LIGO gravitational wave announcement

[MaartenVergu]

Ask yourself this question: would James Randi accept a 'move' of my spoon of less then 1/1000th of the size of a proton to accept the existence of telekinesis? I don't think so. Where is James Randi when we need him?

 

[jonesdave116]

Ask yourself this question: would James Randi accept a 'move' of less then 1/1000th of the size of a proton to accept the existence of telekinesis? I don't think so. Where is James Randi when we need him?

I assume you've read the paper; yes?

 

[JeanTate]

Ask yourself this question: would James Randi accept a 'move' of less then 1/1000th of the size of a proton to accept the existence of telekinesis?

Dunno. But I don't think so.

I don't think so.

Good. We agree then.

Where is James Randi when we need him?

Why do you want JR?

And why is your question relevant?

I mean, is there a well-established, well-tested model of telekinesis? One that's comparable to GR, as a model of gravity (and more)?

Doesn't exist, right?

So your comparison is between invisible pink fairies and apples.

Maartenn100, do you *do* science? Do you even know what science is?

 

[JeanTate]

I assume you've read the paper; yes?

Why would anyone, taxpayer or not, want to read the paper?!?

Or any paper?

That'll only lead you to consider data (of the quantitative kind), analyses (of the quantitative kind), comparisons with GR-based models (of the quantitative kind), ...

How could such things possibly be relevant to invisible pink fairies, telekinesis, and how mainstream scientists are conspiring to rip taxpayers off with expensive experiments which only "prove" what they want?

Sheesh.

 

[fuelair]

How do you know that for sure? Maybe there are other, unexplained phenomena outhere wich are no gravitational waves. How do you know for sure that it is not something else yet unknown? It is just an interpretation (confirmation bias) to interprete this 'signal' as evidence for your theory, because you are so focused on it, to find it. Maybe it is something we don't know yet. Why jumping to conclusions that 'it can only be a gravitational wave'.
The claim of the existence of gravitational waves is an extra-ordinary claim. You need exta-ordinary evidence.
You need a lot more then one 'move' of one thousandth the width of a proton to convince the public.

How do you know,other forces/phenomena/whatever the hell there is. It doesn't matter because you are not going to find them because you do not want to learn how and practice doing it. Real scientists do not just sit around saying ( or writing pointlessly on the internet) crap, thinking crap and not bothering to learn the math (or even vaguely understand it). Your (way) betters have done it again. You haven't and never will.

 

[macdoc]

Maarteen

How do you know that for sure? Maybe there are other, unexplained phenomena outhere wich are no gravitational waves. How do you know for sure that it is not something else yet unknown? It is just an interpretation (confirmation bias) to interprete this 'signal' as evidence for your theory, because you are so focused on it, to find it. Maybe it is something we don't know yet. Why jumping to conclusions that 'it can only be a gravitational wave'.
The claim of the existence of gravitational waves is an extra-ordinary claim. You need exta-ordinary evidence.
You need a lot more then one 'move' of one thousandth the width of a proton to convince the public.

Because millions of dollars and 4 decades have been spent eliminating other forces and the fundamental way we understand the forces in the universe has been confirmed AGAIN.
EVERY result and theory is open to new evidence...if you have some, present it ...if you have none except meaningless blather then STFU

You are a waste of electrons.

The very fact you ask the question "how do you know for sure " means you do not understand science at all.
You invoke Randi...you are not a skeptic ...you are merely ignorant of your universe and the body of human knowledge that underpins this breakthrough.

You wouldn't understand evidence if it bit you because you are ignorant of the field and as for joe public ....they get on aeroplanes blithely despite the reality that aerodynamic theory is a work in progress.

The computer you post your nonsense on depends on unimaginably small aspects of reality.....you really realy don't get it do you..

This is not some random thing being looked for ...it is an outcome of Einstein's theory...a predicted outcome....that's WHY it was looked for.

 

[surreptitious57]

If gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light does it mean that they are massless and can not experience time
like a photon? Does it also mean it is no longer true that nothing can travel as fast as light in vacuum? Are binary black
holes caused by binary stars dying at the same time? If binary solar systems are so common why has it taken this long
to discover gravitational waves? How important is the discovery with regard to formulating a theory of quantum gravity

 

[JeanTate]

If gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light does it mean that they are massless and can not experience time
like a photon?

A bit of oranges and apples (GW are like classical waves; photons are quantum beasts), but yes.

Does it also mean it is no longer true that nothing can travel as fast as light in vacuum?

Yes ... except that GW were expected to travel at c, from circa 1916 ... the only thing that's changed is that GW has now been directly detected.

Are binary black holes caused by binary stars dying at the same time?

This is an active area of research, and (IIRC) there are two pathways to the formation of BBHs (of the stellar mass kind) that are considered most promising. Sorry, but I don't have the papers to hand, and don't want to rely upon memory, but in neither do the two stars in a binary 'die at the same time'.

If binary solar systems are so common why has it taken this long
to discover gravitational waves?

Binaries (ordinary star-ordinary star) are very common; BBHs are likely very rare.

The GW from a BBH inspiral is weak, and the rate at which such events happen not yet well constrained (or even understood); it seems that had GW150914 happened while the original LIGO was 'up', it may have been detected (GW detectors are 'live' much less than 24x365).

How important is the discovery with regard to formulating a theory of quantum gravity

Not at all, at the moment ... except that the detection constrains the mass of any graviton to be incredibly small.

With a few hundred BBHs inspirals observed, plus comparable numbers of BNS (binary neutron star) and BH-NS inspirals, plus detection of such events in the electromagnetic spectrum, it may be possible to put some weak constraints on some QG theories.

Better constraints will come from LISA, or relict GW from inflation (i.e. CMB observations), but I think it's far too soon to do anything more than speculate.

This arXiv preprint may contain a lot that will address at least some of your questions: Astrophysical Implications of the Binary Black-Hole Merger GW15091

 

[surreptitious57]

Why do stars in a binary system not die at the same time? Does one have larger mass than the other or is one older than
the other? Are binary black holes rare because the stars have insufficient mass to become black holes? Or is that one dies
first and becomes a black hole and sucks the other one in when it becomes a black hole that then leaves only just the one

 

[rjh01]

IMO, this discovery must come close to turning the "Theory of Relativity" into the "Fact of Relativity"... it is that important!

It also means that the people designing the detectors must now know they are on the right track... refinements in the future will likely lead to the discovery of gravitational waves from less massive gravitational events.

Actually no. No matter how much evidence there is, it would always be called a theory. A theory is an explanation of what we observe.

To complete the picture we need several more gravitational waves detected.

I wonder what the wavelength of the waves are?

 

[arthwollipot]

You need a lot more then one 'move' of one thousandth the width of a proton to convince the public.

No you don't. All you need is a flashy press conference and a lot of pundits talking about it on television.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Actually no. No matter how much evidence there is, it would always be called a theory. A theory is an explanation of what we observe.

To complete the picture we need several more gravitational waves detected.

I wonder what the wavelength of the waves are?

I totally agree.

 

[surreptitious57]

In science theory is the highest classification possible incorporating a body of knowledge which is as close to being
objectively true as it can be. For something to be a theory it to has be subject to the most rigorous and consistent
testing of all. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Special Relativity is a theory. General Relativity is a theory
Electromagnetism is a theory. So does not mean just an idea or hypothesis which is what the lay definition means

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Ask yourself this question: would James Randi accept a 'move' of my spoon of less then 1/1000th of the size of a proton to accept the existence of telekinesis?

But if it were predicted that a spoon could only be moved at most, say, 2/1000th of the size of a proton, then an observed move of 1/1000th the size of a proton would certainly be rather significant.

To complete the picture we need several more gravitational waves detected.

There are rumors (posted earlier in this thread) that LIGO has detected two more gravitational waves in December. But those obviously haven't been confirmed yet. The one announced on Thursday was detected in September (the very first month it was back online after a 5-year upgrade).

 

[EHocking]

Ask yourself this question: would James Randi accept a 'move' of my spoon of less then 1/1000th of the size of a proton to accept the existence of telekinesis? I don't think so.

If you could do it from 1.3 billion light years away and JR had access to LIGO equipment I think he would - except telekinesis doesn't exist, whereas, it would appear, gravity waves do.

Where is James Randi when we need him?

JR does not test science, he challenges pseudoscience.

Gravity waves have no attraction for him, in that regard.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I wonder what the wavelength of the waves are?

It increased as the black holes drew closer (and orbited faster), but... 2000 km at it's peak, according to this factsheet, if I'm reading that correctly.

 

[MikeG]

........
The claim of the existence of gravitational waves is an extra-ordinary claim. You need exta-ordinary evidence.
You need a lot more then one 'move' of one thousandth the width of a proton to convince the public.

Jesus H...

They already got more than one movement. They got two........identical traces at identical facilities thousands of kilometres apart, and at exactly the right distance in time apart to confirm that they were measuring the same thing. They then spent nearly 5 months checking and testing and calculating to be absolutely certain that there was no other possible explanation, so that idiots on the internet wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that they'd made something up to spoil their own silly little theories.

 

[smartcooky]

It increased as the black holes drew closer (and orbited faster), but... 2000 km at it's peak, according to this factsheet, if I'm reading that correctly.

That's 150hz!! (assuming the gravity waves travel at c)

That is a lot lower than I would have expected.

 

[smartcooky]

Jesus H...

They already got more than one movement. They got two........identical traces at identical facilities thousands of kilometres apart, and at exactly the right distance in time apart to confirm that they were measuring the same thing. They then spent nearly 5 months checking and testing and calculating to be absolutely certain that there was no other possible explanation, so that idiots on the internet wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that they'd made something up to spoil their own silly little theories.

And I imagine a fair bit of that would be brainstorming to dream up, and then systematically eliminate anything that could have caused the effect at both locations.

 

[rjh01]

It increased as the black holes drew closer (and orbited faster), but... 2000 km at it's peak, according to this factsheet, if I'm reading that correctly.

We need detectors that are 1000km long. That way the detector would be a lot more sensitive. This distance is half a wavelength. Could they be built? Do we have tunnels that long? Remember we need two of them at right angles.

That's 150hz!! (assuming the gravity waves travel at c)

That is a lot lower than I would have expected.

150hz is what the link says. So you are correct.