Live data from Hacker News

Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

nytimes.com

401–410 of 502 posts

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check the comic posted by AdrianN, it explains what you're missing. Basically light takes longer to travel stretched space (but matter does not, as you correctly said).

I see. If that's true, then light travels through a higher dimension, and this is definitive proof of at least a fourth spatial dimension. Otherwise there would be nothing for the 3d space to ripple through, or for light to travel through. I'm surprised I haven't heard that light travels independent of 3d space compression before. That would also imply that if you enter a black hole with your feet at the bottom, you…

Doubts about higher dimensions and general relativity is common and a crucial point, so I dont think you should get downvoted.

Some points which might be helpful. We have a way, using the concept of a manifold, for ants on a surface like a sphere or a dougnut to figure this out without appealing to a third dimension. One could imagining say ant geographers making maps of portions of the surface, and noting how common regions covered in two different maps have different labels/coordinates. One can then figure out a definition of when two collections of maps(called an atlas) are equivalent and then show that an atlas for a plane, sphere, doughnut are mutually nonequivalent.

But all this is topology and involves global considerations. What is relevant here is local curvature. We can also do this appealing to an extra dimensions. Now, you used the example of a folded paper and you are correct that for an ant on the surface, the curvature is indetectable. The curvature of the paper is extrinsic and not intrinsic. We say that is isometric to flat space, and its curvature tensor is 0.

On the other hand, if the ant was on the surface of a ball, it could figure out this curvature intrinsically, for instance, by measuring sum of the angles of a triangle or the distance between parallel lines keeps shrinking. Not only is this intrinsic, but it is locally measurable. One cant have maps, even for a small area of the earth's surface, without some kind of distortion because of this intrinsic curvature.

An additional complexity - in GR, spacetime is curved rather that just space. Also, dont take 'curvature' too literally, it is just a way of measuring deviation from numbers that you would get in the flat scenario.

For more read up on manifolds, riemann curvature. John Baez had some essays on the geometric meaning of the curvature tensor in terms of the volume of a ball relative to the usual flat Euclidean case.

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#402
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall reading some years ago that gravitational wave would be used to prove multiverse theory. How would that scale compared to bh-bh or ns-ns mergers? Also, have read today that this discovery backs inflationary theory, how so? It seems highly unlikely that they could say a specific bh-bh merger was the cause. It seems implied they are triangulating the source, with two detectors?

AFAIK no multiverse theory has yet been put forth that is experimentally testable (even in theory given infinite time, energy etc.) So it's not a proper (falsifiable) scientific theory at present, merely a (in my opinion wild) conjecture.

> no multiverse theory has yet been put forth that is experimentally testable

Just to be clear here; that's because there is no theory for a multiverse. Not yet, anyways. Nobody has put one forth yet. When you hear "multiverse" come out of physicist's mouth, it's because it's a concept indirectly related to other theories. The current popular theory which involves a multiverse is string theory. When string theorists do the math, there is some evidence that a multiverse is possible.

However, that doesn't mean much. Even if string theory was correct and little strings are really the fundamental component of everything in the universe, the multiverse part of string theory could still be wrong. The theory isn't reliant on it, it just doesn't forbid it.

I also wouldn't say that it's entirely untestable. There are a couple things that could be indicative of a multiverse that some physicists have looked for: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.h...

The source isn't the greatest, but it shows that we can look at the CMB for indirect evidence. With higher resolution scanning years in the future, such a theory may be testable. I only mention this because the way your comment reads, it sounds like you're saying a multiverse would be inherently untestable.

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#403
post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean that in earth's gravity well, there is an absolute difference in the time light takes to travel compared with light travelling in the void of space? Can we compute the strength of a static gravity field we are inside, by measuring the time that light takes to propagate through it?

The light is constant, which means it moves at the same speed in both cases (assuming the light is in a vacuum). It won't move faster or slower based on the gravity field (other than in the case of black hole where it can't escape at all). What happens instead is that the speed that an object moves through space-time changes dependent upon gravity. Using an atomic clock, we've actually measured the effect of gravity…

[deleted]

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#404
post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree... my question, though poorly worded, is less about proof of spacetime gradients (they do in the ways you describe). It's more about understanding what the measurable effects of a gravitational well on earth has on the LIGO experimental setup (or a similar one with infinite precision), in the absence of gravitational waves.

Well, something like LIGO can only measure gravitational waves, because it looks for changes in the geometry of spacetime. If you were to move the LIGO in and out of Earth's gravitational well, I guess then it would record a shift.

[deleted]

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying cars man! Think of the flying cars! And maybe real hover boards

First we need to find out how to create repulsion. Right now I'm pretty sure a graviton generator would just be a novelty device that weighs more than what it's mass would lead you to think it weighs. Maybe we could make orbital graviton beam generator that could literally suck an object off the face of the Earth.

I'm not terribly knowledgeable about relativity, but I don't think that gravitational repulsion is a very meaningful concept in GR. I would appreciate being corrected on this matter if that is not true.

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#407
post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, that's helpful. It's hard to get my head around the idea that an event so massive can be over so "quickly", without any residual longer-lasting effects.

There's a theorem that black holes have "no hair": two black holes of the same mass, charge and angular momentum are indistinguishable. So the merge must happen instantaneously: if the combined black hole were "sloshing" afterwards that would violate that theorem.

Whether or not black holes have "no hair" is currently an unsolved problem.

Hawking, for instance, believes that the Hawking Radiation from a black hole encodes the information that went into creating the hole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox...

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#408
post #348
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very common sentiment, but a mistaken one. Theories do not get accepted only if they match the predictions of the previous theories. People value other features besides accuracy of predictions, like simplicity and explanatory power. Just recall how Kopernik's theory of solar system got accepted. It had worse predictions than Ptolemy's scheme at the time it was introduced; Ptolemy's scheme was way better in a…

You're missing the point. I agree that matching the predictions of experiments (not previous theories--I'm talking about experimental results that match the predictions of GR, not just those predictions themselves) is not a sufficient condition for a theory to be accepted (which is what you are saying); but it is certainly a necessary condition (which is what I was saying). > Just recall how Kopernik's theory of sola…

I agree with you that if a new theory was to replace the old one for making specific set of predictions, it should give predictions of similar or better accuracy. But I do not think that replacement is necessary for the new theory to compete or be accepted; it is the new benefit it brings, whatever its nature may be, that is crucial. The two can temporarily both be accepted to coexist, if both have their strengths. For example, quantum theory does not make the same predictions as classical theory when it comes to classical experiments (mechanics, basic EM phenomena) and is largely useless in that domain. It only gives probabilities of results of specified experiments of certain kinds; it does not reproduce the old predictions (like definite trajectories, Moon phases or solar eclipses), but provides new results (like resonance frequencies of atoms and molecules and their bond energies). Similar thing can happen with a new theory of gravity; it may not give the same prediction for Mercury perihelion precession, but it may be able to explain other things, like why the inverse square law, why no repulsive gravity or why the mutual gravity force between electrons is so much lower than the mutual EM force. Explanation for oddities in Mercury motion could then wait for further data and repetition of calculations. It is natural to expect of any new theory to bring new results, but demanding that it reproduces all the old ones along is too much. That happens rarely and such expectation only prevents any new ideas from being considered.

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#409

According to this paper ( https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P150914/public ) they detected the signal first at Livingston, Louisiana and 6.9ms later in Hanford, Washington. The distance between them according to wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO ) is 3002km (Ok, the 3002 km distance is on the Earth). If the gravity wave travel at the speed of light they should detect 10ms later (300 000/3002 sec = 1/100 sec = 10…

I think your calculation assumes that the waves are traveling parallel to the line connecting Livingston/Hanford. In the diagram below, 's' is the source of the waves.

    H-----L-------s
If instead the waves are traveling perpendicularly to the line between those two cities, they should be detected at the same time.

       s
      /|\
     / | \
    L-----H
Since the measured time difference is between 0ms and 10ms, the reality is probably somewhere in between these two extremes.

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#410
post #409

According to this paper ( https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P150914/public ) they detected the signal first at Livingston, Louisiana and 6.9ms later in Hanford, Washington. The distance between them according to wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO ) is 3002km (Ok, the 3002 km distance is on the Earth). If the gravity wave travel at the speed of light they should detect 10ms later (300 000/3002 sec = 1/100 sec = 10…

I think your calculation assumes that the waves are traveling parallel to the line connecting Livingston/Hanford. In the diagram below, 's' is the source of the waves. H-----L-------s If instead the waves are traveling perpendicularly to the line between those two cities, they should be detected at the same time. s /|\ / | \ L-----H Since the measured time difference is between 0ms and 10ms, the reality is probably s…

Weird, that's exactly what I was thinking.
Post reply on HN