| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:22:55 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 176,482 |
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of genuine quantum correlations
that canrCOt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder why quantum computers end up with such weird word lengths?
On 08/10/2025 09:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
-a October 7, 2025
Source:
-a University of Leiden
Summary:
-a An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems
really do obey quantum mechanics.
-a Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of
genuine quantum correlations
-a that canrCOt be explained classically.
-a Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more
authentically quantum.
-a This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger
quantum algorithms.
Link:
-a https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
If reproducible at other labs that probably is Nobel prize winning stuff give it a couple of decades or so. Sooner if a full scale quantum
computer gets built and cracks an "impossible" classical crypto problem.
I wonder why quantum computers end up with such weird word lengths?
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of genuine quantum correlations
that canrCOt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
On 08/10/2025 09:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellAs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of genuine quantum correlations
that canAt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
If reproducible at other labs that probably is Nobel prize winning stuff >give it a couple of decades or so. Sooner if a full scale quantum
computer gets built and cracks an "impossible" classical crypto problem.
I wonder why quantum computers end up with such weird word lengths?
On 8/10/2025 8:03 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/10/2025 09:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
-a October 7, 2025
Source:
-a University of Leiden
Summary:
-a An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems
really do obey quantum mechanics.
-a Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of
genuine quantum correlations
-a that canrCOt be explained classically.
-a Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more
authentically quantum.
-a This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger
quantum algorithms.
Link:
-a https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
If reproducible at other labs that probably is Nobel prize winning
stuff give it a couple of decades or so. Sooner if a full scale
quantum computer gets built and cracks an "impossible" classical
crypto problem.
I wonder why quantum computers end up with such weird word lengths?
I suspect what you see is what they managed to get working.
Writing stuff up is an exercise in rationalising what you succeeded in getting to work before your least careful graduate student broke it.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of genuine quantum correlations
that canrCOt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder if that one is in the fake half.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_113956
7.html
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of genuine quantum correlations
that canrCOt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder if that one is in the fake half.
7.htmlhttps://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_113956
I am still puzzled about 'quantum' mysterious action at a distance
I can understand that if you send a pair of shoes to the last 2 precedents and tramp receives a left one then immediately we know ByeThen has a right one.
And vice versa
On 08/10/2025 09:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
-a October 7, 2025
Source:
-a University of Leiden
Summary:
-a An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems
really do obey quantum mechanics.
-a Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of
genuine quantum correlations
-a that canrCOt be explained classically.
-a Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more
authentically quantum.
-a This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger
quantum algorithms.
Link:
-a https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
If reproducible at other labs that probably is Nobel prize winning stuff give it a couple of decades or so. Sooner if a full scale quantum
computer gets built and cracks an "impossible" classical crypto problem.
I wonder why quantum computers end up with such weird word lengths?
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of genuine quantum correlations
that canrCOt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder if that one is in the fake half.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_113956
7.html
I am still puzzled about 'quantum' mysterious action at a distance
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 16:45:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of genuine quantum correlations
that canrCOt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder if that one is in the fake half.
56https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_1139
7.html
I am still puzzled about 'quantum' mysterious action at a distance
I can understand that if you send a pair of shoes to the last 2 precedents and tramp receives a left one then immediately we
know ByeThen has a right one.
And vice versa
If two photons were born entangled and are now a light year apart, and
their polarizations are measured simultaneously, they will be
opposite. Whether you measure up/down or left/right.
Sorry.
On 10/8/25 18:45, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems
really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of
genuine quantum correlations
that canrCOt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more
authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger
quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder if that one is in the fake half.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_113956
7.html
I am still puzzled about 'quantum' mysterious action at a distance
There is no action at a distance. It's just a correlation that
appears after you select the subset of measurements that happen
to be aligned at both stations. This selection is done by comparing
the measurements well after the fact. Nothing goes faster than light.
On 10/8/25 18:45, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellAs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of genuine quantum correlations
that canAt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder if that one is in the fake half.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_113956
7.html
I am still puzzled about 'quantum' mysterious action at a distance
There is no action at a distance. It's just a correlation that
appears after you select the subset of measurements that happen
to be aligned at both stations. This selection is done by comparing
the measurements well after the fact. Nothing goes faster than light.
Jeroen Belleman
On 08/10/2025 22:50, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 10/8/25 18:45, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems
really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of
genuine quantum correlations
that canrCOt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more
authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger
quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder if that one is in the fake half.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_113956
7.html
I am still puzzled about 'quantum' mysterious action at a distance
There is no action at a distance. It's just a correlation that
appears after you select the subset of measurements that happen
to be aligned at both stations. This selection is done by comparing
the measurements well after the fact. Nothing goes faster than light.
Tachyons might do (iff they exist).
Certainly you cannot use it to communicate information (which is the relativistic prohibition required to maintain causality). But in a very
real sense the wavefunction collapses to whatever polarisation the first station to measure observes in. This is pretty tricky to explain.
I'm pretty sure eventually some bigger theory that unifies QM and GR
will explain it completely but right now just like with gravity in
Newton's era you have to accept action at a distance as the least unreasonable way of looking at it from an experimental perspective.
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sun
to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it.
A bit like with the intensity interferometer by Hanbury-Brown and Twiss
- in the 1960's most physicists at the time thought they would never
make it work even if theory said that it should. Today there are
partially coherent optical interferometers doing full aperture synthesis.
On 10/9/25 11:01, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/10/2025 22:50, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 10/8/25 18:45, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems
really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellAs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of
genuine quantum correlations
that canAt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more >>>>>> authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger
quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder if that one is in the fake half.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_113956
7.html
I am still puzzled about 'quantum' mysterious action at a distance
There is no action at a distance. It's just a correlation that
appears after you select the subset of measurements that happen
to be aligned at both stations. This selection is done by comparing
the measurements well after the fact. Nothing goes faster than light.
Tachyons might do (iff they exist).
Certainly you cannot use it to communicate information (which is the
relativistic prohibition required to maintain causality). But in a very
real sense the wavefunction collapses to whatever polarisation the first
station to measure observes in. This is pretty tricky to explain.
Yes, it's tricky, and quantum mystics wallow in the puddle of nonsense
this enables them to put forth. First, the wavefunction is not a
physical thing. It's a mathematical tool to express probabilities.
As for the entanglement experiments, if both stations' are aligned,
both 'x' or both '+', detections are correlated. Both stations
randomly choose their alignment. When at a later time the sequence
of alignments is compared, all coincident events where the detectors
were not aligned, one 'x' and the other '+', are discarded. The
remaining events are correlated, of course. That's what they do in
quantum key distribution, for example.
I'm pretty sure eventually some bigger theory that unifies QM and GR
will explain it completely but right now just like with gravity in
Newton's era you have to accept action at a distance as the least
unreasonable way of looking at it from an experimental perspective.
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sun
to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it.
I think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that.
Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each
other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does*
propagate as a wave.
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but
because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower,
and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily
realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily
observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/9/25 11:01, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/10/2025 22:50, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 10/8/25 18:45, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems
really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellAs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of >>>>>>> genuine quantum correlations
that canAt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more >>>>>>> authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger
quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder if that one is in the fake half.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_113956
7.html
I am still puzzled about 'quantum' mysterious action at a distance
There is no action at a distance. It's just a correlation that
appears after you select the subset of measurements that happen
to be aligned at both stations. This selection is done by comparing
the measurements well after the fact. Nothing goes faster than light.
Tachyons might do (iff they exist).
Certainly you cannot use it to communicate information (which is the
relativistic prohibition required to maintain causality). But in a very >>> real sense the wavefunction collapses to whatever polarisation the first >>> station to measure observes in. This is pretty tricky to explain.
Yes, it's tricky, and quantum mystics wallow in the puddle of nonsense
this enables them to put forth. First, the wavefunction is not a
physical thing. It's a mathematical tool to express probabilities.
As for the entanglement experiments, if both stations' are aligned,
both 'x' or both '+', detections are correlated. Both stations
randomly choose their alignment. When at a later time the sequence
of alignments is compared, all coincident events where the detectors
were not aligned, one 'x' and the other '+', are discarded. The
remaining events are correlated, of course. That's what they do in
quantum key distribution, for example.
I'm pretty sure eventually some bigger theory that unifies QM and GR
will explain it completely but right now just like with gravity in
Newton's era you have to accept action at a distance as the least
unreasonable way of looking at it from an experimental perspective.
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sun >>> to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it.
I think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that.
Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each
other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does*
propagate as a wave.
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but
because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower,
and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily
realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily
observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose
energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should.
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/9/25 11:01, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/10/2025 22:50, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 10/8/25 18:45, Jan Panteltje wrote:Tachyons might do (iff they exist).
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems >>>>>>>> really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellAs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of >>>>>>>> genuine quantum correlations
that canAt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more >>>>>>>> authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger >>>>>>>> quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder if that one is in the fake half.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_113956
7.html
I am still puzzled about 'quantum' mysterious action at a distance
There is no action at a distance. It's just a correlation that
appears after you select the subset of measurements that happen
to be aligned at both stations. This selection is done by comparing
the measurements well after the fact. Nothing goes faster than light. >>>>
Certainly you cannot use it to communicate information (which is the
relativistic prohibition required to maintain causality). But in a very >>>> real sense the wavefunction collapses to whatever polarisation the first >>>> station to measure observes in. This is pretty tricky to explain.
Yes, it's tricky, and quantum mystics wallow in the puddle of nonsense >>>this enables them to put forth. First, the wavefunction is not a
physical thing. It's a mathematical tool to express probabilities.
As for the entanglement experiments, if both stations' are aligned,
both 'x' or both '+', detections are correlated. Both stations
randomly choose their alignment. When at a later time the sequence
of alignments is compared, all coincident events where the detectors
were not aligned, one 'x' and the other '+', are discarded. The
remaining events are correlated, of course. That's what they do in >>>quantum key distribution, for example.
I'm pretty sure eventually some bigger theory that unifies QM and GR
will explain it completely but right now just like with gravity in
Newton's era you have to accept action at a distance as the least
unreasonable way of looking at it from an experimental perspective.
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sun >>>> to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it.
I think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that.
Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each
other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does*
propagate as a wave.
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but
because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower,
and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily
realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily
observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose >>energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should.
It has to accelerate.
Joe
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/9/25 11:01, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/10/2025 22:50, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 10/8/25 18:45, Jan Panteltje wrote:Tachyons might do (iff they exist).
There is no action at a distance. It's just a correlation thatOn Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It worksI wonder if that one is in the fake half.
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems >>>>>>>>> really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellAs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of >>>>>>>>> genuine quantum correlations
that canAt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more >>>>>>>>> authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger >>>>>>>>> quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm >>>>>>>>
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_113956
7.html
I am still puzzled about 'quantum' mysterious action at a distance >>>>>>
appears after you select the subset of measurements that happen
to be aligned at both stations. This selection is done by comparing >>>>>> the measurements well after the fact. Nothing goes faster than light. >>>>>
Certainly you cannot use it to communicate information (which is the >>>>> relativistic prohibition required to maintain causality). But in a very >>>>> real sense the wavefunction collapses to whatever polarisation the first >>>>> station to measure observes in. This is pretty tricky to explain.
Yes, it's tricky, and quantum mystics wallow in the puddle of nonsense >>>>this enables them to put forth. First, the wavefunction is not a >>>>physical thing. It's a mathematical tool to express probabilities.
As for the entanglement experiments, if both stations' are aligned, >>>>both 'x' or both '+', detections are correlated. Both stations
randomly choose their alignment. When at a later time the sequence
of alignments is compared, all coincident events where the detectors >>>>were not aligned, one 'x' and the other '+', are discarded. The >>>>remaining events are correlated, of course. That's what they do in >>>>quantum key distribution, for example.
I'm pretty sure eventually some bigger theory that unifies QM and GR >>>>> will explain it completely but right now just like with gravity in
Newton's era you have to accept action at a distance as the least
unreasonable way of looking at it from an experimental perspective.
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sun >>>>> to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it.
I think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that. >>>>Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each
other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does*
propagate as a wave.
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but
because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower,
and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily >>>>realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily >>>>observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose >>>energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should.
It has to accelerate.
Joe
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so
must lose energy.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may
not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 23:50:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/8/25 18:45, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:19:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Physicists just built a quantum lie detector. It works
Date:
October 7, 2025
Source:
University of Leiden
Summary:
An international team has confirmed that large quantum systems really do obey quantum mechanics.
Using BellrCOs test across 73 qubits, they proved the presence of genuine quantum correlations
that canrCOt be explained classically.
Their results show quantum computers are not just bigger, but more authentically quantum.
This opens the door to more secure communication and stronger quantum algorithms.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251007081840.htm
I wonder if that one is in the fake half.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/10/08/paper_chase_a_global_industry_fuels_scientific_fraud_in_the_us_113956
7.html
I am still puzzled about 'quantum' mysterious action at a distance
There is no action at a distance. It's just a correlation that
appears after you select the subset of measurements that happen
to be aligned at both stations. This selection is done by comparing
the measurements well after the fact. Nothing goes faster than light.
Jeroen Belleman
How fast does an electron tunnel through a barrier? It doesn't have to
move the distance, because it was on both sides already.
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sun >>>>> to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it.
I think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that.
Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each
other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does*
propagate as a wave.
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but
because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower,
and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily
realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily
observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose
energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should.
It has to accelerate.
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so
must lose energy.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may
not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
On 10/10/2025 00:06, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sun >>>>>> to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it.
I think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that.
Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each
other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does*
propagate as a wave.
Indeed but that is only in extremis and some of the drag to get them
started is due to the insanely strong magnetic fields trapped in the
compact stellar remnants (that is what makes pulsars emit polarised >radiation) and spew fast particles off the poles.
ISTR the last stable orbit in maximally spinning Kerr metric going with
the spin is 3R and going against it is 9R (R = Schwarzchild radius). I'm
not so sure about eccentric orbits - never studied them in my course but >someone will have done. I'm decades behind cutting edge on this now.
Apparently it was solved in the mid 90's MNRAS article here (heavy math) >https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/274/1/115/1072681
I was at the lecture where the double pulsar was unveiled as the supreme >test of GR. Two essentially perfect clocks in mutual close orbit with
the distance slowly getting tighter. An exquisitely sensitive test of
GR. It also indirectly found coding errors in continuation cards greater >than 10 that made up part of VSOP solar systems dynamical codes.
The other notable one was whimsically titled "Can a young blue giant
find lasting happiness in the arms of a degenerate old dwarf?" - spoiler >alert - no they can't. Mass transfer to the dwarf is inevitable as the
blue giant expands and you get rather exciting repeat nova that
periodically go flash bang called cataclysmic variables. Their spectrum
is interesting since the hotspot on the rapidly rotating accretion disk
puts a telltale sine wave into the wavelength intensity vs time plot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star
Dropping stuff down the gravitational plug hole can extract something
close to 30% of rest mass energy as radiation in the right conditions.
IRL 10% is probably more realistic (cf fusion which gets about 0.65%).
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but
because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower,
and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily
realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily
observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
Classical mechanical resonance entrainment of oscillators. The same as
you can get when playing on a swing or using a parametric amplifier.
Like you I think gravitational waves probably are quantised but until
some mathematics comes along that can convincingly unify GR and QM into
a single theory that encompasses both and predicts something new. We are >about due for a paradigm shift - they happen on average once a century. >(since the enlightenment)
The apparently continuous dynamics of the very large sit uncomfortably
with the quantised dynamics of the very small. Gravity is the one force
of nature that is so different in magnitude from all the others that it
has resisted all unification attempts by the best minds on the planet.
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose
energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should.
It has to accelerate.
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so
must lose energy.
Not in GR. The two objects alter the spacetime around them so that each >follows a geodesic (which is a posh way of saying a straight line in a >curved spacetime). Great circle on a sphere is the easiest to visualise.
Total energy of the whole system is exactly conserved in GR, as is
angular momentum and linear momentum (or rather their analogues in the
GR treatment are). They are strict invariants of motion.
But some of it may change from being rest mass to photons if the
conditions are extreme enough.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may
not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
No it is a failure of your understanding and lack of imagination.
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:02:29 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:06, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sun >>>>>>> to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it.
I think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that.
Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each
other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does*
propagate as a wave.
Indeed but that is only in extremis and some of the drag to get them
started is due to the insanely strong magnetic fields trapped in the
compact stellar remnants (that is what makes pulsars emit polarised
radiation) and spew fast particles off the poles.
ISTR the last stable orbit in maximally spinning Kerr metric going with
the spin is 3R and going against it is 9R (R = Schwarzchild radius). I'm
not so sure about eccentric orbits - never studied them in my course but
someone will have done. I'm decades behind cutting edge on this now.
Apparently it was solved in the mid 90's MNRAS article here (heavy math)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/274/1/115/1072681
I was at the lecture where the double pulsar was unveiled as the supreme
test of GR. Two essentially perfect clocks in mutual close orbit with
the distance slowly getting tighter. An exquisitely sensitive test of
GR. It also indirectly found coding errors in continuation cards greater
than 10 that made up part of VSOP solar systems dynamical codes.
The other notable one was whimsically titled "Can a young blue giant
find lasting happiness in the arms of a degenerate old dwarf?" - spoiler
alert - no they can't. Mass transfer to the dwarf is inevitable as the
blue giant expands and you get rather exciting repeat nova that
periodically go flash bang called cataclysmic variables. Their spectrum
is interesting since the hotspot on the rapidly rotating accretion disk
puts a telltale sine wave into the wavelength intensity vs time plot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star
Dropping stuff down the gravitational plug hole can extract something
close to 30% of rest mass energy as radiation in the right conditions.
IRL 10% is probably more realistic (cf fusion which gets about 0.65%).
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but
because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower,
and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily
realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily
observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
Classical mechanical resonance entrainment of oscillators. The same as
you can get when playing on a swing or using a parametric amplifier.
Like you I think gravitational waves probably are quantised but until
some mathematics comes along that can convincingly unify GR and QM into
a single theory that encompasses both and predicts something new. We are
about due for a paradigm shift - they happen on average once a century.
(since the enlightenment)
The apparently continuous dynamics of the very large sit uncomfortably
with the quantised dynamics of the very small. Gravity is the one force
of nature that is so different in magnitude from all the others that it
has resisted all unification attempts by the best minds on the planet.
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose >>>>> energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should.
It has to accelerate.
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so
must lose energy.
Not in GR. The two objects alter the spacetime around them so that each
follows a geodesic (which is a posh way of saying a straight line in a
curved spacetime). Great circle on a sphere is the easiest to visualise.
Total energy of the whole system is exactly conserved in GR, as is
angular momentum and linear momentum (or rather their analogues in the
GR treatment are). They are strict invariants of motion.
But some of it may change from being rest mass to photons if the
conditions are extreme enough.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may
not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
No it is a failure of your understanding and lack of imagination.
Jerk.
On 11/10/2025 1:39 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:02:29 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:06, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sun
to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it.
I think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that. >>>>>>> Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each
other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does*
propagate as a wave.
Indeed but that is only in extremis and some of the drag to get them
started is due to the insanely strong magnetic fields trapped in the
compact stellar remnants (that is what makes pulsars emit polarised
radiation) and spew fast particles off the poles.
ISTR the last stable orbit in maximally spinning Kerr metric going with
the spin is 3R and going against it is 9R (R = Schwarzchild radius). I'm >>> not so sure about eccentric orbits - never studied them in my course but >>> someone will have done. I'm decades behind cutting edge on this now.
Apparently it was solved in the mid 90's MNRAS article here (heavy math) >>> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/274/1/115/1072681
I was at the lecture where the double pulsar was unveiled as the supreme >>> test of GR. Two essentially perfect clocks in mutual close orbit with
the distance slowly getting tighter. An exquisitely sensitive test of
GR. It also indirectly found coding errors in continuation cards greater >>> than 10 that made up part of VSOP solar systems dynamical codes.
The other notable one was whimsically titled "Can a young blue giant
find lasting happiness in the arms of a degenerate old dwarf?" - spoiler >>> alert - no they can't. Mass transfer to the dwarf is inevitable as the
blue giant expands and you get rather exciting repeat nova that
periodically go flash bang called cataclysmic variables. Their spectrum
is interesting since the hotspot on the rapidly rotating accretion disk
puts a telltale sine wave into the wavelength intensity vs time plot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star
Dropping stuff down the gravitational plug hole can extract something
close to 30% of rest mass energy as radiation in the right conditions.
IRL 10% is probably more realistic (cf fusion which gets about 0.65%).
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but
because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower, >>>>>>> and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily >>>>>>> realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily
observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
Classical mechanical resonance entrainment of oscillators. The same as
you can get when playing on a swing or using a parametric amplifier.
Like you I think gravitational waves probably are quantised but until
some mathematics comes along that can convincingly unify GR and QM into
a single theory that encompasses both and predicts something new. We are >>> about due for a paradigm shift - they happen on average once a century.
(since the enlightenment)
The apparently continuous dynamics of the very large sit uncomfortably
with the quantised dynamics of the very small. Gravity is the one force
of nature that is so different in magnitude from all the others that it
has resisted all unification attempts by the best minds on the planet.
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose >>>>>> energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should.
It has to accelerate.
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so
must lose energy.
Not in GR. The two objects alter the spacetime around them so that each
follows a geodesic (which is a posh way of saying a straight line in a
curved spacetime). Great circle on a sphere is the easiest to visualise. >>>
Total energy of the whole system is exactly conserved in GR, as is
angular momentum and linear momentum (or rather their analogues in the
GR treatment are). They are strict invariants of motion.
But some of it may change from being rest mass to photons if the
conditions are extreme enough.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may
not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
No it is a failure of your understanding and lack of imagination.
Jerk.
The jerk here is John Larkin. He sounds off a lot on subjects where he >doesn't know nearly enough, and gets resentful when this is pointed out.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:38:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >wrote:
On 11/10/2025 1:39 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:02:29 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:06, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sun
to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it.
I think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that. >>>>>>>> Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each
other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does*
propagate as a wave.
Indeed but that is only in extremis and some of the drag to get them
started is due to the insanely strong magnetic fields trapped in the
compact stellar remnants (that is what makes pulsars emit polarised
radiation) and spew fast particles off the poles.
ISTR the last stable orbit in maximally spinning Kerr metric going with >>>> the spin is 3R and going against it is 9R (R = Schwarzchild radius). I'm >>>> not so sure about eccentric orbits - never studied them in my course but >>>> someone will have done. I'm decades behind cutting edge on this now.
Apparently it was solved in the mid 90's MNRAS article here (heavy math) >>>> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/274/1/115/1072681
I was at the lecture where the double pulsar was unveiled as the supreme >>>> test of GR. Two essentially perfect clocks in mutual close orbit with
the distance slowly getting tighter. An exquisitely sensitive test of
GR. It also indirectly found coding errors in continuation cards greater >>>> than 10 that made up part of VSOP solar systems dynamical codes.
The other notable one was whimsically titled "Can a young blue giant
find lasting happiness in the arms of a degenerate old dwarf?" - spoiler >>>> alert - no they can't. Mass transfer to the dwarf is inevitable as the >>>> blue giant expands and you get rather exciting repeat nova that
periodically go flash bang called cataclysmic variables. Their spectrum >>>> is interesting since the hotspot on the rapidly rotating accretion disk >>>> puts a telltale sine wave into the wavelength intensity vs time plot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star
Dropping stuff down the gravitational plug hole can extract something
close to 30% of rest mass energy as radiation in the right conditions. >>>> IRL 10% is probably more realistic (cf fusion which gets about 0.65%). >>>>
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but
because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower, >>>>>>>> and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily >>>>>>>> realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily
observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
Classical mechanical resonance entrainment of oscillators. The same as >>>> you can get when playing on a swing or using a parametric amplifier.
Like you I think gravitational waves probably are quantised but until
some mathematics comes along that can convincingly unify GR and QM into >>>> a single theory that encompasses both and predicts something new. We are >>>> about due for a paradigm shift - they happen on average once a century. >>>> (since the enlightenment)
The apparently continuous dynamics of the very large sit uncomfortably >>>> with the quantised dynamics of the very small. Gravity is the one force >>>> of nature that is so different in magnitude from all the others that it >>>> has resisted all unification attempts by the best minds on the planet. >>>>
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose >>>>>>> energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should.
It has to accelerate.
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so
must lose energy.
Not in GR. The two objects alter the spacetime around them so that each >>>> follows a geodesic (which is a posh way of saying a straight line in a >>>> curved spacetime). Great circle on a sphere is the easiest to visualise. >>>>
Total energy of the whole system is exactly conserved in GR, as is
angular momentum and linear momentum (or rather their analogues in the >>>> GR treatment are). They are strict invariants of motion.
But some of it may change from being rest mass to photons if the
conditions are extreme enough.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may
not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
No it is a failure of your understanding and lack of imagination.
Jerk.
The jerk here is John Larkin. He sounds off a lot on subjects where he >>doesn't know nearly enough, and gets resentful when this is pointed out.
He didn't point anything out. He dumped a lame insult, probably
because that's all he has to say on the subject.
I suppose experts are right, a mass moving at uniform velocity in an
ideal universe, empty of any other objects, loses no energy from >gravitational effects.
Think about that for a minute.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:38:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>wrote:
On 11/10/2025 1:39 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:02:29 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:06, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sunI think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that. >>>>>>>>> Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each >>>>>>>>> other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does*
to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it. >>>>>>>>>
propagate as a wave.
Indeed but that is only in extremis and some of the drag to get them >>>>> started is due to the insanely strong magnetic fields trapped in the >>>>> compact stellar remnants (that is what makes pulsars emit polarised
radiation) and spew fast particles off the poles.
ISTR the last stable orbit in maximally spinning Kerr metric going with >>>>> the spin is 3R and going against it is 9R (R = Schwarzchild radius). I'm >>>>> not so sure about eccentric orbits - never studied them in my course but >>>>> someone will have done. I'm decades behind cutting edge on this now. >>>>>
Apparently it was solved in the mid 90's MNRAS article here (heavy math) >>>>> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/274/1/115/1072681
I was at the lecture where the double pulsar was unveiled as the supreme >>>>> test of GR. Two essentially perfect clocks in mutual close orbit with >>>>> the distance slowly getting tighter. An exquisitely sensitive test of >>>>> GR. It also indirectly found coding errors in continuation cards greater >>>>> than 10 that made up part of VSOP solar systems dynamical codes.
The other notable one was whimsically titled "Can a young blue giant >>>>> find lasting happiness in the arms of a degenerate old dwarf?" - spoiler >>>>> alert - no they can't. Mass transfer to the dwarf is inevitable as the >>>>> blue giant expands and you get rather exciting repeat nova that
periodically go flash bang called cataclysmic variables. Their spectrum >>>>> is interesting since the hotspot on the rapidly rotating accretion disk >>>>> puts a telltale sine wave into the wavelength intensity vs time plot. >>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star
Dropping stuff down the gravitational plug hole can extract something >>>>> close to 30% of rest mass energy as radiation in the right conditions. >>>>> IRL 10% is probably more realistic (cf fusion which gets about 0.65%). >>>>>
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but >>>>>>>>> because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower, >>>>>>>>> and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily >>>>>>>>> realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily >>>>>>>>> observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
Classical mechanical resonance entrainment of oscillators. The same as >>>>> you can get when playing on a swing or using a parametric amplifier. >>>>>
Like you I think gravitational waves probably are quantised but until >>>>> some mathematics comes along that can convincingly unify GR and QM into >>>>> a single theory that encompasses both and predicts something new. We are >>>>> about due for a paradigm shift - they happen on average once a century. >>>>> (since the enlightenment)
The apparently continuous dynamics of the very large sit uncomfortably >>>>> with the quantised dynamics of the very small. Gravity is the one force >>>>> of nature that is so different in magnitude from all the others that it >>>>> has resisted all unification attempts by the best minds on the planet. >>>>>
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose >>>>>>>> energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should.
It has to accelerate.
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so >>>>>> must lose energy.
Not in GR. The two objects alter the spacetime around them so that each >>>>> follows a geodesic (which is a posh way of saying a straight line in a >>>>> curved spacetime). Great circle on a sphere is the easiest to visualise. >>>>>
Total energy of the whole system is exactly conserved in GR, as is
angular momentum and linear momentum (or rather their analogues in the >>>>> GR treatment are). They are strict invariants of motion.
But some of it may change from being rest mass to photons if the
conditions are extreme enough.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may >>>>>> not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
No it is a failure of your understanding and lack of imagination.
Jerk.
The jerk here is John Larkin. He sounds off a lot on subjects where he >>>doesn't know nearly enough, and gets resentful when this is pointed out.
He didn't point anything out. He dumped a lame insult, probably
because that's all he has to say on the subject.
I suppose experts are right, a mass moving at uniform velocity in an
ideal universe, empty of any other objects, loses no energy from >>gravitational effects.
Think about that for a minute.
Not so sure
In a Le Sage like universe things lose energy moving through those particles, >If you look a bit deeper what holds electrons and atom cores together and what exactly 'charge' is
things become even more complicated.
And what EM radiation (light for example) is.
Space is _not_ empty (some think dark matter for example), so ,,,
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 15:50:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:38:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>wrote:He didn't point anything out. He dumped a lame insult, probably
On 11/10/2025 1:39 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:02:29 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:06, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sunI think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that. >>>>>>>>>> Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each >>>>>>>>>> other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does* >>>>>>>>>> propagate as a wave.
to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it. >>>>>>>>>>
Indeed but that is only in extremis and some of the drag to get them >>>>>> started is due to the insanely strong magnetic fields trapped in the >>>>>> compact stellar remnants (that is what makes pulsars emit polarised >>>>>> radiation) and spew fast particles off the poles.
ISTR the last stable orbit in maximally spinning Kerr metric going with >>>>>> the spin is 3R and going against it is 9R (R = Schwarzchild radius). I'm >>>>>> not so sure about eccentric orbits - never studied them in my course but >>>>>> someone will have done. I'm decades behind cutting edge on this now. >>>>>>
Apparently it was solved in the mid 90's MNRAS article here (heavy math) >>>>>> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/274/1/115/1072681
I was at the lecture where the double pulsar was unveiled as the supreme >>>>>> test of GR. Two essentially perfect clocks in mutual close orbit with >>>>>> the distance slowly getting tighter. An exquisitely sensitive test of >>>>>> GR. It also indirectly found coding errors in continuation cards greater >>>>>> than 10 that made up part of VSOP solar systems dynamical codes.
The other notable one was whimsically titled "Can a young blue giant >>>>>> find lasting happiness in the arms of a degenerate old dwarf?" - spoiler >>>>>> alert - no they can't. Mass transfer to the dwarf is inevitable as the >>>>>> blue giant expands and you get rather exciting repeat nova that
periodically go flash bang called cataclysmic variables. Their spectrum >>>>>> is interesting since the hotspot on the rapidly rotating accretion disk >>>>>> puts a telltale sine wave into the wavelength intensity vs time plot. >>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star
Dropping stuff down the gravitational plug hole can extract something >>>>>> close to 30% of rest mass energy as radiation in the right conditions. >>>>>> IRL 10% is probably more realistic (cf fusion which gets about 0.65%). >>>>>>
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but >>>>>>>>>> because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower, >>>>>>>>>> and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily >>>>>>>>>> realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily >>>>>>>>>> observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
Classical mechanical resonance entrainment of oscillators. The same as >>>>>> you can get when playing on a swing or using a parametric amplifier. >>>>>>
Like you I think gravitational waves probably are quantised but until >>>>>> some mathematics comes along that can convincingly unify GR and QM into >>>>>> a single theory that encompasses both and predicts something new. We are >>>>>> about due for a paradigm shift - they happen on average once a century. >>>>>> (since the enlightenment)
The apparently continuous dynamics of the very large sit uncomfortably >>>>>> with the quantised dynamics of the very small. Gravity is the one force >>>>>> of nature that is so different in magnitude from all the others that it >>>>>> has resisted all unification attempts by the best minds on the planet. >>>>>>
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose >>>>>>>>> energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should. >>>>>>>>It has to accelerate.
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so >>>>>>> must lose energy.
Not in GR. The two objects alter the spacetime around them so that each >>>>>> follows a geodesic (which is a posh way of saying a straight line in a >>>>>> curved spacetime). Great circle on a sphere is the easiest to visualise. >>>>>>
Total energy of the whole system is exactly conserved in GR, as is >>>>>> angular momentum and linear momentum (or rather their analogues in the >>>>>> GR treatment are). They are strict invariants of motion.
But some of it may change from being rest mass to photons if the
conditions are extreme enough.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may >>>>>>> not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
No it is a failure of your understanding and lack of imagination.
Jerk.
The jerk here is John Larkin. He sounds off a lot on subjects where he >>>>doesn't know nearly enough, and gets resentful when this is pointed out. >>>
because that's all he has to say on the subject.
I suppose experts are right, a mass moving at uniform velocity in an >>>ideal universe, empty of any other objects, loses no energy from >>>gravitational effects.
Think about that for a minute.
Not so sure
In a Le Sage like universe things lose energy moving through those particles, >>If you look a bit deeper what holds electrons and atom cores together and what exactly 'charge' is
things become even more complicated.
And what EM radiation (light for example) is.
Space is _not_ empty (some think dark matter for example), so ,,,
Yes. Our space is full of real matter too. A moving mass exerts force
onto every other mass (of any kind) in our universe, and that
gravitational interaction happens at velocity c. Visualize that!
And this universe seems to be expanding, and the expansion is
accelerating.
I wonder if energy is actually conserved.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 15:50:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:38:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>wrote:He didn't point anything out. He dumped a lame insult, probably
On 11/10/2025 1:39 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:02:29 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:06, john larkin wrote:Jerk.
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sunI think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that. >>>>>>>>>>> Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each >>>>>>>>>>> other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does* >>>>>>>>>>> propagate as a wave.
to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it. >>>>>>>>>>>
Indeed but that is only in extremis and some of the drag to get them >>>>>>> started is due to the insanely strong magnetic fields trapped in the >>>>>>> compact stellar remnants (that is what makes pulsars emit polarised >>>>>>> radiation) and spew fast particles off the poles.
ISTR the last stable orbit in maximally spinning Kerr metric going with >>>>>>> the spin is 3R and going against it is 9R (R = Schwarzchild radius). I'm
not so sure about eccentric orbits - never studied them in my course but
someone will have done. I'm decades behind cutting edge on this now. >>>>>>>
Apparently it was solved in the mid 90's MNRAS article here (heavy math)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/274/1/115/1072681
I was at the lecture where the double pulsar was unveiled as the supreme
test of GR. Two essentially perfect clocks in mutual close orbit with >>>>>>> the distance slowly getting tighter. An exquisitely sensitive test of >>>>>>> GR. It also indirectly found coding errors in continuation cards greater
than 10 that made up part of VSOP solar systems dynamical codes. >>>>>>>
The other notable one was whimsically titled "Can a young blue giant >>>>>>> find lasting happiness in the arms of a degenerate old dwarf?" - spoiler
alert - no they can't. Mass transfer to the dwarf is inevitable as the >>>>>>> blue giant expands and you get rather exciting repeat nova that
periodically go flash bang called cataclysmic variables. Their spectrum >>>>>>> is interesting since the hotspot on the rapidly rotating accretion disk >>>>>>> puts a telltale sine wave into the wavelength intensity vs time plot. >>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star
Dropping stuff down the gravitational plug hole can extract something >>>>>>> close to 30% of rest mass energy as radiation in the right conditions. >>>>>>> IRL 10% is probably more realistic (cf fusion which gets about 0.65%). >>>>>>>
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but >>>>>>>>>>> because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower, >>>>>>>>>>> and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily >>>>>>>>>>> realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily >>>>>>>>>>> observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
Classical mechanical resonance entrainment of oscillators. The same as >>>>>>> you can get when playing on a swing or using a parametric amplifier. >>>>>>>
Like you I think gravitational waves probably are quantised but until >>>>>>> some mathematics comes along that can convincingly unify GR and QM into >>>>>>> a single theory that encompasses both and predicts something new. We are
about due for a paradigm shift - they happen on average once a century. >>>>>>> (since the enlightenment)
The apparently continuous dynamics of the very large sit uncomfortably >>>>>>> with the quantised dynamics of the very small. Gravity is the one force >>>>>>> of nature that is so different in magnitude from all the others that it >>>>>>> has resisted all unification attempts by the best minds on the planet. >>>>>>>
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it loseIt has to accelerate.
energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should. >>>>>>>>>
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so >>>>>>>> must lose energy.
Not in GR. The two objects alter the spacetime around them so that each >>>>>>> follows a geodesic (which is a posh way of saying a straight line in a >>>>>>> curved spacetime). Great circle on a sphere is the easiest to visualise.
Total energy of the whole system is exactly conserved in GR, as is >>>>>>> angular momentum and linear momentum (or rather their analogues in the >>>>>>> GR treatment are). They are strict invariants of motion.
But some of it may change from being rest mass to photons if the >>>>>>> conditions are extreme enough.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may >>>>>>>> not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
No it is a failure of your understanding and lack of imagination. >>>>>>
The jerk here is John Larkin. He sounds off a lot on subjects where he >>>>>doesn't know nearly enough, and gets resentful when this is pointed out. >>>>
because that's all he has to say on the subject.
I suppose experts are right, a mass moving at uniform velocity in an >>>>ideal universe, empty of any other objects, loses no energy from >>>>gravitational effects.
Think about that for a minute.
Not so sure
In a Le Sage like universe things lose energy moving through those particles,
If you look a bit deeper what holds electrons and atom cores together and what exactly 'charge' is
things become even more complicated.
And what EM radiation (light for example) is.
Space is _not_ empty (some think dark matter for example), so ,,,
Yes. Our space is full of real matter too. A moving mass exerts force
onto every other mass (of any kind) in our universe, and that
gravitational interaction happens at velocity c. Visualize that!
And this universe seems to be expanding, and the expansion is
accelerating.
I wonder if energy is actually conserved.
I was following the youtube lectures of Sir Penrose,
he states that our 'big bang' is not the only one, and that signs of other big bangs have been detected.
Imagine as many big bangs as stars.. Universe must be a bit bigger than we think!
I look at it as we, as ants, trying to understand SF city..
That is the bigger scale, and on the smaller scale are there worlds - and is there 'life' on some elementary (to us anyways) particles?
There is a lot to discover!
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:38:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 11/10/2025 1:39 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:02:29 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:06, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sun
to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it.
I think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that. >>>>>>>> Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each
other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does*
propagate as a wave.
Indeed but that is only in extremis and some of the drag to get them
started is due to the insanely strong magnetic fields trapped in the
compact stellar remnants (that is what makes pulsars emit polarised
radiation) and spew fast particles off the poles.
ISTR the last stable orbit in maximally spinning Kerr metric going with >>>> the spin is 3R and going against it is 9R (R = Schwarzchild radius). I'm >>>> not so sure about eccentric orbits - never studied them in my course but >>>> someone will have done. I'm decades behind cutting edge on this now.
Apparently it was solved in the mid 90's MNRAS article here (heavy math) >>>> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/274/1/115/1072681
I was at the lecture where the double pulsar was unveiled as the supreme >>>> test of GR. Two essentially perfect clocks in mutual close orbit with
the distance slowly getting tighter. An exquisitely sensitive test of
GR. It also indirectly found coding errors in continuation cards greater >>>> than 10 that made up part of VSOP solar systems dynamical codes.
The other notable one was whimsically titled "Can a young blue giant
find lasting happiness in the arms of a degenerate old dwarf?" - spoiler >>>> alert - no they can't. Mass transfer to the dwarf is inevitable as the >>>> blue giant expands and you get rather exciting repeat nova that
periodically go flash bang called cataclysmic variables. Their spectrum >>>> is interesting since the hotspot on the rapidly rotating accretion disk >>>> puts a telltale sine wave into the wavelength intensity vs time plot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star
Dropping stuff down the gravitational plug hole can extract something
close to 30% of rest mass energy as radiation in the right conditions. >>>> IRL 10% is probably more realistic (cf fusion which gets about 0.65%). >>>>
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but
because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower, >>>>>>>> and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily >>>>>>>> realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily
observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
Classical mechanical resonance entrainment of oscillators. The same as >>>> you can get when playing on a swing or using a parametric amplifier.
Like you I think gravitational waves probably are quantised but until
some mathematics comes along that can convincingly unify GR and QM into >>>> a single theory that encompasses both and predicts something new. We are >>>> about due for a paradigm shift - they happen on average once a century. >>>> (since the enlightenment)
The apparently continuous dynamics of the very large sit uncomfortably >>>> with the quantised dynamics of the very small. Gravity is the one force >>>> of nature that is so different in magnitude from all the others that it >>>> has resisted all unification attempts by the best minds on the planet. >>>>
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose >>>>>>> energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should.
It has to accelerate.
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so
must lose energy.
Not in GR. The two objects alter the spacetime around them so that each >>>> follows a geodesic (which is a posh way of saying a straight line in a >>>> curved spacetime). Great circle on a sphere is the easiest to visualise. >>>>
Total energy of the whole system is exactly conserved in GR, as is
angular momentum and linear momentum (or rather their analogues in the >>>> GR treatment are). They are strict invariants of motion.
But some of it may change from being rest mass to photons if the
conditions are extreme enough.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may
not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
No it is a failure of your understanding and lack of imagination.
Jerk.
The jerk here is John Larkin. He sounds off a lot on subjects where he
doesn't know nearly enough, and gets resentful when this is pointed out.
He didn't point anything out.
because that's all he has to say on the subject.
I suppose experts are right, a mass moving at uniform velocity in an
ideal universe, empty of any other objects, loses no energy from gravitational effects.
Think about that for a minute.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 15:50:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:38:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
On 11/10/2025 1:39 am, john larkin wrote:He didn't point anything out. He dumped a lame insult, probably
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:02:29 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:06, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sunI think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that. >>>>>>>>>> Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each >>>>>>>>>> other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does* >>>>>>>>>> propagate as a wave.
to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it. >>>>>>>>>>
Indeed but that is only in extremis and some of the drag to get them >>>>>> started is due to the insanely strong magnetic fields trapped in the >>>>>> compact stellar remnants (that is what makes pulsars emit polarised >>>>>> radiation) and spew fast particles off the poles.
ISTR the last stable orbit in maximally spinning Kerr metric going with >>>>>> the spin is 3R and going against it is 9R (R = Schwarzchild radius). I'm >>>>>> not so sure about eccentric orbits - never studied them in my course but >>>>>> someone will have done. I'm decades behind cutting edge on this now. >>>>>>
Apparently it was solved in the mid 90's MNRAS article here (heavy math) >>>>>> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/274/1/115/1072681
I was at the lecture where the double pulsar was unveiled as the supreme >>>>>> test of GR. Two essentially perfect clocks in mutual close orbit with >>>>>> the distance slowly getting tighter. An exquisitely sensitive test of >>>>>> GR. It also indirectly found coding errors in continuation cards greater >>>>>> than 10 that made up part of VSOP solar systems dynamical codes.
The other notable one was whimsically titled "Can a young blue giant >>>>>> find lasting happiness in the arms of a degenerate old dwarf?" - spoiler >>>>>> alert - no they can't. Mass transfer to the dwarf is inevitable as the >>>>>> blue giant expands and you get rather exciting repeat nova that
periodically go flash bang called cataclysmic variables. Their spectrum >>>>>> is interesting since the hotspot on the rapidly rotating accretion disk >>>>>> puts a telltale sine wave into the wavelength intensity vs time plot. >>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star
Dropping stuff down the gravitational plug hole can extract something >>>>>> close to 30% of rest mass energy as radiation in the right conditions. >>>>>> IRL 10% is probably more realistic (cf fusion which gets about 0.65%). >>>>>>
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but >>>>>>>>>> because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower, >>>>>>>>>> and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily >>>>>>>>>> realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily >>>>>>>>>> observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
Classical mechanical resonance entrainment of oscillators. The same as >>>>>> you can get when playing on a swing or using a parametric amplifier. >>>>>>
Like you I think gravitational waves probably are quantised but until >>>>>> some mathematics comes along that can convincingly unify GR and QM into >>>>>> a single theory that encompasses both and predicts something new. We are >>>>>> about due for a paradigm shift - they happen on average once a century. >>>>>> (since the enlightenment)
The apparently continuous dynamics of the very large sit uncomfortably >>>>>> with the quantised dynamics of the very small. Gravity is the one force >>>>>> of nature that is so different in magnitude from all the others that it >>>>>> has resisted all unification attempts by the best minds on the planet. >>>>>>
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it lose >>>>>>>>> energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should. >>>>>>>>It has to accelerate.
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so >>>>>>> must lose energy.
Not in GR. The two objects alter the spacetime around them so that each >>>>>> follows a geodesic (which is a posh way of saying a straight line in a >>>>>> curved spacetime). Great circle on a sphere is the easiest to visualise. >>>>>>
Total energy of the whole system is exactly conserved in GR, as is >>>>>> angular momentum and linear momentum (or rather their analogues in the >>>>>> GR treatment are). They are strict invariants of motion.
But some of it may change from being rest mass to photons if the
conditions are extreme enough.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may >>>>>>> not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
No it is a failure of your understanding and lack of imagination.
Jerk.
The jerk here is John Larkin. He sounds off a lot on subjects where he >>>> doesn't know nearly enough, and gets resentful when this is pointed out. >>>
because that's all he has to say on the subject.
I suppose experts are right, a mass moving at uniform velocity in an
ideal universe, empty of any other objects, loses no energy from
gravitational effects.
Think about that for a minute.
Not so sure
In a Le Sage like universe things lose energy moving through those particles,
If you look a bit deeper what holds electrons and atom cores together and what exactly 'charge' is
things become even more complicated.
And what EM radiation (light for example) is.
Space is _not_ empty (some think dark matter for example), so ,,,
Yes. Our space is full of real matter too. A moving mass exerts force
onto every other mass (of any kind) in our universe, and that
gravitational interaction happens at velocity c. Visualize that!
And this universe seems to be expanding, and the expansion is
accelerating.
I wonder if energy is actually conserved.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 17:27:13 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 15:50:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:38:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:He didn't point anything out. He dumped a lame insult, probably
On 11/10/2025 1:39 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:02:29 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:06, john larkin wrote:Jerk.
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 18:47:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:49:01 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:55:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
In classical Newtonian mechanics if propagation of gravity from the sunI think we do, but other effects still dominate and cancel that. >>>>>>>>>>>> Closely spaced black holes and neutron stars spiral into each >>>>>>>>>>>> other just fine, allowing us to confirm that gravity *does* >>>>>>>>>>>> propagate as a wave.
to the Earth was not instantaneous we would spiral into it. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Indeed but that is only in extremis and some of the drag to get them >>>>>>>> started is due to the insanely strong magnetic fields trapped in the >>>>>>>> compact stellar remnants (that is what makes pulsars emit polarised >>>>>>>> radiation) and spew fast particles off the poles.
ISTR the last stable orbit in maximally spinning Kerr metric going with
the spin is 3R and going against it is 9R (R = Schwarzchild radius). I'm
not so sure about eccentric orbits - never studied them in my course but
someone will have done. I'm decades behind cutting edge on this now. >>>>>>>>
Apparently it was solved in the mid 90's MNRAS article here (heavy math)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/274/1/115/1072681
I was at the lecture where the double pulsar was unveiled as the supreme
test of GR. Two essentially perfect clocks in mutual close orbit with >>>>>>>> the distance slowly getting tighter. An exquisitely sensitive test of >>>>>>>> GR. It also indirectly found coding errors in continuation cards greater
than 10 that made up part of VSOP solar systems dynamical codes. >>>>>>>>
The other notable one was whimsically titled "Can a young blue giant >>>>>>>> find lasting happiness in the arms of a degenerate old dwarf?" - spoiler
alert - no they can't. Mass transfer to the dwarf is inevitable as the >>>>>>>> blue giant expands and you get rather exciting repeat nova that >>>>>>>> periodically go flash bang called cataclysmic variables. Their spectrum
is interesting since the hotspot on the rapidly rotating accretion disk
puts a telltale sine wave into the wavelength intensity vs time plot. >>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_variable_star
Dropping stuff down the gravitational plug hole can extract something >>>>>>>> close to 30% of rest mass energy as radiation in the right conditions. >>>>>>>> IRL 10% is probably more realistic (cf fusion which gets about 0.65%). >>>>>>>>
I think gravitational wave interactions *are* quantized, but >>>>>>>>>>>> because the interaction times are ~32 orders of magnitude slower, >>>>>>>>>>>> and involve 'particles' with random masses, we just don't readily >>>>>>>>>>>> realize what's going on. Gravitational resonances are readily >>>>>>>>>>>> observable. What are those, if not a quantum phenomenon?
Classical mechanical resonance entrainment of oscillators. The same as >>>>>>>> you can get when playing on a swing or using a parametric amplifier. >>>>>>>>
Like you I think gravitational waves probably are quantised but until >>>>>>>> some mathematics comes along that can convincingly unify GR and QM into
a single theory that encompasses both and predicts something new. We are
about due for a paradigm shift - they happen on average once a century.
(since the enlightenment)
The apparently continuous dynamics of the very large sit uncomfortably >>>>>>>> with the quantised dynamics of the very small. Gravity is the one force
of nature that is so different in magnitude from all the others that it
has resisted all unification attempts by the best minds on the planet. >>>>>>>>
If an object is moving in a straight line through space, does it loseIt has to accelerate.
energy from its gravitational radiation? Seems like it should. >>>>>>>>>>
If it passes near another object, it will accelerate that object so >>>>>>>>> must lose energy.
Not in GR. The two objects alter the spacetime around them so that each
follows a geodesic (which is a posh way of saying a straight line in a >>>>>>>> curved spacetime). Great circle on a sphere is the easiest to visualise.
Total energy of the whole system is exactly conserved in GR, as is >>>>>>>> angular momentum and linear momentum (or rather their analogues in the >>>>>>>> GR treatment are). They are strict invariants of motion.
But some of it may change from being rest mass to photons if the >>>>>>>> conditions are extreme enough.
"Near" might be a light year away. The object to be accelerated may >>>>>>>>> not even exist yet.
There's a puzzle in there somewhere.
No it is a failure of your understanding and lack of imagination. >>>>>>>
The jerk here is John Larkin. He sounds off a lot on subjects where he >>>>>> doesn't know nearly enough, and gets resentful when this is pointed out. >>>>>
because that's all he has to say on the subject.
I suppose experts are right, a mass moving at uniform velocity in an >>>>> ideal universe, empty of any other objects, loses no energy from
gravitational effects.
Think about that for a minute.
Not so sure
In a Le Sage like universe things lose energy moving through those particles,
If you look a bit deeper what holds electrons and atom cores together and what exactly 'charge' is
things become even more complicated.
And what EM radiation (light for example) is.
Space is _not_ empty (some think dark matter for example), so ,,,
Yes. Our space is full of real matter too. A moving mass exerts force
onto every other mass (of any kind) in our universe, and that
gravitational interaction happens at velocity c. Visualize that!
And this universe seems to be expanding, and the expansion is
accelerating.
I wonder if energy is actually conserved.
I was following the youtube lectures of Sir Penrose,
he states that our 'big bang' is not the only one, and that signs of other big bangs have been detected.
Imagine as many big bangs as stars.. Universe must be a bit bigger than we think!
I look at it as we, as ants, trying to understand SF city..
That is the bigger scale, and on the smaller scale are there worlds - and is there 'life' on some elementary (to us anyways) particles?
There is a lot to discover!
Just ask Mr Brown. He understands everything about the universe.