beecee

Here is some answers by a professional involved with the aLIGO GW detection/s and his reply to supposed anomalies by at least other experts...................

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2017/06/18/a-response-to-on-the-time-lags-of-the-ligo-signals-guest-post/

The results stand, and deservedly so after all possible contingencies and supposed anomalies have been accounted for.

Just a thought from an interesting lay person: The obvious incorrect claim being made in this thread, has certainly been invalidated and put to rest, but I have just thought of another issue. The three GW detections so far have all been BH mergers, but each detection is/was unique in distances from us, the sizes of the BH's and I would hazard a guess, the size of the chirp or noise....

So one would ask the question of our doubting Thomas, if what he imagined was valid, why the three distinct chirps and the various BH sizes in each instant.

An illustration as to how the waves affected each arm differently at......about a third of the way down the page...

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/1/15714908/gravitational-waves-black-holes-third-detection-ligo

An illustration of how LIGO detects gravitational waves when they pass the observatories. Image: American Museum of Natural History

Thanks for the dialogue Mordred. I'd hoped we could at least work through this 2D metaphor but no problem if you're not game. Think it through some more and you may see my broader point about the comparable 3D interferometer difficulties.

 

More to the point, it appears that you are obviously not game to do what I suggested way back.......

That's not my point. Again, staying with the 2D metaphor: if you expand or contract the balloon do you agree that there is no way to measure this expansion or contraction using just the perpendicular lines? Please don't move ahead of this point. I'm trying to establish where we agree and then explore where we start to disagree.

And more ignoring of what I suggested if you are not convinced of the answers you have received here...plus of course any balloon expansion analogy is far different to gravitational waves and what they entail.

Science forums such as this and most others are open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, that are able to claim what they like, without any mathematical support, or dispute already validated science, and without listening to answers given.

It changes nothing. The results stand as is.

Do you agree that the coordinates on the perpendicular lines drawn on the balloon's surface can't be used to detect any expansion or contraction of the balloon itself b/c they change exactly the same amount as the balloon?

as answered in post 274......

aLIGO is not measuring expansion or contraction of spacetime...it is measuring ripples/waves/undulations in spacetime.

And each arm sees those undulations/waves in different phases, eg: peaks and troughs.

Your analogy is invalid and your questions answered many times, including post 282.

Wait, you're refusing to address my simple visual metaphor? Why would you not address this question after our long discussion?

And yet you continue to ignore my advice and E-Mail aLIGO? [since you appear unsatisfied with the many reasonable answers you have received here, which most certainly have addressed all your fabricated anomalies]

https://www.quora.com/If-gravitational-wave-affects-light-how-does-LIGO-prevent-its-lasers-from-being-affected

Answer:

"A gravitational wave stretches space in one direction and contracts it in the other direction. [*] The interferometers measure the distance between the mirrors, so LIGO is looking for a periodic expansion and contraction of the two path lengths (hence being affected).

[*] Specifically if the gravitational wave is traveling is going in the Z direction, it will contract space in the X direction and expand it in the Y direction and then reverse it half a period later".

https://www.quora.com/If-light-follows-spacetime-how-did-the-LIGO-experiment-find-that-a-gravitational-wave-passed-over-Didnt-the-path-of-light-also-change#!n=12

Answer:

"The detection of gravity waves has nothing to do with light following space-time (whatever that means). It is a simple consequence of gravity-induced contraction. You see, just as motion causes the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction, so gravity also causes contraction. In fact the detection of gravity waves was done with an apparatus similar to the Michelson apparatus that demonstrated the F=L contraction. Here’s the description from my book (see quantum-field-theory.net):

“In 2015 gravity waves were detected directly at LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) by measuring the contraction of one arm of an apparatus, as compared with another arm at right angles. The arms were 4 km long and the laser beam was made to traverse the paths almost 500 times, giving a total travel distance of over 1000 km. This experiment captured the imagination of the public and will stand as one of the great feats of experimental physics, alongside the famous Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, which it resembles (see fig. 7-1 below). In fact, when you read the description of the M-M experiment you will see that the LIGO experiment is not as hard to understand as you thought. The field nature of gravity and the existence of gravitational waves were now established beyond any doubt.”

Here's a visual metaphor: think of a balloon with two perpendicular lines drawn on it. If the balloon expands the two lines will expand in exactly the same way as the balloon so there will be no way to detect the expansion by using the lines only. You have to take a higher level viewpoint outside of the balloon to know that it has expanded. Does that make sense?

But if one should depress the skin of the balloon where the two lines meet, one will find that each are affected differently.

aLIGO and the other detector are not measuring expansion.

In the mean time here is a link.......

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/about-aligo

I am sure if you E-Mail them, you will find someone that will explain why your so called concerns are totally invalid.

Arose from nothing? how can nothing create something? If this "nothing" create something, therefore it must be something not nothing.

 

Again, I argue that q potential is purely naturalistic.

Perhaps our definition of nothing needs looking at.....

https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

Ok, so in plain language, at the level of concepts, how would the physical apparatus change in any measurable way when of course that apparatus is being waved in exactly the same way as the space it occupies (in every direction)?

The physical apparatus, ie, the two arms at right angles to each other, have different parts of the GW affecting them, eg: as I said previously peaks and troughs.

I'll respond further to the recent points made, but this just in casting serious doubt on the recent findings re gravitational waves: https://www.quantamagazine.org/strange-noise-in-gravitational-wave-data-sparks-debate-20170630/?utm_source=Quanta+Magazine&utm_campaign=fa74101318-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f0cb61321c-fa74101318-389689705

No, casting no doubt at all, in fact the exact opposite. It actually shows how diligent, how careful, and how all contingencies have been accounted for, particularly after the BICEP2 apparent mis-diagnosis.

Here is a paper considering the possibility of confirming string and extra dimensions in the noise..........

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/06/048/meta;jsessionid=DA6583EDF04658CD0AA33069D4A3BFEB.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org

and an article on the same matter......

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-hints-extra-dimensions-gravitational.html

and of course we have GOTO which will look at another aspect of GW's....

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-telescope-optical-gravitational.html

Once again, as I mentioned previously, if you are certain of your so far unsupported claims, in your own mind, then why not contact LIGO as I did regarding GWs and their validity?

I'm no philosopher...nor am I a scientist...I actually see philosophy as a foundation corner stone for science, reflections on how we live, and sometimes useless musings........

Perhaps some Philosophers of late are somewhat disgruntled and annoyed at the apparent recent "put downs" of Philosophy by people such as Lawrence Krauss.

Science on the other hand is generally seen as a more "hands on approach" and attempts to describe the universe around us with models that match observations,successfully make predictions, and models accordingly......as observations improve, scientific theories and approximations are extended upon with new more encompassing models.

Reality and pure truth is not really the goal from what I understand, but obviously if those models hit upon the truth and reality of the universe, then all well and good.

Science is a discipline in eternal progress.

I will conclude with a couple of quotes...

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Attributed to Richard Feynman (1918-88) U.S. Physicist. Nobel Prize 1965.

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists. Richard Feynman

And one attributed to Einstein:

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

I am unable to vouch for the authenticity of those quotes and musings but there are many more here.....

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sciquote.htm

But we humans are different, our first ancestors must be created by supernaturalistic means because we have this consciousness.

 

So, "if only" we are in a simulation, the being that controls that simulation must have supernaturalistic characteristics in order to create us conscious beings.

Not at all.....

Supernaturalistic/s and/or any form of ID is strictly non scientific, and is in reality a senseless illogical argument.

As Carl Sagan says......

In reality only one of two scientific answers can ever really be possible.......

The Universe [and as an extension , intelligence and consciousness] arose from nothing via quantum potential, or the universe is infinite.

I prefer the former.

I also found this......

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html

An interesting extract follows.......

"You can now deduce many interesting properties of tachyons. For example, they accelerate (p goes up) if they lose energy (E goes down). Furthermore, a zero-energy tachyon is "transcendent", or moves infinitely fast. This has profound consequences. For example, let's say that there were electrically charged tachyons. Since they would move faster than the speed of light in the vacuum, they should produce Cherenkov radiation. This would lower their energy, causing them to accelerate more! In other words, charged tachyons would probably lead to a runaway reaction releasing an arbitrarily large amount of energy. This suggests that coming up with a sensible theory of anything except free (noninteracting) tachyons is likely to be difficult. Heuristically, the problem is that we can get spontaneous creation of tachyon-antitachyon pairs, then do a runaway reaction, making the vacuum unstable. To treat this precisely requires quantum field theory, which gets complicated. It is not easy to summarize results here. However, one reasonably modern reference is Tachyons, Monopoles, and Related Topics, E. Recami, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978)."

IIRC, tachyons arise because in SR, when v>c, the root is imaginary; the mass must, then, also be imaginary, because energy needs to be real.

 

Yet your link states that recent treatments use a real mass.

I find it hard to reconcile the two.

Guess I'll need to do some reading

From memory I was once informed that the hypothetical Tachyon, would be created travelling FTL so it need not accelerate to it. Does that solve the conundrum?

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

There's a hypothtical particle called a tachyon that, if it was real, would move at faster-than-light speeds. While tachyons are popular in science fiction involving time-travel stories, there's nothing to suggest that tachyons are actually real things that exist.

And hypothetically of course, [and from memory] these hypothetical particles are already created at FTL speeds, and if they gain energy they slow down, and if they lose energy, they speed up.

Nice to see you still around Daecon! I also gave the other place a miss.

 

The reason for my angle of approach, is to see what, if any, scientists who still harbor a religious belief might have on the concept of the afterlife. In order to explore the idea, I put forward a few ideas to cast a doubt, or raise an eyebrow, for amusement, as you may do if trying to get a criminal of the hook.

 

I am not attacking science, I was attempting to explore one of the core parts of many religions, which is an afterlife, hence the spooky introduction I included for amusement.

And all I have said is we have absolutely no evidence for any afterlife or any ID aspect at all.

As for your reference to Aliens I do not think they, if they exist, come under any thread on this forum, unless you were to start a thread on the concept of where the idea of gods came from descending from heaven Or gravitational propulsion systems. There is absolutely no reason to think life on other planets does not exist. Nor is there any reason to believe that all forces have been detected virtual or otherwise.

My reference to Aliens was to example how some people, some gullible, some with an agenda, will immediately claim Alien for any unexplained phenomena involving UFO. And I'm also sure life exists off Earth, somewhere, sometime, but time and distance are great barriers preventing inter-planetary contact. Irrespective, other then the "stuff of life"being everywhere we look, as yet we have no evidence for extra terrestrial life.

Feel free to speculate on the subject of the thread, which is life after death. I think it is pretty conclusive the majority of people on the forum have a closed mind on the subject, even though they like to post on the religious forum.

 

Do not forget I am collecting ideas for a novel. I am not trying to promote religion or a belief in an afterlife here I am just exploring the possibility. In my novel i might have inter dimensional creature alien thingys, entangled to things in other dimensions or something, the ideas are still evolving.

 

This is first and foremost a science forum, and as such you must expect critical review of that of which we have no evidence for.

And for the record, I see nothing too wrong with speculation as long as that speculation is not invalidated by known laws of physics and GR.eg: An advanced species [if they exist] maybe able to time travel in a forward direction, although time travel to the past is a less certain possibility. No laws or GR are contravened.

https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed

 

I would add I am suspicious of any one who claims to know absolutely everything.

That really wasn't called for even though not directed at me. Don't you see that actually applies to anyone who claims that they know there is an afterlife?

Here's my Greek Angel again

and some C+W

and unbelievable rendition of Franz Schubert's Nocturne "Only Time will tell"

And another song made famous in the Movie that starred Humphrey Bogart, and Ingrid Bergman "Cassablanca"

Children of the Stars: Nana Mouskouri and the Athenians:

 

Sort of what I expected, could be worse though your disbelief doesn't change the information I have presented.

 

This forum is a little strange for me. Yes a lot of quite interesting thread questions but the info could easily be obtained by spending time with Wikipedia or other, guess it's laziness and a community of wanna be scientists with very small odds of becoming scientists because not open to new ideas.

 

Having spent years repairing TV's and video recorders I know people and those that solve problems and those that create them....

I have no inkling to be a scientists matey, as I'm now a retired old bastard, but I certainly have read many reputable books by many reputable authors, and I am certainly gifted with the nous and knowledge to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and the paranormal and supernatural nonsense from real science. In essence, no I don't believe you.

If it were not for science and scientists my old friend, you would still be swinging in the trees.

Best of luck with your dreams.

 

Thanks for reading.

Paul. G

 

No probs...I have had a rough day and needed a good belly laugh.

No both matter and antimatter is limitted to the speed limit. Which is also the limit of all information exchange.

 

The only difference between the two is charge. They are opposite. Other than that what applies to matter also applies to antimatter.

Bingo! I would hazard a guess though, that if we, and the normal stuff around us, were made of anti matter, we would be calling that anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter....if you know what I mean.

 

The Dark matter is by no means settled https://phys.org/news/2017-06-ditch-dark-energy-relativity.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

 

 

 

There are other recent theories that don't need dark matter also. Science is not a religion as taught by fanatics in the same way religion is. Gravity is still not fully understood.

 

What is deemed scientific fact is only good until observations disagree, then new theories come forward. fudge factors are there to maintain beliefs in a theory that may not be 100% accurate..

 

I have never insinuated that DM is totally settled or certain....what I did say is that "but just as certainly much evidence since then supports that concept, not the least being,,,,

http://chandra.harva...ess_082106.html"

And that goes for all scientific theories. But let me add, that as current incumbent scientific theories stand the test of time, continue making valid predictions, and continue making observations, then they do and will grow in certainty over time...all within their zones of applicability of course...With one exception of course...The theory of evolution of life is as certain as any theory could hope to be.

 

I think a lot of scientific fantasies come out of religious belief, such as the world must be flat, a beginning and end of time, a finite universe, time travel, predicting the future etc etc.

That is a weird assumption at best. Science does not deal in fantasies...it deals in observational and experimental data and constructs models to align with that data. DM was for all intents and purposes, a speculative fudge factor when first proposed. The matter was then further investigated as no other explanation was evident. It is now well supported although just as per other scientific theories, not 100% certain, and open for modification, based on further observations and experiments.

Again, the apparent paranormal and/or supposed supernatural events, or apparent UFO sightings, that science at this time cannot explain, simply remain as unexplained. It's only gullible and impressionable individuals that immediatley jump to conclusions that it is a ghost, or that it was divine intervention, or that Aliens did it.

I believe it was Carl Sagan that said "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"

 

Side note: We really should have more well-documented topics like yours where we discuss a certain paper or a study and not like 90% of the threads where people are trying to disprove and explain to the poster why his speculation is incorrect.

I totally agree...what do the mods think?

 

I am guessing Beecee that was from Carl Sagan or someone of that ilk "Remember man that thou art star dust, and unto star dust thou shalt return. :-p"

When I was a young bloke around 8 years old, and being Catholic, we received the sacrament of confirmation, and in doing so, the priest reminds us that "remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return"

Carl from memory said something along the lines of "we are all star stuff"or we are all born in the belly of stars.

I was being rather facetious combining both.

Although at this stage of my life, I would guess that the pope has excommunicated me

The general consensus so far is fairly consistent, when you are dead you are dead.

That's what the scientific evidence points to anyway.

 

Ref the paranormal. Can science definitely rule it out, would it be considered arrogant for scientists that haven't investigated the paranormal to rule it out, without giving it much thought.

Paranormal and supernatural aspects I'm sure have been scientifically investigated over the years and just as certainly, there is no scientific evidence that the paranormal or supernatural exists.

Although again certainly there are instances of unexplained phenomena that so far science has not been able to explain...but that does not mean it is then supernatural or paranormal...it is simply unexplained.

Has anyone experimented with Ouija boards or know anyone that has. I haven't, but had some friends who claim that it scared the S??T out if them and they wont do it again. Could it all have been in their imagination. Does anyone fancy getting some friends together and giving it a whirl

I'm not sure, but I do know how impressionable and gullible some people can be. eg: A certain small percentage of UFO's remain as unexplained by scientific means.....but simply being unexplained does not mean they are Alien visitations.

 

The graviton has not been detected, could a ghost perhaps with a zero spin tensor field be detected ?

 

Can dark matter be detected, does anyone even know it exists for sure?. Could main stream science have got something wrong ref claims about dark matter and could the current consensus on this thread be wrong about an afterlife in anyway. ?

The graviton is simply a hypothetical entity with as yet no evidence...the logic of the hypothesis being that since the other three forces can be quantized, why not gravity?

DM was certainly a "fudge factor" when first hypothesised, but just as certainly much evidence since then supports that concept, not the least being,,,,

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html

 

Do any religious people have a take on the views given on the thread.?

I dare say they would, but it would be unscientific at best.

https://futurism.com/proof-that-the-universe-could-have-come-from-nothing/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing:

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

In summary, we have presented a mathematical proof that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing. When a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially if the ordering factor takes the value p = −2 (or 4). In this way, the early universe appears irreversibly. We have shown that it is the quantum potential that provides the power for the exponential expansion of the bubble. Thus, we can conclude that the birth of the early universe is completely determined by quantum mechanism. One may ask the question when and how space, time and matter appear in the early universe from nothing. With the exponential expansion of the bubble, it is doubtless that space and time will emerge. Due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, there should be virtual particle pairs created by quantum fluctuations. Generally speaking, a virtual particle pair will annihilate soon after its birth. But, two virtual particles from a pair can be separated immediately before annihilation due to the exponential expansion of the bubble. Therefore, there would be a large amount of real particles created as vacuum bubble expands exponentially. A rigorous mathematical calculation for the rate of particle creation with the exponential expansion of the bubble will be studied in our future work

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I see three important questions emanating from the above paper........

[1] Does/can nothing ever really exist?

[2] What do we define as nothing.

[3] Can anything really arise from nothing as suggested in the paper?

I can only answer the third with a resounding yes...and I really see that as obvious with regards to my definition of nothing..

The secret rests with the terminology used in the article/paper..."quantum potential".

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-team-astronauts-space.html

Scientists at The Australian National University (ANU) have designed a new nano material that can reflect or transmit light on demand with temperature control, opening the door to technology that protects astronauts in space from harmful radiation.

Lead researcher Dr Mohsen Rahmani from ANU said the material was so thin that hundreds of layers could fit on the tip of a needle and could be applied to any surface, including spacesuits.

"Our invention has a lot of potential applications, such as protecting astronauts or satellites with an ultra-thin film that can be adjusted to reflect various dangerous ultraviolet or infrared radiation in different environments," said Dr Rahmani, an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Early Career Research Fellow at the Nonlinear Physics Centre within the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-team-astronauts-space.html#jCp

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201700580/abstract;jsessionid=0494FE417FB4F8C8655256F0E3F1F72D.f02t03?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+%27Journal+Subscribe+%2F+Renew%27+page+will+be+down+on+Wednesday+05th+July+starting+at+08.00+EDT+%2F+13.00+BST+%2F+17.30+IST+for+up+to+75+minutes+due+to+essential+maintenance.

Reversible Thermal Tuning of All-Dielectric Metasurfaces

Abstract

All-dielectric metasurfaces provide a powerful platform for a new generation of flat optical devices, in particular, for applications in telecommunication systems, due to their low losses and high transparency in the infrared. However, active and reversible tuning of such metasurfaces remains a challenge. This study experimentally demonstrates and theoretically justifies a novel scenario of the dynamical reversible tuning of all-dielectric metasurfaces based on the temperature-dependent change of the refractive index of silicon. How to design an all-dielectric metasurface with sharp resonances by achieving interference between magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole modes of constituted nanoparticles arranged in a 2D lattice is shown. Thermal tuning of these resonances can cause drastic but reciprocal changes in the directional scattering of the metasurface in a spectral window of 75 nm. This change can result in a 50-fold enhancement of the radiation directionality. This type of reversible tuning can play a significant role in novel flat optical devices including the metalenses and metaholograms.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

One of the biggest problems in putting Humans on Mars [or elsewhere] is radiation.

Is this and the continued experiments and investigations into nanotechnology the answer?

I hope so. I would dearly love us to set foot on Mars before I kick the bucket!

Any other opinions?

It's pretty hard to argue with that considering that:

 

The most common elements in the Milky Way Galaxy estimated spectroscopically:

 

Hydrogen

 

Helium

 

Oxygen

 

Carbon

 

The most common elements in the Human body:

 

Oxygen

 

Carbon

 

Hydrogen

 

---------------------------------

 

The very early universe wasn't even hospitable for light.

Thank you for the paper. Like many astronomers have quoted, considering that the elements that make life are so commonly found in the Universe, other life is inevitable.

 

I also have a non-data based speculation that the first living cell that all present life originated from was not the first living cell that formed on earth. Maybe there were other cells that did not survive as successfully.

I couldn't agree more with what you have said.

Certainly this paper and its findings add more certainty that life elsewhere is inevitable.

I like your last paragraph...Panspermia correct? Something that I also find as more likely then not. All I could add is the possibility that Abiogenesis may have started many times in many places.

Thanks for your comments on a subject I find awesomely interesting.

 

Where this comes into LIGO is the fact that in order to sense a GW, space has to contract or expand a thousandth the width of a proton. This is pretty darn close to zero distance. Much tinier than any slice we are able to make.

Pretty damn close but not quite zero, which attests to the incredible precision of our instrument/s.

Same sort of accuracy and precision was necessary with the GP-B experiment.

The way I see it is that if spacetime can warp, twist and curve in the presence of mass, then why not wave?