions that the vibrations produced at any point in an elastic fluid" (Fresnel, § 43).
What is your source for this? What year was this published in? Before you answer, remember that I specifically asked for a quote from a modern textbook. If you got this from a textbook published before the year 2000, I consider that a failure of the very simple task I gave you.
You cannot apply mathematics to an entity that you have no idea what the mechanism or structure is.
Of course you can. You don't have to know what makes the Sun hot in order to measure its temperature.
Fresnel, Augustin. Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere. French Academy of Science. 1819.
Fresnel is using wave interference yet there is no ether that forms the waves. So you cannot mathematically depict something that does not physically exist.
-
Fresnel, Augustin. Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere. French Academy of Science. 1819.
So I was right. You failed. Try again.
So you cannot mathematically depict something that does not physically exist.
Engineers do this all the time whenever they design something that hasn't been built yet.
-
Fresnel, Augustin. Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere. French Academy of Science. 1819.
So I was right. You failed. Try again.
So you cannot mathematically depict something that does not physically exist.
Engineers do this all the time whenever they design something that hasn't been built yet.
Like the Apollo 11 mission?
-
Like the Apollo 11 mission?
Red herring fallacy.
-
So you cannot mathematically depict something that does not physically exist.
How do you know mathematics to use?
-
So you cannot mathematically depict something that does not physically exist.
Did you forget this already?
Engineers do this all the time whenever they design something that hasn't been built yet.
How do you know mathematics to use?
By studying the laws of physics to see which equations work and which ones don't work.
-
By studying the laws of physics to see which equations work and which ones don't work.
Hey but if you do not know what it is how do you apply the laws of physics. The laws of physics require that you know what it it.
-
Hey but if you do not know what it is how do you apply the laws of physics. The laws of physics require that you know what it it.
Isaac Newton didn't know the mechanism behind gravity, but he was able to derive highly-accurate equations about its behavior anyway. So did Johannes Kepler.
-
Hey but if you do not know what it is how do you apply the laws of physics. The laws of physics require that you know what it it.
Isaac Newton didn't know the mechanism behind gravity, but he was able to derive highly-accurate equations about its behavior anyway. So did Johannes Kepler.
That's my point Newton gravity equation and the centripetal force equations do not function.
-
That my whole point Newton gravity equations do not function.
They work well enough for most purposes.
-
Newton's gravity equation is applied to an astronaut with a mass of 50 kg in the space station that is 249 miles (400,727 m) from the surface of the earth. The distance r which represents the distance from the center of the earth to the space station is,
r = (earth's radius) + (height) = (6.371 x 106 m) + (.4 x 106 m) = 6.771 x 106 m......................................69
Using the distance for r (equ 70) in Newton's gravity equation forms,
F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = (6.7 × 10-11) x (50kg) x (6 x 1024kg) / (6.771 x 106m)2 ≃ 438.4 N or 44.7 kg .........................70
According to Newton's gravity equation, a 50 kg astronaut in the space station forms a 44.7 kg gravitational force pointed at the earth. The centripetal force CF is used to justify the weightlessness of an astronaut in the space station is calculated,
CF = mv2/r = (50 kg)(7672 m/s)2/ (6.771 x 106 m) = 437 N or 44.56 kg..........................................71
The gravitational and centripetal forces form an equilibrium that produces the weightless astronaut yet when a force is applied to an astronaut outside the space space and the astronaut propagates at a velocity of 100 km/hr in the direction opposite to the angular velocity, the described astronaut does not propagate towards the earth which proves the gravitational and centripetal forces do not function for a 50 kg astronaut propagating around the earth. Also, the space stations is orbiting the earth at approximately 400 km miles above the surface of the earth. The 450 ton space station cannot orbit the earth at a height of 1000 miles above the surface of the earth which proves the gravitational and centripetal forces do not function for the space station at the height of 1,600 km. In addition, the centripetal force for a 50 kg mass on the surface of the earth propagating around the Sun is calculated,
CF = mv2 /r = (50kg)(30,462 m/s)2 / (1.5 x 1011 m) = .31 N...72
At 12:00 am (midnight), the centripetal force produced by the 50 kg mass on the surface of the earth propagating (30,000 m/s) around the Sun is .31 N pointed away from the earth which represents the decrease in the weight of the 50 kg mass yet at 12:00 am (noon) a .2908 N ( v = 29,648 m/s) centripetal force would be pointing in the direction of the earth that would represent a .6 N weight variation every 24 hours which is not experimentally observe and proves the centripetal force does not function for a 50 kg mass on the surface of the earth propagating around the Sun.
-
the astronaut propagates at a velocity of 100 km/hr in the direction opposite to the angular velocity
What exactly are you trying to say here? How can an object move in the opposite direction of its own angular velocity? That's an oxymoron.
The 450 ton space station cannot orbit the earth at a height of 1000 miles above the surface of the earth
If it was traveling at the right speed it would. Why do you not think so?
At 12:00 am (midnight), the centripetal force produced by the 50 kg mass on the surface of the earth propagating (30,000 m/s) around the Sun is .31 N pointed away from the earth which represents the decrease in the weight of the 50 kg mass yet at 12:00 am (noon) a .2908 N ( v = 29,648 m/s) centripetal force would be pointing in the direction of the earth that would represent a .6 N weight variation every 24 hours which is not experimentally observe and proves the centripetal force does not function for a 50 kg mass on the surface of the earth propagating around the Sun.
You're forgetting something important. When the Sun is below the mass (on the other side of the Earth(, it will be pulling on it with its gravitational field (increasing its weight). When it is above the mass, it will decrease its weight instead. Redo your calculations with that in mind.
-
It would be negligible.
-
Good point though. I have to think about it but I would guess that it would mostly cancel.
-
It would be negligible.
Demonstrate it.
By the way, the Moon's gravity would also affect the weight, as would the fact that the Earth moves around the Earth-Moon barycenter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
-
I have to think about it and maybe draw a picture or something or make something up but I have to go and take a nap, bye bye since tomorrow is my wedding and I will be going on my honeymoon to Hawaii with her to some deserted park without any bikinis girls--- what fun. Marriage sounds like so much fun. At least she can cook, clean and has good hygiene. Early sabbatical. Harvard is so generous in those regards. Just what I needed. Who ever heard of a Wednesday wedding but its supposed to be good luck. Just what I needed.
-
I have to think about it and maybe draw a picture or something or make something up but I have to go and take a nap, bye bye since tomorrow is my wedding and I will be going on my honeymoon to Hawaii with her to some deserted park without any bikinis girls--- what fun. Marriage sounds like so much fun. At least she can cook, clean and has good hygiene. Early sabbatical.
Okay.
Have a good time!
-
Thanks alot
-
At the beginning of April, LIGO (2 gravitational wave detectors in USA) and VIRGO (1 detector in Italy) resumed observations after being upgraded to improve sensitivity.
Since then, they have reportedly detected around 1 candidate merger event per week, which will quickly increase the sample size of these spectacularly energetic events.
See: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20190326
They describe the increase in sensitivity using the example of a neutron star merger; one that they previously could detect at 360 Million Light-Years will now be detectable at 550 MLY. This 50% increase in range may not sound like a big boost, but it represents a much larger volume of space - 3.5 times larger than previously. They should detect about 3 times as many events. as previously.
-
tomorrow is my wedding and I will be going on my honeymoon to Hawaii with her to some deserted park without any bikinis girls--- what fun.
What wen’t wrong?
Why didn’t you go away to Hawaii??
Early sabbatical. Harvard is so generous in those regards.
We get a lot of people posting here and claiming to be something they are not. Usually they give themselves away very quickly. You did it faster than most.
-
He could be posting from a honeymoon in Hawaii.
Or he could be lying.
I know which I think is more likely.
-
He could be posting from a honeymoon in Hawaii.
Or he could be lying.
I know which I think is more likely.
I’ll give you a hint, he isn’t posting from Hawaii.
-
Harvard is so generous
The university isn't Harvard, but it does start with a "H"...
And Hawaii isn't the location, but there are some volcanoes a short flight away...
-
Harvard is so generous
The university isn't Harvard, but it does start with a "H"...
And Hawaii isn't the location, but there are some volcanoes a short flight away...
I noticed that. At least H was his ‘current’ location ;)
-
Not a good idea to go to Hawaii since that will involve either a plane or a boat, designed by an engineer who hadn't seen it before and therefore had no idea what maths to use.
-
The 10^-18 m mirror displacement is three order less than the diameter of an electron!
-
The 10^-18 m mirror displacement is three order less than the diameter of an electron!
No it isn't. The upper limit of the electron radius as determined from a Penning trap is around 10-22 meters: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-8949/1988/T22/016/meta
-
The 10^-18 m mirror displacement is three order less than the diameter of an electron!
No it isn't.
But even if it was, why would it matter?
We aren't trying to measure the electron.
-
since the mirror displacement of ΔL = 10-18 m is less than the diameter of an electrons which is to small of a displacement to experimentally measure.
Do you remember now?
It was not true when you said it the first time.
Saying it again makes you look silly
-
The 10^-18 m mirror displacement is three order less than the diameter of an electron!
No it isn't. The upper limit of the electron radius as determined from a Penning trap is around 10-22 meters: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-8949/1988/T22/016/meta
The Penning trap is based on a cyclotron that uses a proton beam. How do you produce a proton beam and protons exist.
-
How do you produce a proton beam and protons exist.
This explains how: https://protons.com/proton-advantage/how-does-proton-therapy-work
-
The Penning trap is based on a cyclotron that uses a proton beam
The traps used for looking at electrons use electron beams...
-
The LIGO states that a 10^18 m displacement is measured but how can this displacement be measured? Also, Geiger counters only detect gamma rays---- right, since alpha particles cannot propagate through glass that has the mass close to a helium atom.
-
The LIGO states that a 10^18 m displacement is measured but how can this displacement be measured?
By interferometry.
You can find out more by looking at the sort of web page that tells you that the displacement is 10^-18m
(I'm assuming the missing minus sign in your post is a typo)
Geiger counters only detect gamma rays---- right, since alpha particles cannot propagate through glass that has the mass close to a helium atom.
No
Geiger counters aren't very good at spotting gammas- gammas tend to go straight through them without stopping.
You can make alpha sensing Geigers- you just need a very thin wall or window.
Thin sheets of mica are one option.