Gravitational waves observed for the first time, proving Albert Einstein right 100 years on.

Forums › Off topic › Gravitational waves observed for the first time, proving Albert Einstein right 100 years on.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#1491461 12-Feb-2016 23:58

joker97:

freitasm:

gzt: Gravity is just a theory.

Not sure if serious1...

1Scientific theory. "[A] well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability."

It is a serious theory for theoretical physicists.

Gravity is a force - not a theory.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#1491462 13-Feb-2016 00:12

joker97:

Not so fast guys.

1. Observation of gravitational waves only confirms that the widely known model, the Standard Model as an explanation of how we are able to exist, is well short of the mark because this model cannot explain gravity.

2. The way forward is to find the quantum particle associated with gravitational waves, proposed as the graviton. I believe this was proposed in the days of Higgs, maybe even earlier.

3. Till we find and mathematically proof the graviton we are none the wiser. For the moment.

The main thing about this discovery is that it isn't new Physics.

It is 100 year-old Physics - finally seen and expected.

But, it is a totally new telescope into the Universe - based on Gravity.

500 years ago we got a telescope based on light (electromagnetic) and the discoveries changed the World.

A gravitational telescope can see even further. Perhaps right back to the moment of the BigBang.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1491463 13-Feb-2016 00:22

JWR:

surfisup1000:

JWR:

So, time travel/faster than light communication is probably impossible.

Probably impossible means possible haha.

Time has been said to be just an illusion. Really, we don't know.

Of course I say 'probably'!

Physics has two great theories; Quantum and Relativity.

They both make amazingly accurate predictions and are used extensively in technology.

But, they are fundamentally incompatible and both break down in the conditions of the very early (much less than a second) Universe.

However, a restriction on faster than light communication/information seems to hold for both.

Perhaps, in our lifetimes, we might see a theory that combines the relative and the quantum.

Given the weirdness of current theories, who could predict what some future theory might lead to.

Umm ... the grand unification theory [GUT] in the 80s?

Relativity in my understanding - we see it everyday.

Quantum in my understanding - too small to be seen, too high energy to reproduce for long enough, but fundamentally, if you don't try to measure it, mathematically whatever it is you're trying to look for doesn't even exist

At the moment, the mess of theories is at the point where they think what you call "relativity" and "quantum" could be explained by "strings" - maybe the the quantum particles are everywhere, nowhere and elsewhere, because they are like a long piece of vibrating string. Unfortunately for that to be possible there need to be at least 10 "dimensions", other universes with different quantum laws and properties.

IMHO, it's [at the moment] easier [statistically more probable] for some god to exist than to find those parallel universes in the missing 6 dimensions.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1491464 13-Feb-2016 00:27

JWR:

joker97:

freitasm:

gzt: Gravity is just a theory.

Not sure if serious1...

1Scientific theory. "[A] well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability."

It is a serious theory for theoretical physicists.

Gravity is a force - not a theory.

Under Newtonian laws yes. But ...

There is a problem. The universe is expanding. If gravity is a force the stars and all would get closer not farther. Thus in general relativity gravity is not a force. It is not well understood. More like a field. [Field = waves <-> particles]

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1491485 13-Feb-2016 09:03

JWR:

joker97:

Not so fast guys.

1. Observation of gravitational waves only confirms that the widely known model, the Standard Model as an explanation of how we are able to exist, is well short of the mark because this model cannot explain gravity.

2. The way forward is to find the quantum particle associated with gravitational waves, proposed as the graviton. I believe this was proposed in the days of Higgs, maybe even earlier.

3. Till we find and mathematically proof the graviton we are none the wiser. For the moment.

The main thing about this discovery is that it isn't new Physics.

It is 100 year-old Physics - finally seen and expected.

But, it is a totally new telescope into the Universe - based on Gravity.

500 years ago we got a telescope based on light (electromagnetic) and the discoveries changed the World.

A gravitational telescope can see even further. Perhaps right back to the moment of the BigBang.

That's an interesting concept, it "could". Just because there is at the moment no way of anyone seeing towards the "Big Bang" [it's a mathematical calculation based on the best/simplest available model]. It is not possible to tell where it was anyway, the nearly infinite universe has expanded nearly infinitely that it has no mathematical "center". Let's watch this space but I wouldn't hold my breath.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41071

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1491575 13-Feb-2016 12:54

joker97:

freitasm:

gzt: Gravity is just a theory.

Not sure if serious...

Scientific theory. "[A] well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability."

It is a serious theory for theoretical physicists.

You missed the sarcasm. gzt's "it's just a theory" is the excuse some non-scientific minds and religious people use when trying to shoot down science explanations, hanging on the non-scientific definition of theory, which is "a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory."

Now compare this with the scientific theory I linked before and you will see they're different. So when someone that doesn't believe in science says "it is just a theory" they are using the second definition. I don't know if gzt believe or not in science, what his religious inclination are, so because of that I wrote "Not sure if serious".

Makes sense now?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1491593 13-Feb-2016 13:47

freitasm:

joker97:

freitasm:

gzt: Gravity is just a theory.

Not sure if serious...

Scientific theory. "[A] well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability."

It is a serious theory for theoretical physicists.

You missed the sarcasm. gzt's "it's just a theory" is the excuse ...

Ah, of course. Although I'm pretty sure GZT's post was also in sarcasm.

Ouranos

118 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#1491606 13-Feb-2016 14:43

joker97:

JWR:

joker97:

Not so fast guys.

1. Observation of gravitational waves only confirms that the widely known model, the Standard Model as an explanation of how we are able to exist, is well short of the mark because this model cannot explain gravity.

2. The way forward is to find the quantum particle associated with gravitational waves, proposed as the graviton. I believe this was proposed in the days of Higgs, maybe even earlier.

3. Till we find and mathematically proof the graviton we are none the wiser. For the moment.

The main thing about this discovery is that it isn't new Physics.

It is 100 year-old Physics - finally seen and expected.

But, it is a totally new telescope into the Universe - based on Gravity.

500 years ago we got a telescope based on light (electromagnetic) and the discoveries changed the World.

A gravitational telescope can see even further. Perhaps right back to the moment of the BigBang.

That's an interesting concept, it "could". Just because there is at the moment no way of anyone seeing towards the "Big Bang" [it's a mathematical calculation based on the best/simplest available model]. It is not possible to tell where it was anyway, the nearly infinite universe has expanded nearly infinitely that it has no mathematical "center". Let's watch this space but I wouldn't hold my breath.

But we do know where the Big Bang was - it was right here. More precisely, the Big Bang occurred at all points in the universe, since all points coincided in the singularity that expanded in the Big Bang.

Dreal

417 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1491609 13-Feb-2016 14:55

I'm confused by this. If time-space is the medium via which all things occur - what is the 'control' in an experiment that would allow us to perceive it, and measure things like waves?

What is 'time-space' being compared to, in order to make the conclusion that it has 'waves'?

Could anyone point me to the actual research paper, or similar? I just would like to figure out if this makes sense.

If these are merely fluctuations in gravity, then it's assumption that it has any connection to time space at all. Not a proven thing, but rather mere data that could be explained in many ways (especially given gravity is still a mystery).

A lot of people, especially fans of relativity confuse math with model.

You could equally say that gravity is fluctuating because these events cause a breakdown in the CPU capacity of the virtual reality we all exist in, that it is some form of quantization, if this is the case. Or something like that. Not that I am claiming that.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

Dreal

417 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1491611 13-Feb-2016 15:07

Actually massless objects already travel faster than light. Particle pair information travels faster than light. And while relativity stipulates (ie assumes) that useful, or meaningful information can't travel faster than light, that just seems to be the case so far, rather than it is known and proven.

I am sure there is research right now into particle pairs, predicated on that notion being wrong.

It might be possible to pass information to no mass particles, or via pairs. And that doesn't nessasarily result in paradoxes - assuming paradox assumes a certain veiwpoint about time, which is also unknown. Time could be non-linear, allowing changes to have already been incorporated, or we could live in a multiple universe model of some sort (actually suggested by the higgs mass, to a small degree), allowing changes to simply occur with no paradox.

Heck even within relativity, it is possible to time travel without going faster than light, using the curvature of time space or relativity itself. You can arrive before you left for a journey.

And if the object has no mass, it doesn't time travel either. Only an object with some mass would be able to go backwards in time, like the theoretical tachyon (Which may also be able to pass information, who actually knows?)

This whole information cannot travel faster thing, is something I have a low regard for, as being true. It seems predicated on assumptions about time and paradoxes, and 'what the natural world is'. The sort of thing that lead einstein to whole sale reject quantum theory as 'god doesn't play dice'. Not exactly the seat of reason making those sort of calls, rather einsteins instincts about the nature of the world, which probably fall more in the 'bias' basket. That said, we haven't found anything yet. So we will see.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

Dreal

417 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1491612 13-Feb-2016 15:15

TwoSeven:

While I understand the math behind the concept, at the moment I have not heard enough about the experiment to be convinced that some other phenomenon is not at play such as compression in some other field type force. I guess at some stage more details will be published where they say what kind of things have been tested for and excluded.

Yes, compression. Something like a doppler effect. Agreed, it does seem presumptive. But then media reporting of science almost always is far moreso than the scientific papers themselves. "Such and such proven" versus " the data seems to match xyz theory, although more study is needed"

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Dreal

417 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1491616 13-Feb-2016 15:30

Scientific theory. "[A] well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability."

Going on that definition, gravity isn't a scientific theory at all. More of a mystery. It's not well understood, or well substantiated as an 'explanation', we know a lot about how 'gravity' behaves,. whatever it is, but really nothing substantial about what it is, the underlying mechanics ie the 'explanation'.

Even time space bending, is questionable as a theory. Possibly untestable in many areas (what would you control against 'space time',- the concept is even more nebulus scientifically than aether? In theory everything is in it, so how would you actually directly measure it? Well, you can't. lol). And _why_ does mass produce warping of space-time (assuming that occurs at all, which I contest)? The simpler explanation is that this 'curve' is merely the effect of gravity on very low mass particles.

That really offers about as much insight as 'conciousness is produced by the brain', they both link two phenomena, without showing why, and they both offer something as half of an equation, that isn't directly testable, threatening to walk off the edge of science into "not science" in the vein of Bohms elegant theories and the equally beautiful string theory.

I mean saying gravity doesn't exist is dumb - you drop something, it falls. That's what we mean by gravity, its a placeholder for whatever the hell is happening. Like many words we use in fact. Whatever happens, is in fact happening, that's uncontestable.

But what that something is, yeah, we don't know. I've heard a lot of theories (in the sense of just a hypothesis, no evidence). I personally would count none of those theories as well substantiated, or repeatedly tested and confirmed. In fact to me, it seems probably that some aspects of said theories, are in fact untestable (like the curve of space time - mathmatically and conceptually its a lot of fun but real science requires direct and not indirect measurements - data points and inference rather than assumption and uncertainty)

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

lapimate

353 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1491630 13-Feb-2016 16:31

Dreal: ... Could anyone point me to the actual research paper, or similar? ...

Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

Roy Kerr is the New Zealander who in 1963 provided the solution (referenced in ¶2 of above paper) re rotating black holes (so-named later), to Einstein's equations.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1491668 13-Feb-2016 17:52

Dreal:

I'm confused by this. If time-space is the medium via which all things occur - what is the 'control' in an experiment that would allow us to perceive it, and measure things like waves?

What is 'time-space' being compared to, in order to make the conclusion that it has 'waves'?

Could anyone point me to the actual research paper, or similar? I just would like to figure out if this makes sense.

If these are merely fluctuations in gravity, then it's assumption that it has any connection to time space at all. Not a proven thing, but rather mere data that could be explained in many ways (especially given gravity is still a mystery).

A lot of people, especially fans of relativity confuse math with model.

You could equally say that gravity is fluctuating because these events cause a breakdown in the CPU capacity of the virtual reality we all exist in, that it is some form of quantization, if this is the case. Or something like that. Not that I am claiming that.