# Are the speed of gravitational waves the same as light waves?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by quantum_wave, Dec 5, 2014.

1. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
Applying the gravitational wave energy density hypothesis:

Using the gravitational wave energy density hypothesis, relative motion in a given direction changes the gravitational wave energy density influence on an object moving in that direction, relative to the gravitational wave energy density in the rest frame.

Given the premise that gravitational waves always travel at the speed of light in the local frame, and that the speed of light varies relative to the motion between a stationary frame and a moving frame, the speed of gravitational waves also varies relative to the motion between a stationary frame and a moving frame, as well.

Therefore, the equation for calculating the difference in the gravitational wave energy density encountered in the rest frame vs. in the moving frame would be an inverse relationship. It is inverse because as you increase the relative velocity between the frames, the increased gravitational wave energy density causes the speed of gravity to slow down in the moving frame. Either frame can be deemed to be the moving frame.

The change in gravitational wave energy density between a rest frame and a moving frame is a factor that you would multiply the gravitational wave energy density in the rest frame by, to calculate the higher value of gravitational wave energy density in the moving frame. The factor is always greater than 1 since gravitational wave energy density always increases relative to the gravitational wave energy density in the rest frame.

To get the factor to apply, you take the inverse relationship using a calculation that invokes the relative velocity between frames divided by the speed of gravity. With the numerator of the factor equal to one, the denominator will always be less than one, making the factor always greater than one. Further, dealing with the speed of gravitational waves just like we deal with the speed of light in time dilation calculations, the equation factor is $\frac{1}{\sqrt{ 1- (v/c)^2}}$

or $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{ 1- (v/c)^2}}$$

Last edited: Dec 5, 2014

3. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,833
It's just tex without the i

quantum_wave likes this.

5. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
Thanks. There seems to be a time delay between posting and when tex kicks in.

Messages:
4,833

8. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
That is an interesting revelation. I see that if I refresh the page, the tex works.

9. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

The Baez link discusses the Newtonian model where gravity propagates instantaneously, and later, in GR, gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light.

As for the future: "Are there future prospects for a direct measurement of the speed of gravity? One possibility would involve detection of gravitational waves from a supernova. The detection of gravitational radiation in the same time frame as a neutrino burst, followed by a later visual identification of a supernova, would be considered strong experimental evidence for the speed of gravity being equal to the speed of light. However, unless a very nearby supernova occurs soon, it will be some time before gravitational wave detectors are expected to be sensitive enough to perform such a test."

10. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
Note that a photon has a non-zero "active gravitational mass". This is so slight that you can't measure it in practice, but the photon causes gravity, because energy causes gravity, not just mass. A photon has an E=hf wave nature, and you should think of it as a singleton electromagnetic wave. And because it causes gravity, you should think of it as a gravitational wave too. It doesn't have the quadrupole nature of a true gravitational wave, and its gravitational aspect is miniscule compared to its electromagnetic aspect, but gravity will vary as it passes by, and it passes by at the speed of light.

11. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
$$\frac{J}{m^3}$$
Energy density of an environment is measured in joules per meter cubed, $\frac{J}{m^3}$. I do consider photon energy in that value. Under the gravitational wave energy density hypothesis (GWEDH)

, photons are particles that get all of their inflowing gravitational wave energy from the direction of motion because they travel at the speed of gravity.

Last edited: Dec 6, 2014
12. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
Huh? Perhaps we need to talk about the fundamentals of electromagnetism and gravity.

Messages:
6,677

14. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
I should add that photons are wave-particles, and in addition to having an inflowing wave energy component as mentioned, in the GWEDH, they have a corresponding out flowing wave energy component. The inflowing gravitational component is directional, and in the case of the photon, all comes from the direction of emission, while the out flowing wave energy component is spherical; expanding spherically at the speed of light.

The moving photon then has its particle component, which can go through one slit, and its spherically out flowing wave energy component, which broadens out as it advances, and can go through more than one slit.

15. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
I'm afraid they don't. Sorry. IMHO it's good to think for yourself and do your own research, but it's not good if that turns you into a "my theory" guy advocating something that just doesn't fit with the evidence. Since when did you see any kind of wave with an inflowing component? I would urge you to read In praise of weakness. It's about "weak measurement" work by Aephraim Steinberg et al, and features this depiction of a photon going through two slits.

16. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
Thinking for one's self is indeed very unproductive unless you use the material already thought out; your reference to Aephriam Steinberg et al, is a good example, and I'll put it on my reading list. Not all such material is internally consistent, and there are often inconsistencies and incompatibilities between references. Some topics have more of a concensus than others. The Big Bang has a large general concensus, while the mechanics of light, photons, and gravity, not so much.

Wave convergences have inflowing components. Standing waves are wave convergences. Particles don't form from wave convergences but if a particle exists, its presence is sustained by the continuous multi-directional inflowing (converging) gravitational waves in this hypothesis.

Your depiction of a photon wave going through two slits is fine, but where is the depiction of the photon particle that only goes through one slit? The photon in the GWEDH displays wave-particle duality, as described in the previous posts, as do experiments with photons.

17. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
I don't have a depiction of a photon going through one slit only. But I have previously suggested that something like an optical Fourier transform is performed when you detect a photon. It has an E=hf wave nature. It takes many paths like a seismic wave takes many paths, and it goes through both slits. However when you detect it at one slit, it is converted into a dot, and goes through that slit only. Then when you detect it at the screen, it is converted into a dot. No multiverses are required.

Image credit Steven Lehar, see http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/fourier/fourier.html

As for wave convergences, note that in atomic orbitals electrons "exist as standing waves". Since you diffract electrons, it would seem that electrons exist as standing waves full stop. But that would be a wave in a Dirac's belt spinor configuration, not with some kind of inflow or outflow.

18. ### wellwisherBannedBanned

Messages:
5,160
Here is an explanation for why we don't see gravity waves. Picture a water wave tank, with two wave sources, one either side of the tank. These wave sources are 180 degrees out of phase. The result of the phase difference will be the crests of the waves of the left generator will overlap the troughs of the waves of the right generator canceling both waves. There will be silence in the middle of the tank. The energy is hidden in the stillness.

We can prove the energy is there and is hidden in the stillness, if we placed a wooden partition in the stillness of the center of the tank. Waves, containing the hidden wave energy, will appear on both sides of the partition.

Orbital electrons do the same thing,. The way the electron waves add, most if the source EM energy is hidden by wave addition, even though we are maintaining all the electron wave generators; all electrons still have charge and velocity. Tunneling is not a big deal if we place a partition in the stillness to tap into the hidden energy, allowing an electron to surf to another location.

19. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
The image on the screen when two slits are open is also caused by individual photon impacts on the screen, but the location of the impacts clearly depicts the wave interference taking place between the photons from when they pass through the slits until they reach the screen. It is only the individual particle impacts that appear on the screen, but they arrange themselves in the multiple peaks and valleys spread across the screen when two slits are open, which reinforces the wave concept of the photon as it traverses the medium of space, and yet the pattern on the screen is still individual particle impacts. The pattern of the individual photon impacts on the screen, with only one slit open, shows a diffuse patch of impacts with only one central peak, which supports the particle nature of the photon.
That is what good discussions are all about. One person presents a position, the other shoots it down if they can. Dirac is dead and buried, and his work has not put the issue of the mechanics of light and gravity to rest. Assuredly his contributions to quantum mechanics were great, but not a complete resolution. My favorite interpretation of QM is that QM is incomplete, i.e. the Hidden Variables interpretation, a topic that CptBork and I "debated" a few months back. See his thread on the Bell's Theorem and Non-locality out in the Fringe to see my arguments.

20. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
Interesting observations.

Messages:
6,677
22. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
It is really funny to see you post something like the above when you know for certain that it is a very good description of how many others see you and your posts. You are the "my theory" poster boy... Or at least one of them.

23. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
Farsight, please don't respond to OnlyMe's off-topic personal attack post on my thread.