An end in sight in the long search for gravity waves

Feb 24, 2014 by David Blair
We know gravity waves exist but just haven’t detected any yet. Credit: www.shutterstock.com

Our unfolding understanding of the universe is marked by epic searches and we are now on the brink of discovering something that has escaped detection for many years.

The search for gravity waves has been a century long epic. They are a prediction of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity but for years physicists argued about their theoretical existence.

By 1957 physicists had proved that they must carry energy and cause vibrations. But it was also apparent that waves carrying a million times more energy than sunlight would make vibrations smaller than an atomic nucleus.

Building detectors seemed a daunting task but in the 1960s a maverick physicist Joseph Weber, at the University of Maryland, began to design the first detectors. By 1969 he claimed success!

There was excitement and consternation. How could such vast amounts of energy be reconciled with our understanding of stars and galaxies? A scientific gold rush began.

Within two years, ten new detectors had been built in major labs across the planet. But nothing was detected.

Going to need a better detector

Some physicists gave up on the field but for the next 40 years a growing group of physicists set about trying to build vastly better detectors.

By the 1980s a worldwide collaboration to build five detectors, called cryogenic resonant bars, was underway, with one detector called NIOBE located at the University of Western Australia.

These were huge metal bars cooled to near absolute zero. They used superconducting sensors that could detect a million times smaller vibration energy than those of Weber.

They operated throughout much of the 1990s. If a pair of had collided in our galaxy, or a new black hole had formed, it would have been heard as a gentle ping in the cold bars… but all remained quiet.

What the cryogenic detectors did achieve was an understanding of how quantum physics affects measurement, even of tonne-scale objects. The detectors forced us to come to grips with a new approach to measurement. Today this has grown into a major research field called macroscopic quantum mechanics.

But the null results did not mean the end. It meant that we had to look further into the universe. A black hole collision may be rare in one galaxy but it could be a frequent occurrence if you could listen in to a million galaxies.

Laser beams will help

Gravity waves caused by two rotating black holes. Credit: NASA

A new technology was needed to stretch the sensitivity enormously, and by the year 2000 this was available: a method called laser interferometry.

The idea was to use laser beams to measure tiny vibrations in the distance between widely spaced mirrors. The bigger the distance the bigger the vibration! And an L-shape could double the signal and cancel out the noise from the laser.

Several teams of physicists including a team at the Australian National University had spent many years researching the technology. Laser beam measurements allowed very large spacing and so new detectors up to 4km in size were designed and constructed in the US, Europe and Japan.

The Australian Consortium for Gravitational Astronomy built a research centre on a huge site at Gingin, just north of Perth, in Western Australia, that was reserved for the future southern hemisphere .

The world would need this so that triangulation could be used to locate signals.

Latest detectors

The new detectors were proposed in two stages. Because they involved formidable technological challenges, the first detectors would have the modest aim of proving that the laser technology could be implemented on a 4km scale, but using relatively low intensity laser light that would mean only a few per cent chance of detecting any signals.

The detectors were housed inside the world's largest vacuum system, the mirrors had to be 100 times more perfect than a telescope mirror, seismic vibrations had to be largely eliminated, and the laser light had to be the purest light ever created.

A second stage would be a complete rebuild with bigger mirrors, much more laser power and even better vibration control. The second stage would have a sensitivity where coalescing pairs of neutron stars merging to form black holes, would be detectable about 20 to 40 times per year.

Australia has been closely involved with both stages of the US project. CSIRO was commissioned to polish the enormously precise mirrors that were the heart of the first stage detectors.

A gathering of minds

The Australian Consortium gathered at Gingin earlier this year to plan a new national project.

The gravity wave facility at Gingin. Credit: Australian International Gravitational Research Centre.

Part of that project focusses on an 80 meter scale laser research facility – a sort of mini gravity wave detector – the consortium has developed at the site. Experiments are looking at the physics of the new detectors and especially the forces exerted by .

The team has discovered several new phenomena including one that involves laser photons bouncing off particles of sound called phonons. This phenomenon turns out to be very useful as it allows new diagnostic tools to prevent instabilities in the new detectors.

The light forces can also be used to make "optical rods" – think of a Star Wars light sabre! These devices can capture more gravitational wave energy – opening up a whole range of future possibilities from useful gadgets to new gravitational wave detectors.

Final stages of discovery

The first stage detectors achieved their target sensitivity in 2006 and, as expected, they detected no signals. You would know if they had!

The second stage detectors are expected to begin operating next year. The Australian team is readying itself because the new detectors change the whole game.

For the first time we have firm predictions: both the strength and the number of signals. No longer are we hoping for rare and unknown events.

We will be monitoring a significant volume of the universe and for the first time we can be confident that we will "listen" to the coalescence of binary neutron star systems and the formation of black holes.

Once these detectors reach full sensitivity we should hear signals almost once a week. Exactly when we will reach this point, no one knows. We have to learn how to operate the vast and complex machines.

If you want to place bets on the date of first detection of some gravity wave then some physicists would bet on 2016, probably the majority would bet 2017. A few pessimists would say that we will discover unexpected problems that might take a few years to solve.

Explore further: Australian scientists to 'listen' to the formation of black holes

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Closing in on Einstein's window to the universe

Aug 01, 2013

(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 ...

Recommended for you

Tiny magnetic sensor deemed attractive

18 hours ago

Ultra-sensitive magnetic sensor technology pioneered at PML may soon be commercialized for a host of applications from detection of unexploded bombs and underground pipes to geophysical surveying and perhaps ...

Beams come knocking on the LHC's door

19 hours ago

Over the weekend, proton beams came knocking on the Large Hadron Collider's (LHC) door. Shooting from the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) and into the two LHC injection lines, the proton beams were stopped ...

Climate control in termite mounds

21 hours ago

When they make their way into homes, some species of termites can be destructive pests. Their fungus-harvesting relatives in Africa and Asia, however, are known for their construction prowess, collectively ...

The secret of dragonflies' flight

21 hours ago

Dragonflies can easily right themselves and maneuver tight turns while flying. Each of their four wings is controlled by separate muscles, giving them exquisite control over their flight.

User comments : 61

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

philw1776
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2014
Wasn't LIGO's budget first sold to the science community as originally having a very good shot at detecting gravity waves, not just a "few percent" chance? Did the original design actually ever achieve the originally touted sensitivity? Now with Super LIGO better detector tech coming on line, what other types of cosmic events other than coalescing binaries and BH formation (not that they're not worth detecting alone) if any are expected? I'd love Phys.org to keep following this fascinating topic in detail.
philw1776
4 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2014
Wasn't LIGO's budget first sold to the science community as originally having a very good shot at detecting gravity waves, not just a "few percent" chance? Did the original design actually ever achieve the originally touted sensitivity? Now with Super LIGO better detector tech coming on line, what other types of cosmic events other than coalescing binaries and BH formation (not that they're not worth detecting alone) if any are expected? I'd love Phys.org to keep following this fascinating topic in detail.
Q-Star
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2014
Wasn't LIGO's budget first sold to the science community as originally having a very good shot at detecting gravity waves, not just a "few percent" chance? Did the original design actually ever achieve the originally touted sensitivity? .


The original LIGO seems to have failed, as you point out, due to a lack of the required sensitivity. But forgive, it's the first attempt, and first attempt failures are what happens the most often is new science. Gravity is a very weak thing in compared to it's cousins. As we move to the smaller and smaller in scale, forces, quanta, particles it will require bigger and bigger science. The easy stuff has probably already been found, the hard stuff becomes harder to find.

It requires the world's largest machine ever constructed by man (LHC) to detect & study the smallest particles known to man (quarks and bosons), and that irony will only become greater as we probe ever increasing extremes.
shavera
4.8 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2014
Eh, upper bounds on gravitational wave flux is still a measurement, even if it isn't the one we may have hoped for. The second stage gravitational observatories (Advanced LIGO, and the one in this article) seem to suggest that based on modeled flux estimates they're expecting more frequent observations. Some pieces I've seen elsewhere were expecting maybe 2 waves detected with the first generation detectors. 0 could still be within error bounds of some next detector.
Rev_KeithR_Wright
4.7 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2014
I'm wondering! Are the rules for exclamation marks different in Australian English different than other forms of English! There are several in strange places in this article! I'm curious!
Raygunner
3.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2014
And if these super-sensitive detectors don't produce, what's next? Could we then safely assume that it's possible that gravity waves (as proposed) DON'T exist? I understand there are a few new exciting theories including one that actually makes sense. Maybe these will be considered if the experiment is a failure.
omatwankr
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2014
"I'm wondering! Are the rules for exclamation marks different in Australian English different than other forms of English! There are several in strange places in this article! I'm curious!

Thats just the goal posts being moved, take no notice
Bonia
Feb 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2014
And if these super-sensitive detectors don't produce, what's next? Could we then safely assume that it's possible that gravity waves (as proposed) DON'T exist? I understand there are a few new exciting theories including one that actually makes sense. Maybe these will be considered if the experiment is a failure.


Yeah, kind of... it would mean that the new upper limits on gravitational wave flux are fundamentally lower than what is expected by theory. That would motivate a change in theory. Scientists are far more amenable to data implying breaks in theory than some in the public seem to believe.
Rdavid
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2014
I thought ! represented a mirror.
Bonia
Feb 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2014
The comment you're now reading was composed and submitted using a computer that actually had some of the LIGO data flowing through it, as part of the distributed computing project known as Einstein@Home. It was a most rewarding experience, from learning about GR and QM in the forum, to reading the daily logs of the scientists during commissioning and scientific operation of the interferometers. People from all over the world were participating—from the UK and Germany where they were also doing pioneering work with their GEO interferometer, from Italy who was doing likewise with their VIRGO, and of course from Australia. I recall with much admiration a doctor from down under, one of the volunteer moderators in the forum, who worked tirelessly to translate into lay terms the scientist's comments from their logs and explain and answer questions on the various figures of merit and screenshots of control systems and sensors. It was an awesome learning experience.
arom
1 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2014
The search for gravity waves has been a century long epic. They are a prediction of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity but for years physicists argued about their theoretical existence.
By 1957 physicists had proved that they must carry energy and cause vibrations. But it was also apparent that waves carrying a million times more energy than sunlight would make vibrations smaller than an atomic nucleus.


The crucial problem of the gravity waves which based on Einstein general relativity (with empty vacuum space) is that it could not explain how the 'empty space' (without anything) vibrates! Maybe understand its mechanism could help solving the problem…
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
Bonia
Feb 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2014
It's like the search for cold fusion. Does the absence of it mean, that this process cannot work? If you feel uneasy with this comparison, try to define, what makes the difference.
No, it's nothing like the search for cold fusion. It has to do with theoretical mathematics, so you wouldn't understand.
Well, the difference simply is, the mainstream physics maintains double standards for criterion of existence of phenomena: the confirmation of gravitational waves would vindicate many theorists, the confirmation of cold fusion would render them foolish.
Wrong. SO wrong as to be laughable. C'mon Zephyr, you know better than this.

IMO the existence of gravitational waves can be never proved with increasing of sensitivity of detectors if we are looking for it at wrong places.
And if they find it, will you admit you are wrong?
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2014
The reason, why I'm instinctively downvoted without any arguments, when I'm talking about nonexistence of WIMPs, gravitational waves or big bang cosmology is, these theories became a religious thing for proponents of mainstream physics
No,. its because you are wrong and do not understand why you are wrong.
They simply refuse to think about every other alternative, thus denying the whole principle of scientific method.
No, they simply look for consistency and mathematics.
The proponents of mainstream physics aren't willing to any discussion - they're just prepared to burn every opponent.
No, they aren't willing to discuss mathless pseudoscience wrapped in indignant cries of repression.
Bonia
Feb 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Feb 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
indio007
1.6 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2014
Gravity waves could be relativity's death knell. Either they are superluminal thereby falsifying relativity. or
They are not superluminal , which would make calculation of gravity using relativity unphysical i.e. unstable orbits.

Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2014
The reason, why I'm instinctively and immediatelly downvoted...these theories became a religious thing for proponents of mainstream physics

@zeph
WRONG
if you remember, I tried to give you a chance to argue your point when I first came here, and it earned me the label sock-puppet of O_socks
but you failed to produce empirical data, legitimate studies, reputable science or even logical arguments
refuse to think about...other alternative...denying ...scientific method

WRONG AGAIN
I am open to any idea with empirical data/reputable studies
I even read some of EU IEEE links as it is legit, just not for astrophysics
The proponents of mainstream physics aren't willing to any discussion

WRONG AGAIN
they just get tired of proving the same thing to you over and over again

Zeph, you are the epitome of the fanatical religious acolyte, failing to see logic in front of you and instead relating everything to your pet delusion

SEE ALSO MAGGNUS comments above
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2014
its because you are wrong and do not understand why you are wrong

This is not a logical reasoning.

@zeph
it is perfectly logical
you have been shown certain things more times than I have seen my underwear... and you STILL refuse to see logic or reality in front of you... therefore it is perfectly valid, just truncated, assessment against you
who argue like this are religious bigots by the whole definition of this world

and people who cannot use logic or understand reality are considered stupid
If you cannot realize, that you have no arguments for your belief, then you even have no rights to participate on scientific discussion.

and people who vocally accept known debunked and outdated hypothesis while advocating for known fallacies as well as impossible perpetual motion machines and who cannot understand logic, maths and modern physics are PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOTS and cannot participate in discussion of science
take your medicine
Bonia
Feb 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2014
Gravity waves could be relativity's death knell. Either they are superluminal thereby falsifying relativity. or
They are not superluminal , which would make calculation of gravity using relativity unphysical i.e. unstable orbits.


Option two is is exactly what GR predicts. Ooooops, i.e. it predicts the physical orbits so well that we know they are all unstable and to what degree. Unstable orbits was the first hurdle it passed, i.e. Mercury.
Bonia
Feb 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Feb 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2014
The original LIGO seems to have failed…

Not at all, it set some new upper bounds and ruled out some theories on extensions/unification of GR and the standard model right off the bat from the first science run (S1) data, IIRC.
It requires the world's largest machine ever constructed by man (LHC) to detect & study the smallest particles known to man (quarks and bosons), and that irony will only become greater as we probe ever increasing extremes.

Yes, but consider that gravitational waves propagate through everything, even black holes. Observation of GWs from a black hole merger will provide a window for looking inside them. Gotta admit that's extremely extreme.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2014
The original LIGO seems to have failed…

Not at all, it set some new upper bounds and ruled out some theories on extensions/unification of GR and the standard model right off the bat from the first science run (S1) data, IIRC.
It requires the world's largest machine ever constructed by man (LHC) to detect & study the smallest particles known to man (quarks and bosons), and that irony will only become greater as we probe ever increasing extremes.

Yes, but consider that gravitational waves propagate through everything, even black holes. Observation of GWs from a black hole merger will provide a window for looking inside them. Gotta admit that's extremely extreme.


Absolutely. I'm all for bigger and better science. My position is that "they" always underfund the pursuit of fundamental science.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2014
You cannot strip or shake off the gravity field of massive bodies with their motion.

So what would be your explanation for the results of Hulse and Taylor re: PSR B1913+16?

And Zeph, does your new name rhyme with Sonia?
Bonia
Feb 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2014
You may imagine it like the SOFAR channel in the underwater: the sound waves will spread like the noise at the water surface, but at the place where SOFAR penetrates the water surface, they would exhibit a periodic component.

Thanks but I prefer to imagine it as an oscillating quadrupole moment, not at all like sound at the water surface—rather it's similar to the shape of the fields in the LHC used to steer and accelerate the hadrons. Because that's what the maths and physics and observations all indicate. See the maths: http://en.wikiped...adrupole
Bonia
Feb 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BishopBalderdash
3 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2014
any pools on "no GW detected"? If none are detected then the concept of a graviton is in doubt...
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
we know gravitational waves are pure math model and they do not have correspondence in physical world. Gravity waves are nonexistent.
see articles of Prof. Loinger on arxiv.

19. A. Loinger, "Vain is the pursuit of gravity waves", (1999), http://arxiv.org/...2507.pdf
20. A.Loinger, "On PSR1913+16", (2000), http://arxiv.org/.../0002267
21. A. Loinger, "Non-existence of gravitational waves. The stages of the theoretical discovery (1917-2003) ", (2003), http://arxiv.org/.../0312149
22. A. Loinger, "Einsteinian Manifolds and Gravitational Waves", (2007), http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3835
23. A. Loinger, T. Marsico, "On the LIGO-VIRGO search of coalescing-binary signals"(2012), http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3158

vlaaing peerd
4 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2014
that involves laser photons bouncing off particles of sound called phonons.


Particles of sound??? wth is a particle of sound...an airwave/particle duality?

Anyway, a lot of pooha for a dead bird in this article and we have so far detected nothing. Thanks for getting me exited for nothing...
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2014
Detecting a negative can be as enlightening (and sometimes as exciting) as detecting a positive.

Think about it: if gravity waves don't get detected then that means we'll have to sit down and come up with something totally out-of-the-box to give us a new model of the universe.

What most people don't get: Either result is as fascinating to a scientists as the other. And even a negative result doesn't mean any kind of hardship. Scientists have skills. They don't really need to worry about job security too much.
Rimino
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2014
So that their whinning is unsubstantial...

They are lamenting the state of affairs that there will be less research. This will force researchers to get a job with companies (which means wasting most of their potential because very few companies do any research that is worthy of the name).

This means a massive pay-RAISE for any researhcer who is forced to make this step. But - and this is something most people don't get - researchers aren't in it for the money. Doing research, while being hard and demanding ungodly workhours, is FUN.
(The only other people who might understand this are artists.)

What a reduction in research spending also means: Less PhD and postdoc positions. Which translates into a drop in average education levels of the population within 2-3 years. And where that leads in terms of economic ability to compete I probably don't have to spell out.
Rimino
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ai83
3 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2014
David, why would you consider this to be "an end in sight"? The sensitivity will be the best so far, but if it's still not detected then will we give up? I understand there is great hope, but why would you say "and end"? I'm trying to understand if you had in mind certain implications where you wrote that. Thank you!
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2014
The ignorance of cold fusion research harms both the economical, both political stability even more.

Not really. As was pointed out to you at least a dozen times in the past: Cold fusion research got adequate funding in its day. It failed (and continues to fail) to produce results.
So the ever diminishing research funds are allocated to more promising fields.
There's no surer way of seeing another round of funding cuts than to pump more research into dead areas (read: cold fusion).

Get over it or start a fundraiser. But your permanent cry-baby attitude sure ain't helping your lost cause one bit.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2014
Most of my career has been involved in linguistics & atmospheric physics. So I will now be insufferably pedantic for a moment. They are not "gravity waves", they are "gravitational waves". A gravity wave is a buoyancy wave in an atmosphere, while a gravitational wave is a wave of gravitation. See, even phys.org can stumble over the correct jargon ("gravity wave" is depressingly common usage, even among physicists, but I have seen Barry Barish [Director of LIGO Laboratory, 1997-2005] make the same point as I am here).

http://en.wikiped...nal_wave
http://en.wikiped...ity_wave
kochevnik
not rated yet Feb 25, 2014
Star Waves 4 - A New Hope ! The prequel and sequel should be even more hopeful!
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2014
we know gravitational waves are pure math model and they do not have correspondence in physical world. Gravity waves are nonexistent.

Not only is this seriously wrong, it is seriously anti- (not just "un") scientific. One does not "know" without first making a serious attempt to "see", which is what LIGO is all about (SETI suffers from the same poorly considered criticism). I will remind you of the double pulsar PSR B1913+16, where radio observations allow the period of the binary to be derived precisely. The loss of energy in the system is consistent with the prediction of energy loss through gravitational radiation. This therefore counts as an indirect detection of gravitational waves.

http://en.wikiped...913%2B16
Rimino
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2014
this therefore counts as an indirect detection of gravitational waves.
It serves as an evidence of lost of energy with mutual tidal forces of massive bodies, the existence of harmonic waves remains speculative. Just the fact, that the relativistic model doesn't consider tides is problematic - the total energy loss must be always higher, than the loss of GWs. The magnitude of tidal loses depends on the viscosity of stars, which cannot be estimated reliably - so it was simply neglected as a whole - and Taylor-Hulce got their Nobel prize...

Such a stance is not anti-scientific - it's scientifically critical instead. When some effect can have its classical explanation, this explanation should be always considered first.

Occam's razor.
no fate
3 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2014
we know gravitational waves are pure math model and they do not have correspondence in physical world. Gravity waves are nonexistent.

Not only is this seriously wrong, it is seriously anti- (not just "un") scientific. The loss of energy in the system is consistent with the prediction of energy loss through gravitational radiation. This therefore counts as an indirect detection of gravitational waves.


As of yet we have not detected them. "Indirect detection" is an assumption that you have modelled the interaction correctly. Since you would need to detect gravitational waves in order to confirm the existence of gravitational radiation, both still reside in the realm of hypothesis.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2014
Doing research, while being hard and demanding ungodly workhours, is FUN.
(The only other people who might understand this are artists.)

As an artist, I appreciate the sideways compliment, AA...:-)
Bonia
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2014
and we could save even more money by just giving up on all of science and claiming it's gnomes and spirits. But good luck getting decent technological advances out of that framework. Science is an investment, both an investment in a fundamental drive of humanity (to understand the story of our own existence) and an investment in our future technological capacities.
Bonia
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2014
This is misunderstanding. I don't urge for less scientific attitude in matter of gravitational waves - but for more professional attitude instead

@Zeph
then why do you think we should stop fundamental research?
What YOU want is for everyone to drop what they are doing and concentrate on DEAD/DYING areas of research... too bad that you cant see this for yourself. As AA_P put it: Cold Fusion failed (and continues to fail) to produce results

Tell me about it regarding the cold fusion research. In many areas the much higher investments would be welcomed instead. I'm just calling for smarter expenses - not smaller

like I said... you dont want much, you just want it all YOUR WAY

when you back a dead horse, you shouldn't be surprised when it doesn't cross the finish line
Bonia
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2014
Again, this is just a misunderstanding. I do want to make it less superficial instead

@zeph
you said
You cannot prove the cosmology by looking at the particle collider. The history of Universe can be proven only with astronomical observations of distant objects

or the rest here ( http://phys.org/n...der.html )
then stated
In my opinion, the further increase of energy of collision will not bring any new physics for us

so how am I misunderstanding that you are against fundamental research here?
This is NOT "making it less superficial", this is a complete misunderstanding of what fundamental science research really is.
you can buy the cold fusion devices with COP > 20 already

so, you actually believe that you can buy a cold fusion reactor that will support the electrical production?
When you can produce a working model that supports even a house, I will listen

The impact of proven gravitational waves > Cold Fusion
Bonia
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2014
The investments into cold fusion research would decrease the cost of energy

@Zeph
personal conjecture without supporting evidence
it will immediately eliminate the consumption of raw sources for wind and solar plants and it will stop the devastation of life environment for biofuels

personal conjectures
It will eliminate the political tension

plausible, but still conjecture
And the scientists will get enough of energy for building of LIGO and colliders in free cosmic space at the safe distance from Earth

conjecture based upon delusional assertions of future technology
you are confusing Fusion reactors possible output estrapolations with cold fusion
they should do some research and help the human civilization first

biased conjecture argued from stupidity
these tax payers are serving the science, not vice-versa

biased conjecture from ignorance

to be continued
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2014
LOL... :-) Do you even have voting right? You cannot save the science with such an attitude. Most of scientists will get fired anyway because of world crisis and the rest will develop weapons of the judgement day

@zeph
first: cold fusion (cf) may be possible, but research has died in that area
my opinion is based upon the fact that speculations of cf have been researched, and been found wanting, but research into gravitational waves (GW) is still ongoing: the theory is viable
IF there were GW found, (or even not found) there would be MUCH drama in the scientific community

Your conjectures about the output and possibilities of cf are based upon your personal perspective ( which you still support other dead hypothesis too) therefore your extrapolations are firmly based in psychological delusions rather than scientific proclamations
give me studies/evidence from reputable sites and I will consider your rantings more valid

attitude. Who cares?
Voting? not how science works
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2014
we know gravitational waves are pure math model and they do not have correspondence in physical world. Gravity waves are nonexistent.

Not only is this seriously wrong, it is seriously anti- (not just "un") scientific. One does not "know" without first making a serious attempt to "see", which is what LIGO is all about (SETI suffers from the same poorly considered criticism). I will remind you of the double pulsar PSR B1913+16, where radio observations allow the period of the binary to be derived precisely. The loss of energy in the system is consistent with the prediction of energy loss through gravitational radiation. This therefore counts as an indirect detection of gravitational waves.

http://en.wikiped...913%2B16


In case you haven't come across Amrit before, you can get a flavour of his previous paper on this site here:

http://phys.org/n...ace.html
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
we already have observations of less or more sudden changes CMBR noise intensity - which is just the way, which the passage of gravitational waves should manifest itself.

Zeph, as near as I can tell and paraphrasing Sabine Hossenfelder's critique of Hogan, on whose BackReAction blog I see you've been busy, you're too are adding your conjecture to other conjecture of a subfield of a subfield on the fringe of the fringe of science. If you find AWT helpful in terms of imagining how the universe works, great—I look forward to seeing the maths.

As for research funding, there are at least two possible scenarios for the future:

1) War and corporate fascism based, where the military decides on the research and innovation is "owned" and hence tightly controlled.

2) Science and resource management based, where there is freedom and pursuit of happiness, fun, or as others have pointed out, furthering the arts and sciences.
Bonia
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2014
... so it was simply neglected as a whole - and Taylor-Hulce got their Nobel prize...

Wrong. See Epstein, 1977; Taylor, Fowler & McCulloch, 1979; Taylor & Weisberg, 1982. Epstein shows how to calculate post-Keplerian orbital parameters from post-Newtonian dynamics, and his method is used by the two later papers. These calculations essentially deal with the tidal components of the orbital evolution. As you can see from Taylor & Weisberg, 1982 and Lorimer, 2008, the first time derivative of the orbital parameters is highly coincident with the prediction of energy loss due to gravitational radiation with no other considerations required. While the internal structure of the pulsar is needed to theoretically derive tidal parameters, no such knowledge is required to determine whether or not the empirical data include a tidal component beyond the basic theory.
Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2014
Not enough characters per post. These are the references for my last post. In fact, the data for PSR B1913+16 do includes tidal effects; it is wrong to claim they do not, and it is wrong to assert that the observations are not indirect evidence for gravitational waves & gravitational radiation.

http://adsabs.har...16...92E
http://adsabs.har...77..437T
http://adsabs.har...53..908T
http://adsabs.har...11....8L
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2014
, and it is wrong to assert that the observations are not indirect evidence for gravitational waves & gravitational radiation.


It is wrong to assume an assertion based on indirect evidence is correct. There is nothing wrong with the equations of motion we apply to these systems, they are based on observation, measurement and calculations more complex than I am capable of.

Specifically it is working from the assumption that gravity can manifest this way, that it has a force carrier, which is unscientific. Gravity is a field. Like a magnetic field, it is only detectable when interacting with matter other than the mass (in gravity's case) that is generating the field.

The experiments above continue to confirm this. I'd rather give Zeph the funding than spend it reconfirming that gravity is a field with increased certainty.
Rimino
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
indio007
1 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2014


Option two is is exactly what GR predicts. Ooooops, i.e. it predicts the physical orbits so well that we know they are all unstable and to what degree. Unstable orbits was the first hurdle it passed, i.e. Mercury.


That is hog wash.

First by unstable I mean fly off into space or crash into the Sun.

Second, relativity can't be used to accurately compute an orbit because the "space-time curvature" can't be computed for 2 or more bodies.

Relativity is non-linear and the equation is for one body.
You can't simply add in more masses because the principal of super position only applies to linear equations.

Thirdly, Mercury's orbit is very stable and doesn't need relativity to explain it.

Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2014
Option two is is exactly what GR predicts. Ooooops, i.e. it predicts the physical orbits so well that we know they are all unstable and to what degree. Unstable orbits was the first hurdle it passed, i.e. Mercury.


That is hog wash.

First by unstable I mean fly off into space or crash into the Sun.


Given enough time that very thing MUST happen.

Thirdly, Mercury's orbit is very stable and doesn't need relativity to explain it.


Depends on how ya are trying to use word stable. NO orbits are stable. They ALL change over time. It's only a matter of degree. Mercury has a unstable orbit because it precesses. GR predicted/postdicted that instability. With better and better accuracy as observations get better. GR isn't improving, the precision of our ability to apply it is improving.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2014
Second, relativity can't be used to accurately compute an orbit because the "space-time curvature" can't be computed for 2 or more bodies.


Who told ya that? (Ya should scold them severely.)

Relativity is non-linear and the equation is for one body.
You can't simply add in more masses because the principal of super position only applies to linear equations.


I'm sure that sounds all scientific and mathematical to ya. But it doesn't say anything. Someone has lead ya astray in what relativity can and can not do.

The maths & solutions have been done across all macro scales, with any number of "objects". From GPS satellites to entire solar systems, galaxies and galaxy clusters, to the universe as a whole.
Mr_Ed
not rated yet Feb 26, 2014
Yes, it certainly seems that many have been lead astray about relativity. It would be better if more had at least a some rudimentary understanding of it.

On thing I might add to the LIGO conversation is that I don't think that they will necessarily find the vibrations they are looking for. Mainly because gravity waves distort the reference frame in which the experiment is being conducted. One would need to be close to an oscillating source to actually detect physical vibrations with any method. LIGO matches what drew for my instructor back in the 1970's, but my view on it was to detect redshift, as that is the only component that varies at twice the rate as any any other term within the equation.
But again, it still requires a strong signal and is wavelength dependent.

So I suspect we may be waiting a while yet.
Bonia
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2014
I'm betting the gravitational wave is at c squared or above. Either that or below absolute 0 (which I don't believe really exists)
Bonia
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2014
On thing I might add to the LIGO conversation is that I don't think that they will necessarily find the vibrations they are looking for. Mainly because gravity waves distort the reference frame in which the experiment is being conducted.

But that's precisely how the GWs would be detected, by distorting the reference frame, in this case the most sensitive interferometer ever made. The photons in the laser beam, to first order, won't feel a significant change in the gravitational attraction of the source of the waves. But the higher order effect, a distortion of spacetime, causes a change in the respective lengths of each arm of the interferometer. It was the work of Weber (and others) where vibrations in resonant bars were measured—the interferometers are several orders of magnitude more sensitive.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2014
It is wrong to assume an assertion based on indirect evidence is correct.

No it is not wrong, although that is also not what I said. I said, "it is wrong to assert that the observations are not indirect evidence for gravitational waves & gravitational radiation", and this is undeniably correct. After all, the single most fundamental principle in all of science is the principle of reasonable inference from observation; abandon that and you abandon all of science in one step. It is evidence, it is not "confirmation" in any rigorous sense. So what I actually said is properly interpreted as an indication of the validity of a theory, not an assertion that the theory had in fact been validated as true.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2014
The fact, that the energy dissipates in binary pulsars doesn't imply the wave observation anyway.

I disagree. Yes it does imply exactly that. It's easy enough to see. We have data (observations of the binary pulsar). We have orbital parameters derived from the data independent of theory. We have a theory from which post-Keplerian orbital elements are derived. Those derived from theory are the same as those derived from observation, within the usual tolerance of observational uncertainty. Therefore the observations imply the validity of the theory. What they do not do is guarantee that the implication is unique, that no other theory might also be in equally good agreement with observation. However, I am unaware of any equally detailed calculation implying validity for any theory or hypothesis other than general relativity.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
The Shootist
3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
For once it isn't about the weather.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
If I cross from my list of people that I will pay heed to all of the scientists and space cadets who believe that gravity waves are detectable then that would leave me feeling very comfortable with myself. Eventually they will detect the bow wave of the shock wave caused by a cosmogenic event and then they will probably announce success. Actually, come to think of it, Einstein did once have an Oops! experience and he certainly wasn't the first to ever have one of those. Just don't in defense of GWs make any rash declarations pertaining to the eating of one's hat.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2014
An end in sight in the long search for gravity waves
Hmph. I don't see how detection is possible when your own perception gets distorted along with the waves.

Isn't this akin to stating the flow of time is smooth because we percieve it is smooth? How can we know?

Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rah
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2014
Earth based systems will likely not detect a gravity wave because of the sensitivity needed for the experiment. If a worm farts within 50 miles of the setup, it will be picked up. It's ridiculous to claim we are close to detecting a gravity wave. I hope I'm wrong and these folks
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
If a worm farts within 50 miles of the setup, it will be picked up.

@rah
and this is taken into consideration in the setup, design, data collection etc

when a worm farts, the data collection/identification will match it to the known worm fart data, see that it can be dismissed as legitimate evidence for gravity waves, and go on to the next set of collected data points
Earth based systems will likely not detect a gravity wave because of the sensitivity needed for the experiment

personal conjecture
why do you draw this conclusion? Supporting data/studies that caused you to infer this?
It's ridiculous to claim we are close to detecting a gravity wave

time is relative to the observer
it would be RIDICULOUS to put a DATE and say.... we will know by THIS TIME... but not saying it is SOON, because what time line are we referring to at this point? Personal one? Geological time? Universal time?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
time is relative to the observer
it would be RIDICULOUS to put a DATE and say.... we will know by THIS TIME... but not saying it is SOON, because what time line are we referring to at this point? Personal one? Geological time? Universal time?

EXTREMELY cogent point, Cap'n!
Rimino
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 14, 2014
http://physics.ap...2.101102 - seismographic data place new, stronger limits on the amount of gravitational wave energy in the Universe.


This gets me to wondering... Is Schumann resonance an indicator of "gravitational wave", somehow?
Bonia
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 15, 2014
http://physics.ap...2.101102 - seismographic data place new, stronger limits on the amount of gravitational wave energy in the Universe.


This gets me to wondering... Is Schumann resonance an indicator of "gravitational wave", somehow?

Sorry. should have been more specific - harmonic reflection - not just "indicator".
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2014
The basic assumption in all of this research has been forgotten, and that is how it can be expected that one unit of matter can not detect something intangible? Gravitational waves do not exist, because gravity is not something that occurs and disappears as a result of certain transformations that occur after the creation of matter and its assembly into the crowd. Gravity is a kind of unbalanced forces between the material (mass) and ether from which the resulting material. Innate properties of matter that has gravity pulling together the mass (by law assigned to create mass), until a critical mass (black hole), through which the material to return to the "homeland", and again into the ether from which created high vibrations of ether under the command of the absolute consciousness of the universe. Do not forget the spiritual entity from which all the conducts.

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.