 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Gravitational waves could be electromagnetic waves... |
|
Page 2 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| PD... |
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 11:12 am, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 6:53 am, Igor <thoov... at (no spam) excite.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:02 am, rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk wrote:
There are many similarities between gravitational and EM waves, but EM
waves only act on electrically charged masses; however, neutron
scattering still occurs due to interference between the magnetic
dipole and spin-orbit interaction.
The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
i.e. electrically charged.
Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
EM radiation has spin one and gravitational radiation has spin two.
EM is dipole and Gravitational is quadrupole. They are completely
different animals.
There is no rotation. A point particle can't. If it did it would have
infinite degrees of freedom or different spin speeds and orientation
of speeds. Spin is bunk. Point particles can't rotate. They are
infinitely small.
Mitch Raemsch
[/quote]
Mitch, this is a problem in vocabulary. Quantum mechanics uses the
term "spin" but in that context doesn't mean anything is rotating. It
is a *borrowed* term. To laypeople, this gets confusing, not knowing
which terms are being used in a specialized way and which ones are
not. This is unfortunate, but not a reason to whine. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 6:02 am, rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[quote]There are many similarities between gravitational and EM waves, but EM
waves only act on electrically charged masses; however, neutron
scattering still occurs due to interference between the magnetic
dipole and spin-orbit interaction.
The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
i.e. electrically charged.
Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
[/quote]
Nope. This has already been checked out. Thoroughly. Do you need some
background? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
eric gisse wrote on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:20:23 -0800:
[quote]Juan R. GonzĂĄlez-Ălvarez wrote:
eric gisse wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:33:23 -0800:
Juan R. GonzĂĄlez-Ălvarez wrote:
rim317-ben wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:02:07 -0800:
snip nonsense
Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
Nobody knows. In emergent approaches to gravity, gravity is a
'residual' interaction arising from electromagnetism. In this
speculative picture, gravitational waves are just certain non-linear
bundles of EM waves.
Why are you citing speculative theories that have no observational
support?
I am not.
Then why bring it up?
One of those approaches has been recently analized in
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html
See the reference #11 cited therein.
Be honest. Has anyone actually paid money for your articles yet?
:_-D
I've never been clear on if you really seriously expect people to pay
money to you just to read your poorly sourced articles.
[/quote]
:_-D
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
n Nov 3, 4:04 am, Ben <rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On 2 Nov, 05:13, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:02 am, rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk wrote:
That's advanced, please provide an online ref.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v7/i5/p1926_1
[/quote]
Thanks, I recall (mainly from Scientic American) back then
a developement of the Neutron structure consisting of shells.
[quote]The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
i.e. electrically charged.
Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
That's what I think, see Eq.(2) herein,http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
The philosophy is straightforward == GR applies to
all configurations of energy, thus including electrical,
so when mass is expressed in terms of an electrical
configuration then g-waves become EM waves.
In theoretics, the term "mass" has NO definition, it's
generic, so I'm using an electrical definition of energy.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
This is a simple and straightforward solution resolving EM and
gravity.
[/quote]
Yes I think so, it sure looks like a Unified Field Theory,
where EM and gravity are concerned, and is deduced as a
prediction directly from GR and our knowledge of electric
fields, potentials and electrical energies.
About waves, a quick look at Eq.(2) in the ref
g_00= 1 -A.B == 1 - ab/^2 , Eq.(2)
and a classical EM-wave results from a partial diff as,
&g_00/&t = a*&E(b)/&t = b*&E(a)/&t
where the &E/&t is referred to as "Maxwell's displacement
current" and is the source of EMR.
[quote]It then can be expanded to understand the quantum world. If matter is
simply a contraction/expansion of the metric tensor then particles
would be able to disappear/reappear and would have to possess a wave/
particle duality by their very construction. The probabilities of
quantum mechanics then appear logical.
[/quote]
Yes, though there is the caveat of how the math is intrepreted,
in to words. For example consider Eq.(4) from the ref,
S^2 = X^2 + ab , Eq.(4)
then setting Plancks action to h = ab gives
(Action unit == charge units ^2)
S^2 = X^2 + h .
In words, X is an orthogonal Newtonian distance, and S
is a Generally Relativistic departure to a nonorthogonal
"curved" spacetime, with the "departure" in units of "h",
that quantizes the g-field, based on the constant invariant
of the "fundamental charge".
What I see is how GR can provide a snap-shot of the Unified
Field Theory permitting a quantized g-field as well, seems
quite versatile.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[quote]I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the spin-1
of photons.
[/quote]
In what journal is this published?
(It seems rather implausible. Gravitons couple universally; photons
don't. How does your "energent" graviton couple two neutral
particles?)
Steve Carlip |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:24 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3443
|
On Nov 3, 4:54 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
Igor wrote on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:53:59 -0800:
(...)
EM radiation has spin one and gravitational radiation has spin two. EM
is dipole and Gravitational is quadrupole. They are completely
different animals.
In emergent gravity, gravitational waves are derived from bundles of EM
waves.
Check literature given in previous message.
It isn't literature when no libraries carry it and can only be read by
paying the author an unreasonable sum of money.
I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the spin-1
of photons.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
moving geometry can't be absorbed like light. You can't get rid of it.
It floats through space forever.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[quote]Igor wrote on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:53:59 -0800:
(...)
EM radiation has spin one and gravitational radiation has spin two. EM
is dipole and Gravitational is quadrupole. They are completely
different animals.
In emergent gravity, gravitational waves are derived from bundles of EM
waves.
Check literature given in previous message.
[/quote]
It isn't literature when no libraries carry it and can only be read by
paying the author an unreasonable sum of money.
[quote]
I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the spin-1
of photons.
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
eric gisse wrote on Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:54:03 -0800:
[quote]Juan R. GonzĂĄlez-Ălvarez wrote:
Igor wrote on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:53:59 -0800:
(...)
EM radiation has spin one and gravitational radiation has spin two. EM
is dipole and Gravitational is quadrupole. They are completely
different animals.
In emergent gravity, gravitational waves are derived from bundles of EM
waves.
Check literature given in previous message.
It isn't literature when no libraries carry it and can only be read by
paying the author an unreasonable sum of money.
[/quote]
:_-D
[quote]I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the spin-1
of photons.
[/quote]
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
carlip-nospam wrote on Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:57:52 +0000:
[quote]Juan R. GonzĂĄlez-Ălvarez <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the spin-1
of photons.
In what journal is this published?
(It seems rather implausible. Gravitons couple universally; photons
don't. How does your "energent" graviton couple two neutral particles?)
Steve Carlip
[/quote]
This seems a crackpot question. Can you write first the macroscopic
gravitational action derived from the EM action in the aproach cited?
By simplicity consider only linear coupling.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ben... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 3 Nov, 20:08, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
[quote]n Nov 3, 4:04 am, Ben <rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Nov, 05:13, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:02 am, rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk wrote:
That's advanced, please provide an online ref.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v7/i5/p1926_1
Thanks, I recall (mainly from Scientic American) back then
a developement of the Neutron structure consisting of shells.
The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
i.e. electrically charged.
Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
That's what I think, see Eq.(2) herein,http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
The philosophy is straightforward == GR applies to
all configurations of energy, thus including electrical,
so when mass is expressed in terms of an electrical
configuration then g-waves become EM waves.
In theoretics, the term "mass" has NO definition, it's
generic, so I'm using an electrical definition of energy.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
This is a simple and straightforward solution resolving EM and
gravity.
Yes I think so, it sure looks like a Unified Field Theory,
where EM and gravity are concerned, and is deduced as a
prediction directly from GR and our knowledge of electric
fields, potentials and electrical energies.
About waves, a quick look at Eq.(2) in the ref
g_00= 1 -A.B == 1 - ab/^2 , Eq.(2)
and a classical EM-wave results from a partial diff as,
&g_00/&t = a*&E(b)/&t = b*&E(a)/&t
where the &E/&t is referred to as "Maxwell's displacement
current" and is the source of EMR.
It then can be expanded to understand the quantum world. If matter is
simply a contraction/expansion of the metric tensor then particles
would be able to disappear/reappear and would have to possess a wave/
particle duality by their very construction. The probabilities of
quantum mechanics then appear logical.
Yes, though there is the caveat of how the math is intrepreted,
in to words. For example consider Eq.(4) from the ref,
S^2 = X^2 + ab , Eq.(4)
then setting Plancks action to h = ab gives
(Action unit == charge units ^2)
S^2 = X^2 + h .
In words, X is an orthogonal Newtonian distance, and S
is a Generally Relativistic departure to a nonorthogonal
"curved" spacetime, with the "departure" in units of "h",
that quantizes the g-field, based on the constant invariant
of the "fundamental charge".
What I see is how GR can provide a snap-shot of the Unified
Field Theory permitting a quantized g-field as well, seems
quite versatile.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
[/quote]
It's good to hear you're open minded to new concepts. I'm surprised
most people in this group agree with GR! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ben... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 3 Nov, 17:58, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 6:02 am, rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk wrote:
There are many similarities between gravitational and EM waves, but EM
waves only act on electrically charged masses; however, neutron
scattering still occurs due to interference between the magnetic
dipole and spin-orbit interaction.
The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
i.e. electrically charged.
Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
Nope. This has already been checked out. Thoroughly. Do you need some
background?
[/quote]
Yes, I would be interested to see how relevant it is. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 8:46 am, Ben <rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On 3 Nov, 17:58, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 6:02 am, rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk wrote:
There are many similarities between gravitational and EM waves, but EM
waves only act on electrically charged masses; however, neutron
scattering still occurs due to interference between the magnetic
dipole and spin-orbit interaction.
The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
i.e. electrically charged.
Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
Nope. This has already been checked out. Thoroughly. Do you need some
background?
Yes, I would be interested to see how relevant it is.
[/quote]
Kaluza (1921). "Zum Unitätsproblem in der Physik". Sitzungsber.
Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin. (Mathematical Physics) 1921.
Klein (1926). "Quantentheorie und fünfdimensionale
Relativitätstheorie". Zeitschrift für Physik 37 (12).
and in a more recent retrospective:
Witten (1981). "Search for a realistic Kaluza-Klein theory". Nuclear
Physics B 186 (3). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[quote]carlip-nospam wrote on Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:57:52 +0000:
Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the spin-1
of photons.
In what journal is this published?
(It seems rather implausible. Gravitons couple universally; photons
don't. How does your "energent" graviton couple two neutral particles?)
This seems a crackpot question. Can you write first the macroscopic
gravitational action derived from the EM action in the aproach cited?
[/quote]
I am reasonably familiar with most of the published approaches to induced
gravity. But I don't know what "the aproach cited" is. That's why I asked
[quote]In what journal is this published?
[/quote]
(I'm not going to poke around in a bunch of random blogs or web pages by
people who I only know from Usenet -- for the most part, that would be a
huge waste of time. But if you can point to something published, I'll be
happy to take a look. )
In the meantime, my question stands. Some emergent gravity models, like
Sakharov's, have a metric already present; other fields just give it some
dynamics. The other models that I know of typically have an extremely
hard time getting their "graviton" to couple universally -- if it arises
from a field with a nonuniversal coupling, it remembers that.
This is a basic conceptual issue. If you have a convincing way of resolving
it, you should be able to explain that, not just throw around "crackpot"
accusations and point to some personal website.
Steve Carlip |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 6:44 am, Ben <rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On 3 Nov, 20:08, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
n Nov 3, 4:04 am, Ben <rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Nov, 05:13, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:02 am, rim317-... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk wrote:
That's advanced, please provide an online ref.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v7/i5/p1926_1
Thanks, I recall (mainly from Scientic American) back then
a developement of the Neutron structure consisting of shells.
The question related to gravitational and EM waves is rather what is
electrical charge? If electric charge is an expansion or contraction
of space-time then gravitational waves would only interact with
matter, which by its very nature is a distortion of the metric tensor
i.e. electrically charged.
Has the hidden gravitational wave been EM waves all along?
That's what I think, see Eq.(2) herein,http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
The philosophy is straightforward == GR applies to
all configurations of energy, thus including electrical,
so when mass is expressed in terms of an electrical
configuration then g-waves become EM waves.
In theoretics, the term "mass" has NO definition, it's
generic, so I'm using an electrical definition of energy.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
This is a simple and straightforward solution resolving EM and
gravity.
Yes I think so, it sure looks like a Unified Field Theory,
where EM and gravity are concerned, and is deduced as a
prediction directly from GR and our knowledge of electric
fields, potentials and electrical energies.
About waves, a quick look at Eq.(2) in the ref
g_00= 1 -A.B == 1 - ab/^2 , Eq.(2)
and a classical EM-wave results from a partial diff as,
&g_00/&t = a*&E(b)/&t = b*&E(a)/&t
where the &E/&t is referred to as "Maxwell's displacement
current" and is the source of EMR.
It then can be expanded to understand the quantum world. If matter is
simply a contraction/expansion of the metric tensor then particles
would be able to disappear/reappear and would have to possess a wave/
particle duality by their very construction. The probabilities of
quantum mechanics then appear logical.
Yes, though there is the caveat of how the math is intrepreted,
in to words. For example consider Eq.(4) from the ref,
S^2 = X^2 + ab , Eq.(4)
then setting Plancks action to h = ab gives
(Action unit == charge units ^2)
S^2 = X^2 + h .
In words, X is an orthogonal Newtonian distance, and S
is a Generally Relativistic departure to a nonorthogonal
"curved" spacetime, with the "departure" in units of "h",
that quantizes the g-field, based on the constant invariant
of the "fundamental charge".
What I see is how GR can provide a snap-shot of the Unified
Field Theory permitting a quantized g-field as well, seems
quite versatile.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
It's good to hear you're open minded to new concepts. I'm surprised
most people in this group agree with GR!
[/quote]
The lack of a detection of GRB's (such as this one)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_080319B
doesn't bode well for the reality of g-waves, so LIGO
may point the way to a Unified Field Theory, I guess
wait and see.
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:23 pm
|
|