Interferometric detection of gravitational waves: how can a wild roam through mindless mathematical laws really be a trek towards the goal of unification? by Christian Corda, Reza Katebi, and Nathan

Christian, Reza and Nathan,

I checked out your essay and noted your response to questions about GR connections to the contest theme. I have been following the desire to go beyond observation of the BB with light using GR, and it now seems possible to do this with more resonance with LIGO upgrades and more than 2 stations. Such an achievement certainly connects our parochial world with the ultimate beginning. Perhaps you should have emphasized the ultimate BB potential more.

Hope you get a chance to check out my approach.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Impressive, Christian. Since I first heard about the LIGO efforts, I have been fascinated by the prospect of breaking the light barrier and detecting what constitutes the BB, perhaps in our lifetime. I have a feeling will not solve the ultimate mystery but open up more pointed questions about our beginnings.

Jim

Thanks for your kind words.

Christian, et al,

I found your essay clear, well written and nice to read and interesting too. I knew Einstein had changed his mind on GW's (and many things) but not quite how much! OK the links with the topic were a touch homeopathic, but frankly I blame the topic, pregnant with quintupletaly poor assumptions and able to link to anything in physics!

On GW's. I agree they exist and further that they are indeed a 'no brainer' and, this may shock, but I long ago designed a detector which still works perfectly. You tell me if you think it's flawed; I use water but must point out your analogy IS flawed as in space there's no 'surface' or medium interface on which the waves may form. I was then a bit disappointed you didn't get into what GW's 'ARE', which I consider best described simply as 'fluctuations in gravitational potential' due to positional changes (normally orbital) of the massive bodies. Do say if you think that's wrong, but I found definition important for detection.

The set up? It uses the 'large elephant' scenario; There's always a large elephant in the room nobody has noticed; So practically; take a large volume of fluid with a long 'arm' length, then pass a massive body above it, slowly and repeatedly. Sure enough I find a detectable change in level and even a 'flow' corresponding to the motions. Using TWO massive bodies, together, opposite or orthogonally, and at different distances modifies the level and flow in a predictable manner. I have sets of 'tidal prediction' tables, not always precise but very good approximations. You can get copies here; gravity wave tidal predictions.

The large set up and gauge is outside my office, with a max height range of 5.8m when in conjunction and peak flow of 3.1knots. It did need bodies the size of a star and small moon and the liquid volume of the North Sea and Atlantic to get that scale of change, but smaller works too. In the Med the max is some 1.5m (which Venitians are thankful for!)

What I'm pointing out is that this really is exactly the SAME effect as the fluctuating potentials from two BINARY AGN's (or 'black holes' in old money). It's just so familiar and BIG it becomes invisible as we habitually don't apply fully evolved brain power to seeing it!

In fact rather like the classical derivation of QM predictions in my essay!

If you fancy collaborating on a paper I'm up for it, but it may be too shocking for the LIGO lot! Anyway very well written and thank you for the greater definition of history. Another top score coming to counter the non-reader trolling with 1's (I've now reached double figures!)

Very Best

Peter

Dear Christian, et al,

I have read with a great interest your essay which certainly deserves an appreciation and first of all for its ontological orientation.

I did not doubt the experimental proof of the wave nature of gravitation, since it confirms my theoretical researches and conclusions concerning the mechanism of interactions. I consider all interactions (including gravitational) as wave reaction to the disturbance of material system caused by change of energy.

I wish you further creative successes.

Vladimir Rodin

Dear Christian and fellow authors,

Thank you for reading (and bemoaning) my assault on Einstein's physics which I defended on my page. Somebody (could be me) said Einstein was right although he arrived at his results in the wrong way. Anyway your essay is very well written and interesting which made a pleasant reading.

Permit me to use the assumptions of my Beautiful Universe Model (BU), which is a sort of Cellular Automata description of physics, to speculate about gravitational waves.

From my diffraction research I have concluded that gravity is akin to the distortion of the dielectric ether around matter - creating a density field that has a gradient index of refraction that - for example- bends light - an idea that also goes back to Thomas Young then Eddington . From there it is an easy step to say that de Broglie-like wave fields surrounding matter are associated with gravitational fields, and that when disturbed by motion this field generates waves.

So you see that once one is free from the fetters of spacetime formulations physics seems lighter and freer to proceed to new horizons!

Before dismissing CA theories please consider Gerard 't Hooft's new book showing Quantum Mechanics can emerge from CA. Can relativity be far behind?

Cheers

Vladimir

Christian, et al,

It's a great time to be a relativist, isn't it? :-)

You've written a marvelous essay, expertly exposing the importance of LIGO, and the challenges ahead, deserving my highest mark.

Please allow me to focus on:

" ... if a GW propagates in a region of space-time where two free-falling test masses are present, the GW effect will drive the masses to oscillate."

In fact, only the phenomenon of oscillation allows us to know that a mass is present.

"Concerning the previously cited possibility of ultimately discriminating between the general theory of relativity and extended theories of gravity, only a perfect knowledge of the motion of the test masses, which are the beam-splitter and the mirrors of the interferometer, will permit one to determine if the general theory of relativity is the definitive theory of gravity."

General relativity was never intended to be the definitive theory of gravity. It was, as you imply, an intermediate step on the way to a unified field theory. If the test particles are falling in a positively curved trajectory (the geodesic of a positive curvature), they will interact. If in a negative trajectory, they won't. What could one possibly mean, however, by a 'negative trajectory'? Einstein said he thought of a quantum "... as a singularity, surrounded by a large vector field. With a large number of quanta a vector field can be composed that differs little from the one we presume for radiation."

What better candidate for the mother of all fields than the neutrino field? What better source of consciousness than spacetime itself, compelling us to remember a trajectory we can never return to, and which perhaps never existed? I hope you get a chance to read my essay.

All best,

Tom

Dear Christian

Mathematical ingenuity can establish equivalence between different physical assumptions - so yes a density field can be equated in its effects to that of a field of flexible space-time. My big concern is that some scenarios are nearer to how Nature actually works. What would an alien visitor to Earth choose - a fancy complicated scheme involving the changing of the very substance of the Universe -space and time - locally requiring complicated tensors to describe and depending on nearby masses, or a simple linear density field leaving space, time, and most importantly, observers, out of the picture? Many are aware that Einstein's theories, however they facilitate calculations, lead to a false image of the fundamental workings of Nature, and hence act to block further progress such as Unification of GR with QM.

Cheers

Vladimir

Hi Chris

The link is here;

Tidal Prediction Tables My point is that do the weakness of the effect we need a massive body of water. We happen to have natural bodies of water that big (I have one outside my Kent office), AND a handy moon to pass across it in a 13hr cycle (on top of the Suns 24hr cycle, a lower magnitude effect, but the same 'change in position' wrt any point on earth is then due to our rotation). The only problem we then have is that it's all so big and familiar that nobody has NOTICED what it is!! It just needs re-thinking about afresh.

The induced motion is 'UP and DOWN' as well as a flow' 'background effects' are all easy to calculate and allowed for (as far as Mars anyway) in the prediction tables. We just need to record and adjust for relative interface medium vector and density (air pressure) each time. (We call that 'wind' in the trade!).

I keep a set of the prediction tables on my yacht as they're essential for racing. Height is the more direct and useful scalar as the Lagrangian flows are slower where water depth is less due to drag. I can report that the height predictions are very precise.

Do you now see my point? I'm suggesting there's NO fundamental difference in the 'wave' effect from a distant large mass in motion than from nearby small ones!

The tables also account for epigee etc so can be a useful scientific tool.

Very best.

Peter

Dear Christian

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor