Monday, August 21, 2006

Gravitational Wave Detectors are Best Described as "Sounds."


Weber developed an experiment using a large suspended bar of aluminum, with a high resonant Q at a frequency of about 1 kH; the oscillation of the bar after it had been excited could be measured by a series of piezoelectric crystals mounted on it. The output of the system was put on a chart recorder like those used to record earthquakes. Weber studied the excursions of the pen to look for the occasional tone of a gravitational wave passing through the bar...


You have to go back to what was initiated to help put perspective on what the analogies do for us today?

Plato:
Density measure(comparative to other things) as sound, would be nice. Which leads me to the ideals of Webber and his aluminum bars.


So you have it firmly set in mind, where gravitational waves are set in the whole scheme of things? What values would you practise if Bulk perspectives were to allow you to see gravitational waves in it's two extremes?




Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space and time produced by cosmic violence, such as the the universe's big-bang creation and collisions of black holes. These waves carry information about the "dark side" of the universe that cannot be learned in any other way. The high-frequency gravitational-wave window onto the universe will be opened soon by LIGO (NSF's earth-based Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, which is now in operation and searching for waves). A lower-frequency window will be opened in ~2012 by LISA (the NASA/ESA Laser Interferometer Space Antenna). This lecture will describe LIGO, LISA, and what they may teach us about the universe and about warped spacetime


Where are gravitational waves very strong, and where they are very weak?

Well, do you think such "detachments are practised" when you look at the event? The "sound" is emitted at the "very beginning" and the sound is, "specific?"


We can't actually hear gravitational waves, even with the most sophisticated equipment, because the sounds they make are the wrong frequency for our ears to hear. This is similar in principle to the frequency of dog whistles that canines can hear, but are too high for humans. The sounds of gravitional waves are probably too low for us to actually hear. However, the signals that scientists hope to measure with LISA and other gravitational wave detectors are best described as "sounds." If we could hear them, here are some of the possible sounds of a gravitational wave generated by the movement of a small body inspiralling into a black hole.


When such "analogies" are held in mind, you learn to understand the history of gravitational wave research based on "experimental processes" that were adopted by some to push forward our perspective on the very nature and description "such sounds emitted" may refer too?



So I began to see the whole picture in relation to how we would assess the movement towards "reconstruction of information" that leads from recreating the event from statistical information gathered from our "computerized measures" extended out there, to views of the early universe?

How shall you construct information of "an event" that is unfolding? So scientifically indeed, "experimentalism" has to be taken to new heights with which to construct such views of the early universe.

If you understood the nature of curvature, and the dynamical nature you have imbued quantum views then why would you not accept the views that the quantum nature will impart to you the nature of gravity?

So by preparing oneself as to the ways in which the bulk is perceived, you now have this means with which to judge the events in the cosmos, not just as a after effect of what happened at the time but of the story unfolding from that time?

This doesn't excuse all that is left in the bulk for perspective, because you need to remember the very nature of all constructs have been left for you to look at, as you "rebuild these images" of what happened so long ago. Actually exist in the bulk right now as information?

So you understand Bekenstein Bound do you?

Okay, keep going then with these views as they unfold, and as I have demonstrated them as I "portrait the universe" in the way that I see. It is difficult to get across as a painter, the language barrier, if it does not a have a mutual agreement to interpretation, then it has to be done on a experimental basis.

We all know that, Peter Woit.


The analogy with condensed matter physics was thus introduced to see if the asymptotic properties of the Hawking phonons emitted by an acoustic black hole, namely stationarity and thermality, are sensitive to the high frequency physics which stems from the granular character of matter and which is governed by a non-linear dispersion relation. In 1995 Unruh showed that they are not sensitive in this respect, in spite of the fact that phonon propagation near the (acoustic) horizon drastically differs from that of photons. In 2000 the same analogy was used to establish the robustness of the spectrum of primordial density fluctuations in inflationary models. This analogy is currently stimulating research for experimenting Hawking radiation. Finally it could also be a useful guide for going beyond the semi-classical description of black hole evaporation.
Post a Comment