Re: LIGO

[Lawrence Crowell]

I am going to think about this. The problem I see is that LIGO detects 
information in a gravity wave and converts that into our electronic 
information. If this information really drops as 1/r then from a Gauss' law 
perspective it means a gravitational wave propagating from its source 
produces information a the rate I(t) ~ r, for r the radius of the wave 
front. I have some problems with that.

LC

On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 5:30:31 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 5:06 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> >> Yes but LIGO detects the peak to peak displacement of a wave not its 
>>> power or energy as cameras and radios do. And that means LIGO's ability to 
>>> detect wave producing things is reduced with distance much more slowly than 
>>> with telescopes that deal with electromagnetic waves. Peak-to peak 
>>> displacement is proportional to the Root Mean Square of the wave and the 
>>> RMS is proportional to the square root of the power. So if there is 4 times 
>>> less power in the gravitational wave (because the source is twice as far 
>>> away) the peak to peak displacement is only reduced by a factor of 2.
>>>
>>  
>
> > I guess you will have to give a reference on this.
>>
>
> From LIGO's website:  
>
> https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts 
>
> "*improvements will ultimately make LIGO's interferometers 10 times more 
> sensitive than their initial incarnation. A 10-fold increase in sensitivity 
> means that LIGO will be able to detect gravitational waves 10 times farther 
> away than Initial LIGO, which translates into 'sampling' 1000-times more 
> volume of space (volume increases with the cube of the distance. So 10 
> times farther away means 10x10x10=1000 times the volume of space)"*
>
> From: 
>
> https://dcc.ligo.org/public//P070082/004/P070082-v4.pdf
>
> "the gravitational wave field strength is proportional to the second time 
> derivative of the quadrupole moment of the source, and it falls off in 
> amplitude inversely with distance from the source"
>
> From:
>
> https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2016/02/19/how-close-is-too-close/
>
>
> *"**The amount of shift caused by a gravitational wave is due to its 
> amplitude, not its energy. While the energy of gravitational waves follow 
> the inverse square relation, the amplitude of gravitational waves follows 
> the inverse distance relation. In other words, if we were half as far away 
> from the merger we’d have seen four times the energy, but only twice the 
> shift."*
>
> And note that it is the shift that LIGO detect not energy. 
>
> > I can see in one sense what you are saying about RMS, but I don't think 
>> your quite correct still. The interferometer measures a quadrupole 
>> displacemement.
>>
>
> That just means as one leg of LIGO is moved to a maximum distance the 
> other leg is moved to a minimum distance, and the difference between the 
> maximum and minimum is what causes interference in the Laser beam that LIGO 
> detects. Needless to say that is not the way a radio receiver works and is 
> not way film detects light either.   
>
>  John K Clark  
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: LIGO

[John Clark]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:01 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*>  I am going to think about this. The problem I see is that LIGO detects
> information in a gravity wave and converts that into our electronic
> information. If this information really drops as 1/r then from a Gauss' law
> perspective it means a gravitational wave propagating from its source
> produces information a the rate I(t) ~ r, for r the radius of the wave
> front. I have some problems with that.*


I don't see the problem with transferring information that way, you could
even do it with light although with a different method than LIGO's. The
inverse square law applies only for isotropic emitters, so with a perfect
zero divergent Laser beam the intensity of the beam would be constant and
independent of distance. Of course a real Laser will always have some
divergence and the intensity is proportional to the width of the beam, so
if it went far enough eventually it would start to follow the inverse
square law, but that distance could be large even by cosmological
standards. Blazars are a especially bright type of Quasar and some have
been spotted over 10 billion light years away. But Quasars are not
isotropic emitters and it is now thought that Blazars are fundamentally no
different from regular Quasars it's just that Blazars are so positioned
that we just happen to be looking straight down the throat of the Quasar's
beam.

LIGO gets around the inverse square law in a entirely different way, it
doesn't detect the RMS power of a wave it detects the peak to peak
displacement of a wave.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Supermassive Black Holes

[John Clark]

The Event Horizon Telescope is a array of radio telescopes on 4 continents
that forms a virtual telescope with the resolution one telescope as large
as the entire Earth. It was put together for the sole purpose of getting a
picture of the supermassive Black Hole at the center of our galaxy, they've
been working on this since 2006. On April 10 2019 at 9am EST they will have
a press conference and announce what they found. All they will say now is
that the results will be "groundbreaking". The event will be live streamed
here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=Dr20f19czeE

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 Mar 2019, at 19:50, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 Mar 2019, at 07:15, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Which language one uses makes a physical difference.
> 
> That is correct, interesting for the application, but not directly relevant 
> for the “ontological problem” and the mind-body problem.
> 
> Physics is not able to make any prediction without assuming something (what 
> exactly) capable of selecting our computation in arithmetic. Theologically, 
> it still invoke an ontology, which cannot be done when doing science.
> 
> The fact that efficient computation “survives”, and non efficient do not, 
> requires magic if the environnement does not map the finitely many accessible 
> histories at (or below) our substitution level.
> 
> A quantum computation does not require any energy, note. And both 
> observation, and mechanism seems to force the physical reality into a 
> combinatory algebra without Kestrel (Kxy = x, which eliminates the 
> information in y), nor Starling S (Sxyz = xz(yz)) nor any duplicator (no 
> Mocking Bird like M, Mx = xx). Information cannot be physically created, nor 
> eliminated, nor duplicated. 
> 
> We can still have Turing universality without eliminators. Yet we lost Turing 
> universality when we have no eliminators and no duplicators, but we can 
> regain it with adding “measurement” modal operator (internally defined, or 
> not). That is the combinatory BCI algebra, with a core physics where energy 
> is a constant, and computations use no energy, yet relative subcomputation 
> are allowed to make relative measurement, leading to apparent (indexical) 
> breaking of the core laws, and apparent elimination of “memories”. There are 
> Turing universal group and group have natural mesure theory associated with 
> them, but again, such group must be justified mathematically (and 
> theologically to get the private (first person) parts not eliminated). 
> 
> Thinking of group, I have said that physics is a symphony played by the 
> number 0, 1, e, PI, gamma, and with the number 24 has chief orchestra. To be 
> honest, my motivation comes more from physics and number theory than from 
> Metamathematics (mathematical logic, machine theology), and it makes me 
> nervous that the number theorist stumble on the right physics before the 
> theologian (leading to an arithmeticalism still capable of eliminating the 
> first person for awhile). Here is a nice video where John Baez explains well 
> why he likes 24 too, and its main role in String Theory (the Riemann 
> regularisation). I think about this when mentioning group theory, as 24 is 
> related to the Monster Group and Moonshine (where deep relation occurs 
> between fundamental physics and number theory).
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjbRhYjELo 
> 
> 
> To be sure, my favorite reason to love 24 is more the one related to Hardy 
> Rademacher and Ramanujan exact formula for the number of partition of a 
> number. That plays also some role in fundamental chemistry and classification 
> of “orbitals” (or quantum stationary waves).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> Every programming language has physical semantics

But a term like physics has not yet understandable semantics. Carnap and Popper 
made some try in that direction, but it leads to many difficulties. It is part 
of the beauty of mechanism that it provides a semantic of the physical 
proposition, without invoking any ontological commitment (beyond the terms 
needed to have the notion of universal machine (in the 
Turing-Post-Church-Kleene sense).





> -- which depends on its material computing substrate

That seems very weird to me. If something is a programming language, it can be 
implemented in a physical realm, but it is also implemented in the arithmetical 
realm, and anything emulated in that programming language cannot see any 
difference if the original emulator is the physical one or the arithmetical 
one. That is logically impossible, even without assuming mechanism.

If you want a dependence from the substrate, you need a non computaionalist 
theory of mind, and you need to singularise matter with actual infinities, a 
bit like lowing down the substitution level up to some real numbers and oracles 
with some infinite precision.




> -- in addition to (substrate-independent) denotational and operational 
> semantics . That includes quantum programming languages, like QASM [ 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03429 ] (for IBM's Q computer).


Same remark. All quantum computers + oracle are simulated in the partial 
computable part of arithmetic, which (of course?) requires a vaster part of 
arithmetic to be studied and get semantics.

Bruno





> 
>  - 

As of today LIGO and VIRGO are back online

[John Clark]

LIGO and Virgo gravitational wave detectors are back online


John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Mar 2019, at 19:50, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Mar 2019, at 07:15, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/
>>
>> Which language one uses makes a physical difference.
>>
>>
>> That is correct, interesting for the application, but not directly 
>> relevant for the “ontological problem” and the mind-body problem.
>>
>> Physics is not able to make any prediction without assuming something 
>> (what exactly) capable of selecting our computation in arithmetic. 
>> Theologically, it still invoke an ontology, which cannot be done when doing 
>> science.
>>
>> The fact that efficient computation “survives”, and non efficient do not, 
>> requires magic if the environnement does not map the finitely many 
>> accessible histories at (or below) our substitution level.
>>
>> A quantum computation does not require any energy, note. And both 
>> observation, and mechanism seems to force the physical reality into a 
>> combinatory algebra without Kestrel (Kxy = x, which eliminates the 
>> information in y), nor Starling S (Sxyz = xz(yz)) nor any duplicator (no 
>> Mocking Bird like M, Mx = xx). Information cannot be physically created, 
>> nor eliminated, nor duplicated. 
>>
>> We can still have Turing universality without eliminators. Yet we lost 
>> Turing universality when we have no eliminators and no duplicators, but we 
>> can regain it with adding “measurement” modal operator (internally defined, 
>> or not). That is the combinatory BCI algebra, with a core physics where 
>> energy is a constant, and computations use no energy, yet relative 
>> subcomputation are allowed to make relative measurement, leading to 
>> apparent (indexical) breaking of the core laws, and apparent elimination of 
>> “memories”. There are Turing universal group and group have natural mesure 
>> theory associated with them, but again, such group must be justified 
>> mathematically (and theologically to get the private (first person) parts 
>> not eliminated). 
>>
>> Thinking of group, I have said that physics is a symphony played by the 
>> number 0, 1, e, PI, gamma, and with the number 24 has chief orchestra. To 
>> be honest, my motivation comes more from physics and number theory than 
>> from Metamathematics (mathematical logic, machine theology), and it makes 
>> me nervous that the number theorist stumble on the right physics before the 
>> theologian (leading to an arithmeticalism still capable of eliminating the 
>> first person for awhile). Here is a nice video where John Baez explains 
>> well why he likes 24 too, and its main role in String Theory (the Riemann 
>> regularisation). I think about this when mentioning group theory, as 24 is 
>> related to the Monster Group and Moonshine (where deep relation occurs 
>> between fundamental physics and number theory).
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjbRhYjELo
>>
>> To be sure, my favorite reason to love 24 is more the one related to 
>> Hardy Rademacher and Ramanujan exact formula for the number of partition of 
>> a number. That plays also some role in fundamental chemistry and 
>> classification of “orbitals” (or quantum stationary waves).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> Every programming language has physical semantics 
>
>
> But a term like physics has not yet understandable semantics. Carnap and 
> Popper made some try in that direction, but it leads to many difficulties. 
> It is part of the beauty of mechanism that it provides a semantic of the 
> physical proposition, without invoking any ontological commitment (beyond 
> the terms needed to have the notion of universal machine (in the 
> Turing-Post-Church-Kleene sense).
>
>
>
>
>
> -- which depends on its material computing substrate
>
>
> That seems very weird to me. If something is a programming language, it 
> can be implemented in a physical realm, but it is also implemented in the 
> arithmetical realm, and anything emulated in that programming language 
> cannot see any difference if the original emulator is the physical one or 
> the arithmetical one. That is logically impossible, even without assuming 
> mechanism.
>
> If you want a dependence from the substrate, you need a non 
> computaionalist theory of mind, and you need to singularise matter with 
> actual infinities, a bit like lowing down the substitution level up to some 
> real numbers and oracles with some infinite precision.
>
>
>
>
> -- in addition to (substrate-independent) denotational and operational 
> semantics . That includes quantum programming languages, like QASM [ 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03429 ] (for IBM's Q computer).
>
>
>
> Same remark. All quantum computers + oracle are simulated in the partial 
> computable part of arithmetic, which (of course?) requires a vaster part of 
> arithmetic to be s

Re: Supermassive Black Holes

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

So, what would John Clark's definition of "groundbreaking" be, within the realm 
of astrophysics and cosmology? You don't suspect that 'groundbreaking' for that 
team, may not be groundbreaking for you? 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Apr 1, 2019 8:31 am
Subject: Supermassive Black Holes

The Event Horizon Telescope is a array of radio telescopes on 4 continents that 
forms a virtual telescope with the resolution one telescope as large as the 
entire Earth. It was put together for the sole purpose of getting a picture of 
the supermassive Black Hole at the center of our galaxy, they've been working 
on this since 2006. On April 10 2019 at 9am EST they will have a press 
conference and announce what they found. All they will say now is that the 
results will be "groundbreaking". The event will be live streamed here:    
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=Dr20f19czeE

John K Clark
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Supermassive Black Holes

[johnkclark]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:25 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> So, what would John Clark's definition of "groundbreaking" be, within
> the realm of astrophysics and cosmology?*


No point in speculating, in 9 days we'll know.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.