The music of gravitational waves

Nov 24, 2010 By Whitney Clavin
This artist’s concept shows the proposed LISA mission, which would consist of three distinct spacecraft, each connected by laser beams. It would be the first space-based mission to attempt the detection of gravitational waves -- ripples in space-time that are emitted by exotic objects such as black holes. Image credit: ESA

A team of scientists and engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has brought the world one step closer to "hearing" gravitational waves -- ripples in space and time predicted by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century.

The research, performed in a lab at JPL in Pasadena, Calif., tested a system of lasers that would fly aboard the proposed space mission called , or LISA. The mission's goal is to detect the subtle, whisper-like signals of gravitational waves, which have yet to be directly observed. This is no easy task, and many challenges lie ahead.

The new JPL tests hit one significant milestone, demonstrating for the first time that noise, or random fluctuations, in LISA's laser beams can be hushed enough to hear the sweet sounds of the elusive waves.

"In order to detect gravitational waves, we have to make extremely precise measurements," said Bill Klipstein, a physicist at JPL. "Our lasers are much noisier than what we want to measure, so we have to remove that noise carefully to get a clear signal; it's a little like listening for a feather to drop in the middle of a heavy rainstorm." Klipstein is a co-author of a paper about the lab tests that appeared in a recent issue of .

The JPL team is one of many groups working on LISA, a joint European Space Agency and NASA mission proposal, which, if selected, would launch in 2020 or later. In August of this year, LISA was given a high recommendation by the 2010 U.S. National Research Council decadal report on astronomy and astrophysics.

JPL researchers Glenn de Vine and Brent Ware with their LISA laser experiment. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

One of LISA's primary goals is to detect gravitational waves directly. Studies of these cosmic waves began in earnest decades ago when, in 1974, researchers discovered a pair of orbiting dead stars -- a type called pulsars -- that were spiraling closer and closer together due to an unexplainable loss of energy. That energy was later shown to be in the form of gravitational waves. This was the first indirect proof of the waves, and ultimately earned the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics.

LISA is expected to not only "hear" the waves, but also learn more about their sources -- massive objects such as black holes and dead stars, which sing the waves like melodies out to the universe as the objects accelerate through space and time. The mission would be able to detect gravitational waves from massive objects in our Milky Way galaxy as well as distant galaxies, allowing scientists to tune into an entirely new language of our universe.

The proposed mission would amount to a giant triangle of three distinct spacecraft, each connected by laser beams. These spacecraft would fly in formation around the sun, about 20 degrees behind Earth. Each one would hold a cube made of platinum and gold that floats freely in space. As gravitational waves pass by the spacecraft, they would cause the distance between the cubes, or test masses, to change by almost imperceptible amounts -- but enough for LISA's extremely sensitive instruments to be able to detect corresponding changes in the connecting laser beams.

"The gravitational waves will cause the 'corks' to bob around, but just by a tiny bit," said Glenn de Vine, a research scientist and co-author of the recent study at JPL. "My friend once said it's sort of like rubber duckies bouncing around in a bathtub."

The JPL team has spent the last six years working on aspects of this LISA technology, including instruments called phase meters, which are sophisticated laser beam detectors. The latest research accomplishes one of their main goals -- to reduce the laser noise detected by the phase meters by one billion times, or enough to detect the signal of gravitational waves.

The job is like trying to find a proton in a haystack. Gravitational waves would change the distance between two spacecraft -- which are flying at 5 million kilometers (3.1 million miles) apart -- by about a picometer, which is about 100 million times smaller than the width of a human hair. In other words, the spacecraft are 5,000,000,000 meters apart, and LISA would detect changes in that distance on the order of .000000000005 meters!

At the heart of the LISA laser technology is a process known as interferometry, which ultimately reveals if the distances traveled by the laser beams of light, and thus the distance between the three spacecraft, have changed due to gravitational waves. The process is like combining ocean waves -- sometimes they pile up and grow bigger, and sometimes they cancel each other out or diminish in size.

"We can't use a tape measure to get the distances between these spacecraft," said de Vine, "So we use lasers. The wavelengths of the lasers are like our tick marks on a tape measure."

On LISA, the laser light is detected by the phase meters and then sent to the ground, where it is "interfered" via data processing (the process is called time-delay interferometry for this reason -- there's a delay before the interferometry technique is applied). If the interference pattern between the laser beams is the same, then that means the spacecraft haven't moved relative to each other. If the interference pattern changes, then they did. If all other reasons for spacecraft movement have been eliminated, then gravitational waves are the culprit.

That's the basic idea. In reality, there are a host of other factors that make this process more complex. For one thing, the spacecraft don't stay put. They naturally move around for reasons that have nothing to do with gravitational waves. Another challenge is the noise. How do you know if the spacecraft moved because of gravitational waves, or if noise in the laser is just making it seem as if the spacecraft moved?

This is the question the JPL team recently took to their laboratory, which mimics the LISA system. They introduced random, artificial noise into their lasers and then, through a complicated set of data processing actions, subtracted most of it back out. Their recent success demonstrated that they could see changes in the distances between mock spacecraft on the order of a picometer.

In essence, they hushed the roar of the laser beams, so that LISA, if selected for construction, will be able to hear the universe softly hum a tune of .

Other authors of the paper from JPL are Brent Ware; Kirk McKenzie; Robert E. Spero and Daniel A. Shaddock, who has a joint post with JPL and the Australian National University in Canberra.

LISA is a proposed joint NASA and European Space Agency mission. The NASA portion of the mission is managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Some of the key instrumentation studies for the mission are being performed at JPL. The U.S. mission scientist is Tom Prince at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. JPL is managed by Caltech for NASA.

Explore further: Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Related Stories

Measuring the universe

Aug 25, 2010

A unique antenna which could help unveil a new window on the universe by observing thousands of gravitational waves should be one of NASA's next space missions according to a group of leading US experts.

Scientists aim to unlock gravitational wave mysteries

Oct 19, 2006

Scientists at The Australian National University today joined a consortium of universities launching plans for a new observatory to detect a space phenomenon that has challenged physicists since it was first proposed by Einstein ...

Stars Flood Space with Gravitational Waves

May 30, 2005

A scientist using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has found evidence that two white dwarf stars are orbiting each other in a death grip, destined to merge. The data indicate gravitational waves are carrying energy away fro ...

17-year-old works on NASA spaceship

Dec 06, 2007

A 17-year-old student who helped test a U.S. space agency spacecraft has been asked to address the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting next week.

Recommended for you

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Apr 18, 2014

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Apr 17, 2014

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jarek
5 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
ripples in space and time predicted by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century

Actually they are also the essence of earlier Lorentz invariant gravity theory from 1893, which is now used as intermediate approximation: gravitomagnetism (2nd set of Maxwell's equations for gravity), so maybe the more proper name would be Oliver Heaviside?
http://en.wikiped...agnetism
KwasniczJ
1.1 / 5 (21) Nov 24, 2010
..so maybe the more proper name would be Oliver Heaviside?

Definitely - as Albert Einstein actually opposed the gravitational wave concept originally (in the same way, like space-time concept, black holes, red-shift and many other concepts, which are usually attributed to him by half-educated journalists).

http://blogs.disc...-review/

http://dafix.uark...eree.pdf
Nik_2213
not rated yet Nov 24, 2010
I hope the space-based system works, as the ground-based version hasn't reported anything yet...

Of course, there haven't been any *juicy* supernovae or other obvious grav-wave emitting events since it was completed...
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (26) Nov 24, 2010
..our lasers are much noisier than what we want to measure, so we have to remove that noise carefully to get a clear signal; it's a little like listening for a feather to drop in the middle of a heavy rainstorm..
It's typical example, how the lack of understanding leads the physicists to removal of sought artefact from signal. Actually just the CMB noise are the gravitational waves, which these physicists are looking for.

As Eddington pointed out already before many years, gravitational waves do not have a unique speed of propagation. The speed of the alleged waves is coordinate dependent. A different set of coordinates yields a different speed of propagation and such waves would propagate like noise.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (25) Nov 24, 2010
The same result can be imagined easily with water surface model, where transverse waves are serving like analogy of waves of light and the gravitational waves are behaving like longitudinal sound waves, which are spreading through underwater. Because sound waves are spreading a way faster, then the surface waves, they would manifest like indeterministic noise at the water surface - and no expensive analysis or devices is required for such understanding. Which is actually a disadvantage for scientific community, who seeks for continuity of jobs and grant support. The real understanding isn't what they actually do expect from their models.

http://tambourine...ect.html
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2010
It's typical example, how the lack of understanding leads the physicists to removal of sought artefact from signal. Actually just the CMB noise are the gravitational waves, which these physicists are looking for.
If you know better than thousands of experts who have actually been educated in the field, start publishing your research.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (24) Nov 24, 2010
Well, this is what I'm just doing.

As I told, the indeterminism of gravitational waves is commonly known and this analysis was published with Eddington and many others physicists (Crothers) many years before. I'm just bringing simple illustrative arguments for laymans, which don't require no math at all.

The holographic theorists are searching for noise instead - they seek for TV frequencies, because higher frequencies would interfere with CMB noise, too.

http://www.physor...ram.html

Actually both groups of physicists are avoiding just the noise, which they're supposed to detect as both gravitational waves, both holographic noise. To convince theorists, both groups are looking for the same effect, which is already known is not matter of publication of some research, but the change in scientific research motivations. The physicists should learn, how to reconcile their ideas instead of development new and new theories for the same phenomena.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2010
KwasniczJ, "I'm just bringing simple illustrative arguments for laymans, which don't require no math at all."

Please don't do us laymen any more favors.
KwasniczJ
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 24, 2010
If so - can you understand, when some phenomena is inherently chaotic by some logic, then we cannot predict/derive it with formal math models, which are always deterministic by its very nature?

And because mainstream physicists are always thinking in formal math only, they can never get such trivial connections - they even cannot publish it in peer-reviewed journals...;-)
danman5000
3.8 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
Man, as if I already wasn't convinced of Jigga's lack of credibility, I am now after reading the first two posts here. He's actually having a conversation with himself. Using two of his many accounts, he tries to create the illusion that other people actually support him. He's done that before via the post voting system, but this is a new low.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (25) Nov 24, 2010
Please don't do us laymen any more favors.
The people who are downvoting others without - or even instead of - relevant arguments are trolls - not laymans.

My above remark therefore doesn't apply to you - it would be unsubstantiated flattery.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2010
The people who are downvoting others without - or even instead of - relevant arguments are trolls - not laymans.
When you ignore relevant arguments, you betray your own ability to be an impartial judge of the arguments mounted against you.

KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (22) Nov 24, 2010
when you ignore relevant arguments, you betray your own ability to be an impartial judge of the arguments mounted against you.
Definitely. Can you provide some relevant objection against the hypothesis, gravitational waves are actually formed with CMB noise - or are we just ending with rhetorical questions instead of arguments, again?
JIMBO
5 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
Just to be clear: Grav waves detectable by LISA will make No Acoustic Sounds detectable by human hearing. LISA responds to grav waves that are way below the ear's lower limit of about ~20 Hz.
On the other hand, LIGO & GEO respond to grav waves that could be heard by human ears, 100-1000 Hz.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (23) Nov 25, 2010
From analogy with underwater waves spreading follows, the true gravitational waves should appear like CMB noise of variable intensity. With compare to normal microwave photons they appear from all directions at the same moment suddenly and such observation has been done at GEO600 detector already. But theoretically it's possible to detect low frequency wave, analogous to transverse sound waves spreading along SOFAR channel in oceans. The foamy structures of dark matter between galaxies are forming density gradients, along which such waves could propagate like the gravitomagnetic waves along tubes. The existence of such waves follows from analogy of gravitomagnetic equations to Maxwell's and/or Navier-Stokes equations for dense elastic fluids, but they're not a real gravitational waves in common sense. It indicates, the theory of these waves could be a much more complex, then the classical theories allow.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2010
Definitely. Can you provide some relevant objection against the hypothesis, gravitational waves are actually formed with CMB noise
Yes, you haven't provided any evidence for your statement.
- or are we just ending with rhetorical questions instead of arguments, again?
The questions aren't rhetorical. If you can't answer them, your hypotheses are dead in the water. No prrof, no truth. Welcome to science.
genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2010
What a boring expensive splectrum and what a amusing cheap sofarharp, thats not making strikemusic but workaholicer mellow. Mean, sound is never a real of because the light is never realy on.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (23) Nov 25, 2010
Yes, you haven't provided any evidence for your statement.
We discussed about it many times here - at GEO600 detector a sudden changes of noise level were observed, instead of waves http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0665

For me the evidence rather is, nobody considered the CMB noise as a gravitational waves, although all possible speculations are published usually in physics. The best idea usually comes at the very end, when all possible variants are depleted.
Javinator
5 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2010
For me the evidence rather is, nobody considered the CMB noise as a gravitational waves,


That's not evidence. That's a hypothesis at best.

What a boring expensive splectrum and what a amusing cheap sofarharp, thats not making strikemusic but workaholicer mellow. Mean, sound is never a real of because the light is never realy on.


That's gotta be my favourite one yet.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (24) Nov 26, 2010
It's the same natural solution of two problems at the same moment (origin of CMB and missing gravitational waves), like the consideration of antimatter composition of dark matter - which belongs into predictions of my theory, too.

http://www.newsci...ter.html

The CMB noise is not formed only with gamma ray photons, which were formed during Big Bang and redshifted during inflation. The dual mechanism applies here, too: CMB noise is formed with gravitational waves, which collapsed during deflation of Universe at the same moment. It's because when particle environment condenses, the speed of transverse waves decreases, but the speed of longitudinal waves increases in it - and vice-versa.
Dick_Wolf
2 / 5 (21) Nov 26, 2010
Can you provide some relevant objection against the hypothesis, gravitational waves are actually formed with CMB noise

If you ever bothered to study modern physics instead of obsessing over falsified 19th-century alchemy, you’d know that the source of gravitation is the stress-energy tensor, which is a second-rank tensor, which requires a spin-2 massless boson to mediate, i.e. gravitons, which propagate as quadrupole waves. These can’t be detected with electromagnetic antennas that only detect EM waves consisting of photons, spin-1 massless bosons. Detecting spin-2 massless bosons requires a gravitational antenna like the LISA or the LIGOs, or at close range, a Weber bar. Here's a link you won't bother to read: http://www.ligo.c...7-00.pdf

But none of that will get through to you, because you’re living in the scientific Dark Ages. Stop pretending that you know better than people who have actually done their homework, you have nothing of value to share.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (22) Nov 26, 2010
..you'd know that the source of gravitation is the stress-energy tensor, which is a second-rank tensor, which requires a spin-2 massless boson to mediate, i.e. gravitons, which propagate as quadrupole waves..
Come on... T. Levi-Civita's derivation of the divergence of stress energy tensor: http://www.sjcrot...vita.pdf
..these can’t be detected with electromagnetic antennas that only detect EM waves consisting of photons..
In linearized, Einstein–Maxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field http://rspa.royal...987.full
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (22) Nov 26, 2010
Relativists use a simplified form of Eistein field equations to calculate various properties of his gravitational field, including Einstein gravitational waves, which are based on the Einstein's pseudo-tensor. This simplified form is called the linearised field equations. They do this because Einstein's field equations are highly non-linear (implicit actually) and impossible to solve analytically. So they use the linearised form, simply assuming that they can do so. However Hermann Weyl proved in 1944 already, that linearisation of the field equations implies the existence of a Einstein's pseudo-tensor that, except for the trivial case of being precisely zero, does not otherwise exist:

http://www.jstor..../2371768
Dick_Wolf
1.9 / 5 (22) Nov 26, 2010
@Zephir
It figures. Sifting through those papers trying to figure out why you think they support your lame ideas was a total waste of time, as usual. Those links have nothing to do with your argument. Well, the second link discusses plugging the energy of a photon into the stress-energy tensor to define the absurdly minute gravitational field associated with a photon, but that would apply to All photons, not just the CMBR, so it’s irrelevant to your argument.

Maybe if you went to college you could figure out which papers applied to your arguments and which ones don’t, Zephir. That would be a start anyway. Then after a couple of decades of intensive study you might actually understand some of them.

But I forget. You already HAVE all of the answers. You got them by staring at the waves in the toilet bowl. LOL.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (21) Nov 27, 2010
..You already HAVE all of the answers..
I have arguments - it's a difference. Actually just your reply comes from waves in the toilet bow. You simply have no counterarguments - but you're too lame to admit it. A lame squared, so to say...

..but that would apply to All photons, not just the CMBR, so it's irrelevant to your argument..
Of course, we can detect gravity noise from all photons, not just CMBR - this doesn't violate my arguments at all.
ArtflDgr
not rated yet Nov 27, 2010
If so - can you understand, when some phenomena is inherently chaotic by some logic, then we cannot predict/derive it with formal math models, which are always deterministic by its very nature? wasniczJ -

this might be valid if a mind was only a turing machine, but its more than just that... and that the deterministic math model is NOT used to think in, but used as a way to convey thoughts....

your so smart you made yourself into a robot who cant ever exceed and do what humanrobots did already..

einstein did not think in formal mathematical terms, he thought in abstract gedanken, then tried to see if that expressed formally worked.

i dont think in formal mathemetical terms...

and in fact, sometimes the abstractions generate whole new areas of formal mathematics. (chaos theory would not be possible if your view was valid)
ArtflDgr
not rated yet Nov 27, 2010
I should tell you KwasniczJ that your above assertion would claim that the mandelbrot set was not knowable.

seems the hegelians are stuck, as their reality has no such thing as an intersection, only convergences in which a new or old dominant triumphs...

in this way, they imagine the world not as a sum of man scales, locative perspectives, and other empirical facets, but that they fight to assert the one right view, which completely ignores this Rashoman effect of non omniscient mentalities...
ArtflDgr
not rated yet Nov 27, 2010
many not man
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (22) Nov 27, 2010
when some phenomena is inherently chaotic by some logic, then we cannot predict/derive it with formal math models, which are always deterministic by its very nature
Math models doesn't handle time concept, because math is atemporal formal rigor - if you derive something, it will remain valid for ever. Actually this is just the feature, for which the physicists (who are studying temporal systems) value math rigor so much. From the same reason, for description of very large, universal and universal models, which are very long-lived the formal math isn't effective anymore.
Dick_Wolf
1.7 / 5 (22) Nov 27, 2010
@Zephir/Crackpot
I have arguments

Providing irrelevant links is NOT an argument. The idea that photons possess gravitational aka inertial mass is NOT new, it's over a hundred years old: http://www.fourmi...mc2/www/
Of course, we can detect gravity noise from all photons, not just CMBR - this doesn't violate my arguments at all.

Yes, it does. And we can’t detect the gravitational field of a photon, lol. You tried to claim that CMB photons are “missing” gravitational waves:
It's the same natural solution of two problems at the same moment (origin of CMB and missing gravitational waves)

Photons do have a tiny gravitational field, but gravitational waves do not have photons. They’re different phenomena. You can reflect a photon. You can’t reflect a gravitational wave. You don’t have an argument, you had a daydream. That and a harsh word will buy you a good beating.

You have nothing to offer here. Go post at Keelynet, physics poseur.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (22) Nov 27, 2010
You tried to claim that CMB photons are "missing" gravitational waves
Yep. And the dark matter is "missing" antimatter and the Casimir & dipole forces are the "missing" extradimensions, the streaks of dark matter are the "missing" cosmic strings, black holes with asymetric jets are "missing" magnetic monopoles, etc... Most of things, which physicists are looking for is already here and observed well. We can save a lotta money, if we realize it. But physical industry needs research in the same way, like militaristic industry needs wars.
.Photons do have a tiny gravitational field, but gravitational waves do not have photons..
At the water surface no wave is pure transverse of pure longitudinal waves. These waves are always of mixed nature (Rayleigh or Love waves) - and vacuum waves are no exception.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (21) Nov 27, 2010
This shot of underwater nuclear explosion illustrates, what we should observe during passage of gravitational waves through galaxy: a temporal change in density of CMB noise from all directions at the same moment, instead of occurrence of harmonic waves.

http://www.youtub...XJuv8tDM

Note that sound waves are dispersing fast at the water surface, which serves as a 2D analogy of space-time here - so it's improbable, we could observe gravitational waves as a harmonic waves at longer distance, then the wavelength of CMB. At the proximity of very dense stars such distance could be extended.
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (28) Nov 27, 2010
@snotnose dick,
-Do you do anything but gang-rate people and attack the unpopular just for 5/5 biscuits? This is a science site not a schoolyard. Or maybe that's where you're actually posting from? I think I hear the bell- time for nap-

You have nothing to offer here but bile. Go post at Keelynet, physics poseur.
otto1932
1.1 / 5 (27) Nov 27, 2010
But I forget. You already HAVE all of the answers. You got them by staring at the waves in the toilet bowl. LOL.
Potty mouth. LOL.
otto1932
1.1 / 5 (27) Nov 27, 2010
But none of that will get through to you, because you’re living in the scientific Dark Ages. Stop pretending that you know better than people who have actually done their homework, you have nothing of value to share.
Stop posing like a tuffguy for 5/5 biscuits dick. You that starved for affection? dick?
Of course, we can detect gravity noise from all photons, not just CMBR - this doesn't violate my arguments at all.
nor mine either.
otto1932
1.1 / 5 (27) Nov 27, 2010
Well dick? You failed to address this:
Come on... T. Levi-Civita's derivation of the divergence of stress energy tensor: http://www.sjcrot...vita.pdf
-So I guess you WOULD rather be a poser? Is jigga right or what?
That and a harsh word will buy you a good beating.
8E
otto1932
1.1 / 5 (27) Nov 27, 2010
That and a harsh word will buy you a good beating.
I think I need to report to the mods that you're actually threatening VIOLENCE. I think that would be the prudent thing to do. You're a lunatic.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 27, 2010
Yah, that stains gonna be tough to get outta those white canvas hi-tops dude.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 27, 2010
Only shoes ya got too eh? Too bad... Got those colored lights in the soles that blink when ya walk and everything, ah man.
Dick_Wolf
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 27, 2010
You failed to address this:
Come on... T. Levi-Civita's derivation of the divergence of stress energy tensor: http://www.sjcrot...vita.pdf

So neither one of you two idiots knows the difference between gravitational radiation and electromagnetic radiation. What a surprise. Go back to your history books Herr Otto, you clearly have no grasp of physics. Must be why you and Zephir get along so well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (28) Nov 27, 2010
Haw haw he stepped in it!!! xP
So neither one of you two idiots knows the difference between gravitational radiation and electromagnetic radiation
Uh gravity sucks dont it?
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (19) Nov 28, 2010
The negative mass of radiowave photons should manifest with contraction of Universe, when being observed in radiowaves and attenuation of light of distant radiosources with distance. Last July, US astronomers announced surprising results from a high-altitude balloon experiment called ARCADE-2, which had made careful measurements of the sky at radio wavelengths. The background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, was several times brighter than anyone was expecting.
tkjtkj
not rated yet Nov 28, 2010
yes.. science ...
has been forever thus ...

Galileo had it easy ...
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (18) Nov 28, 2010
..Galileo had it easy .....
There is still a number of new fundamental findings, which could be derived/proved in logical way in reliable way without any math. Bellow human scale (~2 mm) the time arrow of Universe is basically reversed for particles of matter and radiation - so you can observe anti-gravity, blue shift, mirror matter, tachyons and all these sci-fi stuffs here. You should just know, where/how to look for it.
Sanescience
5 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2010
KwasniczJ:

WTF.

I think you are looking for abuse, not an argument.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2010
Contemporary physics isn't basically wrong - it has many correct insights - but it's characteristic with duplicating of theories, which can serve as an indicia of its overdesigning. We have multiple theories for single phenomena, because it helps physicists to publish more publications about it. The specialized character of experts prohibits them to communicate and reconcile their theories, the abstract character of formal math doesn't help it very much.

As the result, physicists are looking for phenomena, which were observed already, just named differently in context of another theories. For example CMBR is an apparent evidence of extradimensions, which are searched with strings theorists obstinately. They could use CMBR as an evidence of its theory, but they're unable to do so, because they don't understand their own theory and concepts built into it. One of reason is, CMBR violates Lorentz symmetry, which is another postulate of string theory - so they've good reason to ignore it.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Nov 29, 2010
The negative mass of radiowave photons should manifest with contraction of Universe,
That's backwards. With a contracting universe energy would become more dense, not less dense.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2010
Normal photons of wavelength larger then the CMRB wavelength have positive mass and Universe appears expanding with them. Photons of radiowaves and/or longer wavelengths actually do not exist - such photons are dispersing fast with CMBR noise - so they're behaving like tachyons of negative mass, travelling backward in time - so that Universe appears collapsing with these photons.

It's clean, simple, logical - and completely original insight. Actually it's just a consequence of fact, for structures larger then the wavelenght of CMBR the gravity dominates over quantum effects (pressure of CMBR), so that such objects are collapsing. Because these objects are observable only with light of comparable wavelength, the Universe should appear collapsing, when being observed in radiowaves.

The shrinking of gallaxies with time was actually observed http://arxiv.org/...11.4956, which means, this theory is confirmed partially.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2010
In addition, the blue shift of radiowaves should manifest itself with violation of inverse square law toward larger values, which is what has been observed already, too.

Last July, US astronomers announced surprising results from a high-altitude balloon experiment called ARCADE-2, which had made careful measurements of the sky at radio wavelengths.

http://arcade.gsf...2006.pdf

The background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, was 6x times brighter than anyone was expecting. It means, the time arrow is actually violated, our Universe doesn't travel through time in one direction. One half of Universe expands due the pressure of radiation and its entropy increases. The second part (this one larger then ~2 mm) collapses with its gravity instead and its entropy goes down.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2010
It's clean, simple, logical - and completely original insight.
Because it's incorrect, simplistic, and not accurate when compared to experiment and observation.

Secondly, the six fold increase was in resolution, not brightness.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2010
..it's incorrect, simplistic, and not accurate when compared to experiment and observation.
My theory cannot predict the absolute value of this gain, but it predicts, at the wavelength of CMBR this gain should be zero, which is what was has been actually observed.
http://arcade.gsf...mp_3.gif
..six fold increase was in resolution, not brightness..
Cosmic Radio Noise Booms Six Times Louder Than Expected

http://www.univer...xpected/

You even didn't bother to read the link provided, do you?
toocool
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2010
I would like to thank KwasniczJ for his hilarious pretentious ramblings.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2010
I dunno, what is so pretentious about it. The purpose of science is to explain things. Relativity describes gravity field of massive bodies as a curvature of space-time, but it doesn't explain, why space-time is curved around massive body and/or how space-time is curved - such questions are still completely opened for everyone.

Because J.A.Wheeler described space-time as a quantum foam, the most straightforward explanation would be, the space-time curvature emerges as a dispersion of light with spreading through foam. The recent experiments with spreading of microwaves through metamaterial foam are supporting dispersion model, because they're enabling to model the path of light around black holes rather faithfully.

http://www.latech...hole.jpg

The physicists don't ask trolls, what they think about their models - they're simply doing models, predictions and experiments in cycles.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2010
You even didn't bother to read the link provided, do you?

You didn't provide that link.

Have you actually followed up on it at all?
ARCADE is the first instrument to measure the radio sky with enough precision to detect this mysterious signal. To enhance the sensitivity of ARCADE's radio receivers, they were immersed in more than 500 gallons of ultra-cold liquid helium. The instrument's operating temperature was just 2.7 degrees above absolute zero.

http://beta.deeps...-results
Again, the gain in resolution allowed for the signal to appear, dummy.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2010
...the gain in resolution allowed for the signal to appear, dummy..
The stars or distant radio sources don't become brighter, if you use telescope with better resolution. If you believe, such result could be explained just with better resolution of device used, you're introducing new personal crackpot theory, which has no justification and you're expected to prove it.

"Cosmic Radio Noise Booms Six Times Louder Than Expected"

You should tell the authors, they're idiots and they're claiming finding, which could be explained with increased sensitivity of device used... I'm sure, this is exactly, what they're waiting for...;-)

Anyway, your private "theory" doesn't explain, why gain in resolution affected just the wavelengths larger than the CMB wavelength. Do you have some explanation for it?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2010
The stars or distant radio sources don't become brighter, if you use telescope with better resolution.
No, they become distinguishable.
If you believe, such result could be explained just with better resolution of device used, you're introducing new personal crackpot theory, which has no justification and you're expected to prove it.

Signal was always there, it wasn't detectable due to noise in the signal. Better resolution==cleaner signal==tadaa, a result that wasn't present before.
You should tell the authors, they're idiots and they're claiming finding, which could be explained with increased sensitivity of device used... I'm sure, this is exactly, what they're waiting for...;-)
You should actually read their work and understand what they're saying rather than guessing they've found some magic bullet to dispose of a long standing theory.
explain, why gain in resolution affected just the wavelengths larger than the CMB wavelength.
It didn't, dummy.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2010
It didn't, dummy.
Sorry - I can believe only, what I can see - not anonymous trolls without any references.

http://arcade.gsf...mp_3.gif

Regarding blue shift of radiowave source, it has been observed possibly, too..

http://arxiv.org/.../0603191

Blue shift is notoriously difficult to observe, because of lack or reliable reference sources of known frequency (hydrogen vibration spectra of remote sources are absorbed heavily with interstellar gas). But some man-made objects are already remote enough to observe blueshift with artificial sources of microwaves.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2010
Sorry - I can believe only, what I can see - not anonymous trolls without any references.
You need to learn how to read. I think this where half your ridiculous ideas come form, total inability to read. If a radio galaxy is moving toward us then yes, blue shift would be observed.

We observe blue shift from Andromeda because it is approaching. No one is saying it doesn't happen, what doesn't happen is we don't see the CMB becomming blue shifted, as you're suggesting.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2010
..If a radio galaxy is moving toward us then yes, blue shift would be observed...
Nope, the observation was about intensity of sources, not about their blue shift. And it doesn't explain, why blue shift caused with Doppler shift doesn't manifest at wavelengths of CMBR, because Doppler shift is uniform for all wavelengths.

Briefly speaking, Doppler shift cannot explain these observations. I don't recommend you to bother with it, because you're not the person, who can analyse the logics of physical experiments independently. You can understand only phenomena, which have been explained with someone else already, i.e. just to parrote introspectively established opinions. The rest is simply ignored or refused with you.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Dec 01, 2010
Blue shift is notoriously difficult to observe, because of lack or reliable reference sources of known frequency (hydrogen vibration spectra of remote sources are absorbed heavily with interstellar gas).
Nope, the observation was about intensity of sources, not about their blue shift.
What the fuck are you talking about?
You can understand only phenomena, which have been explained with someone else already, i.e. just to parrote introspectively established opinions. The rest is simply ignored or refused with you.
See first question.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2010
I would like to thank KwasniczJ for his hilarious pretentious ramblings.
And I would like to thank dick for his hilarious schizophrenia.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Hey dick- another dispicable potty-mouth. Fire up your crack downrater team quick! Weeoooweeeoooweeooo! Fireball XL5!!
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2010
Albert Einstein: "The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer".

More news stories

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...