Sunday, January 24, 2010

Sound Shaping our Views of the Universe?

The Sound of Gravitational Waves

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 that are too high for humans. The sounds of gravitational 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.

If it's Not a Soccer Ball, What is it?

See, if you do not understand how one can arrive at how one is to bring the truth out of a geometrical propensity of the vibrational nature of the universe then how is it one can hope to view the universe in a new and a very dynamical way? Understand it's mathematics?

Gravitational wave sources for LISA from Michele Vallisneri on Vimeo.

An overview of gravitational-wave sources for the planned NASA-ESA mission LISA (, including visualizations of black-hole binary mergers and extreme-mass-ratio inspirals. Video shown at the 215th American Astronomical Society Meeting (Washington, D.C., Jan 3-7 2010). For a video introduction to the LISA mission


  1. Thanks, Plato. Interesting stuff. Yes, well I don't wish to waste another single second investigating NASA's website, as I spent about 2 minutes and couldn't locate WHEN this thing (the 3 satellites) is supposed to launch! So ...

    WHEN will LISA go up? I vaguely remember 2020 or something.

    Also, and quite important, if it is that far off, how committed are ESA and NASA to seeing it through?

    ESA I'll bet is fine, but NASA's budget is way too whimsical based on the flakiness of America's so-called "leaders." Between the left-wingers sucking off money to feed the non-working poor, and the right-wingers sucking off the same for their arms-merchant buddies, I see very little left over for Science. Alas.

  2. Hi Steven,

    I am not sure since Lisa has been on the table for a long time.Thoughts culminating from the work of LIGO?


  3. Hi Steven,

    I know you said not one more minute of your time but you have to look at the Gravity People:)

    To understand how to combine relativity of the large, is it not also necessary to understand once combined with the small what this would look like? Of course I speculate.

    So what would it look like in some geometry? Below planck length their is no current status?

    But the subject of continuity does make it's way onto the picture scene I think.


  4. The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean. Bernhard Riemann

  5. Thanks, this is edifying and should be an enjoyable experience as well - once I can get it to work. If we, real people, could hear gravitational waves, couldn't we hear people talking etc? Their moving vocal chords make GWs. Without real sound's interactions, it would sound different but it would be accessible.

  6. Hsub0 = 74.2 ± 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc

    That's Hubble's Constant, which is variable but for our intents and purposes is constant, that rate being the current value, hence the sub zero.

    I believe that is the rate of the expansion of the observable Universe.

    74.2 kilometers per second per 3,000,000 light years sure looks awfully small. Phew, a good thing too, or we'd be ripped apart.

    So what are we Plato, our Universe? Elliptic, Hyperbolic, or Flat? I'm thinking we don't know thanks to the margin of error being greater than the actual value of Omega, which Cosmologists reckon is slightly negative.

    Lisa will launch in 2018-2020 thanks to Wiki.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Hi Steven,

    Yes I see what you are saying by including your comment to Bee.

    Of course the basis of the extrapolation about such an adventure geometrically seems to be of value in the Friedmann equations. Omega, as you mention in relation to the density of the universe?

    Yet physically, there has to be some reason?

    M87 is the nearest example of an active galactic nucleus with a bright optical jet. The jet appears as a string of knots within a widening cone extending out from the core of M87. The FOC image reveals unprecedented detail in these knots, resolving some features as small as ten light-years across. According to one theory, the jet is most likely powered by a 3 billion solar mass black hole at the nucleus of M87.See: Hubble Site

    So many black-holes in the universe determining it state? What are some of these signs in the expression of Jet components?? Are Jets of value here in this determination?

    What role do they play with regards too, "high energy particles" in cosmic particle displays?


  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. Again, doing my own research and helped by you Plato, I found the very unsatisfactory answer that we DO NOT KNOW if the Universe is Flat, Elliptic, or Hyperbolic. Rather, we think it is flat, with +-2% margin of error.

    However I got that off Wiki so that information may be outdated.

    My own feeling is that the Universe (and therefore gravity which is part of our universe) is Geometrical, period. WHICH geometry ... we don't know. I find digging into smallness such that there are small rolled-up dimensions such as those String theorists (not a fan) postulate, is one angle toward figuring this all out.

    However, my own interests lie in looking outward, to potential dimensions on a VERY large scale, and regardless of how many there are, at best the most we could hope to see is one extra dimension of space, a super-large one such that as far as we are concerned, appears as a constant.

    Consider where and what we are ... living in an explosion. Inside. How can we ever hope to fully understand it?? Can a fireworks appreciate its own display?

    One "out" that I have been contemplating is Ted Kaluza's 5-D cylinder theory, minus Oskar Klein's "tiny rolled-up dimensions" angle, i.e., Kaluza-Klein theory, upon which all of String Theory is based.

    I ask ... what IF Kaluza was right and Klein was wrong?

    One possible "explosion" or "fireworks" angle (pardon the pun) is that we're on a torus, a doughnut of a universe if you will, that is expanding away from the moment of the big bang/big crunch.

    Close up, our section of the torus would appear as a cylinder. Kaluza's 5-D cylinder theory may explain things then ... such as the equations for electromagnetism and the Field Equations of General relativity falling out naturally.

    Also, on a torus, depending on one's direction, the universe could appear flat, elliptic, or hyperbolic. Not a lot, but somewhat, something small, and unfortunately we haven't the technology as of yet to detect it.

    Maybe ESA's Planck satellite will be of help.

  11. Hi Steven,

    I am glad that you have decided not to remained rigid and to remain open minded.

    Yes, given the circumstance of your education you can be more critical to the mathematics just as Bee can be being educated in the way she has to abandon that in favor of the physics. Latex symbolism is important

    Why the "counting clarification" as to what she feels is not a mathematical universe by Tegmark?

    Such work is the basis of, by looking into Quantum Gravity research in order to see the formulating principal that garners the "mass reality" as it materializes in the explosive view of the universe. Powers of ten of course. As well, the condense matter theorist down the hall.

    You correctly seen the relation and use of the LHC as the largest magnification possible in our reach phenomenologically. Also, the geometrical perspective in relation to the Friedman equation. Gott time? See also: Gravity and Light in the Fifth Dimension Von Stokum cylinder as to stepping into...and time travel?

    This is not just some posted cut and pasted evaluation but one that looks at the very basis of quantum gravity basis of the geometrical understanding as one is lead through the experimental basis which our methods have reached.

    Does any valuation in science make time travel a possibility?:)Any relevant relation to the superfluity of super conductors? The QGP in relation?

    Imagine aspects of this topic of cylinder geometrical related to what happens at the very core of the blackhole. Okay not some funnel back in time but all of the matter constituents readily available to the material choice of mass consideration?