It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gravitational waves discovery wins Nobel of Physics 2017

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter
Yes. But their effects are so very, very slight that it takes extremely (extremely) sensitive instruments to detect them.




posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

But thats the point, there is a large difference in scepticism that based in ignorance than scientific scepticism for the betterment of the field. The LIGO interferometer is not the first such instrument and the history of the experiment and search goes back something like 30 years.

Each instrument has a characteristic noise background below which you know pretty much nothing about the tiny distortions of the mirrors.

The project worked on and built more and more sensitive devices and built multiple sites when they reached the sensitivity they believed would be able to observe the waves being produced in gravitational loss from two closely orbiting (spiralling because they would technically loose energy to gravitational waves if theory is correct).

The measurement of the first signal was done during detector commissioning, not even a full on physics run. They spent months trying to figure out what it was and if they could pin the exact form of the signal on any other source. After months, they couldn't and such it was published.

Since then they have had something like 4 other signals, they see them in all online instruments, separated by great distances.

In physics nothing is ever a done deal, if someone can come up with a theory that proves GR to be wrong and can show that the signals observed in LIGO are not what they think they are, then they are welcomed and encouraged to do so. It is like the CMB inflation 'discovery'. Taking the above attitude would say "Oh now that they have that no one is going to search out how it might be wrong" Well truth is, people did, and they did actually find evidence to suggest that the discovery was nothing more than interstellar dust. It was proven and accepted, and such the discovery was retracted.

The same can be done for Ligo, even with a Nobel prize. Nothing is set in stone. To believe that it is, is to not understand how academic physics works.

Furthermore when it comes to Nobel prizes, some prizes are not awarded until participants are dead or very nearly dead. Which reminds me of the award given a few years back in Neutrino oscillation... An experiment that proved neutrino oscillation which ended some 20 years ago and it only just got awarded. There was no contention in the measurement, it was considered groundbreaking. It was simply unlucky and Physics covers many different subjects... thus it was put on the back burner (rather unjustly) until most of the scientists involved had retired or passed away, never to see their experiment in the limelight it deserved.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

This thread isn't about Tesla, there is another thread however which is, if you'd like to chime in there.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433




The LIGO interferometer is not the first such instrument and the history of the experiment and search goes back something like 30 years.


I didn't know that. Who came up with the original idea to use interferometry to detect gravitational waves and what type of instrument did they develop?

Question: What type of signal processing do they use? Is it FFT? Thanks.


edit on 15-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: manuelram16

When he died which files/notes etc were kept secret and which would....'later' come out as new inventions or us actually being able to finally understand his work?
Kind of like davinci?



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: ErosA433




The LIGO interferometer is not the first such instrument and the history of the experiment and search goes back something like 30 years.


I didn't know that. Who came up with the original idea to use interferometry to detect gravitational waves and what type of instrument did they develop?


Ronald Drever, who was part of the LIGO team, saw the discovery but died before he got the Nobel which was surely coming to him.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423



One more thing - listen to gravitational waves! Spooky.


Could you explain how they listen to the waves. Sound doesn't travel through space so what assumptions and toys are used in making a sound out of black holes colliding? Truly curious



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Why don't you ask them? CalTech LIGO posted the video on YouTube. Thanks.
edit on 16-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Phantom423



One more thing - listen to gravitational waves! Spooky.


Could you explain how they listen to the waves. Sound doesn't travel through space so what assumptions and toys are used in making a sound out of black holes colliding? Truly curious


it's a creative interpretation of the measurement data, probably by transposing the signal into the audible range



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

The mirrors move or spatially contract/expand as the wave passes through, this distortion is measured by the interferometer.

The data is in 'simple' analogue readout of the DAQ. I'm not certain of what DAQ they use or the form of the data, but in the end, the data is just numbers.

Lets say (as a guess) that they have some DAQ that is basically reading out a relative distance. The DAQ gives its output in volts and records at a sample rate of like 1MHz, which means you have a sample every 0.000001s

So how do you change that to be audible? You basically stretch the sampling frequency to within something that humans can hear, so rather than one sample every 0.000001s you change it to... lets say 44Khz so a sample 0.000023, this way you have stretched all the data by a factor of 22.7

The output of your sound is simply the yaxis or voltage swing of the digitizer, you simply feed that as raw data in a wav file and boop, you have a 'data' to sound conversion. There isn't actually a sound produced, but it is a good way of showing people how the process might sound should it occur as a sound wave rather than a gravitational one.


Also

physicsworld.com...

This is pretty big, it shows a detection of gravitational waves and the sighting of the object across lots of different EM frequencies. Absolutely spectacular! See what I mean about scepticism? Its good to be sceptical and its exactly what real science is about, always asking "Do we have a full picture of what is happening?"

Well now we have a more detailed picture of what looks like gravitational waves produced by the merger of two compact massive objects, and the subsequent release of enormous amounts of energy across the EM spectrum from interactions that would of occurred between the thin atmospheres of these objects.

As always, the team would welcome anyone debunking them, but its going to be a tricky one to explain away.

Still think its not worth a Nobel?



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I think you answered the wrong poster - my questions were here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


In any case, thanks for the information. Looking forward to your reply to my questions.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Old news that is only coming out so the perversion of the truth can begin. Why don't they talk about antigravity waves?



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

The answer to that question is... I have no idea haha

That said, there is a nice tutorial located at the following link, with data you can download and packages you can use
losc.ligo.org...

I suspect there would be some FFT involved in some of the analysis but, iv not been through every line of it.

[UPDATE]

Yes, step 7 of the above they do an FFT
edit on 17-10-2017 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

And here's me thinking you used the word "listen" and that you could assist in explaining how they interpret the data and transform it into sound.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Right, so as I suspected sound doesn't travel through space. So first whatever they are measuring they interpret and change it into a wavelength and then they adjust that into the audible range 20hz-20 Khz ?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Thank you for explaining what I asked of another poster about the "representation" of sound



So how do you change that to be audible? You basically stretch the sampling frequency to within something that humans can hear, so rather than one sample every 0.000001s you change it to... lets say 44Khz so a sample 0.000023, this way you have stretched all the data by a factor of 22.7 The output of your sound is simply the yaxis or voltage swing of the digitizer, you simply feed that as raw data in a wav file and boop, you have a 'data' to sound conversion. There isn't actually a sound produced, but it is a good way of showing people how the process might sound should it occur as a sound wave rather than a gravitational one.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Marcioni essentially stole everything from a Telsa lecture he had attented. Marconi's patents were voided in the '40's.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
In all that I have read about this ,and here, not one person has mentioned the obvious implications of this find.
GRAVITY PROPOGATES AT SUPRALUMINAL SPEED
The gravity wave was detected 2 seconds before the light from the gamma ray burst was detected, faster than light propogation.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

doesn't mean that at all... what it means is that the start of the merger which produces the wave front in the gravitational field, occurs 2 seconds before the detection threshold of the gamma ray burst.

It could be a similar effect as in the supernova 1987, where neutrinos where detected just before the light, which was because the neutrinos are coupled less strongly to the material producing them, than the photons are, thus the photons scatter etc and take a tiny bit longer to come out.


Though, superluminal speed would be interesting, it would be good to check against more events in the future if they an get lucky and match up more.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join