Announcement Thursday on Einstein's gravitational waves

February 8, 2016
Gravitational waves themselves have never before been directly measured, though Albert Einstein said a century ago they were out
Gravitational waves themselves have never before been directly measured, though Albert Einstein said a century ago they were out there, according to his theory of general relativity

Scientists are set to make a major announcement Thursday on efforts to pinpoint the existence of gravitational waves, or ripples of space and time that transport energy across the universe.

The waves themselves have never before been directly measured, though Albert Einstein said a century ago they were out there, according to his theory of .

They are believed to form around massive objects like black holes and neutron stars, warping space and time.

If gravitational waves have been spotted, it would mark one of the biggest scientific discoveries of our time, filling in a major gap in our understanding of how the universe was born.

Rumors began circulating last month that scientists at the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, or LIGO, were writing up a paper on gravitational waves they had discovered using US-based detectors.

"My earlier rumor about LIGO has been confirmed by independent sources. Stay tuned! Gravitational waves may have been discovered!! Exciting," said a message on Twitter from Arizona State University cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, who does not work with LIGO.

His words sparked a firestorm of speculation.

An announcement will be made Thursday at 10:30 am (1530 GMT) at the National Press Club in the US capital Washington.

The event brings "together scientists from Caltech, MIT and the LIGO Scientific Collaboration to update the scientific community on efforts to detect them," a National Science Foundation statement read.

They will provide "a status report on the effort to detect gravitational waves –- or ripples in the fabric of spacetime -– using the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO)," it said.

LIGO is a dual set of identical detectors built by scientists at MIT and Caltech to pick up "incredibly tiny vibrations from passing ," said the statement.

One detector is located in Livingston, Louisiana. The other is in Hanford, Washington.

A team of scientists on a project called BICEP2 (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) announced in 2014 that they had discovered these very ripples in space time, but soon admitted that their findings may have been just galactic dust.

Explore further: Gravitational wave rumors ripple through science world

Related Stories

Gravitational wave rumors ripple through science world

January 12, 2016

Rumors are rippling through the science world that physicists may have detected gravitational waves, a key element of Einstein's theory which if confirmed would be one of the biggest discoveries of our time.

Video: The hunt is on for gravitational waves

December 21, 2015

Gravitational waves are tiny distortions of space-time caused by some of the most violent cosmic events such as colliding black holes. The observation of these 'ripples of space-time' requires exquisitely sophisticated new ...

Advanced LIGO to begin operations

September 16, 2015

The Advanced LIGO Project, a major upgrade of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, is completing its final preparations before the initiation of scientific observations, scheduled to begin in mid-September. ...

Improved sensors help navigate gravity waves

June 26, 2015

Efforts to detect gravitational waves—which were first predicted by Albert Einstein nearly 100 years ago—are advancing with international researchers including UWA researchers boosting the sensitivity of wave detectors.

Recommended for you

Improved thermal-shock resistance in industrial ceramics

August 21, 2018

Ceramic materials are used in nuclear, chemical and electrical power generation industries because of their ability to withstand extreme environments. However, at high temperatures, ceramics are susceptible to thermal-shock ...

120 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Protoplasmix
4.1 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2016
Don't need empty speculation beforehand.
An independent confirmation hardly sounds like empty speculation, and if you think the LIGOs were designed and constructed on empty speculation, you don't know much about general relativity. Very much looking forward to Thursday!
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2016
PO has been very slow to react to this news that sent ripples throughout the universe today. It has been over 4 hours that the LIGO Scientific Collaboration in conjunction with the European Gravitational Observatory announced this press conference. It is going to be webcasted this Thursday at 10:30 eastern time. https://twitter.com/LIGO , http://www.ligo.o...sory.php , http://public.vir...l-waves/
arom
Feb 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Nikstlitselpmur
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
Cowabunga dude.
HannesAlfven
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2016
Why does this already feel more like public relations than an actual scientific discovery?
drewstead81
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2016
The prevailing thought is that the planets formed from circular bands at regular intervals....the avg orbital period squared divided by the cube root of the distance or something along those lines(Kepler's 3rd i think)........no one can explain this relationship as far as I have read except that its natural...sooooo i was thinking gravitational waves explains how we got planets(including Ceres and Pluto) in their current locations and speeds. If we are IN one of the sun's gravitational waves maybe we cant detect them from earth.....maybe not even within the bubble of Oort Cloud around us.....maybe i think too much.....
ichisan
1.6 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2016
There are no gravitational waves. Gravity is instantaneous just as Newton assumed. It is a nonlocal phenomenon caused by an energy imbalance. If those con artists/bozos claim that they found evidence for gravitational waves, you can bet it's either a lie or crackpottery. You heard it here first.
ichisan
2.2 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2016
This whole project was a waste of the taxpayer's money.
nuncestbibendum
4 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2016
While, if confirmed, this would be a nice discovery, it is not as earth-shattering as some are trying to sell it as - after all, it is a prediction of a theory that, so far, has passed all tests with flying colors.
Nikstlitselpmur
3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2016
The prevailing thought is that the planets formed from circular bands at regular intervals........no one can explain this relationship as far as I have read except that its natural....


I think that's called Gravity, which holds the planets in orbit, Gravitational waves are postulated to not interact with mass.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2016
Why does this already feel more like public relations than an actual scientific discovery?


Possibly more funding is required for yet more experiments to provide even more evidence. I've always liked the idea of gravitational waves. However, such waves require a source. It doesn't produce itself without that source. Something from nothing never happens, IMO.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2016
They found more dust.... Whoopie!
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
There are no gravitational waves. Gravity is instantaneous just as Newton assumed. It is a nonlocal phenomenon caused by an energy imbalance. If those con artists/bozos claim that they found evidence for gravitational waves, you can bet it's either a lie or crackpottery. You heard it here first.

Newton was sitting on the ground when the apple bounced off his head. His subsequent experiments were based on that seeming phenomenon.
Gravity requires a source to promote action; in Newton's case the source was the ground. The velocity with which the apple slammed into the top of his head did not require a gravitational wave to do the deed. The apple itself was on a proper trajectory as far as distance, wind velocity and other factors such as weight, ripeness, flavor, etc. Gravitational waves don't really exist without, need I say it...a source of that gravity. Throw a stone into a pond & waves form in the water. The source was the stone which sank to the bottom due to gravity
Nikstlitselpmur
3.3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
A Gravitational wave is a Time Dilation wave propagating out from the source. It has no mass and is only detectable by the amount of time that is Distorted as it passes through. Gravity and Time Dilation are now accepted facts so it's only a matter of time until instruments technologically become advance enough to measure minute fluctuations in the Space Time Fabric, only a fool bets against Einstein.
obama_socks
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
This whole project was a waste of the taxpayer's money.

If you think of it in the context of having provided jobs and a paycheck to these "researchers" and you don't really want their children to go hungry...then perhaps it was worth the money. But, of course, I am looking at it purely in a humanitarian sense...with the fervent hope that they will actually show us the proof without any further ambiguity.
ichisan
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2016
Gravitational waves is crackpottery. So is GR. This is a theory that assumes that the universe is deterministic and continuous and that there is a time dimension along which we are moving in one direction. All of which are pure unmitigated nonsense. Even the concept of space is crackpottery. Gottfried Leibniz understood this. So did Immanuel Kant. GR has been one giant red herring chase, a complete waste of minds, time and labor.
ichisan
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2016
Why do I waste my time here? You're all a bunch of morons.
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2016

A Gravitational wave is a Time Dilation wave propagating out from the source. It has no mass and is only detectable by the amount of time that is Distorted as it passes through. Gravity and Time Dilation are now accepted facts so it's only a matter of time until instruments technologically become advance enough to measure minute fluctuations in the Space Time Fabric, only a fool bets against Einstein.

I reject the so-called "time dilation"effect. Time associated with Space in the form of "spacetime" written into mathematical equations has been a source of frustration for me, in that Time is completely separate from Space and is only a means of measurement, as much as a watch or a slide rule.
Time is continuous and never stops or dilates or reverses itself. It is an Event that is capable of change, not Time itself. Time may SEEM to have slowed or stopped, but it is only the EVENT that is affected by gravity, etc.
obama_socks
4.4 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016

Why do I waste my time here? You're all a bunch of morons.

Oh come on...don't be such a crybaby. Phys.org is fun. You might learn something.
antigoracle
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
If gravity waves, I'll wave back.
bluehigh
3.8 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2016
@Nikstlitselpmur

Space Time Fabric, A fairytale title perhaps?

Only a fool bets on spinning gold from straw.

Ryan1981
2.5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
So I went to the Wikipedia page and there it states that these waves transport energy in the form of gravitational radiation. This made me wonder if there is any link to the research done on dark matter/energy? Sure enough googling on this came up with some hits that claim to partially explain dark matter trough gravitational waves but I can't say if they are trustworthy sources and I don't have the time to familiarize myself with such a complex subject. Any experts here with an opinion on this? :P

[science fiction mode] I could swear these waves occur mainly when I am at work, time seems to go a lot slower there :P I can't wait till they release a movie about how the human mind is able to sense these low frequencey gravitational waves where our finest equipment can't (according to wikipedia)
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2016
Sure enough googling on this came up with some hits that claim to partially explain dark matter trough gravitational waves but I can't say if they are trustworthy sources and I don't have the time to familiarize myself with such a complex subject.

As you may have noticed from comments on this site: Take any two sciency sounding words and someone will throw them together in a sentence to try and make themselves look smart. The amount of crank theories rises exponentially with the number of such words bandied about.

Wait for Thursday. It's going to be interesting.
vlaaing peerd
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016

Gravity requires a source to promote action; in Newton's case the source was the ground.


Try not to make your own story from a historical fact, people might actually take it for true.

Newton knew gravitation was caused by mass, but couldn't explain why mass exerted a force. Einstein added that the mass was distorting space in which mass resides.
promile
Feb 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bla
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2016
Scientists are set to make a major announcement … the existence of gravitational waves, or ripples of space and time.
….
If gravitational waves have been spotted, it would mark one of the biggest scientific discoveries of our time, filling in a major gap in our understanding of how the universe was born.


This seems something look like the effort of trying to find Higgs particle, the difference is that the later was thought to rise from Higgs field while they have no idea how gravitational waves was created from ripples of EMPTY space-time; maybe this idea could help ….
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en



The waves are created by merging strong gravitational fields, such as neutron stars or black holes. The mechanics of how this objects distort space and time leading to vibrations of this structure, are actually very well understood.
promile
Feb 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2016
It's going to be interesting.
Not if we declare the existence of God on Wednesday.....with the math to prove it of course.

Why would that not be interesting?
promile
Feb 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SCVGoodToGo
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016

Not if we declare the existence of God on Wednesday.....with the math to prove it of course.


I hear someone claimed to have mathematical proof of God once, but it turned out that they transposed a function and only had mathematical proof of their dog.
Ryan1981
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2016
Wait for Thursday. It's going to be interesting.


The suspense is killing me :P But no opinion? From some further browsing it looks like gravitational waves can not account for the amount of dark matter predicted and therefore the theory of dark matter is still the best we have.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2016
and seeing a woman breastfeeding at a bustop the following day.

I don't get the comparison. Can someome translate this for me?
katesisco
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
Isnt it strange that we go at solving problems by finding the biggest unexplainable event we can find in the entire universe by proposing solutions that are themselves unexplainable?
When here at home, Earthlings have documentation from pre history up to today that lines and their watercrossings produce a magnetic field that human are susceptible to; so susceptible that during the Les Champs GLOBAL magnetic reversal lasting hundreds of years humans may have acquired the unique holographic consciousness known as out-of-the-body-experience?
ichisan
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
Get ready for a big disappointment or a big lie.
thefurlong
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
Get ready for a big disappointment or a big lie.

So, what you're saying is that you're resistant to all forms of evidence that dispute your hypothesis?
RealityCheck
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
Hi all. :)

It'll be interesting/instructive to see what analysis techniques were used to identify/remove the effects of dynamic interplay of our sun, planets and moons gravity wells.

I suspect they have 'detected' (read: 'statistically extracted') SOME sort of 'pattern' from the plethora of 'signals' which their apparatus 'generated' from the various possible 'sources' of perturbations/signals (be these from within the setup itself, or externally from local gravitational-well dynamics, or as an 'artifact' of the analytical techniques, assumptions and methods applied to synthesize some 'pattern' from all these 'signals').

Then again, it could be they found the gravitational waves they were looking for.

Or not; and they are going to announce 'something interesting turned up' but don't yet know what exactly 'it' is

Like already said by some: we are all just speculating and pondering possibilities based on past experiences and theoretical expectations.

Let's wait. :)
thefurlong
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
Proving God exists on Wednesday would make an announcement about the detection of gravity waves on thursday benign by comparison.

Given the speed of the peer review process, proving God exists on Wednesday would be physically impossible.

First, you have to define God. Which God are we talking about? The God of Abraham? The God of Hinduism?

How would you prove God exists? You'd have to establish a framework for doing so.

For example, suppose a super-powerful alien entity came to earth declared itself God. What protocols would we have in place for distinguishing this alien entity from God?
ichisan
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2016
Science progresses by conducting experiments to falsify our hypotheses. It does not progress by conducting experiments that try to corroborate them. There is too much invested in finding gravitational waves as opposed to falsifying the conjecture. So any pronouncement that such waves have been detected must be taken with huge grain of salt.
thefurlong
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
Science progresses by conducting experiments to falsify our hypotheses. It does not progress by conducting experiments that try to corroborate them.

LIGO IS an attempt to falsify a hypothesis. You falsify a hypothesis by ruling out all other reasonable possibilities AND confirming it.

I think you are confused.

The people at LIGO are supposed to rule out any other reasonable possibilities. If they don't, then they are bad at their jobs.
There is too much invested in finding gravitational waves as opposed to falsifying the conjecture.

Oh? Well then why was there such a concerted effort to falsify the recent Bicep2 results, I wonder?
So any pronouncement that such waves have been detected must be taken with huge grain of salt.

No. You need to pay more attention to how science works.
ichisan
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2016
No. You need to pay more attention to how science works.

Same to you, buddy. Truth is, if the so-called gravitational waves are not found, the usual con artists will simply claim that better or more accurate experiments need to be conducted. Then it's "give us more money" and the cycles of BS continues.

We've seen this before.
ichisan
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
You're all a bunch of crackpots and con artists. Soon, you'll get your what's coming to you. Wait for it.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
@ichisan
But why even falsify the Bicep2 results, if all they're interested in is confirming gravitational waves?

You aren't making sense.

Truth is, if the so-called gravitational waves are not found, the usual con artists will simply claim that better or more accurate experiments need to be conducted.


And if they ARE found, then you just implied you would disregard it, so what's your point?
ichisan
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2016
The point of science, Mr. con man, is not to falsify the experiments but to conduct experiments to falsify the hypothesis.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2016
While, if confirmed, this would be a nice discovery, it is not as earth-shattering as some are trying to sell it as - after all, it is a prediction of a theory that, so far, has passed all tests with flying colors.


It is not at all a necessary consequence of general-relativity that gravitational waves (or even black holes) should actually as a matter of fact exist. This is so, despite the successful experimental tests of the theory. Einstein himself wrote a paper proposing a way that nature might conspire to rule them out. He also wrote a paper proposing a way that nature would conspire to rule out black holes.

If they announce a resounding detection,… it will be one of the most important and remarkable discoveries in a very long time.

The point of science, Mr. con man, is not to falsify the experiments but to conduct experiments to falsify the [theory].


How do you do that, except by conducting experiments to rule out various frequencies?
thefurlong
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2016
The point of science, Mr. con man, is not to falsify the experiments but to conduct experiments to falsify the hypothesis.

No. The purpose of science is to develop reasonable hypotheses about the world (given prior evidence), and then test them through experiment.

Edumacate yourself.
http://teacher.ns...ixe.html
ichisan
2 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
Look, furlong crackpot, go pack it where the sun does not shine. Nobody is your dog here. Unless you have an experiment that falsifies your gravitational wave prediction, you're just practicing chicken feather voodoo physics. Live with it, Mr. Pseudoscience.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
thefurlong
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
Look, furlong crackpot, go pack it where the sun does not shine. Nobody is your dog here. Unless you have an experiment that falsifies your gravitational wave prediction, you're just practicing chicken feather voodoo physics. Live with it, Mr. Pseudoscience.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand welcome to my ignore list.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
@bs
If they announce that they have actually detected gravitational waves, you should shut up on this subject forever. Thanks.

If you don't recall we've been through this already. Claims were made, backs were patted, toasts were made. Then it turns out they discovered wavy dirt...Dirt under the influence of EM fields. They likely have found more of the same (if anything), plasma under the influence of EM fields.
ichisan
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
Look, furlong crackpot, go pack it where the sun does not shine. Nobody is your dog here. Unless you have an experiment that falsifies your gravitational wave prediction, you're just practicing chicken feather voodoo physics. Live with it, Mr. Pseudoscience.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand welcome to my ignore list.

I got your ignore list hanging. How about that?
Osiris1
3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
There probably IS a hyperdimensional spacetime that could be colloquially called 'hyperspace'. In it, light may travel at infinite speeds, certainly gravity would travel much faster than light no matter what scholastic fools rooted in 1905 thinking might say. Also, the kinds of right and left hand rules in three dimensions that we old physics students used to predict and calculate, with the calculus and diff-e-kews, forces and resultants in 3D spatial interations of electromagnetic interactions...... will in all likelyhood have 4D or higher Dim analogues to our crude finger points in 3D...and curls... and include the gravitational force, and a new force, a spacial compression/expansion force related to gravity, and just maybe a temporal force. Even a spiritual force is possible. The Universal Holy Spirit would live here. Even our off world visitors of different species and origins have said so on separate occasions at separate times
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
@bs
If they announce that they have actually detected gravitational waves, you should shut up on this subject forever. Thanks.

If you don't recall we've been through this already. Claims were made, backs were patted, toasts were made. Then it turns out they discovered wavy dirt...Dirt under the influence of EM fields. They likely have found more of the same (if anything), plasma under the influence of EM fields.

Actually, it rapidly became pretty clear something was off. And, you're wrong. While there WAS much media hype, the scientific community was much more skeptical.

See, for example:
https://telescope...y-check/
http://blankonthe...t-1.html
And a nice list of reactions:
http://nautil.us/...ics-news
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
...a time dimension along which we are moving in one direction. All of which are pure unmitigated nonsense. Even the concept of space is crackpottery. Gottfried Leibniz understood this. So did Immanuel Kant.


Einstein, as all physicists must do, took an instrumentalist approach by Defining Time to be represented by a physical system. Same with space. In this form, the space-time of general relativity is entirely legitimate and scientific, as long as one sticks to that operational definition. So, your arguments are unfounded as GR is not making epistemological statements.

However, subsequently, Einstein debated with the philosopher Bergson about the 'nature of time'. Bergson was right imo, despite not understanding the Instrumentalist distinction and accusing GR of making statements about the 'nature of time',... while Einstein stepped out of his domain and into metaphysics in taking an unnecessary Realist approach. None of which effects GR.

thefurlong
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
There probably IS a hyperdimensional spacetime that could be colloquially called 'hyperspace'.

...Because?
In it, light may travel at infinite speeds, certainly gravity would travel much faster than light

...Because?
no matter what scholastic fools rooted in 1905 thinking might say.

Well, it's a good thing then that Relativity has progressed passed that point in time long ago.
will in all likelyhood have 4D or higher Dim analogues to our crude finger points in 3D...and curls...

It's called a wedge product, and has been known of since the 19th century
Even a spiritual force is possible.

You are equivocating. Colloquial notions of spiritual "forces" are not equivalent to physical notions of forces.
The Universal Holy Spirit would live here.

What, on earth are you talking about? Do you even know?
baudrunner
4 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
On the subject of gravity, I pulled this from the Encyclopedia Britannica: "..instantaneous response would require the gravitational interaction to propagate at infinite speed". I take issue with that partial statement. It implies an understanding of the fundamental nature of gravity for one thing — what it is and how it works. But the jury is out on that, and we shouldn't make assumptions.

The speed of light is described as, "the single limiting velocity in the universe, being an upper bound to the propagation speed of signals and to the speeds of all material particles." What in that statement requires gravity to be affected by this limit? I can't find anything in current thinking that describes gravity as a signal, and I certainly can't read into any of it that gravity is a material particle. So, why should gravity be limited by distance?
Noumenon
4 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
light may travel at infinite speeds, certainly gravity would travel much faster than light


How would it travel faster than infinite speeds?
baudrunner
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
We are limiting our understanding of gravity by fixating upon the concepts of momentum and inertia. A body in space closing in on another body in space is said to be "attracted" to it, as if some electro-magnetic force, a force where the limit of c can indeed be applied, is pulling on it, and vice versa, in a scenario where the greatest mass "wins". The attraction between two neodymium-based magnets can cause the collision to shatter them. Obviously, gravity is different, because stars don't collide, they form binaries, like quark pairs, which when they are pulled apart have a stronger "attracting" force than when they pair up. Proximity relaxes that force. Rarely do we observe a planet or other massive body colliding with a star in the normal course of events.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
The speed of light is described as, "the single limiting velocity in the universe, being an upper bound to the propagation speed of signals and to the speeds of all material particles." What in that statement requires gravity to be affected by this limit? I can't find anything in current thinking that describes gravity as a signal, and I certainly can't read into any of it that gravity is a material particle.


It is not only an upperbound of velocity, but the Necessary velocity of massless particles. The is a postulate of SR, and for light, a derivation from Maxwell's equations.

If gravity can be quantized, the graviton would be massless and de faco travels at c.

I will reference the Hulse-Tayler [sp] experimental findings of a binery pair of neutron stars losing orbital distance due to loss of energy on account of gravitational waves in accordance with GR. The speed of the gravitational waves can be determined from this rate of orbital loss of distance.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
Obviously, gravity is different, because stars don't collide, they form binaries,

Sure they do.
http://www.dailyg...670.html
http://www.scienc...2856.htm
baudrunner
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
Bottom line: I believe that LIGO is an experiment designed to fit the paradigm of a false assumption. If an observation of gravity waves is announced, it might just be the product of an illusion resulting from the motion of bodies in space.

It can be argued that time is continuous.

As Einstein said, "no absolute meaning can be assigned to the conception of the simultaneity of events that occur at points separated by a distance in space. Rather, a special time must be allocated to every inertial system." To make interstellar passage, for example, requires moving from one temporal frame of reference to another. And therefore, the basic differential calculus which uses time as a constant in both sides of an equation is insufficient, for not only do we have a dt, we also have a dt', and the rate of change is continuously variable in the passage from star A to star B.

ichisan
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
Einstein wrote to his friend Besso right before he died:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

(From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.)

To claim that Einstein did not believe that his spacetime nonsense was real is to apologize for crackpottery. And guess what? The universe is indeed discrete and this means, using Einstein's own words, nothing remains of his entire pathetic little castle in the air.

You're all a bunch of crackpots and fools.
baudrunner
3 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2016
@thefurlong, please don't take snippets of my posts out of context.

Rarely do we observe a planet or other massive body colliding with a star in the normal course of events.

ichisan
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
GR assumes that the universe is deterministic. Major fail! Not even wrong. The universe is probabilistic and God does indeed play dice with it. All the time.

And yet you fools still worship Einstein's voodoo physics like the good little pet dogs that you are. You all make me sick.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
To make interstellar passage, for example, requires moving from one temporal frame of reference to another. And therefore, the basic differential calculus which uses time as a constant in both sides of an equation is insufficient, for not only do we have a dt, we also have a dt', and the rate of change is continuously variable in the passage from star A to star B.


You seem to be conflating coordinate-time with proper-time?

thefurlong
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
Bottom line: I believe that LIGO is an experiment designed to fit the paradigm of a false assumption. If an observation of gravity waves is announced, it might just be the product of an illusion resulting from the motion of bodies in space.


So, what you are saying is that, no matter how much gravitational waves are confirmed, you will reject it because you disagree with the philosophy that guided the development of GR?

A new physical explanation is only as good as how well it physically distinguishes itself from the old one. Otherwise, all you're doing is relabeling.
It can be argued that time is continuous.

...And?
thefurlong
3.6 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
Rather, a special time must be allocated to every inertial system." To make interstellar passage, for example, requires moving from one temporal frame of reference to another.

Actually, inertial reference frames have no physical significance (just as in Galilean relativity). They are simply ways for us to label neighborhoods of the universe. What does have physical significance is how we measure intervals. Two observers along different worldlines measure spatial and temporal intervals differently.
And therefore, the basic differential calculus which uses time as a constant in both sides of an equation is insufficient, for not only do we have a dt, we also have a dt', and the rate of change is continuously variable in the passage from star A to star B.

I still don't see what point you're trying to make.
ichisan
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2016
Phys1, you must be furlong's little bitch. This is why you talk like him.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
bluehigh
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
Yeah but he'll be sober in the morning and you'll still be stupid.

Weeks later expect ... Oops it's a mistake, um fibre optic not plugged in properly or didn't take into account dust and gas. Or we found water on Mars er well sort of.

Pigs with their snouts in the trough looking to validate huge sums of money wasted.
antigoracle
5 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
I think it would be more interesting to prove Einstein wrong, rather than right. His track record places the odds in his favour though.
ichisan
Feb 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ichisan
Feb 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2016
@Phys1, it's good to be aware of those who fail to meet minimum standards of functionality and rational civility. They actually warrant greater scrutiny if you think about it. And the site's a magnet for 'em, isn't it?
-=~=~=-
Isn't it, ichisan? O_o
ichisan
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
Proto, there can be no civility when dealing with jackasses.
Nikstlitselpmur
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
An independent confirmation hardly sounds like empty speculation, and if you think the LIGOs were designed and constructed on empty speculation, you don't know much about General Relativity.

Like faster than light speed neutrinos and the OPERA experiment used to look for them? In order for a credible verification for the existence of Gravitational Waves to have any validity it must be confirmed by two independent sources, as there is no other facilities than LIGO dedicated to the hunt for their existence there is no way of validly confirming the existence of them, regardless of what ever announcement they make, so up until them it is exactly that, Speculation.
obama_socks
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
I reject the so-called "time dilation"effect. Time ...

The effect considered to be caused by time dilation is an experimental fact.
It is silly to deny time dilation unless you have a good story.

The theory of "time dilation" is false. On Earth, time does not dilate, stop or reverse and our 24 hour day continues throughout the years. Humans have devised clocks to measure time according to the human brain's conception of what Time is. The same for moons and planets each according to its own orbit, distance from the Sun, etc. which differ from our own time scale. However, in deep space away from the existence of matter/mass (and humans) the time scale is governed by a different set of rules due to the absence of gravity and gravitational pull of a planet. Time in such areas is not governed by the measurements of distance, mass, dimensions, waves of any type. Time flows freely and is not connected to anything except for what we attempt to harness Time with. (cont'd)
obama_socks
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
(cont'd)
IOW, Time is in the eye of the beholder, or rather, Time is what we make of it. The human brain requires a set of rules to be able to organize itself and function properly. For this reason, some scientists have come up with the idea that Time itself has the ability to twist and turn, stop and go, reverse and go forward, when all Time is capable of is going forward. Time has no respect for matter/mass or gravity in any form. It just flows onward. We cannot control Time or make it dilate or contract. Except for the measuring of Time with devices, it is fleeting and is actually a product of the human imagination, mainly due to our environment and our need to control it.
thefurlong
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
Like faster than light speed neutrinos and the OPERA experiment used to look for them?

Ugh. The OPERA experiment WASN'T looking for FTL neutrinos!
http://i3.kym-cdn...palm.jpg
? In order for a credible verification for the existence of Gravitational Waves to have any validity it must be confirmed by two independent sources

LIGO consists of two observatories with independent interferometers and teams. You don't know what you're talking about.

Also, don't worry. IF there has been a detection, independent teams will be all over it.
there is no way of validly confirming the existence of them, regardless of what ever announcement they make, so up until them it is exactly that, Speculation.

Well, no. It just wouldn't be certain. Speculation is a hypothesis unsupported by evidence. One independent confirmation is most definitely evidence.
obama_socks
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016

Gravity requires a source to promote action; in Newton's case the source was the ground.


Try not to make your own story from a historical fact, people might actually take it for true.

Newton knew gravitation was caused by mass, but couldn't explain why mass exerted a force. Einstein added that the mass was distorting space in which mass resides.

It is the "displacement" of that space by the matter/mass which, in turn, exerts the force of gravitation. The core of the mass exerts an electromagnetic force. The distortion is merely the effect that is caused by the displacement.
obama_socks
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
Proving God exists on Wednesday would make an announcement about the detection of gravity waves on thursday benign by comparison.

Given the speed of the peer review process, proving God exists on Wednesday would be physically impossible.

First, you have to define God. Which God are we talking about? The God of Abraham? The God of Hinduism?

How would you prove God exists? You'd have to establish a framework for doing so.

For example, suppose a super-powerful alien entity came to earth declared itself God. What protocols would we have in place for distinguishing this alien entity from God?

That is where the old Russian adage becomes relevant -- "Trust, But Verify"
Nikstlitselpmur
3.6 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016


LIGO consists of two observatories with independent interferometers and teams. You don't know what you're talking about..


LIGO is one experiment and the only one that can detect such sources. If they claim to have detected gravitational waves, it cannot be confirmed by another instrument. Your knowledge on the subject isn't much bigger than the knee cap on a sparrow.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2016
LIGO is one experiment and the only one that can detect such sources.

No, each observatory houses a separate interferometer. You only need one interferometer to detect gravitational waves. Hence, two interferometers detecting gravitational waves means independent confirmation.
bluehigh
3.5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2016
Peer review, for what it's worth, does Not mean that the same cohort check the results at different locations. Even less credible if the results originate from identical equipment.

Anyway, it's more likely they will wrap a failure to detect as a wonderful achievement, in setting a lower limit. Yawn.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2016
Proto, there can be no civility when dealing with jackasses.
Of course there can. You have a nice day. And stay out of trouble.

See that there? Please don't make me have to do that again.
Nikstlitselpmur
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2016
Hence, two interferometers detecting gravitational waves means independent confirmation.


Not if they are part of the same experiment and use the same instrumentation, they won't be peer reviewing their own work either. It is impossible for LIGO to confirm the existence of gravitation waves without corroborating evidence from an independent experiments LIGO is the same experiment at two different locations. You can't verify your own results in the scientific community skippy. Sorry, guess you will just have to wait until the next blackhole merger, which should be along in the next million years or so.
Nikstlitselpmur
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2016
So what if gravitation in reality takes the form of a particle as opposed to a wave, would they still be detectable?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2016
No, each observatory houses a separate interferometer. You only need one interferometer to detect gravitational waves. Hence, two interferometers detecting gravitational waves means independent confirmation.

From what I understand you only get a strecthing of space if a mass is contained in that space (i.e. the surface integral of the gravitational effect is proportional to the enclosed mass). Gravitational waves do not enclose a mass, so the net surface integral is zero. Which, however, does not mean that the wave is zero but that it stretches space in one direction and contracts it in another (so that the complete surface integral over any region remains zero).

The reason for the L shape is that you get a larger signal by adding the two (since one leg is stretched the other is compressed by the passing gravitational wave )
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2016
Not if they are part of the same experiment and use the same instrumentation

They are not using the same instrumentation. They are using two different observatories, each using an independent interferometer to detect gravity waves.
, they won't be peer reviewing their own work either.

Supposing that's true, that's easily solved. You get other people to peer review each team's work independently.
It is impossible for LIGO to confirm the existence of gravitation waves without corroborating evidence from an independent experiments LIGO is the same experiment at two different locations.

There are certain things they are doing in unison, and certain things they are doing independently. Actually detecting gravitational waves is done SEPARATELY by each observatory using SEPARATE instruments.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2016
The two observatories will act as 'coincidence counters' to rule out false signals, yes?
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
So what if gravitation in reality takes the form of a particle as opposed to a wave, would they still be detectable?


It don't seem to be much of a problem for EM stuffs, right? Photons can be a particle and a wave depending on how you are working on him. Maybe the gravity works the same way, sometimes a graviton and sometimes a wave.

Maybe somebody that really knows this stuffs will chime in. I know the EM stuffs pretty good me, waves and particles,,,,,, but the gravity I need some help with.
ichisan
Feb 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
So what if gravitation in reality takes the form of a particle as opposed to a wave, would they still be detectable?


Even if gravity can be quantized, there will still be gravitational waves to detect in the same present way.

In quantum field theory all fields are quantized, or another way of saying it is, all particles are the result of excitations of their respective fields,... there is a photon field, an electron field, several quark fields....and it is hypothesized that the gravitational field will likewise have an associated quantization particle with particular properties,... massless, and spin-2,... or it could be that gravity is fundamentally different in some way.

How to detect particles requires a different experimental arrangement to produce them,... as in a particle accelerator with concentrated energy. I'm not sure how gravitons would be produced or detected though.

Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2016
How to detect particles requires a different experimental arrangement to produce them,... as in a particle accelerator with concentrated energy. I'm not sure how gravitons would be produced or detected though.
It requires a different arrangement to detect them. According to Dyson, for the required sensitivity, the LIGO mirrors would need to be so massive that they would collapse and form black holes. Krauss and Wilczek pointed out the possibility that gravitons may have formed from vacuum fluctuations during inflation, in which case they would evolve into gravitational waves during expansion and hence could be detected by their imprint on the cosmic microwave background in the form of differences in the polarization of the light.

To detect them at CERN they actually have to look for missing energy (in the products of the collisions). See http://home.cern/...ck-holes
Nikstlitselpmur
3 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2016
It don't seem to be much of a problem for EM stuffs, right? Photons can be a particle and a wave depending on how you are working on him. Maybe the gravity works the same way, sometimes a graviton and sometimes a wave.

Maybe somebody that really knows this stuffs will chime in. I know the EM stuffs pretty good me, waves and particles,,,,,, but the gravity I need some help with.


So what if EM which is effected by gravity,(light Bends) only appear as waves (optical illusion) because they follow the gravitational waves generated by massive objects. Or in other words, maybe the photon quanta only appears as a wave because it follows the waves generated by gravitational waves.
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
So what if EM which is effected by gravity,(light Bends) only appear as waves (optical illusion) because they follow the gravitational waves generated by massive objects.

Well Skippy that is a good theory. I wonder why none of the scientist-Skippys over the last hundred years did not think of that.

Cher with all due respect, some of the smartest Skippys that ever skipped around on the earth have been looking at photons and EM waves for the last hundred of years. And the smartest ones out of all them agree. It IS particles and it IS waves, it just depends on what you are doing which you will get.

Or in other words, maybe the photon quanta only appears as a wave because it follows the waves generated by gravitational waves.

You just said that already one time in this same postum and I am not going to take out the time to type it out again.
ichisan
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2016
All relativists are dumb jackasses. The only language a stubborn donkey understands is a two-by-four between the eyes.

Let me guess. You are in jail for murder.

I thought you were ignoring me. What happened? Don't tell me, I know. You just have to kiss furlong's arse seeing that you're his little bitch and all.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
ichisan
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
BTW, tomorrow is the big day of nothing. I can't wait to make more fun of you relativist fools.
Nikstlitselpmur
3 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2016


I wonder why none of the scientist-Skippys over the last hundred years did not think of that. For the same reason none of the skippies for the last two thousand years preceding the last one hundred years didn't deduce that light was a particle. Tinfoil hadn't been invented.

Light quanta is bound to gravity, it is well known to affect the path of light, if gravity takes the form of waves then by logic light quanta would also take the form of waves, not because it is a wave to begin with, rather because it is only following the path of gravity. Cause and effect. Prior to the last 100 years the brightest skippies all agreed that light was a wave and not a particle, Einstein tried to explain it away as being both, but we all know you can't be in two places at once.
Nikstlitselpmur
3 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2016


I wonder why none of the scientist-Skippys over the last hundred years did not think of that.
For the same reason none of the skippies for the last two thousand years preceding the last one hundred years didn't deduce that light was a particle. Tinfoil hadn't been invented.

Light quanta is bound to gravity, it is well known to affect the path of light, if gravity takes the form of waves then by logic light quanta would also take the form of waves, not because it is a wave to begin with, rather because it is only following the path of gravity. Cause and effect. Prior to the last 100 years the brightest skippies all agreed that light was a wave and not a particle, Einstein tried to explain it away as being both, but we all know you can't be in two places at once.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2016
none of the skippies for the last two thousand years preceding the last one hundred years didn't deduce that light was a particle

Make that up all on your own? Maybe you would like to lay the blame off on somebody else. Aristotle-Skippy thought it was the particle over two thousand years ago. And the conventional wisdom was particle right up into the first part of the 20th century. It was because they thought Newton just had to be right and Huygens wrong.

Tinfoil hadn't been invented.

Aren't you glad it was?

Light quanta is bound to gravity,

Is that troll gobbledygook or crankpot gobbledygook?

Prior to the last 100 years the brightest skippies all agreed that light was a wave and not a particle

You can keep saying that but it is still wrong.

Einstein tried to explain it away as being both, but we all know you can't be in two places at once

Don't have to be two places at once.It just depends on what you are doing when you are looking.
Nikstlitselpmur
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2016
Using this model describe what happens when I switch on my laser pointer.


If you fire you laser pointer between a slit it will take on the properties of a wave once past the slit, no?
Nikstlitselpmur
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2016


Light quanta is bound to gravity,

Is that troll gobbledygook or crankpot gobbledygook?


Light is affected by gravity, gravity affects spacetime, and photons must follow a path in spacetime. As spacetime curves the path photons take is changed--Arthur Eddington's gobbledygook
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2016


Light quanta is bound to gravity,

Is that troll gobbledygook or crankpot gobbledygook?


Light is affected by gravity, gravity affects spacetime, and photons must follow a path in spacetime. As spacetime curves the path photons take is changed--Arthur Eddington's gobbledygook


Well I ain't got nothing more to trade for your gold so the king is just going to have to lop off my head. It takes more than just a run of the mill troll, er, I mean imp, to keep me interested.
Nikstlitselpmur
3 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2016
. It takes more than just a run of the mill troll, er, I mean imp, to keep me interested.


Dolts are known for their short attention span.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2016
Make sure not to miss this historic moment http://www.ligo.o...sory.php The press conference will be webcasted live https://www.youtu...4DFr4D4I
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2016
Make sure not to miss this historic moment http://www.ligo.o...sory.php


That's at 9:30 on my clock. Do I have to watch him on my computer or can I see him on the cable television?

I sure hope Really-Skippy is around tomorrow, I would hate for some of those Skippys who don't do their diligence to slip in six or even just a couple of fatal flaws that we might miss.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2016
@Nik,... Photons by definition are particles. Whether light is observed as a particle or a wave has only to do with how it is observered (Ira-Skippy is correct here). This was even the case before quantum theory. Newton had observational reasons to think they were particles, T. Young, Huygens, then Maxwell, had observational reasons to think they were waves. Einstein then had observational reasons to think they were partcles (photoelectric phenomenon).

The fact is the underlying reality of EM is neither, but rather particles and waves are merely the form in which we can describe and observe them.

The geodesic path that light takes is dictated by gravity, however this does not mean that light-waves follow gravity-waves.
promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2016
Photons by definition are particles

Not really. Photons are quanta - not particles. They have wave-LIKE behavior and particle-LIKE behavior dependent on what kind of measuring apparatus you use. But just because they have X-LIKE behavior one should never make the mistake of saying tha they are X (particle or wave).

The thing to understand is that photons (and all the other stuff in the elementary zoo) give rise to what we term particles and waves in our macroscopic lives. To then use the concept 'particle' or 'wave' as an exclusive identifier for these elmentary things would be a false (because circular) argument.
promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2016
Photons by definition are particles


Not really.


It is a evident that you did not read the rest of my post,.... as I just made the same point you did :)

I did not say "light" is particles,... I said "photons" by definition are particles. I will stand by that statement. Photons are bosons,.... an elementary Particle in the standard model of Particle physics. The photoelectric effect demonstrated conclusively that they behave as Particles. If you desire a non-particle description of EM then you should not use photons.

When one says "particle" in the standard model, they are refering to the quantization of the given field.

Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2016
The fact is the underlying reality of EM is neither, but rather particles and waves are merely the form in which we can describe and observe them. - Noumenon
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2016
It is a evident that you did not read the rest of my post

The post was aimed at Zeph (as he continually fails to comprehend this simple thing I thought I'd spell it out to him in child-speak)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2016
Watch this event live streaming on Youtube NOW https://www.youtu...93kAiPZw
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2016
And there you have it. As of Sept 14, 2015, contrary to the predictions of crackpots, gravitational waves were detected, and the agreement between theory and what was observed was astounding.

Cue the inevitable round of denialism.

Somebody's going to say something like, "They didn't detect gravitational waves. They detected what they thought were gravitational waves, but it is really Frobenius Vortices in the Aether, and so my pet theory is vindicated, once again!"

Somebody else is going to say something like, "It's just math!"

Finally, my favorite will be the most direct, "It's a LIE. WAKE UP SHEEPLE."

I look forward to enjoying many bitter crackpot tears over the coming days.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2016
At what speed did they travel (c?), and how do they prove it?
baudrunner
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2016
I still don't see what point you're trying to make.
@Phys1, that's the problem. It's a real stretch for ordinary people to wrap their heads around the idea that your watch would tick slower or faster on another planet around a different star than the one you're on, but that's how it is. Operative words are, "temporal frame of reference". Temporal frames of reference are unique to every point in the universe. That's what Einstein meant when he spoke about the "simultaneity of events" occurring at different points in space.

So, my idea that LIGO readings might be misleading was made before the experiment vindicated my belief in a space-time fabric and that we would detect the shock waves of a cataclysmic event as ripples in that space-time fabric, but also that there is no such a thing as a gravity wave. I've been saying it since 2001, when LIGO was first announced. It's taken this long to find anything!

matt_s
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2016
@gkam

They were detected a few ms apart, consistent with being the speed of light. If the wave arrived orthogonal to the detectors, the time delay between signals would be exactly 0 seconds. If the wave was parralel, it would be consistent with exactly c. Since the time delay was between the two, it came in at an angle.

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.