Astronomers Strike Gravitational Gold In Colliding Neutron Stars

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: mbkennel

They come to that conclusion because it is a consequence of the laws of general relativity as discovered by Albert Einstein, and those laws predict amazingly obscure, unintuitive and strange phenomena, and repeatedly, especially in the last couple of decades, these laws have been demonstrated to be quantitatively accurate---and competing theories falsified---in extraordinarily heroic experimental observations.

Do you realize how unscientific that sounds. We have an obscured, unintuitive theory, so when our results seem obscure and unintuitive, well, that's just confirmation of our obscured and unintuitive religion...oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say theory.

You have an complex theory with striking unexpected consequences, and the observational results fully and dramatically match the quantitative and qualitative predictions of that theory.

The observational and experimental results were unexpected and unintuitive at the time completely confirm Albert Einstein.

No other branch of science operates under those principles.

Fortunately for physics, special and general relativity are supported by extraordinary, accurate, quantitative observation.

Its more likely that there's a much simpler, intuitive explanation out there, but that would dethrone Relativity.

The alternative competitors to Einstein's theories that don't obviously violate everyday observations at first glance are virtually always more technically complex, not less, than Einstein's, such as the theories that propose dispersion relationships to vacuum electromagnetism or gravitational radiation. But further experimental evidence has, so far, always upheld Einstein and disproven others.

We can't have that.

Sure we can. Where is it?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: mbkennel

Well, if I'm so wrong, then please do explain how.

You deeply underestimate the quality of experimental evidence and theoretical understanding supporting Einsteinian gravitation.

a reply to: greenreflections

The speed of light makes sense. Its a rate of induction, specific to a medium. One of the problems I have with Relativity is the idea that space and time are distortable fields. Space is just three dimensional volume. Time is four dimensional volume. They are conceptual. Its not space-time that is manipulated, but the field(s) that fill space and time.

a reply to: ErosA433

...neither one of you arguing about the validity of these results appear to understand how the experiment actually works, or what they are detecting... so how exactly can you argue against it?

I was under the impression that the experimenters were looking for destructive interference in a laser beam caused by the binary orbits and/or collisions of stellar bodies. That is why they were using these massive interferometers, right? So what part of that am I misunderstanding? I'm not denying that they've detected collisions and mergers. I'm saying, all they can prove is that they've measured the resultant shockwave. That is not proof of gravitational waves. It might be evidence of a changing/moving gravitational field, but they can not prove that the detected transverse waves themselves cause attraction. The waves are a result of attraction, not the cause.

but you miss out one tiny tiny tiny but very important detail.

The interference generated in the laser beam isn't caused by the binary orbits and collisions... it is the changing shape of the mirrors as a space-time distortion passes through that causes the interference.

Because you don't like the concept that space-time is distortable you seem to think its the laser beam that is directly being changed. This is not quite what is happening, yes, the photons would themselves be altered by the passage of the wave, but it is the configuration of the mirrors that is the important part of the experiment.

The mirrors changing shape due to space time distortion that pass through. These distortions are 'theoretically' produced by a frame dragging effect in the vicinity of two closely orbiting compact binary objects. It is explainable as a consequence of the propagation speed of space-time distortions as being at the speed of light, rather than infinite. The Ripple is in effect a spiral of distortion, which intensify and then when the compact objects merge, they disappear, replaced by a space-time distortion that for all regular purposes appears exactly like that of a singular object. There are no longer powerful ripples, just a singular contraction around the object.


The ripple will emanate in all directions from the binary pair, though its 'shape' if you want to call it that will depend upon the plane of the orbits. The measured distortion in the mirrors will depend upon the direction through which the distortion passes through it, and its relative orientation compared to the merging object. They have two operating stations located in different places, both observed a signal, in-sync, slightly different star times (again allows for some directionality) of very similar/identical intensity.

So

Given the above observations... please explain again how this means that they are misinterpreting the measurement and are actually measuring photons?

They have also never claimed to have detected a gravitational force mediator. Again this points back to your misunderstanding of the experiment and its results. They have only ever claimed that they have measured the propagation of space-time distortion caused by a catastrophic binary pair merger. GIVEN that the workings of GR is that mass causes space-time distortion and it is that distortion that is the observant cause of 'Gravity' then them being labeled as gravitational waves... is absolutely correct.

So again, you are misinterpreting what they said and claim on the simple basis that you don't personally like some of the labels and such you are claiming them to be wrong on something they have never even claimed to be right on.

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: intrptr

Considering nobody has actually seen the nucleus of an atom, or seen inside of a star directly, I find that statement somewhat suspect.

You saying that we should not believe anything until we see it with our own eyes?

Lol, 'theoretically' speaking...

a reply to: ErosA433

The interference generated in the laser beam isn't caused by the binary orbits and collisions... it is the changing shape of the mirrors as a space-time distortion passes through that causes the interference.

Whoops.

LIGO detects changes in the distance between the mirrors, not distortion in their shape. Educate yourself.

LIGO is designed to detect a change in distance between its mirrors 1/10,000th the width of a proton! This is equivalent to measuring the distance to the nearest star to an accuracy smaller than the width of a human hair!

ligo.caltech.edu

a reply to: ErosA433

The interference generated in the laser beam isn't caused by the binary orbits and collisions... it is the changing shape of the mirrors as a space-time distortion passes through that causes the interference.

Now you're deflecting. I don't like the idea of space-time, but for this particular conversation, space-time will fulfill the role of a medium. I know what LIGO claims to have detected. They believe the distortion affected the mirrors, the laser, and the whole planet for that matter, but what caused the mirrors to change shape??? Yes, collisions and mergers...more specifically the CHANGING GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS associated with those events.

They have also never claimed to have detected a gravitational force mediator. Again this points back to your misunderstanding of the experiment and its results. They have only ever claimed that they have measured the propagation of space-time distortion caused by a catastrophic binary pair merger. GIVEN that the workings of GR is that mass causes space-time distortion and it is that distortion that is the observant cause of 'Gravity' then them being labeled as gravitational waves... is absolutely correct.

Now you're moving the goal post. A host of articles have been written about LIGO's alleged discovery. On one hand, they only claim to have only detected a temporary distortion, yet on the other, they're assuming its a gravitational wave?

I think they saw a shockwave that actually cause field distortion (call it space-time if you want). Yes, it distorted the mirrors, light, and the entire solar system. But that wave in itself is not gravity. It is a direct result of a changing gravitational field, just as light is the direct result of a moving dipole field.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: mbkennel

Well, if I'm so wrong, then please do explain how.

You deeply underestimate the quality of experimental evidence and theoretical understanding supporting Einsteinian gravitation.

Cool. Thanks for the thorough explanation.

a reply to: intrptr
Sigh... educate myself? the distortion of the mirrors changes the distance between them... my word seriously, really going out your way to attempt to misrepresent everything arnt you?

isn't it a given that if you hang two mirrors and they are distorted in shape by a passing spacetime distortion, that they change distance... so no i am not at all wrong, and you are too proud and happy to pounce on something that yet again you didn't bother to actually think about what it meant.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: ErosA433

I think they saw a shockwave that actually cause field distortion (call it space-time if you want). Yes, it distorted the mirrors, light, and the entire solar system. But that wave in itself is not gravity. It is a direct result of a changing gravitational field, just as light is the direct result of a moving dipole field.

Then please... go ahead, write and publish a paper about it. It will have to show what you claim, with scientific and mathematical rigour that has yet to be demonstrated here at all... You accused me to moving the goal posts, and yet your backup to this is reading a host of articles... I suspect most of which are in popular science outlets, which are quite often extraordinarily paraphrased.

Where I worked I explained at a very high level of detail exactly how our experiment worked to a science media writer... when i read his article, what he wrote was an enormous misrepresentation of what he was told, with his own opinions and out of date assumptions mixed in and own personal bias spliced randomly throughout.

If you read it in its original draft, you'd of thought that we claimed that we were going to detect dark matter in a matter of days... which is not what he was told in the slightest. He also had photos of equipment that had nothing to do with the functions claimed in the captions... it was an absolute mess.

Given the amount of misconceptions in regard to gravity and space time... discussions of LIGO results I suspect are littered with the same level of 'Layman trying to get to grips with something he/she really doesn't understand and such invents something in language to make it sound like he/she knows what he/she is talking about.


What is great BelieverPriest is that in the last part of your post, you actually appear to be agreeing with me, but you refuse to correlate the vast amount of evidence that suggests that what we observe as gravity, is space time distortion caused by mass...

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: intrptr
Sigh... educate myself? the distortion of the mirrors changes the distance between them... my word seriously, really going out your way to attempt to misrepresent everything arnt you?

isn't it a given that if you hang two mirrors and they are distorted in shape by a passing spacetime distortion, that they change distance... so no i am not at all wrong, and you are too proud and happy to pounce on something that yet again you didn't bother to actually think about what it meant.

Blah blah, I quoted cal tech. But you know better, don't you?

LIGO is designed to detect a change in distance between its mirrors 1/10,000th the width of a proton!

Let me reiterate...

"a change in distance between its mirrors".

This is caused by the 'ripple' passing thru the earth , thru the gap between the mirrors, thus changing the distance, between the mirrors.

If all they needed was mirrors they wouldn't have to place them so far apart, derp.

At least read the link, teach. And if you still have a problem with it, tell Cal Tech , not me.

a reply to: ErosA433

One day I just might publish my own paper, but not today. Not until I have the credentials to satisfy the "experts".

I understand the observations being made, and I'm not calling them into question. Its the explanation that I disagree with. Understand, that observation is not the same as explanation.

Gravity is field distortion, but caused by what? To say mass is not sufficient. To say by a quadrupole is closer to an explanation, but not close enough. Why does a quadrupole cause field distortion? That needs to be answered, and that is my focus.

Neither space, nor time exist as malleable material objects. There is only a field, and its rate of change. We have many observations, but few adequate explanations.

a reply to: intrptr

As i said... i have no problem with it at all, you seem to have taken some words of mine which i perhaps worded not so great and jumped on it like i was trying to disprove something or claiming something 100% different to what you read...(no doubt you will jump on my admission of bad wording as some kind of weakness and use it as shouting down ammo... which is so common here) when the opposite is the case. My explanation of how it worked is totally inline with your link... Soooo what? I fail to see why you are so aggressively excited in somehow trying to shout me down as an idiot...

The mirrors are the most important part of the experiment, having them suspended like they are is basically why the experiment works in the first place, this this is why there is focus on the mirrors, they need to be completely decoupled from outside vibration, such that the distortions of the setup can be measured. Its obvious (at least i thought it was...but evidently not to you) that for the spacetime distortion to pass through and slightly alter the shape of the mirror, it would also be doing exactly the same to the rest of the setup too, so the long L shaped vacuum tubes are also distorted, the difference being that the path length of the vacuum tubes are only sensitive in a single dimension, the mirrors, being that the surface is interacting with the lasers, are thus a more sensitive component that needs to be understood... the mirror is not made out of some kind of exotic material that means it is the only thing that distorts. Never said that, never claimed it.

Ill try and be more pedantic in my wording... something which... is tiresome when the people who debate the loudest on here show no such courtesy in how they present arguments... generally putting together sentences which mean little to anything at all, and yet claim some kind of great hidden knowledge or discovery.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


My only advice is the following... being matter of fact about everything is probably the wrong approach. As in the same way that you say parts of the accepted explanations for things are not acceptable... the same goes to say "Gravity is x" because someone can equally come along and say "Gravity is y" and no amount of claims will make any difference unless it can be backed up by evidence, proofs and experimentation.

Once more, without meaning to sound insulting, its not my intent... to make the claims you make, you must already have the credentials, otherwise, your claims are simply ideas, ideas are fine, but you need more than ideas as i said before to refute a accepted model that has thus far a lot of experimental backing. Your claims need to match what we already observe (even with an alternative explanation, but they regardless have to match) and provide key differences between how your idea is correct compared to the opposition.

Science has done a big experiment and taken lots of care in doing so... too many people dismiss results as incorrect without actually understanding how the experiment is done, nor the process of moving from signals to results. My statements here are a reflection of frustration at that. Iv personally worked on a large scale Dark Matter experiment, largest of its kind in the world. And thus when people basically dismiss them as junk science it makes me think... hmmmmm Is it junk in your opinion because you don't understand the motivations behind it, or because you have an alternative theory or idea that fixes ALL of the observations and problems.
999 times out of 1000, its because the person hasn't honestly got a clue what they are talking about... scientists are asked and challenged on a daily basis to 'make a convincing argument' to proof their worth by people who have absolutely no clue how simple machines work, as though if they cant convince said person, it means their science is wrong.

Its extremely extremely exhausting...

Id like to understand your ideas better but your responses are not detailed enough to be classified as explanations in my opinion. Cut and trimmed so short as to say very little other than "I dont agree"

a reply to: ErosA433

I never said LIGO's experiment was junk science. I simply have an opinion that slightly differs from the standard explanation. If my opinion frustrates you, its not my problem. Maybe I am in fact wrong, but my opinions tend to change as I learn more, so if my tone sound "matter of fact", its because I'm simply stating my ideas.

You don't need credentials to make a claim. To be taken seriously, maybe, but anyone with free speech and ideas can state a claim whether you deem it kosher or not.

And I will reiterate, if theory cannot be broken down into a set of simple principles, to where a layman can understand and debate it, then the theory is likely fundamentally flawed. Maybe you're not trying to be condescending, but you have offered more rebuke than constructive criticism or explanation.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Sorry i should clarify i wasn't accusing you of saying it was junk science, It was simply an example of how often debates on science on ATS goes. sorry, wasn't directed at you.

Someone else's frustration may not be a problem for you and thats cool, its not that I intended to make you go "Oh sorry" Science is to be emotionless. The Frustration i speak of is basically to give you context to my ramblings. Useful? maybe not, but it comes with statements that are being made that are ambiguous or logically inconstant or sometimes basically meaningless. It comes when one side takes the overwhelming opinion that they have to be different, that no matter what is said, they shall take the opposite view. That isn't science, thats opposite thinking without any need or warrant.

I believe it was you who said that you purposely take the opposite view to things, because you think it opens up possibilities the mainstream might not have considered. A couple of people here explained why that is maybe not a great path to follow and the reasons why.

The issue with matter of fact statements is basically the following.

Science invites people to make claims, to debunk claims, to propose ideas and theories and proofs. The language of which is typically quite neutral. It is the language of "what if?"... a matter of fact statement comes across as an absolute. like THIS IS TRUE.

Science doesn't do that typically... and if you want your ideas or statements to be considered, you must or at least 'should' present them as such. Otherwise I could equally say "Gravity IS distortion in space-time, space-time exists and you are 100% wrong, stop talking" But im NOT going to say that at all... not only is it not 100% correct, it is also 100% not helpful.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: ErosA433
And I will reiterate, if theory cannot be broken down into a set of simple principles, to where a layman can understand and debate it, then the theory is likely fundamentally flawed. Maybe you're not trying to be condescending, but you have offered more rebuke than constructive criticism or explanation.

My response to this part is simply the following

Nature does not have to be simple, pretty, elegant or understandable by everyone on the planet in order for it to be. It can, will and always has been just as it is. Yes it turns out the simpler theories tend to be right... but... we are kind of getting underneath of those simple theories and finding that nature is not quite that pretty little beast that follows nice simple relationships. To refute a theory because people may not understand it, is quite short sighted in my opinion.


What I myself have offered is far more detail into the workings of current theory than anyone here has offered into their own opinions or ideas of what might be going on. A long winded explanation is not a rebuttal... it is an explanation given perhaps because the author isn't convinced that the people he/she is talking with quite understand what they might have just said. Or... that so little context or explanation was given that the author wants to understand (from the responses) if everyone is even on the same page or not.

a reply to: ErosA433

Thank you for clarifying, and if my tone sounds dogmatic, then I'll have to work on that.

I don't take opposing positions by default. I do explore them to see what conclusions can be drawn, but that does not mean I treat opposing positions axiomatically simply because they go against mainstream ideas. I share many mainstream view as well as unpopular ones too.

If that is deemed unscientific, then so be it.

a reply to: ErosA433

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Science is intuitive. It is action-reaction style determinism. The Copenhagen model is non-deterministic. If you operate on the assumption that nature is non-deterministic on a fundamental level, then you're already ruling out simpler theories.

For the time being non-determinism and Relativity have the spot light, but I think they're built on an unstable foundation.