Part 1 : Prof. Kip Thorne - Gravitational-Wave Observatories

[geonerd]

Is it correct to say that none of the existing GW observatories, including LIGO, have observed so much as a single GW event? I have to wonder if the theories regarding GW production and/or propagation are broken, or perhaps the LIGO system itself was designed with some false assumptions in mind.

[CACBCCCU]

@geonerd

Objects like BHs apparently have a lot of spin associated with them and around them, I imagine a collision is thus made surprisingly weak before the BHs separate, a bit like with those little spinning-toy fighters in a bowl.

Gravity wave detection's an excuse to talk about Einstein, build big stuff, and use the word "graviton" while apparently having no big clue how gravity works & why GR's a galaxy-scale failure surviving only by extreme use of dark-matter pancake-makeup drag.

[CACBCCCU]

The galactic spin aspect of dark matter is something I'd attribute to core graviton rotation, longitudinal gravity is hypothetically zero at ~12-15KLY from the core and spin inducing lateral gravity is at a maximum there, a radius from the core which it seems would correspond to the ends of the bar in e.g. NGC 5701. I don't know how large NGC 5701 is, but hypothetically it should be around 60KLY going from galaxy center to the center of the ring, with a mass-density minima radius midway between.

[CACBCCCU]

@Hofsteder

Sorry I can't fit more into one single reply. Anyway, I suppose crease-assisted extended cosmological-scale multi-jump lensing development would be favored by slower relative motions of the relaying systems, seems it would be more sensitive to relative motions of the involved systems than to their actual masses, which nonetheless would have to be quite large to create any creasing in the first place. I guess that about wraps this chapter up, thanks.

[CACBCCCU]

@Hofsteder The idea of gravitational lensing ruts is, I think, not only useful for seeing cluster lensing for what it really is, but it's also what holographic graviton theories are trying to capture, such theories also seem to support the idea of gravitation through (rut-assisted pairing) paired spin-1 effects in the form of so-called "gluon chains."

[CACBCCCU]

@Hofsteder

A partly-elastic sheet can show the idea of "ruttier than GR" by the inter-well creases, which could simulate "dark matter" lensing. The basis could be in a retro-reflective characteristic of nucleons, which could be modelled (w/o the 1000KLY sinusoid effect) using photons for gravitons and, using for each nucleon (or standard particle, plus the observer system particles), a particle acting like it has eight lasers within an open octahedral cluster of pyramidal corner-reflectors.

[CACBCCCU]

@Hofsteder

Maybe some day I'll make a few videos including n-body simulations based on the graviton model I have in mind. Adding a 2D sinusoidal correction factor to fundamental gravitational quanta is a major time-hog, probably much more so than tossing in some tuned dark matter. If the interaction between gravitons and matter suggests 3D space has an extradimensional character to it, say, e.g., between wells it's ruttier than GR expects, that also bogs the simulation down heavily by itself

[CACBCCCU]

Main reason why I see no concrete evidence to suppose gravitons are spin-2:

Spin-1 particles can produce a spin-2 effect. A pair of identical positive charges exhanges a pair of photons to repel each other equally, the interaction involves spin-1 particles (photons) but a 180-degree rotation gives the same picture, meaning the effect of the exchange is spin-2.

[CACBCCCU]

What I meant to point out is the familiar curve of the GR "gravity well" for a single object with mass is pointed to as an example of "curved space" for light, and gravitational frequency-shifting on light could be referred to as "curved time" for light, but all of that should be recast in terms of variation in intensity of incoming gravitational flux quanta. To me, spacetime extradimensionality is a concept best suited to mystifying and disorienting students just for the sake of it.

[CACBCCCU]

Typically I think of a graviton as a massless particle having a virtual field gravitational force vector pinned to it, and the graviton's virtual field is promoted into a real force on another particle in the event that the graviton effectively "hits' (for lack of a better word) the other particle. There doesn't seem any need (at least in a large space) for a graviton's path to be bent by other gravitons, meaning space-time is 4-D and it's light that curves by gravity, not space-time.

[CACBCCCU]

Seems the twinned spin=1 particles mentioned below could be, for example, a typical virtual (temporary) electron/positron pair, except the path-circle formed by the virtual pair in this instance is close to galactic scale and "temporariness" is measured on a scale with increments of 100 millenia.

[CACBCCCU]

Following up on the last comment, one line of my current thinking supposes that a spin-1 particle representing half a steady-state graviton, to be paired with a counter-rotating twin other-half, can be seen as a propagating locus for a rotating particle-immediate force vector, where the vector-rotation/vector-locus combination generates a steady-state wave-cycle in space, and this cycle has the same size-scale as a typical galaxy, commensurate with low rotation rate and graviton wave energy.

[CACBCCCU]

At the moment, seems to me the right approach is to generate a steady-state spin-2 graviton from a superposition of two spin-1 components, where the force contribution of each component could be represented as a vector to be summed together with the other component vector to give the spin-2 effect. As it's steady state gravitons, there is no fluctuation in time for the field potential at any point given a fixed source, but suppose a balanced wavefuction can be embedded despite that constraint.

[CACBCCCU]

Last thought on LIGO for now is that because the g-wave signature is a balanced wave it cancels itself to LIGO's detection either by being too slow for LIGO's size, which I suggested below could be the case for g-wave of 10-10kHz, and also if the wave is too fast, i.e one wavelength is a small fraction of LIGO beam length, as the wave effect should be balanced it cancels. So LIGO seems tuned to combed-out wavelengths in a band, but not flat in pickup over two orders of scale, such as 10-10kHz.

[CACBCCCU]

The stretch-compress view of the propagating wave-profile is an off-fabric perspective, on the fabric it seems it's a sequence of pushes/pulls, and in that sense a pull effect going from one mirror to the other can cancel as a push effect seen from the opposite direction. If the wave freq is only 10kHz then it's quite flat in LIGO's light travel time window, the wave's practically-constant push or pull effect in the window would cancel nearly equally for opposite directions of light travel.

[CACBCCCU]

Seems a 2D slice has to stay on GRs elastic "fabric" sheet, and g-waves are supposed to show as a set of light-speed-moving balanced compress-stretch cycles in the sheet. If LIGO's light & matter both followed with the waves LIGO would see nothing. If light followed with the waves and LIGO's mass lagged behind then the idea makes more sense to me - light would be stretched/compressed independently of LIGO's internal frame, but SR appears to fail in that frame else nothing shows.

[CACBCCCU]

Inertia being what it is, it seems to be worth considering the possiblity that a signature from LIGO would have to come from LIGO's mass not tracking with gravity waves as well as its light, which I guess could be tracking perfectly with the oscillations in spacetime. I suppose the gravity wave is a balanced wave, it pushes as much as pulls. Axial bending is probably a problem and LIGO can't measure something if the effect cancels itself on return, while 10KHz is very flat in LIGO travel-time.

[CACBCCCU]

I think he's saying there could be around a dozen wavecycles in the 10Hz-10KHz band of the gravity wave spectrum for a BH-pair collision wave-signature. LIGO's explanation seems to imply light ends up largely unaffected by the signature, but LIGO lengths (mirror positions) oscillate with the signature. Twelve cycles in that band isn't much inertia time, so it seems LIGO is supposed to oscillate in time along with the signature, and somehow light measures that move as if outside LIGO spacetime.

[CACBCCCU]

Gravity waves are described here as "oscillations in the fabric of spacetime" which is something I'm trying to relate to LIGO, which is mentioned in pt. 3 of this series, where the waves (10-10kHz) are described as pushing/pulling opposing pairs of mirrors. It seems to be saying LIGO's spatial metrics or physical lengths oscillate with spacetime, presumably inertia-dependently if physical lengths oscillate and it seems it's not just space metrics oscillating, but light is affected differently.

[CACBCCCU]

BTW, I'm not able to get solid numbers for the diameters of Hoag's galaxy ring and the Sombrero galaxy ring. Could be they are both almost exactly the same. If that's the case then it would be regions at a distance of halfway between the ring and core for both galaxies, not just for Hoag's galaxy, that could provide sites of antimatter accumulation. Hoag's galaxy, the MW and Andromeda seem to have a 1:1:2 diameter ratios, which I'd attribute having 1:1:2 ring-cycles-worth of matter and energy.

[CACBCCCU]

@CACBCCCU self correction: "ratios, which I'd attribute" should be "ratio, which i'd attribute to"

[CACBCCCU]

I suppose antimatter creates peaks in gravitational potential energy instead of wells, being antimatter-attractive and matter-repulsive in the process. Not as sure about baryonic antimatter as I am about leptonic antimatter on that, but the idea of looking for cosmological features having negative-mass appealed to me and, after thinking a bit about the apparent diameter ratio of 2:1 for Hoag's ring compared to the Sombrero galaxy's ring, it seemed possible that the latter's core is not matter.

[CACBCCCU]

An impression I maybe gathered on my own long ago was that every individual massless boson should have an appreciable wave property, not just the photons. I figured constant gravity intensity followed the 1/r^2 law of a steady flux of quanta with extremely low effective energy and that (fortunately consonant with low energy) putting a permanent wave in the law of gravity only has a chance of working if the wave's spatial variations are gradual to the extreme.

Sorry to all for the typos, BTW.

[CACBCCCU]

A complete quantum gravity picture should require a treament of antimatter, and logic seems to dictate that negative energy states are really only negative with respect to the "Dirac sea" surface energy, accordingly equating to having a negative mass value and negative gravitational reactions to mass. Giving quantum gravity a steady-state wave with balanced +/- phases, matter may be seen as emitting maximum positive phase gravitons, and antimatter as emitting maximum negative phase gravitons.

[CACBCCCU]

Looking a ring galaxies got me to consider adding a steady-state wave ripple to the glassical gravity well picture, multiplying GmM/r^2 by cos[{2pi*r}{Fp(G/EM)}{1/d(p)}]­, where Fp(G/EM)=~10^-36 is the ratio of gravitational force to electromagnetic force for two close nonmoving protons, and d(p)=~10^-15m is corrected proton diameter, in a variation on Dirac's large numbers hypothesis. Different from EM fields oscillating at a point, this gravity field shows up as an oscillation in space instead.

[CACBCCCU]

At 0:55 "rotations around the propagation direction" I'm assuming propagation direction is toward the viewer, perpendicular to the surface of the screen, which I'd refer to as +z, and the rotation is a circle on the screen plane. If I've got that wrong then one should disregard my "spin "1" graviton characterization. Supposing it's correct, the photon reaction on the classical field shows as a field vector lying on the screen plane, while a classical gravity field is a vector pointing

-z..

[CACBCCCU]

Nice vid. The sort of graviton I'm thinking about would be a spin "1" boson and be a part of a primarily constant flux of low energy quanta. As noted below, it seems capable of duplicating the spin 2 deformations bilateral symmetry by modulation or close ortogonally-complementary matter/antimatter phasings. The spin 2 deformation model used in the video seems sound enough, regardless. I mean it also looks like a fundamental flux-deformation signature one could expect from the event in question.

[CACBCCCU]

I wrote vaguely that "the phase space defines a circle" and what's meant is normal gravity always starts pointing -z (direction into that gravity wave deformation picture on the left) whereas antimatter-gravitons maybe can point +z, as can matter-gravitons originating from a distance of half the graviton's (presumed here) long wavelength. The phase cycle here relates to a circular force-locus lying on the xz axes or the yz or in-between, random orientations averaging out to just + or - z.

[CACBCCCU]

Not sure why the oscillating deformations characterized as spin-2 defining cannot be reproduced by a spin-0 graviton flux that oscillates between being densest and least dense along x and y but in orthogonal phases. I've tried modelling each graviton as an observable +/-z (direct) wave with galactic-scaled length, and it seems to work well, and suggests where appreciable densities of antimatter could exist on that scale, the phase space defines a circle and averages out to +/-z, normal being -z.