Searching for gravitational waves

Aug 09, 2011 By Tammy Plotner
Searching for gravitational waves
Two-dimensional representation of gravitational waves generated by two neutron stars surrounding each other. Credit: NASA

Colliding neutron stars and black holes, supernova events, rotating neutron stars and other cataclysmic cosmic events… Einstein predicted they would all have something in common – oscillations in the fabric of space-time. This summer European scientists have joined forces to prove Einstein was right and capture evidence of the existence of gravitational waves.

Europe’s two ground-based gravitational wave detectors GEO600 (a German/UK collaboration) and Virgo (a collaboration between Italy, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Hungary) are underway with a joint observation program which will continue over the summer, ending in September 2011. The detectors consist of a pair of joined arms placed in a horizontal L-shaped configuration. Laser beams are then passed down the arms. Suspended under vacuum at the ends of the arms is a mirror which returns the beam to a central photodetector. The detectors work by measuring tiny changes (less than the diameter of a proton), caused by a passing gravitational wave, in the lengths (hundreds or thousands of meters). The periodic stretching and shrinking of the arms is then recorded as interference patterns.

Much like our human ears are able to distinguish the direction of sound from being spaced apart, so having interferometers placed at different locations benefits the chances of picking up a gravitational wave signal. By placing receivers at a distance, this also helps to eliminate the chances of picking up a mimicking terrestrial signal, since it would be unlikely for it to have the same characteristics at two locations while a genuine signal would remain the same.

“If you compare GEO600 and Virgo, you can see that both detectors have similar sensitivities at high frequencies, at around 600Hz and above”, says Dr Hartmut Grote, a scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute/AEI) and the Leibniz University in Hannover, Germany. “That makes it very interesting for us to search this band for possible associated with supernovae or gamma-ray bursts that are observed with conventional telescopes.”

Of all phenomena, gamma-ray bursts are expected to be one of the strongest sources of gravitational waves. As the most luminous transient event in the known Universe, this collapse of a supermassive star core into a neutron star or black hole may be the most perfect starting point for the search. As of now, the frequencies will depend on the mass and may extend up to the kHz band. But don’t get too excited, because the nature of gravitational wave signals is weak and chances of picking up on it is low. However, thanks to Virgo’s excellent sensitivity at low frequencies (below 100 Hz), it is a prime candidate for gathering signals from isolated pulsars where the gravitational wave signal frequency should be at around 22Hz.

And we’ll be listening for the results…

Explore further: Staying warm: The hot gas in clusters of galaxies

Related Stories

Better hearing with spaced-apart ears

Jun 02, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Detectors in the US, Germany and Italy are lying in wait to gather evidence that would unveil one of Albert Einstein’s last secrets: gravitational waves. Up to now, it has not been possible ...

Scientist instils new hope of detecting gravitational waves

May 27, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Direct evidence of the existence of gravitational waves is something that has long eluded researchers, however new research has suggested that adding just one of the proposed detectors in Japan, Australia ...

LIGO and Virgo Join Forces In Search for Gravitational Waves

Feb 14, 2007

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) and the Virgo interferometric gravitational-wave detector of the European Gravitational Observatory (EGO) near Pisa, Italy, have agreed to join in a collaborative ...

LIGO Sheds Light on Cosmic Event

Dec 21, 2007

An analysis by the international LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) Scientific Collaboration has excluded one previously leading explanation for the origin of an intense gamma-ray burst that occurred ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

Staying warm: The hot gas in clusters of galaxies

21 hours ago

Most galaxies lie in clusters, groupings of a few to many thousands of galaxies. Our Milky Way galaxy itself is a member of the "Local Group," a band of about fifty galaxies whose other large member is the ...

A colorful gathering of middle-aged stars

Nov 26, 2014

NGC 3532 is a bright open cluster located some 1300 light-years away in the constellation of Carina(The Keel of the ship Argo). It is informally known as the Wishing Well Cluster, as it resembles scattered ...

User comments : 70

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 09, 2011
What is space-time anyway? Until this math model is explained physically, I remain skeptical of the associated predictions.
Shootist
4.3 / 5 (24) Aug 09, 2011
What is space-time anyway? Until this math model is explained physically, I remain skeptical of the associated predictions.


I suppose skeptical is good, Oliver is skeptical, the Aether folks are skeptical, the Electric Universe people are skeptical. It would really help your case if you could show where Einstein is wrong.

Somewhere.

Anywhere.

Alas, that is not the case.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
4.6 / 5 (18) Aug 09, 2011
What is space-time anyway?


What is space? It's what you measure with a yardstick. It comes in three flavors, essentially "up-down", "front-back", and "sideways".

What is time? It's what you measure with a clock. It comes in one flavor, essentially "ticks".

What is space-time? It's time and space considered together because, as Einstein showed, they're not independent.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Aug 09, 2011
What is space-time anyway? Until this math model is explained physically, I remain skeptical of the associated predictions.


The predictions of GR are inarguable, therefore your skepticism is irrational.

Space-time should not be interpreted as a physical substance in and of itself. It is the arena of possible events. It has a structure which limits what can and can't happen.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (25) Aug 09, 2011
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this story.
Colliding neutron stars and black holes, supernova events, rotating neutron stars and other cataclysmic cosmic events, and . . .


The rest of our beautiful dynamic universe, including our very lives, are sustained by dynamic competition between neutron repulsion [1] and gravitational attraction [2] !

1. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011):

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

2. "Is the Universe Expanding?", The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011):

http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Tuxford
1.7 / 5 (18) Aug 09, 2011
Theres also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.

http://www.physor...752.html
Nik_2213
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2011
The notion of space/time (4D) may need extending to include 'momentum space', Tuxford. That adds enough 'uncertainty' to encompass such bizarre quasars. There's no pressing reason to ditch the Big Bang just yet...
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (18) Aug 09, 2011
Nik, sounds like another patch to an overly-complicated theory. LaViolette predicted this 2010 study's outcome in 2001, stating the earlier study contrary result was likely from 'data-selection effects'.

See my comment herein.

http://www.physor...sar.html

And of course, early structures becoming harder to explain.

http://www.physor...ter.html

http://www.physor...rse.html

Just getting harder to support this old theory. We need to look for alternatives, rather than patches.
eachus
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2011
Not mentioned here, but as far as I am concerned, THE reason for looking for gravitational waves is to determine 1) if they exist, and 2) are they restricted to the same space-time as electro-magnetism?

That latter deserves a bit of explanation. The matter we are familiar is made up of charged particles. (Even neutrons--they consist of three charged quarks.) String theory postulates that the universe has more than four dimensions, but that we live (and all EM stuff stays) in a "brane" of reduced dimensions.

The higher dimensions could be "rolled up", not expanded since the big bang. Or they could have a large extent, but be mostly empty since normal matter is restricted to one or more branes.

If gravity waves can travel outside our brane, they would fall off faster than the expected inverse square law. (Inverse cube or worse.) But this would also mean that most "dark" matter could be located in one or more other branes, and we can only see it through its gravitational effects.
Raygunner
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2011
I'm all for the phrase that NIK2213 mentioned - "Momentum Space". I still firmly believe that time is an illusion and could be replaced by an inertial term or the "Momentum Space". Time is just a measurement tool IMHO and is not real.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2011
As dark matter is inconsequential to us, and as someone posed that this is because it is sitting in another 'brane' and is seen only gravitationally; then suppose our other 'branes' are really sets of other of the extra dimensions as a reality in that other brane. Then OUR length, width, etcetera are really 'rolled up extra dimensions to THEM; and WE are Their 'dark matter'! Of course if gravitational forces are felt through brane boundaries, what of 'black holes'?
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2011
Theres also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding
If there was evidence to support that yes. But there isn't.

and that the big bang theory is wrong.
Maybe. But the Universe IS expanding and thus it must have been smaller in the past. Project back and you get the Big Bang or at least some kind of beginning to the expansion. With Brane theory there doesn't have to be a BB. There may be other explanations for the start of the expansion. BUT there must have been a start of some kind since the expansion is real.

Ethelred
Dummy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2011
I just want to say I find all of this very, very interesting. Could someone with knowledge tell me if the new LHC, in its quest for the Higgs partical, could shed light on gravitational waves once its up to speed? Or is it apples and oranges?

Thanx.
epsi00
3 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2011
Could it be that gravitational waves have not been detected simply because they do not exist?
Telekinetic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2011
Could it be that gravitational waves have not been detected simply because they do not exist?


Or could it be that the detection technology simply does not exist?
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2011
Could it be that gravitational waves have not been detected simply because they do not exist?


Could be BUT none of the experiments are expected to find a gravity wave unless a major event should happen very near. The present experiments are mostly to learn how to make them work.

The next set of experiments, should they be funded, have a small chance of detecting something every now and then if the theory is correct.

And I think that covers Telekinetics post that showed up AFTER I refreshed and before I edited this post.

Ethelred
bluehigh
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 10, 2011
How do you learn to make experiments work if gravitational waves don't exist? You can devise a variety of schemes and find nothing. Do you keep looking forever as an act of faith because GR predicts them? Even the best indirect evidence (admittedly Nobel prize level) has alternative explanations. Then GR predicts that gravitational waves will be so locally focused that you would need to be in very close proximity to detect them and given the enormous forces involved - the detector and observer probably wouldn't survive.

Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2011

A study published May 27, 2011 in IOP Publishing's journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, Professor Bernard Schutz, of the Albert Einstein Institute, Germany, demonstrated that an additional detector would more than double the detection rate of gravitational waves and could double the amount of sky being covered.
It was estimated last year that by 2016 the existing network of four detectors would be able to detect, on average, 40 neutron-star merger events per year by monitoring the gravitational waves they produce. Using a computer analysis, this study showed that by performing optimal coherent data analysis, the network could theoretically detect 160 events per year.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2011
How do you learn to make experiments work if gravitational waves don't exist?
You do it by learning how to remove noise from the system. Trucks driving by. Temperatures changing. When you get all that stuff done THEN if you don't get signals greater than noise over a sufficient period of time you will have a negative result and thus a have evidence against the existence of gravity waves.

And yes it seems tricky to me.

Do you keep looking forever as an act of faith because GR predicts them?
No. You stop when you fail to meet your theorectical expectation with a reasonable degree of certainty.

the detector and observer probably wouldn't survive.
Not that close. And I was remembering it as needing to be much closer than the actual expectations over the time available.

http://en.wikiped...>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2011
The baseline inspiral of two roughly solar-mass neutron stars is typically expected to be observable if it occurs within about 8,000,000 parsecs (26,000,000 ly), or the vicinity of our Local Group of galaxies, averaged over all directions and polarizations.


The fifth science run ended in 2007. It is hoped that after extensive analysis, data from this run may uncover two unambiguous detection events. This would be a milestone in the history of physics. In 2004, it was reported that theorists estimated the chances of an unambiguous direct detection by 2010 at one in six.[7]


What I wrote was heavily based on what WASN'T being said and what WAS said about future detectors. They never say they actually expect an unambiguous detection. Yet. With the present equipment.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2011
This new detector (formerly known as "LIGO 2") is designed to improve the sensitivity of initial LIGO by more than a factor of 10, and is currently being installed at both LIGO Observatories, replacing the original detectors. Scheduled to begin operations in 2014


LIGO scientists expect this new instrument to see gravitational wave sources possibly as often as daily, with excellent signal strengths.
Which is why I said they were learning how to make it work.

Ethelred
LKD
5 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2011
I just want to say I find all of this very, very interesting. Could someone with knowledge tell me if the new LHC, in its quest for the Higgs partical, could shed light on gravitational waves once its up to speed? Or is it apples and oranges?


It is apples and oranges. The LHC is speeding particles to smash them for precise detections of the collision while the gravity wave detector is precisely measuring the distortions in laser emissions because of outside influences.
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 10, 2011
Searching for gravitational waves


Why?

Who cares if there are gravitational waves?

Is that more important than understanding gravity's role in the universe?

Whether or not there are gravitational waves, the opposing forces of gravitational attraction and neutron repulsion seem to sustain our dynamic universe, including our very lives.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2011
Who cares if there are gravitational waves?


Far more people than care about your bogus ideas,
Ollie M -- there could hardly be less ... but does that bother you? Not in the slightest.
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2011
Thats idiotic, finding gravitational waves would improve our understanding of gravity, even if it only confirms what we suspect. do you think before you post oliver(answer=no, oliver doesnt do any thinking at all)
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 10, 2011
The point is that: Bodies A and B are gravitationally attracted together.

That is reality. That is "what is."

Gravitational waves?

Who knows?

Who cares?

Competition between gravitational attraction and neutron repulsion maintains our dynamic universe and our very lives.

Neutron repulsion is recorded in nuclear rest masses of every nucleus with two or more neutrons [1]. Let's address experimental data instead of speculating about the number of angels on the head of a pin or gravitational waves between Body A and Body B.

1. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011):

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2011
The point is that: Bodies A and B are gravitationally attracted together.

That is reality. That is "what is."

Gravitational waves?

Who knows?

Who cares?


Except that better understanding how things work is how we are able to manipulate/simulate them for ourselves. It's the basis of all technology.

You think you'd even have a clue what a neutron was if people didn't keep trying to figure out what things are made of and keep going smaller and smaller?
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2011


You think you'd even have a clue what a neutron was if people didn't keep trying to figure out what things are made of and keep going smaller and smaller?


I would not have a clue about the neutron and the role it plays in astrophysics and cosmology without the earlier work of Albert Einstein, Francis William Aston, James Chadwick, Paul Kazuo Kuroda, John H. Reynolds, etc., etc.

All of my conclusions, however, came from experimental observations made in my lab and in hundreds of others worldwide.

Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2011
Hermann Weyl proved in 1944 already, that linearization 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. On the existence of this pseudotensor the existence of gravitational waves in GR is based.

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.

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.
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2011
Oliver is skeptical, the Aether folks are skeptical, the Electric Universe people are skeptical
My conclusion therefore is, the gravitational waves do indeed exist and they're manifesting itself like the notoriously known CMBR noise, which everybody can detect with his analogous TV set. The passage of gravitational wave would manifest itself like less or more sudden change in CMBR intensity. Such changes were already detected at GEO-600 detector before few years.

Am I optimistic too much by now?
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2011
analogous = analog, etc..
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2011
point is that: Bodies A and B are gravitationally attracted together.
The point is that gravity waves disperse kinetic energy from rotating bodies. You know. Those that are gravitationally attracted.

Who knows?
That is what the experiments are for. If we knew we wouldn't need them.

Who cares?
Lots of rational people. Many, unlike you, that understand GR.

Competition between gravitational attraction and neutron repulsion maintains our dynamic universe and our very lives.
No. What your Magic Table shows it the Pauli Exclusion Principle and there is no actual evidence for neutron repulsion. Do let us know when you are going show evidence for something other than the PEP.

Let's address experimental data instead of speculating about the number of angels on the head of a pin or gravitational waves between Body A and Body B.
I did. Its the PEP. Quit pretending this has not been pointed out many times. Deal with it.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2011
analogous = analog, etc..
Callipo = Zephyr and dozens of other sockpuppets.

Anytime you want to be taken seriously you will need to stop using sockpuppets.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2011
What your Magic Table shows it the Pauli Exclusion Principle and there is no actual evidence for neutron repulsion.

Ethelred


What "Magic Table"?

Write up your supposed disproof of neutron repulsion and publish it.

Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2011
Address the PEP.

I have published my disproofs. Right here. You refuse to deal with them. Neither here nor anyone's anywhere else.

However I don't need to disprove it.

YOU need to prove it. By giving evidence that can distinguish it from the PEP. It is your theory. It is on YOU to support it.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2011
I have published my disproofs. Right here. You refuse to deal with them.

Ethelred


No, Ethnelred.

Credible research publications are published in peer-reviewed journals.

Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2011
No, Ethnelred.
Yes Oliver. Right here. Where you have yet to support yourself with any evidence that isn't covered extremely well by other theories. Like the PEP you keep pretending doesn't exist.

Credible research publications are published in peer-reviewed journals.
Is that why your latest paper is published without a peer review in a journal that is popular with cranks. Like you.

This is just another of your obvious attempts to avoid dealing the utter failure of your theories. Excuse me, theory, singular. All the rest is based on one concept. There was a supernova at the beginning of our Solar System, no problem there, and it was OUR Sun that was the supernova. The rest exists to support that clearly silly idea.

Since it is so silly:

You attack scientists as greedy liars.
You spam one site after another with claims of support that always turn out to YOU or YOURS.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2011
You attack the government because it supports those rational scientists and it had the good sense to ignore you even before you were convicted.

Instead of answering reasonable questions you repost the stuff that is in question OR you attack the sincerity and competence of the questioner. Which is why people attack you as a person. You started that shit and done so on many sites. Talk about throwing stones in a glass house.

Again

What EVIDENCE separates neutron repulsion from the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

What evidence, real evidence not wild assed speculation based on your theory, is there for the Sun having a neutron star within it and and iron mantle so near the surface you claim we can see it in Sun Spots? Keep in mind that the Sun Spots do NOT have large amounts of iron. Indeed they have the traces expected by standard theory.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2011
Who actually supports you that is competent? Your own students don't. The guy that SPECULATED that the Sun MIGHT have a pulsar in it does not. All you have is Kio the Me-Too who occasionally shows up to yap at people's heals and look longingly at the Big Dog who is really a Ferrous Head. And one or two Global Warming denialists.

You post here. That makes you liable to reasonable questions. HERE. If you stuck to competent journals you would not be here to question. Go away or start answering OR you will just have to live with me and others pointing out just how bad your science is.

If you want to me to stop mentioning your conviction you will have to stop attacking people. However I have no control over others despite the fairy stories you try to pass off as reality.

With no expectations of actual answers,
Ethelred Hardrede
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2011
A single gravitational wave detector cannot determine the direction of a gravitational wave.

Once global detectors are connected, it is possible to calculate the direction of a passing wave from the varying arrival times of signals at each location.


- http://www.astron...r-for-wa

I find it hard to accept building a detector network so as to determine the source direction of these hypothetical waves before even one has been detected.

UWA physicist David Blair says the proposed LIGO detector could allow scientists to observe the birth of at least one black hole each week.


They actually did/do expect unambiguous detection's. However it has not happened (yet) and money is already being requested to provide further data (source direction) prior to even confirming the waves existence.
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2011
@Ethelred

Ignore him. The verbal battle pollutes the comments even more so than his obsessive delusional notions. Just smile and wave. He is not worth the effort.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2011
I find it hard to accept building a detector network
At least two are needed to rule out false positives.

I understand the ones you gave me, though I do disagree. I REALLY don't understand the FIVES you gave Kio.

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2011
Ethelred, your patience in dealing with oliver is incredible and you deserve endless praise for it. I'm so sick of his shit it's not funny. You cant ever win as in his delusional mind he's already figured it all out, evidence to the contrary be damned.
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2011
At least two are needed to rule out false positives.


However, the justification for a third detector (in Australia) is that "source direction" needs to be established. My objection is that it is premature to do so until a true positive detection is made in any detector. After all a couple of hundred million bucks goes a long way for health care (i know besides the point).

As for the ratings ... mistakes happen. Sometimes you are (for me) dismissive of others too quickly (said without any intended offence and i can be less reasonable than you at times!) and (although I don't recollect ranking Kio at all), I was probably laughing so hard (rather than getting angry) I could not see the screen properly through the tears. I'll be more careful if you value your ranking (I don't care about mine, being much more interested in the actual comments).

@jsdarkdestruction

Agreed. Incredible patience but in my view if we all engage Oliver then he wins by dominating the comment content.
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2011
..Anytime you want to be taken seriously you will need to stop using sockpuppets
You're fighting with ghosts, as I'm not using sockpuppets at all: all my previous accounts are inactive already for long time.

And I don't expect to be taken seriously at all in this moment. The search for gravitational waves is a big business, which feeds many people & private companies and where huge money are involved.

http://physicswor...ws/46027

These people will not stop with their activities, until some money are going. This is simply, how the contemporary science is working: every pretense for employment is good enough here. From the same - just the opposite - reason the cold fusion is ignored - now it's simply considered a too risky business from perspective of grant applications.

http://www.wired...._pr.html

You can believe me, nothing deeper is about it - just the fear of (lost of) money.
jsdarkdestruction
3.6 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2011
I see where you're coming from, but at the same time do you want someone who's not all that familar with these things and is trying to learn more and increase their knowledge to think that dr. manuels posts and ideas are credible and he speaks for the actual scientific community? I dont.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2011
think that dr. manuels posts and ideas are credible
I don't see Dr. Manuels posts more credible, then the search for gravitational waves. I explained him, why/where he is wrong many times here. The heating of Sun with neutron repulsion is a conceptual nonsense: such star is in equilibrium with gravity and the repulsive force of its particles heats anything: at the moment, when it would be released the adiabatic cooling will occur instead. The subtle mass difference between neutron mass in deuterium and tritium illustrates, the latent heat of neutron repulsion is quite negligible, if not negative. The decay of neutrons would release a huge amount of antineutrinos, which we don't observe in solar neutrino flux.

In addition, Dr. Manuels pisses me as a rather primitive e-mail spammer: from some unknown reason I've e-mail box full of his theories & meeting proposals, although I never claimed their support.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2011
. My objection is that it is premature to do so until a true positive detection is made in any detector.
True. But if its isn't my money (USA) I don't have a problem.

'll be more careful if you value your ranking (I don't care about mine, being much more interested in the actual comments).
Its not that important but it does have some value as long as the ranking system exists. Mostly with people that I don't see much. It is a tool for keeping track of the way people behave.

Ethelred
bluehigh
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2011
True. But if its isn't my money (USA) I don't have a problem.


oh but it is some of your money. You get to pay half the cost! 140 million dollars each.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2011
You're fighting with ghosts, as I'm not using sockpuppets at all: all my previous accounts are inactive already for long time.
Maybe this week. And you have cut back before.

You were still posting under multiple names, rawa1 and Callippo in the same discussion, a few weeks ago. That is not a long time.

You can believe me, nothing deeper is about it - just the fear of (lost of) money.
No. I don't believe you. You may be right about there being nothing to detect, though not on the money, but it will be an accident as you can no more do the math for GR than I.

In addition, Dr. Manuels pisses me as a rather primitive e-mail spammer: from some unknown reason I've e-mail box full of his theories & meeting proposals, although I never claimed their support.
How did he get your e-mail address?

Ethelred
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2011
... and the Aussie one is going to be built fairly close to a built up area. I find that odd when we have huge deserts that are fairly immune to the noise that Ethelred spoke of earlier.

Kind of leaning toward Callippo and his comment on money and big business - only because it makes no sense to me to build a detector using the pretense of "source direction" before any detection has occurred.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2011
You may be right about there being nothing to detect, though not on the money, but it will be an accident as you can no more do the math for GR than I.
Many predictions in physics could be made with using of single logics. Such predictions aren't quantitative, but they're often more robust, because they don't rely on thick layer of poorly conditioned formal math.

If simple logic doesn't fit, any advanced math can save the formal models. If the only formal math would count as an evidence, the Sherlock Holmes couldn't work without a calculator in his hand. For example, Galileo was able to refuse the geocentric model in such way: without math but with using of few indicias (you know, the order of Venus phases, Lunar crates shadows, etc.).

The paradigm of contemporary physics based on formal math helps physicists and mathematicians in their employment, because many theories could be possible to refuse already. But because their math is complex, it's not so easy to reveal it.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2011
The conceptual problem with gravitational waves can be recognized easily and it follows just from relativistic principles: without any distortion and curvature of space-time we cannot detect our position in space-time, because such space-time will appear void and flat. The gravitational wave can indeed serve as such distortion, but in this moment the same wave will serve both as a subject, both as the mean of observation. You cannot detect the position of space-time fluctuation with using of such fluctuation itself.

After all, on the similar conceptual mistake the Higgs boson concept is based - we cannot observe the fluctuations of vacuum with vacuum fluctuations. If the relativistic equations would include all terms in consequential way, they would lead into insolvable fuzzy solution. Both concepts are artefacts of simplification of formal models for the sake of their resolvability in formal way. The math not only can have all answers, but its answers may be misleading at times.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2011
Many predictions in physics could be made with using of single logics.
Come on now. You just claimed you weren't using sockpuppets anymore. True it was a lie about the long time part but still, I had not seen multiple puppets on one thread in several weeks.

Really Zephyr.

Such predictions aren't quantitative,
You can't do diddly with Gravity waves without significant math. Any claim to the contrary is as true as when you claimed you gave up sockpuppets.

Let me know when you really stop. You are as bad as a cocaine addict. Always its just one last time. Till the next time.

I don't think the Betty Ford clinic deals with sockpuppet addiction but perhaps you could ask.

Ethelred
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2011
^^^^

"You're fighting with ghosts, as I'm not using sockpuppets at all: all my previous accounts are inactive already for long time."

"Maybe this week. And you have cut back before.

You were still posting under multiple names, rawa1 and Callippo in the same discussion, a few weeks ago. That is not a long time."

That is REALLY not a long time Callippo/rawa1/Zephyr......
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2011
You can't do diddly with Gravity waves without significant math.
This is a religion, ignoring the underlying logics. But it plays well with myriads of physicists, mathematicians and teachers, the social significance and occupation of whom just depends on the belief in superiority and importance of math. It's just modern version of Church - nothing less, nothing more. Anyway, the gravitational waves are singular concept from perspective of general relativity and it was proven in rigorous way before many years already.

http://www.jstor..../2371768
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2011
That paper was written to play with different ways of doing things.

How does it have any meaning in regards to the real world?

For instance what experiment shows that it is more correct than GR?

None.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2011
what experiment shows that it is more correct than GR
The situation is exactly as opposite. All existing searches demonstrated the absence of gravitational waves, thus proving the validity of this article and falsifying the existing GW models of relativity in such way.
jsdarkdestruction
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2011
You slipped up and responded to his post as callippo when it was rawa1 you posted your "evidence" from.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2011
Zephyr

I have exactly zero interest in debating with your multiple sockpuppets.

Piss off.

No you don't deserve respect. So again piss the hell off.

jsdarkdestruction

That was not a slip. He knows perfectly well he was lying about not using using sockpuppets and is deliberately switching. He has told that same lie before. He seems to think its funny. Its about his level of humor anyway, troll under the bridge level. Otherwise he seems short on humor.

Of course I could be wrong. He might really be that incompetent. He sure is incompetent with that claim about gravity waves. It was purest hope that the any equipment yet finished would ever find one.

Allegedly the next round should. Frequently. If not then there is a problem with the theory. But not yet.

Ethelred
_nigmatic10
1 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2011
If we assume for one second gravity waves exist, and emulate similar patterns one would see in liquid. Then, like the surface of a pond, the continued creation of such waves would reinforce each other over time and give us the familiar "choppy water" effect....
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
Allegedly the next round should. Frequently. If not then there is a problem with the theory. But not yet
The limits of sensitivity of gravitational waves detection are well known and predicted. Physicists aren't so stupid to waste public money in detection of gravitational waves with the equipment, which is principally unable to do so.

http://imagine.gs...LISA.jpg
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2011
Zephyr you didn't read what I said nor did you check the site I linked to. That site clearly showed, but did not admit, that the odds were bad for an unambiguous result with the present generation. And the present generation is, not sure, the second or third generation of detectors. The next generation will be the first with any real hope of detection.

So yes they did exactly what you said they didn't. And the jpg agrees with me. Which is par for the course with you. Images that don't agree with your claims, as in this case or are crap you made yourself.

Piss off sockpupet.

Excuse me. I failed to the use the full and proper appellation.

Sockpuppet of a lying troll.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2011
The next generation will be the first with any real hope of detection.
You cannot find something, which is known already for many years as a cosmic microwave background. Physicists already developing alternative theories of why they found nothing.

http://physicswor...ws/32461

Everything else is just a giant waste of public money for the sake of safe life of few astronomers and theorists. IMO the ratio of these wastes per person involved is not so different from waste caused with some dictators over the world, because there is only few GW theorists and the price of these detectors is gigantic.

http://physicswor...ws/46027

You can compare the enthusiasm in search for GW with the twenty years standing ignorance of cold fusion results under the situation, we are facing global geopolitical and environmental crisis with burning of megatons of fossil fuels every day. The ignorance of physicists is harming human civilization in double manner.
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2011
Coincidence exposes propaganda:

On 8 April 1967**: The editor of EPSL received a manuscript by my first PhD student and me reporting an inclusion in an iron meteorite is as old as the most primitive meteorites and contained a large excess of (radiogenic) xenon-129 from the decay of extinct iodine-129 [EPSL 2, 220- 224 (1967)]:

www.sciencedirect...6790132X

17-21 April 1967*: A group of influential scientists met at the Bilderberg Hotel and concluded Earths heat source the Sun is homogeneous and in hydrostatic equilibrium [Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)]:

http://adsabs.har...oPh.3.5G

*That is the basis of false claims

a.) Our elements were made elsewhere and

b.) CO2 causes global climate change

[The Bilderberg Sun, etc (2011)]:

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

** R-, p- and s-products reported in Mo isotopes of iron meteorites [Qi Lu, 1991 PhD, Tokyo U]

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2011
Omatumr, the mainstream physics propaganda doesn't differ from propaganda of many Internet trolls, who are fighting for their place under the Sun. I'm sure, if you would appear at the place of mainstream physicists, the things wouldn't change at all, because you're an exceptional case of senile person with blind, dogmatic thinking. What the hell this comment of yours has to do with the subject of article? You're getting completely crazy with your spam and you're actually giving an arguments for neverending censorship to your opponents.
gpa
not rated yet Aug 14, 2011
See our LIGO. observatory.
gpa
not rated yet Aug 14, 2011
Do a Google on our USA based LIGO observatory.
jsdarkdestruction
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2011
youve got love it when even other cranks call oliver out on his nonsense.
Magnette
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2011
I see where you're coming from, but at the same time do you want someone who's not all that familar with these things and is trying to learn more and increase their knowledge to think that dr. manuels posts and ideas are credible and he speaks for the actual scientific community? I dont.
- jsdarkdestruction.

Luckily Oliver keeps on posting the same irrelevant nonsense which means that people like me who aren't physicists (I'm just an engineer) can build up a picture of his proposals and do the background research on his figures to see if the theory has potential. It didn't take too long to work out the flaws.
Weirdly, if he didn't post so much of it then those of us who are here to learn would probably more readily accept his theories.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.