Gravitational Waves Detected for First Time (Stephen)

Thanks for Stephen for posting this important scientific news

Off topic but fantastic news about the detection of Gravity waves by LIGO.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35524440

Excerpt:

“Scientists are claiming a stunning discovery in their quest to fully understand gravity. They have observed the warping of space-time generated by the collision of two black holes more than a billion light-years from Earth.
The international team says the first detection of these gravitational waves will usher in a new era for astronomy.
It is the culmination of decades of searching and could ultimately offer a window on the Big Bang.”

Some 35 years or so ago when I was still in High School I was given a book on Gravity Waves authored by P.C.W Davies. I think the project was mentioned in that book even back then. That book was was a huge inspiration for me and stimulated my permanent fascination with new Science and Technology especially less known aspects.

Perhaps there is a lesson for LENR here, with persistence eventually good results come.

  • Stefenski

    Wal Thornhill: An Examination of “Gravitational Waves”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Hoax81rkI

  • GreenWin

    At a cost to the public of $1.5B how does this, or discovery of a Higgs “God Particle” actually help any of humanity??

  • Gerrit

    But will they be able to detect the gravitational waves caused by the jaw dropping of 99% of the world’s population when the LENR paradigm change happens ?

    • Jonnyb

      It’s going to be a wonderful time, a ‘I told you so’ moment to enjoy.

  • Curbina

    My issue with this confirmation is the same issue with the mainstream reject of LENR. For most mainstream theorists gravity waves must exist, therefore, they will cling to any result or observation that supports that prediction and call it a confirmation. But when a result hints that LENR exists, but theory says its impossible or does not even consider a possibility, no amount of experimental result will be enough to confirm. So, I will wait until something more contundent of a confirmation is produced.

    • Charles

      Curbina, politics – meet science. Virtually nothing in science that is arguable is every “accepted”. Socialism has been repeatedly proven wrong and a failure, but it still has millions of adherents.

      Wonder it this proves my supposition that black holes get overloaded and explode as a new universe of some DETERMINATE STARTING SIZE instead of that hard to believe big bang from an infinitely small load of energy followed by in inexplicable sudden expansion in size that defies the speed of light limit.
      ..

  • Jonnyb

    Just ripples in the aether.

  • menos50

    Ah, ahem… pardon me , but 2 billionths of a billionth of a meter on a one time measurement does not make a convincing depiction of a positive node in any experimentation anywhere , at any time… Two supposedly massive, supposedly “Black Holes” colliding and creating this infinitesimally tiny aberration in a measurement device that is a theoretical construct to measure a theoretical force so weak so as to be functionally immeasurable??? How did they verify the calibration of the device? Was someone standing close enough to one of the tube that their body heat might have warmed the device at the critical point at which one the mirrors were mounted? Or any other environmental event that could have perturbed the incoming light to one of the tubes and not the other???

    Electromagnetism is 10-39th power more powerful than Gravity, but Cosmologists ignore it completely in their math yet it is everywhere around us in the Universe… perhaps when they start send out probes to map the electrical and electromagnetic fields all around us and begin to calculate how that effects us then maybe, just maybe I will begin to take them more seriously.

    For those who would like to learn : http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

    • Sanjeev

      Welcome to the “mainstream” science. Where something that is published in a “reputed” journal automatically becomes a confirmed truth. The journals are highly guarded to maintain the status quo and only the stuff which aligns with their pet theories gets published. The MSM cheerfully declares their findings as ultimate truth, which the brainwashed masses accept without question.

      No replications needed. No one questions the calibrations. Error checking is discouraged. What if there is an error and the whole funding (millions/billions) is withdrawn? Won’t it set back the “science”?

      This happened with the Higgs boson. One tiny reading among terabytes of noise confirmed it beyond doubt. Of course, no one else will repeat this experiment, so it will remain unchallenged. And if anyone does after spending 50 years and billions, too bad they can’t find an obvious thing. Bad luck.

      Those who question these high priests and try to show something that contradicts their holy text books is branded as pathological scientist. They don’t get funding or publishing or any mention by media as a punishment.

      • Dave Lawton

        The First gravity wave detectors built by Dr Joseph Weber showed gravitational
        signals, and the experiment had become a worldwide sensation by
        1969,but turned out to be some other anomaly.

      • Jarea

        I think the discovery of the Higgs boson was done accumulating different uses cases with low SNR where the event was produced. Then, accumulating these events they could reach 5 sigmas of quality above noise.
        More info here http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=5248358123737529836

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

      Excellent link, thanks. It’s good to see such unprejudiced examination of data even when it flies in the face of accepted wisdom. Off to read “Quasars in an Electric Universe” which looks intriguing.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is why there are AT LEAST two of them – soon to be 4.

      They measured basically exactly the same signal (same time, shape, amplitude) at two locations a very long way apart. This implies

      1. perturbation happend at or near speed of light
      2. no attenuation between points

      Seismic events would be subject to reflections, different attenuations and do not travel at the speed of light. Additionally seismic events would effect the two ends of each detector at different times.

      Do you think that EM (Photons at any energy) or any form of magnetism (things that travel at speed of light) from any kind of nuclear event or transmission would slow down and speed up the light in the lasers in exactly the same way in the two locations.

      The detectors have selected orientation… at the moment they can only say with limited accuracy where in square degrees the signal came from… with more detectors on-line – they will be able to triangulate the position of events with far more precision.

      It is the same laser that interferes with itself in each detector.

      If it was not from two collapsing black holes – but rather from an event in the earth that released an omni-directional signal of equal strength and unaffected by differing materials in the transmission path at the speed of light, that fitted precisely a solution for Einsteins equations, then in my mind – this would be an equally intriguing discovery.

      • Jarea

        Good explanation on how they remove the false positive. Thanks

    • Charles

      menos50, I’m sorta with you on the electromagnetic thingy. That is why I think Einstein had in mind James Clerk Maxwell, as well Sir Isaac Newton, when he spoke of “standing on the shoulders of giants.”.

  • Flo

    We knew that since Einstein, not since Bob Lazar.

  • Bob Matulis

    The brother of one of my best friends (Dr. Anthony Rizzi) in the world headed the Louisiana lab in the late 90’s. He is the real deal and this is a legitimate pursuit. Fantastic news!!

  • LilyLover

    No Agaricus, you are not missing anything. They are lying or are deluded or are engaged in PsyOp to see to what extent media can get away with fakism even amongst SciComm.

    Michaelson-Morley – Our failure to detect implies perfect refutation.
    Assumption: Experiment is so perfect that it always yields error-free results.
    Reality: Egomanicas with agenda.

    Distinct bright dark fringes interference – Our success at certain precise conditions, validates wave theory.
    NOTE: Total dark bands or low contrast diffusion is not tauted as success.
    Assumption: Expected failure at most variations of phases, success only at certain well defined points as predicted by theory and verifiable by experiments.
    Reality: A good experiment.

    LIGO – Keep us funded … Yay Yay Yay!!! Note the discardable Indian mouthpieces to be shed off after plentiful funding is sucked for next 20 years.
    What exactly are they claiming? They expect to observe nothing is the “wave split is perfect”. If something is observed, there must be no perfect cancellation. Hence gravity waves exists.
    Assumptions:
    1. The waves are gravity waves.
    2. The sensor “detects” gravity waves.
    3. They know answer to what the sensors will detect in the absence of “wave splitting”.
    4. The theory that gravity waves will “emanate” in black-holes collision.
    5. They are honest.
    All the above assumptions are wrong.

    Unlike Bright-bands in interference experiment, they are claiming success in Michaelson-Morley fashion in an exacerbated way of assuming success in broad range of variables and failure only at perfectly defined lack of proof.
    As much painstaking care is needed to produce the bright bands in interference, so much care must be exercised to produce a failure of LIGO. It’s a success by default – set-up of an experiment.
    Will the get the same results if the quality control was slightly defective? Yes
    Will they get the same results if theory was fake? Yes
    Q. Will the positive reading of sensor mean : a. slight success b. no success c. tremendous success d. gravitational waves e. non-gravitational waves f. unicorn-waves g. magnetic waves?
    A. All of the above.
    Hence the experiment is flawed.
    No, I mean – the flaw or chasm has some experiment attached to it.

    Thinking in terms of source and sink, the colliding black-holes will suck in everything, causing gravity-rarifaction-waves, if anything, which, shielded by Earths gravity and magnetism will be impossibly detectable to alter any observables.

    What they are claiming is – an elf on the moon sneezes to cause a piece of paper to be forced away from moon.
    The correct analogy should be – an elf on the moon inhaling deep breath makes the piece of paper fly high in the sky towards the moon.
    What I am saying is – elf inhaling has no effect on the paper since the atmosphere and so many local ransom variables will even mask the effect of 1 Mole Elves inhaling on moon.

    Note – how everything gets convoluted when you try to reach the “source-information”, hence all these big, no-substance articles and plenty of glitter!!

  • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

    I’m sure that I must be missing something, but I have a bit of difficulty understanding the principle of measurement. Perhaps someone can explain?

    The laser interferometer (LIGO) apparently consists of a laser beam that is split by a half silvered mirror into two beams, each of which is sent down one of two long tubes mounted at 90 degrees to one another, and bounced back by a fully silvered mirror at the far end to return to a common photon detector. The theory seems to be that a ‘gravity wave’ passing through the apparatus should upset the delicate balance between the two beams by red or blue -shifting one beam to a different degree to the other, causing variation in the combined intensity of the returning beams – a phase difference.

    However my understanding is that any distortion of spacetime will also affect light, because photons will simply follow the new geodesics momentarily created, in just the same way that they follow an apparently curved (to an external observer) trajectory when following a spacetime geodesic distorted by the presence of mass. It seems to me therefore that while the long tubes are expanded or contracted by a ‘gravity wave’ then light travelling within the tubes will be affected 100% equally, becasue they share exactly the same frame of reference, giving a null result under all conceivable directions and intensities of any gravitational waves passing through. It shouldn’t matter if the device has two or twenty ‘arms’ pointing in all direction.

    Surely this is like trying to measure the length of a steel tube using a steel tape measure as both get hotter. An outside observer using an optical measuring device would see both expanding at the same rate, while the local observer sees no change in the measured length.

    Enlightenment would be welcomed.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      As far as I understood it, both beams are not equally affected by the G-wave (except if the wavefront would arrive exactly from above or below).

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Regarding the other part of your question, since the speed of light remains the same (which is certainly a miracle), the time that the beams need to travel through the arms of the interferometer will change corresponding to the length differences that are caused by the G-wave, which eventually results in a detectable phase shift.

        • Omega Z

          Andreas Moraitis,

          Front
          I
          I<—-Laser Light injected into vacuum tube & split to the Front and Back
          I
          Back

          This may be wrong, but I think it's the basic concept.
          The Gravity Wave traveling towards me would compress space/time in front of me shortening the time the Laser Light takes to reflect back while behind me it would cause an expansion of space/time lenghtening the time the Laser Light takes to reflect back.

          With the exception of a precise broadside(a null effect) to both tubes, there would be a detectable difference in the time of reflectance regardless of whether the tube was straight on to the Gravity Wave or not.

          Note: Rather then space/time being compressed/expanded, maybe it is merely a ripple in space/time given it is a Gravity "Wave", but detectable regardless. Or have I got this confused with another concept.

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

          “the interferometer will change corresponding to the length differences that are caused by the G-wave”

          That’s the part I’m having difficulty with. It seems to me that there is some confusion of the local reference frame with the behaviour of the detection system as observed by an all-seeing observer located outside of this local reference frame.

          While one of the tubes might lengthen from the POV of an observer outside of the local reference frame, from inside the RF, i.e., the area affected by the G-wave as it passes, nothing should change because from the local POV both the distance between mirrors and the speed of light will remain constant. Any distortion of one will apply equally to the other, because space and time are locked together, so the reflected light should remain in phase in both arms of the detector despite the momentary distortion.

          The original Michelson-Morely experiments, and all subsequent replications, demonstrate that the speed of light is unaffected locally by local distortions of spacetime (in this case resulting from the orbital speed of the Earth combined with the speed of the sun resulting from galactic rotation), so I am having difficulty understanding why a similar distortion due to a ‘gravity wave’ should be any different.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I think it is exactly the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum that makes the measurement possible. If that speed would change when space-time is compressed or expanded – as the length of the steel tape in your above example – I’d say you were right.

            Let’s consider the ideal case that the front of the G-wave approaches one of the arms of the interferometer in a 90 deg angle. As long as it runs through that arm, neither the other arm nor the detector will be affected (to simplify a bit). That is, at least for that moment the detector is not part of the ‘system’ (= the first arm) of interest, thus it may act as a ‘neutral’ observer.

            Note that these are only my guesses. Somebody like Pekka could explain it certainly much better.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry
    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

      Mmm – using gravity (the force pulling the balls to create the ‘dents’) to explain gravity. A priori logic in action.

  • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

    Thanks Stephen. Scrolled down to a good video on that site.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35524440

  • Dave Lawton

    Gravity waves detected as predicted by Einstein ? Not true its a myth. They were
    predicted by Oliver Heaviside in 1893. I say give credit to were credits due.

    • Alain Samoun

      Maybe, but Einstein had predicted them based on his theory of general relativity – That confirm again this theory.

    • Zephir

      http://www.geology.cwu.edu/facstaff/lee/courses/g503/Einstein_review.pdf In 1936, Einstein even submitted a manuscript to PRL concluding that gravitational waves do NOT exist.

      The history of gravitational waves concept (the ripples of space-time being more general) is surprisingly complex and much older, than Einstein’s first publications. They were considered well before it, but doubted by influential relativists like Eddington and others. Many scientists didn’t believe it until Feynman famous (but still inconclusive) sticky bead argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_bead_argument