Physics Discussion Thread

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
member_29325
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby member_29325 » 18 Feb 2016 06:23

yayavar wrote:What was the reasoning behind 'artificial signals'? the above write-up says to keep scientists 'on their toes'. That seems odd. Is it a common practice to insert false-positives to see if the fellow scientists are paying attention?


The device was built because they knew the kind of results they could expect from the two LIGOs -- in this case, the same signal seen in LIGO1 will be seen some x microseconds in LIGO2. So they inject such signals in a single-blinded manner (the people seeing the squiggles do not know when it will be generated, but the people generating the signal know it is false), and people watching the squiggles detect these fake signals separated from the noise. The device was built such that the interference of the beams in the two arms would cause such a squiggle if it encountered a gravity wave, so when the event happened, the earlier fake tests ensured all the kinks in the system were worked out, and a real event was detected. Seems like the thing to do if you are going to stake the career of a 1000 scientists in the physics community with the results of a device designed for detecting Gravity waves.

This is sort of like simulated testing of devices under artificial conditions to make sure things are calibrated right and good enough to detect the real event. It is an engineering implementation detail, but then again it also opens the door for skepticism about the results, in the lack of secondary devices that would have also recorded the same squiggles somewhere else on the planet, and the existence of a mechanism to fake results. But the success of this experiment means, someone else will build another LIGO soon enough and the next time both sites will see these events separated by expected time lags (which are themselves hard to engineer correctly given that clocks cannot be synchronized beyond a certain accuracy when they are geographically separated). But results from two completely different systems that match cannot be faked, especially when these sites are controlled by different groups of people.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby UlanBatori » 18 Feb 2016 06:36

If they set up two huge mirrors (ultralight etc) in Space they should be able to get more separation for deflected light beams, hain? I don't know how to find two orbits that are that stable, but if the GW zips by so fast, that sort of blip is unlikely from other sources, so it may be easier to do this in Space. Sounds like a perfect boondoggle for POTUS Trump?

The other problem with this reported event is that there is no way to check. Since this is from a BH, there is no other observable. That's again a bit too convenient. I've never heard of a BH just going around with nothing surrounding it, no galaxies, no streamers, no gas cloud. Any of those would be visible in some other part of the spectrum. So what are the chances of TWO unobservables present in the same place? Pls see my objection before: 1.5B yrs ago, was only 2.5B years since Big Bang. What's the probability of TWO BHs gorged with billions of galaxies, being present, and already moving near speed of light, at that time? With NOTHING left around each of them?

All of these combined make for too many coincidences, when added to the fact that it was like the LAST DAY that the 3rd LIGO was out of commission. And as James Bond says, coincidences are not good things to believe in.

member_29228
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 65
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby member_29228 » 18 Feb 2016 08:51

I've never heard of a BH just going around with nothing surrounding it, no galaxies, no streamers, no gas cloud. Any of those would be visible in some other part of the spectrum. So what are the chances of TWO unobservables present in the same place? Pls see my objection before: 1.5B yrs ago, was only 2.5B years since Big Bang. What's the probability of TWO BHs gorged with billions of galaxies, being present, and already moving near speed of light, at that time? With NOTHING left around each of them?



That's a trick(y) question

How much of dirt is there in a hole that is 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot ?

More here
http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-black-hole-doe ... 1632301013
Last edited by member_29228 on 18 Feb 2016 09:13, edited 1 time in total.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby TSJones » 18 Feb 2016 08:56

UlanBatori wrote:If they set up two huge mirrors (ultralight etc) in Space they should be able to get more separation for deflected light beams, hain? I don't know how to find two orbits that are that stable, but if the GW zips by so fast, that sort of blip is unlikely from other sources, so it may be easier to do this in Space. Sounds like a perfect boondoggle for POTUS Trump?

The other problem with this reported event is that there is no way to check. Since this is from a BH, there is no other observable. That's again a bit too convenient. I've never heard of a BH just going around with nothing surrounding it, no galaxies, no streamers, no gas cloud. Any of those would be visible in some other part of the spectrum. So what are the chances of TWO unobservables present in the same place? Pls see my objection before: 1.5B yrs ago, was only 2.5B years since Big Bang. What's the probability of TWO BHs gorged with billions of galaxies, being present, and already moving near speed of light, at that time? With NOTHING left around each of them?

All of these combined make for too many coincidences, when added to the fact that it was like the LAST DAY that the 3rd LIGO was out of commission. And as James Bond says, coincidences are not good things to believe in.


hate to fact check Mongol but Big Bang was almost 14 billion years ago......how astronomers come up with this age I do not know but that's what they say.....it's their science I only live in it. :(

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10417
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Vayutuvan » 18 Feb 2016 09:16

TSJ: the math for the model is in your brain and hence the science universe lives in your brain only.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby TSJones » 18 Feb 2016 09:23

unfortunately......my brain not big enough....... :(

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4775
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Yayavar » 18 Feb 2016 11:08

ThiruV wrote:
yayavar wrote:What was the reasoning behind 'artificial signals'? the above write-up says to keep scientists 'on their toes'. That seems odd. Is it a common practice to insert false-positives to see if the fellow scientists are paying attention?


The device was built because they knew the kind of results they could expect from the two LIGOs -- in this case, the same signal seen in LIGO1 will be seen some x microseconds in LIGO2. So they inject such signals in a single-blinded manner (the people seeing the squiggles do not know when it will be generated, but the people generating the signal know it is false), and people watching the squiggles detect these fake signals separated from the noise. The device was built such that the interference of the beams in the two arms would cause such a squiggle if it encountered a gravity wave, so when the event happened, the earlier fake tests ensured all the kinks in the system were worked out, and a real event was detected. Seems like the thing to do if you are going to stake the career of a 1000 scientists in the physics community with the results of a device designed for detecting Gravity waves.

This is sort of like simulated testing of devices under artificial conditions to make sure things are calibrated right and good enough to detect the real event. It is an engineering implementation detail, but then again it also opens the door for skepticism about the results, in the lack of secondary devices that would have also recorded the same squiggles somewhere else on the planet, and the existence of a mechanism to fake results. But the success of this experiment means, someone else will build another LIGO soon enough and the next time both sites will see these events separated by expected time lags (which are themselves hard to engineer correctly given that clocks cannot be synchronized beyond a certain accuracy when they are geographically separated). But results from two completely different systems that match cannot be faked, especially when these sites are controlled by different groups of people.


Testing is certainly to be expected. I was puzzled by revealing that it was all false when papers were to be published on the said signal. That seems like going to some extreme length...

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Amber G. » 18 Feb 2016 13:24

A_Gupta wrote:FYI, the existence of gravitational waves is not really in doubt.
1993 Nobel Prize in Physics:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... dread.html
<snip>

Yes. I think i have mentioned this before in this dhaga. Gravitaional waves have been detected indirectly. Really no one really doubted the Gravitational waves. Energy loss in gravitational waves fits nicely with decaying (calculated) of the orbit.

Actually I mentioned here that this is true of our sun-earth system too. But power loss due to gravitational wave (about 200 Watt) as compared to total gravitational energy of the system (about 10^36 J) is so small that the orbit decay is not measurable. (even over the age of universe the decay will be all but negligible. With pulsar (above example) this is faster... faster still for blackholes.

But still the part which makes it historic, is that this is the first direct detection of gravitational waves.
.. (And no, it is NOT circular logic, despite what some keep shouting).. the critical part is that math fits.

Similarly, There was really not much doubt about existence of black holes. Again the proof is some what indirect. ..And again it was by seeing the proper motion of near by starts near a (massive) black hole. Even though one was not able to see (to see one has to use EM waves) any black hole directly ..

This is why we say this is the FIRST DIRECT evidence of a black hole.

I know UBji and JohneeG will keep posting long posts about circular fake logic but this is very strong evidence. MATH has to right so every thing fits right and that is very significant.

Hope this helps.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7033
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby JE Menon » 18 Feb 2016 14:09

People, let's not get personal... Thread is good and live. Let's keep it that way.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Amber G. » 18 Feb 2016 14:57

*** I am answering/commenting on some points as a physicist with the hope that there are a few people who will find it helpful. I hope that this is not "भैंस के आगे बीन बजाना." :)


UlanBatori wrote:Hey, I have the GREATEST respect for the integrity of hard-working, underpaid, underappreciated graduate students. Used 2 b one myself at one time.


I too used to be one (ie a graduate student), perhaps 10-15 years before your era (mid-late 60's)..but I still am familiar with that kind of academic world as my sons too were those underpaid graduate students once. (think how fast time passes even for my sons .. the last PhD was many years ago)

But as for uber-ambitious faculty types at universities... let us just say that they give serpents and idiots a bad name. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is beneath them. And **THERE**, sadly, I have too much hard experience and no doubts at all.


I do feel sorry for you, IF, as you say, you are surrounded by such a faculty. May be it is a little different in Physics.. most of the ambitious types, if they already did not go into Engineering, get to hedge fund and things like that, those who remain are generally nice. And I am sure I know more about the academic world, and if you count years, probably more experience too, than you think I do ).

But FWIW, honestly I am extremely disappointed in many of the posts, as the posts have noting to do with topic at hand. I have seen in humanities such professors, who will mock others just to win a debating point, have no interest in learning. I have seen very few in STEM field.

Healthy skepticism, asking questions, genuine desire to learn and teach others is one thing, but endless mocking, showing condescending tone and more than anything ABSOLUTLEY crackpot conspiracy theories are coming from you and JohneeG's posts.

So AmberG, sorry, but I mean what I said about certain entities having learned nothing from the cold fusion case.
I say, look carefully at the finances of the LIGO project, and projections for further funding b4 you go too far awarding Nobel Prizes etc etc.

Ok, so you meant what you said but how does that translates into "[...] having learned nothing from cold fusion?"... The calculations about black holes and resulting gravitational waves satisfies me. (In fact I have checked some of those as I am a skeptic - actually this is not even that hard a calculation).

I DONT have any desire to look at the finances. The science part is exciting, looks accurate, I might check some of the calculations.

As to more events.. I dare say we will know soon.. very soon. I believe there will be more confirmation of the some events.. but what is more, if there is any doubt or hoax it will be exposed right away as soon as we a super nova or anything else confirmed by EM waves and not matched. ny One thing they can't do is they can't fake any data.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Amber G. » 18 Feb 2016 15:04

vayu tuvan wrote:johneeG: This is just ridiculous. What exactly would the Physics community gain by doctoring data? You realize that you are leveling a very serious charge against the whole STEM community - not just Physics people only. That kind of skepticism is not in the domain sciences, not even in the domain of analytic philosophy or otherwise.

Yep. Agree. 26/11 (or 9/11) is flag operation done by RAW/CIA just to blame Pakistan, looks kind of lame compared to the above CT...

Or may be some one here convinced Einstein to write his GR in certain way, then convinced LIGO builder's and 1004 authors to fake data to match the theory just to... :rotfl:

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Amber G. » 18 Feb 2016 15:09

TSJones wrote:[

hate to fact check Mongol but Big Bang was almost 14 billion years ago......how astronomers come up with this age I do not know but that's what they say.....it's their science I only live in it. :(


TSJ, FWIW from my last count there are at least 17 MAJOR errors in those posts, but I have stopped counting.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Amber G. » 18 Feb 2016 15:25

A_Gupta wrote:
Amber G. wrote:
I remember the event very well so let me tell a personal story which may give some perspective..
When the discovery was "announced", not through a paper, but via a press conference by university's (Utah U) big shots, I tired to read the original paper, but it was not out.


The Caltech nuclear physicists were asking immediately, where are the neutrons, where are the neutrons? -- which fusion ought to have produced.

Yes, I remember the event quite well, I talked with a famous prof , who when he heard the announcement, gave the benefit to the Utah guys and said some thing like "well this sounds hard to believe but since they observed it, it must be possible some how", But just like me, he said, his thinking changed the second he read the paper. The paper was that sloppily written.
Last edited by Amber G. on 18 Feb 2016 15:53, edited 1 time in total.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Amber G. » 18 Feb 2016 15:50

ThiruV wrote:
It's been over a year and that hasn't yet wiped us out, so what happened? They broke up and flew apart?

The two black holes combined and formed a larger black hole...being safely a few million light years away, we could only hear the Death-metal-vocals type of disturbance here...thankfully. Good question -- that implies either even stars produce weak waves (unlikely given the amount of mass turned to gravitational energy) or the gravity waves weaken over distance for some reason. Not explained in the pop sci material on this topic, and the original paper is TLO;DR.


First, please do not call them "Gravity waves".. Gravity waves are quite different.

If you are far away, gravitational waves weaken just like EM waves (inversely square of the distance)..LIGO measures amplitude so that part weakens inversely as distance. So if that event was say only 1 light year away, the amplitude of LIGO mirror movement be something like pico meter. Still quite small. A person standing on earth may shrink/expand less than a atom -- but still that will be not be noticeable.


Gravitational wave perse will not do much harm.

Of course, such massive black holes, even at a light year away, disrupt the oort cloud and the gravitational effect will be quite catastrophic for earth. :!:

And as I said before stars (binary revolving) will produce gravitational waves but they are way too week to be measured by LIGO type instruments.

Hope this helps.

Screambowl
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 96
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Screambowl » 18 Feb 2016 16:10

Actually the space itself is like sheet of elastic which at times shrinks or stretches because of the dark energy(as per the hypothesis). But due to massive objects the sheet gets disturbed too. hence it creates ripples like in water which are gravitational waves.

When there is a fold the distance between the atoms of a matter is shrieked hence the body shrinks. But this has no affect on light.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby UlanBatori » 18 Feb 2016 16:44

hence it creates ripples like in water which are gravitational waves.

Thank you. I observed one when I dropped a spoon into the coffee cup. Where do I publish this? Can we please have a sign-up sheet with 1002 spaces for co-authors to "verify" the calculations above?

In fact I do agree that there is much more similarity between "gravity waves" as seen on water, and "gravitATIONAL waves" (Gee-Dubya) as simulated by a MatLab Wavelet and inserted into a LEGO computer network at 2AM when the next funding decision for the worst boondoggle in the NSF budget comes up.

The "sheet" in this case is a volume. More like a rubber ball that is kicked hard, or has a bullet going through it.

TSJi, thanks, but the stretch from 4B to 14B is only a 1 in the front. It occurred since I was in kindergarten, because of space-time stretching. Like the NSF boondoggle budget (and now the NaMo Me 2 budget and the dollar-to-rupee conversion) space-time also keeps on expanding and stretching with several black holes. Look how much the Federal budget for unit cost of a fighter plane has expanded in the same time since, say, you were in kindergarten.

Maybe it's the Sun that is 4B years old. OK, but consider that it has sat around for 4B years and shows no sign of turning into a Red Giant or a Brown Dwarf, let alone a White Dwarf. And our Galaxy has been spinning around for even longer?? without all disappearing into the (presumed) BH at its center. So again, how probable is it that one finds TWO BHs that have **NOTHING** around them to glow when they undergo such a cataclysm?

Like pissicks post-doc Galileo, let me also publish retractions to keep from being boiled by the Nice Physics Establishment: :shock: :eek:

1. As I mentioned, I have no doubt that Black Holes exist - there's one right in the center of our galaxy after all, why else does the galaxy spin like they show in all the NASA pictures? (Oh, wait!! Given that the farthest-venturing anthropogenic artifice (c how ah kin use dem big words?) is that spacecraft that just left the Kuiper belt, out the leading shock wave, but is still in the plane of the solar system, Who done took a camera that high to photograph it, and how do they know it is a thin flat disc, not a ball cloud with ATM sitting in the center surrounded by Houris?)

2. As for Science Fraud, of course, it only happens in the Ulan Bator dung stables. Elsewhere science is totally clean.

3. And in the extremely rare cases where such suspicion may be warranted, it is all just personal vendetta.

4. In Physics all are nice and honest and never give prizes to other kinds.

5. NEVER!

6. No, I am not SURROUNDED by such ppl, it only takes ***ONE*** Black Hole to destroy a thousand galaxies. Maybe we have 2 or 3 dancing around each other, and nothing, absolutely nothing, escapes them. Even undergrads who venture into their labs are forced to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements so that no information escapes on the goings-on within. All evidence has to be from the waves generated by the :rotfl: .


deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3933
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby deejay » 18 Feb 2016 17:29


UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby UlanBatori » 18 Feb 2016 17:37

Every day is a Physicist day. "Day" is of course a relative concept.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2016 18:12

related to "every night a black-hole day"?

link is naat kaaming!

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby TSJones » 18 Feb 2016 18:54

I'll say this, Shon is a very good example of not to falsify your results to the world.

Not only did he leave America under derision but when he went back to Germany, he got his butt severely kicked. they took his phd away from him IIRC.

what a personal nightmare! you would have to be crazier than a peach orchard boar to risk everything like that....... :-o

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby johneeG » 18 Feb 2016 19:48

yayavar wrote:Testing is certainly to be expected. I was puzzled by revealing that it was all false when papers were to be published on the said signal. That seems like going to some extreme length...


Saar,
they were actually putting the careers of all these analysts in danger by allowing them to write papers and publications on faked signals. And the most curious part is that they called it a success when obviously it was a failure. I mean, they said that the false signals are inject to see if the analysts can catch it and to keep them on their toes. Now, the analysts obviously failed to catch it in 2010 and actually believed them to be true. Yet, they call it a successful event.

So far, I have not made any allegation or proposed any theory. Strictly speaking, I haven't even doubted anything so far. I just point out some simple facts related to this episode. That seems to have to have caused hysterical reactions from some. Such abuses, allegations, over-the-top reactions...etc are pretty common way to deflect when one is not able to actually counter the points. It actually just exposes the bankruptcy of their own position.

----
Anyway, enough with abuses and counter-abuses and lets concentrate on the actual science:

It seems the whole thing started with Relativity theory of Einstein in 1915. Einstein became a celebrity with this theory. Around the same time, Bohr came up with an Atomic model. Now, Heisenberg tried to solve some of the issues in Bohr's atomic model and he came up with theory of uncertainty in doing so. This was the birth of Quantum Mechanics in 1920s based on Atomic Model of Bohr along with Planck's constant.

It seems that Einstein only provided with approximate solutions to his Relativity equations. So, another german Karl Schwarzschild was trying to solve Relativity Field equations. And he did solve it and was appreciated by Einstein himself. But, it seems a niggle developed. It seems Schwarzschild solution showed that Relativity equations give an answer of infinite or 'undefined' (depending on how you define division by zero) in certain circumstances. That means it shows that space-time curvature become undefined or infinite in certain values of the Einstein Equation.

Now, there are 3 options to a problem like this:
a) say that Einstein made some mistake and his equations are wrong.
b) say that Einstein's equations don't hold in certain conditions even though they are right in other conditions.
c) say that Einstein's equation 'predict' a new kind of entity which is unknown until now.

To cut the story short, Oppenheimer(of the atom bomb fame) came up with the theory of Gravitational Collapse using the Einstein equations and Schwarzschild solutions. In short, Oppenheimer took the option (c) and 'predicted' until then unknown entity called 'Black Holes'. Now, what is a black hole and what is gravitational collapse? In simple terms, Black holes are basically points with infinite space-time curvature. Since, Einstein relativity says that gravity is a property of space, it means that Black holes have infinite gravity also. Oppenheimer used the Relativity theory and quantum mechanics to theorize that the gravity of a star keeps increasing to the extent that it becomes a black hole. There are various stages in this collapse according to him. The most noticeable point(on the basis of which this phenomenon is called black hole) is that all matter(including light) is pulled in by the black hole. Since nothing escapes from black hole, its a black hole. This is how the theory of black holes was born. And it seems to have caught the fascination of the people.

Now, the most interesting part is that the Einstein himself disagreed with both Quantum Mechanics and Black hole theory. He seems to have tried to stop both these theories. That means the only person who actually saw that perhaps his equations were wrong and tried to rectify them was Einstein himself.


Einstein Didn't Grok His Own Revolution
He thought black holes and quantum mechanics were too weird to be true.
By Tim Folger|Monday, March 10, 2008
RELATED TAGS: EINSTEIN, DARK MATTER, COSMOLOGY, STRING THEORY, LIGHT, MATH, SUBATOMIC PARTICLES
einsteinart
Illustration by Guy Crittenden

Albert Einstein—creator of relativity, godfather of quantum physics, bender of space and time—had a little problem that dogged him all his career: lack of vision.

It may seem an unlikely charge to levy against the greatest scientific visionary of modern times, but even Einstein had his limits. Despite the extraordinary intuitive leaps he made, he often found himself unable to see what lay beyond his basic insights. As a result, many of the most stunning ideas associated with the theory of relativity were developed not by Einstein but by other scientists interpreting his work. In quantum physics, too, Einstein set out the fundamental concepts but initially failed to recognize where they would lead. And in his final, grandest search for a theory that unified all of physics, he simply never moved far enough beyond the math and science he had learned during his student years.

More surprising, Einstein resisted the full implications of his work even after those implications were pointed out to him. Repeatedly he sought to undercut many of his colleagues’ interpretations or to explain them away because they seemed too absurd to be true. These rejections recall the words of Arthur Eddington, a brilliant British physicist and one of Einstein’s most tireless champions: “Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.” One of history’s most expansive minds was no match for the boundless oddity of nature.

Almost as soon as Einstein completed his 1905 paper introducing the special theory of relativity, he found his ideas taking on a life of their own. That paper spelled out how an observer’s motion through space affects his motion through time (to someone traveling at nearly the speed of light, time slows to a crawl), but it said nothing about treating time as a fourth dimension in a continuum of space-time. That concept, which today’s students learn as quintessential Einstein, was actually the work of German mathematician Hermann Minkowski. Einstein was at first nonplussed by Minkowski’s elaboration of his theory, shaking it off as “superfluous erudition.” Only years later did he recognize space-time as integral to special relativity and to the grander general theory of relativity that followed.

After Einstein published the definitive version of general relativity in 1916, he again found that his theory was full of oddities that he neither expected nor accepted. Just months later, Karl Schwarz­schild, a 42-year-old physicist serving in the German army during the First World War, successfully applied Einstein’s abstract equations of space and time to a realistic physical problem, modeling the geometry of space surrounding a star. His solution impressed Einstein. Yet Einstein expressed one deep concern: Schwarzschild’s calculations showed that if the mass of a star were compressed into a small enough volume, Einstein’s equations went haywire. Time froze; space became infinite. Physicists call that a singularity, a place where the normal laws of nature break down. Schwarzschild had stumbled onto the first clue that black holes might exist.

For years no one paid much attention to Schwarzschild’s discovery, but in 1939 Einstein attempted to disprove the annoying singularity. He argued that a star could not exist under the conditions described by Schwarzschild because the material within it would have to reach orbital velocities equaling the speed of light. But Einstein assumed that the star had to remain stable, whereas the universe is full of objects that explode or collapse violently. In that same year, J. Robert Oppenheimer—the physicist who would soon direct the Manhattan Project—and one of his students showed that highly massive stars could implode under their own gravity, getting denser and more extreme until their gravity trapped even light. That is exactly how astronomers now believe most black holes form.

Not long after Schwarzschild’s discovery came another, even more troubling prediction from general relativity. Like most scientists of the time, Einstein was convinced that the universe (stars included) was static and eternal. So it came as a shock when, in 1922, an obscure Russian physicist and meteorologist named Alexander Friedmann showed that Einstein’s masterpiece theory described a universe that should either collapse on itself or fly apart. Einstein initially rejected Friedmann’s analysis as “suspicious,” then reconsidered and judged that the results might be mathematically correct but physically irrelevant. To fix what appeared to be a flaw in general relativity, Einstein adjusted his equations, adding a factor he called the cosmological constant—a kind of antigravity force—so that the equations yielded an unchanging cosmos.

Not until nearly a decade later did Einstein acknowledge his error. In 1929 the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that all the galaxies appear to be hurtling away from one another at tremendous speeds. The universe was not static; it was expanding, just as general relativity had suggested. Two years later Einstein publicly denounced his cosmological constant. If he had trusted Fried­mann —if he had trusted his own theory—back in 1922, he might have predicted that the universe was expanding, and he wouldn’t have had to scramble to adjust his theory after Hubble’s discovery.

“Einstein was furious with himself,” says Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France. “He could have said, ‘My theory says this, so therefore I predict that the universe is expanding.’ But he didn’t have the courage to say that.”


Link

Actually, this article is not completely right because Einstein never actually accepted Black Hole or Quantum Mechanics as far as I know.

It seems that Einstein realized the whole problem started with his own equations and he seems to have thought that his equations had some mistake. So, he tried to rectify them in 1939. But, by this time, the Quantum Mechanics and Black Hole had already caught the imagination(literally) and even Einstein couldn't stop them.

Anyway, continuing the story further: so, basically at that point they believed that Black holes existed but can't be detected because Black holes absorb everything because they have infinite gravity. Its almost like saying that I believe Unicorns exist but I can't detect them. This is where Stephen Hawkings comes in around 1975. Stephen Hawkings basically tried to redefine Black Holes. He came up with the theory that some radiation does escape the Black Holes. Now, this actually goes against the very fundamental reason why black holes theory came to be. The whole reason the black hole theory had to come, was to account for the infinite or undefined space-time curvature(and thereby gravity) of black hole. If the black hole radiate something out, then they are not black holes at all.

Now, Hawkings views are established and the theory is that some radiation does escape the Black hole even though it has infinite space, time and gravity and that even light can't escape. Obviously, now, they want to detect this black hole. And now, they actually detected a collision of two black holes!

So, Black holes are infinite in space, time and gravity. Now, please apply some common sense: If a black hole is infinite in space and time and gravity, then how the hell is there going to be two black holes? Even one black hole is a big problem, and people are talking about two?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby UlanBatori » 18 Feb 2016 19:54

It actually just exposes the pakistaniyat...
:eek:
Well, johneeji, consider the case of yaks flying supersonic. The Linearized Potential Theory predicts that at Mach 1 (flight speed = speed of sound) the drag coefficient becomes infinite. The equation goes something like Cd = (constant)/SQRT(1-Mach^2) if subsonic, or (constant)/SQRT(Mach^2-1). Both supersonic and subsonic give the SAME limit, and the supersonic and subsonic equations are completely different types of 2nd order differential equations. PROOF, hain?

Consider that whatever little I have learned about Relatives etc, says Lorentz Transform is very similar to this. Replace M by L, as the ratio of speed to speed of light. Then mass = (rest mass)/SQRT(1-L^2).

Perhaps inside the Black hole there is an equation similar to supersonic potential equation, that predicts mass = high supersonic mass / SQRT(L^2-1).

Back in the good ol' days ppl thus hypothesized the SOUND BARRIER - at Mach 1, drag would shoot up so it would be like hitting a wall. Of course bullets zipped right through it, so we knew this could not be entirely true, but exactly HOW high would drag go? It was extremely difficult (still is) to predict the transonic drag peak - it actually occurs slightly away from Mach 1 depending on the yak shape and attitude.

Same way, Einstein's mass equation predicts that mass tends to infinity as L tends to 1.0. At the event horizon, mass REACHES infinity. Surely that cannot be right.

Are the equations WRONG? No, not really: they work amazingly well, away from Mach 1. People make wonderful MatLab models on what to expect when two yaks zip past each other at high speeds. And those are quite accurate. The Concorde flew. Tu-22s fly every thursday to turn nusrats into pakistan.

So here I think the issue is, Einstein's theory is in some way "linearized" or otherwise approximate, hence cannot predict what happens beyond, say, L = 0.99 or L=0.998. There IS no theory for "superoptic" so far, AFAIK.

So Black holes are quite possible. There is a finite limit to the gravity and the size of the matter inside. And so there can be many Black Holes without hitting infinity anywhere, it's just that we have little clue exactly how much is inside. There could be various combinations of the Event Horizon diameter and the total mass, depending on the precise shape of the matter inside, which may not be spherically symmetric.

SO!!! Let's consider this epochal event. The grad student bubbled that the detected signal was EXACTLY what he had predicted. For two BHs merging, mind you!

I ask: Why was it such an exact match? Have you solved the problem of predicting the finite limit to the mass and properties inside the BH, to have modeled it so accurately? Shouldn't there be unexpected shapes to the signal? And if not, is it not 99.9999% sure to be a bogus, computer-generated signal, or the sound of someone flushing the toilet in the ISS as it zipped over Louisiana and Nevada?

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby member_22733 » 18 Feb 2016 21:09

I think what Mongol ji is saying is that there is no secondary confirmation through direct or indirect means of the event that is said to have caused this gravitational wave.

If you observe Y, and a theory says an event that looks like X caused Y.

Now we know that the detection of Y has never happened before and needs complicated sensors with multiple points of failure, how can we be sure that:
1) Y is not a sensor/algorithmic error
2) X is REALLY the event that caused Y

I am not taking sides here, just trying to condense the arguments.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby johneeG » 18 Feb 2016 21:27

UB saar & Lokesh saar,

Hawking tried to redefine Black holes in similar fashion by saying that some radiation is emitted by the Black Holes. But, as far as I understand, a black hole by definition means
- infinite space.
- infinite time(eternal).
- infinite gravity.

It is either a choice between 'infinite' or 'undefinable' because it is divide by zero. If a black hole does not have infinite space, infinite time, and infinite gravity, then it is not a black hole. In short, its not possible to have one's cake and eat it too. If the black hole exists, then its infinite in size and eternal and attracts everything including light. Or Black Hole does not exist. You can't have a 'half-black hole'.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby member_22733 » 18 Feb 2016 21:45

johneeG,

A blackhole has no "surface", but for brevity lets assume the event horizon as the surface. Then the "surface" of the blackhole is where the current valid and accurate theory of general relativity breaks down. If we assume that the theory is true in the approximate sense on the "surface", then a point-like infalling observer never notices anything special when it crosses the surface. However for another observer trying to observe the infalling observer, it would seem like the infalling observer slows down in time and gets dimmer and redder until it merges with the blackness of the surface.

From the pov of an infalling observer. It will fall in, but as it does the outside time begins to pass faster, i.e. light appears blue-shifted. When it passes the event horizon, the universe would have completed trillions of years. That brings me to my own pet theory :) that the infalling observer never reaches the singularity, because by the time it does Hawking radiation would have scattered away the whole black hole.


EDIT: Just realized that since the infalling observer in free fall, it would not notice any blue shift.However a body orbiting a blackhole very close to the event horizon would (like the planet in Interstellar where 1hour inside is 7 years outside)..

One more madrassa realization: You have to be stationary on the "edge" of the blackhole to notice blue shift :) ANd did I mention: I am not a physicist

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby TSJones » 18 Feb 2016 22:41

just wanna state that a black hole space time has infinite *curvature". is that infinite space? just asking.

also, is an event horizon considered the actual singularity or is it just where nothing can escape the singularity? is there a difference?

inquiring minds want to know........ :D

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Amber G. » 18 Feb 2016 23:12

TSJones wrote:I'll say this, Shon is a very good example of not to falsify your results to the world.

Not only did he leave America under derision but when he went back to Germany, he got his butt severely kicked. they took his phd away from him IIRC.

what a personal nightmare! you would have to be crazier than a peach orchard boar to risk everything like that....... :-o


Yes, personally I feel sorry about him specially so many get away with much much bigger fraud. Besides I think it was incompetence rather than malice. The real clowns were the big-shots in Utah (University president and some local politicians) who thought this will bring them fame, glory and money. All they have to do is to let some peers check the pre-print BEFORE they start announcing to the world. (IN LIGO's case they waited for about 4 months and did rigorous checking/rechecking) Similarly the big shot clowns of Georgia-Tech who "also saw fusion"..but then Georgia's Emory etc are shame less, even to this day they publish Scholarly articles about science of religion.

I am also suppressed that the usual suspects keep repeating cold fusion, and did not bring up the Weber bar gravitational wave scandal.. perhaps they are becoming a little sloppy in their googling skills..... (Okay guys here your chance.. start "this is not the first time they fooled us with gravitational waves :(( :(( )

For those who do not know, some what similar to cold fusion fiasco, gravitational waves were "discovered" by " Webber bars " (In my younger days -1970's(? - will check and edit if wrong) -- an instrument VERY similar to present LIGO but with slightly different way to measure these waves. Yes some newspapers made the usual noise but very little excitement elsewhere. Within months the experiment was repeated and proven that it was a noise. What is more notable that serious physicists right away found mathematical inconsistency.. (If the even was as big as measured as claimed it did not make sense)..

Just checked just check out Physics Today letters on how not most did not fall for this " A series of letters was then exchanged in Physics Today. Garwin asserted that Weber's model was "insane, because the universe would convert all of its energy into gravitational radiation in 50 million years or so, if one were really detecting what Joe Weber was detecting." .. (The CRITICAL DIFFERENCE IS Garwin et all actually did CALCULATION unlike UB's incredibly mathematically incoherent ramblings)

TSJ and others, one can keep shouting "fraud".."cold fusion".."evil scientist CT" but if one looks at math it is not easy to fool all as UB and JohneeG's are suggesting.

Hope this helps.
Last edited by Amber G. on 18 Feb 2016 23:21, edited 1 time in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby UlanBatori » 18 Feb 2016 23:15

To my madarssa-indoctrinated yakdung-filled mind, a BH Event Horizon is exactly like the edge of a vortex core. Say the inner wall of the eye of a hurricane or tornado. Vortices in fluid dynamics have cores that are long tubes, because the mass has to go somewhere without a lot of compression or extension, so they go "Whoosh-gurgle-gurgle" EXACTLY like that sound track as the ISS flushed its pakistans over the Western USA at 1:53AM on that fateful night. In BH, the mass somehow disappears (infinite mass, zero volume - so infinity-squared density? :eek: )

Potential theory again predicts an infinite velocity and infinite velocity gradient (discontinuity) at the singularity where the vortex center is located. The finite-diameter core is a later refinement.

Definitely they don't know the real physics inside the BH event horizon. Merger of 2 blackholes is thus very much like merger of two vortices, except it is in 3-D and involves all these infinities.

To extend this analogy, it's like someone who knows nothing about supersonic aerodynamics capturing a sonic boom for the first time on their LEGO.

I captured it, two ground stations captured it with the right time separation. And it fit my model exactly - it was definitely what happens when TWO supersonic airplanes merged in midair


(translation: pls continue mega-funding my Sonic Boom Listening Station. )

AmberG, thx! Usual suspects were in a tearing hurry this morning, or would have found this Weber thing, I hope.
The story that I have cannot be placed here: I did part of it and deleted it. Just too isane to post that anywhere.
True that not everyone can be fooled all the time, but... where $$M or in this case $$B and hundreds or thousands of careers are involved, the old dictum holds:

Only the Kingdom of Heaven runs on Truth
All the kingdoms of the Earth run on money.

ppl just prefer to not see, not hear, not believe.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Amber G. » 18 Feb 2016 23:33

UlanBatori wrote:
AmberG, thx! Usual suspects were in a tearing hurry this morning, or would have found this Weber thing, I hope.
The story that I have cannot be placed here: I did part of it and deleted it. Just too isane to post that anywhere.
.


UB, you welcome. "tearing hurry" does explain it some what but I did wonder why the Weber thing did not turn up. After all it is known since 70's and quite notorious incident... what's more Webber fellow moved in the same circle as that Riess fellow.. amazing chance for guilt by association ityadi.. :) .. much much better than that palladium-cold-fusion-we-never-stir thingie.

Too bad that you say that story you have cannot be placed here..would have been fun. But well can't win them all.. I am visiting SV, land of Engineers so I guess I have to entertain by looking through Holo lens or go watch the google drone park as Pacific ocean is too cold (for me who do not know how to do it anyway) to surf on real gravity waves.

Cheers!

BTW have you read "Tuva or Bust".. I am sure you have but if not you will like it.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Amber G. » 19 Feb 2016 00:13

LokeshC wrote:I think what Mongol ji is saying is that there is no secondary confirmation through direct or indirect means of the event that is said to have caused this gravitational wave.

If you observe Y, and a theory says an event that looks like X caused Y.

Now we know that the detection of Y has never happened before and needs complicated sensors with multiple points of failure, how can we be sure that:
1) Y is not a sensor/algorithmic error
2) X is REALLY the event that caused Y

I am not taking sides here, just trying to condense the arguments.


Nice question. Please keep reading if interested in reading my perspective..:)

First : Mongol ji is just being Mongol ji :mrgreen: Creating fake signals by synchronized flushing at the time period just before NSF funding so one get funding type events(Y) causing X is not what they are looking for..

(Okay I can take humor, except the mathematical rambling is so atrocious in those posts so it is hard to even follow - and trust me, I have seen quite a few such rambling from students and scholars)

So let us leave that aside.

Also let us also agree on few points (which we accept without debate)..

- Einstein's theory about gravitational waves, and precise math which can predict the amplitude/frequency accurately. (One has found it consistent with all known experiments -for example decaying of orbits of binary neutron stars fits perfectly)

- The orbital mechanics of black- holes etc..(Again with precise math)

- General physics laws (laser measurements, theory(MATH) of interference etc etc..) and statistical methods of hypothesis confirmation. (What is the confidence level theory "X" is true given result "Y")

Given all this the present scientific thinking (in my humber opinion of course) is VERY high. They say the sigma is 5.1.. IOW that the probability that this is a "false positive" is like 1 event in 200,000 years..
(This is not just number taken out at random.. we can check many of these things.. there are 1000+ authors have their reputation/name behind the paper and people like Kim Throne of Caltech is not known for A series of letters was then exchanged in Physics Today. Garwin asserted that Weber's model was "insane, because the universe would convert all of its energy into gravitational radiation in 50 million years or so, if one were really detecting what Joe Weber was detecting." cold-fusion type things. Story is that this checking/rechecking/calculation has gone for 4 months and he did not even bragged about this to his wife till recently)..

Anyway the original article (I put a link to my copy in brf because every may not have an access to PRL) is worth reading. It is highly readable and actually explains lot of things quite clearly. Extremely well written article. And it covers both the points you have raised above.

Also from preliminary data, it seems that these events happen more often than previously thought.
(See, for example http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/feb/15/new-insights-emerge-from-ligo-gravitational-wave-data) so we will have more data points. We will know one way or other.

****

One example, which I think A_Gupta mentioned was confirmation of GR by direct observation of bending of light by Sun by Eddington & compony.. it was just one experimental result, yet it was a big news because the measurements fit the theory and math was right.

Hope this helps.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21126
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Prem » 19 Feb 2016 00:59

Most precise measurement of reactor Antineutrino spectrum reveals intriguing surprise
https://scienmag.com/most-precise-measu ... -surprise/

Members of the International Daya Bay Collaboration, who track the production and flavor-shifting behavior of electron antineutrinos generated at a nuclear power complex in China, have obtained the most precise measurement of these subatomic particles' energy spectrum ever recorded. The data generated from the world's largest sample of reactor antineutrinos indicate two intriguing discrepancies with theoretical predictions and provide an important measurement that will shape future reactor neutrino experiments. The results have been published in the journal Physical Review Letters.Studying the behavior of elusive neutrinos holds the potential to unlock many secrets of physics, including details about the history, makeup, and fate of our universe. Neutrinos were among the most abundant particles at the time of the Big Bang, and are still generated abundantly today in the nuclear reactions that power stars and in collisions of cosmic rays with Earth's atmosphere.
A crucial factor for many of these experiments is knowing how many antineutrinos are emitted in total in these nuclear reactions (the flux), and how many are being produced at particular energies (the energy distribution, or spectrum). In early studies, scientists relied on calculations or other indirect means, such as electron spectrum measurements made on reactor fuels, to estimate these numbers, based on their understanding of the complex fission processes in the reactor core. These methods have rather strong dependence on theoretical models.
The measured reactor antineutrino spectrum shows a surprising feature: an excess of antineutrinos at an energy of around 5 million electron volts (MeV) compared with theoretical expectations. This represents a deviation of about 10 percent between the experimental measurement and calculations based on the theoretical models–well beyond the uncertainties–leading to a discrepancy of up to four standard deviations. " These improved measurements will be essential for next-generation reactor neutrino experiments such as JUNO," said Jun Cao of the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) in China, a co-spokesperson of Daya Bay and the deputy spokesperson of JUNO, an experiment being built 200 kilometers away from Daya Bay.Daya Bay's measurement of antineutrino flux–the total number of antineutrinos emitted across the entire energy range–indicates that the reactors are producing 6 percent fewer antineutrinos overall when compared to some of the model-based predictions. This result is consistent with past measurements. This observed deficit has been named the "Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly." This disagreement could arise from the imperfection of the models. Or, more intriguingly, it could be the result of an oscillation involving a new kind of neutrino, the so-called sterile neutrino–postulated by some theories but yet to be detected. Whether the anomaly exists is still an open question."The surprising feature in the reactor antineutrino energy spectrum indicates that there is still so much we need to understand about the underlying nuclear physics," Chao said.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21126
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Prem » 19 Feb 2016 01:00

And Photu
Image

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10417
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Vayutuvan » 19 Feb 2016 02:56

UB ji: What is infinite velocity? the limit is c (speed of light). Curvature is second derivative of velocity (or first derivative of acceleration).

Now I come to TSJ's assertion that the curvature is infinite at a BH. How is that possible? Is it because EM energy trapped in the black hole can never make it out of the BH? Words, words, words. How I hate descriptive physics!

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4775
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Yayavar » 19 Feb 2016 03:03

VT: Valid point but for many of us who stopped such delving at high-school or at most sometime during Bacheolar's it comes down to descriptive. The last time I used maths wrt relativity was in high school and that too for special theory of relativity. This discussion though made me go back and read one of the simpler relativity books I've and re-familiarize with general and special.

Am still puzzled - unconnected with the actual result but at a social/organizational level - on why the test injection needed to be secret. Or, kept secret till people actually invested time and energy to write up papers and then block the publication. Based on my reading of the reports the expected signal and the maths-physicis 'continuum' :) is already known. Only the details would differ based on the actual amplitude measured.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Amber G. » 19 Feb 2016 03:54

ranjan.rao wrote:
ramana wrote:AmberG, Can you elaborate on how it could start a new era?

I think Amber G has provided a great explanation. So I will use a simple analogy and am taking a slightly different line with a bit of speculation.

1. Analogy: I would think of it as being able to "see" in infrared. We may be able to see rare pheonomena e.g. black hole mergers/collisions, where most of energy is expected in Gravitational wavs.
2. Apart from the ability to observe in a different "spectrum" (yes it is wrong because it's a different wave altogether), what gravitational waves offer us is the potential ability to "see" dark matter which is a very pressing matter as we know that the known matter/energy constitutes only 5% of observable universe, with dark matter comprising ~38%. Dark matter interacts with other matter only gravitationally, forming the "scaffolding" of around which galactic super clusters are formed.
3. Added later, Using EM waves we will be able to look closer to big bang, before first light came


Thanks. I am glad that that was useful. What's more, once we learn to use it/refine it and look at different "spectrum" of gravitational waves (for example e-lisa will be more tuned to different frequency than LIGO) more things we will "hear."....

(We are starting to use the term "hear" for gravitational waves as we use "see" for EM waves!)

Few extremely good references which you and people with serious interests -

The original PRL paper is freely accessible. (I put my link for this before in brf - which still works at present) Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

A supplementary paper published in Astrophysical Journal Letters, is also free to access: "Astrophysical implications of the binary black-hole merger GW150914"
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L22

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby UlanBatori » 19 Feb 2016 04:08

vayu tuvan wrote:UB ji: What is infinite velocity? the limit is c (speed of light). Curvature is second derivative of velocity (or first derivative of acceleration).

Now I come to TSJ's assertion that the curvature is infinite at a BH. How is that possible? Is it because EM energy trapped in the black hole can never make it out of the BH? Words, words, words. How I hate descriptive physics!

What infinite velocity? It's mass that is projected to go to infinity at speed = c. Try that "atrociously rambling math" that I have posted above. Madarssa math:
Mass = (Rest Mass) / (SQRT(1-(U/c)^2)
Goes to infinity as U approaches c, hain?

So now, an object with infinite mass and any speed, has infinite momentum. If you want to curve that trajectory, you have to add a lateral force of infinity to deflect it even an iota, so curvature has to be zero. Which means that the radius of the Event Horizon should be infinite. Which means that the BH should occupy all of Space. Which means we are all inside a Black Hole. Which means we have infinite inertia. So I will go back to zzzzzzzz.

Read the web page (the intelligible one) that AmberG posted. So the reason they are all sure is that they are ALL in agreement that they are sure. :mrgreen: I've heard that b4 - ask the rulers in Raqqa for instance.

Also, its very interesting how Big Pissicks works. They generate a whole bunch of Templates. "BH hitting BH". "Pulsar hitting Qasar". "Toilet flushing on ISS".

Every time they see a blip, a grad student in the middle of the night looks up and says: "HEY! That's a BH merging with another BH!" and sends emails to other grad students, and then they eventually tell the Big Pissikists at the golf course, and then they scramble to write up papers to "Nature" and THEN someone says: "Oh, I Put that Signal There". If not, at 365.25 days, they automatically contact CNN and start the cameras rolling.

Scary, to put it mildly. This is not very different from how NATO identifies MSF hospitals to bomb. :eek:

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10417
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Vayutuvan » 19 Feb 2016 04:58

yayavar wrote:Am still puzzled - unconnected with the actual result but at a social/organizational level - on why the test injection needed to be secret. Or, kept secret till people actually invested time and energy to write up papers and then block the publication.

I think the papers were already written and ready to go the moment they detect the signal. All they had to do was to plug in the signal strengths and other stats data and write up the conclusion(s) and off the papers go to Science/Nature/PRL etc.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54179
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby ramana » 19 Feb 2016 05:28

AmberG, Thanks for the explanation. Makes me read more.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4775
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Physics Thread.

Postby Yayavar » 19 Feb 2016 06:06

vayu tuvan wrote:
yayavar wrote:Am still puzzled - unconnected with the actual result but at a social/organizational level - on why the test injection needed to be secret. Or, kept secret till people actually invested time and energy to write up papers and then block the publication.

I think the papers were already written and ready to go the moment they detect the signal. All they had to do was to plug in the signal strengths and other stats data and write up the conclusion(s) and off the papers go to Science/Nature/PRL etc.


ok..that makes sense. That was part of the puzzlement; that is that only the signal was needed since the rest was known. Hence the paper stoppage prob is more of dramatization.


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests