Gravitational waves found, black-hole models led the way

February 11, 2016
A simulation of two merging black holes, creating gravitational waves. Credit: LIGO.

Gravitational waves were predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity in 1916, and now, almost exactly 100 years later, the faint ripples across space-time have been found. The advanced Laser Interferometric Gravitational-wave Observatory (aLIGO) has achieved the first direct measurement.

"We already have indirect evidence of gravitational wave emission from binary pulsars like the Hulse-Taylor system. But this aLIGO measurement provides the first direct detection and confirms what our modeling and simulation results have been suggesting - Einstein was right," said Christopher Fryer, Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow and longtime researcher in this field.

"Working with experts in radiation transport and atomic physics in the Advanced Simulation and Computing program at Los Alamos, members of the theoretical astrophysics center are modeling this emission to compare theoretical models with direct observations," said Charlie McMillan, Los Alamos National Laboratory director. "This type of crosscutting capability is a hallmark of the national laboratory system and Los Alamos is gratified to have participated in a discovery of this magnitude."

A primary source of gravitational waves is a series of astronomical events called compact object mergers, involving the merger of binary systems consisting of neutron stars and/or . "The actual observation was of a black-hole/black-hole merger. This proves aLIGO can detect these compact mergers. The detection process for neutron-star/neutron-star mergers is the same and our models predict both will occur. Observations of neutron-star/neutron star mergers will help us understand a great deal of physics and astronomy and the prospects for gravitational wave science are extremely exciting," said Fryer.

The electromagnetic follow-up, at Los Alamos and elsewhere, focuses on what we can learn from neutron-star/neutron-star mergers. It is this type of phenomenon that computer scientists, physicists and astronomy experts have been exploring, using computers to model the merger's many components to understand the basic physics more clearly.

aLIGO itself comprises a set of two widely separated interferometers—one in Hanford, Washington and the other in Livingston, Louisiana—that are operated in unison to detect the gravitational waves produced in the end-state of these merging systems. The facility's multi-kilometer-scale gravitational wave detectors use laser interferometry to measure the ripples in space-time caused by passing waves.

"Beyond the detection of , aLIGO provides a new window into studying astrophysical transients. Astronomers across the globe have been studying how aLIGO observations, coupled with telescopes from radio to gamma-rays, can be used to probe the extreme physics in these cosmic explosions," Fryer said.

"Even though the modeling and observations of these gravitational wave sources is difficult, requiring detailed, multi-physics models, the potential to study new realms of physics and understand new astrophysical transients is tremendous. Los Alamos is well-poised to solve these problems," Fryer said.

At Los Alamos National Laboratory's theoretical astrophysics center a broad effort has been underway, studying many aspects of these mergers from their progenitors (work led by former Oppenheimer Fellow Krzysztoff Belczynski) to their implications in helping scientists understand astrophysical transients and as probes of the physics of matter under extreme conditions.

"Our program studying merger progenitors argued that the most-likely system would be a binary black hole system," stated Fryer, "and it is gratifying to see that this first detection is exactly such a system. As aLIGO detects more of these mergers we will be able to probe aspects of stellar evolution."

Working with a team of experts from many areas of physics and astronomy, including dense nuclear matter, binary stellar evolution, gamma ray bursts and multi-physics computational modeling, Fryer has focused on determining what we can learn from these gravitational wave detections. The team uses a combination of Newtonian merger calculations, neutron star equation of state studies, and population synthesis simulation to model the outcome of the merger of the two .

The researchers determined the statistical likelihood that the remnant from the merger

1) collapses directly to a black hole,

2) collapses to a black hole after a delay, or

3) remains a neutron star.

Whether the core is a black hole or neutron star depends on whether it is more massive than the maximum neutron star mass at its spin rate.

Explore further: Neutron stars could shine new light on universe expansion

More information: Related papers:

Chris L. Fryer et al. THE FATE OF THE COMPACT REMNANT IN NEUTRON STAR MERGERS, The Astrophysical Journal (2015). DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/24

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..263D

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779...72D

Related Stories

Dense star clusters shown to be binary black hole factories

July 29, 2015

The coalescence of two black holes—a very violent and exotic event—is one of the most sought-after observations of modern astronomy. But, as these mergers emit no light of any kind, finding such elusive events has been ...

Recommended for you

The rise and fall of galaxy formation

August 30, 2016

An international team of astronomers, including Carnegie's Eric Persson, has charted the rise and fall of galaxies over 90 percent of cosmic history. Their work, which includes some of the most sensitive astronomical measurements ...

91 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rodkeh
1.4 / 5 (19) Feb 11, 2016
I proved Einstein wrong years ago and my data is unimpeachable and the graph is far more compelling, this is pure contrivance.
mitcheroo
4.1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016
So if you had three LIGOs instead of just two, could you then pinpoint the location in the sky of the colliding pair?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (18) Feb 11, 2016
I proved Einstein wrong years ago
@rod
would love to see the Nobel you got for that... can you post a pic to imgur.com and link it here?
my data is unimpeachable
then why hasn't it borne fruit? predicted something that experimental evidence proved (like here: http://journals.a...fulltext )?

science is evidence based
katesisco
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2016
May I suggest that the plasma sheet shown in NASA "A Star With Two North Poles" that changes shape with the polarity change in the identified wave which is a 'magnetic soliton.'
RealScience
5 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016
@mitcheroo - yes, three in a triangle would allow pinning down the direction with reasonable accuracy. The distance is calculated much less directly - the frequency of the waves and the rate of change of the frequency are a 'signature' of the masses involved, which lets the strength of the source be calculated, and then they can calculated the distance from the strength of the observed signal.

The "has achieved the first direct measurement" link near the top of this article is to a much more interesting article.
rodkeh
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 11, 2016
@Captain Stumpy"then why hasn't it borne fruit?"

How naive can you get?
bschott
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2016
@Captain Stumpy"then why hasn't it borne fruit?"

How naive can you get?


You don't want to know the answer to that, but stick around here and you'll be a witness to mass naivety. Take this announcement for example....
rodkeh
2.1 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2016
@Captain Stumpy"then why hasn't it borne fruit?"

How naive can you get?


You don't want to know the answer to that, but stick around here and you'll be a witness to mass naivety. Take this announcement for example....


Do I detect a skeptic? Perhaps someone who even thinks for themselves?

Good on you!
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
This is simply an attempt to not look like 100 years of stupidity by adding more stupidity. It's called doubling down. Hey, the average person could care less over the unscientific methodologies, i.e. length change but ignore the time change; therefore, an inability to measure gravitational waves. But tell me anything. But none of it changes, its all in your mind. The speed of light, or the time it takes to travel from A to B. But we disprove this with a clear optical signal that yields a multi nanosecond delay. Really! Now we see gravitational waves. I think these people live in the 19th century without logic or math or physics or an intelligent mind. But I would certainly like to see the faulty optical connector that gives a clear signal and a delay of over a meter. Sounds fishy. Well lets just say it stinks of nonsense!
rodkeh
2.5 / 5 (16) Feb 11, 2016
Well lets just say it stinks of nonsense!


It is good to see some real understanding and common sense. These jokers are just doing what is needed to keep the cash rolling in. Real Physics died long ago; there hasn't been any real science since Einstein conned these clowns.
PhysicsMatter
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016
The laser interferometry is prone and is biased toward false positive (lack of full interference) due to spontaneous, unmodeled/unmitigated changes in the detection system, electronics, mechanics, vacuum, thermodynamics, seismics and EM interference as they admit on their page:
http://www.ligo.o...nCs.dpuf

But the methodology is quite unclear since it relies of variation of light refractive index as indicator of minute amplitude gravity waves while refractive index is orders of magnitude more sensitive to light environment i.e. gravity, micro-motions, EM, and thermal and most of all it is under an assumption of constancy and symmetry of speed of light which has not been proven experimentally but assumed in SR and this is being question in cosmological scale.

So this is like looking for whisper on a mountain of deafening sound pattern and noises.
May be in ten years of results we may find something in it but noise.

shavera
4.8 / 5 (18) Feb 11, 2016
PhysicsMatter: I'd be inclined to agree.... if both detectors didn't see precisely the same signal after subtracting their local noise models. The chances of the above signal being 'noise' and appearing in both detectors within 10 ms of each other are ridiculous. And the signal so well fits the supercomputer models too. I think your armchair estimation of their noise sensitivity doesn't fit the reality of the experiment.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016
How naive can you get?
@rod
so... you make a grandiose claim to have usurped Einstein and proven him wrong, but you can't give evidence...
and any said evidence would be an immediate Nobel as well as the absolute talk of physics and science... but you can't show the fruits of your labor?
and you think that anyone who promotes pseudoscience and simply disbelieves everything that has evidence is a person who thinks for themselves? actually, they're called religious (as it requires a FAITH, or the belief in something without evidence)

but you think i am naive for wanting evidence and following evidence?
ROTFLMFAO
a perfect example of your D-K!

.
Take this announcement for example
@full of BSchott
http://journals.a...fulltext

evidence trumps your D-K pseudoscience
bschott
2.2 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
Well lets just say it stinks of nonsense!


It is good to see some real understanding and common sense. These jokers are just doing what is needed to keep the cash rolling in. Real Physics died long ago; there hasn't been any real science since Einstein conned these clowns.


Einstein didn't even believe Black holes were possible, these clowns say he said a lot of things he never did, and at the end of his life he wrote "The evolution of physics" in which he acknowledges how incorrect the assumptions made around his work are.

Agreed that they can't really say LIGO was doomed to fail from the start because they were wrong, so instead they report a positive result that may or may not hold up under scrutiny, so no money was or will be wasted ,but the lemmings eat it up anyways, just like bicep2.

As always time will tell.

And Stumpid will try to tell everyone what to think.

Welcome to Physorg Rodkeh, they are "special" here....
Zorcon
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016
Until the results are confirmed with hard data from ancient religious texts, we need to remain skeptical.

/lampoonery
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016
And Stumpid will try to tell everyone what to think
@full of BS
i don't care WHAT a person believes... that is their prerogative

...but when said person (like you) states that something is evidenciary, based on science, or is more valid than proven evidence based science, then it leaves the realm of a belief and becomes an active proselytizing for acolytes or like minded stupidity... that is not science, that is religion
Einstein didn't even believe Black holes were possible
and he disliked Quantum physics (especially the random nature of it and Quantum entanglement ... all of which are experimentally validated: https://en.wikipe...nglement ) but that doesn't mean it is not real, nor that it is not valid

it doesn't matter WHAT a person likes or dislikes, only what can be proven

so... @BS - you talk a lot of BS:
what can you PROVE?
bschott
2.1 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016
There is nothing for me to prove Stumpid. My comments reflect doubt in the face of questionable reporting. A declaration by a team with a vested interest in a positive result is proof enough for you Stumpid.

That's nice. Kinda like OJ's lawyers reporting that he is innocent.

As I said time will tell.

You'll be happy to know that in your absence a couple of guys have been working really hard at keeping the stupid alive and doing almost as good a job at it as you. But good to have you back as you are the master.

Ciao.
rodkeh
1.8 / 5 (17) Feb 11, 2016

I'll bet you're American. You have absolutely no idea of what constitutes scientific proof. Just another mindless minion who thinks science is based on faith.

Gravity waves were disproved by the Gravity Probe Experiment, an experiment that was far superior in both concept and execution to this contrivance but I suspect these peoples funding is up for review, so they have to show some progress no matter how contrived.

But being American you wouldn't have a clue.
rodkeh
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016
@Captain Stumpy, My last comment was for you. Another ignorant Yank!
Ultron
4.4 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016
We are living in time of new amazing discoveries.

I wonder if the time difference of two signals was 7 ms, does it mean that speed of gravity was confirmed at c, or could it also alternatively fit to speed bigger than c due to distance between merging/approaching black holes?
FritzVonDago
2 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016
This is exciting REAL science! Because what can be measured can be used in the end for the betterment of mankind, not just climate change scam artist.
sparthir
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016
@Captain Stumpy, My last comment was for you. Another ignorant Yank!


Not only do you not supply any evidence you turn to insults. And for your information I'm not American (nowhere close).

Evidence rules. Whilst this current "discovery" can always be shown to be wrong or have low levels of confidence I'm yet to see anything compelling in the other direction.

So put up some evidence and lets see it. I'm a skeptic... I'm highly skeptical you have anything but I'm willing to change my views if you have something concrete other than wild conjecture. Show us the data, show us the math... show us anything useful.

Lets see if you don't just want to claim some conspiracy that is keeping your ideas down or that you don't want to just turn to insults again.
rodkeh
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2016
@Captain Stumpy, My last comment was for you. Another ignorant Yank!


Not only do you not supply any evidence you turn to insults. And for your information I'm not American (nowhere close).

Evidence rules. Whilst this current "discovery" can always be shown to be wrong or have low levels of confidence I'm yet to see anything compelling in the other direction.

So put up some evidence and lets see it. I'm a skeptic... I'm highly skeptical you have anything but I'm willing to change my views if you have something concrete other than wild conjecture. Show us the data, show us the math... show us anything useful.

Lets see if you don't just want to claim some conspiracy that is keeping your ideas down or that you don't want to just turn to insults again.


Are you Captain S.?
rodkeh
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016
And for your information I'm not American (nowhere close).


Maybe not but that doesn't mean you can't be just as scientifically ignorant and stupid as the average Yank. Which apparently you are.
rodkeh
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016
And for your information I'm not American (nowhere close).


That may be, but that doesn't mean you're not just as scientifically ignorant and stupid as the average Yank.
del2
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016
@ultron: "does it mean that speed of gravity was confirmed at c" This article
http://physicswor...ck-holes
gives more detail, also links to the Physical Review Letters publication and the supplementary paper in Astrophysical Journal Letters (both are free to download).
According to this, the results confirm that gravitons are massless and travel at c.
The 7 ms time delay was due to the different distances from the source to the two detectors.
rodkeh
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016
@ultron: "does it mean that speed of gravity was confirmed at c" This article
http://physicswor...ck-holes
gives more detail, also links to the Physical Review Letters publication and the supplementary paper in Astrophysical Journal Letters (both are free to download).
According to this, the results confirm that gravitons are massless and travel at c.
The 7 ms time delay was due to the different distances from the source to the two detectors.


First of all, you would need an event to detect. If two BHs were to merge it would take millennia, there would be no instantaneous event to record. The signal would go on and on and would last far longer than the average life span and so to us here, it would look like constant background noise.
rodkeh
2 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
This kind of stuff makes one wonder if there is anyone in the scientific community, with two living brain cell to rub together.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016
I see the usual braindead eejits are out tonight. Shame, isn't it boys? They just keep showing this pseudoscientific b*llocks up for what it is, eh?
Any of these geniuses read the paper yet? When are we going to get the first "OOHHH it was plasma" b*llocks?
Idiots.Stick to mythology. Not very good at that, either.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2016
This kind of stuff makes one wonder if there is anyone in the scientific community, with two living brain cell to rub together.


Well, come on Einstein, tell us all about it. Have you read the paper? What is your objection? In scientific language?
Or are you just parroting b*llocks that you've heard elsewhere, and really haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
Let's hear it smart arse.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2016
@ultron: "does it mean that speed of gravity was confirmed at c" This article
http://physicswor...ck-holes
gives more detail, also links to the Physical Review Letters publication and the supplementary paper in Astrophysical Journal Letters (both are free to download).
According to this, the results confirm that gravitons are massless and travel at c.
The 7 ms time delay was due to the different distances from the source to the two detectors.


First of all, you would need an event to detect. If two BHs were to merge it would take millennia, there would be no instantaneous event to record. The signal would go on and on and would last far longer than the average life span and so to us here, it would look like constant background noise.


Mate, you are thick. Seriously.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016
To any of the sh*t for brains woo merchants who are reading this thread tonight:
INSTEAD OF WHINGING LIKE LITTLE GIRLS ON HERE: HOW ABOUT ACTUALLY WRITING A PAPER TO QUESTION THESE RESULTS????
Otherwise; STFU.
rodkeh
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2016
This kind of stuff makes one wonder if there is anyone in the scientific community, with two living brain cell to rub together.


Well, come on Einstein, tell us all about it. Have you read the paper? What is your objection? In scientific language?
Or are you just parroting b*llocks that you've heard elsewhere, and really haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
Let's hear it smart arse.


Please, if you're going to call me dirty names, I'm not going to play!
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016
To any of the sh*t for brains woo merchants who are reading this thread tonight:
INSTEAD OF WHINGING LIKE LITTLE GIRLS ON HERE: HOW ABOUT ACTUALLY WRITING A PAPER TO QUESTION THESE RESULTS????
Otherwise; STFU.

P.S. otherwise, you've lost.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
This kind of stuff makes one wonder if there is anyone in the scientific community, with two living brain cell to rub together.


Well, come on Einstein, tell us all about it. Have you read the paper? What is your objection? In scientific language?
Or are you just parroting b*llocks that you've heard elsewhere, and really haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
Let's hear it smart arse.


Please, if you're going to call me dirty names, I'm not going to play!


Trust me, you can't play. You are a long way from understanding what is actually being discussed. Back to bed, for you. Leave it to those that actually understand what is going on. You are quite obviously not one of those!
rodkeh
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016
@ultron: "does it mean that speed of gravity was confirmed at c" This article
http://physicswor...ck-holes
gives more detail, also links to the Physical Review Letters publication and the supplementary paper in Astrophysical Journal Letters (both are free to download).
According to this, the results confirm that gravitons are massless and travel at c.
The 7 ms time delay was due to the different distances from the source to the two detectors.


First of all, you would need an event to detect. If two BHs were to merge it would take millennia, there would be no instantaneous event to record. The signal would go on and on and would last far longer than the average life span and so to us here, it would look like constant background noise.


Mate, you are thick. Seriously.


Brilliant rebut. Seriously.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016


Brilliant rebut. Seriously.


So come on Einstein; what is your problem? Have you read the paper? I have. Did you understand it? Silly question.
So instead of being a complete f*ckwit, set out your objections here. Scientifically. Mathematically.
What is your problem?
rodkeh
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016
Trust me, you can't play. You are a long way from understanding what is actually being discussed. Back to bed, for you. Leave it to those that actually understand what is going on. You are quite obviously not one of those!


Yuk, Yuk, Yuk! And you are just another scientifically illiterate Yank.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2016
Trust me, you can't play. You are a long way from understanding what is actually being discussed. Back to bed, for you. Leave it to those that actually understand what is going on. You are quite obviously not one of those!


Yuk, Yuk, Yuk! And you are just another scientifically illiterate Yank.


No f*ckwit, not a yank, and you still can't figure out a scientific argument against what you are actually railing against, because you don't actually understand what the f*ck you are dealing with here. It is beyond your comprehension. Stick to primary school maths. This sh*t is beyond you. Trust me.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
Anybody else from the world of pseudoscientific b*llocks? Spell it out. In maths. Where did they go wrong?

p.s. Wal Thornhill will be no help here.
rodkeh
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
Trust me, you can't play. You are a long way from understanding what is actually being discussed. Back to bed, for you. Leave it to those that actually understand what is going on. You are quite obviously not one of those!


Yuk, Yuk, Yuk! And you are just another scientifically illiterate Yank.


No f*ckwit, not a yank, and you still can't figure out a scientific argument against what you are actually railing against, because you don't actually understand what the f*ck you are dealing with here. It is beyond your comprehension. Stick to primary school maths. This sh*t is beyond you. Trust me.


Why would I trust you? You're a Yank, but like so many of your fellows, you like to impersonate others, so no one will know. Your ignorance will give it away every time.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2016
Trust me, you can't play. You are a long way from understanding what is actually being discussed. Back to bed, for you. Leave it to those that actually understand what is going on. You are quite obviously not one of those!


Yuk, Yuk, Yuk! And you are just another scientifically illiterate Yank.


Lol. And you are just yet another scientifically illterate groupie. Seriously, what is your problem? Spell it out mathematically. Can't be that difficult. Or didn't you do maths at school? Found it a bit difficult, perhaps. Taking it out on the rest of the world since. Not good at science? Hey, chill out, you're not the only one. Try joining Thunderdolts, you'll be right at home.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
Trust me, you can't play. You are a long way from understanding what is actually being discussed. Back to bed, for you. Leave it to those that actually understand what is going on. You are quite obviously not one of those!


Yuk, Yuk, Yuk! And you are just another scientifically illiterate Yank.


No f*ckwit, not a yank, and you still can't figure out a scientific argument against what you are actually railing against, because you don't actually understand what the f*ck you are dealing with here. It is beyond your comprehension. Stick to primary school maths. This sh*t is beyond you. Trust me.


Why would I trust you? You're a Yank, but like so many of your fellows, you like to impersonate others, so no one will know. Your ignorance will give it away every time.


Still not answering the question, sh*t for brains. What is wrong with the observation? In maths.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2016
Any maths forthcoming from any of our pseudoscience friends? Of course not. Just the usual b*llocks. Unevidenced cr*p must be true because Wal (or insert name of woo merchant here) has told us it must be so.
And they wonder why real science completely ignores them!
rodkeh
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016
Still not answering the question, sh*t for brains. What is wrong with the observation? In maths.


You're a Yank, what would be the point? It would be beyond your grasp.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
Still not answering the question, sh*t for brains. What is wrong with the observation? In maths.


You're a Yank, what would be the point? It would be beyond your grasp.


What the f *ck is your problem? I am not now, nor ever have been a 'yank'. Doubt that you even know the meaning of the word. Ever heard of Auckland?
So, apart from that, sh*t for brains, we are still waiting for a mathematical critique of this paper. When can we expect it?

Or, as usual, is it all just blowhard BS, with nothing to back it up?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
Well, looks like he went to the Stephen Crothers school of mathematics, and is refusing to answer. Think we'll find a lot of that over the next few days, until they find a new myth to convince themselves that this can't possibly be true.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016
By the way; anybody noticed how the electric comet is getting along recently? Just asking, like.
rodkeh
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016
jonesie,
You can't hide it. You're a Yank, the demands you make prove it.
Sherrin
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016
"Gravitational waves were predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity in 1916, and now, almost exactly 100 years later, the faint ripples across space-time have been found."

Almost exactly? Well which is it? Almost 100 years or exactly 100 years? It can't be both. And this is a science site??
del2
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2016
"Gravitational waves were predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity in 1916, and now, almost exactly 100 years later, the faint ripples across space-time have been found."

Almost exactly? Well which is it? Almost 100 years or exactly 100 years? It can't be both. And this is a science site??

Well, the event was actually recorded last year, but it took a while to check, double-check and confirm. So it's exactly 100 years, within experimental error :-)
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2016
"Gravitational waves were predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity in 1916, and now, almost exactly 100 years later, the faint ripples across space-time have been found."

Almost exactly? Well which is it? Almost 100 years or exactly 100 years? It can't be both. And this is a science site??

GWs were discovered and you fuss over this ?
Have a bad hair day ?
Phys1
3.6 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2016
@rodkeh
jonesie,
You can't hide it. You're a Yank, the demands you make prove it.

And you don't mind exposing yourself as a moron.
Phys1
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2016
As long as cranks are not cleansed off this site lets all block the ads.
___
Do not feed the following
trolls: plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime gkam kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 swordsman viko_mx DavidW BartV bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 LifeBasedLogic Reg Mundy vidyunmaya Osiris1 obama_socks
pariahs: bschott
psychos: Benni ichisan rodkeh
This list is updated continuously.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2016
Ever heard of Auckland?

My advice: don't give these psychopaths any personal information.
ichisan may fly over to kill you with a log of wood.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2016
So if you had three LIGOs instead of just two, could you then pinpoint the location in the sky of the colliding pair?

Depends. If the source happens to be in the plane of the three detectors then: not exactly. That's why it's best to have four (or more) that are not co-planar (three are always co-planar).

With the italian and the japanese detector coming on line soon (and potentially one in India and maybe eventually one in space) it should be possible to get good resolution.

unmodeled/unmitigated changes in the detection system, electronics, mechanics, vacuum, thermodynamics, seismics and EM interference

Filtering out the noise is a very challenging issue, no doubt. But that's why they have two detectors. Mechanic/seismic/electronic issues don't travel accross the united states at the speed of light. Characterizing noise helps delineate what is noise and what isn't.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2016
First of all, you would need an event to detect. If two BHs were to merge it would take millennia, there would be no instantaneous event to record.

The signal that is discernible is of the last moments of the merger, when these highly localized masses are moving at incredible speeds (roughly half the speed of light). There are lots of gravitational waves before that but they are very small - far too small to detect. That last moment, however is very violent. During that timespan (0.2sec) it converts a good percentage (about 5% in this case) of the masses of the black hole into gravitational waves in one burst.

Even without math it is easily understandable that once the event horizons touch things will happen incredibly quickly as there is no way to go for either black hole but towards each other. No other paths exist.
viko_mx
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2016
As scientists have found the Higgs boson whose existence is pointless, so found and gravitational waves. The theory of relativity is wrong for two fundamental reasons:

1. irs major reason is that the order in the universe can not be defined without absolutes. For this reason people use it in their daily life in scientific or engineering activities absolutes as standards, and standard weights and measures, that are defined according to global absolutes to avoid chaos in the world.

2. Second major reason is that the GR is matematical theory that works with abstract infinitely elastic geometric space, which has no structure, physical properties and restrictions on which can be applyed arbitrary mathematical operations and tranformation. Therefore GR have nothing to do with real physical world.

Apart from this there are many logical errors in the theory.
promile
Feb 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2016
As a result of the work of the large hadron collider, it became clear that the big bang and general relativity theories are wrong. But why this is so.
The accelerator accelerates the two streams of positively charged atoms in oposite dorections to the speeds close to the speed of light to enable scientists to cause collisions between them in one of its detectors, with the idea to recreate a hypothetical primordial plasma state of the building blocks of matter, according to the Big Bang theorists. But such fictional event has never been happened and the base consept of this uniqe machine is based on the wrong assumption. This experiment concept is associated with the theory of relativity which states that when the charged particles are accelerated to the speeds close to the speed of light, they acquire enormous energy according to the formula E = m * c ^ 2 and when clash, they must recriate the fictional physical conditions as in the hypothetical primordial plasma immediately after
viko_mx
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2016
fictional big bang event. But what happens in reality.
Elementary particles move with resistance in the structure of the vacuum of space and this resistance grows exponentially with a linear increase of their speed of movement through this physical environment to become infinity when their speed reach the speed of light. Accelerating particles acquire only kinetic energy according to the formula E = (m * v ^ 2) / 2. Any additional power that accelerator consumes (in this case approximately 99%) is not transmitted to the particles as theorists of big bang and GR theories suggest, but to the structure of the vacuum of space. This means that even the scientist and engeneers to bulid more powerful accelerators, the result will always be the same and they will never the recreate the fictional conditions after the fictional big bang event. There is no matter whether the particles will move with 98% or 99% of the speed of light before their clash.
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2016
The big difference will be only in the energy consumptuion of the accelerator to heat the structure of the vacuum of space. It is interesting to examine how fast these particles will lose their kinetic energy and speed if the accelerating magnets of the colider be switched off, although the paricles move in the vacuum. Scientists have gone in the cardinal wrong direction and try to use brute force to understand the secrets of matter, but not in this way happen the things in this world.
promile
Feb 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Astronoom
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2016
The reason they did not find or detected gravity waves!!
The prediction is that all objects in space would generate gravity waves, including ours sun and planets, but so far they always came home with empty hands.
So whey the heck would they find a gravity wave going through ours planet system/planet, that came form many light years away, from the merging off two black holes, they even can't see??
This all occurs only one (one) time!!

They use a laser, a laser is light so it made off protons/photons, we know for a fact, that light behave as a pulse or a wave.
It all depend on the circumstance, light can have influences from explosions like a nova/supernova or the biggest explosions in space, hyper novas. (more people have the same thought about that)
Astronoom
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2016
Light can also change (wave) when its pas a solar explosion, just as it happens on ours sun.
Magnetic fields can also influence light, so it has not a straight line, star systems also have influences on light. so again you get a wave, even a change in direction when it pas a star system, even more with star systems/cluster.
So the simples explication is, that those laser light found influences from ours sun, or a shock wave, in that way its easy to explain that curve in the laser light, no need to come with magic.

Science start to act/behave more and more like a religious religion, they believe but they have no prove off any God, Science is the same, they believe but in the end they have no prove.

"Its a fact that people surround them with theory's, its a fact they take those theory's as a fact"

Albert Einstein.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2016
@mitcheroo - yes, three in a triangle would allow pinning down the direction with reasonable accuracy. The distance is calculated much less directly - the frequency of the waves and the rate of change of the frequency are a 'signature' of the masses involved, which lets the strength of the source be calculated, and then they can calculated the distance from the strength of the observed signal.

The "has achieved the first direct measurement" link near the top of this article is to a much more interesting article.


Many thanks mate! I've been searching for an answer to this, but didn't find it in any article so far.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2016
My comments reflect doubt in the face of questionable reporting
@bs
no... they're simply reflecting your known pseudoscience history
no evidence, just BS
[intentional]

so... you can't read? missed the linked study? you have a legit argument that undermines the evidence?
A declaration ... vested interest in a positive result is proof enough for you
not really - but is a far cry better than unsubstantiated conjecture or opinion, like you are giving

.

I'll bet you're American. You have absolutely no idea of what constitutes scientific proof
@rodkeh
born in US, raised in Europe and Asia: educated latter as well

and apparently i know a lot more about science than you trolls (esp. yourself)
This kind of stuff makes one wonder if...
conjecture, opinion and unsubstantiated faith based conspiracist ideation are the marks of a troll and uneducated idiot (yank or not) and you are displaying those traits only

thanks for the demonstration
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2016
@rod cont'd
Please, if you're going to call me dirty names, I'm not going to play!
you mean like this?
These jokers are just doing what is needed to keep the cash rolling in. Real Physics died long ago...Einstein conned these clowns
But being American you wouldn't have a clue
I suspect these peoples funding is up for review, so they have to show some progress no matter how contrived
Another ignorant Yank
scientifically ignorant and stupid as the average Yank
considering that you:
gave opinion
offer no evidence
are demonstrating Dunning-Kruger
lie and try to cover your own intentional agenda with misdirection

then:
we can only surmise that you are here to promote your own personal pseudoscience and troll provable evidence based science out of stupidity

the Brit education system usually does better than examples like you

i feel sorry for your progeny

Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2016
... despite they do violate the postulates of general relativity in its very nature, being quantum effect. ...

Gravitational waves are not a quantum effect.
You are perhaps confusing them with gravitons.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2016
How and according to what can be synchronized physical properties of the building blocks of matter and their energetic interactions in two distant points of the universe without absolutes that are unchangible in space and time - constant for the whole universe? Or in more little scale in opposite ends of the solar system for example? What can guarantee that their physical properties will not depend on their locations or time? How elementary particle understand that the speeds with which interact physicaly with other particles are constant, in order to maintain the established order in the universe? What can ensure and support that the power and the ratio between the fundamental forces in nature are constant, without absolutes which to be independent of location and time, according to which to be defined at the beginning and synchronized in time? What is ensuring the consistency over time of the physical laws that are embedded in the foundation of the physical environment in which...
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2016
Light can also change (wave) when its pas a solar explosion, just as it happens on ours sun.

Not even wrong..
Magnetic fields can also influence light,

Only its polarisation when the light passes through a medium.
so it has not a straight line, star systems also have influences on light. you get a wave, even a change in direction when it pas a star system, even more with star systems/cluster.

This does not make sense.
So the simples explication is, that those laser light found influences from ours sun, or a shock wave, in that way its easy to explain that curve in the laser light,

Simple and totally wrong of course.
no need to come with magic.

It is called physics, but to you it is magic.
Science start to act/behave more and more like a religious religion,

Nonsense.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2016
... we are living?
Time is absolute, through which are defined the speeds of different physical interactions between the constituent particles of matter and eletstromagnetic waves. If these speeds are different everywhere obviously would became chaos in the system.

The principles postulated in the theory of relativity are the principles of chaos. They can not establish or maintain order. Accordicng to these principles each element of system is right from his point of view and has the right to set the rules, independently from the other members of the system. This is the pure picture of chaos and anarchy.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2016
Hey Captain, I see they let you out. Can't help yourself blabbering on again. Do you have anything positive to say rather than just critisism of other contributors?

Even some humour, considering as you're a barely educated fireman, might help.

I'd like to say welcome back but ... your same old knee jerk reactions (remember those?).

Relax a little. It's only science - lol.

Wait a few moments, I will add my positive contribution shortly ( avoiding self hypocracy ).

bluehigh
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2016
In Penny Lane there is a fireman with an hourglass
And in his pocket is a portrait of the Queen
He likes to keep his fire engine clean
It's a clean machine
bluehigh
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2016
.. and the tallest poppies fall from grace.
Hollow men take power and take their place.

Yeah

The atom splits, Black holes are born.
Into this chaos Science warns,
the truth is written down on shifting sands.

https://www.youtu..._TENLIm0

Sit back. Relax. Don't have a cow man!

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2016
Captain, I see they let you out
@blue
WTF?
guy can't take a vacation?... just because you are not allowed to leave the basement doesn't mean i aint...LOL
...anything positive to say
already said it...
"follow the evidence"
...barely educated fireman
LOL!
It's only science
what i've noticed:
the same crackpots are pushing the same tired arguments and refuse to actually present any evidence while promoting the same debunked beliefs just like the typical religious fanatic

why not point that out and allow others to see the logical fallacy of their thought process?

that is also a fundamental part of science...
more to the point: the facts are out there for people to find, but no one can force them to accept facts, especially when a person is deluded to the point where they can't see reality and accept only a delusional non-evidenciary based belief system (pseudoscience, religion, etc)

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2016
@blue cont'd
good poem... thanks...
Don't have a cow man!
not having a cow, really

as i pointed out in the beginning:
there is evidence (and they're not offering evidence of refute)

given that it matches a prediction, it is therefore strong indication that said evidence is in fact measurement of GW's
the measurement is not singular (a good post by shavera- thanks)
there are no other devices active to corroborate that event at this time
this is not going to be the only event (this is science- we still test GR/SR)
there will be more (thus time for refute or more validation)

the trolls/pseudoscience cranks have been told this, therefore it is intentional stupidity to argue against evidence without evidence to support the claim (while making up conspiracy to throw off their lack of evidence)

IOW- they intentionally pulled an RC
promile
Feb 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2016
I proved Einstein wrong years ago
@rod
would love to see the Nobel you got for that... can you post a pic to imgur.com and link it here?
my data is unimpeachable
then why hasn't it borne fruit? predicted something that experimental evidence proved (like here: http://journals.a...fulltext )?

science is evidence based


priceless :D
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2016
@Captain Stumpy"then why hasn't it borne fruit?"

How naive can you get?


You don't want to know the answer to that, but stick around here and you'll be a witness to mass naivety. Take this announcement for example....


Talking to one of your self created puppets.... yet again... ?
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2016
Well lets just say it stinks of nonsense!


It is good to see some real understanding and common sense. These jokers are just doing what is needed to keep the cash rolling in. Real Physics died long ago; there hasn't been any real science since Einstein conned these clowns.


Einstein didn't even believe Black holes were possible, these clowns say he said a lot of things he never did,


The only clowns here is you and your circus puppets, keeping yourselves in the circle jerk by clicking on all the bananas we feed you... we like the humour, and exposing it everytime is priceless... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2016
You'll be happy to know that in your absence a couple of guys have been working really hard at keeping the stupid alive and doing almost as good a job at it as you. But good to have you back as you are the master.

Ciao.


you ust be getting tired of all those bannanas we feed you and your puppets... (pssst hint) there's a way out, try to read evidence, it will open your mind to endless possibilities.... There's more to life than being stuck in the circle jerk, i promise ;) !
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2016
@rod cont'd
Please, if you're going to call me dirty names, I'm not going to play!
you mean like this?
These jokers are just doing what is needed to keep the cash rolling in. Real Physics died long ago...Einstein conned these clowns
But being American you wouldn't have a clue
I suspect these peoples funding is up for review, so they have to show some progress no matter how contrived
Another ignorant Yank
scientifically ignorant and stupid as the average Yank
considering that you:
gave opinion
offer no evidence
are demonstrating Dunning-Kruger
lie and try to cover your own intentional agenda with misdirection

then:
we can only surmise that you are here to promote your own personal pseudoscience and troll provable evidence based science out of stupidity

the Brit education system usually does better than examples like you

i feel sorry for your progeny



ooooghhh rubbin it in for these clowns...... Good one Captain, monkeys love bananas... :)
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2016
Many thanks mate! I've been searching for an answer to this, but didn't find it in any article so far.


@vlaaing:
Even better, AntiAlias posted a link to the full original un-paywalled article - it is WELL worth a read:
https://physics.a...6.061102

Thanks, AA!
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2016
Gravitational waves are not a quantum effect. You are perhaps confusing them with gravitons.
The gravitational waves are just bunches of gravitons.

That is conjecture, not even hypothesis. You have no renormalisable theory.
it's evident, that the gravitational waves are massive

It appears you think that there is conservation of mass. Well, there isn't. Massless radiation can carry off mass just as well.
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2016
the photons are tiny quantized gravitational lenses, i.e. the gravitons by itself.

Photons and gravitons are quite different beasts.
the rest mass of photon, which cannot actually exist, because no photon can be observed at rest

That is circular reasoning.
tiny gravitational lenses

Do you actually realise how unimaginably tiny the lensing effect of a photon is ?
Such conjectures are an utter^utter waste of time.
Old_C_Code
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2016
I'm amazed that anyone can call mainstream astronomy critics religious, when total fiction like: time dilation*, pulsars, and the big bang; are pushed as hard fact. YOU ARE THE RELIGIOUS!
Now back to your wormholes!
*Chassis ground in an aircraft, not earth ground.
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2016
Pulsar emissions have nothing to do with gravity waves. Gravity waves are a function of physical movements of larges masses, presumably dark holes. Large masses move very slowly, so the frequency of these waves much be very low. Too much "far-out" theory, very little reality.

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.