The Technical Challenges of Measuring Gravitational Waves – Rana Adhikari of LIGO

I was wondering, when the gravitational wave passes through a quartz crystal, does it deform the crystal enough to create voltage?

By greeting them cordially, I mean that I BELIEVE THAT THE TRUTH CAN NOT EVEN BE PROBED WITHOUT AN HONEST DISCUSSION BEING PRESENT.

I invite all to know and divulge the Theory of Objectivity, whose full content is attached.

I want to quickly highlight a report below on British physicist and researcher Stephen Hawking, who died on March 14, 2018:

“British physicist and researcher Stephen Hawking, who died at 76 on Wednesday, has recently attempted to formulate an intelligible explanation for the general public.
In a television program broadcast earlier this month, American astrophysicist Neil Tyson asked Hawking, “What was there before the Big Bang?”

The nothing.

The British scientist replied that what was before the big explosion was … basically nothing.
But do not get scared. This does not mean that there was no matter. It refers to the fact that nothing that could exist before the beginning of the Universe has anything to do with what came next.

Therefore, what existed before can not be contemplated in any theory we formulate to explain our present observations.

For Hawking, no law of physics applies until the occurrence of the Big Bang. The Universe evolved independently of what it had before.

Even the amount of matter in the Universe may be different from what it was before the explosion, because the Law of Conservation of Matter would not apply to the Big Bang. ”

Respectfully I dare to disagree, in part, on what the celebrated genius understands, for I believe that it is possible to rather contemplate theoretically what existed before the Big Bang, and this was accomplished in the Theory of Objectivity, in my understanding.

I believe that an honest discussion of the Theory of Objectivity, after a necessary critical reading, may shed light on us to reject it once or to understand that it can mean new knowledge that modifies our understanding of the emergence of the universe.

Vidamor Cabannas

TangleF which was created in/at the big bang still interacts using partner relationships established BEFORE the big bang happened and is super-sensitive to any viewing or measurement (actions that were not extant PRE big bang) to produce the required opposite particle polarity for its entangled partner.

Comments welcome
cm

You know what they say, citation or it didn’t happen.

Cheers

You hit the heart of the quantum paradox.

The “Copenhagen” philosophy says that observation drives the change, but fails to define how an observation differs from an interaction. One could say that the observation requires an observer. What defines an observer? Can the neutrino observe itself? Does the observer have to be alive and conscious? Does physics have definitions for “life” and “consciousness”? Without these definitions “Copenhagen” is an incomplete theory.

“Many Worlds” gets around these problems by eliminating observation. There is no choice. Everything happens. Every unique outcome generates an entire new universe. We observe what we observe because what we observe is part of our consciousness once we observe it. The observer of the anti-electron neutrino is defined by having observed the anti-electron neutrino and inhabits a universe that includes the anti-electron neutrino. She has a sister in another universe that observed the electron neutrino and the electron neutrino is part of that universe.

In my opinion this is a highly unsatisfying philosophy. As far as I can tell this is all that the physics community has to offer at the present time.

I was raised in a household that used science to explain everything. I was not raised with any religion. When science falls short like this it makes me rather motivated to come up with something of my own. Here it is:

Objects are psychophysical entities, not physical. Color is a good example of a psychophysical entity. Color depends on you eye as much as at does external light. The “physical” aspect of light is electromagnetic vibration. My philosophy states that every psychophysical entity has a corresponding physical entity. Psychophysical entities cannot be the same as physical entities.
Quantized action is a good physical counterpart to the psychophysical object. Try to find an object not correlated to the action of its creation. I believe this explains causality.

Objects are mental bookkeeping when evaluating events at human and near human scales. This bookkeeping strategy was an evolutionary development. At far from human scales this strategy does not work.

The actions are real. The actors as separate stand-alone entities are not.

How do you think my philosophy stands up? The competition is pretty weak.

Any new theory must start with these things:
1. A list of observations/measurements not explained by orthodox theories.
2. At least one falsification scenario.

All I see for #1 is a bunch of polygons of various quality and certainty. There must be other phenomena implied by the “theory”.

Can you derive repulsive “dark energy” from this? “Dark matter”? These aren’t explained by orthodox theories.

What orthodox theories would this supplant? How would it impact the “standard model”?

Don’t forget Occam’s razor: “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.” Ptolemy’s celestial spheres fit fairly well with planetary observations, but Newton got better results with a single equation.