The Einstein Effect

Gravitaional waves have been detected.

Would that reduce the mass? photos have mass.

This is why the the moon orbits higher and the earth spins slower.

What's the diference between a moving thing and a not moving thing? (there is no difference) We call this effect tidal force.

It seems that it is hard to build a microphone for it

Well, yes! That's what orbital resonance is. It tends to make moons orbit with periods related by simple rational numbers. Their energy is then constrained to discrete levels. If that isn't quantization, then what is?

Energy and mass are equivalent, so the field would not just vanish. I'll pass about the effects of converting a gigantic mass into energy.

Yes and yes, as was recently confirmed by the detection of such waves.

Kind of hard to do. Ask the LIGO people, Except for some cataclysmic events, the noise is really low frequency too, in the nHz domain and below.

Jeroen Belleman

Classical gravity has infinite velocity. Newton's action at a distance. If it wasn't instantaneous we would spiral into the sun.

GR treats mass as altering the spacetime around it - redefining straight lines or geodesics there are no forces acting at all.

It is *changes* in gravitational potential that propagate away from the objects causing them at the speed of light. Mass warps spacetime so that straight lines are no longer straight in the classical Euclidean sense.

The most common source of detectable gravitational waves is a black hole merger where they spin up ever faster causing a characteristic chirp. Basically matter going down the plug hole in very big lumps.

The site that allows you to see the most recent one is called "Chirp":

Since stars fall into back holes, and accelerate to the speed of light in the process, and we don't seem to notice, that hypothesis does seem to be invalid.

Probably a little more clearly than you have.

Most of the gravitational waves we have observed seem to have been created by small - stellar - black holes merging, though there are a few neutron star pairs in the data as well.

Not all that much,

It isn't

Jeroen is right. It is a corollary of a still unproved but empirically observed to be true Bode's law for the orbital distances of the planets (and corresponding rules for multiple moons of the gas giants).

This also happens in simulations. It is called Ovenden's conjecture and it comes down to saying that dynamical systems of stars or planets will settle down into a configuration where their orbital periods are in certain simple ratios to one another. They do this typically by three body close encounters where the lightest one is either flung out of the system or to a higher or lower more elliptical orbit.

He doesn't get the credit he deserves for this still unproven but highly plausible conjecture. Not even a mention in Wiki (that I can find).

Here is his obituary from JRASC:

Globular clusters are quite fun in that respect in that they are locked into a configuration that becomes ever more ordered and tightly bound by throwing out stars at high speed from time to time. It takes a three (or more) body close encounter for this to happen. In simulations it tends to happen way more often than in reality unless you soften the force law at close proximity (a limitation of fixed step integration methods).

The moving photons produced still have the same mass as the mass that they replaced. This happens in positron annihilation for example.

He did and it is. Photons have no rest mass, but are not at rest.

Yes. It has been measured and the behaviour is exactly consistent with GR predictions for the rate of energy loss. The binary pulsar where you have two precision standard clocks in mutual (gradually decaying orbits) was the first test of the theory back in 1984.

The only times when it is in about the audio range is when there is a black hole merger with at least a neutron star.

I don't think planetary orbital energies are constrained to discrete levels, but you can define approximate periodicity to be quantization if you like.

But photons have no mass and are unaffected by gravity.

Or take two billiard balls that collide off-center. A velocity differential is created orthogonal to the original path. That creates a gravitational wave.

I was referring to uniform velocity motion there, not a giant event. Seems like it would make a wake, and that might slow it down. In that case, the entire universe is viscous.

Still there, and could be speeded up for listening.

A single planet in orbit around a sun can have any orbital period it likes but once it becomes a 3 (or more) body problem it has to satisfy certain heuristic rules that in handwaving terms amount to that they stay out of each other's way as much as possible. That translates to having orbital periods that follow a simple ratio rule.

Bode's law is the heuristic one for our solar system. A slightly different rule applies to Jupiters Galilean moons and to Saturn's.

Photons have no *rest* mass, but they are not stationary either.

E = mc^2

Cuts both ways. The matter converted into photons still has mass just that mass is moving away from its start position at the speed of light. Expanding uniformly assuming it was symmetrical to begin with. Gauss's

They are just as much influenced by gravity in GR as anything else is. GR bends spacetime and photons travel the shortest time path or geodesic between any two points. Eddington measured the sun bending starlight to test Einstein's theory of GR.

Not much of one. You really have to throw things about violently for any of the GR corrections to classical dynamics to come into play. Tightly bound pairs of neutron stars make excellent testbed for this.

Most of the slowdown would come from blue shifted microwave background photons and intergalactic medium hitting the leading edge of the object.

We see this actually happening in FR type II radio galaxies where the relativistic beam hits the intergalactic medium and lights it up.

Canonical example is the jet in Cygnus A which was first seen in 1983.

It has to be multiple solar masses and near light speed before gravitational radiation is noticeable at any distance from the source.

For what it's worth, both the photoelectric effect in Einstein's equation and Millikan's measurement make perfect sense to me. Although light with weight works with me, things begin to become unworkable with Schrödinger and Einstein's field equations.

Danke,

Again, the timescale and size of the phenomena make it hard to see, but given enough time, orbits of multiple objects around one planet tend to settle into harmonically related periods, with the relations being simple rational numbers. That is, they tend to settle into discrete values.

The time and size scales are incommensurate compared to similar effects in atomic and nuclear phenomena, but the general idea is analogous. It's just that it takes hundreds of millions of years rather than femtoseconds.

Einstein derived that light *is* affected by gravity and Eddington confirmed it by actual measurement.

Yes, I agree in principle.

In the framework of GR, only accelerated masses radiate.

OK, but the sensitivity of current detectors at nHz frequencies is utterly inadequate, so even if you'd speed up the recordings, all you'd get would be detector noise.

Jeroen Belleman

Schroedinger's and Einstein's field equation are both perfectly workable representations of reality. They wouldn't have become widely accepted if they weren't. If you can't get them to work for you, you probably need to sign up for a university course to improve your skills.

Propositions promulgated by PR people such as Bernays are often widely accepted.

THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICISTS FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE

the epicycle theory has become a synonym of thoughtless complication. ...

Einstein's general relativity refined Newton's law of gravitation, but it did not simplify it in the sense that it needed less parameters. Newton's theory never underwent the piling up of absurd complications that we know from the standard model. Nevertheless they dare to compare their illogical turmoil to Newton's clear thoughts, hoping that the standard model will be "embedded" by a future theory of the sought-after new Einstein. Wishful thinking. It is rather a Copernicus or a Kepler that is needed. All that will remain after the crash of the standard model, when the thin fouling is brushed off the rocks, is quantum mechanics as developed in the 1920s. But this is a much too scary perspective for particle physicists to let it even faintly cross their minds.

Besides the epicycle model that dominated astronomy for fifteen centuries, history has instructive examples on a much shorter time scale.

(excerpt)

Danke,

In fact is was primitive way of handling elliptical orbits before they were recognised to be elliptical. It was a well-thought-through complication that worked pretty well.

It took a long time before we had enough precise observations to nail down the deviations from Newton's Law of Gravitation.

The standard model fits current observations pretty well. As with Einstein's elaboration of Newton's over-simple theory, any new theory has to fit the observations we've made so far.

That isn't wishful thinking - rather a better grasp of reality than you seem to have.

Copernicus articulated an idea. Kepler took Brahe's precise observations, and gave Newton organised data that was good enough to be worth thinking about

Probably wrong. The standard model fit's some aspects of reality remarkably well

Don't be silly.

Epicycles fitted the crude eyeball data which was all we had for fifteen centuries. Brahe's data was still eyeball data, but he used huge and expensive observational tools to make his observations somewhat more precise than anybody had managed before.

In their day epicycles applied to circles were the forerunner of modern Fourier theory and could be used to model the movements of planets with increasing degrees of accuracy with ever more terms used.

A mathematical model of the physical laws is just that. There may be a better one just around the corner but until that new method is found something that works well enough to be useful is better than nothing.

The modern VSOP model of solar system dynamics has an incredible number of harmonic terms for the mutual interactions of the various planets. The real world is seldom simple when you want ultimate precision and accuracy.

If I remember correctly, in her video HOW WE KNOW THAT EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY CAN'T BE QUITE RIGHT [1], Sabine Hossenfelder more-or-less says Einstein's Field Equations are relatively easy for DIYers (eg me), to master. It encouraged me to use a JPL tutorial [2] to teach it to myself. Subsequently, the topic of cosmology was mentally parked on my brain's back burner for the time being.

Schockly puts Schroedinger's Equation to good use in ELECTRONS AND HOLES In SEMICONDUCTORS. In regards to Schroedinger's Equation, Bohmeian Mechanics [3] currently piques my interest. THE METAPHYSICS OF BOHMIAN MECHANICS by De Guyter gave me a peek inside the rabbit hole.

Note.

Danke,

Cohen's book is horrible, unreadable.

Shame - was it badly written or factually incorrect?

He doesn't say a lot about Einstein. He mostly talks about himself. When he described, in detail, barfing in an airplane, I quit reading.