Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about detection. To put it another way, you need a single black swan to prove that black swans exists (to whatever sigma).
But gravitational waves are a phenomenon without equivalent. Nothing like that had been observed before. (Am I wrong?) W̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶H̶C̶ ̶d̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶H̶i̶g̶g̶s̶,̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶e̶x̶a̶m̶p̶l̶e̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶h̶a̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶t̶i̶c̶l̶e̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶m̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶m̶a̶n̶-̶y̶e̶a̶r̶s̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶ s̶o̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶s̶ ̶ t̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶s̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶e̶d̶…
Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right
261–270 of 502 posts
Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right
#262A conceptual issue that some of the commenters may have missed is that part of the detection is done by matched filtering ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matched_filter ), in which it is necessary to have a good idea of the signal you're looking for. This detection has built upon analytical and numerical advances in relativity. While people may not know about the prevalence of e.g. binary black hole collisions, they…
Are you saying there is some kind of confirmation bias at play, or does this increase confidence in the result?
Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right
#263I remember learning about the LIGO experiment back when it was being built, a decade ago, and at the time it seemed so amazing: a giant tube of vacuum, sealed underground and so sensitive that it could detect animals walking nearby, listening to the moving and twisting of space itself… I guess we're finally seeing that with immense human ingenuity and the most careful of engineering, the universe will offer its secre…
Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the crucial detail you are missing from the article is this: "According to the equations physicists have settled on, gravitational waves would compress space in one direction and stretch it in another as they traveled outward." LIGO is two sets of 2 L-shaped antennas spread far apart on the globe, so that we can compare the compression of space in orthogonal directions and measure the very short delay between…
I still don't understand. It doesn't matter where the compression happens, because it should be undetectable to any light/matter that's fundamentally a part of that space? If one of the arms gets compressed - the matter will be compressed too, so light still has the same density and amount of space to travel through?
Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right
#265I am a bit skeptical of the conclusion given the methods. Here, there's no observable phenomena independent of the test apparatus that corresponds to the proposed cause. The conclusion is circular. 1. Theory predicts gravitational waves when massive objects collide and that the gravitational waves would have an effect that could be measured by the experimental instruments. 2. The experimental instruments measure some…
1. Theory predicts a very specific and recognizable class of gravitational wave patterns for likely sources, whose details are determined by a small number of parameters that correspond to meaningful physical quantities (specifically, two masses and a distance; I don't know if there are any more than that).
2. Two independent experimental instruments measure a wave pattern that (apart from some low-level noise) is an excellent match to one of the predictions. Fitting the model to match the specific data, the resulting parameters have entirely plausible astrophysical values.
3. This is considered an example of a theory making a specific, novel prediction that is later confirmed by experiment: pretty close to the classic definition of the scientific method.
4. Therefore, the experimental data has provided strong support for the premises of the theory being tested: both its prediction of gravitational waves and its detailed dynamical predictions for the source scenario matching the observations.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something in your argument, but I don't see any circularity here. What about this process isn't precisely the way that science is supposed to work?
Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right
#266Where can I find out more about how thermal effects in the LIGO optics are controlled for? Basically, I want to understand how it's possible to measure a distance change on the femtometer scale.
Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right
#267A conceptual issue that some of the commenters may have missed is that part of the detection is done by matched filtering ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matched_filter ), in which it is necessary to have a good idea of the signal you're looking for. This detection has built upon analytical and numerical advances in relativity. While people may not know about the prevalence of e.g. binary black hole collisions, they…
Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right
#268Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right
#269I remember learning about the LIGO experiment back when it was being built, a decade ago, and at the time it seemed so amazing: a giant tube of vacuum, sealed underground and so sensitive that it could detect animals walking nearby, listening to the moving and twisting of space itself… I guess we're finally seeing that with immense human ingenuity and the most careful of engineering, the universe will offer its secre…
Well, we know that both theories are "wrong" in the sense that they give nonsense answers if you ask them the wrong questions. It's just that all of those questions are well beyond our ability to test experimentally.
Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about detection. To put it another way, you need a single black swan to prove that black swans exists (to whatever sigma).
But gravitational waves are a phenomenon without equivalent. Nothing like that had been observed before. (Am I wrong?) W̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶H̶C̶ ̶d̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶H̶i̶g̶g̶s̶,̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶e̶x̶a̶m̶p̶l̶e̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶h̶a̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶t̶i̶c̶l̶e̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶m̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶m̶a̶n̶-̶y̶e̶a̶r̶s̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶ s̶o̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶s̶ ̶ t̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶s̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶e̶d̶…