28th May, 2022
Inseko Žilina Slovakia
Discussion
Started 14th May, 2022
Gravitational waves: Shouldn’t any specific effect of a binary star system fall off at least by square of distance?
LIGO and cooperating institutions obviously determine distance r of their hypothetical gravitational wave sources on the basis of a 1/r dependence of related spatial strain, see on page 9 of reference below. Fall-off by 1/r in fact applies in case of gravitational potential Vg = - GM/r of a single source. Shouldn’t any additional effect of a binary system with internal separation s - just for geometrical reasons - additionally reduce by s/r ?
Most recent answer
Reza Sanaye ,"If you’re riding one inertial frame rather than its wave symmetry , then the negative sign means that gravity is repulsive instead of Attractive:"
At the carrier of mass and charge, in reality mass has a sign of charge, so it's OK.
All replies (69)
Dear Johan K. Fremerey
I think you will like this paper.
Tony
1 Recommendation
14th May, 2022
Getting deeper into the "luminosity distance" issue, here are two citations, the first one from above cited paper https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.01940.pdf on page 9: "we estimate the distance from the change of the measured strain in time over the cycle at peak amplitude",
and a second one from the only reference [46] cited there, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1602/1602.04666.pdf - section V: "the distance from the source can be measured directly from the waveform."
So LIGO apparently derives their claimed distances of still hypothetical GW sources from evaluation of detected chirp signal waveforms that they can't even exclude to originate from inside their detector hardware.
GREAT ! - and nobody complains ?
15th May, 2022
Dear Preston Guynn,
I do not even want to assess the quality of cited papers, nor do I want to generally question the validity of GRT. In the present case of the long-distance effect of multipole moments, I just see a violation of basic distance laws and I am surprised that there is no public discussion thereon.
15th May, 2022
"Luminosity distance"
we should be aware that an incorrect distance estimate for the assumed cosmic sources of the assumed gravitational waves could jeopardize the credibility of assumed multi-messenger events.
15th May, 2022
"The GR approach" ... "axiomatic adoption of the "expansion of the Universe" ..."
Dear Preston Guynn, please note that I'm not at all a representative of the above concepts.
Dear Johan K. Fremerey,
If the LIGO instrument detected the power in the wave, it would indeed fall off as the inverse square but it actually measures the strain. The energy into any gravitational impedance depends on the square of the strain hence what is measured falls as 1/r.
JKF: I am surprised that there is no public discussion thereon.
That is because those of us who read up on how it works are familiar with the fact that it measures strain rather than energy so 1/r is the correct rule.
JKF: ... chirp signal waveforms that they can't even exclude to originate from inside their detector hardware.
The optical confirmation of GW170817 proved both that it was an astrophysical event and also that the luminosity distance was accurate to within the limits of our knowledge of the spin inclination, they said it was at 40 Mpc so that was a key factor in SWOPE locating the host galaxy.
JKF: we should be aware that an incorrect distance estimate for the assumed cosmic sources of the assumed gravitational waves could jeopardize the credibility of assumed multi-messenger events.
On the contrary, the multi-messenger event confirmed the measured luminosity distance was accurate.
16th May, 2022
Dear George,
you probably agree that attenuation of whatever effect from a central body with distance r is by at least 1/r. When regarding the effect of a differential feature of the central body, e.g. a separation s in case of a twin structure, then the effect of this differential structure should additionally decrease according to the angle s/r as seen from distance r, i.e. by 1/r2 in total. This in particular applies in case of dipole potential. In case of gravitational sources we are talking about quadrupole radiation which appears unlikely to fall off with distance by less than dipole potential. This view is just on the basis of elementary physics and geometry.
"the multi-messenger event confirmed the measured luminosity distance"
I rather suspect the questionable 1/r "law" was "installed" in order to justify GW170817 as a multi-messenger event and, in general, to pretent reasonable distance of reach of existing gravitational wave antennas for "gravitational wave astronomy".
“Gravitational waves: Shouldn’t any specific effect of a binary star system fall off at least by square of distance?
- this thread question relates to the further text
“…LIGO and cooperating institutions obviously determine distance r of their hypothetical gravitational wave sources on the basis of a 1/r dependence of related spatial strain, see on page 9 of reference below.….”
- rather indirectly.
Indeed, at motions of bodies in some gravitationally coupled system, in this case in a binary star system, till this system is stable the gravitational field in and outside the system constantly changes, and corresponding “wave-like” cyclic disturbances of the field propagate in the 3D space with the speed of light, causing some “wave-like” effects in, say, some instruments that measure these field variations.
However that are mostly “kinematical” disturbances – as that, say, happens when variations of electric field of some rotating electric dipole can be observed.
Really Gravity absolutely for sure is nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, which in a few traits is similar to the other fundamental Nature force – Electric Force; and so there would be nothing surprising in existence of the gravitational waves – as there is nothing surprising in existence of the EM waves,
- which [EM waves] are radiated by accelerated electric charges as intensive flaws of coherent photons – and gravitational waves are radiated by accelerated gravitational charges “gravitational masses” as intensive flaws of coherent gravitons.
These “true waves” carry and transmit at interactions much more momentum/energy, than the “kinematic waves”, so, say, most of gravitationally coupled cosmological systems exist stably billions of years,
- and the really detectable flows of gravitons can be, and are, radiated at extremely large accelerations of the systems, say, at collapses of systems of cosmological objects, including in binary stars; and the radiated waves carry away essential parts of the systems’ energy.
However in this case the corresponding “radiating antennas” aren’t some 4π radiators, and that cannot be described as some stable gravitational dipole field variations.
More about what with a well non-zero probability Gravity and Electric Forces, photons and gravitons are – see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, more concretely the 2007 initial Gravity and Electric Forces physical models see section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems”.
Cheers
1 Recommendation
Many-body problematic with its torque strain inception at very many different points of gravitation center , makes it a lesson to us that motion of bodies in tessellated Manifolds might be virtually described thru the means of a class of kinetic equations whose numerical instability is NOT the direct result of the central logistic equation . Nonetheless , attenuation of 1/r or s/r size is itself an indication of net analysis tasks ahead :
we appear to be forced to adopt measures on those operators that do not simply pivot around merger of many-body (differential) potentialities in Torque , in Field pixilation , in Distance Differences , or in , say , energy\strain out-radiation .
1 Recommendation
Dear Johan K. Fremerey
"LIGO and cooperating institutions obviously determine distance r of their hypothetical gravitational wave sources on the basis of a 1/r"
The interaction between objects 1 and 2 is practical to be expressed using static Ws and dynamic Wd energy, when: Ws + Wd = 0; so: (Ws = G*m1*m2/r) + (Wd = m1*v1^2 + m2*v2^2 = h*f) = 0; where m1 and m2 are masses of objects far from each other r; v1 and v2 are the velocities of the objects orbit around the common center; f is the frequency of this orbit cycle; G and h is gravitational and Plank's constant. The dynamic energy Wd = h*f between the two objects is mediated by hypothetical gravitational wave sources.
1 Recommendation
17th May, 2022
"The Informational Conception"
Dear Sergey Shevchenko:
I very much appreciate your profound work on the basis of the "Informational Conception". Do you have an idea or estimate on how the signal strength of a quadrupole radiation source attenuates with distance from the source?
Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,
JKF: you probably agree that attenuation of whatever effect from a central body with distance r is by at least 1/r. When regarding the effect of a differential feature of the central body, e.g. a separation s in case of a twin structure, then the effect of this differential structure should additionally decrease according to the angle s/r as seen from distance r, i.e. by 1/r2 in total. This in particular applies in case of dipole potential.
Dipole radiation sums equal positive and negative charges which tend to cancel, gravitational radiation is from two positive masses so they reinforce.
JKF: This view is just on the basis of elementary physics and geometry.
The most fundamental is conservation of energy. Energy is conserved so if the distance doubles, the energy must spread over four times the area so power falls as 1/r2.
However, E=fd means power is the product of stress and strain. Stress is proportional to strain so the power is proportional to the square of the strain hence strain falls as 1/r.
GD: "the multi-messenger event confirmed the measured luminosity distance"
JKF: I rather suspect the questionable 1/r "law" was "installed" in order to justify GW170817 as a multi-messenger event ...
You suspect wrongly, the 1/r law was predicted by Einstein in 1916. It is what allowed the sensitivity necessary from interferometric detectors to be calculated decades in advance of the funding even being applied for to build LIGO.
17th May, 2022
George Dishman: "... hence strain falls as 1/r."
I think you are right: I made a mistake by mentally relating the effect of a substructure s at distance r to the overall structure and not to the substructure itself. Thus, in principle, s can stand for any structure, whether unipolar or multipolar, its potential at distance r should always attenuate by s/r - simply for geometrical reasons.
Thanks for your helpful hints!
1 Recommendation
Dear Johan K. Fremerey,
JKF: Thanks for your helpful hints!
My pleasure entirely, I believe sharing understanding is one of key benefits of RG whether it is something new to learn or perhaps in this case just a reminder of something already known.
Best regards
George
18th May, 2022
George Dishman: "something new to learn ..."
The reason for me to doubt the distance determination were indeed the official notices, see reference below, that despite considerably improved test mass suspensions KAGRA with respect to the detector range is today allegedly still at the state of the art that LIGO had already reached in 2005.
JKF: KAGRA with respect to the detector range is today allegedly still at the state of the art that LIGO had already reached in 2005.
Yes, they are years behind and trying to catch up. Unfortunately sometimes it is a case of "more haste, less speed", plus they are trying to introduce cryogenic mirrors at the same time. They are really struggling and I think just getting the basics working first before trying to catch up might have been a better policy.
I think it will be three to four years before they reach LIGO's present performance and a decade before they are on a par.
Dear Johan K. Fremerey,
“…"The Informational Conception"
Dear Sergey Shevchenko:
I very much appreciate your profound work on the basis of the "Informational Conception". Do you have an idea or estimate on how the signal strength of a quadrupole radiation source attenuates with distance from the source?…”
- thanks for positive mention of the "The Informational Conception", however I cannot to answer to your question above – that is rather complex mathematical task, whereas I have no time in this case, since any information about Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s conceptions and physical models is blocked in scientific community everywhere that is possible; including all submissions of corresponding papers were/are rejected by editors of mainstream physical journals; including by Phys.Rev. - Why? – see the RG section “Comments” to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358801098_Title_page_Article_type_Review_Title_The_informational_physical_model_some_selected_fundamental_problems_in_physics,
- and so I, instead to work and publish is forced practically all time to take parts on the RG discussions, telling about what the conceptions and the models are.
So only a brief note – as that George Dishman wrote to you above - a binary gravitational system principally is rather strange dipole – since both poles have the same Gravity charges’ [gravitational masses] signs, however, because of the fundamental Nature Gravity force, in fundamental contrast to all fundamental Forces, is completely symmetrical, the charges’ fields don’t compensate each other – as that in electric dipole case happens, and on large enough distance a gravity dipole field is practically as one [sum] mass field;
- and, again, that hasn’t some essential relation to the gravitational waves – the waves, which are coherent flows of gravitinos, are radiated at gravitational masses acceleration;
- including, say, when a binary system becomes by some way unstable and collapses, and the systems’ masses are extremely large, the accelerations are rather large as well, and gravitons are well radiated,
- and, at that, such “radiating antenna” seems in most cases doesn’t radiate the waves isotropic ally in 4π; so the weaves can be rather essentially “focused” in some directions, and are weaker in other ones.
Cheers
Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,
SS: - and, at that, such “radiating antenna” seems in most cases doesn’t radiate the waves isotropic ally in 4π; so the weaves can be rather essentially “focused” in some directions, and are weaker in other ones.
That is true but the polar pattern is rather surprising. Most people might guess it was weaker at the poles but actually the waves are twice as strong as in the orbital plane.
In a way that's good though because it means that even without any inferred inclination information extracted from the waveform, the uncertainty in the luminosity distance is only a factor of 70% to 140% of the mid-range value.
I actually started writing a pre-print with the intention of illustrating this as an "outreach" level description but I've stalled because I can't work out a way of colour-coding a surface to show amplitude, eccentricity and phase simultaneously in a way that would be intuitive for a non-technical viewer.
Binary systems of info transition cannot necessarily be formed on the basis of abstraction from what is , by general consensus , deemed Physical Realty . This spells that the uncertainty loci where the level of description increases to POLYnary and MULTInary ( instead of simply bringing about BIfurcation in the pass of Events as BInary ) are , as a matter of fact , more pivotal than the loci where we are only dealing with \observing bifurcation .
This is , in turn , arises from the phenomenon that all throughout the same Physical Reality , we are dealing with multiplicities that may , under no circumstances , be reduced to just two probabilistically equal or unequal Events . Transitioning is not always a linear process. Non-binary transitioning is fluid not always fixed. A very efficient mechanism is the collapse of the cloud in a multiple, system. Most of the angular momentum is , then , transformed into the orbital motions of the different stars. The collapse of a molecular cloud may also be described in terms of several phases .
2 Recommendations
George Dishman ."Dipole radiation sums equal positive and negative charges which tend to cancel, gravitational radiation is from two positive masses so they reinforce."
In nature, there is known only radiation from oscillations in the plasma (movement of ions and electrons), which we receive by electromagnetic (EM) photons, which fall on the receiving antenna. Explain what "gravitational radiation" is?
1 Recommendation
Dear Reza Sanaye,
RS: ... BIfurcation in the pass of Events as BInary ...
In this context the word "binary" is an abbreviation for "binary star system" and "star" is being used to include both black holes and neutron stars.
The waves described are associated with a merger of two objects, not a bifurcation.
1 Recommendation
Dear Jaroslav Patúc,
JP: movement of ions and electrons), which we receive by electromagnetic (EM) photons,
EM waves are dipole, gravitational waves are quadrupole because there is no negative mass while EM comes from both positive (ion) and negative (electron) electrical charge. Gravitational waves are variations in gravity while EM waves are variations in the electromagnetic field.
JP: Explain what "gravitational radiation" is?
There is a very good explanation here:
19th May, 2022
George Dishman: "Yes, they are years behind and trying to catch up."
When looking at Fig.11 of appended reference, we see plottet experimental results of the noise level achieved by KAGRA with their cryo cooled test mass suspension system in action. At frequencies > 60 Hz the suspension related noise level keeps well below the level presently achieved by LIGO detectors. So I won't accept insufficient sensitivity as a credible reason for the inability of KAGRA Observatory to find "GW-type" signals at amplitudes as have been detected by LIGO Labs. When KAGRA is still that much behind LIGO/Virgo, it obviously would make little sense to assign KAGRA an adequate membership of the world-wide gravitational wave exploration network in the coming years.
Dear Johan K. Fremerey,
JKF: At frequencies > 60 Hz the suspension related noise level keeps well below the level presently achieved by LIGO detectors
Sure, crackling noise is trivial. This link takes you to the recent webinar on the prospects for O4 at the point where Kagra is discussed. After a brief summary of the facility, Yoichi shows the sensitivity that was achieved in O3. As you can see, the suspension control noise is below other sources from around 60 Hz (and crackling noise is so low it isn't even mentioned). He explains where the control noise comes from and then goes on to explain the limits at higher frequencies.
The O3 chart is figure 4 here:
Note that for O4, they are only putting a vacuum gate in front of the SRM and getting it properly upgraded will have to wait until O5 at the earliest which might be around 2026.
JKF: So I won't accept insufficient sensitivity as a credible reason for the inability of KAGRA Observatory to find "GW-type" signals at amplitudes as have been detected by LIGO Labs.
For that you have to look at the overall sensitivity and get over your fixation on something that was solved more then a decade ago. Watch the video and think about all the other far bigger problems they have at the moment.
Dear George Dishman
GD: EM waves are dipole, gravitational waves are quadrupole because there is no negative mass while EM comes from both positive (ion) and negative (electron) electrical charge. Gravitational waves are variations in gravity while EM waves are variations in the electromagnetic field.
The carriers of the energy of "EM waves" are discrete photons, EM dipoles. You did not state what are discrete "quadrupoles", the carriers of energy of "Gravitational waves".
" In this context the word "binary" is an abbreviation for "binary star system" and "star" is being used to include both black holes and neutron stars.
The waves described are associated with a merger of two objects, not a bifurcation. "
Yes , I got it from the beginning
BUT the said merger is again based both on energy-fields and on data-waves
This is true about solid state physics , too
Also about molecule energy adsorption and energy damping
Only difference amongst these phenomena is their level of sensitivity to the magnitude of background energy-fields on which they are interacting
AND their data-wave Multiforcation\BIfurcation activity intensity
The waves thus propagated across can determine the level of "Locality" of mergers , dampings , and dialyzations taking place as for molecules , binary stars , heat dispersion , etc .............
Gauge fields coupled to dynamical matter are ,thence , a universal framework in many disciplines of physics, ranging from particle to condensed matter physics, but remain poorly understood at cosmological events
It is vital to realize that energy_gauge states of many Manifolds ( Local & Universal) are not by now expressed in local thermal equilibrium
To mathematically explore an interacting integrable cellular automaton , one ought to construct an extensive set of operators that anticommute with the time-evolution operator ................
Dear Jaroslav Patúc,
JP: The carriers of the energy of "EM waves" are discrete photons, EM dipoles
Photons are not dipoles. Antennas can be dipoles, other designs are available.
JP: You did not state what are discrete "quadrupoles", the carriers of energy of "Gravitational waves".
That is correct. There is currently no evidence that there is a corresponding discrete carrier, general relativity deals in continuous fields. If there were to be a carrier then it would probably be like the hypothetical graviton:
Dear George Dishman
“…That is true but the polar pattern is rather surprising. Most people might guess it was weaker at the poles but actually the waves are twice as strong as in the orbital plane.… I actually started writing a pre-print with the intention of illustrating this as an "outreach" level description … in a way that would be intuitive for a non-technical viewer...”
- that the gravitational waves are radiated non-isotropically, since the collapsing binary systems of mass are well rigorously oriented in the space, and that the radiated gravitons are radiated essentially not along direction of the masses motions – is quite natural; as, say, radiated by some accelerated electric charge photons are radiated essentially not along the charge motion direction. Though that looks as rather specific physical task, to make which as something that would be intuitive for a non-technical viewer rather probably would be too complex task.
“…EM waves are dipole, gravitational waves are quadrupole because there is no negative mass while EM comes from both positive (ion) and negative (electron) electrical charge. Gravitational waves are variations in gravity while EM waves are variations in the electromagnetic field. ….”
- that is looks as rather questionable claim. Really gravitational waves with a well non-zero probability are some analogues of EM waves, i.e. cyclic changing of gravitational and gravimagnetic strengths. Though if gravitons have spin 2ћ, here can be some nuances, but this case looks as having rather small probability.
And as to
“…Dear Reza Sanaye,
RS: ... BIfurcation in the pass of Events as BInary ...
In this context the word "binary" is an abbreviation …”, etc.
This RG member is a special spammer, who is completely ignorant about what physics is; and having learn a number of some physical words, about which he think that the words are extremely scientific, vividly composes series of senseless posts, addressing at that to other posters; so, if a poster answers to the addressing, that doubles the spam;
- while, again, it is senseless to write to him anything about physics – he will understand nothing.
Cheers
2 Recommendations
Dear George Dishman ,
GD: Photons are not dipoles. Antennas can be dipoles, other designs are available..
You do not know the radio signal function. The direction of electron movement in the receiving antenna determines, at the Coulomb interaction, by the phase angle of rotation (polarization) of the dipole (electron -; positron+) of the discrete EM photons, emitted from the transmitting antenna. See:
Research Proposal What is a photon really
it is extremely bizarre .. . that it should go from dipoles to quadrupoles on the next stage........
Why do we not have (why do we not speak of , even hypothetically ) of tripoles ????
1 Recommendation
Dear Jaroslav Patúc,
JP: You do not know the radio signal function.
I have spent over 40 years in a top group designing advanced radio receivers, transmitters and antennas, I know radio rather well.
JP: dipole (electron -; positron+) of the discrete EM photons
Electrons and positrons have mass, photons do not.
Dear Sergey Shevchenko,
GD: EM waves are dipole, gravitational waves are quadrupole because there is no negative mass
SS: that is looks as rather questionable claim.
Show me a piece of matter that has negative mass and I will accept your criticism.
1 Recommendation
19th May, 2022
George Dishman: "Sure, crackling noise is trivial."
I don't think so after having seen the huge effort that KAGRA has put into improvement of their vertical suspension system. Thanks for linking to the KAGRA webinar, I noticed your question at 52:00 about prospect of the 05 run and answer suggesting nothing real.
"... something that was solved more then a decade ago."
If you are talking about interference from inside the seismic suspension system or crosstalk from vertical interference, I think LIGO has solved those problems simply by not mentioning them further.
Dear George Dishman
GD: I have spent over 40 years in a top group designing advanced radio receivers, transmitters and antennas, I know radio rather well.
I trust you. I studied radio electronics and so far I know maximally about the wave nature of photons. Now, as a retiree, I have focused on finding out what a discrete photon is. Study my work:
Research Proposal What is a photon really
GD: Electrons and positrons have mass, photons do not.
The sum of the mass of an electron and a positron is really zero, but we must believe that the mass of the electron is negative and that the positron is positive. It is the fault of the gravitationalists that matter has only a positive sign.
1 Recommendation
JP: The sum of the mass of an electron and a positron is really zero
No, it takes 1022 keV to create a pair so each has positive mass of 511 keV.
" GD: Electrons and positrons have mass, photons do not.
The sum of the mass of an electron and a positron is really zero, but we must believe that the mass of the electron is negative and that the positron is positive. It is the fault of the gravitationalists that matter has only a positive sign............................JP: The sum of the mass of an electron and a positron is really zero
No, it takes 1022 keV to create a pair so each has positive mass of 511 keV. "
Antinomies of modern physics are well drawn out #########
1 Recommendation
GD: No, it takes 1022 keV to create a pair so each has positive mass of 511 keV.
The sum of the static masses of an electron and a positron is zero [kg]. Dynamic energy need takes 1022 [keV] to create a pair.
Dear Jaroslav Patúc,
JP: The sum of the static masses of an electron and a positron is zero[kg]. Dynamic energy need takes 1022 [keV] to create a pair.
E=mc2 so if that were true it would take no energy to create the pair.
This article has an image where pair creation happened twice. You know that positrons and electrons have opposite charge and a magnetic field therefore applies a force in the opposite direction. The force causes the particle to curve but f=ma so if the mass of the positron were negative, it would have the same mass to charge ratio and its path would curve in the same direction. You can clearly see it curves in the opposite directions so gives definite proof that it must have positive mass.
What you are describing is not a photon, it is called positronium which is a short-lived combination decaying (most often) to a pair of gamma photons in around 140ns:
Dear George Dishman ,
GD: E=mc2 so if that were true it would take no energy to create the pair.
Certainly, at the speed of light c, cannot capture the electron and positron to form a pair, but it is at the lower speed "v" where v << c; The following applies: me*ve^2 + mp*vp^2 = h*f; where |ve| = |vp| = v; "f" is the frequency of mutual circulation; Note or imagine, that the velocity vectors "ve" and "vp" have opposite directions, so -me = mp must hold; It means that the electron and positron have masses of opposite sign. It's up to everyone to believe me.
GD: What you are describing is not a photon, it is called positronium..
In the article point 4
Research Proposal What is a photon really
: I write: << .... the situation is similar to that for the hydrogen atom, like [Positronium]. >> So I don't rate "Positronium" in the calculation. What I'm saying is annihilation of an electron and a positron at form a neutrino. Read a more detailed point. 4 and also Notes:1 Recommendation
Dear George Dishman,
“…GD: EM waves are dipole, gravitational waves are quadrupole because there is no negative mass
SS: that is looks as rather questionable claim.
Show me a piece of matter that has negative mass and I will accept your criticism.…..”
- it seems that I should to clarify more what is written in the SS post above “…Really gravitational waves with a well non-zero probability are some analogues of EM waves, i.e. cyclic changing of gravitational and gravimagnetic strengths...”
The fundamental Nature Gravity force, though is similar in some points to the fundamental Nature Electric force, however essentially differs, first of all – because of gravitational charge [gravitational mass] is completely symmetrical FLE-mark in all particles algorithms [more see 2007 initial SS&VT model of Gravity and Electric Forces in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems”], and so
- Gravity Force is completely symmetrical Force, the charge of which, correspondingly, has only one sign, and so in Matter everything attracts everything [and just so, say, Matter doesn’t contain antimatter, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358801098_Title_page_Article_type_Review_Title_The_informational_physical_model_some_selected_fundamental_problems_in_physics, section “Cosmology”].
Electric Force charge isn’t symmetrical, and so has ± signs; and so real classical gravitodynamics, though will be similar in some points to classical electrodynamics, will differ from the classical ED as well.
Note, also, that, as that was pointed in the SS post 4 days ago now, there can be two types of gravitational waves . One happens, say at orbital motions of stars in a binary system till this system is stable, but the gravitational field in and outside the system constantly changes, and corresponding “wave-like” cyclic disturbances of the Gravity field propagate in the 3D space with the speed of light, causing some “wave-like” effects,
- and the second G-waves type is when the waves are radiated when even single gravitational mass is accelerated – as EM waves are radiated by an accelerated charge, and just the 2-nd type ways are called in physics “EM waves”; which propagate freely in void space; and propagate really as intense flows of particles “ordinary photons”; the 2-nd type G-waves propagate really as intense flaws of particles “ordinary gravitons”.
When EM wave propagates, in accordance with Maxwell equations for void space the transverse and orthogonal to each other E and H field strengths cyclically, sinusoidally, and being in the same phase, change their values between ±amplitudes.
Really magnetic force isn’t some fundamental Nature force. That is purely “kinematic” effect, when a charge moves, when an Electric Force mediator “circular photon” [which isn’t a particle], besides the “intrinsic” momentum that it transmits to an irradiated particle’s charge at statics, additionally obtains the momentum of the motion; and so FLEs become to be additionally precessing. So if such circular photon transmit momentum, it isn’t directed to the radiating charge, as that is in statics; and that is described in classical model as action of magnetic force.
Really – see the model above – with a well non-zero probability an ordinary photon is created when a charge is accelerated, and at that circular photon is transformed into a close-loop FLE algorithm, i.e. into the particle, which moves freely in space, and FLEs in the algorithms are precessing so, that probabilities to transmit at an interaction “electrically” and “magnetically” directed momentums cyclically sinusoidally change; though in this case that means that really in classic ED the E and H phases should be shifted on π/2. What really is possible, since in the ED the phases are defined with essentially arbitrary constant.
Since yeah, gravitation mass has only positive value, there cannot be ± G-strengths – and, rather probably gravimagnetic ±GH-strengths, so in the case the G-wave picture in future classical GD will well differ from EM wave picture.
Returning to the GR quadruple gravitational waves, that relates – see, say,
http://www.physics.usu.edu/Wheeler/GenRel2013/Notes/GravitationalWaves.pdf , i.e. that are the first type ways, which aren’t analouges of the standard in physics EM waves.
And to
“…Dear Jaroslav Patúc,
JP: The sum of the static masses of an electron and a positron is zero[kg]. Dynamic energy need takes 1022 [keV] to create a pair.
E=mc2 so if that were true it would take no energy to create the pair.
This article has an image where pair creation happened twice.……”
- from what this poster writes quite evidently it follows that he has too strange imagination about what physics is; and so any attempts to explain something to him are simply senseless; whereas he is very vivid poster, which address to other posters doubling the spam; and, say in last day these two spammers well flooded the thread by a trash, making really scientific discussion practically impossible. And they [and a couple of other spammers] are remarkably vivid in many other threads, though; so in last few years professional physicists practically disappeared in the RG discussions.
Cheers
Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,
JP: The sum of the static masses of an electron and a positron is zero[kg]. Dynamic energy need takes 1022 [keV] to create a pair.
SS - from what this poster writes quite evidently it follows that he has too strange imagination about what physics is; and so any attempts to explain something to him are simply senseless; whereas he is very vivid poster, which address to other posters doubling the spam;
I noticed that you write this also in other discussions, threads when you do not understand physics other than your own and then it is really scientific discussion practically impossible for you.
Dear Jaroslav Patúc,
GD: E=mc2 so if that were true it would take no energy to create the pair.
JP: Certainly, at the speed of light c, cannot capture the electron and positron to form a pair, but it is at the lower speed "v" where v << c;
The full energy-momentum relation is:
E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2
To get Einstein's simpler version you have to set p=0 which means the particle has no momentum and is therefore at rest.
JP: The following applies: me*ve^2 + mp*vp^2 = h*f; where |ve| = |vp| = v; "f" is the frequency of mutual circulation;
In that you are using the Newtonian equation for kinetic energy.
JP: Note or imagine, that the velocity vectors "ve" and "vp" have opposite directions, so -me = mp must hold; It means that the electron and positron have masses of opposite sign.
The Newtonian momentum equation is p=mv and since the total momentum in the particle's rest frame would be zero you would have me*ve+mp*vp=0 therefore mp=me, both would be positive.
GD: What you are describing is not a photon, it is called positronium.
JP: So I don't rate "Positronium" in the calculation.
That's what it is called and if you read the article you can see the equipment used to manufacture it. As I said, it lasts about 140 ns while photons have no lifetime.
Dear George Dishman ,
JP: The following applies: me*ve^2 + mp*vp^2 = h*f; where |ve| = |vp| = v; "f" is the frequency of mutual circulation;
GD: In that you are using the Newtonian equation for kinetic energy.
Yes. We can write: |ve| = |vp| = v; me*ve + mp*vp = h*f/v; means that me*ve + mp*vp != 0;
JP: So I don't rate "Positronium" in the calculation.
GD: That's what it is called and if you read the article you can see the equipment used to manufacture it. As I said, it lasts about 140 ns while photons have no lifetime.
Also in "Positronium", the annihilation into a neutrino-antineutrino pair is also possible. Further research is needed to confirm that gamma photons are formed only at the decay of the "neutrino-antineutrino pair". I gave "Positronium" as an example. We know that optic photons exist and, at the speed of light, the neutrinos pair inside the photon no longer decays into gamma photons.
Dear Jaroslav Patúc ,
JP: We can write: |ve| = |vp| = v; me*ve + mp*vp = h*f/v; means that me*ve + mp*vp != 0;
No you can't. I assume you are using ve and vp for the velocities of the electron and positron in which case they are vectors and you cannot add the magnitudes. The identifiers are written as subscripts and vectors are bold so you should write the vector sum of the momenta like this:
meve + mpvp = 0
For the energy which is a scalar you could write:
me*|ve|2 + mp*|vp|2 = h*f
which is wrong. E=hf only applies to particles with zero mass which must travel at the speed of light and the Newtonian energy only applies to particles that are moving much slower than light so the sides are incompatible. The correct equation for a single particle is:
E2 = (mc2)2 + (|p|c)2
You need study some absolute basics, the difference between a vector and a scalar for example, if you are going to write in a forum like this.
JP: Also in "Positronium", the annihilation into a neutrino-antineutrino pair is also possible.
The point is that what you have been describing is already known, not something new, and it is called "positronium", it is not a photon. Photons themselves are individual fundamental particles, they have no internal structure.
“…For the energy which is a scalar you could write:
me*|ve|2+ mp*|vp|2 = h*f which is wrong….”
- that in this case is, of course true; since that
“…|ve| = |vp| = v; me*ve + mp*vp = h*f/v; means that me*ve + mp*vp != 0;….”
- is in this case indeed an ignorant physics of the poster; who, nonetheless, is – what even looks as deliberately – too vivid poster. However that
“….. E=hf only applies to particles with zero mass which must travel at the speed of light and the Newtonian energy only applies to particles that are moving much slower than light so the sides are incompatible…”
- is fundamentally incorrect. Every particle is some close-loop algorithm, which constantly runs in the Matter’s ultimate ether – the [5]4D dense lattice of [5]4D fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), as the specific the lattice disturbance, after some FLE was impacted by some 4D momentum - sequential ELE flipping along some helix that is directed along the creating momentum direction, with the frequency ω.
So all/every particles constantly always move in the 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) [and in parallel along the ct-axis, but that in this case is inessential] with 4D velocities that have identical absolute values, which is determined by the FLE properties – FLE “size” and “flip time”, which are Planck length and Planck time, i.e. the absolute value is equal to the standard speed of light;
- and the particles have 4D momentums P=mc [“bold” means 4D vector], and energies E=Pc=mc2=ћω. Everyparticle fundamentally has both – inertial and gravitational – masses, and that photons don’t have some “rest masses”, since are created by completely space-directed momentums, changes in this case nothing.
Most of what happens in Matter is observable only in the 3D space, and the 3D projection of the 4D helix looks as a wave; and, since particle every time moment is the quite “point-like” FLE flipping point, it interacts with other particle as “point”; what in mainstream QM is called “wave-particle duality”, and in QM particles are infinitesimal points.
And, besides, the 3D space projection of the 4D velocity is the observable spatial velocity, V, and the observed “De Brogile” wave has frequency, say, ω1<ω, what has to that E=ћω indeed rather indirect relation.
,
“…Also in "Positronium", the annihilation into a neutrino-antineutrino pair is also possible.
The point is that what you have been describing is already known, not something new…”
- that is essentially incorrect, really all what is known that such physical events follow from some QCD calculations; and to say that that is really correct it is necessary to have some experimental outcomes, where this decay channel of positronium would be detected. However really that is impossible.
And to that
“…. Photons themselves are individual fundamental particles, they have no internal structure.….”
- that fundamentally is incorrect. Again, all/every particles are some cyclic algorithms, which [in observed particles zoo] contains extremely large numbers of “basic elementary logical gates” – FLEs, say, electron’s algorithm is constituted from 2.4x1022 FLE, where the Forces’ marks are written: 1 FLE has the Gravity Force mark, 2x1021FLEs have Electric Force marks, what is the length of Weak Force marks’ part it is unknown now, etc.
- really every particle has rather complex internal structure, and just studying of the structures must be the main – and really utmost scientific – purpose of the high energy particle physics. On first steps, though, the more fundamental purpose is decode of FLE’s, at least functional, structure.
Cheers
Dear George Dishman , Sergey Shevchenko ,
JP: We can write: |ve| = |vp| = v; me*ve + mp*vp = h*f/v; means that me*ve + mp*vp != 0;
GD: No you can't. .... ve + vp = 0
Yes, ve + vp = 0; but me*ve + mp*vp != 0; when mp = -me; since the mass of an electron is negative, because the charge of the electron is negative. Then your me*|ve|2 + mp*|vp|2 = h*f; we can, when you agree, write: (-|me|)*(-|ve|*|ve|) + |mp|*|vp|*|vp| = h*f;
GD: E = hf only applies to particles with zero mass which must travel at the speed of light ...
No, E = h*f; belongs to the transverse component of the photon wave energy (see above), means to the transverse orbit of an electron around a positron at frequency f and at velocity v = |ve| = |vp|;
GD: The correct equation for a single particle is: E2 = (mc2)2 + (|p|c)2
That's right for the longitudinal wave of the photon. Yes, you need to study some absolute basics about wave fotone:
Research Proposal What is a photon really
GD: Photons themselves are individual fundamental particles, they have no internal structure.
Again, you don't understand what a photon is. Our discussion from the beginning is useless.
SS: “…|ve| = |vp| = v; me*ve + mp*vp = h*f/v; means that me*ve + mp*vp != 0;….”......- is in this case indeed an ignorant physics of the poster; who, nonetheless, is – what even looks as deliberately – too vivid poster.
As I already told you: you don't understand photon physics and also QED.
SS: ...Again, all/every particles are some cyclic algorithms, which [in observed particles zoo] contains extremely large numbers of “basic elementary logical gates”
Very general statement.
Dear Jaroslav Patúc ,
JP: Yes, ve + vp = 0; but me*ve + mp*vp != 0
My apologies, there was an obvious typo in my last message, I missed out the masses in the equation for momentum, it should have read:
meve + mpvp = 0
JP: mp = -me; since the mass of an electron is negative, because the charge of the electron is negative
No, both masses are positive. I showed you a photograph of positron/electron pair tracks that prove that. The positron path curves the opposite way in a magnetic field which means the charge-to-mass ratio has the opposite sign but we know the charge has the opposite sign because charge is conserved when a pair is created so both masses must be positive.
JP: me*|ve|2 + mp*|vp|2 = h*f
No, as I said the left hand is Newton's formula which is only an approximation for the kinetic energy for a low speed particle and cannot be equated to hf which is the total energy for a photon travelling at the speed of light. I already showed you the correct formula you have to use.
JP: That's right for the longitudinal wave of the photon
There is no such thing as a longitudinal EM wave.
JP: Again, you don't understand what a photon is.
You don't know what a vector is, you don't know how to infer charge-to-mass ratio from a particle track, you don't know that positrons and electrons both have positive mass while photons have zero mass, you don't understand that photons are a fundamental particle with no internal structure and you don't understand that EM doesn't support longitudinal waves. You have a great deal to learn.
Dear George Dishman ,
JP: mp = -me; since the mass of an electron is negative, because the charge of the electron is negative
This is a fundamental contradiction between us and I no longer have need to argue with you because you have not understood my arguments in the slightest. And it is also generally accepted that the beam of photons has a transverse and a longitudinal component of the wave. There is no point in discussing with you anymore. I quit.
Dear Jaroslav Patúc,
The attached image shows a positron and an electron spiralling in opposite directions. They have opposite charge, one positive and one negative, so their to spiral in opposite directions their masses must have the same sign, they must both be positive. If you cannot follow that logic, you are right, further conversation is pointless. For reference, the image is from this page:
Good luck with your studies.
Dear George Dishman ,
GD: "The attached image shows a positron and an electron spiralling in opposite directions. They have opposite charge, one positive and one negative, so their to spiral in opposite directions their masses must have the same sign, they must both be positive."
You want to describe an attached image to which you did not attach the original description. My description is as follows: A "gamma photon" collided with a neutral molecule, emitting an electron from molecule (formation of a positive ion), and decaying into two separate particles, a positron and an electron, that spirals independently, means that they are no longer affected electromagnetically. For that, here it is not possible to evaluate the agreement between the sign of charge and mass in both particles, which then, according to research, move in parallel at some distance in the same direction as the original gamma photon. By detecting the positron and the electron, it is possible to find out from which direction the original gamma photon came.
The image continues: The ejected electron from the molecule continues to move downwards and emits photon = electron+positron pair. We have discussed this so far. This pair annihilates at the speed of "v << c" and moves in the opposite direction as the original gamma photon.
Dear Jaroslav Patúc ,
JP: You want to describe an attached image to which you did not attach the original description.
I linked the image rather than the source page in the message, I've changed that to make it easier to find. The source had been given a few posts earlier:
JP: My description is as follows: A "gamma photon" collided with a neutral molecule, emitting an electron from molecule (formation of a positive ion), ...
That part is correct, those tracks are labelled in the diagram.
JP: ... and decaying into two separate particles, a positron and an electron, ...
Not quite, the excess energy released at the collision created the low speed pair where we can see the small spirals, the scattered electron exited the picture at the bottom carrying most of the energy so the radius of it's spiral path was larger than the chamber. All three originate from a common point at the start of the tracks where the collision happened.
JP: ... that spirals independently, means that they are no longer affected electromagnetically.
The particles move in a spiral path because they are interacting with the magnetic field which is imposed on the whole chamber. If they were "no longer affected electromagnetically", their paths would be straight lines that would apply to neutral particles. The magnetic field is in the same direction throughout the chamber (aligned in the direction we are viewing) so the fact that the paths spiral in opposite directions means they carry charge and their charge-to-mass ratios are opposite. The charges are also opposite so the masses must have the same sign.
That diagram proves your claim to be wrong and everyone who has studied particle physics is very familiar with these images and can read them at a glance in the way I have explained.
JP: For that, here it is not possible to evaluate the agreement between the sign of charge and mass in both particles, ...
Sorry, it is extremely easy to see that both masses are positive if you understand how a chamber works.
JP: ... which then, according to research, move in parallel ...
You can see that they do not move in parallel, one creates a decaying spiral on the left, the other a spiral on the right until their energy is gone and they can no longer be followed. They end their free motion at the centre of the spirals.
JP: By detecting the positron and the electron, it is possible to find out from which direction the original gamma photon came.
Yes, it came from the top of the screen moving slightly to the left.
JP: The image continues: The ejected electron from the molecule continues to move downwards and emits photon = electron+positron pair.
Neither the image nor the web site explanation says anything like that at all, you appear to be seeing hallucinations.
Dear George Dishman ,
JP: ... and decaying into two separate particles, a positron and an electron, ...
GD: Not quite, the excess energy released at the collision created the low speed pair where we can see the small spirals, the scattered electron exited the picture at the bottom carrying most of the energy...
Remember that this is a very close "Coulomb interactions" of the components after the decay of the gamma photon: gamma photon = (electron, positron), molecule = (positive ion, electron), which current science does not adequately describe, and therefore also the article. The dimensions of the chamber play no role here, so your explanations are also controversial. I quit.
Dear Jaroslav Patúc,
You seem determined to ignore the evidence. The electron spirals to the left as shown by the blue arrow, the positron spirals to the right as shown by the red arrow. We know they have opposite electrical charge so they must have mass of the same sign. Both are positive.
JP: I quit.
That would be sensible, every scientist knows how chambers work, they've been in use for many decades so your hypothesis is proven wrong by the attached labelled close-up from the previous image, and you only make yourself look incompetent by not understanding it.
22nd May, 2022
"JP: I quit."
Now that the current discussion of elementary particle dynamics appears to be taking something of a pause, we have an opportunity to return to the original question of the range of gravitational wave detectors.
George Dishman, you probably would like to answer my latest comment:
"If you are talking about interference from inside the seismic suspension system or crosstalk from vertical interference, I think LIGO has solved those problems simply by not mentioning them further."
On occasion of recent LVK releases I would like to draw your attention to my latest comment on the same subject:
"According to their Latest News (May 15)* and LVK Webinar (April 28)** KAGRA is expected to reach the current BNS detector range ~ 100 Mpc of LIGO not before 2027. KAGRA is presently rated at ~ 1 Mpc which is the level that LIGO had already achieved in 2005.
KAGRA is rated two orders of magnitude below LIGO in spite of having significantly improved their seismic suspension system.
We cannot exclude, in fact, that KAGRA doesn’t find LIGO-type “gravitational-wave“ signals just by having successfully eliminated interference from inside and/or via their vertical seismic suspension mechanics.
2 Recommendations
Dear George Dishman ,
GD: You seem determined to ignore the evidence. The electron spirals to the left as shown by the blue arrow, the positron spirals to the right as shown by the red arrow.
Yes, so they spirals is true, but each around its axis and not around the common axis. You have to see that this "electron + positron pair" was formed by the decay of a gamma photon when it hited an electron of a neutral molecule. So you write completely about something other than me.
JKF: Yes, I quit."
Yes, Johan K. Fremerey, I'm happy to "resume normal service".
JKF: If you are talking about interference from inside the seismic suspension system or crosstalk from vertical interference, I think LIGO has solved those problems simply by not mentioning them further.
The paper you linked was about "crackling noise". LIGO solved that problem by replacing the steel wire with fused silica a decade ago as we have discussed many times so crackling noise no longer exists there. I'm not sure where KAGRA are on that topic but I would expect them to have picked up the same proven solution if it is suitable for their cryogenic suspension.
JKF: KAGRA is rated two orders of magnitude below LIGO in spite of having significantly improved their seismic suspension system
Yes, and the video I linked explained the primary causes of the present KAGRA limitations such as their closed loop suspension control systems, light scattering, SRM mirror problems and lower laser power. I already showed you the overall sensitivity chart too, it's horrible and suggests to me that they have a long way to go.
P.S.
I found the previous post, here are the links:
- As you can see, the suspension control noise is below other sources from around 60 Hz (and crackling noise is so low it isn't even mentioned). He explains where the control noise comes from and then goes on to explain the limits at higher frequencies.
- https://youtu.be/Il8fXnqfDHo?t=1975
- The O3 chart is figure 4 here:
- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.07011.pdf
Dear Jaroslav Patúc,
You have again missed the point, the electron's path turns clockwise, the positron's path turns anti-clockwise but they are moving through the same magnetic field. They turn in the opposite directions and have opposite charge polarity so they must have the same polarity of mass, both must be positive.
22nd May, 2022
George Dishman: "The paper you linked was about "crackling noise". LIGO solved that problem by replacing the steel wire with fused silica a decade ago."
When looking at KAGRA's recent paper on crackling noise you will notice that the main concern was about metallic blade springs for seismic insolation along the verticals.
"... the primary causes of the present KAGRA limitations such as their closed loop suspension control systems, light scattering, SRM mirror problems and lower laser power."
Do you really believe KAGRA in these disciplines is still 17 (seventeen) years behind or presently at the 2005 status of LIGO ?? Shouldn't LIGO be interested to have KAGRA at an adequate technological level for successful collaboration ?
I rather suspect participants of the world-wide gravitational-wave network are not so much interested to see and admit that LIGO-type "true GW signals" are missing after installation of KAGRA's improved suspension system. Claiming insufficient sensitivity may be looked at as a welcome way out for at least a couple of years ...
1 Recommendation
Dear Johan K. Fremerey,
JKF: Do you really believe ...
Your rhetorical questions are of no interest to me and no value in any discussion.
KAGRA is developing a new design using cryogenic mirrors from scratch, it has similarities to LIGO but also major differences. The parts giving the most problems don't even exist in LIGO so they are where LIGO was in the 1990s but progressing faster due to LIGO's help.
JKF: ... insufficient sensitivity ...
Is clearly evident in the sensitivity chart I cited. You have no credible criticism.
Preprint Farmer and Lazy Pig
23rd May, 2022
George Dishman: "Your rhetorical questions ..."
It seems strange indeed that KAGRA is announced as actively participating in spectacular discoveries with LIGO and VIRGO, see e.g. reference below, while on the other hand KAGRA is ranked two orders of magnitude below LIGO in terms of sensitivity. I am therefore looking for possible reasons for this kind of imbalance.
"KAGRA is developing a new design with cryogenic mirrors from scratch."
I understand experimental results on crackling noise as shown in Fig. 11 of cited KAGRA paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.00400.pdf were already achieved in 2020 with the cryogenic subsystem, demonstrating the success of the cryostages in eliminating suspension-induced transient noise in the frequency range of claimed gravitational wave signals.
Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,
JKF: It seems strange indeed that KAGRA is announced as actively participating ...
It is a fact that they are actively participating. Whether their equipment is sensitive enough to make detections is a separate question and I think they have a long way to go for the reasons they stated in the webinar.
24th May, 2022
George Dishman: "Whether their equipment is sensitive enough to make detections is a separate question"
When KAGRA was announced in https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20210629 as having been "not online during these detections" this rather implies they would have been able to confirm these detections if online.
If it was clear that the KAGRA sensitivity was a factor 100 below LIGO at that time, then announcement of KAGRA's participation in the first discovery of a NS/BH merger event wouldn't have made sense, just as little as "was not online during these detections".
It cannot be excluded indeed that KAGRA was assigned "not online" just because with their improved seismic suspension system they were unable to confirm simultaneous signals with LIGO, and downrating of KAGRA sensitivity was "installed" only afterwards for the same reason.
2 Recommendations
"LIGO and cooperating institutions obviously determine distance r of their hypothetical gravitational wave sources on the basis of a 1/r dependence of related spatial strain, see on page 9 of reference below. Fall-off by 1/r in fact applies in case of gravitational potential Vg = - GM/r of a single source."
No. Fall-off for a single point source goes as 1/r2 for the field strength in the static case. The potential goes as 1/r, but it is the field strength that is measured (and gives the strain).
However, for any time-dependent radiation, the leading-order term of the field strength falls off as 1/r. This is true for dipole as well as for quadrupole radiation. Because of the appearance of time-dependent terms, the derivatives in the field equations produce all terms from 1/r, 1/r2,... to 1/rs, where s would be 2 for (non-existent) monopole radiation, 3 for dipole radiation (electromagnetic, e.g.), 4 for quadrupole radiation (gravitation), and so on.
A consequence of the leading order term being 1/r is that the energy current goes as 1/r2 in leading order and that means that energy can be radiated away. Which would not be the case, if the leading-order term fell off faster than 1/r.
2 Recommendations
28th May, 2022
K. Kassner: "A consequence of the leading order term being 1/r ..."
Thanks for theoretical background. We have agreed upon 1/r for "geometrical" reasons as well, see May 17.
1 Recommendation
GM/r as contrasted with _GM/r does not bring about for spectators' frame(s) to be in a position either to prove or to disprove gravity waves ................It’s less to do with distance than with inertial frames. If you’re riding one inertial frame rather than its wave symmetry , then the negative sign means that gravity is repulsive instead of Attractive: the whole philosophy of gravity remaining on the same Manifold to be compared with signalization on ANY other Manifold becomes suspended . . . . .. . .. .
Reza Sanaye ,"If you’re riding one inertial frame rather than its wave symmetry , then the negative sign means that gravity is repulsive instead of Attractive:"
At the carrier of mass and charge, in reality mass has a sign of charge, so it's OK.
Related Publications
Technical discussions of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) sensitivity often focuses on its effective sensitivity to gravitational waves in a given band; nevertheless, the goal of the LIGO Project is to “do science.” Exploiting this new observational perspective to explore the Universe is a long-term goal, toward which...
Compact binary stars at cosmological distances are promising sources for
gravitational waves (GWs), and these are thought to be powerful cosmological
probes, referred to as the GW standard sirens. With future GW detectors such as
the Einstein telescope (ET), we will be able to precisely measure their
luminosity distances out to a redshift $z\sim5$....
We investigate statistical properties of extragalactic gravitational wave background formed by unresolved binary stars in galaxies with taking into account realistic distribution of matter according to Las Campanas Redshift Survey. We found that the power density of the GW energy density Omega^2(k) varies as k^{-0.5} (k is the wave number) at angul...