Gravitational Wave lensing

[nojocujo]

I was wondering if relative to a SN XRF GRB a gravitaional wave was produced and I think that all agree that one is expected. As the wave creates a local spacetime dilation and photons would follow the curvature of the local spacetime dilation. The photons would be more widely distributed due to the GW lensing on high z sn making them appear dimmer.??????<br />The effect would not be as apparent on nearby sn.

 

[search]

Good question<br /><br />First:<br /><br />Gravitational waves is a term used in hydrodynamics so I suppose you refer to gravitational radiation<br /><br />"A gravitational lens is formed when the light from a very distant, bright source (such as a quasar) is "bent" around a massive object (such as a massive galaxy) between the source object and the observer."<br /><br />"Electromagnetic waves are associated with a massless particle called the photon. Attempts to create an analogous quantum field theory for general relativity led to an analogous concept: a massless particle called the graviton. However, quantum field theory calculations involving gravitons produce many infinite values, which cannot be readily canceled to yield a sensible finite result. (In technical terms, gravity is nonrenormalizable.) Some proposed quantum gravity theories (notably string theory) attempt to address this problem, but currently there is no known means of testing these ideas empirically. The graviton itself (if it exists) is unlikely to be easily detectable, due to the weakness of its interactions."<br /><br />So for what you say to happen first we would have to find the "graviton"

 

[kyle_baron]

I don't believe the dimming has anything to do with the gravitational wave per se. From a S&T article that I've read, it has to do with the direction of the Gamma Ray Burst (photons) or the X-Ray Flash (photons). Both of which, are in a narrow path. If either is pointed towards the earth, then the super nova will appear brighter. If not pointed towards earth (most aren't), then it will appear dimmer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[nojocujo]

sn2006aj was a combined GRB XRF and SN resulting from a low mass collapsar. <br />http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/08/30_xray.shtml<br />Gravitational lensing (convex) occurs when light is bent around a galaxy which obscures the line of sight image of a star and depending on the focal length of the G lens we typically see two images of the star.<br />I can see where an expanding spacetime could cause a loss of the expected number of photons causing a dimming of the image. This is the premise to the accelerating expansion of the universe.<br /> <br />I was wondering if a local event like a collapsar could creat a concave lensing effect due to a gravitational wave causing the photons to diverge due to a spacetime dilation and end up with a dimming as seen for high z SN. <br />We know lensing can occur and it has been used for to acertain the relative mass of the intervening galaxy.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />I was wondering if a local event like a collapsar could creat a concave lensing effect due to a gravitational wave causing the photons to diverge due to a spacetime dilation and end up with a dimming as seen for high z SN. </i><br /><br />Nope. Gravitational waves are very weak, unless they're very near the collapsar (black hole). The Gamma Ray waves are very energetic (strong). I don't believe the Gamma Ray photons would be affected, dispersed, or diverged. Interesting logic that you used, but the gamma ray photons are more energetic than the visible light photons.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[nojocujo]

Nope. Gravitational waves are very weak, unless they're very near the collapsar (black hole). The Gamma Ray waves are very energetic (strong). I don't believe the Gamma Ray photons would be affected, dispersed, or diverged. Interesting logic that you used, but the gamma ray photons are more energetic than the visible light photons. <br /><br />That is the point! They are very near the collapsar. The GW wave moving away from the collapsar would creat an artificial spacetime dilation in the vicinity of the collpsar. <br />Maybe I should not have used GRB XRF and not used the collapsar model. The gw wave would be most energetic in a collapsar model. I was intending to ask this question relative to the type 1a sn data set which was showing the high z redshift sn to appear dimmer and since sn appear to relativistically accelerate their excretia effectively creating a GW and flattening spacetime. Ie would be dependent upon the amount of mass of the star excreted and its' relativistic velocity. The GW would precede the excretia.<br />As far a GRB yes they are the most energetic and I can see in a collapsar where after the collapse creating a GW the GW rebounds at the singularity or passes through it (I can't tell which because they look and act the same) but as it passes the event horizon it cancels the schwartzchild radius and that allows gamma rays and sometimes xrays to escape. Dependent upon the mass and the GW.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />The GW wave moving away from the collapsar would creat an artificial spacetime dilation in the vicinity of the collpsar. </i><br /><br />I wouldn't call it artificial. It's normal time dilation in the presence of an extreme massive body. Time would slow down.<br /><i><br />The GW would precede the excretia.</i><br /><br />It would precede it, by a lot of space. The GW is moving at the speed of light, the ejecta isn't. The ejecta has it's own gravitational waves which is much less, because it's spread out (less dense). The ejecta has it's own visible light photons, in it's own much smaller gravitional field (or GW). The ejecta and it's visible light photons, will never interact with the original collapsar gravitational waves, because they're long gone, and dispersed. At least, that's how I see it. YMMV <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[nojocujo]

The photons would travel in a flattening spacetime created by the initial GW creating a lensing effect divergence of the photons would over long distances (high z) would appear dimmer since there would be less photons measured than expected.<br />The excretia would creeate their own GW further flattenind spacetime but the GW would outstrip the excretia since it is moving at C.

 

[search]

Dear SEARCH<br />Just to let you know that it seems nobody payed attention to your previous post.<br />It is amazing how people can debate so much about "excretation"<br />I guess they either do not read the posts because they are to busy reading their own posts or they want to create some kind of placebo effect in others (if you do not know what you get then you will believe in it),<br />Take care<br />Always<br />SEARCH<br /><br />P.S. Get real guys...

 

[nojocujo]

Dear Search<br />I read your post. I didn't disregard what you said. You said there was no way to test but in this case if you determine the expected number of photons to be received relative to the redshift and you don't allow for an accelerating expansion and just use the hubble constant then assume that the missing photons were due to the GW lensing divergence then you might be able to determine the force of the GW. There would be an indirect evidence of your graviton.

 

[search]

Dear n.<br />Again intersting if applied to the graviton but not to the photon<br /><br />First: So we are clear on Gravitons have not been found. It is a prediction of quantum mechanics that they should exist:<br /><br />"Both the electromagnetic interaction and the gravitational interaction are mediated by force carriers, the graviton and the photon (the light particle). In contrast to the photon, the graviton still hasn’t been found"<br />From:<br />http://nobelprize.virtual.museum/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/public.html<br /><br /><br />Second: Gravitons indirect detection<br />Although I do know the result of any indirect detection of gravitons I found this<br /><br />"Gravitons<br /><br />Circa 1991<br /><br /><br />Question: Has there been any new evidence on the existence of Gravitons? My<br />Physics Professor told us that physicists think that they exist, but<br />have not actually seen them yet. Why is this?<br />------------------------------------------------<br />There is indirect evidence for gravitational radiation. The most recent <br />Nobel prize in physics was given for the experiments that uncovered this<br />evidence. The evidence comes from measuring the spin of an object<br />called a "pulsar", which is supposed to be a spinning compact mass -<br />a neutron star, perhaps. The pulsar orbits around a companion star<br />that is nearby. The energy of the system was observed to decrease<br />slightly over a time of several years. The decrease appeared to be<br />consistent with the amount of decrease predicted by general relativity<br />from the radiation of gravitational energy.<br /> We believe that if gravitational energy is radiated, then it must<br />be radiated in discrete quanta. These quanta would be "gravitons".<br />There is no direct evidence for gravitons to date.<br /><br />Jack L. Uretsky"<br /> <br />From:<br />http://www</safety_wrapper

 

[nojocujo]

However gravitons is a quantum mechanics way to explain gravity and GR uses spacetime curves. They are not yet unified and therefore you cannot say that the graviton follows the spacetime curves. <br /><br />Empirically if a graviton exists it would not flollow the spacetime curves but be the force causing the spacetime curves. <br />Quick: <br />"There are two ways of looking at the problem you describe. It depends on how you define gravity. If you are talking in Newtonian terms, the mutual attraction between two objects is a force that requires gravitons to carry it over a distance to the other object. But Einstein's relativity does away with gravitons and explains the effect as a curvature of space-time. The amount of curvature depends upon how much mass an object has." <br /><br />I think I mentioned relativistic excretia which would necessarily exclude newtonian gravity. The degree of relativistic acceleration of the excretia would also increase the mass of the excretia beyond its' rest mass. Depending on the amount of mass excreted in a sn or collapsar the net effect upon the initial static gravitational well might be very dramatic. It think the sn2006aj started with 20 solar masses and the net remainder that was not relativistically excreted was calculated to be 4 solar masses. I would say that a very dramatic spacetime dilation occurred. 16 solar masses with the bump or a relativistic acceleration and of course the amount of acceration is very critical to what additional mass was added. The key here is not curvature but the degree of flattening of the original curvature from 20 solar masses. I think that even though it was a nearby sn there may have been enough lensing to be detected but since we don't fully understand the dynamics behind GRB XRF and SN it is hard to determine how many photons we should detect. In the hypernova/collapsar models I do think that it is not a jet but that it is a isotropic event and I think I mentioned a canceling of the schwartzchild

 

[search]

I see your point but you keep confusing the expected properties of gravitons with known ones from the photons. <br /><br />Electromagnetism waves are different from gravity waves (radiation)<br /><br />Gravitons would not be affected in their travel through the universe as photons are. Gravity in QM defines particles as points in space and not as a geometric model like in GR. <br /><br />As for the Hubble Constant it is a defined number (latest calculations 70 (km/s)/Mpc, +2.4/-3.2) and if you want to use the hubble Constant without accelerating Expansion. Arbitrary change of constants have a mathematical and physical consequence. <br /><br />Redshift<br />v=HºD <br /><br />v=Redshift, Hº=Hubble Constant, D=proper distance.<br /><br />Read:<br /><br />For Hubble Constant<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law<br /><br />Gravity waves:<br />http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/topics/gwaves/gwaves.html<br /><br />Electromagnetis wave vs gravity wave:<br />http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imaran/cosmology1.html<br /><br />Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics:<br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhag<br /><br />Gravity speed:<br />http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp<br /><br />About Inflation Spacetime Qunatum Model: Read all but Postulates of the Model and Gravity paragraphs in particular:<br />http://home.earthlink.net/~dolascetta/Physics.html

 

[nojocujo]

Not that I am trying to avoid the quantum mechanics of gravity or the graviton and GR. They do need to be reconciled but here I just am dealing with whether or not a GW can create a spacetime dilation which in turn creates a concave lensing effect which would reduce the number of photons captured and therefore render a conclusion that it was dimmer than it should be for the redshift.<br />I see that you found Hubbles law and that it does represent a constant. Hubble and the law is based upon observations of relatively static stars i.e. not part of any cataclysmic event like a SN, XRF or GRB. It is a constant and when applied over a large dataset will cancel out the aberations.<br /><br />RE Gravity waves for GRB<br /><br />http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/generalrelativity/MichelsonInterferometerResults.html<br /><br />I think they quote an wave amplitude of 10 to the 5th order solar masses.<br />more on GW GRB<br />http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/20/17/324 <br /><br />http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/nnp/gw.html<br /><br />Regarding the em and GW article yes GW are very long wavelength. It says that the interaction is very small. I disagree. It seems that if you drop a brick the gravitational energy is transformed into inertia and when it is stopped that inertia is then transformed back into gravitaional energy. If you dropped a million bricks there would be no dissipation of the net gravitaional energy. The gravitational energy is independent of the any inertail energy created but a direct result of the mass of the gravitaional well. To begin with there had to be a force that raised the brick from it's rest mass and any force resulting from the dropping of the brick should be equal to

 

[search]

Ok have fun<br />I will be around

 

[nojocujo]

I hope you read what i said about monopoles???????????<br />

 

[search]

Yes I did<br />You said that inflation theory require the creation of monopoles but I say it was the monopoles that require the creation of the inflation theory.<br /><br />Monopoles were the problem not the solution.<br /><br />Read:<br />http://universe-review.ca/R02-13-inflation.htm<br /><br />Summary on problem (monopoles):<br />"In 1931 Paul Dirac was trying to understand why electric charges were quantized. He devised an elegant explanation, which would work only if monopoles indeed existed. Monopoles are now perceived in a new guise as "knots" in the vacuum according to the Grand Unified Theories (GUT). It was realized that if GUT were correct, monopoles must have created only 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang, when the forces differentiated. These monopoles, would be very massive - about 1015 times heavier than ordinary particles - and would therefore be impossible to make in the lab. However, the number expected to have survived from the early universe seemed embarrassingly large: there would have been enough to short out the galactic magnetic field; even worse, their total mass would far exceed that of everything else in the universe (far too much, even, for the dark matter). For GUT physics, monopoles are extremely interesting objects: they have an onion-like structure, which contains the whole world of GUT (Figure 06):<br /> <br />Near the center ( about 10-29 cm ) there is a GUT symmetric vacuum.<br />At about 10-16 cm, its content is the electroweak gauge fields of the standard model.<br />At 10-15 cm, it is made up of photons and gluons.<br />At the edge to the distance of 10-13 cm, there are fermion-antifermion pairs.<br />Far beyond nuclear distances it behaves as a magnetically-charged pole of the Dirac type.<br /><br />In effect, the sequence of events during the earliest moment of the universe had been fossilized inside the magnetic monopole.<br />Figure 06 Monopole Structure in GUT<br /><br></br>

 

[nojocujo]

The point it that if there should be monopoles........I think they exist not as monopoles but instead as graviton. In the early universe the forces were not separate at high energies. When they did separate monopoles were created but not from the strong force. Every particle that has mass has a monopole (graviton) acting as a singularity infinitely within that particle. Like I said will you have to rewrite your paper and show a transition for inflation from magnetic monopoles to gravitational monopoles? We know they exist as monopoles since it is the only flavor there is.