Closing in on Einstein's window to the universe

Aug 01, 2013
Closing in on Einstein's window to the universe

(Phys.org) —Nearly a century after the world's greatest physicist, Albert Einstein, first predicted the existence of gravitational waves, a global network of gravitational wave observatories has moved a step closer to detecting the faint radiation that could lead to important new discoveries in our universe.

David Blair is a Winthrop Professor of Physics at The University of Western Australia and Director of the Australian International Gravitational Research Centre at Gingin - 87km north of Perth. He leads the WA component of a huge international team that has announced a demonstration of a new called 'quantum squeezing' that allows gravitational wave detectors to increase their sensitivity.

"This is the first time the barrier has been broken in a full scale gravitational wave detector," Professor Blair said. "This is like breaking the sound barrier: some people said it would be impossible. Breaking that barrier proved that supersonic flight was possible and today we know that it is not a barrier at all.

"This demonstration opens up new possibilities for more and more sensitive gravitational wave detectors."

Gravity waves are ripples in space generated by extreme cosmic events such as colliding stars, , and supernova explosions, which carry vast amounts of energy at the speed of light.

These events are thought to be happening about once a week within the range of new detectors. They should achieve first detection within a few years of beginning operation as their sensitivity is steadily improved.

With the addition of quantum squeezing, physicists will be able to see much more distant sources. However a detector is needed to be able to pinpoint the location of signals and to reduce interference.

"Already gravitational wave detectors have been proved to be the most sensitive gravitational instruments ever created. They measure motions measured in attometers...one millionth of one millionth of one millionth of a metre. The motions they detect are tiny, even compared to the size of a proton," Professor Blair said.

"The new results prove that the physicists are on track to take them to even higher levels of sensitivity. This will open up the gravitational wave spectrum and allow humanity for the first time to hear the myriad of gravitational sounds that are thought to be constantly rippling through space at the speed of light."

In the research: "Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light," published in the journal Nature Photonics, squeezed vacuum is injected into the dark port of the beam splitter to improve the performance of one of the detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) beyond the quantum noise limit.

The experiment was carried out on the LIGO detector at Hanford, Washington, known as 'H1'.

The researchers are now developing the techniques for converting squeezed vacuum into frequency-dependent squeezed vacuum for use in Advanced LIGO.

Explore further: New method proposed for detecting gravitational waves from ends of universe

More information: www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphoton.2013.177.html

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 ...

Researchers could herald a new era in fundamental physics

Feb 03, 2009

Cardiff University researchers who are part of a British-German team searching the depths of space to study gravitational waves, may have stumbled on one of the most important discoveries in physics according to an American ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

High power laser sources at exotic wavelengths

Apr 14, 2014

High power laser sources at exotic wavelengths may be a step closer as researchers in China report a fibre optic parametric oscillator with record breaking efficiency. The research team believe this could ...

Combs of light accelerate communication

Apr 14, 2014

Miniaturized optical frequency comb sources allow for transmission of data streams of several terabits per second over hundreds of kilometers – this has now been demonstrated by researchers of Karlsruhe ...

User comments : 72

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shavera
4.9 / 5 (15) Aug 01, 2013
Yep. Physicists are never fighting tooth and nail for what little funding is provided. They just let any old crackpot disproved idea get funding because why the heck not. (/sarc)

Seriously, the experts in the field know what they're looking for. If gravitational waves were as you claim, then they wouldn't be searching in the same way.
mzso
1.7 / 5 (13) Aug 01, 2013
"Nearly a century after the world's greatest physicist, Albert Einstein"

This brings back what a physics professor said once: "Bohr is clever than Einstein and Schrödinger put together."

Can't confirm or deny but, Einstein is certainly the most popular.
indio007
1 / 5 (16) Aug 01, 2013
I thought Gravity Probe B claimed victory in the verification of gravity waves.....

Oh wait they did then they didn't. They won't release any raw data. In fact they've taken down all references to it being available (which they promised it would be) from their website.

Nearly 100 years later they are still trying to convince of of Einstein's accuracy.

General relativity is a one body non-linear equation. There are no known solutions for more than one body. You can't throw in more sources of gravity willy-nilly. Non-linear equations are not simply additive.

The supposed null result of M&M. It wasn't null it was lower than ether theory predicted at that time.

I could type 10 experimental falsifications of Einstein.
Fundamental Science is on a downslope.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (17) Aug 01, 2013
Nearly a century after the world's greatest physicist, Albert Einstein, first predicted the existence of gravitational waves, a global network of gravitational wave observatories has moved a step closer to detecting the faint radiation that could lead to important new discoveries in our universe.
………..
Gravity waves are ripples in space generated by extreme cosmic events such as colliding stars, black holes, and supernova explosions, which carry vast amounts of energy at the speed of light.


It is interesting to note that gravitational waves were told to be the ripple of space-time, but how the wave could propagate via empty space with speed of light? Maybe this working mechanism could help to explain….
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2013
Actually the whole gravitational wave theory was accepted just after imbecille Feynman's http://en.wikiped...argument


Franklins: I have to admit that you are the first person I have ever heard that called Feynman an imbecile. His grasp of the complex was unequaled and his ability to make things easy to understand was remarkable to all in the realm of physics. The fact that you don't understand the sticky bead argument does not mean it is wrong, it means you don't understand it. Yes, when space-time expands and contracts everything else does also, but there are forces involved at the leading and trailing edges of the wave that can displace the untethered bead with respect to the tethered stick. It is that relative displacement that causes the friction. I assume you also don't understand how a gravitational wave detector works since, from your observation, everything would appear not to move as a gravitational wave slides through the system.
Protoplasmix
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2013
Gravitational wave radiation has indeed been detected (indirectly) and measured to be just what Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Hulse and Taylor won a prize for doing it using PSR B1913+16. See http://en.wikiped...913%2B16
malapropism
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2013
I could type 10 experimental falsifications of Einstein.

Please do, I'd be very interested to read them. (But also please don't include any that have themselves been falsified, as that simply "muddies the water.")
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (22) Aug 01, 2013
Ironically enough, if my theory is correct,

No worries there, surfing bunnies only explain battery commercials.

Nearly a century after the world's greatest physicist, Albert Einstein

That's quite laughable! Name one scientific advancement, something engineers would use, derived from anything Einstein blathered. And please don't even mention GPS, it is a complete fallacy and urban legend GPS uses relativity.
Gmr
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2013
Something an engineer uses: the new criteria for the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Nuclear engineers come to mind. Without that pesky E=mc^2, we might have to guess how much energy a fusion bomb would generate.
MikeDownUnda
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 01, 2013
Experiment shows that clocks in lower gravitational fields lose step with their otherwise identical counterparts in higher ones. If you don't account for that then positional information upon said clocks loses accuracy with respect to a fixed base point(s) on Earth's surface. There's no requirement to account for that, but then again you may not need to know where you are, within ~ 10km progressive error per day. GR neatly nulls the accumulating residuals.

As for gravitational waves : what you measure is certainly frame dependent ( that's what 'relativity' means ), but what Eddington actually showed was not that such waves are non-existent, but that ( kinetic ) energy is not localisable to any region within the wave. Mutually accelerating observers are simply going to disagree as to who is 'really' moving. That's a key conclusion of GR, not a weakness.

As for Feynman : he was demonstrating via GendankenExperiment to correct misunderstandings his colleagues had about GR.

Mike
MikeDownUnda
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2013
As for : "General relativity is a one body non-linear equation. There are no known solutions for more than one body. You can't throw in more sources of gravity willy-nilly. Non-linear equations are not simply additive."

GR is a set of partial differential equations which under the assumption of spatial isotropy ( directional independence of laws ) can be reduced to a 'mere' group of ten that are independent. It can describe a huge number of possible scenarios as it is only a differential theory - it makes no statement about initial/border conditions, global features ( eg. how many bodies are present ) or other constraints making up a context that you might want to solve said equations within.

It is true that it is difficult to find closed form solutions, so often numerical methods need to be resorted to.

As for : "I could type 10 experimental falsifications of Einstein."

One will do. Don't hold back now ! :-)

Mike
Protoplasmix
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2013
Here's an excellent simulation of a black hole merger (1 min 57 sec, from NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio)
See https://www.youtu...a_player
The model for the simulation included the effects of general relativity, magnetic fields and gas dynamics. @CD85 note that it produced an electromagnetic signal 10,000 times brighter than simulations that didn't include the gas dynamics.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2013
"And please don't even mention GPS, it is a complete fallacy and urban legend GPS uses relativity" - CantDriveTooStupid

Educate yourself... Moron....

http://www.leapse...vity.htm
MikeDownUnda
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2013
"The Gravity Probe B was indeed crippled mission,"

Yes it had problems, but nonetheless well confirmed Lens-Thirring and related predictions, quite sufficiently to discard competing explanations. Unfortunately their polhode analysis currently suffers from the fact that the device is still up there! So the attempt ( which may never succeed ) is to reverse engineer the relevant failures to maybe bring down the error margins to their original expectations.

Mike.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2013
"That's quite laughable! Name one scientific advancement, something engineers would use, derived from anything Einstein blathered." - Can'tDriveTooStupid

Photomultiplier Tubes, Vidicon Camera Tubes, Photo-diodes, Photo-cells, CCD's. Photo-Transistors....

Photocopiers.

You do know what a photocopier is don't you Tardie Boy?

If you have used, one you can in part thank Einstein.
MikeDownUnda
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2013
An often underrated ace-in-the-hole for Einstein is Brownian motion ie. macroscopic evidence that very simply & directly confirmed the atomic 'hypothesis'. That is, with suitable calibration of instruments you could by immediate observation deduce key atomic/molecular characteristics - which have been amply confirmed by orthogonal techniques both before and since.

We very much take atomism for granted now, even Planck himself ( ironically ) never actually liked atomism or anything quantal ....

Mike.
meBigGuy
4 / 5 (12) Aug 02, 2013
@cantThink85
Just to be boring I'll quote Wikipedia:

" In 1905 Albert Einstein published a paper that explained experimental data from the photoelectric effect as being the result of light energy being carried in discrete quantized packets. This discovery led to the quantum revolution. Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921 for "his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".[4]"

I think there are maybe a few things engineers have developed from that discovery. And one doesn't even have to be able to drive to use them (but it helps being able to think)

There is no way cantThink85 is for real. He just says stupid stuff for fun. No one is that stupid. (no relativity in GPS? --- give me a break)
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (17) Aug 02, 2013

Photomultiplier Tubes, Vidicon Camera Tubes, Photo-diodes, Photo-cells, CCD's. Photo-Transistors....

Photocopiers.

You do know what a photocopier is don't you Tardie Boy?

If you have used, one you can in part thank Einstein.

Of course, copy machines. Silly me. Well there's no doubt he is the greatest. Here I thought Tesla deserved the nod being he provided the "holes" (AC) in which to plug the copiers, not to mention a few other things like induction motors, wireless communications, and my favorite by far, the remote control, among other things that are part of daily modern life. Tesla turned down a Nobel Prize when he was offered to share it with Edison. LOL

'I am not an inventor. I am a discoverer of new scientific principles.' Tesla

Of course Einstein did produce science of value, but I do so enjoy observing the idolatry.

"If your hate could be turned into electricity, it would light up the whole world."
― Nikola Tesla
Gmr
3.2 / 5 (14) Aug 02, 2013
TL;DR cantdrive85:
Blah blah blah blah. LOL

I don't think it's idolatry in Einstein's case. He's whom /you/ should be trying to emulate - a paradigm breaker who was roundly decried in general, and on his own time took enormous leaps of logic and eventually was vindicated through experiment, even discovering elements about reality as consequences that he was uncomfortable with. That's /really/ paradigm breaking.

Oh, yeah - I forgot. "vindicated through experiment" is a dirty phrase. You know, actual proof and all. That pesky presentation of testable conclusions, and abiding by their results.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2013
Cantdrive85: Your comment about Tesla turning down a Nobel is based on a story in a newspaper and was just a rumor. He was never offered the prize. The prize for Physics went to Bragg and Lawrence that year. Talk about idolatry.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2013
"Squeezed vacuum".

Wow! I didn't know you could quantum squeeze the ground state, but evidently you can, Wikipedia has a great article on that and the outcome for phased squeezed light. (Which increase in timing precision is what you want for interferometry.) http://en.wikiped...nt_state
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.9 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2013
@Franklins: I realized from later comments that you are just trolling. However, I had already written this, so WTF, FWIW:

That must have been pre-relativity or post-nuts of Eddington himself. Gravitons are massless, so classical waves should travel with the universal speed limit. And that is what classical GR gives, unless I'm mistaken.

Primordial gravity waves stems from the same epoch as the neutrino horizon in inflationary standard cosmology. (But likely we won't see them from this, instead perhaps as the large spatial scale part of the imprinted B-modes of CMB polarization.)

Rossi et cetera hasn't made a tested "demonstration", there are none within the scam field of cold fusion (of course). If you can get Rossi past the scam test of Randi's TAM, which doesn't allow the scammer to make the agenda as eg Rossi did last "demo", people would care about whether there is physics in the scam. Right now, nobody but fools do.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (31) Aug 02, 2013
General relativity is a one body non-linear equation. There are no known solutions for more than one body. You can't throw in more sources of gravity willy-nilly. Non-linear equations are not simply additive.


While there are no analytical solutions, the theory works great calculated numerically,.. so your statement "You can't throw in more sources of gravity willy-nilly" is not quit right.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (37) Aug 02, 2013
In this particular case we are trying to detect non-existing objects (black holes) with nonexisting gravitational waves, so that the outcome of such a theory is rather predictable.


So it was a coincidence then that the measured energy loss from two orbiting neutron stars matched that predicted by GR and the notion of gravitational waves?

Your use of the phrase "non-existent" in an a-priori manner exposes an unscientific emotional reaction,.... is your pet theory being threatened?
indio007
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 02, 2013
Gravitational wave radiation has indeed been detected (indirectly) and measured to be just what Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Hulse and Taylor won a prize for doing it using PSR B1913+16. See http://en.wikiped...913%2B16


Did you actually read that entry in Wikipedia?
"In 2004, Taylor and Joel M. Weisberg published a new analysis of the experimental data to date, concluding that the 0.2% disparity between the data and the predicted results"

I don't exactly how this jibes with the previous section that says,
"in precise agreement with the loss of energy due to gravitational waves".
barakn
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2013
How convenient of you to leave out the rest of the quote, indio007: "is due to poorly known galactic constants." The results were within the error bar for general relativity, the error bar being present not because of a problem with general relativity itself but with uncertainty in numbers like G, the Newtonian gravitational constant, and a "correction term [that] depends on several rather poorly known quantities, including the distance and proper motion of the pulsar and the radius of the Sun's galactic orbit." http://arxiv.org/...49v1.pdf
indio007
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 02, 2013
Uhmm... I don't need to leave anything out. The first claim is the data is "in precise agreement" with relativity.

There then an admission of a margin of error between the data and the calculation. Then it is hypothesized the reason for the discrepancy i.e. an unknown galactic constant.

Unknown and precise are diametrically opposed concepts.

precise
exactly or sharply defined or stated

un·known
not known or not well-known; also : having an unknown value

The reason for the divergence is irrelevant to the claim of precision .

There is always some excuse why relativity is just a little off. This has been happening for a hundred years. It's sickening.
I know, lets all do a "thought-experiment" and maybe we can come up with some "thought-data" that will improve the accuracy.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 02, 2013
I know, lets all do a "thought-experiment"


"Einstein was quite simply contemptuous of experiment, preferring to put his faith in pure thought." Paul Davies

The thought experiment produces empirical data for the relativists.
Greenwood
5 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2013
The classical gravitational waves are artifact of simplification of general relativity theory with introduction of Einstein's pseudotensor - as Eddington and Weyl before many years. They cannot exist in rigorous relativity.


Neither of them ever said that. The paper posted does not say that.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (18) Aug 02, 2013
Franklins: I have to admit that you are the first person I have ever heard that called Feynman an imbecile.


Naa,,,, johan-pringles has on countless occasions, Zephyr has with several persona, and cantdrive has often referred to him as an idiot. Anton/reality/Reg has also using several different caricatures of "morally scientific" philosophers. Franks is in good company when he calls Feynman an imbecile. (What an esteemed group that, eh?)
Neinsense99
2 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2013
cantdrive85:
Ironically enough, if my theory is correct,

No worries there, surfing bunnies only explain battery commercials.

Nearly a century after the world's greatest physicist, Albert Einstein

That's quite laughable! Name one scientific advancement, something engineers would use, derived from anything Einstein blathered. And please don't even mention GPS, it is a complete fallacy and urban legend GPS uses relativity.

Study: Internet Trolls Are Drunk With Power
http://www.techsp...wer.html
philw1776
1 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2013
LIGO failed to detect grav waves as touted when funded. Jury is still out on Super LIGO and its brethren. The Pulsar data indirectly confirms their existence but direct detection, quantification and analysis still eludes physicists. Are the waves much less frequent than thought, of much lesser amplitude or are the detectors failing to achieve their design spec sensitivity? I know that LIGO had serious problems making it far from its specified detecting ability.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2013
Franklins said:
I have to admit that you are the first person I have ever heard that called Feynman an imbecile

But I didn't call Feynman an imbecile, this is just your unconscious projection of my post (maybe because "Quid nimis miseri volunt, hoc facile credunt"). But I'm not proponent of personality cult and I do realize, even the otherwise brilliant scientists can http://www.youtub...Pe-DwULM sometimes. At any case, the Feynman's "sticky bead" argument can be disproved with single sentence.


Earlier in this thread Franklins said: "Actually the whole gravitational wave theory was accepted just after imbecille Feynman's "sticky bead" argument..."

So, do you just have a bad memory or are you trying to rewrite your own history that you wrote just a few days ago and you can go back and read in this same thread?

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2013
Franklins: I have to admit that you are the first person I have ever heard that called Feynman an imbecile.


Naa,,,, johan-pringles has on countless occasions, Zephyr has with several persona, and cantdrive has often referred to him as an idiot. Anton/reality/Reg has also using several different caricatures of "morally scientific" philosophers. Franks is in good company when he calls Feynman an imbecile. (What an esteemed group that, eh?)


Of course "Franklins" and "Teech2" are just more Zephyr/Origin/Nutella socks too.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2013
I have to admit that you are the first person I have ever heard that called Feynman an imbecile

But I didn't call Feynman an imbecile, this is just your unconscious projection of my post (maybe because "Quid nimis miseri volunt, hoc facile credunt"). But I'm not proponent of personality cult and I do realize, even the otherwise brilliant scientists can http://www.youtub...Pe-DwULM sometimes. At any case, the Feynman's "sticky bead" argument can be disproved with single sentence.


That seven minute video shows the only skill Feynman was proficient at, skirting the question and failing to answer a simple question.
DruidDrudge
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 03, 2013
Franklins: I have to admit that you are the first person I have ever heard that called Feynman an imbecile.


Naa,,,, johan-pringles has on countless occasions, Zephyr has with several persona, and cantdrive has often referred to him as an idiot. Anton/reality/Reg has also using several different caricatures of "morally scientific" philosophers. Franks is in good company when he calls Feynman an imbecile. (What an esteemed group that, eh?)


Of course "Franklins" and "Teech2" are just more Zephyr/Origin/Nutella socks too.


Does physorg staff post these nut pieces just to drive up web hits?
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2013
Franklins: I have to admit that you are the first person I have ever heard that called Feynman an imbecile.


Naa,,,, johan-pringles has on countless occasions, Zephyr has with several persona, and cantdrive has often referred to him as an idiot. Anton/reality/Reg has also using several different caricatures of "morally scientific" philosophers. Franks is in good company when he calls Feynman an imbecile. (What an esteemed group that, eh?)


Of course "Franklins" and "Teech2" are just more Zephyr/Origin/Nutella socks too.


I've been on vacation and away from the "interweb" for the last four weeks. So I've not kept up with the shenanigans here. Did they finally get around to blocking Valeria/Natello/Kron?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (35) Aug 03, 2013
Franklins: I have to admit that you are the first person I have ever heard that called Feynman an imbecile.


Naa,,,, johan-pringles has on countless occasions, Zephyr has with several persona, and cantdrive has often referred to him as an idiot. Anton/reality/Reg has also using several different caricatures of "morally scientific" philosophers. Franks is in good company when he calls Feynman an imbecile. (What an esteemed group that, eh?)


Of course "Franklins" and "Teech2" are just more Zephyr/Origin/Nutella socks too.


Does physorg staff post these nut pieces just to drive up web hits?


I wouldn't doubt it. The NOM member is able to post without leaving a trail on its activity page, which leads me to think it is a physorg staff member. The NOM troll rates 1's like 'open', 'toot', and 'lite', indiscriminately and so perpetuates trolls at this forum.
indio007
1 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2013
We can't get quite crazy with the gravity wave theorem. Are their gravity solitons? Can gravity "tunnel"? Is there an evanescent field? It all becomes quite dubious.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 03, 2013
Another reason,,, blah, blah, blah, etc blah,,,,,,,,his concept has been studied extensively until Brill and Hartle in 1964 proved, that the geons can be never gravitationally stable.


Hey there Boyo, is this the new and improved Zephyr? (Or did ya just forget the passwords for Valeria, Natello, Yash, and Kron?)

Anyhoo, it's so good to see ya looking (and writing) so much like yourself sure.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (35) Aug 03, 2013
In 1922, Eddington wrote a paper expressing the view that gravitational waves are in essence ripples in coordinates, and have no physical meaning.


Conceptually it has no physical meaning to say 'ripples in coordinates' or even 'space-time curvature' alone. However, Einstein was careful to define GR operationally and so one makes reference to physical rods and clocks (cyclic countable systems). You agree that a massive object effects rods radially and clocks. So why the difficulty if this effect is dynamic?

In flat space-time you cannot measure the motion, when some gravitational wave appears, it serves both as a reference frame, both as the subject of its observation.


It can in theory be detected via a number of ways, one being a interferometer. One assumes that the wave is not isotropic, and so detectable in principal.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2013
You have it backwards.

"It's not problem of theoretical detection, but a description. The Feynman "sticky bead" just illustrates it. If the gravitational wave would pass through stick, it would elongate and shorten the stick together with its beads - no friction will occur, so no wave can be detected" - FranklinsWrongAgain

"Richard Feynman — who had insisted on registering under a pseudonym to express his disdain for the contemporary state of gravitational physics — used Pirani's description to point out that a passing gravitational wave should in principle cause a bead on a stick (oriented parallel to the direction of propagation of the wave) to slide back and forth, thus heating the bead and the stick by friction. This heating, said Feynman, showed that the wave did indeed impart energy to the bead and stick system, so it must indeed transport energy, contrary to the view expressed in 1955 by Rosen."

http://en.wikiped...argument
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2013
"If every spherically unsymmetrical change of space-time curvature should radiate the gravitational waves, then every gravitational wave should radiate these waves too - well, r
recursively - and it should scatter and decay fast." - FranklinsWrongAgain

If you do the integration you will find that the wave components sum to itself and dispersion does not occur other than at the wave front.

This is obviously a requirement that falls directly out of the need to conserve energy.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2013
Hey, guys and dolls, this is the best thread I have read for a long time, despite the usual efforts of VendicARSE, Q-Stir, et al, to drag it down to their level using personal insults.
There are more people doubting whether gravity exists at all than ever before!
Could I have been right all these years?
(I stand by for the usual barrage of jibes and insults.)
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
There are more people doubting whether gravity exists at all than ever before!


Yeppers,,,, Anton, Reality, Whydening, Maritime, et al,,,,, the list of doubters just keeps growing.

Could I have been right all these years?


Until ya can offer some explanation, some mechanism, some process,, we'll just have to assume that ya most definitely have been wrong all these years. (The world class university education ya received not withstanding.)

(I stand by for the usual barrage of jibes and insults.)


Well boyo, let me accommodate ya there,,,,,,

How's the book tour going? Are up to a 5th or 6th edition yet? (Pssst, ya will never get on the best seller list unless ya slow down with issuing new editions. In case ya didn't know, they don't lump sales of all the various editions together to rate the sales.)
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2013
Well, there you are Q-Stir, we were all hoping you'd vanished up your own a-h-e but it was only for 4 too-short weeks.
Your comment:-
Until ya can offer some explanation, some mechanism, some process,, we'll just have to assume that ya most definitely have been wrong all these years.

Shows that you have never read any of the books you have so kindly reviewed for me, and just what your spoutings on this and several other sites are actually worth. What's life like now you have been "released" from your oh-so-near-to-funded "university" post? Don't get too depressed, you can always continue venting your spleen here, its much easier than facing a room full of students who know what an a-s-e you are.
Meanwhile, I will drink your health from the commission on the book sales, thanks for bringing it to peoples' attention with your rantings.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2013
Shows that you have never read any of the books you have so kindly reviewed for me, and just what your spoutings on this and several other sites are actually worth. What's life like now you have been "released" from your oh-so-near-to-funded "university" post? Don't get too depressed, you can always continue venting your spleen here, its much easier than facing a room full of students who know what an a-s-e you are.


Ya still feel that reticence about telling us about your ideas on gravity? Tickle me with a rusty nail, I'll go first,,,,,, I'm thinking Einstein has done the best job so far, at least no one has credibly disputed him. Your turn now,,,, what methods do ya use to calculate and measure motions and matter interactions? Sure ya have some formulas to help know know where ya are, where ya want to go, and how how to go there?

(Psst, telling us to buy the book doesn't count as "explaining" what ya your theories are.)

Or we could just talk about me?
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
Ya still feel that reticence about telling us about your ideas on gravity? Tickle me with a rusty nail, I'll go first,,,,,, I'm thinking Einstein has done the best job so far, at least no one has credibly disputed him. Your turn now,,,, what methods do ya use to calculate and measure motions and matter interactions? Sure ya have some formulas to help know know where ya are, where ya want to go, and how how to go there?

(Psst, telling us to buy the book doesn't count as "explaining" what ya your theories are.)

Tut, tut, Q-Prat, you don't have to buy the books, you already have or how could you have reviewed them? You already know what I believe gravity to be, I wouldn't want to bore you with repeating it all again.

Or we could just talk about me?

Rather talk about something even mildly interesting.....
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
You already know what I believe gravity to be,


All ya have graced us with is "gravity doesn't exist". One day maybe ya would be so kind as to tell us a mechanism that can replace it. (Ya know, how to get from here to there without the models we currently use to calculate our place in the universe.)

I wouldn't want to bore you with repeating it all again.


"there is no such thing as gravity,,,, I explain it in my book" is boring (even though the number of ways ya find to repeat it is commendable), so no need to repeat it.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
All ya have graced us with is "gravity doesn't exist". One day maybe ya would be so kind as to tell us a mechanism that can replace it. (Ya know, how to get from here to there without the models we currently use to calculate our place in the universe.)

At last, you betray a grain of sense! You realise that our current understanding of gravity is a "model", similar to, say, a model of the weather in a computer. It tries its best to show what's happening, can almost predict what's gonna happen next (but not quite...). So what we have is a useable mechanism to help us understand our universe. We "pretend" that gravity exists, we perceive it to exist (just as people once "perceived" the world to be flat), but those pesky little anomalies keep cropping up.. if it exists so must Dark matter etc. but where is it? Gravity must manifest in gravitational waves, but where are they? Gravity must be a function of mass so there must be a graviton (and of course its mate). Time to reconsider?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (32) Aug 04, 2013
As I told already, the space-time deform deforms everything inside of it. If the gravitational wave would pass through stick, it would elongate and shorten the stick together with its beads - no friction will occur, so no energy and wave can be detected. - Franklins


The stick is a solid object with internal forces, while the beads are free to move relative to the stick and each other. In the Weber bar case, the internal forces are stressed with passing gravity wave.

btw, I think the sticky bead stick should be oriented transverse to propagation of the gravity wave.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
Time to reconsider?


That's not what dogmatists do, they remain firmly planted in their "beliefs". I'm sure there will be an appeal to authority though, maybe a mention of Einstein or something. Wait, I just read the posts and he already did that. Next, he'll call you a name or resort to some other ad hominem attack... Oops, silly me for not reading all the posts.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 04, 2013
At last, you betray a grain of sense! You realise that our current understanding of gravity is a "model",


Pssst, just so ya know,,, ALL science consists of "models". Some models are better than others, but they are ALL models.

We "pretend" that gravity exists, we perceive it to exist (just as people once "perceived" the world to be flat),


And an elite few "pretends" is doesn't exist, but can't offer any other mechanism that describes or predicts as well. Saying "it doesn't exist" is not science. (Ya did realize this is a science site, right?)

but those pesky little anomalies keep cropping up..


Which anomalies? So far GR is pretty much anomaly resistant. (As long as ya use it in the manner it was posited). Maybe YA would care to correct these "anomalies"

Gravity must be a function of mass so there must be a graviton (and of course its mate). Time to reconsider?


I'll reconsider, what do have for me to consider on?
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (34) Aug 04, 2013
.. if [gravity] exists so must Dark matter, but where is it? Gravity must manifest in gravitational waves, but where are they?


By your logic, before galaxies were observed, they must not have existed. Your statements here are not quit right,... or you are using a language translator recursively from several languages before outputting English, or have little interest in physics to begin with.

As Franklin noted, merely jumping out of a window will demonstrate that an effect we call gravity exists. That effect is not a matter of debate. Do you mean the theory of general relativity (GR)?

Dark matter is not itself gravity, so does not logical imply the latter,.. it is predicted to exist if GR is correct given the rotation of galaxies.

DM and GW require sophisticated instruments to detect and they have not been ruled out.

Gravity must be a function of mass so there must be a graviton


Gravitons would likely be massless..... and have to do with QFT.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 04, 2013
Noumenon,
As Franklin noted, merely jumping out of a window will demonstrate that an effect we call gravity exists. That effect is not a matter of debate. Do you mean the theory of general relativity (GR)?

It's not the "effect" being debated. Some savages believe that when they do a certain dance, it rains. There can be no other reason it rains, can there? Jumping out of the window almost inevitably results in a nasty meeting with the Earth. Must be "gravity", eh?
Dark matter is not itself gravity, so does not logical imply the latter,.. it is predicted to exist if GR is correct given the rotation of galaxies.

Galactic rotation does not conform to the predictions of either gravity or GR, what's known as the "Galactic Rotation Anomaly". Go and look it up....

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (35) Aug 04, 2013
Dark matter is not itself gravity, so does not logical imply the latter,.. it is predicted to exist if GR is correct given the rotation of galaxies. -Noumenon


Galactic rotation does not conform to the predictions of either gravity or GR, what's known as the "Galactic Rotation Anomaly". Go and look it up.... - Reg Mundy


Why would I need to look it up when I just told you about it?

Gravity does not make predictions. A theory of gravity makes predictions. GR is a theory of gravity. There is no failure of GR observed, only very exacting confirmations. It is therefore more reasonable to suppose that there is as yet unobserved mass around the galaxy.

Jumping out of the window almost inevitably results in a nasty meeting with the Earth. Must be "gravity", eh?


'Gravity' is simply what we call that effect noticed long before even Newton or Galileo. YOU don't agree with the theories describing that effect,.. not the effect itself. Speak properly.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2013
Noumenon
'Gravity' is simply what we call that effect noticed long before even Newton or Galileo. YOU don't agree with the theories describing that effect,.. not the effect itself.

Thank you for telling me what I think. Perfectly correct.
As for the "galactic rotation anomaly", there is no known theory for the location or distribution of DM which can explain it, even if DM (postulated to exist to explain it!) does exist. The internal movement of galaxies, if regulated by DM, would not agree with the total effect including DM on neighbouring galaxies.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (37) Aug 04, 2013
The internal movement of galaxies, if regulated by DM, would not agree with the total effect including DM on neighbouring galaxies.


Not true. Even as long ago as the 1930's DM was postulated to account for orbiting galaxies around clusters, around the same time that it was proposed for stars orbiting around individual galaxies.

As for the "galactic rotation anomaly", there is no known theory for the location or distribution of DM which can explain it


Yes, its called general relativity.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 04, 2013
The internal movement of galaxies, if regulated by DM, would not agree with the total effect including DM on neighbouring galaxies.


Not true. Even as long ago as the 1930's DM was postulated to account for orbiting galaxies around clusters, http://en.wikiped...k_matter that it was proposed for stars orbiting around individual galaxies.

As for the "galactic rotation anomaly", there is no known theory for the location or distribution of DM which can explain it


Yes, its called general relativity.


Ya are tilting at windmills with that fellow. He doesn't even realize that DM is posited on the basis of Newtonian mechanics, not General Relativity,,,, I wonder if he even knows the difference between Newton and Einstein on the subject of gravity? (Knowing that gravity is a :"pretense" must be all they need to get by in a "world class university physics program".)
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2013
Ah, you are back, Q-Stir, I thought for a moment you had retired hurt again.
Look, either DM accounts for the internal movement inside galaxies, or it accounts for the movement of galaxies with each other. It just doesn't do both.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (17) Aug 04, 2013
Look, either DM accounts for the internal movement inside galaxies,


To be sure a "world class university" trained physicist would understand the concept of "center of mass" ? Psst, I'll give ya a hint so it will be easy for ya to look up and become an instant interweb expert,,,,,

Google up "center of mass" and "center of gravity". (Then ya might want to try mechanics.)

or it accounts for the movement of galaxies with each other.


It certainly does, it's the primary componet which holds clusters (and large scale structures) together in the face of an expanding universe.

It just doesn't do both.


ALL matter does both, DM & otherwise, it's the nature of our universe that matter & gravity are inextricably linked. Got any more points ya would like to show off your "world class university" education with?

Ya really should spend a tad more time reading, & less trying to discuss these things. (Or at least try to quit pretending that ya KNOW anything physical.)
ant_oacute_nio354
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2013
Gravitational waves are waves of acceleration or foece.
They must be detected with accelerometers.

Antonio Jose Saraiva
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2013
something engineers would use, derived from anything Einstein blathered

First thing that comes to mind: Lasers. There's almost nothing in high tech where lasers aren't involved at some point (and there are also quite a few things in your household that make use of this effect).
http://en.wikiped...#History

(It' fun to remember that Einstein though that the results which showed the laser effect were little more than a physical curiosity)

Einstein's work was also fundamntal for a few other things you may have heard of: GPS, fission energy, fusion energy, photovolatics, correct modeling of chemical reactions (some orbitals do show relativistic effects - like gold), ...
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (35) Aug 05, 2013
He doesn't even realize that DM is posited on the basis of Newtonian mechanics, not General Relativity - Q-Star


Good point, (except for gravitational lensing). I usually just say "GR" since it is inclusive and when practicality is not at issue.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 05, 2013
He doesn't even realize that DM is posited on the basis of Newtonian mechanics, not General Relativity - Q-Star


Good point, (except for gravitational lensing). I usually just say "GR" since it is inclusive and when practicality is not at issue.


If ya really want some big fun ya ought to read some the "science" books he's written. He self-publishes using several different "author names".

Ooh, I almost forgot, one of my students even found a video of him pontificating on Einstein, Newton and galactic gobbledygook. He likes to mix and mismatch his jargon and subject matter.

He has several mutually incompatible TOE's which he defends tooth & nail. (But in each, his absurd misconceptions are consistent with each other. That the key to knowing that "they" are all him. But he's dumb as a space monkey and doesn't realize how transparent he is.)

By the By: He thinks gravitational lensing is caused by refraction. He doesn't know how we know that can't be so.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (34) Aug 05, 2013
I see the one listed at amazon , "the situation of gravity",... even the title doesn't sound quit right. In the description he is careful to state that "This book is written very tongue-in-cheek". Apparently this is his escape route.

Hmmm, I say, if I rob a bank and just did it "tongue-in-cheek", could I still keep the money? Can you answer this Mundy?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2013
Hmmm, I say, if I rob a bank and just did it "tongue-in-cheek", could I still keep the money? Can you answer this Mundy?

Of course you can, Noumenon, as long as you don't tell anyone and send me my share!
Meanwhile, Q-Stir (or shitey Quinn as he styles himself) is raving again, perhaps he could let me know all these books I've apparently written, I must be due some royalties!
Incidentally, his last post about centres of mass shows how little he understands of the DM problem. No wonder he lost his not-quite-tenured-post, "his" students probably couldn't concentrate for laughing at the silly prune.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Aug 05, 2013
Meanwhile, Q-Stir (or shitey Quinn as he styles himself) is raving again, perhaps he could let me know all these books I've apparently written, I must be due some royalties!


Ya protest to hard, ya know it's true, I've even posted the links here awhile back. (And received dozens of PM's thanking for the fun. But maybe they shouldn't encourage me so much.)

Incidentally, his last post about centres of mass shows how little he understands of the DM problem.


It's a shame ya won't/can't ever tell what it is ya think is correct? About all ya do with anyone is say "wrong" without ever trying to let us poor unfortunates know what's right.

No wonder he lost his not-quite-tenured-post, "his" students probably couldn't concentrate for laughing at the silly prune.


I'm at the same position I've had for twenty some years now. There is no tenure for my position, so I must being doing something right. But ya are correct, I do keep them laughing when we discuss cranks.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 05, 2013
@ Reggie,,,,

Ya can have the last word, your wit and repartee is just devastating and I am just so far out of my league with ya. Maybe ya can entice another to troll with,,,, I'm quite bored with ya, (unless ya can come up with truly fresh material.)

By the By: Is that time dilation / redshift still got ya troubled? My last hint to ya,,,, try not to discuss them on the same day until ya understand they are TWO separate and distinct phenomena. (And know, they aren't a factor in lensing either.)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2013
@ Quinny, you sure I can have the last word? Most unlike you, as your last double-comment magniloquence indicates.
So, for a sign-off, here's the punchline:- there might possibly be some connection between the nature of time, gravity, mass/movement, and our perception of them. Your statement
By the By: Is that time dilation / redshift still got ya troubled? My last hint to ya,,,, try not to discuss them on the same day until ya understand they are TWO separate and distinct phenomena. (And know, they aren't a factor in lensing either.)
shows the narrowness of your mind and the paucity of your vision.
Now remember, you have given me the last word, so don't pollute the end of this thread with your stupid, obstinate, pig-headed refusal to think beyond the end of your nose and confront the obvious facts that the current accepted model of our universe DOESN'T WORK!
rkolter
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2013
I liked the article.
I laughed at the looney posters.
So good science, and good laughs. 5 stars for me.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2013
Good test of non locality of gravity and quantum info is when they are detected, they will show no evidence of doppler shifting...........like if you fell into a black hole and got crushed before you saw the face of the doom that befell you.

More news stories