Live data from Hacker News

Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

nytimes.com

431–440 of 502 posts

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> a novelty device that weighs more than what it's mass would lead you to think it weighs This is an interesting concept. As far as I'm aware, we have ways of measuring weight, but no way of measuring mass. How would you know whether something weighed more than it "should", based on its "mass"?

With today's technology, for some compounds... you can count atoms by physical measurements and known structure, and figure mass by atomic weight.

http://www.nist.gov/pml/si-redef/kg_new_silicon.cfm

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#432
post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Photons are massless particles that have energy. All massless particles travel at the speed of light.

Protons are said to be massless, but a proton may have mass that is so small that we cannot measure it easily. We can't currently say with 100% certainty that it is massless- only that it is at most very, very small: < 1×10−18 eV/c2

What? Protons most definitely have mass.

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well we've accounted for about 5% of the universe--the stuff we know about. Dark matter (about 25%) seems to only interact gravitationally, which means that we've just, today, proven that we have an instrument that could possibly observe it directly. To date, all our evidence for dark matter is indirect--observing the otherwise unexplained behavior of normal matter. Today is the gravitational equivalent to Galileo po…

How do we know dark matter is some mysterious form of matter and not just small distributed particles (gas or solid) that are beyond our ability to detect? Do we have proof of a specific, exotic, non-atomic matter?

Scientists are not prone to falling back on explaining observations via postulating a new kind of matter we can scarcely observe. Ever since the first indications of "dark matter" scientists have been attempting to explain it as something more familiar to us, some kind of atomic matter or some-such, maybe gas or dust or lots of planets or dark stars or something. At every single turn they've been stymied, and instead of eliminating the idea of dark matter as an ethereal particle they've instead eliminated other possibilities.

Don't look at the current theory of dark matter (weakly interacting massive particles) as some hare-brained scheme that scientists thought up, instead look at it as the hard-fought victor of numerous observational challenges. Dark matter is the theory that survived. We tried explaining things a zillion other ways (gas clouds, compact objects, neutrinos) and those theories just didn't match the observations. There are also a few exceptional circumstances (such as the bullet cluster) that indicate very strongly that dark matter is something different than either gas clouds or stuff like stars and planets, because in the bullet cluster we can observe the gas and the stars and planets and the mass, and each of them are in different places because each of them follow different rules when it comes to interacting during a galactic cluster collision.

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You tie it to something of a known mass and spin the pair. The motion of these two bodies measures mass without the concept of gravity/weight. I have no intuition for this. Maybe it's valid, but your other two examples raise grave doubts about this one. > Or you throw it at something of known mass and measure the speed it imparts onto the known object. Blind application of the principle of conservation of momentum…

>>As far as I'm aware, we have ways of measuring weight, but no way of measuring mass. Then we are speaking of different things. I understand 'weight' as how heavy something is within particular gravity field (ie on a bathroom scale on earth) whereas mass is independent of local gravity. The schemes I suggest measure mass without resort to weight. >>I have no intuition for this. Maybe it's valid, but your other two e…

We should be speaking of "a novelty device that weighs more than its mass would lead you to predict", that is to say, an object the measured weight of which does not correspond to what a different object of the same mass would weigh in the same location.

Measuring the force of gravitation between two objects definitely doesn't measure the mass of those objects without resorting to weight; the weight is the quantity you're measuring. Similarly, the fact that the center of gravity for a two-objects-attached-by-a-string system will lie closer to the massier object relies on the massier object also being heavier. If the massier object weighs less, why do you believe the center of gravity would still be closer to it?

> I understand 'weight' as how heavy something is within particular gravity field (ie on a bathroom scale on earth) whereas mass is independent of local gravity. The schemes I suggest measure mass without resort to weight.

Yes, those are the definitions of weight and mass. We can measure weight directly, because it's a force and we have tools to measure those. All of our methods of determining the mass of something, as far as I know, rely on the assumption that if you know the gravitational field at a point, all objects with the same mass would, if located at that point, have the same weight. The most common method of determining an object's mass involves measuring the gravitational attraction between the object and the earth (colloquially known as the object's "weight"), and then imputing a mass to it based on that weight.

In the spinning example, I could say that two objects attached by a string and set spinning around each other will spin around a point that balances the torque from each object (this might not be, strictly speaking, correct, but it's close enough that I think it's suggestive). But torque is defined by force, not mass -- if one of the objects gets heavier without becoming massier, that should draw the center of rotation closer to that object, shouldn't it?

Or phrased yet another way: if one of the two attached objects is heavier than it "should be" according to its "true mass", then the two-objects-and-a-string system will have the center of mass and the center of gravity in different places. Those terms are currently synonymous, but if we had a novelty object such as undersuit described they would be distinct. Is there any reason to believe that the two-objects-and-a-string system would, if spinning, rotate around the center of mass rather than the center of gravity?

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well then prepare to stand corrected.

Inside a charged black hole there is a second horizon. Beyond this point the black hole is gravitationally repulsive. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/rn.html

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, too many LHC reports have primed people to expect counting experiments where the scientists struggle to get to 5 sigma. The waveforms we're talking about here have a signal to noise ratio over 20.

Sorry, what does that ratio imply?

I'm assuming that the same rules apply as do in straight RF detection. A signal becomes a decent signal at 6db above noise and gets exponentially better every 6db above that. Something 20db above noise is rock solid reliable.

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Force carrying particles in general don't have mass. Except that some of them seem to do, which was rather puzzling for some time, but was solved using the Higgs mechanism. I can't think of an obvious reason the Higgs mechanism wouldn't work for gravitons, but I could be mistaken, it's not exactly the most intuitive area of physics. Also, keep in mind that the strong force transmits the force between colour charges w…

> Force carrying particles in general don't have mass. Massless particles don't have energy. Massless and energyless particles have no speed. I have no interest in massless and energyless particles that stand still.

I want some of what you're smoking.

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protons are said to be massless, but a proton may have mass that is so small that we cannot measure it easily. We can't currently say with 100% certainty that it is massless- only that it is at most very, very small: < 1×10−18 eV/c2

What? Protons most definitely have mass.

They obviously meant photons

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That always confused me. We have an Oort cloud, whose members we cannot resolve very well/at all. Why do we assume only our star has such a thing? If all stars did, that isn't enough mass to explain dark matter?

The total mass of the Oort cloud is guessed at (3×10^25 kg), or about five Earth masses. With dark matter, we are talking about roughly 5.6x the amount of the total solar system mass. The Oort could would need to be about 371,691x more massive than it is. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass+of+the+solar+syst...

Amazingly small! It extends halfway to the next star (a lightyear or so) which seems like it would add up to a lot.

Re: Physicists Detect Gravitational Waves, Proving Einstein Right

#440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Force carrying particles in general don't have mass. Except that some of them seem to do, which was rather puzzling for some time, but was solved using the Higgs mechanism. I can't think of an obvious reason the Higgs mechanism wouldn't work for gravitons, but I could be mistaken, it's not exactly the most intuitive area of physics. Also, keep in mind that the strong force transmits the force between colour charges w…

> Force carrying particles in general don't have mass. Massless particles don't have energy. Massless and energyless particles have no speed. I have no interest in massless and energyless particles that stand still.

E = h*nu
Post reply on HN