Dear friends,
The next discussion on ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301593709_Big_data_analysis_of_Livingston_and_Hanford_logfiles_for_LIGO_project_2010-2016
has been closed, probably due to an existed (but not revealed) limit of posts.
But, since there exist an interest to continue it, you can post your comments at this forum.
Thank you very much.
The next discussion on ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301593709_Big_data_analysis_of_Livingston_and_Hanford_logfiles_for_LIGO_project_2010-2016
has been closed, probably due to an existed (but not revealed) limit of posts.
But, since there exist an interest to continue it, you can post your comments at this forum.
Thank you very much.
Good move!
ReplyDeletehttp://checkmateendsthegame.blogspot.co.ke/2010_08_01_archive.html
Hello! I'm also here!
ReplyDeleteThe funny part of the story is that some members can post at the RG discussion, while other cannot!
ReplyDeleteWho knows, maybe we have all exceeded our credit limit!
Thank you! Dear Demetris Christopoulos.
ReplyDeleteOK, I am here
ReplyDeleteI have posted s long and politically correct/incorrect thext as below, but it did not get rejected or truncated. I think however I had to send the button twice. It may also be the case doing it on the phone makes a difference
The text posted was unrelated but related :)
This is a post length vs content test of the thread update so do no take this mail seriously:
These words are aimed against proper science. Someone is trying to destroy Einstein's theory.
They say:
"It seems to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense"
How can one say things like that? No surprise they think GW detection is a fraud designed to honour 100th anniversary of General Relativity.
Hello Andrew and all! What I find interesting about ether is that the justification of CSL (constancy of light speed, in fact invariance) done using Maxwell's equation works philosophically only if vacuum is ... just vacuum. In fact the Hertzian equation of em-wave implies that the speed of such will be 1/sqr(€µ) where € is the electric permitivity of vacuum and µ is the magnetic permeability of vacuum. Now only if vacuum is really vacuum, those values can be suppose to be invariant relatively to inertial systems. If there is a substance there, this supposition is more difficult to be done. Some of you can reply that "vacuum is in fact em-field" and people like Akira Kanda will correctly reply that "fields are just modalities and not materialities". The dilema is quite tricky.
DeleteThis is very interesting and solves many problems. Look, empty space, vacuum or whatever we call 'it' has not empty set properties, ie not a preferred value of epsilon_0, mu_0. The specific values of above 'constants' mean that emptyness is not so ... empty as it looks to be!
DeleteAs I see this problem, the only chance for the principle of relativity, is that vacuum is ... really vacuum. In this case those constants are just properties of vacuum, or better said properties of what we are speaking about, i e properties of the electromagnetic field. The existence of a substance, even if it would have no mechanical properties, put big problems. For example, if we are embedded in something, why should be them the Lorentz transform really only a linear transformation? If we are really embedded in something, then the whole physics should be muuuch more complicated, in order to be correct. Also, the existence of an ether would be an argument for the red-shift produced by light waves becomming tired (like sound waves) so then good-bye space expansion, good-bye big bang, and less but not least good-bye dark matter. I also don't know anymore what does resist from GTR...
DeleteHi,
DeleteMy not so serious text to test the RG ability to record longer and potentially controversial posts was in fact an insignificantly edited extract from Einstein's Ether and the Theory of Relativity,An Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
µ as the magnetic permeability of has a historic significance but conceptually it can be dropped as a property of anything. In the current SI metric system [m,kg,s], it is a mathematical dimensional constant. When you remove the kilogram from the metric system which is possible but non convenient for high accuracy measurements, that constant becomes non dimensional 1. This means it disappears. So the only property of "empty?" space is the speed of light essentially.
I don't think that I can agree on constants elimination because Maxwell laws contain them in a mandatory way.
DeleteThe lean metric system [m,s] was first suggested by Maxwell. In this system mass has composite unit of m^3/s^2. This is nothing strange
DeleteWe once had kilogram force kG as a unit only to be replaced by kgm/s^2
which is called Newton.
Dimensionality considerations do not solve any problem as long as we have ontological gaps. The point is that we have no idea what is mass. If matter is kind of irregularity of ether than mass is something different than if matter is something somehow dispersed in vacuum. I agree with the idea that c is the only one property of vacuum, if CSL is really true. On the other hand, if Arno's model is true, all might be different. Also if vacuum is really vacuum, it might be that some linearities that we assume - like for example that of the Lorentz transformation - are not at all true and that the truth is much more complicated. We really nead a new generation of fundamental experiments. The overall sympathy for black holes has a psychological explanation. It is so much that we understand the universe...
DeleteI think dimensional analysis is a great heuristic tool. It was extremely helpful in engineering. The analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities may provide better insight to their nature. Too many units makes physic obscure and the magic constants everywhere.
DeleteWith the system of units I have mentioned before, the disppearance of magnetic constant is due to the disappearance of Gravity constant G which becomes a non dimensional 1. Consequently coulomb as a unit of charge is gone also and the charge has the same dimension as mass that is m^3/s^2
There is no Amper either. Finally in this truly magic system of units [m,s]
Planck_Mass = PLanck_Length^3/Planck_Time^2
So, give us the modified Maxwell Laws and especially in the non vacuum case.
DeleteDemetris, I hope you are not asking me for the new Maxwell equations. Of course I haven't any. My job is just to find contradictions in the theory and to signalize when I believe that theories become inconsistent. I have no ideea what is the truth.
DeleteBut maybe you were just asking for Andrew's dimensionless Maxwell equations.
Andrew, mass measured in m^3 / s^2 is just great. m^3 is a volume. For s^(-2) I have no real intuition, excepting that acceleration is ms^(-2). So you get an acceleration times a surface. Or you get a volume multiplied with a temporal variation of ... frequency! Hermetic things with an unclear meaning have always fascinated humans. And of course I cannot deny that some of those interpretations may be very meaningful.
But the point here is that I don't know what mass is, and I have not enough ontology about matter. With the right ontology, mathematics works well and scalar. You do not need then dimensional analysis anymore. A propos ontology: what this Plank Length does mean? And the Plank time?
Mass is a measure of inertia in macroscopic scales or a frequency over the De Broglie dualism. It is also a quantity of frozen energy as by mc^2 and a mass of gravitational interaction. Many formulas can be written and many units and constants can be killed. But I have a dosis of skepticism against mathematical manipulations, because I understand how many possibilities are in mathematics, but that they have mostly nothing to do with natural ontology. And, last but not least, what is mass?
Oh no, the question was for Andrew, sorry!
DeleteDemetris: There is no change in maxwell equations other than magnetic constant being one and the electric constant expanded accordingly to expose c instead. Maxwell equation form is not invariant in a way, as it depends on the choice of units.
DeleteYou can see what it is in Gausian units for example. It is only c
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
I hav not though about the case of ME in media but logically c is different in media right?
Mihai:
DeleteThereare some intuitive connections which may give you an insight into what mass is.
Electric Field units are the same as acceleration: m/s^2
derivative over spatial variable is 1/s^2. This is the same as for angular acceleration.
That means that induction is in 1/s that is the same as the unit angular velocity. So in Maxwel equations you have Derivatve of Induction wrt time yelding Acceleration units to correspond with units produced by curl of electric field.
The link of Maxwel equations to a circular motion becomes mysteriously exposed. This should be enough for curious minds to pursue
My heuristic statement is that magnetic field is to electric field like circular motion to linear motion, therefore is a manifestation of the same thing not a separate quantity.
DeleteWhen you look at motion of a point, the circular motion is nothing special. A second derivative of a position vector over time covers all types of motion linear and curve-linear, flat and 3d. Identifying angular acceleration and angular velocity is only a matter of convenience. There is no Coriolis force as a special thing it is just an inertial force manifesting itself in one of many ways.
Just a simple second order derivative of a position vector and mass covers it all.
Could physicists in this thread do me a favour and confirm or deny whether the curl of a generalised acceleration vector is equal to angular acceletation of a material point?
DeleteThat would be the mechanical equivalent of the Maxwell-Faraday equation?
That is a dangerous idea aproppriate to the name of this blog.
Mihai:
DeletePursuing ontology should start from eliminating superfluous beings cluttering the picture. The celebrated gravitational constat G is one. It reflects the relationship of the arbitrary mas standard and the mass of the Earth.
You can get approximate mass of the Sun in m^3/s2 from angular acceleration alone of the Earth on its orbit. No G needed whatsoever.
Mihai:
DeletePlanck_Mass = PLanck_Length^3/Planck_Time^2
I have not invented them they are celebrated constants of naure according to current beliefs. I only show that the kilogram free metric system makes these three constants related in a meaningful way whether they mean or do not mean anything.
Finally can we confirm or deny that maxwell equations apply to gravity when replacing charge by mass and have an insight into GW and disvover a new type of field infuced by variable gravity field?
DeleteApparently it was a so called Philadelphia Experiment when electromagnetic field applied to gravity and allegedly to time and space, but I am not willing to believe anything based only on rumors. They disclose it or not. If not, then it didn't happen.
DeleteAre Plank time and length associated with a special electro-magnetic wave? It wouldn't do too much sense...
""Pursuing ontology should start from eliminating superfluous beings cluttering the picture."" This is a good intention. But after eliminating superfluos things, one has to concentrate on phenomena and less on formulae. This is one reason why I am so unhappy with my proof for Lorentz' Tansformation, that you know. It is concentrated only on formulae. We still do not understand its ontology. Maxwell's Equations gives us an ontology of CSL, but how do we find an ontology for Maxwell's Equations? This is the stage of art.
I agree that your curl hypothesis (rotation of magnetic field, and so) looks to be a good start.
The comment below also appeared in RG. I think their sub-threading mechanism i sucks. I can seldom identify where new responses come to. Their emails notifications are erratic too.
ReplyDeletein RG:
Seriously now:
I am not GR competent, but one thing bothers me with the GW concept. There is a credible explanation and physical evidence gravity interaction is instantaneous.
Waves are ultimately linked with a wave equation and limited propagation. The classic wave equation is no longer a wave equation but a Laplace equation without the second order time derivative.
So, there is no point of seeking correlation of gravity field fluctuation and gamma ray bursts (not detected in LIGO experiment)
My posts are gone away and can be found only at Timeline:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Demetris_Christopoulos/timeline
So, they have:
1)either declare a policy
2)fix their software bug
I had also four or five lengthy postations which have been displayed in the moment of postation, but dissapeared when logging in again, and two or three test-postations which remained there. I think that the thread is just too long. I have nor special reasons to believe in censorship. Just remember what happened with the other stream before.
DeleteI agree, I don't believe it is censorship, just Java problems!
DeleteIf I check the "Notify me" checkbox from below, I will be notified any time when somone psts here? That would be nice...
ReplyDeleteYES, it works. So you can do the same thing.
Delete