Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Want to prove =?UTF-8?B?RT1tY8KyPyBVbml2ZXJzaXR5IGxhYnMgc2hvdWxkIHRy?= =?UTF-8?B?eSB0aGlzIQ==?= Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 07:47:30 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: <99a57f854b63116bb79b971e666dc9d4@www.novabbs.com> References: <98a0a1fbdc93a5fcc108882d99718764@www.novabbs.com> <141e19a1c6acd54116739058391ca9f8@www.novabbs.com> <3da6cb303f9998fa49034c557d5c314b@www.novabbs.com> <6bdb52ff942fd2465d8344d6c61488dc@www.novabbs.com> <7e1b61de8c10dfacab84e6219ff3c2e6@www.novabbs.com> <071baf0a7783e388db0a3d6d2255613f@www.novabbs.com> <33ce7ff1379e934f323bb5d92d03254b@www.novabbs.com> <8f76ec6246444b6ea169426a7421934f@www.novabbs.com> <9b31762a70d932e02d6db2f764cbb552@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3458891"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="Ooch2ht+q3xfrepY75FKkEEx2SPWDQTvfft66HacveI"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Posting-User: 504a4e36a1e6a0679da537f565a179f60d7acbd8 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$0QbhrEG1NzEpz/XvZYVMBeV6lLuVt5eI/oQ5pZ6Vo4spyH7RelmUq X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 7725 Lines: 119 On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 5:03:41 +0000, rhertz wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 4:12:04 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: >> The important thing is that despite silly computational errors >> on _both_ our parts, we can agree that your statement of >> Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:46 is false, where you wrote: >> >> | "The stored energy increases constantly until the temperature of the >> | cavity walls (not cancelled by any means) destroy the material that >> | form the cavity (either coatings or places on the cavity surface, >> | making holes)." >> >> Since once it reaches steady state, the ball radiates as much power as >> is being pumped in, there is no danger of the ball being destroyed, as >> you claimed in earlier posts. >> >> I have absolutely no idea what this scaling crap is to which you >> refer. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is applicable to small surfaces >> as well as large. It _DOES_ need to be modified for bodies that >> are not black, by application of an empirical emmisivity term. > > You are right on the surface issue. I used πr² instead of 4πr². > > > Regarding the subject of constantly increasing stored energy, I repeat > that the internal energy density increases until the cavity breaks down. That can't happen, because, among other things, ultra-high reflectivity dielectric mirrors are only so from a single direction (usually normal to the surface). At any angle other than the one for which they have been designed, constructive interference doesn't work as well. And there is absolutely no way to design a matte surface to support such constructive interference. In practical terms, the reflectivity of a matte surface would be around 0.9 or so. Let's FANTASIZE, however, the internal power levels that you could achieve if you were an alien species living in a different universe with different physical laws allowing ultra-high reflectivity from all angles. If x is the reflectivity of the walls, then the ultimate power multiplication in the cavity would be given by P = 1/(1-x). So a reflectivity of 0.99999 would allow internal power levels 100000 times the incoming power. Would this break down the walls? No, because the total power leaking into the walls would be (1-0.99999)*100000 times the incoming power. At steady state, EXACTLY as much power is absorbed by the walls from the cavity as is being pumped into the cavity. 5 W pumped into this fantasy cavity results in half a million watts internal power levels, resulting in 5 W absorbed by the cavity walls and 5 W emitted by the sphere after its temperature rises to its steady-state level. > This is not the case of Planck's BB cavity, where the BBC was heated > from outside and left to rest until it reached thermal equilibrium. > Then, through a small orifice, experimental physicists at the Berlin > University lab (Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt) measured > externally the irradiated power using a very sensitive heat sensor. > > Here are some names that worked at the PTR in the 1890s. Ruben, a friend > of Planck, perfected the measurements reaching infrared radiation down > to 40 micrometers. He provided the charts and data to Planck, who > adjusted the 1986 Wien theory. > > Otto R. Lummer, E. Gehrcke, R. Wien, Pringsheim, Kurlbaum. > > Planck used the findings of Lummer-Pringsheim (1900) and Rubens-Kurlbaum > (1899-1900), performed at the Berlin PTR (Physical-Technical > Reichsanstalt) laboratory, provided to him by Rubens in Sept. 1900. > Planck had only 3 months to present his theory to the German Physics > Society in Dec. 1900, where he introduced his famous quantum of action. > > I repeat the link with the history between 1850 and 1900: > > Thermal Radiation, Black Body Theory and the Birth of Quantum Physics > > https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/ > > http://users.df.uba.ar/dmitnik/fisica4/articulos/cuantica/Lummer.pdf > > ************************************************ > > I expect that you may understand the differences between the PTR Black > Body Cavity (externally heated) and my idea of pumping direct energy > into an almost perfectly reflecting cavity. Rather than pursuing this topic, which I consider dead, there are other aspects of LIGO's optical system that I would rather consider. Let's look again at the description here: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligos-ifo How does LIGO (1) prevent light from being reflected back into the laser, and how does it (2) prevent light from being directed directly from the laser into the detector? Look at the image, "Layout of a basic Michelson interferometer". This image leaves out some important optical elements. Note how, besides light from the two paths combining into an single beam at the detector, a great deal of light is reflected back directly into the laser? Such light would destabilize the laser. A typical solution is to place a polarizer and a quarter-wave plate in front of the laser. This converts the laser light into circularly polarized light (CP). On the way back to the laser, the CP light is converted back into linearly polarized light, but at 90 degrees orientation relative to the outgoing light. Because of that, it is blocked from re-entering the laser. Now let's look at the illustration, "Basic Michelson interferometer with Fabry Perot cavities." The polarizer plus quarter-wave plate arrangement would work to block light from re-entering the laser, but look at the light being reflected directly from the two partially- transmitting mirrors on the near side of the Fabry Perot cavities! This light would go directly into the detector and ruin the ability to null out the signal! I think that I've figured out a solution. Does anybody here know how it is actually done in LIGO from reading the documentation?