[alancalverd]

  The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.

Whereas anyone who has ever used a rubber band or stirred paint, knows that it is an everyday occurrence.

[guest39538]

  The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.

Whereas anyone who has ever used a rubber band or stirred paint, knows that it is an everyday occurrence.

Huh? a rubber band stretches because of applied force, the work is done by the force, things don't just contract or expand for no reason, my video shows it doesn't anyway, it is an optical illusion and parlour tricks.

[Ethos_]

My scientific method involves physical experiment,

Would you like us to send you a new BOX of crayons, for your experiments that is................................?

[guest39538]

My scientific method involves physical experiment,

Would you like us to send you a new BOX of crayons, for your experiments that is................................?

You could go stand on a train station platform and observe a train in motion pass a train that is relatively stationary that is the same length. Besides the crayons was free crayons, what do you  expect  for free crayons. 

[timey (OP)]

I do not know how many times the beam of light is revolved around the 4km distance before the interference patterns are measured, therefore I do not understand how much 'distance' the light in the tubes has travelled before detecting from the interference patterns, the distance of one proton as a 'length' contraction.

It's reflected 400 times so total path length is 1600km.

What I do know is that the speed of the gravity wave measured in a straight line between experiments, exceeded the speed of light by 6.37 ms?... or thereabouts... 

Where did you get this from?
The only delay I've seen quoted is the time between detection at Livingston, LA and Hanford, WA, This was about 7ms - close to your figure. That delay depends on the angle of incidence of the wave.

the origin of the waves

This week's show asked about how the direction of the source was determined.

The unfortunate answer is that it was not determined very accurately at all. It is constrained to within a total area of about 600 square degrees, which is a fair swathe of the sky (the Moon occupies about a quarter of a square degree).
 [ Invalid Attachment ]  

Calculation
The time of arrival at the two detectors differed by about 6.7 ms over a distance of around 5000 km.

• The source could not have been on a straight line between the two detectors, as that would mean that it exceeded the speed of light, which physicists think is impossible.
  
• Assuming that the gravitational wave traveled at the speed of light (as predicted by Einstein), you can deduce that the wave originated at a point in the sky which is at a certain angle to the line joining the detectors. This would inscribe a circle in the sky. Due to uncertainties in the measurements, this circle is about 10 times the width of the Moon in the sky.
  
• There was additional (phase?) information which they drew on to further limit it to less than a quarter of this candidate circle around the sky
  

Finding the Source
It was suggested that astronomers could point their telescopes at the source and see a black hole. They certainly tried.
Unfortunately, 600 deg² is not a small enough region to know where to point a big optical telescope, which typically cover a very small area of the sky, much smaller than the Moon. This event was so distant that it would need long exposures on a large telescope. Radio and gamma ray telescopes have less resolution, so they can cover larger areas of the sky.

Black holes are particularly hard to see - astronomers now have a good idea of the location and mass of the black hole in the center of our galaxy - but only because they have spent the past 15 years observing the paths of about a dozen stars that are in close orbit around it. The black hole itself is practically invisible -  and this one is only 25,000 light years away, not 1,000,000,000 as estimated for this gravitational wave source.

Fortunately, by the time they have 3 or 4 operational gravity wave detectors (in 4 or 5 years), they will be able to narrow down the source to an area in the sky that is perhaps no larger than the Moon. That is still a large area to search, but if the source were the merger of two neutron stars within our own galaxy, that may produce a burst of visible, radio and X-Rays radiation that is easily visible on Earth.

Unfortunately, the merger of two otherwise isolated black holes is unlikely to produce much visible radiation.

This paper shows more details on the analysis: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03840v1.pdf
This paper is expected to appear soon (for now it is just the diagram above): https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0122/P1500227/006/placeholder.pdf

This is where I got info from... You are right Colin.  I made a mistake.  There was a 6.7ms delay between experiments.  It would take the speed of light 16.68ms (if I've calculated correctly) to travel the 5000km distance between experiments in a straight line.  If the gravity wave had travelled in a straight line, the speed of light would have been exceeded by  9.98ms (?)

[timey (OP)]

Can someone help me here?

Bearing in mind that the light measuring the gravity waves revolves around the tubes 400 times before being measured for interference patterns...  If one were to consider that the light in the tubes of the gravity wave experiment was displaying interference patterns due to a 'shorter' journey 'time', rather than a 'shorter' tube... how many ms would the speed of light have been exceeded by when travelling the 'now considered' un-contracted distance of the tubes?

[timey (OP)]

Oh come on you lot!

If you had a behavioural problem with your horse, dog, cat, etc, or small child (don't ask me about teenagers, they are beyond all comprehension)... or even yourself - I would bring the full bearing of my knowledge and experience to your stated quandary.  Start a thread, PM it to me... I'll be all over it immediately.
(And... just for instance, I promise that if you were to tell me that you know your Dalmatian is not deaf because he can hear his food rattling into a bowl from the living room, and turns his head when you speak his name, but that he completely ignores you outside on his walks and you can't get anything through to him...I will not tell you that perhaps another type of dog might be better suited to your needs.  I will address the 'problem' that 'you' are having with your 'type' of dog.)

Meanwhile...

When you measure a cesium atom in elevation, are you measuring what time is doing in the space the atom is located, or are you just measuring what time is doing for the atom located in that space?

...and...

Can someone help me here?

Bearing in mind that the light measuring the gravity waves revolves around the tubes 400 times before being measured for interference patterns...  If one were to consider that the light in the tubes of the gravity wave experiment was displaying interference patterns due to a 'shorter' journey 'time', rather than a 'shorter' tube... how many ms would the speed of light have been exceeded by when travelling the 'now considered' un-contracted distance of the tubes?

[alancalverd]

No problem with the dog, thanks, and I kicked the the kids out so I can concentrate on your problem.

The multiple-pass etalon is designed to amplify the displacement of the target by a factor of 400 before the reflected beam interferes with itself. There is no time measurement involved, just a displacement of a fraction of a wavelength

[timey (OP)]

I'm glad to hear your dog is problem free!  My advice, whatever it is you're doing, keep on doing it!  As to the kids, what a great idea... I might follow suit!

I am really very aware that the gravity wave experiment is not a time based experiment.  However, where-ever the speed of light is involved, and purely because the speed of light is constant, a time aspect can be obtained...

The tubes are supposed to have contracted by a distance.  I'm pretty sure that the figure I am looking for can be obtained by:
adding this tiny distance to the distance of 1600km, (this being the distance the light travelled in the tubes before being measured) dividing this new distance by the speed of light, (my phone calculator cannot handle this calculation) and then dividing 1600km by the speed of light = 5.34
Subtracting this figure of 5.34 from the result of the first calculation should (?) give the amount of time by which the journey 'time' was shorter... (I understand and am expecting that this figure is going to be just a tiny fraction of a ms.)

This being under the remit of my theory of an increase in gravitational field increasing the rate of time...
Shorter journey 'time' causing interference patterns, not a shorter tube.

[Colin2B]

The tubes are supposed to have contracted by a distance.  I'm pretty sure that the figure I am looking for can be obtained by:
adding this tiny distance to the distance of 1600km,

If the 4km contracts then the light will travel a shorter distance for each trip.

[timey (OP)]

Dear oh me Colin!

Yes - but the gravity wave passed the experiment site at the speed of light....  It just touched upon 'one' of those 400 revolutions per tube of that light's journey very briefly indeed...  No?

Would you happen to know the exact distance between the 2 experiment sites Colin?  Evan said it was around 5000km, but I could use knowing the precise measurement.  I'd be most grateful, as researching on this poxy phone is really starting to do my head in...

[timey (OP)]

You do make a good point though!

Dependent on where the light is being measured - if the 400 revolutions, before the light is measured, is inclusive of a journey involving both tubes - then the final figure that I am seeking as a result of the equation that I described above, would require being divided by 2 in order to be correct.

[timey (OP)]

Lol!  Lol!  Lol!  Colin...  I just realised my gaff.

Of course it would affect each trip!!!

Sorry, my mistake... no fly's on you is there?

If the light makes its journey of 400 revolutions inclusive of both tubes, the end result would need to be divided by 2...  But... Before that... the figure would need to be multiplied by 400!

That actually makes for a much, much better prospect for reaching the figure I have in mind... good, good!

Thanks Colin, don't 'spose you know what that figure is per chance, do you?

[Colin2B]

Dear oh me Colin!

Yes - but the gravity wave passed the experiment site at the speed of light....  It just touched upon 'one' of those 400 revolutions per tube of that light's journey very briefly indeed...  No?

It may have been going at the speed of light, but the entire oscillation lasted 0.45s

Would you happen to know the exact distance between the 2 experiment sites Colin?  Evan said it was around 5000km, but I could use knowing the precise measurement.  I'd be most grateful, as researching on this poxy phone is really starting to do my head in...

I have seen 3002km.

You do make a good point though!

Dependent on where the light is being measured - if the 400 revolutions, before the light is measured, is inclusive of a journey involving both tubes - then the final figure that I am seeking as a result of the equation that I described above, would require being divided by 2 in order to be correct.

Being an interferometer the beam is split and travels only up/down each arm independently.

Edit: sorry didn't see your last post until I had finished mine due to interruptions.
What figure do you mean?

[timey (OP)]

The figure I mean is the result of the calculation that I proposed, which in light of the information you have given can now be:
1600km plus tiny distance of contraction, divided by speed of light = (?) (my phone calculator cannot handle this equation)
1600km divided by speed of light = 5.34ms
(?) minus 5.34ms = (?) multiplied by 400 = (?)

As said, my phone cannot handle the equation, and all I got is my phone.  Can 'you' tell me what the result is?

Also - are you completely sure about that vastly shorter than 5000km straight line distance between the 2 registered hits of the experiment sites.  I find it hard to imagine that Evan would have misquoted, and to be honest, 'in the region of 5000km' kind of 'feels' more dimensionally right, from my point of view of understanding...  Always happy to be corrected though...

P.S.  Almost forgot...  Is the 0.45ms duration of the gravity wave hit related to both tubes, or just one tube?

It's just that I suspect that the 'duration' of the gravity wave hit has some bearing upon the final figure of the equation above... Hmmm, (rubs chin)... I'll have to ponder that one!

[timey (OP)]

Ok... I think (scratches head) that on the basis that the 0.45ms is related to one tube, that:

I cannot for the damn life of me 'get with' how to establish the width of the gravity wave, and again...a bit woolly on this also tbh - but that the final result of the proposed calculation above needs to be divided by the width of the gravity wave, to establish by how much the gravitational field of the gravity wave increased the rate of time as it passes. (maybe?)

[timey (OP)]

Alrighty...well, without actually being able to confirm any figures by myself, or here, it becomes impossible for me to move on!  However, on the basis that I really do not mind appearing foolish, and I haven't actually yet established any reputation to lose!

The figure that I was hoping for relates to the straight line distance between the 2 registered hits experiment locations, and is based on Evans quote that stated this distance as in the region of 5000km. This is the shortest distance between the experiments, but, if one were to consider the scenario whereas the gravity wave moved into this distance as if it were the horizontal line of a capital T, moving down the vertical... this then constitutes the longest possible time of that distance that the gravity wave could travel upon, and the shortest distance of itself. (and just in case anyone has wrong end of stick, yes, I know it didn't travel that way)

It takes the speed of light 16.68ms to travel 5000km.
There was a 6.7ms delay between experiments.
16.68 minus 6.7 = 9.98
9.98 minus earth's gravity 9.807 = 0.173

It was my hope that the figure that I am seeking would be in the region of 0.173ms. This based on the straight line distance between experiments actually being in the region of 5000km, and obviously any slight difference in this distance would subject this figure of 0.173 to an alteration.

Now pretty please, with cherries on top... is anyone going to put me out of my misery and do the calculation for me?

[timey (OP)]

P.S.  And yes, I do realise that earth's gravity is meters per second, not ms. It's actually now giving me a headache trying to transpose these meters into ms, with respect to speed of light and visa versa... I suspect that I've perhaps gone a little astray maybe... I think I need a cup of tea...

[timey (OP)]

...and to say so, the straight line distance consideration between the experiments, is in fact just a side issue that I'm interested in.  It has no bearing on the result of the proposed calculation, (that I cannot complete myself), to establish, under the remit of my theory, by how much the rate of time increased when the gravity wave hit.

[Colin2B]

...and to say so, the straight line distance consideration between the experiments, is in fact just a side issue that I'm interested in.  It has no bearing on the result of the proposed calculation,

couldn't understand why you did the calculation so I'm glad to hear that it's not important.

If you do ever need it:
"The LIGO “observatory” is made up of two identical and widely separated interferometers situated in sparsely populated, relatively out-of-the-way places: LIGO Hanford in southeastern Washington State in an arid shrub-steppe region crisscrossed by hundreds of layers of ancient lava flows; and LIGO Livingston, 3002 km away in a vast, humid, loblolly pine forest west of Baton Rouge, Louisiana."

I suspect this is great circle distance rather than straight line.

I suspect you are not getting any offers to do the calc because most folks are wondering about the maths. The 0.45s for the wave was an oscillation at, if I remember correctly, around 150Hz, so you have around 60 cycles which were not of the same amplitude. I don't know how you would decide to process that, take an rms?
I suspect you would be better off trying to find out what the average phase shift was, must be in the reports somewhere.