Slashdot Mirror


BOINC Project to Search for Gravitational Waves

Buzz Skyline writes "Einstein@Home is a new, BOINC-based distributed computing project that will analyze data from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational wave Observatory (LIGO). The goal is to perform a whole-sky, gravitational wave survey of pulsars. Beta-test versions of the Einstein@Home screen saver should be available by the end of the summer, and final release is planned for early 2005."

206 comments

  1. Many projects by cbrocious · · Score: 1

    Many distributed projects are coming about lately. Perhaps this is where many fields will be going within the next few years.

    --
    Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
    1. Re:Many projects by QuantumJedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I work in physics research at the moment and when I first discovered distributed computing years ago I thought that eventually pretty much all research would end up using it. However, the problem with the seti@home model is that in order to get your user base you have to be doing a project that is 'cool' enough to get the attention of the public. 'We are looking for ET' is something that everyone understands and many people are interested in the possibility of alien life so you can get a large user base. Plus, it helps that the screen saver is perty! Trying to find a cure for cancer or AIDS is something else that would attract loads of people (in fact I remember taking part in such a DC project a couple of years back - dont know if its still going). However some projects would find it more difficult to attract the public. For example I am involved in modelling things called 'photonic crystals'. Now these things are very cool in my opinion but they take a bit of explaining to a non-physicist. In my experience - after I get started explaining them to any non-geek their eyes glaze over and they just dont care. Now I may be just rubbish at explaining stuff but I suspect (or is that hope??) that if you can't sum up your project as simply as 'The search for ET', 'Cure for Cancer' or 'Win 100,000 by finding a HUGE prime number' then getting computer power out of the public will be almost impossible. But then thats what the grid is for I guess.

    2. Re:Many projects by scrame · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Trying to find a cure for cancer or AIDS is something else that would attract loads of people

      Fight AIDS at home is just such a project.

      While I agree that there are factors that prevent this from being used by everyone constantly, large-scale projects can often have a marketing twist put on them, or offer incentives. Additionally, an especially cool geek project would certainly pull a few volunteers. The important part is getting the awareness of the project to the proper audience, as the internet expands, I cant imagine a worthy cause not being able to find volunteers.

    3. Re:Many projects by squoozer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whats a photonic crystal then?

      I can't believe you mentioned it and didn't then tell us. I would be happy to supply computer time for projects such as yours.

      When I look for an DC project I look for one that fits the following criteria in this order of importance:

      a)The results are published freely with no restriction on there use (so non-commercial basically - they can pay for computer time if they want it)
      c)There is a linux version (preferably command line)
      b)The software requires no user intervention (beyond maybe starting it)
      d)The project looks like it is doing real science (this doesn't discount SETI@Home but I consider their chance of success low so I tend to steer clear of it)

      You would be supprised how few projects fit all 4.

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    4. Re:Many projects by NailedSaviour · · Score: 1

      i'm sympathetic to your plight here because I mostly agree. I'm one of those people who get pissed off because my state government will gladly shell out millions of $$$$ to fund a new fucking "football" stadium but will dither and nitpick about a few million for scientific research, or even a new hospital ward, or whatever. However, and I preface this here by admitting I have no idea what a 'photonic crystal', is, does, or why you think it's so cool, but i suggest that someone, somewhere at the end of all this research will get a financial benefit. expecting hordes of people to freely hand over CPU cycles and electricity to power your research without a benefit is a little naive. it doesn't HAVE to be a financial benefit (as SETI@Home proves) but people have to be given something in order to be compelled to participate. it might be credibility with peers or the knowledge that they were the person who decoded the alien or some actually cash, but whatever it is I think recent successes with these sorts of projects show that a little bit goes a long way.

    5. Re:Many projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't tell people in a few simple words what the purpose of your research is, you need to step back and see the project as a whole. Chances are you don't really know what you're doing anymore.

    6. Re:Many projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:Many projects by technogogo · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean. The recent Saturn mission has got almost no media coverage in the UK. Is this society being completely uninterested in science? Or is this the media companies assuming there is no interest - something which is probably self-perpetuating. If there is no media coverage then the public don't get a change to have an opinion. Todays media seems keener to present discussion on Britney Spears visit to swimming pools. Very sad state of affairs.

    8. Re:Many projects by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      What about doing something like a generic distributed client? Something just like a generic virtual machine that you can run, and projects requiring large amounts of computing power can "rent" time on your machine?

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    9. Re:Many projects by SharkJumper · · Score: 2, Informative

      Allow me to point you to Folding@Home. This is Stanford's distributed computing project. Their goal: to understand protein folding, protein aggregation, and related diseases.

      I'm sure they've been mentioned before, but they seem to meet your four criteria nicely:

      a) The second question in their FAQ is "Who owns the results"

      c) A Linux Console version is listed on theirDownload Page along with Windows and Mac OS X versions.

      b) In my experience, I've had to do nothing but install and let the software do its thing. It only takes up unused cycles and is completely non-intrusive. For Mac OS X users, I recommend checking out TeamMacOSX's website for some free software downloads that make it easy to maintain clients for multiple processors.

      d) Science!

      SharkJumper

    10. Re:Many projects by essreenim · · Score: 1

      I hope so. Distributed computing is really what its about- people power. Not ego. Scientists throughout history have been afforde the time and luxury to resaearch on the back of the poor. This is not far from the truth today. In othere words, whatever way you split it - its about a community effort. Distributed ways are best..

      But about Gravitational waves. I believe an american, and former navy officer, Weber, tried to cath these with his imfamous Weber bar. I think his technique was sound but he found nothing - indicating that they are either rare or dont exist. In any case they're not important in my view. This is a waste of distributed computing. My google client works for the folding project, and Ive computed many SETI units too. Personally, I think the disease cure ones are good..

    11. Re:Many projects by squoozer · · Score: 1

      Thanks

      Thats actually what I am running at the moment.

      Its a shame more projects don't fit that criteria though.

      What we need (and I have looked around so this might actually exist) is an open source frame work for projects and a meta-language for describing them. I would think this would be a good wide scale test bed for web-services and soap. The security would be difficult though.

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    12. Re:Many projects by kpearson · · Score: 1

      Look at active and past projects and you will see that there are and were some obscure ones (eOn and XPulsar@Home especially). If you create a distributed project for modeling photonic crystals (perhaps using BOINC (hint hint)), and describe the science behind it well, people will find it and participate in it. A lot of people like to try new projects in order to learn more about the science behind them.

    13. Re:Many projects by Noose+For+A+Neck · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's what the BOINC project is all about.

      --

      Software piracy is victimless theft.

    14. Re:Many projects by nomel · · Score: 1

      or, you could help fight some diseases, "such as Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (BSE), CJD, ALS, and Parkinson's disease."
      Folding @home

    15. Re:Many projects by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I don't care if it has a screensaver type output or not as most screensavers are nothing but a waste of cpu cycles that could be used for other, more productive work. I'e been running setiathome for about 2 weeks short of 5 years, ranking 99.23% in the world with my two rather puny by todays stds machines. All I really care about is if its running, which on this linux box as I sit here typeing, its getting 99% of the cpu without impinging on my ability to use the machine one bit.

      Its a background process I start in rc.local, so its already running by the time I login at reboot time. I do have a util that can display its results, but frankly I haven't looked at it in a couple of months.

      As far as eye candy, I have a couple of those really deep space shots from hubble, about 30 megs each, that I use as background on 2 of my 8 screens. That keeps me grounded by reminding me of just how little a piece of the universe this particular hominid specie we call important is.

      Cheers, Gene

  2. Wasn't there a generic piece of software for this by syousef · · Score: 1

    Weren't the SETI@HOME people working on a next generation tool that could be used for varied data analysis/search tasks - like cancer research for example, based on plugins?

    It seems to me that if you're after people donating CPU cycles something generic would be the way to go.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  3. In Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Final release is planned for early 2005... in Japan!

    1. Re:In Japan by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 1

      wrong. it was already released in Japan 10 years ago

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
  4. That would be BOINC by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Isn't what you are referring to the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (which just happens to be conveniently linked in the write-up).

    So far, this would seem to be the 3rd BOINC project after Seti@Home and Predictor@Home.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:That would be BOINC by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Predictor@Home"

      I'm not donating any cycles to see if my gf is pregnant ;)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    2. Re:That would be BOINC by ttocs_47 · · Score: 1

      Well, it isn't clear that this is the 3rd. There is also a href="http://climateprediction.net">climate prediction project with a port to BOINC that is currently in alpha test. It isn't clear to me which of these two projects will go with a public beta first (or maybe some other project entirely).

  5. BOINC - Generic distributed client by complete+loony · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes and that's what BOINC is, a generic framework for these types of tasks.
    SETI@Home on BOINC

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  6. The New SETI@Home by Shafe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is great to hear because it is believed that an advanced civilization would communicate not with radio waves but with gravity waves. Think about it: gravity waves fly right through anything, whereas standard EM waves are blocked by things like planets and dust clouds in space. This is why SETI@Home is a waste of time in my opinion after five years of constant computing and 3,000+ packets.

    Of course, an advanced civilization using gravity waves would eventually switch over to some sort of sub-space/zero-point field communication system that could facilitate instant point-to-point communication between two points anywhere in the galaxy. Guess we'll have to wait for Subspace@Home.

    1. Re:The New SETI@Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then...a better solution falls to you, Oh mighty one...
      asshat.
      It's called the human spirit of exploration...get one.

    2. Re:The New SETI@Home by tqft · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "This is great to hear because it is believed that an advanced civilization would communicate not with radio waves but with gravity waves"

      Gravity wave communication strikes me as difficult - not sure you would get the bandwidth (high frequency) without a truly monster recoil problem. And building a Gaser - while a truly phenomal feat - you would need to know where to point it.

      Neutrinos might be an interesting communication solution, but you also have the problem of having to point them in the right direction.

      Radio is simpler, needs lower power and even dumb earthlings have some idea on how to listen to it.

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
    3. Re:The New SETI@Home by Shafe · · Score: 1

      Yeah but suppose you were an advanced civilization (much more advanced than Earth). You need to communicate light-years' worth of distance in a short amount of time. Rather than waiting for several years for a round-trip message sent with radio, you send an instantaneous gravity wave with the message and can get your response in under a few milliseconds, like pinging a server in Australia from the US.

      "Dumb earthlings" is a bit inappopriate; I'd prefer "ignorant earthlings." It's not that we're stupid; we just haven't figured out sub-space communication systems. We know it's possible since it's a well known fact that hyperspace exists, but we haven't really put much effort into cracking the science, since who on earth needs faster-than-light communication anyway.

      Laugh all you want, this stuff does exist. I'm sure people laughed when someone proposed the idea of "transmitting a message through the air" or even "sending a document through a telephone wire." Ha, black magic!

    4. Re:The New SETI@Home by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 1

      I think it is more worthwhile that we use all those thousands of computers to develop out own advanced civilization instead of looking for a new one (or speculating what technology they'd use)

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
    5. Re:The New SETI@Home by John+Courtland · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gravity is instantaneous? What the hell did I miss?

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    6. Re:The New SETI@Home by mi · · Score: 1
      Laugh all you want, this stuff does exist.

      Are you talking about communicating at a speed exceeding the speed of light? Does not the current model rule that flat-out?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:The New SETI@Home by tqft · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Dumb earthlings" is a bit inappopriate; I'd prefer "ignorant earthlings."

      You weren't at the lunch time meeting I was forced to attend - dumb and ignorant are both appropriate, and yes my "superiors" have permanently coloured my view of humanity.

      "We know it's possible since it's a well known fact that hyperspace exists" - references please

      "but we haven't really put much effort into cracking the science, " - I half agree here, but do you know anyone with the cash to setup a research facility for it? where do start, how do you stop filter out the cranks from research positions. While I don't think FTL travel or comms is really possible, there are some truly weird kinks in quantum theory that no-one has truly explored.

      "since who on earth needs faster-than-light communication anyway." - me - give instantaeneous communication (who needs FTL comms)for 2 or 3 months and watch me rake in the big bucks (forex market - arbitaging between New York, London and Tokyo), until I get shut down or bought out. Actually give me a Naser (Neutrino Amplification Stimulated Emitted Radiation), so I can set up a comm link through the Earth rather than being routed through satellites or on cables around the Earth and I could still probably pull it off - should only need a second or two as an advantage and a fast trading program.

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
    8. Re:The New SETI@Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Think about it: gravity waves fly right through anything, whereas standard
      > EM waves are blocked by things like planets and dust clouds in space.

      unless gravity is fundamentally repulsive.

    9. Re:The New SETI@Home by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Funny
      give instantaeneous communication (who needs FTL comms)for 2 or 3 months and watch me rake in the big bucks (forex market - arbitaging between New York, London and Tokyo), until I get shut down or bought out.

      London and Tokyo are in relative motion. What London thinks are simultaneous events, Tokyo will think are separated by a small interval of time.

      Exploit! Our instant signal from London to Tokyo goes to Tokyo at a time based on London's view of what 'simultaneous' means, and our instant signal back goes to London at a time based on Tokyo's view of what 'simultaneous' means, giving us a very, very small increment into the past.

      Now just relay back and forth until you build up enough time to be economically useful. Result: ULTIMATE profits. The ability to predict the future with total accuracy would make you... well, 'rich' doesn't cut it. You'd rule the universe.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    10. Re:The New SETI@Home by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      Gravity is instantaneous? What the hell did I miss?

      He probably meant "Gravity is instantaneous... in Japan!"

      (it does seem to work somewhat)

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    11. Re:The New SETI@Home by Isao · · Score: 2, Informative
      ...you send an instantaneous gravity wave...

      Erm, our current understanding via Einstein's general theory of relativity is that gravity waves move AT the speed of light. Among other things, this avoids causality problems. Some efforts have been (and are being) made to prove this, and early indicators are that this is so, though we await conclusive testing.

      See the following reference.

    12. Re:The New SETI@Home by Xilman · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Neutrinos might be an interesting communication solution, but you also have the problem of having to point them in the right direction.

      Not really. You take a beam of, say electrons, moving at ultrarelativistic energies and smash them into a target thereby generating, amongst other things, relativistic muons. The latter are emitted in a well collimated beam and as they decay to electrons and muon-antineutrinos, the latter are themselves created in a highly collimated beam. All you have to arrange is that the initial electron particle beam is pointing in the correct direction. It's not entirely trivial but neither is it excessively difficult to use strong magnetic fields to do the job.

      This very technique was used at Fermilab recently to direct a neutrino beam at a neutrino telescope in order to calibrate it.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
    13. Re:The New SETI@Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the "sub-space/zero-point field communication system that could facilitate instant point-to-point communication between two points anywhere in the galaxy" was a joke. On /., you can never tell.

    14. Re:The New SETI@Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if neutrinos _are_ gravity waves? eh? eh? Ever think of that, Sonny Jim? Eh?

    15. Re:The New SETI@Home by Open_The_Box · · Score: 1

      Oh, didn't you get them memo? We remade the universe with a few modifications over lunch - we didn't like some of the old physical parameters so we changed them a bit.

      --
      If you can't think of something nice to say then don't say anything at all. No, REALLY.
    16. Re:The New SETI@Home by Dr.+Sigmund+Freud · · Score: 1
      ...some sort of sub-space/zero-point field communication system that could facilitate instant point-to-point communication between two points anywhere in the galaxy

      umm....Sorry, but the Senate, at the behest of RIAA, is not going to allow this technology.

    17. Re:The New SETI@Home by tqft · · Score: 1

      Fascinating neutrino work. Love the little suckers.

      But my bad - I should have said what I meant.

      A radio wave spreads out easily - without a specifically designed antenna and covers all space easily to limit of detection sensitivity.

      A neutrino beam is exactly that. Unless you know where to point it, you are not going to communicate to anyone unless you are amazingly lucky. So once you found an alien civilisation a neutrino beam comm channel could be useful.

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
  7. The... what now? by Exiler · · Score: 4, Funny

    Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory? Who thought up that name? I bet he was responsible for the Illudium Q-Thirty Six Explosive Space Modulator too.

    --
    Banaaaana!
    1. Re:The... what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's actually quite obvious where the name came from. LIGO is a Michelson interferometer that uses a laser to detect gravitational waves. There are other kinds of gravitational wave detectors, such as resonant bar detectors.

    2. Re:The... what now? by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 1

      There are other kinds of gravitational wave detectors, such as resonant bar detectors.

      Which, due to the size of a gravitational effect are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

  8. Re:Wasn't there a generic piece of software for th by eeg3 · · Score: 1

    Um... BOINC _is_ the "next generation tool." SETI@Home uses it too. It's open source, and lots of projects use it.

  9. Gravity travels instantaneously by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 1

    http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.h tml

    If these hypothetical advanced civilization manages to find a way to communicate with gravity waves, then there you go; problem solved.

    --
    N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
    1. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by Shafe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah the jury is still out on the speed of gravity. I am worried that the speed of gravity is similar to that of light, or perhaps somewhat faster. But I am hoping that gravitational waves travel instantly throughout the galaxy. If so, then gravitational communication would be a highly desirable means of communicating between any two points in the galaxy.

      The US Navy is right now studying using gravity waves to communicate to submarines underwater, although a URL with more information eludes me.

      I am hoping someone resolves the issue of whether gravity travels at the speed of light or near it, or whether gravity travels instantly. The typical example is: if the sun disappeared right now, would Earth immediately hurl off into space, free of our orbit, or would it take 8.5 minutes for the loss of the gravitational field to be felt?

      But perhaps the most interesting question of this entire thread could be: if gravity waves could be harnessed, could they be shielded too? I hope Podkletnov or Ning Li can find out! Anti-gravity here we come!

    2. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by kyletinsley · · Score: 1
      The US Navy is right now studying using gravity waves to communicate to submarines underwater
      The project the article mentions is going to try to determine whether or not these waves even exist at all. How could the Navy be trying to manipulate something to be used for communication, when we don't even know if that 'thing' exists or not? Seems like you'd want to discover the existence of something before trying to use/change it...
    3. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by kyknos.org · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, and as far as i remember from school and from books by Hawking, gravity travels at the speed of light.

      --

      SHE does throw dice.
    4. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by huge · · Score: 1
      The US Navy is right now studying using gravity waves to communicate to submarines underwater
      The project the article mentions is going to try to determine whether or not these waves even exist at all. How could the Navy be trying to manipulate something to be used for communication, when we don't even know if that 'thing' exists or not? Seems like you'd want to discover the existence of something before trying to use/change it...
      I agree with you, to some extent.

      But then again, wasn't Morse exploiting electromagnetism before Maxwell combined theories of Electricity and magnetism? The point here is that you don't need to understand exactly how it works, you just need to understand how to exploit it.
      --
      -- Reality checks don't bounce.
    5. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by yem · · Score: 1

      The Difference between Theory and Practice =)

      The graviton particle is a convenient way to imagine the force of gravity travelling and acting on other particles. It'd be nice to know how it really works though.

      --
      No, I did not read the f***ing article!
    6. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by Chris+Siegler · · Score: 1
      I am hoping someone resolves the issue of whether gravity travels at the speed of light or near it, or whether gravity travels instantly.

      The project name should have been a clue. Einstein's general theory of relativity means that signals cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Another feature is that anything that has energy also has mass. So light can be affected by gravity, which is what this project is all about!

    7. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by meringuoid · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the Navy would be using density waves in the water. Infrasound, basically.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    8. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by kyletinsley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right, but people were able to zap each other with electricity and make sparks and move compass needles and produce all sorts of other visible effects with electricity, even though they didn't understand the full nature of it. These new experiments are designed to try to detect gravity waves, because we haven't seen any evidence of their existence up until this point. (They've only be theorized.)

      It's like saying the Navy is researching how to use the body of the Loch Ness Monster to power their aircraft carriers. Shouldn't the first step be to actually prove such a creature exists, and I don't know, maybe capture one too?? How far into your research can you really get when you haven't completed Step 1 yet? :-)

    9. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by huge · · Score: 1
      How far into your research can you really get when you haven't completed Step 1 yet? :-)
      As we are talking about US goverment, I'd guess very far.
      --
      -- Reality checks don't bounce.
    10. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      The point here is that you don't need to understand exactly how it works, you just need to understand how to exploit it.

      Quite, we've been doing that with the economy for quite some time.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    11. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by eyeoftheidol · · Score: 1

      Umm, no - this is from the Special Theory. >Einstein's general theory of relativity means that >signals cannot travel faster than the speed of >light.

    12. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by plaa · · Score: 1

      I am hoping someone resolves the issue of whether gravity travels at the speed of light or near it, or whether gravity travels instantly.

      As you yourself mentioned, the jury is still out on this one.

      The general consensus of the scientific world is that gravity probably travels at the speed of light, but the important point is that no-one has been able to measure it. Einstein's theory predicts that gravity travels at the speed of light, but if some experiment shows the speed to be something else, then the theories have to be though out again.

      A little over a year ago, a group claimed having measured the speed of gravity to be close to that of light, but many have disputed the study as having measured another physical effect, not the speed of gravity.

      I have no idea what studies the article mentioned in the grandparent post refers to, as I haven't heard anything about it before, and the article doesn't have any references. Though I haven't researched the subject, I wouldn't hold it very reliable. If somebody had reliably measured the speed of gravity by 1998, it would certainly be in general knowledge of the scientific world.

      While measuring the speed of gravity is an important step in science, I wouldn't hold my breath for it to provide FTL communication. The most probable outcome of the measurements will be to confirm it to be very close to the speed of light. However, gravity is a very troublesome force also regarding the unification of forces and making the Theory of Everything, so knowing the speed of gravity for a fact would help along a lot.

      --

      I doubt, therefore I may be.
    13. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      if the sun disappeared right now

      If giant balls of hydrogen, many times as massive as the earth, could just up and disappear, we'd have much bigger problems than the speed of gravity to worry about. Of course, I understand that this is all hypothetical.

      At least, as we hurled off into deep space, our scientific curiousity would be satisfied.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    14. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    15. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bit different with the economy since thats a human invention, its not actually an unknown process although people would like that believed. The people who set up the economy and markets have a complete understanding of it and use it to their advantage, they just obscure it from the general public (including traders/etc who get dumbed down versions from business schools) in order to maintain the status quo.

    16. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by Xilman · · Score: 1
      Also, if the Navy could actually produce gravitational waves, the thought arises that we wouldn't actually need a navy at all...

      The Navy can actually produce gravitational waves. My fingers are emitting gravitational waves as they move to type this response. Matter in non-uniform motion generates gravitational waves.

      In both cases the waves are far too weak to be detected, let alone be used for communication.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
    17. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by Zen+Punk · · Score: 0
      Another feature is that anything that has energy also has mass. So light can be affected by gravity, which is what this project is all about!

      Light has mass now? What is this world coming to ?

      --
      Sleep is futile.
    18. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by Zen+Punk · · Score: 0
      If you're going to be ridiculous, why bother replying?

      Why, to be ridiculous of course. Isn't it maddeningly delightful? Or is it delightfully maddening?

      --
      Sleep is futile.
    19. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by atomicdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US Navy actual does a lot of research of gravity waves, however they are referring to a slightly different definition or nature. Instead they are looking at periodic influences of tides and other aspects of gravity. For example, examining the effects of "gravity waves" on the atmosphere. It also doesn't help that a component of surface waves on the ocean are also called "gravity waves" since these are waves that are working against gravity. A google search shows the stuff does show up in a lot of Navy research documents, and would probably be pretty confusing if it doesn't give enough information to hint it is not the same gravity waves talked about here.

      There has been a few popular discussions of gravity wave (in the normal sense) communication, including a short blurb in several magazines that I recently remember referring to a paper about converting electromagnetic waves to gravity waves. I'm skeptical of what is proposed, but it doesn't take too much equipment to test, so I wouldn't be surprised if other people were testing it. Although there is no explicit mentioning of the Navy in any of that I remember.

    20. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by pclminion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      He said "gravity waves," not "gravitational waves," and although he's confused, he isn't wrong.

      The term "gravity wave" is used in hydrodynamics to refer to large waves at fluid boundaries which are governed exclusively by inertia and gravity. For example, your typical ocean wave. This is as opposed to a "capillary wave" which is governed at least partially by the effects of surface tension and cohesion. In water, the transition from gravity to capillary wave behavior occurs somewhere around a wavelength of 5 cm.

      It's quite possible the Navy is doing some kind of research with gravity waves, but whatever it is, it's probably not for long distance communication because the waves move so slowly and their long wavelengths make them hard to focus.

    21. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's quite possible the Navy is doing some kind of research with gravity waves, but whatever it is, it's probably not for long distance communication because the waves move so slowly and their long wavelengths make them hard to focus.

      However, communicating with a sub is worth lots of hardship. Take a look a ELF. It's very slow and unfocussed, yet it's still used today.

    22. Re:Gravity travels instantaneously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Speed of gravity:

      Speed of Gravity Measured for First Time
      The first accurate measurement ever taken of the speed with which gravity propagates shows that it is equal to the speed of light. ...
      www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ gravity_speed_030107.html - 33k - Jul 13, 2004 -

      Speed of Gravity Results 'Incorrect,' Physicist Says. Noted physicists are criticizing a report last week that suggested the speed with which gravity propagates had been determined and was equal to the speed of ...
      www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ gravity_speed_030116.html - 40k - Jul 13, 2004 -

  10. Prior art by Watterson? by SB9876 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientific progress goes BOINC?

    1. Re:Prior art by Watterson? by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

      Apparently it's very popular in Berkley to hook up with peers and then BOINC each other.

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
    2. Re:Prior art by Watterson? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could use a good BOINC right now...

    3. Re:Prior art by Watterson? by breon.halling · · Score: 1
      --
      "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
  11. I was a member of the BOINC project by geekoid · · Score: 1, Funny

    I was an astronaut testing a new aircraft, when I had a blow out, and the resulting crash left me with no legs, no arm, no eye... err wait...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:I was a member of the BOINC project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this modded as a troll? He was making a joke about being a bionic man. BIONIC!!

    2. Re:I was a member of the BOINC project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making lame jokes is also trolling.

  12. Re:Wasn't there a generic piece of software for th by syousef · · Score: 1

    Okay, cool should've read more of the article. Just read about a specialist task and thought it was a whole new software project.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  13. Can they port this to my cellphone? by BelugaParty · · Score: 1, Interesting
    or my digital watch, or my SNES, or my DVD player; they are my only devices with spare cycles.


    Desktop: Seti

    Laptop: PrimeNet

    1. Re:Can they port this to my cellphone? by builderbob_nz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Score 0 Redundant" ?????

      Am I the only one here that finds this attempt at humor actually rather interesting. Given that my pocket calculator probably has more power than the computer system on the Apolo lander (please no debates on whether or not it happened) I can see this comment making a lot of sense for the future of high-powered computing.

      --

      Karma? Hey I just call it as I see it.
    2. Re:Can they port this to my cellphone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Interesting thought. Sometimes the absurd has a dash of genius in it.

    3. Re:Can they port this to my cellphone? by radixvir · · Score: 1

      it wouldnt come out for portable devices. these things need to switch into lower power mode when you arent using them. SNES has a 9MHz? processor so its not going to do all that good. not even sure if it has a floating point processor. dvd players probably dont have great processors either, a separate chip for mpeg decoding to make them cheaper.

      so, you just have to choose which one to run on your computer. probably once we are saturated with these things, it will be very hard for researchers to get anyone to run the screensaver at all!

  14. Hooray for Boinc! by dj245 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Boinc has really brought something to Distributed computing. Once you install the client, adding new projects (like this new Einstein gravity one) is very simple. Instead of signing up, downloading software, installing and configuring it; all someone running Boinc has to do is sign up on the website and copy two lines of text into the client.

    Boinc should open up more distributed computing projects as well, since the server/client infrastructure is mostly prewritten. Since my other Boinc projects have been sputtering and not giving me work lately, maybe I'll give this one a try. More info on Boinc Here

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  15. BOINC has issues... by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Informative
    We've tried deploying BOINC before for distributed biologic research on our internal workstations to create an informal cluster of sorts, with dissatisfying results. While BOINC is considered the provolone cheese of the distributed computing industry, we found that it behaves in a somewhat inconsistent manner.

    For one thing, on most of the workstations BOINC would appear to work very quickly on the data only to crash out well before the computation was created. Indeed, sometimes it would actually crash before any data was processed by the application. At other points it would work for hours and hours without actually achieving anything; closing down the workstations at the end of the day without getting one computed dataset off was quite frustrating. On the workstations that were actually computing datasets we discovered a few started to become bloated past the point of peak functionality within a few months of even casual use.

    While it's possible that it's the inhouse .NET code that could be creating the problem, after several weeks of debugging we're pretty sure it's BOINC related. My suggestion is to steer clear and look for a safer and more reliable API (or roll your own).

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:BOINC has issues... by Airconditioning · · Score: 1

      How long ago did you try doing this? I've been using BOINC since they advertised it publically on the old Seti@Home site (around two weeks ago) and I've had no problems at all on the client side. And that's using it on two machines too.

      Perhaps you're experiencing some legacy problems that have been fixed by now?

    2. Re:BOINC has issues... by Sheetrock · · Score: 1
      It's certainly been a while since we used BOINC, and while I don't think it's changed too radically over time I was a little harsher on it than maybe I should have been. One lab is hardly empirical evidence, and they were constantly trying all sorts of crazy things with BOINC (a plug-in system, different environments, even interface and design changes) so it's more "let's see what works" than a controlled test situation.

      To be honest, a lot of folks on here would probably benefit from BOINC; it's definitely better than nothing, and it's not like there's a great deal of work involved. Just don't put too much pressure on the system by reworking everything, I guess.

      --

      Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
      -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    3. Re:BOINC has issues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why don't you just file a bug report to BOINC?

    4. Re:BOINC has issues... by Moofie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BOINC nuked my computer pretty good too. Very shoddy.

      Just a data point, but I'm not going to be bothered to troubleshoot their software to donate to their project.

      Maybe when it's out of beta I'll try again, but I've been having all sorts of weird problems ever since I tried that damn thing.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:BOINC has issues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please describe the problems, and why you feel they are attributable to BOINC?

    6. Re:BOINC has issues... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Every time I boot the computer, I get a generic "Windows has detected a problem..." error message with no details. Click close, it appears again. Click close, appears again. Until I go into Task Manager and shut down dumprep and dwwin, the message box won't go away. This problem started after installing BOINC, and still occurs after uninstalling it.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:BOINC has issues... by kyletinsley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm it just came out of Beta like two weeks ago... Either you were working with a very early version of the Boinc code, or else you haven't spent a whole lot of time on it... Yes, there is still definitely a lot of work to be done on Boinc, both client and server side. But before giving everyone a blanket recommendation to avoid using something, you should at least waited until the first public release version before doing stability tests...

    8. Re:BOINC has issues... by kyletinsley · · Score: 1

      Which program is actually crashing though? Dump report and Dr.Watson only show up when something else has crashed, and if you've uninstalled Boinc it can't be what's crashing. So which program is actually crashing?

    9. Re:BOINC has issues... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      "For one thing, on most of the workstations BOINC would appear to work very quickly on the data only to crash out well before the computation was created. Indeed, sometimes it would actually crash before any data was processed by the application."

      Apparently you downloaded the Windows version...

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    10. Re:BOINC has issues... by dj245 · · Score: 1
      If you're working with Boinc and it has issues, maybe you should delve into the source code. It is freely available and open source don't-ya-know.

      but then again, you're a troll. rats.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    11. Re:BOINC has issues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call quack. BOINC manages the requesting, downloading and computation launching of data sets as well as the uploading of the result sets. The actual computation is done by a seperate process and if you have nothing happening there or crashes during the computation, then that's a bug in the computation code.

    12. Re:BOINC has issues... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Unreported. There is no way to tell. I assume it's some service that Boinc installed and didn't uninstall. The dialog box does NOT report the name of the thing that crashed, which is why it's so annoying.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    13. Re:BOINC has issues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BOINC is still too young and does need time to stabilize, DC platform what has matured over time is COSM:
      http://www.mithral.com/
      Prominent user of this platform is Folding@home:
      http://folding.stanford.edu

    14. Re:BOINC has issues... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      While it's possible that it's the inhouse .NET code that could be creating the problem, after several weeks of debugging we're pretty sure it's BOINC related. My suggestion is to steer clear and look for a safer and more reliable API (or roll your own).
      Of course... Microsoft's code, known to be buggy, cannot possibly be the source of the problem... While code that is currently running on tens of thousands of computers across the globe with utter stability must be the problem.

      From your description, it's pretty obvious that something is hosed in the analysis client you are providing to the workstations.

  16. All I Can Say. by Effugas · · Score: 1, Funny

    Scientific Progress Goes BOINC.

  17. GriPhyN - Grid Physics Network by bobhagopian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is one of many projects related to GriPhyN (Grid Physics Network), an organized effort by physicists to bring important data analysis tasks to the home user. Distributed data analysis for LIGO is just one of the many projects that comprise GriPhyN; others include data analysis for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and (I believe) the Large Hadron Collider, which is nearing completion at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. SETI@HOME definitely caught the eye of physicists who, until recently, had been stymied by the lack of funds for supercomputers. While Linux clusters have gone a long way in addressing their needs, they quickly realized that the really data intensive applications such as LIGO, LHC, and SDSS would require something more. I'm excited that I might finally be able to change my screensaver to something other than SETI@Home!

    1. Re:GriPhyN - Grid Physics Network by tqft · · Score: 1

      Try http://seventeenorbust.com/ for a change.

      No screensaver, just set the power management option to turn the screen off

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
  18. Commercial applications of BOINC like software by Lifix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With the average home computer advancing to higher levels, how long will it be until you can rent out your computer? I can imagine that it would be extreemly profitable to credit say $1.50 per hour of time running in the background of a program. Actually, paying for time is bad, paying for packets is better. Now I am not a trained professional in any way or form (I'll be a senior in HS next year) but I believe that paying people to compute should be cheaper then doing your own processing - and alot faster.

    Most office computers in offices that I have been working in have relativly decent power and word processing doesn't take up much of their resources. Offices could make extra cash by running software in the backgrounds on their computers, if not during the day, then at night or after hours. Hrm, interesting possibilities :-)

    --
    In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
  19. Google Mirror by SiggyRadiation · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    See Google Mirror about Boinc.


    ....
    (karma be damned)

    --
    This unique sig is intended to make this user more recognisable.
  20. Ah hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's going to set up an OIF project to keep the cosmos in balance?

  21. H-bomb@home by po8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of my colleagues likes to tease our students by referring to this volunteer grid stuff as "H-bomb@home". "Sure, your SW says it's doing gravity-wave calculations. I claim that USDoD is using it to do H-bomb (or bioweapon, or whatever) design simulations for free on your computer. Go ahead, prove me wrong."

    IMHO it's an interesting point.

    1. Re:H-bomb@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Better that than the way they used to test the stuff, right? Besides, to defend you need to determine how the enemy will attack.

      Put his fears to rest. Most of this stuff is actually being used so a multinational corporation can get another patent on your computer's time. But all that electricity might as well work for someone instead of pushing flying toasters across your screen.

    2. Re:H-bomb@home by spellicer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Moving to BOINC can allieviate this paranoia. The new BOINC infrastructure includes the ability to use the "Anonymous Platform," which means you get to compile on your own code and simply retrieve the workunits from them. All the source is available if you don't trust the project.

    3. Re:H-bomb@home by po8 · · Score: 1

      That's cool. Thanks for the tip!

    4. Re:H-bomb@home by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      If you're really curious, or paranoid reverse engineering the compiled code is difficult, but nowhere near impossible. People have certainly done it and released their own modified (but unauthorized) clients for the distributed.net RC5 project.

      The risk of being caught doing h-bomb@home is too great. There's an enormous amount of trust placed upon individual clients. Imagine if someone found out, they could possibly screw up your results in some clever or subtle manor through modifying your client and submitting erroneous results. You'd also be giving out free code to anyone who wants to do their own h-bomb/bioweapon, etc simulation.

      --
      AccountKiller
  22. American Scientist article by 602 · · Score: 1
    There's a good article on the science of gravitational radiation and its detection in the July-August issue of "American Scientist".

    (Note that this -isn't- "Scientific American". "American Scientist" is a bimonthly journal with articles aimed at a multidisciplinary scientist audience, whereas SA is aimed at a lay audience. AS's articles are of the depth and quality that SA had twenty years ago.)

    You can't read the article online, but your local li-berry may have it. Worth a trip.

  23. Calvin & Hobbes book by MagicDude · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that the name of a Calvin & Hobbes collection? "Scientific Progess goes BOINC."

  24. LIGO Hanford! by NoYes19 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    LIGO Hanfod is a very cool facility. I got to go on a tour of it several years ago while they were in the calibration phase. At the time they were working on mapping the background vibration in the area. Trucks hitting a bump on a highway over 10 miles away left a consistent detectable spike. It was impressive the work that went into identifying every vibration they felt and then setting up monitoring and periodic average noise maps in order to help filter out the background noise to focus on the vibrations from space. LIGO is the king of siesmographs.

    Its interesting that LIGO Livingston seems to be the more PR focused one. Go figure the one in a worse location for this work, but not on a nuclear site gets the PR :P, got to love America's fear of nuclear power.

    If I remember right, there are 5 other international LIGOs, all collaborating on this. It's amazing the expense getting put into verifying this prediction by Einstein. It's never been clear to me why peopel care enough to go to such great lengths to verify this prediction. Anyone have insite in this? Please no philosophical boiler-plate answers...real impact-on-physics answers are what I am looking for.

    1. Re:LIGO Hanford! by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

      As I imply above, hanford is one of the scariest places in the world. I have met many people who have gone on tours of the facility, with happy dazy reports such as yours. This is because quite clearly, any place they let people visit is carefully designed to give a sense of normality.
      I overflew Hanford several years ago, and let me tell you, this place is not "cool". No doubt their seismograph is to detect intruders, not to detect "vibrations from space" (lol).
      From the air, the truth becomes apparent, the LIGO is fairly distant from "real" hanford site, and no doubt from ground level its seems just like any old desert like area.
      To the NW of the LIGO is the site of devastation so bizarre I cant even describe it to you; along with an outlying area of buildings with little square grass gardens, which, when seen in full perspective of the alien landscape just over the ridge, is almost comical.

    2. Re:LIGO Hanford! by geomon · · Score: 1

      As I imply above, hanford is one of the scariest places in the world.

      Obviously, you've never been to Cleaveland! (rimshot!)

      I work at Hanford. You haven't a clue about the past history and present condition of the facility. It is glaringly apparent by your comments:

      I have met many people who have gone on tours of the facility, with happy dazy reports such as yours. This is because quite clearly, any place they let people visit is carefully designed to give a sense of normality.

      The tone of your comment belies your bias. No matter what someone who has *been* to the site tells you, YOU know better.

      Ah, yes... Nothing like a religious experience to convince you that your form of wisdom is *the* truth.

      I overflew Hanford several years ago, and let me tell you, this place is not "cool".

      You can tell a lot from a seat at ~8,000 ft, can't you? What was the condition of the facility located just south of the 223E facility in the 200 East Area? What? You couldn't tell?

      No doubt their seismograph is to detect intruders, not to detect "vibrations from space" (lol).

      No, the seismographs are installed to detect earthquakes. If you want to see their location, you can read the Annual Seismic Report online.

      From the air, the truth becomes apparent, the LIGO is fairly distant from "real" hanford site,

      Which "real" Hanford Site are you referring to? The Hanford Township? The reactors in the 100 Area? The separations facilities in the 200 Areas? The fuel fabrication facilities in the 300 Area?

      Just what are you talking about?

      and no doubt from ground level its seems just like any old desert like area.

      That is because, despite what this twit is claiming, it is just like any old desert area. It just happens to have a HUGE inventory of radionuclides in the ground.

      Lest anyone fail to catch my sarcasm, it is clear that people like rufusdufus refuse to read information publicly available to anyone in the world. I would not claim that Hanford is your next vacation destination, but it is also not the scary X-files-like place that this person claims it is.

      The staff who work at Hanford are scientists and engineers engaged in the worlds largest environmental cleanup project, and we intend to do it right. Even if we *wanted* to hide anything, there is a federal consent decree that requires the Department of Energy to meet the both federal and state environmental regulations, as well as stakeholder groups like the native American tribes in our region.

      Is Hanford contaminated? Yep. It has millions of curies of radioactive wastes in various forms that are currently being removed, repackaged, and stored until the US comes to grips with nuclear materials. When people actively spread misinformation about how we manage the site, it provides the policy makers with the ammunition to grind the cleanup to a halt. That is NOT in ANYONES best interest.

      Whatever feelings people have regarding nuclear power or nuclear weapons, one would think that they would not approve of leaving it in the condition it was 20 years ago. That's what our work is trying to achieve.

      And we are certainly extremely proud to have first-rate science projects like LIGO here at Hanford.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    3. Re:LIGO Hanford! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing the expense getting put into verifying this prediction by Einstein. It's never been clear to me why peopel care enough to go to such great lengths to verify this prediction. Anyone have insite [SIC] in this? Please no philosophical boiler-plate answers...real impact-on-physics answers are what I am looking for.

      It's not just to verify the existence of GW, it also is a kind of telescope. GW are produced by large, fast changes, like colliding black holes, galaxies, etc. This data provides some clues to these processes. Just as we have visible light telescopes, infrared telescopes, uv, microwave, neutrino, etc. it's another probe for astrophysics.

  25. Instantly.. because it bends time.. by Perdo · · Score: 1

    Sort of like saying what is the speed of time?

    distance/time=speed

    anything/0=undefined

    weirdness.

    Our instruments are anchored in time, so how can we measure a wave that warps it?

    We really are stuck in a cave looking at the shadows on the walls.

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

    1. Re:Instantly.. because it bends time.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post made my head hurt. I dont know if its because it was excitingly philosophical, or just complete dogshit.

    2. Re:Instantly.. because it bends time.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vote dogshit.

    3. Re:Instantly.. because it bends time.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THAT made your head hurt?

      You must have an extremely sensitive head... or is it that your head didn't actually hurt and you were tyring to look cool by appearing incapable of serious thought?

      Most disturbing.

  26. No it isn't by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    Whenever distributed computing is discussed, people forget one thing: their electricity bill. A P4 running BOINC will consume 50 to 100 Watts more then one with Boinc turned off. Get a hold of your last electricity bill and figure out how much 24 hours of BOINC will cost you. Scientist will have to make very attactive offers indeed if they want to let you make a profit.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:No it isn't by Lifix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Millions of people run SETI@home every day, despite the power cost. I currently run three computers, two of which reboot once a week, and a laptop which I reboot once a night. I run seti on all of them and only turn it off when I need the best system performance for benchmarks or games. If there was an option for me to configure my software, so that I made a profit off seti, it would do nothing pay out. In order to target new consumers/users, the payout would have to be significant to bring in users and cover costs, but low enough not to bankrupt companies. I believe that this is all feasible and will be happening in the near future.

      --
      In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
    2. Re:No it isn't by kyletinsley · · Score: 3, Informative

      Several companies have tried to create a commercial grid software setup that pays users for their contributions. None of them have taken off. They have trouble getting customers because they don't have an existing user base waiting to crunch. (It makes your sales a little more difficult when you can't say "We can get started immediately." Instead they have to say "If you pay us money, then we'll be able to go out start trying to get all those end users to sign up.")

      The end users meanwhile don't want to sign up to run endless amounts of "test packets" that aren't accomplishing anything. (They obviously don't start getting paid until there's actually customers to crunch for.) It also doesn't help that these companies' software was also kind of bloated and quirky.

      The lure of being able to materially contribute to real science, in areas that are typically underfunded, by donating only idle CPU cycles is quite strong. People will do that for free. The minute you start making them focus on it as a business venture, they start getting very picky and a lot less tolerant.

      I don't think you're wrong, I think there will be some pay-to-crunch type systems existing in the future. But I think they will only be branches off an existing donated network (like Seti@Home). I really doubt anyone will be able to start one from the ground up as a business model. BOINC might be a place to start, but it would need some serious modifications.

      For one thing, the BOINC credit system is based on what the end users' computers self-report. Each client software runs benchmarks of its CPU, and then based on the amount of time it took to finish a Work Unit, reports back to the server how many CS (credits) it should be granted. To guard against cheating, the server will send out the same Work Unit to 3 clients, and all 3 clients will only be granted the smallest number of credits of what the 3 individuals claim.

      It will probably work well most of the time, because you have millions of users, and no real incentive for most of them to cheat. The probability of the same packet being sent to 3 different cheaters is fairly small. (And even if all 3 WERE cheaters and got more credits than they deserved, it doesn't REALLY matter, does it.)

      But in a commercial setup, 100% of your end users have an incentive to cheat. (If you're getting paid $1.50 per credit, it's in every end users' interest to claim as many credits as you can get away with, regardless of how long it actually took.)

      But regardless, I think distributed computing projects are going to be taking off dramatically in the next few years, paid or otherwise. It's going to be pretty exciting to see the kinds of crazy things people will start wanting to crunch with it.

    3. Re:No it isn't by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      Well, you could start off with a flexible network that ran whatever you gave people. Then they can sign up for projects that they want to contribute to - start off with free cancer research, aids research, seti research, whatever. Then later on add in new groups they can sign up for that pay. The pay ones get priority of course. You pay per work unit completed, and for each work unit you do it like 3 or 5 or however many times. Diff each of the results. If they are not identical, then resend the packet and flag the client(s) that was different as a possible cheater. Too many cheater points and he is kicked off - and you don't get paid for packets that don't get verified. Clearly the cheater points system would need some work, but people would have no incentive to cheat because if they do, they don't get paid.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
  27. Um...No. by KrisHolland · · Score: 0

    " But I am hoping that gravitational waves travel instantly throughout the galaxy."

    If gravity waves traveled faster then the speed of light then the effects of gravity would occur before actually seeing the object.

    You would have the effect before cause which is impossible.

    1. Re:Um...No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You would have the effect before cause which is impossible.
      No. You'd have the effect before the cause would be visible. The cause, however, would still precede effect.
    2. Re:Um...No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing something isn't the cause.

    3. Re:Um...No. by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. You'd have the effect before the cause would be visible. The cause, however, would still precede effect.

      No, for at least some moving observers you do wind up with the effect preceeding the cause. It's all part of relativity. Two observers moving in opposit directions can dissagree about the order of two events. If anything exceeds the speed of light one of the observers will see the effect preceed the cause on the time line.

      There is no such thing as "simultaneous", it's all relative.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:Um...No. by yem · · Score: 1
      If gravity waves traveled faster then the speed of light then the effects of gravity would occur before actually seeing the object.

      Sounds fine to me.

      You would have the effect before cause which is impossible.

      Feeling the effect before seeing the cause doesn't mean effect came before cause at the point of origin. If the cause particles (photons) take longer to reach me than the effect particles (gravitons), so what?

      --
      No, I did not read the f***ing article!
    5. Re:Um...No. by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      If the cause particles (photons) take longer to reach me than the effect particles (gravitons), so what?

      If we can send a faster-than-light signal, we can exploit relativity to send signals into the past.

      First, we need to realise that 'simultaneous' is a relative concept. Consider three evenly spaced spacecraft flying past you in a line. The centre ship fires lasers at the front and back ships, and when the beam reaches them they explode. Simultaneously? No: the lead ship is flying directly away from the beam, while the tail ship is flying towards it, so the ship at the back blows up first, and the ship at the front blows up later. But from the point of view of the captain of the centre ship? Both the other ships are stationary relative to him, so the beams reach them simultaneously.

      In general, events that are simultaneous for one observer will not be simultaneous for an observer in relative motion.

      Let us now suppose that we wish to cheat on the Alpha Centauri state lottery. At time t=0 in the frame of reference of Alpha Centauri the draw is made, and an instantaneous signal is sent to Earth with the result. The signal arrives at time t=0 (Earth is in the same reference frame, because it's not moving at any significant speed relative to Alpha.)

      So, from the perspective of observers on Earth or Alpha, event A (signal sent from Alpha) is simultaneous with event B (signal received on Earth).

      However, simultaniety is relative. Let us post an agent in a spacecraft moving at high speed relative to Earth and Alpha, such that from his point of view event A takes place after event B. This is quite possible, as we saw above in the example of the simultaneous shootings. Now when we receive our signal on Earth we relay it - instantaneously - to our agent, who then relays it - again instantaneously - to Alpha Centauri, allowing us to know the result of the lottery ahead of time and buy a guaranteed winning ticket.

      Conclusion: instantaneous signalling buggers up causality.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:Um...No. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Let us post an agent in a spacecraft moving at high speed relative to Earth and Alpha, such that from his point of view event A takes place after event B. This is quite possible, as we saw above in the example of the simultaneous shootings.

      I do realize that relativity tends to contradict common sense and that most arguments like this tend to turn out OK when all the details are considered, but I'm not sure about this one.

      You're suggesting that if I draw a lottery (A) and then broadcast the result (B), somebody might get the result before the lottery is drawn?

      In your spaceship analogy that would be like having a ship blow up before the initial laser is even fired - that would seem impossible to me. I certainly see how order of events can be skewed by frame of reference, but I'm not sure that two events that occur in one order in one frame would appear out of order in another frame. I can see how their relative timing might differ - but not how they could pass each other.

      In any case, if this could happen (B preceeding A) then clearly this would let you predict the future. And of course cause causality loops like deciding you don't like the outcome and trying to change it...

    7. Re:Um...No. by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You're suggesting that if I draw a lottery (A) and then broadcast the result (B), somebody might get the result before the lottery is drawn?

      If A and B are simultaneous in your frame of reference, then A will be before B in frames of reference moving in one direction, and B will be before A in frames of reference moving in the opposite direction. So if you broadcast the result using an instantaneous communication device, then the recipient will get the result before the lottery is drawn - at least from some perspectives.

      In your spaceship analogy that would be like having a ship blow up before the initial laser is even fired - that would seem impossible to me. I certainly see how order of events can be skewed by frame of reference, but I'm not sure that two events that occur in one order in one frame would appear out of order in another frame. I can see how their relative timing might differ - but not how they could pass each other.

      The critical thing here is that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames.

      So, in the frame of reference of the centre ship, beam A heads forwards at 300,000 km/s, and beam B heads backwards at 300,000 km/s. Since both ships are stationary, both ships are struck at the same time and explode simultaneously.

      In the frame of reference of a stationary observer, in which the ships are cruising past at speed v, both beams are sent out at 300,000 km/s. The rear ship moves towards beam B at v and the front ship moves away, also at v, so the rear ship is struck first.

      And in the frame of reference of a spy-ship flying at twice the speed of our warring convoy in the same direction, the three ships are moving backwards at speed v. Hence the front ship reverses onto the beam and the rear ship reverses away from it - and the front ship explodes first.

      The wonderful part is that all three are correct. If two events are such that no signal travelling at lightspeed or slower can get from one to the other, then the order in which they take place is entirely dependent upon your point of view. That's why faster-than-light communication leads to madness...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    8. Re:Um...No. by GetPFunky · · Score: 0

      This can be explained in a familiar example of a site being slashdotted. We see the result prior to the cause.

    9. Re:Um...No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errr... took me a second to see what you meant with the spaceships, thought you were wrong there for a second.

      Ya, relativity is cool, but it assumes that light can't be sped up somehow. Truth is we don't really know, it's all guessing... although physicists will NEVER admit that.

  28. *This* project seems quite likely..Hanford? by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    While scanning the einstein@home site I noticed a picture that looked a lot like something I had overflown at Hanford. Blew my mind to see that in fact it is the same facility.

    I cannot overstate the alien devastation that is at the Hanford site. It is by far the most bizarre and scary thing I have ever seen. Nothing in my experience prepared me for what I saw, nor can I describe it to you. The most heinous depictions in movies and games only begin to capture the horror.

    When I first heard of a 300 million dollar proposal to clean up Hanford, I thot it was just pork, but now I think that would just be a bandaid.

    There is no doubt in my mind that that site was designed by insane people.

    Thus, I would not be surprised at all that if the hanford lab is involved, its probably unsavory.

    1. Re:*This* project seems quite likely..Hanford? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I heard a talk from a guy who was peripherally involved with the handford cleanup - mostly from a chemistry perspective. (When you have huge tanks full of an exotic mixture of sludge that happens to glow in the dark, it is useful to try to avoid doing something that will cause said sludge to explode.

      I was truly astonished by some of the anecdotes he shared. They really have no idea what is in those tanks - the records kept were horrible, and they pumped stuff from tank to tank on several occasions. There has been some analytical work done (as of a few years ago) to try to identify the contents, but the sampling profiles were shoddy (remember, these are huge tanks of sludge which isn't stirred - any given section is likely to vary in composition). They also lacked the kinds of controls that any analytical lab would use even for slightly-important work (like sending the same samples to more than one lab for verification). Kind of scary that this is how we treat high level nuclear waste...

      Either somebody will wake up and start taking care of the problem, or eventually some hydrogen bubble will detonate and we'll have a fountain of plutonium sludge half a mile high... Of course, in government everything is about risk aversion. If you do nothing there is a high likelyhood that something really bad will happen, but a low likelyhood that it will be able to traced directly to any particular action that you've taken or that it will happen during your career. On the other hand, if you take action to really clean things up, most likely things will work out vastly better over the long term, but it is more likely that some cleanup disaster will happen over the short term during your watch and it is more likely to be tracable to some little mistake that you made. So, you can either sit and collect a paycheck and let somebody else worry about cleaning it up, or you can be the go-getter who will eventually have to stand in front of congress and explain how some cleanup worker accidentally fell into a vat of sludge and ended up with eight toes.

      Yes it is dumb - but that is how our government works, and for that matter that is also how the judicial system works. It is a lot worse to try to do a lot of good and accidentially cause a tiny bit of harm in the process, than to sit back and let something really terrible happen but not get your hands dirty in the process...

    2. Re:*This* project seems quite likely..Hanford? by geomon · · Score: 1

      I cannot overstate the alien devastation that is at the Hanford site.

      Actually, you just did.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  29. Hmmm by Ynazar1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yet another version of AMOR... Talk about number of choices. For those who do not know: AMOR stands for Amusing Misuse Of Resources, its one of the toys for KDE.

  30. LIGO actually means . . . by nusratt · · Score: 1

    "Listen If Gravity Occurs"

    It's called that because, every time a graviton strikes the sensors, it makes the noise "boink!"

  31. Try it this way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The detection of large gravitational wave fluctuations preceeds the eventual welcoming of our new giant,space folding Overlords...In Japan.

  32. Re:Gravity waves do dot exist. by close_wait · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The idea that "matter" interacts with the ambient space-temporal background is preposterous at best. Granted, GR is extremely elegant in its ways, but it can hardly be called a theory of gravity.
    Well, as a theory it's done remarkably well at explaining existing phenomena and predicting new phenomena (eg gravitational bending of light).
    Stop wasting time on those silly calculations: Gravitational waves do not exist.
    The whole point of those silly calculations is to determine whether gravitational waves exist.
  33. Re:Gravity waves do dot exist. by qc_dk · · Score: 1

    What do you base this on????

    What is so preposterous about the idea of space and matter interacting?

    Why is this more or less preposterous than other gravity theories?

    Do you find it less preposterous that string theory has 11 or 20 or ... dimension, when i can clearly see that there are only 4, and no evidence has yet supported any other claims. (though when the LHC at CERN is turned on we might get it)

    >>Stop wasting time on those silly calculations: Gravitational waves do not exist.

    Do you have any idea of how science works???

    It is impossible to prove a theory, fx GR, but when thousands of scientist all over the world create one experiment after another that has the possibillity of disproving the theory and none of them manages to do so. Your confidence in the theory is greatly increased. Science therefore needs people to test and re-test any theory.

    GR has now been tested since it was born almost a 100 years ago, and has been found to fit to observed phenomenae(how do you spell this) with great accuracy (at least in the weak field approximation).

    If you have any links or articles about experiments that make GR break down i would very much like to see them?

    QC_DK
    (studying physics at NBI)

  34. Re:Gravity experiments by byssebu · · Score: 1

    Let's blow up the moon and check how low it takes for the tides to be affected! Then we will know for sure the speed of gravity

  35. Re:Gravity waves do dot exist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how do you explain PSR1913+16?

  36. What about the GEO 600? by yem · · Score: 3, Informative

    As written up at the back of Wired mag a few years back.

    http://www.geo600.uni-hannover.de/

    Picture two tubes, each exactly 600m long and at 90 degrees to one another in the horizontal plane. Bounce a laser beam off a mirror at the end of each one. The time should be identical. Unless there is a gravitational pulse, in which case one would appear shorter than the other.

    Or maybe this is something completely different =)

    --
    No, I did not read the f***ing article!
    1. Re:What about the GEO 600? by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      GEO600 is a smaller version of the LIGO interferometer. It works in exactly the same way but where as LIGO has a huge budget, GEO600's building on site is actually a tin shed in a field in Hanover. For a while I was a research programmer for GEO600.

    2. Re:What about the GEO 600? by NoYes19 · · Score: 1

      You just described exactly what LIGO is....just 1400 meters shorter and only one station instead of 2.5(LIGO Hanford has a short one and a full 2km per arm one).

  37. future possibilities in distributed projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. Also, it might be interesting if nodes were designed to co-operate more. If you have a local network of any kind, it might be good for those nodes to work together as a team, and submit their 'team effort' rather than acting as slow, WAN-limited individual machines.

    Finally... this is a long-shot, but... some projects might have a space for overlap in their actual computations. Maybe a project like seti would need to borrow a pre-generated lookup table from prime net, for example.

    There's a long way to go yet in the distributed computing field, I think :)

  38. Re:Gravity waves do dot exist. by kyletinsley · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well folks, there you have it. Anonymous Coward has declared it so. No need for further discussion.

    Stop all funding for gravity experiments and go back to making some more of those wonderful bobble-head dolls. I can't get enough of them!

  39. Unit of Measurement by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    1 Lovelace = the gravitational pull that would be needed to suck a golf ball through a garden hose.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  40. M.P.U. by yem · · Score: 1

    Relativity hurts my head. Well, not exactly but I find there is enough ambiguity in every discussion of it that I never really gain significant understanding of the principle.

    Slashdot striped out the disclaimer on the first line of my post - I dropped out of Physics after year two.

    --
    No, I did not read the f***ing article!
    1. Re:M.P.U. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew that someone, anyone would post saying that it hurts their head, or some other comment about how a little thought is too difficult.

      I think this is having a serious effect on our culture, the idea that the first response to something difficult should be "it hurts my head" or "I'll never understand".

      It's even worse when you realise that that's ALL you contributed to the discussion!

  41. Imagine... by DungeonCoder · · Score: 0

    Imagine a BOINCwulf cluster of these things!

    Oh wait...

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. pretty foolish thing to believe. by CFD339 · · Score: 1


    I'm one of the true alpha-geeks that read and enjoyed this book:

    "Einstein's Unifinished Symphony" which covers this topic in staggering (stupifying) detail.

    One thing you'll note, is that the power required to create a detectable gravitational wave is on the scale of supernovae -- so creating enough waves in a sequence which could be interpreted and read would be a pretty remarkable undertaking.

    Imagine 1 supernova per bit of communication.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/04 25 186202/qid=1089891363/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-823243 2-3201747?v=glance&s=books

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    1. Re:pretty foolish thing to believe. by Open_The_Box · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, any asymmetric acceleration of mass will do for signal generation. Take a couple of neutron stars, arrange them in a binary configuration and modulate the speed at which they spin around each other - simple! Now all we need are some super powered tractor beams and we're set!

      Damn, we need a detector too. See original story for details...

      --
      If you can't think of something nice to say then don't say anything at all. No, REALLY.
  44. Gravitation Wave Laser Interferometers. by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 4, Informative

    For a while I worked as a research programmer for one of the General Relative Groups working on the GEO600 Gravitational Wave Detector in both the UK and Germany. GEO600 is a UK and Germany co-project.

    The interferometer is a typical Michaelson interferemoter using lasers with two orthogonal branches 600 metres in length. These gravitation events are small. Movements are ~10-E24 metres. It is expected that only one or two events a year will be detected. So it must run 24/7, 365 days a year.

    Naturally you have to remove as much of the noise from the data as possible to detect an event. Mirrors are hung on glass threads as they are thermally inert. It runs in a vacuum. It is temperature controlled. Everything is monitored from air pressure to sisemology. The amount of data being produced is incredible. I assume LIGO is the same hence the distributed analysis.

    GE0600 uses a microwave link to transmit data from the site to Hanover where it is backed up and fat pipes pass it on to partner universities. The 'head end' on site uses triple redundancy and enough bufferage for 24 hours back-up on site.

    You are talking many gigabytes a day and many terabytes a year and some where in this lot will be an event. This is truely the domain of super computing or distributed processing.

    Of course, even LIGO which is larger, is unlikely to spot many events if any and we will probably have to wait until LISA, the NASA/JPL/ESA spaced based interferometry project is up and running to get decent results.

    1. Re:Gravitation Wave Laser Interferometers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are talking many gigabytes a day and many terabytes a year and some where in this lot will be an event...

      You *hope* there will be an event :)

      I sincerely doubt you'll find anything other han noise and seismic activity.

  45. Good book on the subject - debunks 80% of posts... by CFD339 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The signal to noise ratio is suprisingly not bad here in /. on this so people must have some interest in it.

    There's a great book called "Einstein's Unifinished Symphony" that covers all this in great detail.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/04 25 186202/qid=1089891363/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-823243 2-3201747?v=glance&s=books

    The most likely thing to actually catch one is the proposed space based interferometer:

    http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/gr av ity_waves_000727.html

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  46. LIGO is near that devistation, but not its cause.. by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    As you'd know if you read the book:

    http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/gr av ity_waves_000727.html

    (no, I'm not affilliated with the book in any way other than owning it)

    LIGO is built near the site of a SUPERFUND site -- one of the worst as I recall. The waste site predates LIGO which is basically just a couple of long hallways and a control center -- just very very carefully built hallways which are then superheated and purged of air. Toss in some fancy mirrors and suspected mirrors and you've got a site. Not toxic at all.

    Now, the fact that we've spent enough on gravitational waves to have fed and medicated every starving, aids infected person on the planet is another matter -- and not one I'm likely to understand.

    If we took a couple of years of research money, used it to feed, educate, and medicate the 3rd world (like most of Mississippi) we might just find our world economy in good enough shape to more than make up for the difference with increased science funding for a long time to come.

    Ah well. Lasers are cool, Half dead poor people are not cool -- especially if they look different from us and have no oil. I get it.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  47. I'll stick with Einstein on this one by invid · · Score: 1

    It is more probable that gravity propogates at the speed of light. See here.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  48. Re:The New SETI@Hemisphere by shpoffo · · Score: 1

    "Free your mind..." so it goes. If your brain is a quantum computer then it probably acts like a quantum/non-local antenna as well.

    They have been broadcasting for quite some time..... and they are waiting patiently for us to collectively tune in. Clarity will come in steps as resolution increases with coherence.

    .
    -shpoffo

  49. Excellent mission; a bit rough on the environment by ishmalius · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I think this kind of pure science is the best type of endeavor with which the NSF can involve itself. Understanding the basic nature of the universe, and extending Einsteinian physics is an exciting thing.

    That said, looking at the LIGO facility , it seems like somewhat of a harsh scar on the Louisiana forest. Could they not have been a little 'greener' in their construction of the site? One of their daily secondary missions, after all, is educating students.

  50. Gravity Waves, the answer to everything by medazinol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a bit of my research into gravity in general, the discovery and eventual understanding of gravity (waves or whatever they are) would me the most momentous discovery of science in the last 500 years. The eventual ability to alter and manipulate this natural force could mean a lot to science and everyday life. Some suggest that gravity, unlike light, is INSTANTANEOUS. Meaning that its effect is not time measurable, its force propagates throughout the universe everywhere instantaneously. Imagine the possibilites for communications, travel etc... is this proved to be true...

    1. Re:Gravity Waves, the answer to everything by stuver · · Score: 1

      There are gravitational waves becuase gravity is NOT instantanous! The wave is a change in the gravitational field that travels at the speed of light (we think). And to make a measureable gravitational wave would mean that we would need to move a very loarge mass very quickly. That is why LIGO is looking to space for these events (like super novas).

  51. Check out LISA at the JPL's site. by jabberjaw · · Score: 1

    I agree with the fact that the jury is still out on the speed of gravitational waves, however most (including myself) expect it to be the speed of light. One can hope that LISA will not experience "budget troubles" as it will measure the arrival times of light and gravity from the same source, settling this question.

  52. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  53. I think what's needed by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

    Is a generic science DC client. Volunteers would be able to go to a web site and see what kind of projects are being worked on but some sort of governing scientitifc body would be allowed to allocate the amount of processing any given project would get. You could even allow for processing on multiple projects by the same clients. If you make sure that each project has a well designed web site explaining what it is they are researching and have the client app point to this information the owner of the donated cycles might become more aware of the impact his donation is having. Perhaps you could give the client the option to choose what project 50% of the donated cycles will be working on.

    I could go for that. Sometimes the hardest part of participating in a DC project is deciding on which one to support.

    1. Re:I think what's needed by kpearson · · Score: 1

      A generic distributed computing client is exactly what the BOINC platform is (see my short summary of it). You can view the websites of projects which use the BOINC platform, download the BOINC client through any of those sites, join or leave any of the projects whenever you want, and configure the client to spend a certain percentage of its time on each project. This client makes it much easier for you to support multiple projects.

  54. If you really want another DC project... by scoser · · Score: 1

    Check out the definitive list here. Anything from testing anti-cancer drugs to simulating designs for particle accelerators to hardcore prime number searching!

  55. Re:Good book on the subject - debunks 80% of posts by lazyl · · Score: 1

    The most likely thing to actually catch one is the proposed space based interferometer: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/grav ity_waves_000727.html

    I've read about this before. How the hell do they plan on keeping that system calibrated?

    The three [spacecraft] are designed to detect gravity waves by measuring subtle changes in the spacecrafts' position. Aboard are instruments sensitive enough to notice positional changes as small as one-fiftieth the width of a human hair.

    Sounds near impossible to me. Anyone know more about this?

    --
    Aw crap, ninjas!
  56. Without scanning the pages from the book.... by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    It has to do with putting them in specific places where they'll tend to be fairly stable (not quite LaGrange points, but similar in idea) and then using really good gyroscopes. As I understand it, extremely tiny bursts of hyrdogen do the fine tuning -- but I may be mistaken. That's just from my memory of reading about it.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  57. Re:The US Navy now studying using gravity waves by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    For communications ..

    Does this mean they will finally get to replace their aging psychic monkeys, which they currently use, with gravity wave communication ?

    I'm curious, how do they produce the gravity waves - create a micro black hole and wiggle it ?!

    And will they give up their former scheme of detonating nukes whose shockwaves can be detected to alert their subs that a nuclear war has started ?

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  58. BOINC and economics by k2enemy · · Score: 1

    I'd really like to see BOINC implement some economic principals in their code. By acting as a gateway to multiple distributed projects, they have the perfect framework to implement the concept of comparative advantage in distributed computing. By efficiently allocating projects to users while still allowing users to choose which projects make progress, more work will get done in less time.

  59. Gravity Waves Discovered.... by Zen+Punk · · Score: 0

    ...Faster Than Light Gravity Gun to be unveiled Monday...in Japan.

    --
    Sleep is futile.
  60. Re:Um...Headache :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if you broadcast the result using an instantaneous communication device, then the recipient will get the result before the lottery is drawn - at least from some perspectives.

    I can see this, just about, but wouldn't this fall down when you have to broadcast that result back to where it came from. Since to win the lottery you need to buy a ticket from the perspective of A, not B, and from A's perspective the lottery will always have happened before you send the result to B so you can't get a response prior to this. No matter how fast the result is transmitted from A to B, it still can't get back to A before it was transmitted....

    I can see that for an outside observer this could be the case, but as far as cheating the lottery goes that'd never work would it since you're always locked by that situation into the perspective of the place where the lottery occurs, unless you can buy tickets on Earth for Alphas lottery :)

    Maybe B does receive the result before A see's the lottery happening, but only from B's perspective....from A's perspective the lottery has happened and if B knows about it or not it still can't get any message back before this event.

  61. Not dogshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not dogshit. If it is a wave, and it takes no time to traverse the universe, we can never detect it.

  62. Re:Um...Headache :) by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    I can see this, just about, but wouldn't this fall down when you have to broadcast that result back to where it came from. Since to win the lottery you need to buy a ticket from the perspective of A, not B, and from A's perspective the lottery will always have happened before you send the result to B so you can't get a response prior to this. No matter how fast the result is transmitted from A to B, it still can't get back to A before it was transmitted....

    Well, let's look at this another way...

    Suppose that an instant signal is sent from Alpha to the ship, as well as from Earth. We've agreed that {Earth receives signal} and {Alpha sends signal} are simultaneous in the Earth / Alpha frame, and that observers in relative motion may legitimately disagree about the order of these two events.

    Therefore the ship will receive two notifications of the lottery result - one from Alpha, one from Earth. Because of their perspective on things, even though the two signals are sent simultaneously (in Earth / Alpha frame) and travel instantaneously, the crew of the ship get Earth's signal first.

    Now, in this time between receiving Earth's signal and receiving Alpha's signal, the crew of the ship are in the enviable position of knowing the lottery numbers before the draw. They have an instant communicator of their own - so they can signal someone on Alpha, which in their reference frame has not yet held the lottery draw, and they can buy a ticket.

    I suspect I'm going to have to draw out the spacetime diagram for this one, though... it's never quite as convincing without the mathematics.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  63. Re:Um...Headache :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't think you understand this very well. IANAP - but I follow it quite a bit...

    what are you gonna do when we DO have quantum entanglement communication devices which ARE FTL?

    In any case, no matter which example you use, if the communication really is 'instant' - it is instant, for all frames of reference - so the ship would get the alpha cent signal at the same time as earth at the same time as all other points... if not, then it isn't 'instant' :)

    if you want to say its 2c or something, you are still missing the point that it requires TIME to travel - 600k km/s is still taking time. Play with frames of reference all you want, but you won't get a case where the results are sent back to the loterry booth before the actual draw. if you really think so, you're just fooling yourself.

  64. Re:Um...Headache :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the answer, I won't trouble you to draw the spacetime diagram on my account. I think this kind of thing is not easy to explain in pure text :)

    I'm going to lie down for a few days then read a bit more about reference frames. You've certainly given me food for thought though.

    AC who asked the parent q.

  65. No - it travels at the speed of light by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 1
    Gravity travels at the speed of light.

    I have read that some of the corrections to Newtonian gravity that arise from General Relativity can be accounted for in a Newtonian Framework by accounting for the finite propgation speed of gravity but I have not worked my way through those calculations.

    If gravity travelled instantaneously there would be a preferred frame in which to do physics, since it would give us a universal clock, and that would break the principle of equivalence.

    --
    Squirrel!
  66. Re:Um...Headache :) by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1
    what are you gonna do when we DO have quantum entanglement communication devices which ARE FTL?

    The same thing we'll DO when we have motion machines that ARE PERPETUAL -- modify the theory. Until then...

    if the communication really is 'instant' - it is instant, for all frames of reference - so the ship would get the alpha cent signal at the same time as earth at the same time as all other points... if not, then it isn't 'instant' :)

    Saying that the transmission and receipt of a signal are simultaneous, for all frames of reference, would break some basic assumptions. Going back to the three warring ships, suppose the losers sent instantaneous signals exactly when they exploded. According to your definition of instantaneous signals, both the assailant and earth would receive the same sequence of signals. If both signals arrive simultaneously for both observers, the earth observer must conclude that the laser went faster than c to hit the front ship and slower than c to hit the rear one. If the same signal arrives before the other for both observers, then the observer on the attacking ship must conclude that light travels at different speeds. The very basis of relativity is that all observers measure the same speed of light.

  67. Re:Um...Headache :) by Theaetetus · · Score: 2, Informative
    Now, in this time between receiving Earth's signal and receiving Alpha's signal, the crew of the ship are in the enviable position of knowing the lottery numbers before the draw. They have an instant communicator of their own - so they can signal someone on Alpha, which in their reference frame has not yet held the lottery draw, and they can buy a ticket.

    Spacetime diagram doesn't work out for this one, unfortunately... Think of a light-cone centered on Earth and another one centered on Alpha - they cross at a point a few years in the future (and physically at the midpoint between the two systems). So, yes, if Alpha draws a lottery, and sends the info to Earth instantaneously, the Earthlings have it a couple years before the light of the lottery-drawing event reaches Earth.
    However, they turn around and beam the message back to Alpha Centauri. Time has still passed (even a miniscule amount of time, if they had an auto-receive/reply machine on Earth that takes the beam from A and turns it around immediately to send back). When the message is received at Alpha Centauri, it's received *after* the drawing took place, and *after* they sent the message to Earth. However, they're receiving it several years before they would know that the Earthlings would normally know about the result - so it seems like the Earthlings are "predicting" the lottery, but they're always telling the answer just a little too late.

    In any case, the spacetime diagram in this instance works better if you take it as a generic... The 45-degree lines in an ordinary diagram represent light-speed. However, if you're including infinite-speed gravity waves as a method of transmitting data, then your "cone" has to open up to 180-degrees: every event, no matter how distant, that happens simultaneously can be known to everyone, no matter how distant. And no problem with causality, just that light is too slow to keep up with "real-time".

    Highly unlikely, though - there are bigger problems than causality in relativity that constrain information (not just light) to travel no faster than light.

    -T

  68. Re:Excellent mission; a bit rough on the environme by stuver · · Score: 1

    The LIGO site in Livingston is the the middle of a forest used specifically for logging. As a matter of fact, this logging can cause problems for the vibrations that LIGO feels.

  69. Gravity wave research.. by StarfishOne · · Score: 2, Funny

    finally! ^_^

    *remembers that Dr. Zefram Cochrane (ST) was born in 2030 :-)

  70. Re:Gravity waves do dot exist. by stuver · · Score: 1

    The 1993 Nobel Prize was given to researchers who proved that gravitational waves DO exist by showing that two starts that rapidly revolve around each other are losing exactly the same amount of energy that gravitational waves predict.

  71. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  72. Troll? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Unfunny, OK I can live with that, +1 funny is better, but hey, a lot of people here probably weren't alive in the 70's.

    Modding me as troll was a waste of mod points. Like all things that strive to be funny but fail, they should be ignored.

    Sheesh, wait until Oscar Goldman hears about this, you will be so sorry. Now Jamie called, and I got to pick up some dog food for are dog. You would think a dog that is mostly electronic wouldn't eats so much.

    That reminds of the time I met Bigfoot...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  73. the tibetan art of gravitational waves by dalai_lama · · Score: 1
    David Blair (Australian scientist working on gravitational wave detection) had this to say about it:

    >
    "The detection of gravitational waves will not only be a milestone in scientific achievement; it will also be of immense cultural and philosophical significance. It will perhaps complete the process by which Western culture has gradually been forced to let go of its absolutist heresy. The heresy goes back to Aristotle and beyond. It is intimately tied up with the Judeo-Christian prejudice of an unchanging homocentric universe. It is epitomised by the ancient belief in a heavenly crystalline celestial sphere rigidly rotating and unchanging above us.

    This heretical edifice has been tumbling slowly under the onslaught of scientific investigation. Newton gave us absolute space, but contributed to the demolition of the geocentric universe brought by Galileo, Tycho, Kepler and Copernicus. Darwin discovered the impermanence of species; the plate tectonic theory gave us impermanent continents. Einstein demolished Newtonian absolute space and time, and gave us both spacetime curvature and the theory of gravitational radiation. The observation of gravitational radiation will demonstrate that spacetime not only curves predictably in the presence of matter, but is also subject to unpredictable perturbations as gravitational waves ripple through the universe.

    Absolutism is surely connected with prejudice. The absolutist prejudice has led to a lingering battle in the case of Darwinism, and most relativists suffer minor irritations from the Einstein-was-wrong brigade. Tycho Brahe wrote of 'his' supernovae in 1572:

    During my walk contemplating the sky here and there,... behold, directly overhead a certain strange star was suddenly seen, flashing its lights with a radiant gleam. Amazed, and as if astonished and stupefied I stood still... I was led into such a perplexity by the unbelievability of the object that I began to doubt the faith of my own eyes.

    His prejudice is transparent and seems naive. This shows how far we have gone today in giving up absolutism. Yet absolutism still exists in the world, and in social contexts such as issues of race and religion contributes much unhappiness. Ultimately society will absorb a world view that is free of absolutism. One aspect will include the fact that spacetime itself is stochastic. We will move closer to the Buddhist world view of anita, impermanence. In absorbing the truth about out universe we will surely come to a deeper knowledge of our place in existence."
  74. van Flandern is wrong, speed of gravity is c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Tom van Flandern is a well-known crank. He has done some good science in other areas, but his conclusions regarding the speed of gravity are just plain wrong. For corrections of van Flandern's mistakes, see this paper, and also this discussion.

    The speed of gravity has been indirectly measured to be equal to the speed of light within about 1% accuracy, by observing a binary pulsar system (whose rate of inspiral due to loss of energy from gravitational radiation depends on the speed of that radiation); the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to Taylor and Hulse for this work. Direct measurements will become possible once LIGO or one of its peer or successor experiments detect gravitational waves.

  75. Re:Commercial applications of BOINC --patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the problems will get worked out. It's a fantastic idea. People can justify their own purchases of fast computer hardware, and justify the price of electricity to leave it on 24/7 if they want, and the price per work unit can float on the open market on a project by project basis. Companies can put there jobs out there on the market. Computer animation companies can get stuff rendered. ANYBODY could. The DIY animators could get stuff rendered without capital outlays for many machines. And if people want to run non-profit, no payment projects like SETI@home , that's fine too. Let market and the individules decide.

    But this is a business method. What if someone tries to patent it? Or is BOINC and SETI etc suffienct prior art to prevent that?

  76. Re:Excellent mission; a bit rough on the-- Guns ta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw a lecture by Kip Thorne on LIGO. He said that the 2 LIGOs in the US where more expensive than the ones in Europe because the US ones had to be encased in an outer concrete layer to protect from gunshots.

  77. LIGO Hanford by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the LIGO sites is located in Hanford, Washington, near the nuclear waste site. However, they are in no way affiliated.

  78. Re:Um...Headache :) by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

    Did you take into account multiple spaceships traveling at different speeds that could bounce the information around between them? Did you include ships going slower than the earth / alpha centari pair?

    --
    -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  79. Re:Um...Headache :) by wirde · · Score: 1

    That would not change anything, would it? You will still not be able to buy the lottery ticket before the winning numbers have been announced. What good would bouncing the information around do?

    --
    in GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUSegmentation fault
  80. Re:Um...Headache :) by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

    Spacetime diagram doesn't work out for this one, unfortunately...

    It works out well if you parse merenguid's use of simultaneity in different frames. The situation is as follows: Alpha Centauri sends a signal to Earth, and this is bounced to the ship. This all happens in the spacelike slice for which Alpha Centauri is motionless and at the time the outcome of the lottery is announced. The ship is traveling rapidly away from Alpha Centauri, so the spacelike slice for which the ship is motionless passes through Alpha Centauri well in the past. Thus, if the ship sends a signal to Alpha Centauri that is instantaneous in the ship's frame, it will arrive before the outcome is announced.

    --
    "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
  81. Off topic SETI question by tabby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Does anyone have a source of information concerning the SETI project's search criteria or methodology?

    I was just wondering since it occurred to me that since we have no idea what a more advanced civilisation might be using to communicate we might be best trying to listen for signals in response to our own radio leakage. Therefore we shouldn't be looking any further than 25lightyears or so,50 years of high power radio = 25 years out & then signal return time of another 25. And expanding the search over time.

    I mean if they are just systimatically searching every system I would rather donate my CPU time to something else.

    --
    I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
  82. Installable as daemon/service? by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1


    Sounds interesting. Seems from the site it only works as a screensaver, though. At work we have 3 powerful dual cpu workstations (always on, not always logged in, almost never in screensaver mode) that could contribute if only the distributed program functioned a service. My FreeBSD server at home doesn't even have X, but still have lots of spare cycles that a 'nice -19' gravitational wave daemon could use.

    Just a thought.

    --
    Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    1. Re:Installable as daemon/service? by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1


      Sorry, ignore my parent post. After checking the BOINC site I found that this is indeed very possible. My bad.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  83. Re:Gravity waves do dot exist. by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    do dot exist
    Poor Troll's got a cold?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  84. Re:Excellent mission; a bit rough on the-- Guns ta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats not the only reason for the concrete layer, but the Hanford site has pictures of a car that crashed into the concrete cover (an accident from a Hanford Patrol training exercise) and I've also heard reports of a row of bullet holes that appeared in the wall of a building at Louisiana (one of the smaller ones at the end of the arms that you can't see in that picture) so its a good idea to have it there. Public relations quickly became a priority at the Luisiana site because of a couple incidents, but its been fairly successful and I haven't heard of any recent problems.

    There are several reasons for the difference in cost, amoung them the signifigant increase in the length of the arms at LIGO (and the resulting increase in vacuum equipment and other odds and ends) and also a few accounting differences (where GEO basicly gets some of their labor costs for free since its paid for under a different account). LIGO is also designed to be upgradeable, where the mirrors and electronics can be ripped out and replaced with more sensitive upgrades without a complete rework of the vacuum system and supporting structures.