"We have detected gravitational waves. We did it."

[MerlinJ]

So the usual suspects who continue to know nothing about Baseball think they understand the game better than the professionals.

 

[Michael]

So the usual suspects who continue to know nothing about Baseball think they understand the game better than the professionals.

Well, considering the events of the past few years, and the fact they've cried wolf before, one could be forgiven for not simply "accepting" various claims about finding gravity waves before they've actually even passed a real peer review process.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...sult-bites-the-dust-thanks-to-new-planck-data

 

[Michael]

I'd have to say that it's both disappointing and suspicious that no attempt was made to correlate the event in question with any observed astronomical event. There's no external way to corroborate the claim that it's not actually a transient signal, we just have to "assume" it happened exactly the way they say it happened. When they start tagging the claim with sigma 5+ confidence levels even *without* external corroboration, I can't help but wonder how real that number actually is. I heard the same confidence figure from the Bicep2 team yet apparently they couldn't tell dust from the signal they claim to be so "confident" about.

 

[MerlinJ]

Well, considering the events of the past few years, and the fact they've cried wolf before, one could be forgiven for not simply "accepting" various claims about finding gravity waves before they've actually even passed a real peer review process.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...sult-bites-the-dust-thanks-to-new-planck-data

Science is of course strengthened by informed debate. These objections aren't being raised because of any sort of understanding of the subject, though, but a general distrust of science. Experts disagreeing with other experts in that field is something else entirely.

 

[dad]

But there are sources of radio waves in deep space. And antennas on earth. We could use them to locate the sources.

That really doesn't tell us much. Yes there are some sort of radio waves in space in certain places....

There are sources of light in deep space. And telescopes on earth. We could use them to locate the sources of light.

In this experiment, they didn't correlate with that now did they?

There are sources of gravitation waves in deep space.

Maybe. Before going further why not try to explain what these waves were predicted to look like and why.

And two LIGO detectors on earth. We could use them to locate the sources of the gravitational waves.

Let's first see here that they really are gravitational waves. Then we can look at coordinates.

 

[dad]

Prove it is circular reasoning.

Just keep talking.

 

[dad]

There are radio sources in deepest space. We can locate them with antennas. It's not that complicated.

However you claimed we did not know about the supposed big black holes until the experiment detected supposed ripples in spacetime. So where did someone locate them with antennas??

 

[loveofourlord]

At this point that is probably more of an assumption (based on the underlying theory) than a direct measurement of the speed by this detection.

Isn't there two detectors sets? So knowing the speed of light, you can calculate the time between then the first one detects and the second one does? Not sure if enough distance to help, but one in washington, other in Louisiana

 

[essentialsaltes]

Maybe. Before going further why not try to explain what these waves were predicted to look like and why.

Based on numerical models of the equations of general relativity, the expected gravitational wave signal of combining black holes would look like this (2 examples by different teams):

The detected gravitational wave signal looked like this:

Let's first see here that they really are gravitational waves.

The only thing the LIGO detector detects is gravitational waves. So the thing it detected was a gravitational wave.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Isn't there two detectors sets? So knowing the speed of light, you can calculate the time between then the first one detects and the second one does? Not sure if enough distance to help, but one in washington, other in Louisiana

That's the right idea, but it doesn't quite work like that. That would give you the speed of a hypothetical object that moved from Washington when the first signal was 'heard' to Louisiana when the second signal was 'heard'. But that's not what happened. Different locations on a spreading wave from the black holes were detected at the two sites.

Imagine.... earthquake detectors. Suppose there were two earthquake detectors on the equator. One in Egypt, and the other in Ecuador. If there was an earthquake at the north pole, it's the same distance from the north pole to both sites on the equator. Assuming everything else was equal, the two detectors would feel the earthquake at exactly the same time. If you used that zero difference in time to try to calculate a speed, you'd get a nonsense result. The earthquake didn't go from Egypt to Ecuador in no time at all at infinite speed! It travelled independently from the north pole to both detectors at whatever the speed of the earthquake waves is.

Without knowing more, all you could say was that the earthquake was somewhere on a line of longitude halfway between the two detectors (which would of course include the North pole).

If the earthquake was in Peru, then the detector in Ecuador would feel it first. And yes, knowing the difference in time from the two seismometers would help you locate the earthquake... but only if you know how fast earthquake waves travel.

I think here they're doing something similar, but under an assumption that the waves travel at the speed of light.

 

[Michael]

Science is of course strengthened by informed debate. These objections aren't being raised because of any sort of understanding of the subject, though, but a general distrust of science. Experts disagreeing with other experts in that field is something else entirely.

The thing is, even novices are capable of asking relevant questions, and finding problems that experts seem to have overlooked and haven't considered. I've seen it happen many times in fact.

For instance, even a novice like me in terms of Bicep2 technology found it highly unlikely that the Bicep2 team could claim to have eliminated *every other natural* explanation for polarized photon patterns based on a single unpublished image from Planck data, and 3 or 4 paragraphs of text inside of 25+ page paper. Even I publicly picked out that problem in the Bicep2 paper within the first week or so, and indeed it turned out to be the Achilles heal of the paper too. By the time it got through the peer review process, the bold and egotistical "Sigma 5+" (necessary for discovery) claim in that Bicep2 paper had all turned to dust, just as I figured. Meanwhile something in excess of 20 "experts" had pinned their reputation on that paper and got to watch it all turn to dust because they chose to hype the living daylights out of the claim to the public even before it passed the peer review process.

Even this LIGO claim of discovering gravity waves is based entirely upon their claim to have eliminated every other potential source of this signal. I have to say that even as a novice in terms of LIGO technology that is rather an extraordinary claim that warrants extraordinary support. It's an even more extraordinary claim because yet again they attached a Sigma 5+ number to the paper rather than say something like 3.x which wouldn't be claiming "discovery".

Even after reading a lot of the material, I'm still concerned about EM interactions from magnetosphere activity even after reading this information, and particularly after noticing that it all took place in less than a second, and the waveform sure has the shape and consistency of typical electrical discharge patterns. Whatever the actual cause of the event, it would have to be something high in the atmosphere, and not exactly equidistant from each detector.

 

[dad]

Based on numerical models of the equations of general relativity, the expected gravitational wave signal of combining black holes would look like this (2 examples by different teams):

The detected gravitational wave signal looked like this:

Close, but no cigar. Does this graph indicate how far away the BH is? Does it indicate how big it would be? Then there are the complicating factors such as the time the little waves take here and what that represents there. Is there anything else in God's creation, such as some interaction with spirit and matter, or phase change, or dimension change area or etc etc etc etc etc that could possibly give us waves here that look like that?

There is a lot you assume.

The only thing the LIGO detector detects is gravitational waves. So the thing it detected was a gravitational wave.

Circular. In other words if we see something similar to the waves expected for some imaginary black hole, then it has to be a black hole.

 

[loveofourlord]

That's the right idea, but it doesn't quite work like that. That would give you the speed of a hypothetical object that moved from Washington when the first signal was 'heard' to Louisiana when the second signal was 'heard'. But that's not what happened. Different locations on a spreading wave from the black holes were detected at the two sites.

Imagine.... earthquake detectors. Suppose there were two earthquake detectors on the equator. One in Egypt, and the other in Ecuador. If there was an earthquake at the north pole, it's the same distance from the north pole to both sites on the equator. Assuming everything else was equal, the two detectors would feel the earthquake at exactly the same time. If you used that zero difference in time to try to calculate a speed, you'd get a nonsense result. The earthquake didn't go from Egypt to Ecuador in no time at all at infinite speed! It travelled independently from the north pole to both detectors at whatever the speed of the earthquake waves is.

Without knowing more, all you could say was that the earthquake was somewhere on a line of longitude halfway between the two detectors (which would of course include the North pole).

If the earthquake was in Peru, then the detector in Ecuador would feel it first. And yes, knowing the difference in time from the two seismometers would help you locate the earthquake... but only if you know how fast earthquake waves travel.

I think here they're doing something similar, but under an assumption that the waves travel at the speed of light.

hmmmm well having listened to a podcast that does science, this was before the announcement, but released after, they talk about how due to the way the detectors are built, they can tell within some accuracy where the wave comes from by telling where in the tubes the wave hits, and the difference between the two arms of the detectors. So combined with the 2 different detectors..it should help. it's definetly interesting :>

 

[Michael]

Close, but no cigar. Does this graph indicate how far away the BH is? Does it indicate how big it would be? Then there are the complicating factors such as the time the little waves take here and what that represents there. Is there anything else in God's creation, such as some interaction with spirit and matter, or phase change, or dimension change area or etc etc etc etc etc that could possibly give us waves here that look like that?

There is a lot you assume.
Circular. In other words if we see something similar to the waves expected for some imaginary black hole, then it has to be a black hole.

That's become par for the course in astronomy unfortunately.

I must say that while I have some sympathy for the LIGO concept, I'm a bit dismayed that there seems to be a strong emotional and financial incentive for claiming a "discovery" on these types of papers.

You'd think the whole BICEP2 fiasco would have made it more advantageous to be cautious, but the need to "be first" with some sort of "discovery" seem to create an environment where everyone is always trying to hit a home run, and always claiming that their fly ball is going to fly right over the fence. Could it be that a fear of BICEP3 papers drives the need for the LIGO team to claim that they have "discovered" gravity waves with a Sigma 5+ confidence, rather than assigning something like a 3.x "guestimation" to the figure? I mean if a BICEP2 5 sigma+ claim can turn to dust in mere months, how does that confidence figure from the LIGO team really calculate other "normal" electromagnetic possibilities?

 

[Michael]

I'm still rather dismayed that they would claim such a high level of confidence in their "discovery" without even attempting to correlate the event back to any known visual astronomical event. That seems very suspicious, and highly speculative.

 

[Willis Gravning]

hmmmm well having listened to a podcast that does science, this was before the announcement, but released after, they talk about how due to the way the detectors are built, they can tell within some accuracy where the wave comes from by telling where in the tubes the wave hits, and the difference between the two arms of the detectors. So combined with the 2 different detectors..it should help. it's definetly interesting :>

I was guessing that two widely spaced detectors, each with an x and y axis might enable them to resolve a general direction. Two detectors might also help eliminate random false detections due noise or seismic activity. A PET scanner works sort of that way. Events have be paired within a narrow time window.

 

[dad]

I'm still rather dismayed that they would claim such a high level of confidence in their "discovery" without even attempting to correlate the event back to any known visual astronomical event. That seems very suspicious, and highly speculative.

Well, maybe they could do that in a little time. However, we then would need to look at the basis for the distances and sizes involved for the area where they claim blackholesdunnit. Since they can't do that, we seem to have religion with a little extra fog here.

 

[essentialsaltes]

hmmmm well having listened to a podcast that does science, this was before the announcement, but released after, they talk about how due to the way the detectors are built, they can tell within some accuracy where the wave comes from by telling where in the tubes the wave hits, and the difference between the two arms of the detectors.

Yes, absolutely. But this will be based on an assumption (an extreeeeeemeley likely one) that the waves travel at light speed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well, maybe they could do that in a little time. However, we then would need to look at the basis for the distances and sizes involved for the area where they claim blackholesdunnit. Since they can't do that, we seem to have religion with a little extra fog here.

Yes, you've been defeated.

 

[dad]

Yes, you've been defeated.

Don't you wish. So far you can't even get the ball near the plate. As much as I hate to interrupt a worship session for anti creation folks...as this thread seems to be....I look forward to victory. Obviously demonic forces are trying to kick up a fuss with this issue. Lurkers and kids...relax....they have less than nothing.