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 black holes. "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 gravitational waves, 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 neutron stars.
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:
Detection of gravitational waves would open new window on universe
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
rodkeh
1.4 / 5 (19) Feb 11, 2016mitcheroo
4.1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (18) Feb 11, 2016would love to see the Nobel you got for that... can you post a pic to imgur.com and link it here?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, 2016RealScience
5 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016The "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, 2016How naive can you get?
rodkeh
2.1 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2016Do I detect a skeptic? Perhaps someone who even thinks for themselves?
Good on you!
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016rodkeh
2.5 / 5 (16) Feb 11, 2016It 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, 2016http://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, 2016Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016so... 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!
.
@full of BSchott
http://journals.a...fulltext
evidence trumps your D-K pseudoscience
Zorcon
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016/lampoonery
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016i 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 religionand 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?
rodkeh
1.8 / 5 (17) Feb 11, 2016I'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, 2016Ultron
4.4 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016I 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?
sparthir
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016Not 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, 2016Are you Captain S.?
rodkeh
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016rodkeh
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016del2
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016http://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, 2016First 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, 2016jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (16) Feb 11, 2016Any 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
3.5 / 5 (17) Feb 11, 2016Well, 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
3.2 / 5 (17) Feb 11, 2016Mate, you are thick. Seriously.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (16) Feb 11, 2016INSTEAD 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, 2016Please, if you're going to call me dirty names, I'm not going to play!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2016INSTEAD 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
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016Trust 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, 2016Brilliant rebut. Seriously.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016So 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, 2016Yuk, Yuk, Yuk! And you are just another scientifically illiterate Yank.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016No 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
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016p.s. Wal Thornhill will be no help here.
rodkeh
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2016Why 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
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016Lol. 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
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016Still not answering the question, sh*t for brains. What is wrong with the observation? In maths.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2016And they wonder why real science completely ignores them!
rodkeh
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2016You're a Yank, what would be the point? It would be beyond your grasp.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016What 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
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2016rodkeh
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016You can't hide it. You're a Yank, the demands you make prove it.
Sherrin
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2016Almost 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, 2016Well, 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 :-)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2016Depends. 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.
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, 2016The 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, 20161. 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, 2016viko_mx
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2016The 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, 2016Elementary 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, 2016promile
Feb 12, 2016promile
Feb 12, 2016Astronoom
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2016The 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, 2016Magnetic 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, 2016Many 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, 2016no... 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?not really - but is a far cry better than unsubstantiated conjecture or opinion, like you are giving
.
@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)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, 2016gave 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
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2016viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2016Time 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, 2016Even 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, 2016And 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, 2016Hollow 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, 2016WTF?
guy can't take a vacation?... just because you are not allowed to leave the basement doesn't mean i aint...LOLalready said it...
"follow the evidence"LOL!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, 2016good poem... thanks...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, 2016promile
Feb 13, 2016promile
Feb 13, 2016HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2016priceless :D
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2016Talking to one of your self created puppets.... yet again... ?
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2016The 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
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2016you 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
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2016ooooghhh rubbin it in for these clowns...... Good one Captain, monkeys love bananas... :)
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2016@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!
Old_C_Code
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2016Now back to your wormholes!
*Chassis ground in an aircraft, not earth ground.
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2016