Gravitational Waves - this stuff just boggles the imagination

[nevets88]

I have to admit I'm not familiar enough with the field to grasp just how momentous this discovery is, but the resources and know how devoted and the magnitude of the nature's forces involved is mind boggling and inspirational.

Quote

About 1.3 billion years ago two black holes swirled closer and closer together until they crashed in a furious bang. Each black hole packed roughly 30 times the mass of our sun into a minute volume, and their head-on impact came as the two were approaching the speed of light. The staggering strength of the merger gave rise to a new black hole and created a gravitational field so strong that it distorted spacetime in waves that spread throughout space with a power about 50 times stronger than that of all the shining stars and galaxies in the observable universe. Such events are, incredibly, thought to be common in space, but this collision was the first of its kind ever detected and its waves the first ever seen. Scientists with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) announced on Thursday at a much-anticipated press conference in Washington, D.C. (one of at least five simultaneous events held in the U.S. and Europe) that the more than half-century search for gravitational waves has finally succeeded.

That's a 4K length pipe:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-waves-discovered-from-colliding-black-holes1/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/video/gravitational-waves-are-the-ringing-of-spacetime/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/12/einstein-predicted-gravitational-waves-100-years-ago-heres-what-it-took-to-prove-him-right/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gravitational-waves-have-been-directly-detected-first-time-180958123/?no-ist

http://qz.com/615137/does-the-discovery-of-gravitational-waves-foretell-the-end-of-physics/

[Jeremie Boop]

It's crazy to me how smart Einstein was that we are just now able to confirm something that he theorized about so long ago. Can you imagine someone with his level of intelligence combined with our level of technology?

Maybe I'm not giving our current generation of geniuses enough credit though. Stephen Hawking has put out some pretty crazy theories that may be proven by future generations once technology catches up to his brilliance too...

Anyway, all this stuff just boggles my mind.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Jeremie Boop

[boogielicious]

22 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

I have to admit I'm not familiar enough with the field to grasp just how momentous this discovery is, but the resources and know how devoted and the magnitude of the nature's forces involved is mind boggling and inspirational.

That's a 4K length pipe:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-waves-discovered-from-colliding-black-holes1/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/video/gravitational-waves-are-the-ringing-of-spacetime/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/12/einstein-predicted-gravitational-waves-100-years-ago-heres-what-it-took-to-prove-him-right/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gravitational-waves-have-been-directly-detected-first-time-180958123/?no-ist

http://qz.com/615137/does-the-discovery-of-gravitational-waves-foretell-the-end-of-physics/

I tried to explain this stuff to my mother last night. She is pretty smart, but physics is not her strong suit. The concept of space-time is the hardest thing for most folks to grasp. We perceive the universe in three dimensions and Einstein saw it in four.

[Lihu]

To the OP, this is one of the most significant discoveries in Astrophysics.

 

4 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I tried to explain this stuff to my mother last night. She is pretty smart, but physics is not her strong suit. The concept of space-time is the hardest thing for most folks to grasp. We perceive the universe in three dimensions and Einstein saw it in four.

My mother tried to explain it to me last night (actually both my parents), but physics*** is not my strong suit. . .when two Physics PhDs try to explain something to you things get lost in the translation

 

***Not really, just joking so I can say the inverse.

[nevets88]

Here's a synopsis from reddit:

Quote

Gravitational waves are one of the last major, unconfirmed predictions of general relativity, a theory which does a pretty amazing job of explaining gravity. General relativity describes gravity as a result of spacetime being warped due to matter. Gravitational waves are the ripples in spacetime that happen when you shake matter around. They are to the gravitational force what light is to the electric and magnetic forces.

But because gravity is much weaker than electromagnetism, we can see light all the time (just look around!) while we need to construct enormous lasers and incredibly (absurdly) precise detectors just to have even a hope of measuring gravitational radiation. Rumors are flying that LIGO, just such a system of lasers and detectors, has found a gravitational wave signal, probably coming from two black holes orbiting and falling into each other (because that's the sort of seismic event you need to make gravitational waves large enough for us to detect).

This would most likely confirm what we fully expect is there, rather than reveal something new and shocking about the Universe. Think the Higgs boson a few years ago. It would be a much bigger surprise if this radiation had turned out not to be there: general relativity has worked extremely well so far, and we have had indirect but extremely strong evidence for their existence since the 1970s, which won the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics. LIGO's direct detection would undoubtedly be Nobel-worthy, too; the only question is whether it would happen this year.

This is exciting because a) it's direct, rather than indirect, confirmation that these things are there, and b) they'll open up a whole new window onto the Universe. Pretty much the entirety of astronomy is done by observing electromagnetic radiation, from visible light to X-rays, the ultraviolet, microwaves, what have you. Starting now we'd have a whole other type of radiation to use to probe the cosmos, delivering us a brand new and pristine view of some extreme events involving ultracompact objects like neutron stars and black holes.

So all this will probably be announced at the press conference tomorrow, ushering in a new era of astronomy and physics. Or they could just be f**king with us.

https://www.elisascience.org/articles/elisa-mission/elisa-mission-gravitational-universe

 

[nevets88]

There's a pretty good layman explanation here, directly from the people who run the project:

 

[DaveP043]

On 2/12/2016 at 0:30 PM, Jeremie Boop said:

It's crazy to me how smart Einstein was that we are just now able to confirm something that he theorized about so long ago. Can you imagine someone with his level of intelligence combined with our level of technology?

Einstein was once asked if he played golf.  His reply was that he'd tried it once, and found it much too complicated.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 2/11/2016 at 0:30 PM, boogielicious said:

I tried to explain this stuff to my mother last night. She is pretty smart, but physics is not her strong suit. The concept of space-time is the hardest thing for most folks to grasp. We perceive the universe in three dimensions and Einstein saw it in four.

Ever read any of Brian Greene's books like "The Elegant Universe" or "Fabric of the Cosmos"? In the author's notes to one of those books he mentioned giving a copy of it to his Mother to read. She got through about 5 pages and put it aside, saying it gave her a headache!

[natureboy]

Well, technically it's not the first confirmation of gravity waves. That was already done by observation of two pulsars moving closer together over time, indirectly confirming gravity waves.

The really awesome thing is that because it's a direct observation of the gravity waves you get much more information about objects (black holes) that are otherwise impossible to observe directly as objects. As the precision of the LIGO (or subsequent generations of gravity wave detectors) grows, the possibility of direct imaging of the dynamics of the final moments of the binary black holes may too.

Edited April 23, 2016 by natureboy

[Buckeyebowman]

It doesn't surprise me that physicists, who can read mathematics as another language, could extrapolate such results.

The fact that the signatures of gravitational waves could be detected does not surprise me all that much. In a physics text I once read, tailored to laymen, the author made sure to drive home the point that space is it's own kind of "stuff". Yes, it's a vacuum, in that it has no atmosphere, but it is NOT "nothingness". The latest theories of the "big bang", "big inflation", or "big expansion", whatever is in vogue, make this clear. Matter did not disperse into "empty" space. Matter, along with with "space" expanded so as to fill a void. So called "empty space" is filled with energy, the "zero point field".

Also, if space was not it's own stuff, how could a massive body, like a planet, "warp" space around itself to create a gravitational field? If there is nothing there, what is there to warp?

Edited April 25, 2016 by Buckeyebowman

[boogielicious]

On 4/23/2016 at 11:31 PM, Buckeyebowman said:

Ever read any of Brian Greene's books like "The Elegant Universe" or "Fabric of the Cosmos"? In the author's notes to one of those books he mentioned giving a copy of it to his Mother to read. She got through about 5 pages and put it aside, saying it gave her a headache!

I read the book on string theory. I'll have to check the other out. A retired friend of mine is related to him by marriage. I asked her if he talked about physics at Thanksgiving. She said no, just sports.

[Strandly]

Quote

Each black hole packed roughly 30 times the mass of our sun into a minute volume, and their head-on impact came as the two were approaching the speed of light. The staggering strength of the merger gave rise to a new black hole and created a gravitational field so strong that it distorted spacetime in waves that spread throughout space with a power about 50 times stronger than that of all the shining stars and galaxies in the observable universe.

I used to think the people who work on this kind of stuff were really clever, and I'm sure they are, but the older I get the more I laugh at this sort of thing.  30 times?  50 times?  Where are they getting these numbers?  I understand and appreciate that folks are out there trying to figure this stuff out but comon'... they don't even know how big the universe is yet they have no problem throwing out these arbitrary quantities like they weighed them on a bathroom scale. 

Maybe they think they have to attach numbers to things to make people take their work seriously or something.  Whatever the case I think it's funny. 

[natureboy]

5 hours ago, Strandly said:

I used to think the people who work on this kind of stuff were really clever, and I'm sure they are, but the older I get the more I laugh at this sort of thing.  30 times?  50 times?  Where are they getting these numbers?  I understand and appreciate that folks are out there trying to figure this stuff out but comon'... they don't even know how big the universe is yet they have no problem throwing out these arbitrary quantities like they weighed them on a bathroom scale. 

Maybe they think they have to attach numbers to things to make people take their work seriously or something.  Whatever the case I think it's funny. 

Really careful measurements, good theory, mathematical rigor, and peer review. The numbers quoted in news articles are rounded for convenience and so as to represent the rough expected error as an order of magnitude. So it's likely 30 times the mass of the sun plus or minus one solar mass, for example. The total luminosity of the observable universe is probably an estimate, but the likely error is probably small enough to pretty accurately round and compare to the measured power / flux of the gravitational waves.

The size of the observable universe has a known lower bound (the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years) and an estimate from redshifted light of 46.5 billion light years (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/07/31/the-size-of-the-universe-a-har/). The problem is that the actual physical universe could be larger than just what's observable. You want to get your mind blown by something intuitively ludicrous, look up 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.

Don't be this guy:

 

[Buckeyebowman]

On 5/10/2016 at 11:17 PM, natureboy said:

Really careful measurements, good theory, mathematical rigor, and peer review. The numbers quoted in news articles are rounded for convenience and so as to represent the rough expected error as an order of magnitude. So it's likely 30 times the mass of the sun plus or minus one solar mass, for example. The total luminosity of the observable universe is probably an estimate, but the likely error is probably small enough to pretty accurately round and compare to the measured power / flux of the gravitational waves.

The size of the observable universe has a known lower bound (the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years) and an estimate from redshifted light of 46.5 billion light years (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/07/31/the-size-of-the-universe-a-har/). The problem is that the actual physical universe could be larger than just what's observable. You want to get your mind blown by something intuitively ludicrous, look up 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.

Don't be this guy:

 

Or like Penny's date Zach, in the Big Bang Theory. "That's what I love about science, There's no one right answer!"

The thing about science is, there IS one right answer! And scientists have been laboring for years to arrive at them. Back in the day scientists were full of all sorts of odd ideas. Things burned because they contained a substance called "phlogiston". People became sick because "ill humors" were present in their blood which required bleeding them! Light required the presence of the "luminiferous ether" to travel through space. All of these ideas were proven wrong because of the efforts of scientists.

And, you enjoy radio, television, photography, computers, the internet, and a host of other things thanks to the efforts of scientists. 

What many people don't appreciate is that science is as competitive a field as any sport or business. Generally, if you try to put across a line of BS, you will be ground into the dust! But then, that leaves you wondering about the state of climate science!

[Strandly]

3 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Or like Penny's date Zach, in the Big Bang Theory. "That's what I love about science, There's no one right answer!"

The thing about science is, there IS one right answer! And scientists have been laboring for years to arrive at them. Back in the day scientists were full of all sorts of odd ideas. Things burned because they contained a substance called "phlogiston". People became sick because "ill humors" were present in their blood which required bleeding them! Light required the presence of the "luminiferous ether" to travel through space. All of these ideas were proven wrong because of the efforts of scientists.

And, you enjoy radio, television, photography, computers, the internet, and a host of other things thanks to the efforts of scientists. 

What many people don't appreciate is that science is as competitive a field as any sport or business. Generally, if you try to put across a line of BS, you will be ground into the dust! But then, that leaves you wondering about the state of climate science!

Sure, the stuff they can get their hands on down here on planet earth is reasonable.  The speculation about what is going on in space is where it gets ridiculous.  You would think scientists would be some of the first people to admit what they don't know but when it comes to talking about outer space all you're really hearing about are new versions of phlogiston, ill humor, and luminiferous ether imo.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Strandly

[natureboy]

11 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Or like Penny's date Zach, in the Big Bang Theory. "That's what I love about science, There's no one right answer!"

The thing about science is, there IS one right answer! And scientists have been laboring for years to arrive at them. Back in the day scientists were full of all sorts of odd ideas. Things burned because they contained a substance called "phlogiston". People became sick because "ill humors" were present in their blood which required bleeding them! Light required the presence of the "luminiferous ether" to travel through space. All of these ideas were proven wrong because of the efforts of scientists.

And, you enjoy radio, television, photography, computers, the internet, and a host of other things thanks to the efforts of scientists. 

What many people don't appreciate is that science is as competitive a field as any sport or business. Generally, if you try to put across a line of BS, you will be ground into the dust!

I generally agree with this, but like 'perfecting' our golf games it's a process quite likely endless. Many of those ideas we now see as crazy were once 'cutting edge'. Some 'crazy' ideas like Plate Tectonics and General Relativity required a paradigm shift in perspective across the entire scientific community. Typically that paradigm shift is enabled by good collection and analysis of real-world or experimental data that points the way. Often, however, the prevailing paradigm is very resistant to the new ideas assuming them to be B.S., particularly if they don't posit a really elegant experimental test for the idea like the sun bending the light from a distant star.

In 100 years it's likely many of our currently held notions about some things may be significantly changed. Science builds slowly and often ignores (or re-discovers) brilliant published insights for a long time, because they get quashed in the social competitive process ("that's idiotic, who could possibly argue for that when we know X to be true for all time") or the current technology does not enable experimentation or collection of corroborating data.

The tension of the old vs. new ideas is valuable in ensuring rigorous peer evaluation, but all scientists should be simultaneously humble about how much they don't yet know. There is no such thing for humans as perfect information. Quantum mechanics clearly works in its predictive power, but that doesn't mean - in time - that a deeper understanding of what's going on could make it seem more like Newtonian Mechanics vs. General Relativity. Nature will continue to hold many surprises for us for a long time yet.

8 hours ago, Strandly said:

Sure, the stuff they can get their hands on down here on planet earth is reasonable.  The speculation about what is going on in space is where it gets ridiculous.  You would think scientists would be some of the first people to admit what they don't know but when it comes to talking about outer space all you're really hearing about are new versions of phlogiston, ill humor, and luminiferous ether imo.

Sure science isn't perfect, but what human endeavor is? A lot of what they learn about in space is measured with understandings about things (like absorption spectra) that are first rigorously experimentally confirmed here on earth. Given the huge scales of distance, time, and mass involved in astronomical study along with our physically limited perspective, a reasonable confidence interval is to be expected in the measurements and theories.

So are you saying because it's harder to be as precise as we can be on the relatively tiny, tiny earth that we shouldn't be curious and try to understand?

Edited May 12, 2016 by natureboy

[Strandly]

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

I generally agree with this, but like 'perfecting' our golf games it's a process quite likely endless. Many of those ideas we now see as crazy were once 'cutting edge'. Some 'crazy' ideas like Plate Tectonics and General Relativity required a paradigm shift in perspective across the entire scientific community. Typically that paradigm shift is enabled by good collection and analysis of real-world or experimental data that points the way. Often, however, the prevailing paradigm is very resistant to the new ideas assuming them to be B.S., particularly if they don't posit a really elegant experimental test for the idea like the sun bending the light from a distant star.

In 100 years it's likely many of our currently held notions about some things may be significantly changed. Science builds slowly and often ignores (or re-discovers) brilliant published insights for a long time, because they get quashed in the social competitive process ("that's idiotic, who could possibly argue for that when we know X to be true for all time") or the current technology does not enable experimentation or collection of corroborating data.

The tension of the old vs. new ideas is valuable in ensuring rigorous peer evaluation, but all scientists should be simultaneously humble about how much they don't yet know. There is no such thing for humans as perfect information. Quantum mechanics clearly works in its predictive power, but that doesn't mean - in time - that a deeper understanding of what's going on could make it seem more like Newtonian Mechanics vs. General Relativity. Nature will continue to hold many surprises for us for a long time yet.

Sure science isn't perfect, but what human endeavor is? A lot of what they learn about in space is measured with understandings about things (like absorption spectra) that are first rigorously experimentally confirmed here on earth. Given the huge scales of distance, time, and mass involved in astronomical study along with our physically limited perspective, a reasonable confidence interval is to be expected in the measurements and theories.

So are you saying because it's harder to be as precise as we can be on the relatively tiny, tiny earth that we shouldn't be curious and try to understand?

Nah, it would just be nice if scientists prefaced their statements with "we think..." more often.  Way more often.  And especially when it comes to outer space.

[natureboy]

4 hours ago, Strandly said:

Nah, it would just be nice if scientists prefaced their statements with "we think..." more often.  Way more often.  And especially when it comes to outer space.

I see a lot of "our current understanding is..." from real scientists. Very often it's the popular media that translates some studies and hypotheses that are short of being 'well established facts' to be 'absolute truths'...kind of like what happened with limited sample health studies impugning eggs as bad for your health.

But there's a lot of stuff like the big bang leaving behind the cosmic microwave background that's basically unequivocal (even though the original event is not directly observable). Or that fusion reactions are occurring deep in the sun. Or this very intuitive demonstration of how there has to be a black hole at the center of our galaxy due to the high velocity orbits of the stars around the central point: http://www.galacticcenter.astro.ucla.edu/animations.html.

Doesn't that kind of information warrant a "we know..."? Just because some parts of a field are less certain in their understanding of some phenomena doesn't mean all of the field is equally uncertain.

Do you hold any contrarian views on the Moon landings?

Edited May 12, 2016 by natureboy