The LIGO experiment may have detected gravitational waves- more information Thursday! - Polidicks

Main article from LIGO announcing the announcement date (lol): [url]http://www.ligo.org/news/media-advisory.php[/url] Essentially, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO"]LIGO[/URL] is an experiment with two really big detectors in Washington and Louisana, and they're huge because the detector has to be massive in order to detect gravitational waves. The laser that is sent through the laser tunnels is reflected so that it has an effective length of 300km! Previous results were false alarms or purposeful false-flags to test the facility staff. This seems like its the real deal, based on the email mentioned here: [url]http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/woohoo-email-stokes-rumor-gravitational-waves-have-been-spotted[/url] Email was a leak, but most importantly the body of the email mentions 5.1-sigma accuracy. 3 sigma is 99%, afaik. This is usually acceptable, but particle physics (due to its nature) requires 5-sigma accuracy which is something like 99.999% certainty (this being how little the data deviates). [QUOTE]According to Burgess's email, which found its way onto Twitter as an image attached to a tweet from one of his colleagues, LIGO researchers have seen two black holes, of 29 and 36 solar masses, swirling together and merging. The statistical significance of the signal is supposedly very high, exceeding the "five-sigma" standard that physicists use to distinguish evidence strong enough to claim discovery. LIGO consists of two gargantuan optical instruments called interferometers, with which physicists look for the nearly infinitesimal stretching of space caused by a passing gravitational wave. According to Burgess's email, both detectors spotted the black hole merger with the right time delay between them.[/QUOTE] So yeah, both LIGO sites saw the event and both had highly accurate measurements. Yay! Detecting gravitational waves would be awesome for astronomy (besides [del]further[/del] [b]truly[/b] verifying relativity), as we could now perform astronomical observations on objects by looking for/with [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational-wave_astronomy"]gravity waves[/URL]. Observation of bodies and objects completely invisible to human eyes and human-built machines so far, essentially. Like the black holes mentioned above. I'm hyped as fuck, who knows what strange shit we'll find now.

nice, i remember reading something about some twitter talk between some scientists a month or so ago that indicated this could be the case, nice to see even more about it

That's some crazy space science shit right there and it's got me excited

Sounds very interesting, I didn't think that would be possible for that to happen.

Finally I get to use ":johnnymo1:" What are the implications of this if confirmed for 100%?

[QUOTE=Buck.;49711295]Finally I get to use ":johnnymo1:" What are the implications of this if confirmed for 100%?[/QUOTE] It'd mean gravity propagates at the speed of light, not sure of the practical uses of it but it'd have some use in astronomy, and better understanding of fundamental forces is always good.

If confirmed, it will further validate the theory of general relativity.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49711470]If confirmed, it will further validate the theory of general relativity.[/QUOTE] Not only is it further validation but it's [I]necessary[/I] validation. The theory of general relativity (and in fact special relativity too) would be fucked if gravitational waves didn't exist.

[QUOTE=Buck.;49711295]Finally I get to use ":johnnymo1:" What are the implications of this if confirmed for 100%?[/QUOTE] :johnnymo1: x2 this is awesome

[QUOTE=Buck.;49711295]Finally I get to use ":johnnymo1:" What are the implications of this if confirmed for 100%?[/QUOTE] Gravitational wave astronomy could become a thing as well, letting us" see" objects with gravity waves. [editline]10th February 2016[/editline] Headhumpy and sltungle are also quite capable. They got it.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;49711395]irl gravity gun confirmed??[/QUOTE] yes, correct

[QUOTE=paindoc;49712383]Gravitational wave astronomy could become a thing as well, letting us" see" objects with gravity waves. [editline]10th February 2016[/editline] Headhumpy and sltungle are also quite capable. They got it.[/QUOTE] But if it's so difficult to even confirm the mere existence of gravitational waves, how can we exploit it further?

[QUOTE=Buck.;49711295]Finally I get to use ":johnnymo1:" What are the implications of this if confirmed for 100%?[/QUOTE] Pretty much just confirming an important prediction of general relativity. Direct detection of gravitational waves is extremely difficult because they're normally extremely weak and your experiment needs to be very tightly controlled. Actually we already had indirect confirmation of gravitational waves which was awarded a Nobel Prize. Google "Hulse-Taylor binary." I bet there will be a Nobel for this as well. There would be big trouble if gravitational wave were never detected. They're predicted by general relativity, and afaik theories with gravitons would have serious trouble without gravitational waves.

[QUOTE=Buck.;49712919]But if it's so difficult to even confirm the mere existence of gravitational waves, how can we exploit it further?[/QUOTE] Exploit it? How so? The applications of LIGO beyond proving things is fairly limited, excepting gravitational astronomy and possible advances in scientific computing (maybe). Most of the time big advances like this lead to little immediate innovation but may pave the road for something else. I wouldn't leap to FTL, though.

[QUOTE=paindoc;49713485]Exploit it? How so? The applications of LIGO beyond proving things is fairly limited, excepting gravitational astronomy and possible advances in scientific computing (maybe). Most of the time big advances like this lead to little immediate innovation but may pave the road for something else. I wouldn't leap to FTL, though.[/QUOTE] I mean it took nearly 100 years to confirm the theory and finally detect them, gravitational waves sound hard to work with. It feels futile. Or is it now just a matter of observing and collecting enough data that we could start seeing patterns that lead to even further discoveries?

Wasn't the other "discovery" also 5 sigma?

[QUOTE=paindoc;49713485]Exploit it? How so? The applications of LIGO beyond proving things is fairly limited, excepting gravitational astronomy and possible advances in scientific computing (maybe). Most of the time big advances like this lead to little immediate innovation but may pave the road for something else. I wouldn't leap to FTL, though.[/QUOTE] All we need now is a gun that generates and shoots graviton particles, duh.

[QUOTE=Buck.;49713794]I mean it took nearly 100 years to confirm the theory and finally detect them, gravitational waves sound hard to work with. It feels futile. Or is it now just a matter of observing and collecting enough data that we could start seeing patterns that lead to even further discoveries?[/QUOTE] Well, this is just kinda how discovery works. Think about it, we only discovered the technology required to make modern computers was only discovered 60 years ago and in that time we've shrunk down computers from being gargantuan building-sized contraptions to being small enough to fit in your pocket. There's no telling where this discovery will lead, but it currently seems to be reaffirming current quantum theory which means that we might be getting closer to a very accurate view of how the universe works.

[QUOTE=phygon;49714198]it currently seems to be reaffirming current quantum theory[/QUOTE] It has little to do with quantum theory at the moment.

[QUOTE=Buck.;49713794]I mean it took nearly 100 years to confirm the theory and finally detect them, gravitational waves sound hard to work with. It feels futile. Or is it now just a matter of observing and collecting enough data that we could start seeing patterns that lead to even further discoveries?[/QUOTE] It would lead to further discoveries, as we previously didn't have the instrumentation to detect these waves and didn't have any proof that they exist. With proof that they exist we can begin learning how to process similar data better. The hardest part of this was just the LIGO detector itself being so new. It only got upgraded to have the ability to actually detect the waves recently - previously funding couldn't be acquired. Mostly due to thoughts of "it's futile", I imagine. So do be careful with that thinking, there's too much of it around the politics of science as is :/ [editline]10th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JohanGS;49713917]Wasn't the other "discovery" also 5 sigma?[/QUOTE] Yes, but it was a plant to test the staff and see if they could differentiate between actual results and faked results.

[QUOTE=paindoc;49714439]It would lead to further discoveries, as we previously didn't have the instrumentation to detect these waves and didn't have any proof that they exist. With proof that they exist we can begin learning how to process similar data better. The hardest part of this was just the LIGO detector itself being so new. It only got upgraded to have the ability to actually detect the waves recently - previously funding couldn't be acquired. Mostly due to thoughts of "it's futile", I imagine. So do be careful with that thinking, there's too much of it around the politics of science as is :/[/QUOTE] Man, I'm sure glad I work in chemistry, where progress isn't as dependent on getting funding for that $10 billion piece of equipment needed to make further observations.

inb4 'surfing on gravitation waves' ;) [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Meme reply" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49714481]Man, I'm sure glad I work in chemistry, where progress isn't as dependent on getting funding for that $10 billion piece of equipment needed to make further observations.[/QUOTE] The field I'm heading for is going to suck too "yes we need several billion to build this reactor. No, it won't have positive energy output for a decade or two. But it'll work this time! We [I]promise[/I]." [editline]10th February 2016[/editline] Alternatively: let us strap this plasma rocket to the ISS. What can go wrong?

So this just proves the universe is a giant tablecloth right? [img_thumb]https://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/sb11-041505-spandex.jpg[/img_thumb] Confirmed.

We need now to discover gravity wave emitter. Maybe, if it sucks in enough air into a tiny ball (so it collects very big mass) it could work as gravity wave emitter. [editline]10th February 2016[/editline] By the way, it's quite amazing discovery.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;49714228]It has little to do with quantum theory at the moment.[/QUOTE] Agh, I messed up, Not quantum theory, relativity.

[QUOTE=spiritlol;49714797]So this just proves the universe is a giant tablecloth right? [img_thumb]https://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/sb11-041505-spandex.jpg[/img_thumb] Confirmed.[/QUOTE] We laughed at aristotle for saying that things generally wanting to go downwards was a law of physics, but we are doing the same now but only adding an extra dimension.

Downwards has no meaning ad there were so many errors beyond that with the aristotlean model

[QUOTE=paindoc;49715556]Downwards has no meaning ad there were so many errors beyond that with the aristotlean model[/QUOTE] I did some hand waving, sue me. Artistotle held that things wish to tend towards their natural resting state which, for most things, was generally down. He had other concepts which are irrelevant to what I am saying. Downwards can have a meaning insofar as it is that which describes the change in this model.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49715474]We laughed at aristotle for saying that things generally wanting to go downwards was a law of physics, but we are doing the same now but only adding an extra dimension.[/QUOTE] Not really though. In fact, an awful lot of physicists (myself included) hate the "rubber sheet" demonstration/analogy because, while it provides a decent visual, it causes way too many conceptual issues. What is the space curving into? So gravity pulls things "down" everywhere in some extra dimension because space is curved downward in that direction? No, it's just a poor demonstration that breaks horribly when you try to push the analogy too far.