<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Hi John & all:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Observing something and explaining that something are two different things. Nowadays high powered people routinely explain ordinary correlation of E&M wave polarization (as explained by Stokes 160 years ago) in terms of nonlocal quantum "entanglement." Very simple objections have been raised, see: http://dx.doi.org/10.4326/jmp.2015.613202, for example---dispite promises by about 80 promenent experts to enlighten me on the errors of my ways, "as soon as they find time," in over 20 years none have found time!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here again it could well be that although many dispute Einstein's theories of Physics, no one disputes his theory of physicists: "To be a faultless memeber of the flock, first one must be a sheep." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Could easily be with LIGO we have another example.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2016 um 18:54 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk><br/>
<b>An:</b> "af.kracklauer@web.de" <af.kracklauer@web.de><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com>, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> RE: LIGO</div>
<div name="quoted-content"><!--P {
margin-top: 0;
margin-bottom: 0;
}
-->
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 10.0pt;">
<style type="text/css"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0cm;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: Cambria;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-family: Cambria;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
--></style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;">Hi Al,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;">Good point!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;">It will be a bit embarrassing if folk have done the numerical relativity for black hole collapse, but not for light and matter – and built a billion plus facility</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;">I’ll share this with “general” as others may be interested.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;">I would hope, with such an author and institution list, and the fact that these guys invoke “numerical relativity” – that someone has done their sums right. I would anyway like to talk to some of the people involved as there is a lot in the Phys rev article that is not said. Norna Robertson is an old friend (Martin knows her as well) and she is a serious physicist. Jim Hough is too – not to mention the rest of the author list. My main constraint is that my current workload allows me (less than) no time to go and talk to these guys<a name="_GoBack"></a> at the moment.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;">A few remarks. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;">Firstly, fields and (4-)vectors do not transform the same way relativistically. The field is not a vector – it is the derivative of a vector. One needs to take into account not only the variations of space-Euclidean or otherwise- but also that of time. Lengths transform only along the direction of boost, fields only transverse to a boost. You really need to do proper GR here, and not just a bit of simple SR. I’m no expert in GR (would that I was!) and it is almost certain that the proper design here uses numerical methods – so this may not be fully accessible to simple thinking (though it is always fun trying). I would hope and expect that the team have taken all appropriate factors properly into account in the design of experiment. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;">Secondly the interfering photons and the test masses are in different frames – differing by over a hundred kilometres and plus or minus the speed of light The size is not a lot on the scale of the gravity wave length though – which is of the order of ten thousand kilometres. There would still be an effect though as the resonance is on zero. All that would happen if there was a light scaling equal to the arm scaling is the sensitivity would go down. I would hope that the (enormous) team had discussed and analysed all this properly. There will, now this is out in public, be lots of theoretical analysis on different bases. Martin is coming here for a session next week and I’m sure this will be one topic on the agenda.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;">The analysis for black hole size, distance, energy radiated and so on may change – but I think its pretty certain they have detected something – that something was not electromagnetic – and whatever it was did travel at close to lightspeed. One interesting thing is the delay (about 7ms) means that it puts to bed the notion that gravity is much faster than light. It is in the same ballpark. This fits in with Martin and my crazy theory of gravity and electromagnetism – which I will talk about sometime - as well as the mainstream view of course. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;">Hopefully, there will be three such systems online for the next run – enabling a better pinpointing of such events in the sky – and the chance to correlate with an EM signal. Look forwards to lots of fun in thinking how the experiments further constrain how nature works.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana;">Regards, John W.</span></p>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman;color: rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 16.0px;">
<hr/>
<div id="divRpF135296" style="direction: ltr;"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> af.kracklauer@web.de [af.kracklauer@web.de]<br/>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 16, 2016 1:15 AM<br/>
<b>To:</b> John Williamson<br/>
<b>Cc:</b> Mark, Martin van der<br/>
<b>Subject:</b> LIGO</font><br/>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>Hi John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your remark, somewhere in your e-mails, lauding the Ligo claims leads to ask if you can resolve my hangup:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The idea of the experiment seems to be that a gravity wave passing through the resonant chamber, causes a different change in the lengths of the two arms so that beating the two laser signals yields interferance. Fine, but, if such a wave modifies the chamber (made of material, i.e., atoms whose structure (size) is determined by the E&M interaction of charged electrons to charged nuclei), why does this same gravity wave not affect the laser beams, also E&M entitites in GR-spacetime, too? To first pass, the situation should be like observing a survayer holding a graduated pole through a telescope, or in a circus or curved mirror: both the man and the pole are equally aborated or perspectively altered so that reading the numbers on the pole is unaffected. Likewise, in this view, <span style="line-height: 1.6em;">the LIGO cavity and the laser beams should be wrinkled equally together.</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="line-height: 1.6em;">Seems that it can't be had both ways. Either GR curved spacetime, curves everything in spacetime, or curves nothing in spcetime, so that curved GR spacetime is just the solution space of whatever mechanical circumstance is under consideration but the underlying ontological space and time remain Euclidian. Etc.</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="line-height: 1.6em;">ciao, Al</span></div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px 10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px 10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;"> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>