Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #407170 > unrolled thread

the LIGO signal

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  the LIGO signal RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 16:35 -0800
    Re: the LIGO signal Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-30 13:03 +1100
      Re: the LIGO signal RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-30 18:46 -0800
        Re: the LIGO signal Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 14:10 +1100
          Re: the LIGO signal mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-30 23:36 -0800
            Re: the LIGO signal Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 18:47 +1100
        Re: the LIGO signal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 07:07 -0600
          Re: the LIGO signal "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-31 09:16 -0800
          Re: the LIGO signal RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-31 15:01 -0800
            Re: the LIGO signal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 17:33 -0600
    Re: the LIGO signal "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 00:04 -0800
      Re: the LIGO signal "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-31 00:27 -0800
    Re: the LIGO signal numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-05 16:30 -0800
      Re: the LIGO signal Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-06 11:40 +1100
    Re: the LIGO signal numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 15:15 -0800
      Re: the LIGO signal Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 20:20 +1100
        Re: the LIGO signal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:23 -0500
          Re: the LIGO signal Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 05:27 +0100
    Re: the LIGO signal numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 13:42 -0800
      Re: the LIGO signal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 18:06 -0500
        Re: the LIGO signal Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-08 10:58 +0000
    Re: the LIGO signal numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 11:27 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#407170 — the LIGO signal

How do they know the binary radiated 3 solar masses? 


--
Rich

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#407179

On 30/01/2017 11:35 AM, RichD wrote:
> How do they know the binary radiated 3 solar masses?
>
>
> --
> Rich
>

The received waveform gave the masses, and theory gives the amount 
radiated. This depends on GR being correct, of course.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407302

On January 29, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> How do they know the binary radiated 3 solar masses?
> 
> The received waveform gave the masses, and theory gives the amount 
> radiated. 

You mean:
i)   They measured the masses separately prior,
ii)  measured the mass after collision,
iii) and used arithmetic to calculate the difference?

Seems doubtful.
 
What they detected was a pair of orthogonal, 1-D time 
waveforms.  My question is really computational:  can 
their mathematicians verify that the signal is uniquely 
invertible?  That is, they have models of an inspiraling 
binary, and the waveforms those would generate, but can 
they prove this is the only type of event which could 
produce the actual observed data?

From my experience in numerical analysis and DSP, I'm aware 
of the problems of inverse transforms.  

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407304

On 31/01/2017 1:46 PM, RichD wrote:
> On January 29, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> How do they know the binary radiated 3 solar masses?
>>
>> The received waveform gave the masses, and theory gives the amount
>> radiated.
>
> You mean:
> i)   They measured the masses separately prior,
> ii)  measured the mass after collision,
> iii) and used arithmetic to calculate the difference?
>
> Seems doubtful.
>
> What they detected was a pair of orthogonal, 1-D time
> waveforms.  My question is really computational:  can
> their mathematicians verify that the signal is uniquely
> invertible?  That is, they have models of an inspiraling
> binary, and the waveforms those would generate, but can
> they prove this is the only type of event which could
> produce the actual observed data?

No such thing could ever be proved, even in principal.

But they have a model, derived from general relativity, the describes 
the collision of black-holes. The model predicts a waveform that is 
dependent on the individual masses. A waveform is then seen which is 
consistent with a collision between black-holes of two particular masses.

It's not proof, but it is quite strong evidence, and that's all you ever 
get in physics.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407313

W dniu wtorek, 31 stycznia 2017 04:11:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:

> But they have a model, derived from general relativity, the describes 
> the collision of black-holes. The model predicts a waveform that is 
> dependent on the individual masses.

Bullshit. Your relativity was never sure, whether
gravitational waves exist or not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407315

On 31/01/2017 6:36 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 31 stycznia 2017 04:11:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>
>> But they have a model, derived from general relativity, the describes
>> the collision of black-holes. The model predicts a waveform that is
>> dependent on the individual masses.
>
> Bullshit. Your relativity was never sure, whether
> gravitational waves exist or not.
>

General relativity predicted the existence of gravitational waves. What 
was lacking was any detection of them, though that wasn't such a big 
surprise given their likely amplitude and the difficulty of detection.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407343

On 1/30/2017 8:46 PM, RichD wrote:
> On January 29, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> How do they know the binary radiated 3 solar masses?
>>
>> The received waveform gave the masses, and theory gives the amount
>> radiated.
>
> You mean:
> i)   They measured the masses separately prior,
> ii)  measured the mass after collision,
> iii) and used arithmetic to calculate the difference?
>
> Seems doubtful.

No, but the energy released is related to the sum of the masses.
The frequency of the oscillation is related to the difference of the 
masses. With these two measurements, you can find the individual masses.

There is a related phenomenon. If you take two tuning forks with 
different but nearby frequencies and you strike them together, you will 
hear a single tone, overlaid with a wow-wow-wow beat pattern. The 
frequency of the beat is the difference between the original frequencies 
(to a factor of 2), and the tone you hear is the average of the original 
frequencies. Thus you can reconstruct the original frequencies without 
hearing either one individually.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407364

No, but the energy released is related to the sum of the masses. 
The frequency of the oscillation is related to the difference of the 
masses. With these two measurements, you can find the individual masses. 

There is a related phenomenon. If you take two tuning forks with 
different but nearby frequencies and you strike them together, you will 
hear a single tone, overlaid with a wow-wow-wow beat pattern. The 
frequency of the beat is the difference between the original frequencies 
(to a factor of 2), and the tone you hear is the average of the original 
frequencies. Thus you can reconstruct the original frequencies without 
hearing either one individually. 


Yes, a HETERODYNE will be heard. 

https://goo.gl/photos/656LS6cmMpQSCjjF9

A Heterodyne of c & G = 1/50

https://goo.gl/photos/2n7FHj3UhraFYCB36

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407435

On January 31, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> How do they know the binary radiated 3 solar masses?
>
>>> The received waveform gave the masses, and theory gives the amount
>>> radiated.
>
>> You mean:
>> i)   They measured the masses separately prior,
>> ii)  measured the mass after collision,
>> iii) and used arithmetic to calculate the difference?
>
> No, but the energy released is related to the sum of the masses.
> The frequency of the oscillation is related to the difference of the
> masses. With these two measurements, you can find the individual masses.

It's the question of a unique inversion.

We know they saw a stretching of space, in orthogonal
directions, looking like a quadrupole signal.  Presumably, 
it's a gravity wave, in accord with GR, because we don't 
have any other model.

But given the observed waveforms, can they guarantee it 
was two black holes, infalling?  

If I push 2 and3 into your adding machine, you can guarantee
it will produce 5.  But if I see 5, do you know the inputs
were 2 and 3?

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407442

On 1/31/2017 5:01 PM, RichD wrote:
> On January 31, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> How do they know the binary radiated 3 solar masses?
>>
>>>> The received waveform gave the masses, and theory gives the amount
>>>> radiated.
>>
>>> You mean:
>>> i)   They measured the masses separately prior,
>>> ii)  measured the mass after collision,
>>> iii) and used arithmetic to calculate the difference?
>>
>> No, but the energy released is related to the sum of the masses.
>> The frequency of the oscillation is related to the difference of the
>> masses. With these two measurements, you can find the individual masses.
>
> It's the question of a unique inversion.
>
> We know they saw a stretching of space, in orthogonal
> directions, looking like a quadrupole signal.  Presumably,
> it's a gravity wave, in accord with GR, because we don't
> have any other model.
>
> But given the observed waveforms, can they guarantee it
> was two black holes, infalling?
>
> If I push 2 and3 into your adding machine, you can guarantee
> it will produce 5.  But if I see 5, do you know the inputs
> were 2 and 3?

If it were just a number, I'd say no. But it's not. It's a particular 
signature that is pretty hard to mimic with other sources. It had a 
particular amplitude envelope that had a particular time profile, and 
inside the envelope there was an oscillation whose frequency had a 
particular monotonic increase.

The tuning forks example I gave you produces a unique inversion. There 
is not another combination of tuning fork frequencies that will give you 
both that overall tone and beat pattern.

As another example, not quite the same thing but closely related is 
Fourier decomposition. That is, suppose you *observe* a particular 
periodic pattern -- not necessarily sinusoidal or even smooth. Fourier 
decomposition says that there is one and only one combination of 
frequencies of sinusoidal wave forms that will superimpose to produce 
that. The one AND ONLY ONE is the key to the theorem.


-- 
-- Odd Bodkin, maker of fine tables, toys, tools

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407316

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 4:35:50 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> How do they know the binary radiated 3 solar masses? 
> 
> 
> --
> Rich

We'll never know (that it was).

That is "it fits the model."

Finding binary pulsars (neutron stars) 
instead of binary black holes offers 
something to observe, but, then they 
only go off as a collision (eg, "gamma-
ray burster" with what should be an 
accompanying gravity wave) on cosmological 
time scales.

"In 1974, Joseph Hooton Taylor, Jr. and Russell Hulse 
discovered for the first time a pulsar in a binary system, 
PSR B1913+16. This pulsar orbits another neutron star with 
an orbital period of just eight hours. Einstein's theory of 
general relativity predicts that this system should emit strong 
gravitational radiation, causing the orbit to continually contract 
as it loses orbital energy. Observations of the pulsar soon confirmed 
this prediction, providing the first ever evidence of the existence 
of gravitational waves. As of 2010, observations of this pulsar 
continue to agree with general relativity.[16] In 1993, the Nobel 
Prize in Physics was awarded to Taylor and Hulse for the discovery 
of this pulsar.[17]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar

Perhaps relevant:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/66349/20150706/earth-to-see-galactic-fireworks-display-in-2018-with-collision-of-pulsar-with-its-companion-star.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407317

I can't see how they can say with a straight face they have measured gravity waves but a space time Aether doesn't exist. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408039

The Caltech-MIT laser interferometer gravitational wave observatory (LIGO) detected gravity waves that originate from the merging of two blackbody holes 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The described gravity waves propagate to the earth at the velocity of light and produce 35 to 250 Hz acoustical chirps that vibrate the armature of a laser interferometer forming the signal of the celestial gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound that cannot propagate in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of light.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408040

On 6/02/2017 11:30 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> The Caltech-MIT laser interferometer gravitational wave observatory
> (LIGO) detected gravity waves that originate from the merging of two
> blackbody holes 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The described
> gravity waves propagate to the earth at the velocity of light and
> produce 35 to 250 Hz acoustical chirps that vibrate the armature of a
> laser interferometer forming the signal of the celestial gravity
> waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound
> that cannot propagate in the vacuum of celestial space at the
> velocity of light.
>

What on Earth gives you the impression that the frequency has anything 
to do with whether it can propagate through a vacuum.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408160

Sylvia,

The frequency represent an EM gravity wave.


Ben

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408205

On 7/02/2017 10:15 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Sylvia,
>
> The frequency represent an EM gravity wave.
>

A wave has a type - electromagnetic, gravity, pressure, etc.

A wave has a frequency.

They are independent aspects of a wave. You cannot deduce one from the 
other.

Sylvia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408285

On 2/7/2017 4:20 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 7/02/2017 10:15 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>> Sylvia,
>>
>> The frequency represent an EM gravity wave.
>>
>
> A wave has a type - electromagnetic, gravity, pressure, etc.
>
> A wave has a frequency.
>
> They are independent aspects of a wave. You cannot deduce one from the
> other.
>
> Sylvia
>
And contrary to popular belief today, waves have a medium in which they 
propagate property values.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408347

Dne 07/02/2017 v 23:23 benj napsal(a):
> On 2/7/2017 4:20 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 7/02/2017 10:15 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Sylvia,
>>>
>>> The frequency represent an EM gravity wave.
>>>
>>
>> A wave has a type - electromagnetic, gravity, pressure, etc.
>>
>> A wave has a frequency.
>>
>> They are independent aspects of a wave. You cannot deduce one from the
>> other.
>>
>> Sylvia
>>
> And contrary to popular belief today, waves have a medium in which they
> propagate property values.

..if they are waves of medium property values.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408281

Dear Sylvia,


Einstein uses Maxwell's equations to represent the structure of gravity waves which implies an em gravity waves but 35 Hz represent sound.


Ben

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408298

On 2/7/2017 4:42 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Sylvia,
>
>
> Einstein uses Maxwell's equations to represent the structure of
> gravity waves which implies an em gravity waves but 35 Hz represent
> sound.
> Ben

I've got a Bass Guitar that produces 35Hz waves. You should see the 
gravity it produces. Makes your pants flap!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web