It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gravity Waves....new announcement imminent....

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

They may go through you at the speed of light, but their wavelengths are so long that the change in amplitude must be slow over time - I wonder how long a time; I forget the exact wavelengths we're talking for these waves, or the maths to process it...

What are the wavelengths of GWaves and how long would they take to pass through us at the speed that they go?




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: f4andHALFtoads
a reply to: mbkennel

They may go through you at the speed of light, but their wavelengths are so long that the change in amplitude must be slow over time - I wonder how long a time; I forget the exact wavelengths we're talking for these waves, or the maths to process it...

What are the wavelengths of GWaves and how long would they take to pass through us at the speed that they go?


The expected spectrum of astronomical gravitational waves:

www.tapir.caltech.edu...

Able to be detected by Advanced LIGO they expect some neutron star signals with wavelengths of 10^6 m, or 1000 kilometers.

That would take about 3 milliseconds for one cycle at speed c.


edit on 10-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
they were prolly detected from 2009.
a reply to: bandersnatch



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Thanks..

your source says: "ranging from a few kilometres, up to the size of the universe." But you quote 1000km..

If the gravitational wavelength was the size of the universe, would that mean that the whole universe blinks into and out of existence over a full cycle..?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
You know, now i come to think about it, some days it does feel like a giant gravitational wave is passing through.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I coudnt tell my house is a boat.....
Gravity waves are a little too esoteric to get ruffled over....



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: bandersnatch

a little bit too... abstract, like all other concepts in physics.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire


and this will give us what? more questions and less understanding?

According to Sir Martin Rees,


these results will deepen our understanding of stars and galaxies. Astronomical evidence on black holes and massive stars are limited — it was hard to predict how many would be within range.

Pessimists thought that the events might be so rare that even the new and improved LIGO wouldn’t detect anything, at least for a year or two. But unless the experimenters have had exceptional “beginners’ luck” it looks as though a new kind of astronomy has opened up, revealing the dynamics of space itself, rather than the material that pervades it.

Also, when we monkeys learn about something, it usually isn’t very long before we find ways to manipulate it to our own advantage. Maybe studying gravity waves will lead, one day, to the development of ways to escape gravity altogether. Who knows?


let's first try to find the answers to more fundamental problems in physics.

The fundamental problem in physics is the irreconcilability of its two best theories, quantum mechanics and relativity. Just knowing for sure that gravity waves exist would help us get a better grip on that problem.


What a coincidence it's been 100 years...

Actually, it’s a few months late. The centenary of the publication Einstein’s gravitational field equations of general relativity was 25 November last year.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
So are they measuring gravity directly or its effects?

We know strong gravity such as associated with black holes is so powerful it bends light, the collision of two black holes in the closing stages bends light around the event that can be seen, showing the effects of the super gravity in a super colliding display.

But they have yet to actually detect the waves of gravity, adding their "wave of particles" or spectra to the EMS.

Sound, air, water, radio waves, light, all 'waves of particles' emitting from a source. Gravity is an attractor, it pulls. Something about this isn't connecting in my head.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax
does quantum mechanics really make sense?
Some other questions,

how to unify different forces and particles?
what sets the masses of particles?
what is dark matter en dark energy?

But yes let's first find a way to unify the quantum theory and gravity



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


So are they measuring gravity directly or its effects

Every force is measured in terms of its effects. What other kind of measurement did you have in mind?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire


does quantum mechanics really make sense?

The science of quantum mechanics makes perfect sense. It accurately predicts how objects will behave under the action of different forces, which is one of the basic aims of physics. The behaviour of objects in the real world sometimes does not ‘make sense’ in the way we conventionally expect it to, but that is not the fault of quantum mechanics. Blame nature.


how to unify different forces and particles?

In the usual way. Forces are carried by particles: electromagnetic force by photons, gravity by gravitons, etc. Quantum mechanics gives a very clear picture of this dual reality.


what sets the masses of particles?

I haven’t the faintest idea. The Higgs field confers mass on particles, but no-one knows why particles have different masses.


t isn't known why certain particles, such as the extremely corpulent top quark, are thousands of times more encumbered by the Higgs field than are lightweight particles, such as electrons and neutrinos. "Theorists have been searching for some way to actually predict [particle] masses from first principles. No convincing theory has yet emerged," said John Gunion, author of "The Higgs Hunter's Guide" (Basic Books, 1990) Source


what is dark matter en dark energy?

Two completely different things. There are any number of simple explanations on the internet. Here’s one.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Particles…

Sound and water molecules, the atoms that comprise them, photons, etc, are all measurable, they have yet to detect a 'graviton'. Or even a gravity wave.

Of course we know gravity exists. Unlike all other particles, waves or waves of particles though, gravity is attractive. More 'like' magnetic fields.

They can't isolate magnetons either, other than to postulate its a moment of electron behavior… whatever that means.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

The science of quantum mechanics makes perfect sense. It accurately predicts how objects will behave under the action of different forces, which is one of the basic aims of physics.

You conflate making sense with the ability of a theory to make accurate predictions. Quantum mechanics makes very little sense. As physicist Richard Feynman pointed out, no one understands quantum mechanics.

originally posted by: Astyanax
The behaviour of objects in the real world sometimes does not ‘make sense’ in the way we conventionally expect it to, but that is not the fault of quantum mechanics. Blame nature.

No. Blame human beings for inventing a theory of nature that does not make sense because it cannot explain except in abstract mathematical terms phenomena like quantum entanglement, instantaneous collapse of the wave packet when a measurement is made, the supposition principle, etc.

originally posted by: Astyanax
I haven’t the faintest idea. The Higgs field confers mass on particles, but no-one knows why particles have different masses.

Some physicists do. It is the result of symmetry breaking, firstly, of the symmetry group governing yet to be discovered forces between corresponding members of the three generations of hadrons and leptons, and, secondly, of the electro-weak symmetry group U(1)xSU(2) govering the electromagnetic and weak forces.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
This is breaking news in my country. Finally something that is not about war and destruction! Could someone please, in plain English, explain what they're talking about and why this is such a great discovery? Thanks in advance. Ps. I'll star every post till my thumb gets sore.
edit on 11-2-2016 by ErrorErrorError because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: bandersnatch

Aren't gravity waves and gravitational waves to different things??



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

If QM makes sense to you, you must be the smartest person in the universe.
To me it's like looking at the work of Jackson Pollock, it makes no sense.
Quantum mechanics are just abstractions and concepts, it has very little to do with real physics.


By saying forces are carried by particles, you mean that magnetic lines are real and particles are travelling through a field? (another term that no-one can explain, what's a field)

I have heard of some descriptions they give to dark energy and dark matter but again those are no explanations just theoretical concepts.


The discovery of G-waves could also be interpreted as proof of the existence of aether.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: bandersnatch

Aren't gravity waves and gravitational waves to different things??
Touche'



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi


You conflate making sense with the ability of a theory to make accurate predictions. Quantum mechanics makes very little sense. As physicist Richard Feynman pointed out, no one understands quantum mechanics.

Yes, I am conflating them, because I regard them as the same thing. The ability of a theory to make accurate predictions depends on there being a logical relationship between the elements of the theory, and a logically demonstrable causality implied in it. This logic is usually expressed in the language of mathematics, which makes sense to those who understand it. Thus, the ability to make accurate predictions implies that a theory makes sense — even if the sense it makes defies the perceptions of our — ahem — senses.


Some physicists do.

Interesting. Got a link?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire


If QM makes sense to you, you must be the smartest person in the universe.

No, I’m pretty dumb. But see above.


By saying forces are carried by particles, you mean that magnetic lines are real and particles are travelling through a field? (another term that no-one can explain, what's a field)

The following external quote is from Wikipedia. It is short and pretty easy to understand.

If you follow the link to the page itself, you will find further embedded links that explain most of the technical terms. I’ll save you some trouble: ‘Standard Model’ means pretty much what you think it means, and you don’t really need to know what ‘quantum field theories’ are; you can save that for the next step. There’s a link to ‘fields’, though, which you may find helpful. The first sentence on that page basically captures the concept.


In particle physics, quantum field theories such as the Standard Model describe nature in terms of fields. Each field has a complementary description as the set of particles of a particular type. A force between two particles can be described either as the action of a force field generated by one particle on the other, or in terms of the exchange of virtual force carrier particles between them.

The energy of a wave in a field (for example, electromagnetic waves in the electromagnetic field) is quantized, and the quantum excitations of the field can be interpreted as particles. The Standard Model contains the following particles, each of which is an excitation of a particular field:
  • Gluons, excitations of the strong gauge field.

  • Photons, W bosons, and Z bosons, excitations of the electroweak gauge fields.

  • Higgs bosons, excitations of one component of the Higgs field, which gives mass to fundamental particles.

  • Several types of fermions, described as excitations of fermionic fields.

  • In addition, composite particles such as mesons can be described as excitations of an effective field.

    Gravity is not a part of the Standard Model, but it is thought that there may be particles called gravitons which are the excitations of gravitational waves. The status of this particle is still tentative, because the theory is incomplete and because the interactions of single gravitons may be too weak to be detected. Link


The discovery of G-waves could also be interpreted as proof of the existence of aether.

How so? Your own words, please, not a link. Or at least quote the relevant material here, as I have done.




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join