Gravitational wave doubt

[101nut]

Not sure quite how much information can be gleaned out of these signals.

For the fastest known orbiting neutron stars I'd assume a gravitational wave wavelength of 10¹²m ish. For angular resolution of only 1^o you'd need a receiver (or array) about 50 million Km across ... and 1^o is obviously very poor ... unless of course there's something I don't understand (which is more than possible) that improves things over the electromagnetic equivalent resolution. The new LISA project is planned to only extend to 5million Km.

Whilst the identification of the signal is a great piece of work - putting another line under general relativity is no mean feat - quite how useful it may be in the already much media hyped 'future exploration of black holes and the universe' I'm not sure.

AndyG

[Physicist13]

its a great paper and result! Very clear signal...with something that can detect a length change of less than a nucleus!! 

Pat

[Stu]

I still can't quite my head around this achievement, it's quite spectacular. As a non-expert onlooker, it feels a lot more real than the Higgs discovery because the detection graph is so much more tangible, and the detection method is easier to understand. I still can't comprehend how they actually did it though, incredible.

[Stub Mandrel]

I feel rather sorry for Joseph Weber, pictured in my 1979 Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy.

He's shown carefully tweaking a detector on a 6-foot aluminium cylinder, hanging from an arch packed up rather precariously on blocks, given the sophistication of what was actually successful in detecting gravity waves, it looks awfully basic. He claimed to have detected daily gravity wave signals, but was discredited (although he appears never to have retracted his claim). Even so his work laid the foundations for LIGO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Weber

[Paul M]

It's funny how some things grab you and some things don't.

One of the other recent successes in experimental physics is the confirmation of the Higgs Boson but for some reason I can't get excited about it (or them, I guess there's more than one?  ). Both discoveries employed ground breaking technology, pushing engineering to new levels. 

The boson required the most powerful particle accelerator ever built while Gravity Waves brought about the creation of the most sensitive instrument ever built. 

I suppose it's rewarding when yet another experiment consolidates General Relativity. We need some continuity! The Higgs, well, I just don't get it. I've lost interest in the subatomic world. It's just got too crazy to be true, surely?

I think they're just making it up to keep their wages!

 

[Physicist13]

15 hours ago, Paul M said:

It's funny how some things grab you and some things don't.

One of the other recent successes in experimental physics is the confirmation of the Higgs Boson but for some reason I can't get excited about it (or them, I guess there's more than one?  ). Both discoveries employed ground breaking technology, pushing engineering to new levels. 

The boson required the most powerful particle accelerator ever built while Gravity Waves brought about the creation of the most sensitive instrument ever built. 

I suppose it's rewarding when yet another experiment consolidates General Relativity. We need some continuity! The Higgs, well, I just don't get it. I've lost interest in the subatomic world. It's just got too crazy to be true, surely?

I think they're just making it up to keep their wages!

 

lol! both expts are about looking for "things" that theory predicts.....Physicists get very excited (we are def all kids!!) when experiment either does or doesnt agree with predictions. Often from the discrepant results comes new discoveries. consistance helps cement the theory but makes us want to push further.....to breaking point!  "too crazy to be true"?? long given up the idea of "true"  

P

 

[saac]

On 16/02/2016 at 18:30, Paul M said:

It's funny how some things grab you and some things don't.

One of the other recent successes in experimental physics is the confirmation of the Higgs Boson but for some reason I can't get excited about it (or them, I guess there's more than one?  ). Both discoveries employed ground breaking technology, pushing engineering to new levels. 

The boson required the most powerful particle accelerator ever built while Gravity Waves brought about the creation of the most sensitive instrument ever built. 

I suppose it's rewarding when yet another experiment consolidates General Relativity. We need some continuity! The Higgs, well, I just don't get it. I've lost interest in the subatomic world. It's just got too crazy to be true, surely?

I think they're just making it up to keep their wages!

 

I know what you mean, they don't call it the particle zoo for no reason and it can be impenetrable to the understanding. Don't be too dismissive of the profound implications of the Higgs Boson though.   Simply it is the reason matter has any substance at all - without the Higgs filed the universe would be filled with nothing more than electromagnetic radiation.  No hydrogen, no stars, planets galaxies, us.  Indeed, without any mass to deform space-time, no gravity nor gravity waves.  Hey, this is calling out for a Physics game of Top Trumps

 

Jim

[Paul M]

Ok, so maybe I've been a little harsh on the Higgs

But it won't end there I'm sure. They'll split one of them soon enough and find that it's full of "up doofers", "down doofers" and "shiny doofers".

See, anyone  can write this stuff... 

[saac]

4 minutes ago, Paul M said:

Ok, so maybe I've been a little harsh on the Higgs

But it won't end there I'm sure. They'll split one of them soon enough and find that it's full of "up doofers", "down doofers" and "shiny doofers".

See, anyone  can write this stuff... 

Get your CV off to CERN Paul, I think you are on to something there.   My personal favourite is " strange " - apparently some particle physicist spotted something on one of the traces and said "oh that looks strange". 

 

Jim

[Stub Mandrel]

Copernicus had those Renaissance ladies
Crazy about his telescope
And Galileo had a name that made his
Reputation higher than his hopes
Did none of those astronomers discover
While they were staring out into the dark
That what a lady looks for in her lover
Is Charm, Strangeness and Quark

[Physicist13]

no bottom?? 

P

[goodricke1]

Hmmm this is getting verrry interesting...

http://www.universetoday.com/127463/did-a-gamma-ray-burst-accompany-ligos-gravitational-wave-detection/

[symesie04]

Interesting but sounds like a idea just thrown together.

[Jussi]

 

A sober response from the EU proponents:

 

 

[Stub Mandrel]

Worth looking at this which explains why the 'if gravity travels at the speed of light gravity should attract the earth to the observed position of the sun' argument is fallicious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Laplace

By analogy, if you spin around on the spot distant stars appear to be moving around you at vastly more than the speed of light, when they quite obviously aren't.

[Paul M]

41 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Worth looking at this which explains why the 'if gravity travels at the speed of light gravity should attract the earth to the observed position of the sun' argument is fallicious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Laplace

By analogy, if you spin around on the spot distant stars appear to be moving around you at vastly more than the speed of light, when they quite obviously aren't.

I've read that linked text a few times but can't get a handle on it's argument. My brain is sluggish after a night shift and little sleep this morning. I need more analogies to help it sink in!

I found the video above very interesting but I'm at my limit when considering the validity of the narrators myriad issues with accepted theory. If nothing else, dissent is a good thing, I think...

[saac]

Wal Thornhill makes plenty of statements in the video with pretty little evidence or justification, yet he is critical of what he calls the "dogma of relativity".  Pseudo science hokum at its finest or a personal axe to grind.

Jim

[Stub Mandrel]

Google 'electric universe theory' if you want to waste a few billion brain cells...

[Jussi]

 

This is an informative video which is a narration of Hilton Ratcliffe view(he is not an EU proponent) , also others pointing out seeming errors.

 

 

[JB80]

No he is a static universe proponent amongst other things.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hilton_Ratcliffe#cite_note-3

[Physicist13]

PRL is about the hardest to get published in..its extensively peer reviewed. Many ref to calculations are given..longer papers on the discovery will follow.