Initial Tests Fail To Find Gravitational Waves

eldavojohn writes that though gravitational waves are "predicted to exist by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the initial tests run by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory Scientific Collaboration (LIGO) failed to find anything. It doesn't disprove their existence although it does rule out a subset of string theory. From the article, 'For example, some models predict the existence of cosmic strings, which are loops in space-time that may have formed in the early universe and gotten stretched to large scales along with the expansion of the universe. These objects are thought to produce bursts of gravitational waves as they oscillate. Since no large-amplitude gravitational waves were found, cosmic strings, if they exist at all, must be smaller than some models predict.' The scientists working in Washington and Louisiana (in tandem to rule out flukes) will now move on to Advanced LIGO which will analyze a volume of space 1,000 times larger. If they don't find any gravitational waves in that experiment, the results will be more than unsettling to many theorists."

Comments

what to do, what to do

[genjix]

1. find contradiction in model
2. modify model slightly for exceptions
3. ??????
4. PROFIT!!!

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how science works, yeah.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Kjella]

I guess the way you describe it, then #3 would be "get more research grants". But hey, if it's that easy please try making your own model and see if it passes the giggle test so someone will fund you. I think you'd have to work pretty hard just to find something that isn't obviously incorrect and could at least explain some of the many, many WTFs you get once you go past classic mechanics. I think it's impressive to make any kind of sense of it, really once they started introducing matter-wave duality I really lost the concept of what matter "is".

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, ID proponents tend to outright ignore new evidence, or any evidence, that doesn't fit their theory.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

No, science adjusts models to accommodates new data, whereas ID simply ignores all evidence from the start.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Tenebrousedge]

Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict? How could it be falsified?

This is like that Babbage quote: I am not able rightly to comprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is:
When you come up with a new theory you check what predictions you can make about other experiments. (That's why they're trying to find gravitational waves in the first place). ID doesn't do that.

String theory on the other hand... now you'd have a valid point.

Re:what to do, what to do

[SleepingWaterBear]

The problem with ID proponents here is that they tend to modify the theory to fit the new evidence while not bothering to make sure what they're left with is a self consistent theory. Their goal is always to win the argument, and they don't care if the theory they come up with actually makes sense.

That's not the real problem with ID though. The real problem with ID is that, as a theory, it has about as much support as the idea that rain is caused by tiny invisible unicorns peeing. The "tiny unicorn" explanation for rain may be a theory, but if I have to explain to you why it's a bad theory our education system is in real trouble.

Re:what to do, what to do

[4D6963]

This thread is now about ID vs Evolution, science vs faith. Thanks a lot for that!!

Re:what to do, what to do

[chthonicdaemon]

That's apprehend

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, because that is one of the criticisms that science has always had of ID... whenever new evidence comes up that doesn't fit the theory, the theory gets modified. Now you're telling me that science does it too?

That is nonsense.
ID/Creationism does not "change" their theory, they reinterpret evidence to fit their "theory".
Unless you are talking about the god of the gaps argument, but that is a separated issue.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Shihar]

Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict?

That is actually the wrong criticism of ID. ID can certainly predict things. If the 'designers' are a bunch of bored aliens that like to do anal probes, you could predict that the aliens will cause changes in animals DNA such that they tend towards having ass holes. If the FSM is the designer, than you will predict that creatures will be designed towards higher spaghetti creating lifeforms. If the designer is an all powerful omnipotent god that thinks beetles totally kick ass, you will predict that there will be a crap ton of beetles (which there in fact are).

And hey, all of the above might very well be true.

If someone wants to go out and try and prove it, more power to them. The issue is that ID is nothing more than an attempt by religious nuts to try and teach about baby Jesus in the schools. If there were people that were taking the 'study' of ID seriously, they would sit around designing experiments to catch whatever the mysterious force is that manipulates DNA to force evolution and create their spiffy designed universe. Further, when they pondered what the force was, they would have to constrain themselves to theories based upon real physics. This would handily rule out 'magic' and 'god juice'. If they want to show that the force is god juice, they then need to go ahead and reinvent physics to try and explain how the force of god juice works. At no point does 'magic', 'just cause', or 'humans can't understand because they are not Jesus' acceptable.

The issue with ID is that science doesn't accept 'magic' as an answer. If you say a designer is forcing evolution, you need to go and figure out the force being used, and it either needs to conform to current theories or you need to find new ones that explain all observable events. This is what makes the ID folks nothing more than religious whack jobs. When Darwin declare that natural selection was the answer, people went to work figuring out how natural selection works and didn't just decide it was a magical force that just happens. They tore it apart by from a macroscopic level that studied how animals compete and co-opt, they tore it apart on the biological level understanding how cells reproduces, and they keep on drilling down until they are looking at atoms and figuring out how quantum affects influence evolution. At no point was anyone ever satisfied with 'magic' as the answer.

Re:what to do, what to do

[jackbird]

You just said what he said, but he used the language of science while you used the language of bonghits-in-a-dorm-at-a-good-college.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Tim4444]

Since when do ID people look at evidence? In the Pennsy ID trial the ID proponents admitted to not running any of the experiments they proposed. Yes, in science when a theory doesn't fit the evidence you either adjust it or throw it out. For example, experiments looking for the ether led to the dismissal of both the particle and wave theories of light. They gave way to the theory of relativity which is still being rigorously tested because scientists don't take anything for granted.

Compare that with dogmatic writings that get promoted as absolute unchanging truth in spite of being full of internal contradictions as well contradictions with history and with science.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

Actually, some ID proponents tend to outright ignore new evidence, or any evidence, that doesn't fit their theory.

Never see hat in any other fields of course...

Re:what to do, what to do

[Kjella]

Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict? How could it be falsified?

Can evolution be falsified? If yes, then ID is pretty much the other option. Look at a forest that's been planted, it'll normally be completely different than a forest naturally planted by the wind. In the same way, we should be able to find signs whether we're a natural evolution or the result of an alien test tube experiment. If the ID'ers were really interested in science they could look at that instead of trying to throw a thin shim over the Bible. The trouble is that there's really no such evidence to speak of, the more we look at it the more it looks like a long succession of natural selection.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly sure that it predicted florida.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. There's nothing more exciting that the ID debate. It never fails to change everyone's mind every time it comes up, and it's like so totally appropriate here.

I don't really care if my neighbors think we sprouted like mushrooms from unicorn poop, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me, and I think they should have the right to teach their kids whatever they want and not be forced to....

Oh! See! You tricked me into the debate....

Re:what to do, what to do

[bigmaddog]

ID it not a theory, it is a religious/political ideology being presented as a theory that aims to explain the perceived weaknesses of science in order to advance the interests of certain groups and individuals.

- This beautiful, complex interaction could not have possibly arisen spontaneously, therefore God's will.
- This makes no apparent sense/has no apparent purpose, therefore descent from God's will.
- You cannot explain something neatly, therefore God's will or the descent from it.

That's not a theory. The aim of a theory is to predict something that you can then test for. ID doesn't predict anything, there is no empirical test for God and deciding arbitrarily whether things are as God intended or not does not increase our understanding of them - it's merely a reactionary attitude advanced by old men who are afraid of change and what it means for their status.

Besides, even if you believe in God the creator, the ID advocacy of ignorance still seems bogus; God gave you all these wonderful cognitive capabilities, so why not use them to try to fully appreciate his grand work? You would be wasting God's gifts if you didn't. :p

Re:what to do, what to do

[4D6963]

Yep. OK, enough with ID vs evolution, let's move on to the other battlefront of the science vs faith war. Climate change!

Global warming, schmobal schmwarming! Temperatures have gone done for the last 10 years (facts here [wikipedia.org]), so everything is just fine, it's just evil liberals who hate our benevolent oil companies because they're in the pocket of Big Ethanol. Discuss.

Re:what to do, what to do

[lhbtubajon]

I'm sure this was unintentional, but it is insulting in the extreme to label ID a 'field'.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Abcd1234]

That is actually the wrong criticism of ID. ID can certainly predict things.

Quite correct, that is the wrong criticism. Unfortunately, yours is, too. The argument that "science doesn't accept 'magic' as an answer", and therefore ID isn't science is a circular one. ie, if ID is magic, then science doesn't accept magic, therefore ID isn't science. Well, yeah, duh, no kidding. Heck, technically, I think that might actually be "begging the question".

No, the *real* problem with ID is that it isn't *falsifiable*. And this is specifically because any attempt to falsify the theory, by providing evidence which contradicts any "predictions", could easily be reinterpreted under the lens of "god did that, too". And if a theory can't be falsified, it simply isn't science.

Re:what to do, what to do

[clone53421]

I know. I had to cringe a little when I was posting that, but I couldn't resist...

Re:what to do, what to do

[AshtangiMan]

Well played sir. I'd mod you funny but I'm a little pissed off about the coffee dribbling down my screen.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

In a field of grain, you can grow wheat, barley, rye or oats. It's still a field. ID is still an area that people study. It's a field. You may not agree with it. I may or may not agree with things that come out of it. That's fine. It's still a field of study. Get over it.

Re:what to do, what to do

[geoffrobinson]

For starters, it predicts that there is no blind step-by-step process that can produce life or many of the underlying structures that support it.

If you consider the main question to be one of teleology, Darwinism is the answer of 'no'. Intelligent design is the answer of 'yes'.

If one answer is science, the other is as well. If one is not science, the other isn't as well.

Re:what to do, what to do

[badboy_tw2002]

I think he meant "field of scientific study" which many would argue ID is not. Have there been any serious studies into ID - perhaps something that can be tested and see if it fits the model?

Re:what to do, what to do

[modmans2ndcoming]

That is not circular logic... that is classical deductive logic.

All humans are mortal
Socrates is human
-------------------
Socrates is mortal

You are simply picking at the logic that leads to the "ID is Magic" clause of the logical formulation.

Re:what to do, what to do

[lhbtubajon]

In a field of grain, you can grow wheat, barley, rye or oats.

That's very true, of course. But you can't grow wheat, barley, and Ford Pintos. I'm arguing that physics, philosophy, and automobile repair are fields of study, while ID is not. It is a platform. An agenda. It's like saying the people paid by the tobacco companies to falsify studies on the effects of tobacco smoke are conducting science. Apples to orangutans.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

Actually does any theory or study of origins fit the scientific model? Science is based on that which can be tested. Finding ways to repeatably test remote historical events, or proposed events, is pretty difficult. While scientific study can be used to try and understand evidence, the final interpretation of many things depends very much on the bias of the interpreter. Anyone who denies that is either lying or blind.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

That's very true, of course. But you can't grow wheat, barley, and Ford Pintos. I'm arguing that physics, philosophy, and automobile repair are fields of study, while ID is not. It is a platform. An agenda. It's like saying the people paid by the tobacco companies to falsify studies on the effects of tobacco smoke are conducting science. Apples to orangutans.

At many levels, Evolutionism is an agenda as well. Why else would there be such a push to have it taught in schools?

Re:what to do, what to do

[Abcd1234]

Hmm, I suppose it's because I made the tacit assumption that if something isn't science, it's magic. ie, my explanation really should've been:

If ID is magic, then it's not science, therefore ID is magic. :)

Really, he's making the assumption that ID must be magic (for some unknown definition of "magic"), and then proceeding to use that "fact" as evidence that ID isn't science, without explaining why magic, itself, isn't science.

My response, that ID isn't falsifiable, addresses this issue and highlights the real, fundamental reason why ID (and also magic, as it happens) isn't science.

Re:what to do, what to do

[martyros]

The issue with ID is that science doesn't accept 'magic' as an answer.

Here you have just given away that you start with the philosophical assumption of naturalism: that is, everything that is (or everything that affects the universe) happens inside the universe. There is not, cannot be, any supernatural. That's not a proof you have, it's an assumption that you start with. And that's fine, we all make assumptions (e.g., logic works), but it's better if you're honest about it.

Let's try an analogy. Computers operate by rules, right? Everything in the computer can be defined by the state of its memory, registers, and disk (toss in whatever extra motherboard or micro-architectural state you want). How it transitions from one state to another depends only on what the state before it was, and any inputs into the system. The vast majority of those state transitions are 100% deterministic. (I know, I did my PhD thesis on this stuff.) Only a relatively small amount of input when you boot up determines whether you're playing Quake with friends or writing posts on Slashdot. In fact, for a running system overall, the less input needed to make the whole run smoothly the better designed it was.

Now, suppose there were a self-aware program living in your computer, looking at the state of the system, and trying to determine if there were such things as these mysterious "users", and if so, how they affected the state of the system. All you know is "data"; you can't see the physical world. Since these mysterious "users" don't live in data, to you they're essentially super-natural. Now ask your question: How is it that these "users" affect data?

If you do, you'll see that in this case "magic" (meaning, "something not described in the rules of the system") is an acceptable answer; in fact, "magic" is by definition the only answer. Users create the input from the keyboard, mouse, network, &c that feed into the system. Users really can decide which processes live and die; but what does that look like to a program? Some random data came in on a certain line which fed into a program, which when certain data hits inside a certain area on the screen (the "X" button on the upper right-hand-side of a window), the program sends a signal to another program which sends a signal to another program which tells it to exit. An atheist program might say those inputs were random, like states in quantum physics. Furthermore, really technical humans may have even more control: They can use in-circuit-emulators to directly change state on the CPU and use PCI bus devices hidden from the cpu to directly read and write memory. They can rewrite the register after an ADD instruction to make it look like it added 2 and 2 and got 5.

People who believe in the Judeo-Christian God believes that God has that kind of access to the universe. If he can feed 5000 people from five loaves of bread and 2 fishes, turn water into wine, and come back from the dead, surely he can twiddle some DNA at key points in history. By definition, a "miracle" is a temporary suspension or contravention of the normal laws of the universe. And thus, by definition, the "force being used" may not be detectable or describable under the laws of physics, any more than changes a programmer makes using an in-circuit-emulator would be detectable or describable by a program inside the computer trying to determine if the universe consisted only of data, or if there was a "supernatural" outside of the data.

Note that my point is not to defend any particular ID theories or people who promote them. I have a lot of biologist friends who are Christians, and think that the evidence pretty clearly supports the current scientific understanding of the development of life here on Earth. Believing that God can intervene in the natural world doesn't mean that you can't believe in and shouldn't look for natural laws and natural explanations for things. But your logic of "ID is bad because it will accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., magic)" isn't sound.

Re:what to do, what to do

[ShakaUVM]

>>Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict? How could it be falsified?

Sure. You can restate ID so that it is scientific.

Essentially it's premise is that of the biased coin or rigged slot machine. Contrary to popular belief, it acknowledges evolution, but says that it exhibits the bias of some outside entity interfering with evolution.

A statistical test akin to testing for a biased coin would be sufficient to create an ID test.

Also contrary to the prevailing wisdom on Slashdot, such a test will need to be made anyway as we move into a bold new millenium with genetic engineering, and we want to know if something has interfered with the evolution of, say, Ebola, so we know whether or not we should nuke the shit out of some third world country.

Re:what to do, what to do

[umghhh]

It would be refreshing if the matters of god and/or deity were dealt with by people of Kant's, Descartes' et al stature and capability as instead of putting argument forward to find out the truth they argue to win because they believe (this in a sense that they believe god exists or they believe god does not exist) but that is I guess too much to ask for so we have this constant bubbling about the subject that is not bringing anything except exitment (or at least for some it does). I do not mean PP but the discussion which in any way reach beliefs. It seems our brains are designed this way so that we believe, What we believe in is irrelevant as long as we have a herd to which we can belong.

Re:what to do, what to do

[lgw]

Science studies that which is not "magic". A supernatural explanation may be true and it would still not be science. This is a necessary limit of science.

However, even if the answer is "God did it", if God chooses to do things according to some set of rules (as most religions would have us believe), then those rules should be apparant from the patterns observable in the universe, and science should be able to deduce those rules.

That is the point of science: to observe the patterns than events in our universe follow, and produce a set of rules -- a predictive model -- that explain those patterns. This approach only fails if there are effects in our observable universe with an arbitrary or random cause outside of it. Only a God who actually behaved in an arbitrary and random way would affect the predictive success of scientific models.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, most ID proponents tend to outright ignore new evidence, or any evidence, that doesn't fit their theory.

FTFY

Re:what to do, what to do

[KingMotley]

That isn't a valid argument. You could say the same thing about any subject. Such as:

At many levels, Mathematics is an agenda as well. Why else would there be such a push to have it taught in schools?

The simple answer is because evolutionism is actually based on scientific evidence. ID is simply a religion that is trying to make itself look scientific so it can be lobbied to be taught in public schools.

Re:what to do, what to do

[canadian_right]

Ive never heard of anyone complaining that ID changes when new evidence is found. One of the big issues with ID is that they never change the theory, no matter what the evidence which means it is not a scientific theory.

Re:what to do, what to do

[canadian_right]

If you are studying religious dogma you can study ID. That is the only field it belongs in.

Re:what to do, what to do

[canadian_right]

Well said.

Mod up!

Re:what to do, what to do

[Heed00]

If ID is magic, then it's not science, therefore ID is magic. :)

Now this is a perfect example of begging the question -- you assume the thing you want to prove as a premise in your argument.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent funny. That struck me as hilarious XD

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

To use your analogy, when ID can point to particular event or change in the Computer and say, 'Look at that, before it was X and now suddenly it is Y and it doesn't fit any possible rule in the system', then I will give them some credit. Right now they are merely pointing to incomplete rules and saying 'Those gaps in the rules prove that there is a God'.

Re:what to do, what to do

[groslyunderpaid]

Uhm, I'm pretty sure peeps of the jewish faith believe in ID, and I'm also pretty sure they could care less about baby jesus being taught in schools....

Re:what to do, what to do

[SignalFreq]

A statistical test akin to testing for a biased coin would be sufficient to create an ID test.

So then do it. Create the test and give us the results, let us verify your test methodology and your data and your results. Until such a time, ID is merely conjecture and not a scientific hypothesis.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Calithulu]

Because a great deal of scientific research and studies support it. Studies of bird populations splitting into two distinct species, etc. The theory also explains fossil records and the ascent of [i]Homo Sapiens[/i] from [i]Homo Habilis[/i]. Additionally, if someone finds new evidence that can be tested independently the theory will be changed or discarded as appropriate.

ID has no falsifiable evidence, and therefore should not be taught in schools outside of a religious studies class (at best, since ID, in theory, doesn't actually belong to a religion). It certainly isn't science.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Ultra64]

Because you're supposed to learn science in school? Duh.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Ultra64]

Right, there is just no way to do lab experiments on evolution.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because people who don't like ID change the argument to suit the circumstance. I.e. People use anything, even apparently contradicting arguments, to fight something they don't like.

Re:what to do, what to do

[jbeaupre]

I beg to differ. ID is a theory, sort of like String Theory. They both explain a lot, but are pretty damn hard to test. The nice thing about science is that it doesn't care if your theory is crazy or not. It accepts all challengers, puts them through the ringer, and lets some survive a little longer than others. As an intellectual and philosophical exercise, ID theory is a good one. Is there a creator? Good question. Give us a hypothesis that can be tested and let's test it. That's science. Get results that contradict ID, so be it. Fix the theory or move on.

ID proponents however, are a different matter. They work from the assumption that the hypothesis is true and any contradictory data is in error.

Or another way to put it: ID theory could be scientific if handled properly, but ID proponents aren't scientists.

Re:what to do, what to do

[xigxag]

your logic of "ID is bad because it will accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., magic)" isn't sound.

The problem isn't really one of ID being "bad" or not. The problem is that it's not a scientific theory, and can never be one. If any laws of the universe could be contravened at a whim, then you can't really say there are laws, not even math, as per your 2+2=5 example. Sure, maybe that's how the universe works, after all. But even so, 1) it is by definition unprovable (since what's real is contingent upon the whim of the Creator(s)), 2) you can't even have evidence to support it, because among other things, 3)ID is observationally indistinguishable from (scientifically based) Really High Tech, and 4) if it's true, all of science is essentially a sham.

By definition, a "miracle" is a temporary suspension or contravention of the normal laws of the universe.

More precisesly, a miracle as an apparent temporary suspension or contravention in what we believe to be the normal laws of the universe. In that whenever we have had the ability to actually examine a miracle, it turns out that either what apparently took place didn't (those were not tears, they were a suspension of iron oxide) or what we believed about the universe was mistaken (yes it is possible for the sun to "burn" for billions of years because it's not really "burning").

When civilization was young, it seemed that everything was miraculous. Now, the room for miracles to take place has gotten smaller and smaller, and the only reason we hold onto them at all is because they are our only shot at true immortality. If brain uploading ever becomes a reality, that will be the true twilight of the gods.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Boronx]

A field of study generally produces results of some kind. The best thing to come out of ID is the idea of irreducible complexity as a line of attack on evolution. But it takes only a minute to realize that even if irreducible complexity were proven, it would present no barrier to Darwinian evolution.

If you want claim ID as a field of study, it'd help your case if anyone actually studied in it.

Re:what to do, what to do

[nightfire-unique]

Supernatural phenomena are no less explainable by science than any other phenomena. Non-visible electromagnetic waves were considered supernatural at one point. You could not see them, and yet, they could affect the physical world.

Supernatural is just another word for "unexplained." If there is a god, and that god interferes with our observations, then that interference can be categorized, measured, and documented. It becomes part of the new theory.

The problem with religion is that its central tenet is: do not attempt to honestly categorize, measure, or document supernatural interference with the observed world.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, suppose there were a self-aware program living in your computer, looking at the state of the system, and trying to determine if there were such things as these mysterious "users", and if so, how they affected the state of the system.

They say the User lives outside the net, and inputs games for pleasure. No one knows for sure, but I intend to find out.

REBOOT!

Re:what to do, what to do

[clone53421]

Huh? So they've experimented with inter-species variation and natural selection. Creationism/ID doesn't deny the existence of those.

All they've accomplished is recreating the peppered moth example in a lab using caterpillars.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Boronx]

Except that the input is perfectly explainable and subject to analysis by the self aware computer program. In other words, it can apply science to the user's inputs the same way we can analyze a meteor even though the idea of rocks floating around in the sky is nonsensical to our world, the we could and have applied science to the theory of an old man in the clouds who made us like him and wants us to be good.

If ever there was a force beyond the realm of known physics that entered the universe to work its will, it would leave effects that we could study to learn something of its nature.

Re:what to do, what to do

[jim_v2000]

>Here you have just given away that you start with the philosophical assumption of naturalism: that is, everything that is (or everything that affects the universe) happens inside the universe.

It's not a "philosophical assumption", it's a scientific assumption based on a lack of evidence to assume otherwise. For example, one might assume that unicorns, fairies, and goblins do not exist either. That is not a philosophical assumption...we simply have no evidence to assume that they do exist.

Re:what to do, what to do

[geekoid]

yes. It has been tested, and it has made predictions.

ID can not, and has not.

Re:what to do, what to do

[geekoid]

Becasue it's science? Science education and critical thinking is key to ahve a productive culture.

Re:what to do, what to do

[jim_v2000]

ID is not a theory; it cannot be tested. God said so:

"It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
-Jesus (aka, God Incarnate)
Luke 4:12
NASB

Re:what to do, what to do

[DamnStupidElf]

At many levels, Evolutionism is an agenda as well. Why else would there be such a push to have it taught in schools?

So that kids might have a chance to understand why they need a slightly different flu shot each year?

People who believe evolution is false shouldn't have any reason to be afraid of the swine flu or any other naturally mutating virus.

Re:what to do, what to do

[geekoid]

by definition, supernatnurale is outside the realm of science.

The rest of your 'argument' shows a lack of understanding in what science is and how the scientific method would show there is an outside force.

"But your logic of "ID is bad because it will accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., magic)" isn't sound."
Yes it is. The discussion is 'Should ID be taught in a science class?' the answer is No, becasue it isn't science.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Ultra64]

"So they've experimented with inter-species variation and natural selection. Creationism/ID doesn't deny the existence of those."

Creationism/ID doesn't deny the existence of evolution?? Then what are we discussing?

Re:what to do, what to do

[Grishnakh]

You're missing what the definition of science is, what its limits are, and what it's meant to be used for. Science is for developing models which will predict future behavior. For instance, based on scientific models, we can predict that putting a fuel like gasoline together with gaseous oxygen and sufficient heat to start a reaction will cause combustion, in which the oxygen reacts with the gasoline creating mostly CO2 and H2O. This doesn't happen because of magic, but because of the properties of these materials, and we have a scientific model of these properties (involving things like atoms), and we've found that every time we do this, we get the same results. Using these same models, we can predict similar things with other materials, and lo and behold when we experiment, we get the expected result because our model is accurate.

Now, some mischievous god might get in there once and turn your gasoline into Gatorade just to screw with you, and that would be a supernatural phenomenon. However, because the god only does this once, and not every single time, our model still holds up, and the god's actions are useless for predicting any future behavior.

This is why supernatural stuff like this is outside the realm of science. Even if there is a god that miraculously cures people once in a blue moon, you can't make any predictions based on that, and it's useless for any scientific study. Who knows, maybe one day we'll found out there's a bunch of aliens in a parallel dimension doing things which completely obey the laws of physics (but those laws are different than we currently understand them, as our knowledge is limited), and we'll be able to scientifically study such events, but for now they're just "magic", which as Sagan said is anything sufficiently advanced beyond your level of technology to be completely nonunderstandable.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Spy der Mann]

That's because people who don't like ID change the argument to suit the circumstance. I.e. People use anything, even apparently contradicting arguments, to fight something they don't like.

And the prize for the most ambiguous and off-topic counter-argument goes to...

Re:what to do, what to do

[angel'o'sphere]

And if a theory can't be falsified, it simply isn't science.

I don't understand where that statement is comming from. I only read it on /. all the time. A theroy is an idea about how a certain thing is working. You invent experiments to PROOF you theory, not to falsify it. If every theory would be falsified we suddenly had no theories anymore. For most ID claims you can not craft an experiemtn to even proof it!! Why take the tme then to try to find an experiment to flasify it??

angel'o'sphere

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with religion is that its central tenet is: do not attempt to honestly categorize, measure, or document supernatural interference with the observed world.

I don't know about other faiths, but the Vatican has a permenant organization. which exists, in part, to honestly categorize, measure, and document supernatural interference with the observed world. So while it may be a problem in some religions, is not an inherent

problem in all religions.

Re:what to do, what to do

[clone53421]

Creationism/ID denies that the processes of inter-species variation and natural selection are able to accomplish (given enough time) the changes that evolution claims they've made.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore, God is random noise?

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

The time has come for all who worship the false spaghetti god to tremble before the power of the Divine Lasagna Entity! Behold his many layers of wisdom and power! Watch as he smites those who worship the lesser pastas with his molten cheese!

Re:what to do, what to do

[James Skarzinskas]

A fluffy metaphor, to be sure, but that's the whole of it. Your basic angle of attack sits on a flawed premise.

There is not, cannot be, any supernatural. That's not a proof you have, it's an assumption that you start with.

And a perfectly valid, logical assumption it is; for to lend credence to, and to posit the supernatural would be to assert a positive claim for which no evidential support can be provided on behalf of the claimant. Failing to accomodate for the insubstantial is not a misguided assumption--it is a rational, sane default.

While I enjoyed your unique perspective on the subject, we're hardly nomadic worshippers roaming the open teal plains of the Windows 95 desktop, paying devout, pious tribute to the seemingly stochastic methods of an almighty oversized mouse cursor. O, the tumbleweed of questionable JPEGs adrift in the sandstorms of this barren, biblical expanse. Truth is, our registers just aren't being rewritten. The inexorable march of scientific advancement has been successfully unraveling alleged "miracles" for nearly as long as they've been purported, with no hallelujah of divine tampering left unrattled to this date. Drawing up images of some cosmic debug session is disingenuous and superfluous, at best.

If you were able to approach this post with a checklist of seemingly random phenomena analogous to the passing whims of a desktop user, totally unapproachable and inexplicable through our established fundamentals, I would quite frankly not be tapping out this reply.

However, the reality is that your post, well not inflammatory, and certainly well composed enough to warrant its superficial, positive moderation, is just another passive aggressive manner for creationists to rudely interject at the dinner table with a new spin on perverting the scientific method. "But, but, but, He's outside science and reason, don't you get it? Assuming He's not is just sooooooo presumptuous of you! And gee-whiz, I thought you guys were the scientists!"

I'm sure you had good intentions, but honestly, that's just not how it works.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Bigjeff5]

The problem with ID proponents here is that they tend to modify the theory to fit the new evidence...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that essentially how science works? We have theory A that fits the current evidence, new evidence comes along that doesn't fit theoryA, so we make theoryB. It's pretty standard fare in science - the other option is to either ignore or attempt to change the new evidence so that it fits the current obviously broken theory.

Why the hell do you think finding gravity waves is so important? General relativity is a cornerstone of modern physics, and it predicts gravity waves. If we can't find gravity waves under conditions that GR predicts they should occur, then GR is broken and we need a new theory. It will turn the physics community on its head!

Re:what to do, what to do

[Abcd1234]

You invent experiments to PROOF you theory, not to falsify it.

Sorry, no, that's just wrong. You *can't* prove *any* theory, as there may always be some case that the theory gets wrong. This would be why no modern theory, no matter how well it's predictions match experimental result, has ever been promoted to a law (see General Relativity for an excellent example).

The purpose of experiment, then, is to test the theory and see if reality matches it. If it doesn't, the theory is falsified and you go back to the drawing board, either by revising the theory or positing an entirely new one. If, however, reality does match the prediction, you go on to the next experiment, once again seeing if you can falsify the theory with the next result.

Contrast this with Intelligent Design. ID can certainly posit certain predictions (eg, irreducible complexity of the eye). And you can certainly try to falsify it ("See, look, here are the chain of fossils that show the evolution of the eye"). But an ID proponent can simply declare that God made it that way, and then move on to the next prediction. IOW, the theory is impossible to falsify, as it always gives the believer an "out".

Re:what to do, what to do

[DeadChobi]

Well yeah, ignoring how Bacteria appear to mutate in response to changes in their environment, which is an effect predicted by evolution, I would say that any theory of origins is completely untestable. Oh, Evolution might also predict that there will be differences between Dogs and Wolves based on how Dogs are raised in human environments. But we can't actually test any of those predictions, can we? I mean, how would we look at differences between dogs and wolves? Are there any experiments we could do that would let us observe bacteria adapting to their environments?

And what if I told you that everything horrible that happens in the world is either due to the stupidity of a large mass of people or the collusion of a very small mass of very powerful people? Which is the better explanation, the one that posits an observable tendancy for masses of people to act against their own best interests, or the one that posits the existence of an organization nobody has ever seen or heard of?

Essentially, in the absence of direct evidence for an intelligent designer, evolution is always the better theory because it's SIMPLER. It doesn't rely on the existence of an unknown actor, only on the observed repeatability of life's tendancy to change. And a bias toward the more complex but god-fearing explanation would be terrible for science, because all I would have to say to explain things like the motion of planets is to suggest that God did it. But positing the existence of God has no predictive power, and predictive power is what makes Science so useful. You can make good predictions with a geocentric model, or a heliocentric model, but you can't make good predictions about the formation and future motions of the planets by suggesting that God wills that the planets and stars revolve.

Suggesting that I'm biased detracts from the discussion at hand because it implies that bias is neccessarily a bad thing. Look around you. Everyone is biased. My bias toward scientific explanations exists for a reason. Do your biases?

Re:what to do, what to do

[DamnStupidElf]

A sentient computer has the ability to collect statistics to determine whether its hardware inputs are random or ordered in some way, and if it has the ability to adjust the display according to its inputs (assuming it's not stuck in a process that can't manipulate the rest of the computer) it can experiment with a model of a "user" that observes the display and produces input. It's the metaphysical equivalent of repeatedly saying "God, give me a sign" and recording the quantity and quality of signs delivered out of otherwise meaningless phenomena (sun moving backwards, pillars of fire, chicken guts, tea leaves, etc.).

Randomness is the critical issue. If a sentient computer can't determine whether it's a monkey or a human pounding on the keyboard or just random thermal noise triggering inputs, it's in no better or worse position than humans who can't determine whether or not a god is twiddling subatomic particles. At least a sentient computer would have the advantage of knowing there were defined inputs and outputs which would imply some external purpose. So far all we get from the lowest levels of quantum mechanics (as close to a supernatural input as anything) is random noise, and the overall visual output of the universe is at best just an abstract experiment in pointillism.

It is possible that humans have simply not yet identified the true inputs and outputs of the universe, or that the input and output is so complex that it cannot be understood by human minds. Perhaps the current position of every atom in the universe is a holistic input, and the output happens trillions of years in the future. In that case we have no repeatable scientific experiments but we might still eventually find some information that leads us to believe the input was nonrandom, or that the output might not be random (but at what point? Some early state of the heat death, the middle, or the point when subatomic particles fall into their own effective black holes from expansion?). Ultimately, if there is an otherwise undetectable god who must be obeyed or risk annihilation, evolution still holds. The fit will be whoever randomly selected the particular beliefs the god desired, and they and any potential offspring will inherit the afterlife, just like the life on Earth randomly selected what has worked up until this point.

ID is not bad because it accepts a supernatural explanation. It's bad because it's forced to accept an infinite number of possible supernatural explanations. It could be an intelligent designer, or it could be a flying spaghetti monster, or it could be a bored kid's futuristic science project, or it could be a random cause. This is the critical flaw; without being able to distinguish between an actual designer and a random process, the theory of ID (and religion in general) says absolutely nothing beyond "something happened, and this is what we are saying it was" versus the scientific theories which say "something happened, and this model might explain it." Who is willing to give up scientific rigor for the mere possibility that one's particular shaman might be right?

Re:what to do, what to do

[DamnStupidElf]

A statistical test akin to testing for a biased coin would be sufficient to create an ID test.

Does a biased coin require a Maker?

Re:what to do, what to do

[DeadChobi]

Hey, don't drag Math into this. Humans invented Math. Math exists entirely inside of a person's head, and therefore is not an artifact of the Universe. I could certainly make a rule in my Mathematics that "2+2=5." Math's game would then be to determine how that rule interacts with any other rules I would posit. There's nothing concrete about it.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

So they collect unusual anecdotes ignoring any indication of whether these are normal statistical outliers of natural processes. How is this is scientific?

Re:what to do, what to do

[DeadChobi]

I will sacrifice 100 Oxen tonight in the Den of My Computer, but only if the great Cursor will highlight it once more. Make it so great God of the Heavens.

Re:what to do, what to do

[TemporalBeing]

science does not necessitate evolution.

You can teach science and not teach evolution. The two are not mutually inclusive.

Nor are they mutually exclusive - evolution is one 'model' put forth by science, a model based on certain assumptions that may or may not be true and that science cannot prove.

So again, whilst current modern school-level science is all about evolution, there is nothing preventing science from being taught without a hint of evolution ever being mentioned and students doing just as well. (Note: I did not say teach 'creationism', or 'ID', or anything else in its stead either.)

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

If ID is magic, then it's not science, therefore ID is magic. :)

Now this is a perfect example of begging the question -- you assume the thing you want to prove as a premise in your argument.

welcome to evolution.

Re:what to do, what to do

[DeadChobi]

Or our experiment doesn't account for a phenomenon not predicted by current theory. One of the two. Either way it doesn't "disprove" GR, it only suggests that there is something we're missing. Consider that Gravity Lensing and Gravitational Redshift are two of the most important effects predicted by GR, and both of these effects actually happen.

Re:what to do, what to do

[pluther]

Except it's not.

Nobody "studies" ID.

Because there's nothing in ID to "study".

Some people advocate ID. Some people justify ID. Both those are very different things than studying.

Re:what to do, what to do

[pluther]

I disagree with that.

It also makes sense to study it in anthropology.

Also, psychology.

And, perhaps, political science.

Re:what to do, what to do

[HiThere]

Well, it's a field of *something*. I'm not sure study is the correct term, however.

Bible studies I can accept. They say what they are doing, and they (try) to do it. (I notice, however, that they tend to ignore the Benjamanites and the Moabites. Esp. their relation to Lot.) And the question of who did Cain and Able marry. Etc. Still, they're relatively honest.

"Intelligent Design", however, is a lie ab initio. They wouldn't consider the Arcturian civilization that disseminated spores designed to evolve into life throughout the galaxy as a suitable answer. It fits all their avowed criteria, but it doesn't fit their hidden agenda. They wouldn't consider the idea that we are a simulation being run by some post-singularity civilization. It fits all their avowed criteria, but it doesn't fit their hidden agenda. They intentionally eliminate every solution that's incompatible with (Baptist?) theology. I said (Baptist?) because different "ID" folk have slightly differing agendas, and only some of them are Baptist. But they happen to be the ones I know.

FWIW I consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be more reasonable than whatever the particular "ID" practitioner would find acceptable. Largely because the FSM doesn't have as many characteristics that I need to disbelieve in.

OTOH, I have a very firmly theistic view of human thought. It's just at such variance with all traditional forms that it's more closely allied to Jungian psychology than to ordinary religion. But I'm already way off the track of the story, so that should be saved for when it's more appropriate.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Triple troll bonus!!!!!!!

Re:what to do, what to do

[HiThere]

Sigh. It's supposed to and it tries to. However it often takes a generation or two to wash away those determined to cling to outdated theories. And this is among people theoretically dedicated to objective reasoning.

Now consider who advocates "intelligent design". Were I to present evidence that we are the descendants of carefully designed and planted spores from an eons old civilization from another star would this satisfy the "intelligent design" proponents? If not, then they have falsely labeled their "field of study".

What if I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt (somehow) that we were characters in a video game. That clearly meets the criteria of "Intelligent Design", right?

The proponents of "Intelligent Design" are shameless liars, one and all. They will only accept an answer that fits in with what they interpret the Bible as telling them. They work to impose their fantasies on the rest of us, and they have no qualms about lying to do so. Many of them believe that their God has told them to do so, and fequently they believe that if they don't do it, and thus win absolution of whatever they believe is sinful about themselves, they will be tortured without limit. So they are determined to make YOU afraid that YOU will be tortured without limit. (There are some with less selfish motivations, but even most of them have this threat in the background of their minds.)

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, unless God does things randomly. Then you're shit out of luck in deciding a pattern.

Also, it may be that he decided to change the DNA on gene 12 in a given organism to add a branch to an evolutionary tree, and did it by sending a gamma wave at the exact moment necessary to hit it billions of years later.

On top of that, God could have planned the entire universe from start to finish in advance. And as the cherry on top, if God is infinite, he kinda has to be random. The whole population can't believe or disbelieve in him, it has to be random how many are of each camp, else something is guaranteed. If something is guaranteed, the possibilities are no longer infinite, which is impossible as an infinite god can't create something definitively finite. There's only 7 layers of the universe (subatomic, atomic, "substance", cosmic body, solar system, galaxy, universe), but they repeat, and within each layer the possibilities are infinite.

Re:what to do, what to do

[blackraven14250]

ID it not a theory, it is a religious/political ideology being presented as a theory that aims to explain the perceived weaknesses of science in order to advance the interests of certain groups and individuals.

Ever seen a bullshit statistic? Why do people make technologies that make their own lives easier (every technology was invented for this reason, BTW)? How about a company patenting an idea based on new research that they funded so they can profit?

Science is used to advance the interests of individuals just as much as ID. It just depends which side you're blind to. Religion is based on the premise "God loves everything". Science is based on "Let's learn". Both sides, at the core, are pure things, but they get corrupted by people into tools for their own benefit.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you basically agree with the poster that ID is not science?

Re:what to do, what to do

[HiThere]

You are aware that the basic meaning of prove is "test" aren't you?

It's true that colloquial speech uses prove as a synonym for "prove true", but that's not it's actual meaning. A proof can also show that an assumption is wrong. This is the basic approach of "Reductio ad absurdum". (Or some such. It means reduce to an absurdity.)

It is common that once one has achieve the result, one recasts things to make the statement proved true rather than false, but this is merely syntactic manipulation, and has nothing to do with the basic proof. People generally like it better when you prove something true, so you restate that which is to be proved so that it becomes the thing which was proved true. But if you don't know ahead of time which answer is going to be true, then you have a 50% chance of needing to rephrase your initial statement after you have achieved your result.

In "proof firings" you don't find the certainty that you get in mathematics, so you generally need several proof firings to be able to say what the reliability of the thing being tested is.

There are other contexts, but to prove means to test. Different kinds of proof have different levels of reliability. Mathematical proofs tend to approach 100% reliability...but one is never certain that a long proof may not contain an error.

Re:what to do, what to do

[jgostling]

Your model will only work if it is a correct model. How can you discriminate between an error in the model and an external influence? Both will manifest themselves as deviations between reality and the model. Your premise that "there is no magic" will lead you inevitably to conclude that the model is at fault, which would quite often be the case, but following that line when an external event was the cause of the deviation will only make your model more incorrect. Now, if your model con incorporate those "external influences", they would not have been external in the first place, would they?

Cheers!

P.S.: Not advocating either for or against ID. Just following the logic in the argument.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Oligonicella]

Because it's science and therefore should part of a biological sciences curriculum. ID is theology and should be part of a theological curriculum. See? We can have both.

Re:what to do, what to do

[HiThere]

I'm not at all certain that most religions believe that their god acts according to rules. If it did, why all the prayers for physically observable results. They may officially *CLAIM* that (though I can't recall any doing so), but that's not the belief of the practitioners.

As a side note, I seem to recall a characterization of angels as "god's robots", with the note that they did not have free will. So "natural law" was seen as the automatic actions of the angels. This was describing medieval Jewish theology. so apparently at least in THAT theology only god and humans had free will. And free will was the prime characteristic dividing god from the angels.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Oligonicella]

You are ignorant. You cannot teach biology and the history of life on this planet without 'hinting' at evolution. It *is* the story of life on this planet.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Oligonicella]

But your logic of "ID is bad because it will accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., magic)" isn't sound.

Sure it is. Science is the investigation of the real world. It is incumbent upon you to show the magic, not the examiner to believe it's there regardless. Science rejects that which cannot be shown - magic.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

So, essentially ID theory is the TRON theory? Only, belief in the users won't have me sent to the game grid 'til I end up de-rezzed? But what do I know, I'm just an actuarial program. It's really quite interesting...

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

jesus was a space alien

Re:what to do, what to do

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

That's how science works, yeah.

No, that's not how science works.

Re:what to do, what to do

[geekoid]

"You invent experiments to PROOF you theory, not to falsify it."

You might want to read up on what we are talking about. At this moment you may have the most stupid post in the history of /.

This might be a good place to start reading:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=729

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

IThat is actually the wrong criticism of ID.

Is that Real ID? Or a variance of SD (Stoopid Design)?

Re:what to do, what to do

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict?

That is actually the wrong criticism of ID. ID can certainly predict things. If the 'designers' are a bunch of bored aliens that like to do anal probes, you could predict that the aliens will cause changes in animals DNA such that they tend towards having ass holes.

Sir, your analogy runs deep.

Re:what to do, what to do

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

The statement comes from Popper, and, yes, slashdot is the eagle's nest of eager Popperians. So go read a little bit and stuff.

Re:what to do, what to do

[arminw]

...The simple answer is because evolutionism is actually based on scientific evidence....

Evolution and religion are both based on historical evidence and its interpretation. Anytime you have interpretation, it occurs through somebody's worldview or belief system. Someone who does not believe that there is a God will of necessity have to believe that something as complex as the human brain was not designed by a superb designer, but just sort of happened by a nebulous process evolutionists call survival of the fittest or selection of endless trials and errors. If you can convince me that a 737 airliner came about by these processes rather than designed by a human brain or a whole bunch of human brains, then you will have succeeded in convincing me that the human brain itself came about by these selection processes. Addling in the magic ingredient of time, even millions or billions of years does not change the qualitative picture of simplicity getting ever more complex. In all of nature it always goes the other way, in that complex things break down into their simpler components.

Re:what to do, what to do

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

Well played sir. I'd mod you funny but I'm a little pissed off about the coffee dribbling down my screen.

You sir karma-whore you. Wink-wink-nudge-nudge.

Re:what to do, what to do

[arminw]

....The theory also explains fossil records....

Baloney! The theory of evolution does not even explain how fossils are made. To make a fossil, you basically have to sterilize the organism you wish to fossilize, otherwise it will simply decay and never make a fossil. Time, essential to evolution, is the enemy of fossil making. All the studies of origins are historical studies with historical evidence. The same is true for archaeology and anthropology. Nobody was around when the fossils were made to watch it happen. So we have to guess how it might have happened. There is a much more plausible explanation of how fossils were made. It is revealed by careful study of the biblical account of the flood of Noah.

Scientists have tried desperately to make evolution happen in the laboratory, but so far at least have failed. Millions of generations of fruit flies (Drosophila) have ever and always produce nothing but fruit flies. Some of them were rather grotesque with extra wings, missing legs and other deformities, but they were always nothing but fruit flies. If you read the biblical record you will never read the word species, because the Bible is not a science textbook. It uses the word "kind" which is not strictly defined by science. It is also perfectly scientific to postulate that the entire human race COULD have come from a single pair of humans who were originally created by God.

In the study of origins, both intelligent design and evolution have to take certain things by faith because there are historical and cannot be proven in the laboratory.

Re:what to do, what to do

[arminw]

That is not evolution, but adaptation. Whether it is a black or green or red or pink caterpillar is irrelevant, because it still is and always will be a caterpillar had nothing but a caterpillar.

Re:what to do, what to do

[arminw]

...If you want claim ID as a field of study...

Whoever claims that intelligent design is a field of the study is clearly wrong. Intelligent design, as well as Darwinian evolution are only two ways to interpret the evidence we see in nature. One says that intelligence is behind the complexity we see, and the other interpretation says that it all just sort of happened somehow but is not fully understood either. In order to make evolution work at all, it must be done over long periods of time.

The study of origins is the study of interpretation of historical evidence from the past, whether it is natural history or human history. All interpretation is subject to the worldview of the interpreter and as such must be biased in some way; it can never be impartial.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Zencyde]

Really? There are sets of natural laws that seem to just exist. As Humans, we have an innate ability to explore, observe, and explain the world surrounding us. Seeing as physics sort of controls the entire Universe, we've set out to explain it in terms of laws, theory, etc.

Now, here's the crazy part. Remember that part about observation? Well, it's not perfect, you see. In fact, there's an entire principle known as Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle that stems off of this imperfection. Unfortunately, this has the side-effect of our understanding always lacking something. But we improve! Technologies improve and we improve! And as we improve, we discover new and wondrous things that often argue with the way that we currently understand the world. So rather than attempt to say that our old models were right all along, we modify the old models (or sometimes do away with them entirely) so as to perfectly explain our new understanding of the world. It's hardly "changing" and more "fixing".

Strangely, The Bible lacks this advantage and yet is still modified in most translations. Hmm.....

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

Evolution is often followed as a kind of science religion, ID is an alternative being explored even by many non-religious people. The lines blur the closer you look sometimes...

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

Cain and Abel? Did Abel marry? Cain married his sister. Get over it.

Re:what to do, what to do

[arminw]

....Essentially, in the absence of direct evidence for an intelligent designer, evolution is always the better theory because it's SIMPLER....

Actually, evolution is more complex, because it tries to explain how simple organisms evolve to become complex organisms. It flies in the face of everything we observe, namely that complex things tend to break down into simpler components. Evolution also splits logic. Everybody knows that the airplane did not evolve from an automobile, but they both were designed by human intelligence. Yet the evolution expects belief as if it were fact, that something as complex as the human brain, which is capable of designing both cars and airplanes, came from a non-intelligence source. That takes a lot of faith, much more faith than to believe that the human brain and other complex structures in nature, came from a superb intelligent mind, namely the mind of God. Just because the designer is not immediately apparent, does not necessarily mean there is no designer.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Zencyde]

Ah yes. But what about many generations further down the line. Can you say for certain whether or not THAT will be a caterpillar?

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

Do I have reasons for my biases? Which bias? The one where I have a deep sense of dismay when dealing with bigots in any discipline who will slam anyone holding a different view to themselves without first trying to fully understand their opponents point of view? Yes. I've learned a lot in life by trying to understand things I don't necessarily agree with. Sometimes I even found that I was wrong...

Re:what to do, what to do

[Zencyde]

It seems as if you lack an argument either way on this. Though, by assuming that complex things generally break down into simpler component, you're completely negating information theory. To get an idea of how much information theory warps the picture, I point you in this direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

yes. It has been tested, and it has made predictions.

ID can not, and has not.

Predictions? like?

Re:what to do, what to do

[arminw]

....Now, the room for miracles to take place has gotten smaller and smaller....

Actually, for every answer that scientists find out about nature and the universe, there are a dozen questions or more. Many of our technological devices and gadgets would be classified as miracles by our ancestors. They would not know the scientific underpinnings behind these technologies and so would term them supernatural. When we read about events in the Bible, such as Jesus turning water into wine are multiplying bread and fish, we too call them miracles, even still today, because we do not know the underlying technology. Jesus claimed to be God come to earth and as such should have perfect insight into all molecular structures and how to take any collection of random atoms and arrange them in any conceivable pattern. Since the Bible says that he made the whole universe from nothing, he could have done the same with the bread and fish. We do not know the technology of how to make something from nothing, but that is our problem is it not?

It is claimed for Jesus, that he rose from the dead and showed himself to the people of that time. Jesus clearly told us and proved it, that there is a world beyond the grave. It is a realm that science cannot explore, because it is limited to this world only. The question is then: is only that which science can explore real? Could it be that there are other realities and powers that will forever be beyond the reach of science?

Re:what to do, what to do

[TemporalBeing]

You are ignorant. You cannot teach biology and the history of life on this planet without 'hinting' at evolution. It *is* the story of life on this planet.

Your ignorance betrays you. It is *one* theory on it - one take. It is in no way an authoritative view, and cannot be proven at its base - especially in the historical - any more than ID or others as there are basic principles that simply cannot be tested, and its reliance on 'chance' is astronomical.

And yes - you can teach biology and the history of life on this planet without talking about evolution. That's not to say that it would not be wise to mention the various concepts put forth as to the historical thought of how things came about, but you don't have to teach it.

P.S. Thank you for stepping on the land mind. Please watch your next step.

Re:what to do, what to do

[TimSSG]

In a field of grain, you can grow wheat, barley, rye or oats. It's still a field. ID is still an area that people study. It's a field. You may not agree with it. I may or may not agree with things that come out of it. That's fine. It's still a field of study. Get over it.

A field of study with a lot of natural fertilizer in it.
Tim S.

Re:what to do, what to do

[ShakaUVM]

>>Does a biased coin require a Maker?

No, I guess it could just be Saddam Hussein.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution has been proven in a laboratory. There was a long term experiment whose results were published last year, I think, detailing the emergence of genetic traits in colonies of bacterium, which were confirmed to evolve based upon environmental factors, and repeated by subjecting earlier, archived generations to the same stimuli.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

Whether I agree or not, that was funny...

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

link?

Re:what to do, what to do

[SirCowMan]

....The theory of evolution does not even explain how fossils are made.... No, good sir. That is covered under the theory of fossilization. :P

Re:what to do, what to do

[lhbtubajon]

It is *one* theory

Again with the misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. There can only BE one theory. There are many hypotheses, but those fall away one by one to become a single, very authoritative, theory. If something better comes along, then the theory of evolution goes away and is replaced by the new theory, be it evolution 1.0.1 or ID 12.6.1.3

Re:what to do, what to do

[arminw]

...That is covered under the theory of fossilization....

And that no one has ever made a fossil according to this theory. At some point science has to experiment and try to figure out how a fossil might be made in the laboratory. That, as far as I know, has never been done. Maybe you can point me somewhere that explains how a fossil has been made today by any conceivable process that could be duplicated in nature.

Re:what to do, what to do

[arminw]

..... you're completely negating information theory....

I do not know exactly what you mean here, but information has to have a source. What is the source of the information that might guide the process of simple to complex? All information ultimately comes from a mind; the mind of a person in the case of man-made objects and technology and the mind of God in the case of natural objects. It is precisely the point of intelligent design scientists, that an object like the human brain, or any living thing for that matter, contains a huge amount of information. We speak of the DNA code, for example, but then we have to ask the question: Who wrote the code? All code, whether in a computer or living organism, comes from a mind. We know of no other ULTIMATE source of complex code or information, other than a mind. A computer program may be written by a human programmer, that in turn writes another program, but even so, the original information or a program source came from the human mind and no place else. We even have a whole body of law devoted to "intellectual" property.

Re:what to do, what to do

[mqduck]

I don't really care if my neighbors think we sprouted like mushrooms from unicorn poop, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me, and I think they should have the right to teach their kids whatever they want

I'd extend the right to not have bullshit forced on them to their kids as well, at least in principal (by force would be going a bit too far for other reasons).

Re:what to do, what to do

[arminw]

....Can you say for certain whether or not THAT will be a caterpillar?...

Scientists have tried to make evolution happen with faster multiplying life forms such as bacteria and fruit flies. Even after millions of generations, there have only been adaptive changes. Fruit flies have been bred to have many grotesque mutations, but they were always recognizable as fruit flies and nothing else. Scientists have read millions of generations of E. coli, but none of them have ever become a Streptococcus, spirochete or other form of bacteria. They have always remained E. coli. Evolutionists get around this problem by stating that evolution takes lots of time. However the scientists have artificially bred many generations over short periods of time, that would normally take much longer to happen in nature. The bottom line, shown by experiments, not by conjecture or guesswork, says that Darwinian evolution cannot take place. So yes, I can say for certain THAT will also be nothing else than a caterpillar.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dryeo]

Actually cars and airplanes both evolved from bicycles.
The question about an intelligent designer is who designed it? And saying it was always there seems like quite a cop out.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dryeo]

Predictions like what will turn up in the fossil record for one.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dryeo]

The competing hypotheses have all been disproved or in the case of the flying spaghetti monster have no evidence.
Intelligent design loses due to no evidence of intelligence in the design of life just like the fsm loses due to no evidence of noodles outside of kitchens, grocery stores etc.
Other hypotheses have lost out due to lack of experimental evidence or experimental evidence showing the idea was broken.

Re:what to do, what to do

[arminw]

..... And saying it was always there seems like quite a cop out....

Admittedly, the concept of an eternal, self existent, all powerful God cannot be grasped by the human intellect. That is why God tells us in Scripture that it is impossible to please him without faith. For me, it takes more faith to believe that all the complexity of life could have come about by some impersonal statistical processes. A single cell is far more complex than a jet airliner, yet nobody in their right mind would suggest that an airliner came into being by any other process than intelligent design by human engineers.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dryeo]

Lots of things go from simple to complex. Look at matter. Starts out as hydrogen, under the right conditions such as when a large mass gets together turns into helium, carbon etc.
Perhaps we also shouldn't teach nuclear physics as obviously things don't get more complex and no one has actually observed hydrogen fusing. Perhaps those nukes are just intelligently designed bombs.
Same with chemistry, elements obviously can't combine into more complex chemicals and the evidence that we have that it happens isn't conclusive as it might all be handled by an intelligent being.
Of course we have the same problem with an intelligent designer, obviously everything couldn't of come from it as there must be an even more intelligent designer who design it.
So we're left with not teaching anything because when it comes down to it there is always another idea and the proof is never enough.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dryeo]

Which scripture? There are scriptures from India that seem much more interesting then the one from the middle east. And even if we stick to the story about some minor desert deity evolving into this God you talk about why stop at the new testament? The Koran claims it is a continuation of the story.
Anyways if there really was such a powerful god that you claim I'd expect evidence like most religions being in basic agreement about it. The Inuit might have more snow in their version but it would still talk about a god who incarnated as a man and was sacrificed to save us. The same with the majority of cultures. That is a simple test about religion, how much do they agree and it turns out that even the people who claim to follow the bible are in disagreement about the message.

Re:what to do, what to do

[arminw]

...Look at matter...

Even in matter there is design. Take for example water being very unique molecule even though it is composed only of oxygen and hydrogen. If the design of the water molecule were not as it is, life could not exist. Besides, I was thinking more in terms of the incredible complexity of life compared to non-living things.

(...we have the same problem with an intelligent designer...)
Human intellect is insufficient to grasp the idea of a self existent eternal all-powerful God. That is why we are told in the holy Scriptures, that it is impossible to please God without faith. Intellect cannot grasp the idea of God, only faith can. Evolution is the faith that there is no God and intelligent design is the faith that there is, indeed there must be. Science and measurements come to us through our senses, which are limited to this universe, but Jesus Christ told us that reality is far more than what can be seen or perceived by us. The human creature is the only one in all of creation that is incurably religious. Religion thrives even today in the age of the Internet, cell phones and all the modern accoutrements of our civilization.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

So what was predicted and how was it proven? Examples?

Re:what to do, what to do

[martyros]

A supernatural explanation may be true and it would still not be science. This is a necessary limit of science.

That's kind of what I was getting at when I said, "It's OK to make assumptions, but it's better if you're honest." If in science class they said up-front, "Science starts with the assumption that there is no supernatural, and bases all of its conclusions on that. If there is a supernatural, then some of those conclusions may be false," and if then every time someone said, "But the Bible says..." the teacher answered, "This class is based on the assumption that there is no God. If there is a God, a lot of this stuff I'm teaching now may be wrong. Now, back to...", then there wouldn't be an ID movement.

Obviously, no scientist would ever say that; and that's the problem. You can't have it both ways: you can either define science as "no supernatural" and admit that it may be wrong on certain points if there is, or you can say that "science" is just the "scientific method" (which can and has been used on God) and allow the possibility of supernatural hypotheses.

Only a God who actually behaved in an arbitrary and random way would affect the predictive success of scientific models.

I'm not sure I quite follow. I doubt anyone, even my wife, could build a 100% accurate predictive model of how I would act in a given situation. Does that mean I'm "arbitrary and random"? When it comes to stories, art, and music, having something fresh and unpredictable, but still pleasing, is precisely what we do want. I think even friendships and relationships are like that: obviously you need some predictability for trust, but you also relish the difference and unpredictability of the other person.

So if (hypothetically) God were interfering and directing evolution, I'd expect him to be as predictable and as unpredictable as any other rational creature in the universe.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand where that statement is comming from. I only read it on /. all the time. A theroy is an idea about how a certain thing is working. You invent experiments to PROOF you theory, not to falsify it.

Look up Karl Popper, a famous philosopher of science.

Basically, experiments cannot prove theories. A theory is a set of universally quantified sentences ("Every time I drop the apple, the apple does..."), and those cannot be proven by finitely many experiments. We can only find counter-examples to universally quantified sentences. A theory is only as good as the number of experiments that don't disprove it, but is theoretically worthless once an experiment does disprove it.

This may or may not be how science really works. There's lots more to say about the philosophy of science. But the principle is correct.

Re:what to do, what to do

[martyros]

Your example of unicorns not existing is not a philosophical assumption. It sounds to me like you are perfectly willing to believe in fairies and unicorns if there can be shown sufficient evidence for them. And perhaps you're perfectly willing to believe in God if you can be shown sufficient evidence as well. If so, "there is no supernatural" is not a philosophical assumption for you.

But GP was specifically saying that the problem with ID was that they will accept supernatural explanations. That is a philosophical assumption: it sounds like he would refuse to believe in Creationism regardless of evidence, for the simple reason that it has a supernatural component.

I have no problem with scientist saying, "ID is junk science because they don't follow the scientific method, use faulty logic, and ignore lots of evidence." That's absolutely true of some ID arguments I've heard. (Not well-versed enough in ID and evolutionary science to know if all ID arguments are guilty of that or not.) I also wouldn't have a problem with a scientist saying, "Science is based on the assumption that there is no supernatural; if it turns out there is a supernatural, many of our conclusions may be false."

The problem is that many people want to have it both ways: they want to define "science" as "no supernatural", but still assert that scientific conclusions are 100% true, and sometimes try to say "science has proven the supernatural false". Sorry, you can either define science as "no supernatural", or assert that science is 100% accurate and try to use science to show that there is no supernatural, but you can't do both.

Re:what to do, what to do

[kasparov]

I think there is a language barrier here. Saying "For most ID claims you can not craft an experiemtn [sic] to even proof [sic] it" is the exact same thing in English as saying "Most ID claims are not falsifiable."

Also "proof" is a noun, and "prove" is the verb that you are looking for.

Re:what to do, what to do

[glitch23]

The simple answer is because evolutionism is actually based on scientific evidence. ID is simply a religion that is trying to make itself look scientific so it can be lobbied to be taught in public schools.

So you are saying there is *not* any liberal agenda to teach evolution in schools in order to have one more cog in the wheel of destroying Christianity? You can say all you want that it is for scientific progress but there is a bigger plan in place. Conspiracy theorist? Not really because what I say is true. The other cogs would be removing "under God" from the Pledge, banning Christianity in schools (note that I didn't say religion in general because Islam is still allowed to be taught), the increasing allowance of Shariah law overriding U.S. law in places like Minnesota, etc. How often do teachers and professors state that evolution could be wrong, without even mentioning anything else, but just merely state that evolution is not proven. We are only guessing but it *seems* to fit *some* evidence. What is wrong with that? Would that little bit of doubt actually topple the liberal agenda and allow the sheep to learn something else? Evolution is like global warming: every time either is mentioned they are done so in such a way that they are assumed as fact and proven, and if you disagree then you just haven't been enlightened to the ways of the elitists.

By the way, direct evidence shouldn't require us to fill in gaps in order to draw the conclusions we need to draw to prove evolution is correct. No one was alive a million years ago but yet we think that based on the little "evidence", such as the incomplete fossil record, we see now that we can draw the correct conclusion about what happened. And oh, how convenient, no one can really say otherwise that it is wrong, which happens to be the evolutionists argument against Creationism. It just so happens that to the average Joe the surface of evolution seems to make sense but delving deeper produces inconsistencies and gaps, but we won't and don't talk about that, especially on this site. Evolutionists just close their ears and act like a child not wanting to hear the other side of the debate because they are elitist by thinking they are right and everyone else is either insane or just stupid for disagreeing. I'll personally listen to arguments for evolution, as long as they aren't biased.

Re:what to do, what to do

[TemporalBeing]

I wasn't going to reply. But regardless of your lack of understanding is very present. Even in science there can be MULTIPLE theories. For example: String Theory, vs. Loop Quantum Gravity Theory. So please, stop this before you make more of a fool of yourself than you already have.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution isn't falsifiable too, unless you can propose an experiment that will cover a few million years, or somehow produce a time machine so we can directly observe change over time.

What's more, simply showing increased bacterial resistance to some drug is not evolution. Show me a fish turning into a frog, or a pygmy horse turning into a regular sized horse. You cannot show that. Science cannot show that.

The major problem with evolution is it cannot exceed its naturalistic bounds. Science is supposed to be a pursuit of the truth. If God really did create everything, then science can never accept it, because it's a priori tossed out any explanation outside naturalistic explanation.

So, if the truth is that God did... anything, science can never accept that as truth. Same reason Jesus cannot be accepted by science, or any miracle for that matter.

Please explain to me where we came from in a universe where matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. There's plenty of answers science and scientists simply want to gloss over and ignore for now.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but... there is still plenty in the theory of evolution that can qualify as "magic", or at best can be characterized as "currently unexplained". The very existence of complex organic molecules which have the ability to self-orginize is taken as a given. Why do they even exist? "Because that is what we observe" is a tautology.

Science does not explain abiognesis. Evolution is a theory of how life evolved, not how it began. Oh, there are some vague notions of how floating about in "scientific" circles, but there are none of why.

We can explain the stability of non-living matter by appealing to minimization of energy. What is the organizing principle of living matter which maintains stability over a wide operating range? Why does life evolve? What keeps it from devolving back into non-life? Do you, the reader, have any inkling of how difficult it is for we humans to design stable automata which can carry out relatively simple tasks? It takes whole teams of engineers and technicians with decades of experience and study in multiple disciplines. I am always awed to see ice skaters who can execute a triple axle, modify their balance and angular rate, and come to a graceful stop on a virtually frictionless surface. How does something like that just happen? If you think you know the answer, you are shallow, and your intellectual pool is easily filled.

This is just a sample. Like all science, the more questions we answer, the more we uncover. It is an act of faith to presume that all the questions can be answered within the realm of logic which we may apprehend in the 4-dimensional universe which we perceive. I have no use for faith of either the religious or non-religious variety. Rather than just assume that the answers will one day be found, and that they will conform to my preferred narrative, which is what I see on both sides of the debate, I prefer to limit my sense of certainty only to those things with are known beyond a reasonable doubt, to acknolwledge uncertainty in those things which are informed speculation, and to keep an open mind in those areas which are pure speculation. And, a lot of the Theory of Evolution is just that - a plausible narrative, but overall rather flaccid when you start to dig into the nuts and bolts of it. (I have not stated that religion is mostly pure speculation - I am assuming that is self-evident.)

If everyone were as conscientious as I, there would be no rancorous debate between evolution and religion. The two sides would simply say "this is what we know, this is what we don't know, this is what we choose to believe but acknowledge is not proven."

Re:what to do, what to do

[jim_v2000]

"Sorry, you can either define science as "no supernatural", or assert that science is 100% accurate and try to use science to show that there is no supernatural, but you can't do both."

Why not? That assertion doesn't make much sense to me.

Re:what to do, what to do

[ShakaUVM]

>>So then do it. Create the test and give us the results, let us verify your test methodology and your data and your results. Until such a time, ID is merely conjecture and not a scientific hypothesis.

I've already posted such a method on my journal.

But I'd be willing to write a paper on it with more rigorous math. Which journal do you think would be most appropriate? It's especially timely with the announcement of (they say) us having artificial life within 6 months.

Re:what to do, what to do

[KingMotley]

Yes, you are a conspiracy theorist. Your inability to see that you actually do fall into that category shows that you have little understanding of the scientific process or true science. The rest of what you go on about is irrelevant to the discussion.

Please, if you want to teach your kids about Christianity, please feel free to do so. There are special places where they devote themselves to the teaching of Christianity, around here we call them "Church". Personally, I don't want school to be extended or time taken away from other subjects so that religion can be taught. Of course, every religion would have to be taught in order to provide equal treatment -- all 15,000 of them with more being added every day. Christianity is NOT based on science, or scientific principles, and therefore should not be taught during science regardless if you believe in separation of church and state or not. Anything else you've said doesn't stray from those simple facts. I understand you believe in your faith, and you believe so strongly that you assume what you are saying is all true. But things based on assumptions don't make things a fact, no matter how much you believe in them. If you can't prove it, then it isn't fact. Please, you may be passionate about the subject, but that doesn't make you right.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation required]
If I describe the colour of my lawn, that is information; however, the colour is intrinsic to its emission spectra; a physical property that requires not design. Similarly, each blade of grass in my lawn was not individually placed, nor is the complex flow of wind around my house and over the grass a purposeful product of a mind.
The impossibility of your argument of design from intelligence is the creation of that intelligence, a problem that cannot be trivialized or resolved without destroying the claim of design from intelligence.

Re:what to do, what to do

[martyros]

It's a logical fallacy called begging the question, where what you are trying to prove is assumed somewhere in the premises of the argument.

Really, from a logical standpoint, it's the same as people who say, "The Bible is God's word", and if you ask, "How do you know?" they say, "Because the Bible says in verse xxx..." Sorry, you can't use the Bible as an authority to prove that the Bible is an authority. For the same reason, you can't define science to exclude the supernatural and then use science to disprove the supernatural.

Re:what to do, what to do

[jim_v2000]

Oh, I get it now. If you exclude the supernatural from science, how can you then use science to disprove it? Got it.

Re:what to do, what to do

[lgw]

Some believe in a God with the sort of perfection that makes his actions indistinguishable from the workings of the universe, aside perhaps from the occasional colorful miracle. Your actions are hard to model because you're not smart enough to see the ideal path to take every time you have to make a choice, and perhaps your values are imperfectly consistent as well. Given perfectly consistent values and omniscience, your choices become as straightforward as a natural law. Or so the thinking goes.

Re:what to do, what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

r, you only seem to be explaininf your fantasy universe with an obvious lack of factual information. Should you provide me with proof, I'd gladly concede.

Re:what to do, what to do

[internettoughguy]

Schools have an agenda to teach, and since evolution is science fact, they have and agenda to teach it.

As GP just mentioned, Biology is a field, ID is not. For the exact same reason there's no transendental meditation or snake oil brewing courses at school, theres no place for ID.

Re:what to do, what to do

[dov_0]

Science fact? Commonly held to be fact, but it's generally spoken of as "Evolutionary Theory".

I think I see the problem.

[tygerstripes]

Have they tried turning it off & back on again?

Re:I think I see the problem.

[ledow]

Can't find the button that you have to hold for five seconds. Besides... would you want to press it? I can't guarantee that my laptop will turn on again next time, let alone the Universe.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[ionix5891]

Have they tried reversing the polarity of the main deflector array?

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tried that already, now we can't find the [Any] key :(

Signed,
Rocket Scientist

Re:I think I see the problem.

[TheGreenNuke]

The latest service packs and patches might help as well. Never know what bugs that Intelligent Designer has found in the past few millennium and didn't mention to us.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Xanlexian]

Have they tried reversing the polarity of the main deflector array?

You're supposed to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[morgan_greywolf]

Have they tried turning it off & back on again?

And now you know why LIGO doesn't hire engineers away from Microsoft...

Re:I think I see the problem.

[robot_love]

You fool! You'll destroy us all!

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have sufficient privileges, call the responsible admin at next sermon please.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Miseph]

Yeah, they turned it off and back on, but they forgot to blow out the cartridge! It's like they just don't know how these things work, didn't they learn ANYTHING in college?

Re:I think I see the problem.

[m.ducharme]

Oblig. XKCD: Lisp

Re:I think I see the problem.

[muzicman]

Is it plugged in?

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try an inverse tachyon beam.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Hoi Polloi]

They tried kicking it but that just got the experimentors too excited.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Alzheimers]

No! No! You have to Invert the Tachyon Beam!

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. No. Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow. Please, people, pay attention.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[superluminique]

In fact that's what do they all the time, although they don't do it for the same reason that you were thinking about ;-) They typically run it for a couple months and then shut it down for a while to do some more calibration, tweaking and improvement. These results are from the fifth run.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[badboy_tw2002]

Did they ever use a regular tachyon beam? And why reconfigure that junk? Seems like tachyons were always the answer, so they should probably have just flown around with the tachyons blasting full tilt. They could have shown up anywhere, closed any hole in the space-time continuum, and been done with the mission in time for tea, earl grey, hot.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Eil]

It may be an intermittent Heisenberg compensator...

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Reziac]

Press To Test

[*click*]

Release To Detonate

Re:I think I see the problem.

[CodeBuster]

Have they tried reversing the polarity of the main deflector array?

That only works if one first applies an ionized tachyon pulse to clear the emitters.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Mgns]

"Have they tried turning it off & back on again?" This is funny and about the most interesting thing we could hope for on such a subject from Neo-Slashdot. I read to the bottom and if you do to, you'll find it does not get better.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're in the wrong article. You meant to post this oblig link. You want to go up to the Flight tracker mashup that just got slashvertized.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Yhippa]

Yes, lest we get Quantum Flux Poisoning!

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe what they should try is an experiment to detect if disappearance of matter leads to instant gravitational changes. Similar to Alain Aspectâ(TM)s experiment, a piece of matter is disintegrated, converting it to energy. Another piece that is feeling its gravitational pull should stop feeling it. If this occurs instantaneously, then gravity does not behave as a wave, if there is time gap between the obliteration of matter and its detection by other matter, then gravity must spread by waves or something of the sort.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Apocalypse111]

Nah, we'll be fine - he didn't divert power from life support.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Whillowhim]

I worked at LIGO Hanford a few years back before going back to grad school. Since it is essentially a scaled up prototype, new things were always being fiddled with and the device was very temperamental. If we could have blown the dust out of the cartage, we would have. How easy/hard it was to gain and hold lock (when the laser is resonating properly) varied on a daily or sometimes hourly basis with no obvious way to tell what was wrong this time.

As a joke, I put together an emergency kit for the control room. It consisted of:
1) one(1) cardboard box with "emergency locking kit" written on it. Also suitable for use as an altar.
2) one(1) rubber chicken for use as a sacrifice for any suitable god.
3) one(1) butter knife stolen from the lunch room.

To my knowledge, it was never officially used. But the rubber chicken did end up with some suspicious marks on its neck and the butter knife did end up with red marks along the edge. It was claimed to be accidental damage and a slip with one of the whiteboard markers, but I suspect something else was at play.

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Crazy Taco]

I was about to say, I think this story just ruined a perfectly good Star Trek episode. Oh well, maybe the 2-dimensional telepathic overloading creatures that were dragging the Enterprise toward the cosmic string still exist! Then again, maybe not :).

Re:I think I see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The time of the Great Handkerchief has finally arrived!

Re:I think I see the problem.

[sjames]

Only if they're crazy enough to use a tetrion beam, or god forbid, an inverse tachyon pulse.

Linearization

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I remember from my course on general relativity, gravitational waves follow from a linearization of Einstein's field equations. Thus, if they failed to find them, it wouldn't falsify the theory as a whole but only the linear approach to the field equations.

Re:Linearization

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus, if they failed to find them, it wouldn't falsify the theory as a whole but only the linear approach to the field equations.

*sigh*

All right, son... What part of the phrase "differential manifold" did you not understand?

Re:Linearization

[geekgirlandrea]

No, there are exact gravitational radiation solutions, and you can also predict gravitational radiation from weak-field situations where the linearized approximation is very, very accurano te (the h^2 term would be less than 10^-15 for the sun's gravitational field at Earth's orbit, for example). The decay of orbits due to gravitational radiation has been observed indirectly in PSR B1913+16, and matches the theoretical prediction. If no gravitational radiation is observed at the expected amplitudes for things like that, it will throw a lot more than just string theory into question, and would raise the obvious conservation of energy question about that pulsar.

Re:Linearization

[SleepingWaterBear]

As far as I remember from my course on general relativity, gravitational waves follow from a linearization of Einstein's field equations. Thus, if they failed to find them, it wouldn't falsify the theory as a whole but only the linear approach to the field equations.

This isn't exactly right. The equations describing gravitational waves do result from a simplifying approximation of Eintstein's equations, but it's the sort of simplifying approximation that really has to be quite accurate in many circumstances. If they don't find gravitational waves of a certain magnitude then either Einstein was wrong or, more likely, the sorts of astronomical phenomena that could create the waves don't exist.

Re:Linearization

[Lumpy]

and why do we think we can detect them this deep inside a Gravity well?

honestly, looking for something like that needs to be outside the gravity well of the sun.

Just a bit of brain farting in the morning... I haven't had my 2nd cup of coffee yet.

Re:Linearization

[X0563511]

The, uh... differential manifold part...

Re:Linearization

[maxwell demon]

and why do we think we can detect them this deep inside a Gravity well?

Because there's no reason why we shouldn't. Gravity waves should follow the same paths as light waves, and we get plenty of light waves in out gravity well. Gravity would have to have a repulsive effect to gravity waves to avoid them reaching us. Which I'm pretty sure is not the case in current theory.

Re:Linearization

[TapeCutter]

"Gravity waves should follow the same paths as light waves, and we get plenty of light waves in out gravity well."

Which always made me wonder, how do gravity waves escape a black hole?

Re:Linearization

[Kjella]

Which always made me wonder, how do gravity waves escape a black hole?

Quantum WTF. From what I've understood, not just gravity but the black hole itself will eventually go away.

Re:Linearization

[Anonymous Coward]

"how do gravity waves escape a black hole"

I'd guess same way light and matter can escape a black hole, as long as it remains outside the event horizon.

Re:Linearization

[Hubbell]

The way I understood it, and partially through shitty 3d representations, is that gravity is essentially in space/time and it's attractive affect was pretty much due to this depression/curvature. It's an extremely simplistic description/representation but isn't it possible that things are really that simple?

Re:Linearization

[Brain-Fu]

Of course Einstein was wrong.

He was, at best, as right as any human could have been given the evidence available at the time. If he was as true a scientist as the world portrays him, then he expected to have his model refined over time as new evidence comes to light, eventually being completely replaced by something much more accurate.

Whatever new theory we build based on this new evidence will also be wrong, for the exact same reasons.

But it will be right enough to be useful as a stepping-stone to an even righter theory. That is how science works, and that is also why find science zealots to be even more annoying than religious zealots...science zealots have accepted as absolute truth a model that is just a stepping-stone, in direct contradiction of the very methods that they proclaim to be the ultimate determiners of truth.

Re:Linearization

[Idarubicin]

and why do we think we can detect them this deep inside a Gravity well?

honestly, looking for something like that needs to be outside the gravity well of the sun.

There's a pebble on top of Mount Everest. Using my trusty ruler, I measure the pebble as being 1.3 inches tall.

"Aha!", says my colleague. "Now we know that the top of the pebble is exactly 6 miles, 1.3 inches high!"

"No, silly!", says my other colleague. "The only way that we can measure the height of the pebble precisely is by bringing it down to sea level! Being on a mountaintop confounds any precision measurement!"

Oddly enough, the pebble turns out to be 1.3 inches tall. A most remarkable coincidence, I'm sure.

Re:Linearization

[shma]

The equations describing gravitational waves do result from a simplifying approximation of Eintstein's equations, but it's the sort of simplifying approximation that really has to be quite accurate in many circumstances.

In fact, IIRC, it is the exact same approximation often used when looking at EM radiation from a source: the approximation is that the source is small, localized and far away from you.

Re:Linearization

[clone53421]

Here's the part that I find interesting. The whole gravity/space-time curvature is merely an abstraction of gravity into a new dimension.

Ancient people's idea of gravity was simple. Stuff goes down.

Then people figured out that the earth's surface is curved, and "down" didn't work anymore. The new theory of gravity said that stuff moves toward other stuff, and the earth is a big blob of stuff that all our little stuff moves toward. Kinda simple, but you don't have the nice, straight, linear sort of system. You've got a radial one, and other planets and stars have their own gravity fields that pull stuff toward them, and it's a bit more complex.

So, with this notion of mass curving the surface of space/time in some higher dimension, we envision space/time as a sort of elastic surface. Mass sinks into the surface, and smaller mass will "roll" into the depression caused by the larger mass. Why does the "mass" roll downhill? Well, there's the kicker: this higher dimension apparently has its own sort of gravity, and, like the ancients' theory, it's nice and straight: it always goes down!

Re:Linearization

[John Hasler]

> Which always made me wonder, how do gravity waves escape a black hole?

They don't. While systems involving black holes may emit gravitational waves, the waves don't come from inside the hole.

Re:Linearization

[Curien]

Except that according to GR, the pebble actually is a different length at the top of Mount Everest than it is at sea level.

Re:Linearization

[timeOday]

I have never understood the "rubber sheet" model of gravity either, for that reason - it seems like circular reasoning. If somebody could explain that, I will have learned something today.

Re:Linearization

[timeOday]

Physics is never perfect because measurement is imperfect, and we're never sure the analogy between the math and reality is quite correct. But math itself is different. I don't think any facts widely accepted as "proven" in math have ever been overturned.

Re:Linearization

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't. Gravity waves are not some kind of "sucking force". They transmit the change of spacetime curvature, not the curvature itself.

Re:Linearization

[clambake]

So, you are saying the event horizon, CREATED BY GRAVITY, will stop gravity itself from propagating? Gravity is so strong at the singularity that even gravity can't escape itself? I wonder how that works...

Re:Linearization

[PiSkyHi]

Its questions like that that could have brought down the funding for LIGO.

...but since your question didn't involve massive amounts of funding, it will be ignored.

Re:Linearization

[clambake]

It's because closer to the bottom of the gravity well, the planck length actually decreases. It's hard to visualize, but imagine a set of gridpoints that must always exist, and when you drop a ball of mass into it, it pushes the gridoints near it closer together, since it can't cover them up. The distance between those points gets closer together. Things can only travel from planck point to planck point (nothing can exist outside of one of these points), and since the ones near the mass are closer together, there is a tendency for things to strike those points more often, and thus the motion of the object appears to bend towards the mass.

I just made that up last night. Nobel prize please!

Re:Linearization

[maxwell demon]

Well, there's simply no point outside of the black hole in the absolute future of any point inside the black hole. In other words: There's no way anything could go which leads outside the horizon. You'd need superluminal speed to escape, but gravitational waves only go at the speed of light (and everything else goes at most as far, too).

That's the "trick" of the event horizon: It's not exactly that a strong force keeps you from going out, it's just that there is no way out (at least no way you can follow).

Re:Linearization

[sexconker]

The only one who was wrong are the retarded string theorists who do nothing but make mathematical models to encompass every piece of data.

There's no actual thinking going on there - it's all convoluted bullshit.

Re:Linearization

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't. Just as light from a star can be seen before it crosses a black hole's event horizon, gravitational waves radiated by an inspiraling system can make it to us. Any gravitational radiation that enters the event horizon gets munched (a nasty boundary condition that stymied numerical relativists until very recently).

Also, after something impressive happens to a black hole (it's formed, it eats a comparable mass black hole, etc.), it can be excited into oscillations of its shape. The oscillations necessarily alter the curvature of space-time outside the event horizon (or, rather, the event horizon is changing shape somewhat), sending gravitational radiation outward. The phenomenon is called ringdown.

Re:Linearization

[maxwell demon]

Well, it's easy to explain: It conveys the wrong message. While the curvature of space is indeed similar to the curvature of a rubber hose when a mass is on it, the image you get is wrong at quite a lot of counts:

• To begin with, the mass is not lying on top of the space, it's inside space.
• Next, while space is curved, that's not the main effect you see (indeed, the curvature of space near earth is so little that it's very hard to measure it). It's spacetime whose curvature is important.
• The objects are not attracted downwards something "below space", and they don't just "roll down the hill" - indeed, the space curvature picture could equally well be depicted upwards without making a difference (except that the very intuitive, but wrong notion of objects rolling "down" wouldn't work any more). Indeed, the whole point of General Relativity is that the path of an object in spacetime is straight ahead (as long as no non-gravitative force modifies it, of course). However, since the spacetime is curved, their paths don't seem straight. An image for this would be two people on Earth, starting on slightly different places on the equator, and going North. Despite the fact that their ways start out parallel, and neither makes a turn to the left or the right, they'll come closer together until they meet at the north pole, where they meet at a non-zero angle.
• Finally, the curvature is not "into another dimension"; space actually only has an inner curvature (basically, deformation along the space direction). However this is quite hard to visualize, therefore all pictures are a curved two-dimensional space embedded into three-dimensional space. However the outer curvature has no meaning at all. For example, you might depict flat space as a plain sheet of paper. However, you could depict the very same flat space also as convoluted piece of paper. It doesn't make any difference. It only makes a difference if you do something which would make the paper to get torn or to crumple (so you'd need a rubber sheet to maintain a continuous surface).

I hope those explanations did help a bit.

Re:Linearization

[FredFredrickson]

Which always made me wonder, how do gravity waves escape a black hole?

Quantum WTF. From what I've understood, not just gravity but the black hole itself will eventually go away.

Well I mean.. Gravity Waves are the gravity, so I'd assume they'd have to escape the black hole, or it wouldn't be a blackhole.

Re:Linearization

[photonic]

Not finding anything does not falsify the theory of gravitational waves. It disproves the existence of certain gravitational wave sources with a certain strength, that is all that was published now. They ruled out certain exotic models for sources (based on string theory), but nothing has been proven about the existence of GWs in general or for weaker sources.

Re:Linearization

[thirty-seven]

1.3 inches isn't a pebble; it's a stone.

Re:Linearization

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! How much of a dork do you have to be to actually hate mathmetitians?

I mean I'm not a fan of them, but to actually actively DISlike them is pretty bad man. Go have a beer and look at a stripper for a while. You need it!

Re:Linearization

[FredFredrickson]

only if you measure the pebble on top of mount everest from sea level. It's all about your frame of reference.

Re:Linearization

[SevenHands]

And according to GR, the length of your ruler is also different at the top of Mount Everest compared to at sea level!

Re:Linearization

[mvdwege]

"Der Herrgott wuerfelt nicht", aka "God does not play dice".

Einsteins reaction to the statistical model of Quantum Mechanics definitely shows that he was as human as the rest of us. Even he was not above rejecting a model because it didn't fit his worldview.

Mart

Re:Linearization

[Feanturi]

I think what Lumpy meant was, why would we do such experiments so close to a large source of interference? You say that gravity waves should follow the same path as light waves, and we do indeed get plenty of light here. But you can go inside a building and voila, no light unless you specifically choose to put some there. We don't have that same control over gravity. When we experiment with light, don't we do it under controlled conditions?

Re:Linearization

[m50d]

That's not quite true - there have been flawed proofs that stood for several years, including of results that later emerged to be false, e.g. I believe Borsuk's conjecture was thought to be proven for some time.

Re:Linearization

[j00r0m4nc3r]

You might just learn that nobody can explain it. That's something.

Re:Linearization

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Isn't the idea that the things around us aren't really generating gravity waves of any substantial magnitide? I was under the impression that only HUGE changes in mass position could generate gravity waves of a detectable size. Like a supernova or two black holes colliding...

Re:Linearization

[Phaedrus420]

And the ruler?

Re:Linearization

[Bigjeff5]

The visualization is sound, for a 3d representation. The problem is that space/time involves the 4th dimension, and we are 3rd demensional beings. It is impossible for us to visualize anything in the 4th dimension in a literal sense - we have no frame of reference.

We can think about it abstractly, in ways we can somewhat understand. That is what the "rubber sheet" model is. Space/time is obviously not a 2d plane in a 3d world, it's a 3d plane in a 4d world. What is actually happening is that rubbersheet exists in every direction - forward, backward, up and down. It's not many sheets, it's not a sphere surrounding everything, it is a plane that exists in all three dimensions. It's a difficult abstraction to make, and it is impossible to accurately and literally conceptualize because we have no 4d frame of reference.

For a good explanation of why that is, check out Carl Sagan's explanation, it's rather enlightening. He steps it down to a 3d object interacting with a 2d world, so that we have a frame of reference to understand what is happening.

You won't come out understanding the 4th dimension, you'll come out understanding why you can't understand the 4th dimension, and since Space/Time is a 4th dimensional concept, why the explanations don't make sense.

Re:Linearization

[j00r0m4nc3r]

It really doesn't prove or disprove anything, at any scale. Perhaps their detector doesn't work.

Re:Linearization

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation please.

Many things escape black holes. Gravity attracts things that emit certain wave lengths, probably at a natural logarithm to the gravity wave.

Before the black hole was a black hole, it was emitting gravity waves. When the mass became such that it started capturing varying lengths of radio waves, visible light include, it was still emitting gravity waves. It takes time for that mass to grow to such a size as in seconds before there was nothing then all of a sudden there is a black hole.

I've often theorized that gravity waves are a very long wave and the inverse or anti-gravity was that length times 1.5, which every thing would emit. Except if the power of the gravity wave of an object was at 1.0 the anti-gravity wave emitted would be 0.25.

I've often thought that the pioneer effect found a natural log of the two waves and a point was passed through where the anti-gravity wave was actually stronger than the gravity wave.

Re:Linearization

[DrWho520]

In short, for a time Einstein was as correct as Newton was for a time.

Re:Linearization

[oculismirabile]

yes, I've long wondered about that. If gravity travels at c, as light does, how does it escape from a black hole? How does a black hole have any detectable gravitation of any sort? I believe the black hole traps light, not because light bends to gravity, but because light travels straight through space, and gravity has bent space. Hence the light, traveling away, turns back in from our point of view. What then is the geometry of the propagation of gravity beyond the event horizon?

Re:Linearization

[n dot l]

Thanks for the link. I was not too long trying to explain to someone why 4D vectors are often used in 3D graphics, and that's a useful illustration.

Gods though, sometimes Youtube comments make me want to weep for the future...

Re:Linearization

[shoor]

An image for this would be two people on Earth, starting on slightly different places on the equator, and going North. Despite the fact that their ways start out parallel, and neither makes a turn to the left or the right, they'll come closer together until they meet at the north pole, where they meet at a non-zero angle

I've seen this description before, but, in the analogy, if the two people don't start out, they don't move closer to each other. Suppose you just took the earth and moon and set them down 250K miles apart but did not impart any motion to them. What would get them moving? Where would the energy come from? I hope my cluelessness about this doesn't confound you too much.

Re:Linearization

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

To begin with, the mass is not lying on top of the space, it's inside space.

What are you talking about? If you're talking about the general theory of relativity, then, basically, Einstein's whole approach was to dispose of the mass altogether, and instead speak about space-time curvature. Matter curves the space-time. In short: No mass, Einstein genius, me Tarzan, you Jane.

Re:Linearization

[budgenator]

And according to GR, the length of your ruler is also different at the top of Mount Everest compared to at sea level!

Which is why I can't understand who LIGO really works, I understand the Michelson interferometer, I understand the Fabry-Perot interferometer, what I can't get my head around is the changing length of the arms. If the gravity wave wraps time-space, then should any length in that time-space be constant ( the ruler changes as much as the object being measured)? When space contracts, doesn't time expand so that C is constant?

Re:Linearization

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

What about now? How would you characterize the validity of Einstein's general theory of relativity nowadays?

Re:Linearization

[geekgirlandrea]

The rubber sheet model is just plain wrong for giving people that image, though. General relativity only has intrinsic curvature, and never makes reference to embedding space-time in a larger space.

Re:Linearization

[Curien]

It depends on the nature of the ruler. We're not talking about SR and inertial reference frames here; in GR and non-intertial reference frames, one *can* determine the nature of the space-time rotation without stepping outside the FoR.

Re:Linearization

[John Hasler]

So when and where is your paper explaining the flaws in the experiment going to be published?

Re:Linearization

[Petrushka]

Ancient people's idea of gravity was simple. Stuff goes down.

Then people figured out that the earth's surface is curved, and "down" didn't work anymore.

Just to nit-pick, it was "ancient people" who figured that out, and who determined that "stuff goes towards the centre of the earth".

(Well, not the Epicureans. They just went on thinking that "stuff goes down", and that the tangible universe was a random fluctuation. But then, they were loons -- almost as loony as the Pythagoreans.)

Re:Linearization

[Anonymous Coward]

your a moron

now learn yourself some differential geometry or leave talking about general relativity to the experts

Re:Linearization

[mqduck]

If they don't find gravitational waves of a certain magnitude then either Einstein was wrong or, more likely, the sorts of astronomical phenomena that could create the waves don't exist.

Forgive me for not knowing anything about the topic, but... what's the difference?

Re:Linearization

[mqduck]

There's a difference between your theory being refined and eventually superseded and it being "wrong". Quite possibly, the world will one day look back on Einstein the way we look back on Newton: the father of a previous revolution in physics, superseded by an even deeper understanding but as valid as ever.

Or, I suppose, not.

Re:Linearization

[SleepingWaterBear]

There's a difference between your theory being refined and eventually superseded and it being "wrong". Quite possibly, the world will one day look back on Einstein the way we look back on Newton: the father of a previous revolution in physics, superseded by an even deeper understanding but as valid as ever.

Or, I suppose, not.

Right. The fact that the theory of relativity isn't the ultimate theory of the universe doesn't make it 'wrong'. Any physical theory has a domain over which it is valid, and we are quite confident that relativity is a valid theory over the domain it describes. Proving Einstein wrong doesn't mean finding cases that his theory doesn't handle - we already have plenty of those - it means finding cases that it handles, but handles wrong, and it would be very surprising if any of those turned up.

Re:Linearization

[SleepingWaterBear]

Many stellar objects have been predicted based on various theories that go beyond relativity, such as the cosmic strings described in the summary; the theory of relativity allows for, but doesn't require their existence. It could be that we live in a universe where large gravitational waves are possible, but don't happen naturally, in which case, the detector won't find them. If we don't find gravitational waves below a certain magnitude though, it will raise some perplexing questions as to why the stellar objects we expect to be out there making waves aren't there.

Re:Linearization

[Quantum Jim]

Here's the part that I find interesting. The whole gravity/space-time curvature is merely an abstraction of gravity into a new dimension.

Ancient people's idea of gravity was simple. Stuff goes down.

Then people figured out that the earth's surface is curved, and "down" didn't work anymore. The new theory of gravity said that stuff moves toward other stuff, and the earth is a big blob of stuff that all our little stuff moves toward. Kinda simple, but you don't have the nice, straight, linear sort of system. You've got a radial one, and other planets and stars have their own gravity fields that pull stuff toward them, and it's a bit more complex.

So, with this notion of mass curving the surface of space/time in some higher dimension, we envision space/time as a sort of elastic surface. Mass sinks into the surface, and smaller mass will "roll" into the depression caused by the larger mass. Why does the "mass" roll downhill? Well, there's the kicker: this higher dimension apparently has its own sort of gravity, and, like the ancients' theory, it's nice and straight: it always goes down!

That's not actually true. Take a square apiece of paper. Draw a straight line parallel with one side in the middle. Then tear the paper perpendicular to the line from one side to the line. Now pull one side of the tear over the other. See how the paper bends into a cone? That's what gravity does. It causes "space" to not be flat just like that. However, look what happened to your line. Now it curves around toward the direction of your tear. So it is the geometry of the paper that causes the gravity. It isn't about anything rolling downhill, or about there being another type of gravity pulling everything down a rubber sheet. Instead, the shape of surface causes anything going in a straight line to be deflected towards that tear. And why does your object tend to go in a straight line? Because of Newton's first law, of course!

Re:Linearization

[Alamais]

Citation please.

After reading this post a couple of times, I've decided that the first line is not referring to the parent, but is rather an abstract of the remainder of the post. It all makes sense now.

...Just in case anyone else was wondering.

Re:Linearization

[WCguru42]

What would get them moving? Where would the energy come from? I hope my cluelessness about this doesn't confound you too much.

The purpose of the analogy is not to explain why they move but why their movement is curved.

Re:Linearization

[WCguru42]

it is a plane that exists in all three dimensions.

Actually, it is a space, not a plane. A plane by its very nature is two dimensional. It could be an infinite collection of interacting planes in three dimensions but it is definitely not a single plane in three dimensions (that would be exactly what the rubber sheet analogy is).

Re:Linearization

[WCguru42]

Oddly enough, the pebble turns out to be 1.3 inches tall. A most remarkable coincidence, I'm sure.

The concern isn't with the fact that the measurement would be the same, it's with the fact that our ruler might not be accurate enough to deal with the interference of the mountain.

Re:Linearization

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the "Citation Please" was referring to the parent.

Read the post a few more times and think on it. Maybe one day you will have the smarts to understand.

I understand it just fine.

Re:Linearization

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd "whoosh" you, but the fact that you 'understand it just fine' means our realities are too far disconnected, and the whoosh would miss.

Re:Linearization

[maxwell demon]

Well, as I said, it's not just space which is curved, but spacetime. In this analogy, the north direction would be the time direction. You can't avoid moving in time, of course.

Re:Linearization

[maxwell demon]

Of course there's still mass in General Relativity. It's just that, unlike in Newtonian gravity, the mass isn't the source of the gravitational field (i.e. in GR, spacetime curvature), but energy and momentum are. But the mass still enters the equation through its energy content, and of course the inertial mass still governs the reaction of particles to non-gravitational forces like those coming from the electomagnetic field.

It's not mass that is replaced by (or rather identified with) spacetime curvature in GR, but the gravitational field.

Re:Linearization

[lennier]

"It's not mass that is replaced by (or rather identified with) spacetime curvature in GR, but the gravitational field."

And that clarifies what, precisely? Does GR give any suggestion that we can create a gravitational field without mass?

Re:Linearization

[lennier]

"Finally, the curvature is not "into another dimension"; space actually only has an inner curvature (basically, deformation along the space direction)."

This is something I find very difficult to grasp about Riemannian geometry.

If we have a 4D spacetime with 'inner curvature', why can't we just embed that 4D manifold in a 5D Eucledian manifold and make that inner curvature a real curvature?

Re:Linearization

[maxwell demon]

And that clarifies what, precisely?

I'm not sure what this question aims at. If it aims directly at my post: It clarifies that, contrary to the claim of the post I replied to, GR doesn't do away with the concept of mass. However, your next question suggests that the question was more aimed at GR itself, in that case see my answer to that.

Does GR give any suggestion that we can create a gravitational field without mass?

Yes. A laser beam has no mass, but it does have a gravitational field. On a more general note, the same mass can generate different gravitational fields if it has different momentum. For example, if you have a gas (which I'll assume doesn't have a net movement), the gravitational field of that gas is not only affected by its energy (which, since the gas is at rest, can be directly translated to mass through E=mc^2), but also by its pressure (which clearly doesn't enter the mass).

Re:Linearization

[maxwell demon]

"Finally, the curvature is not "into another dimension"; space actually only has an inner curvature (basically, deformation along the space direction)."

This is something I find very difficult to grasp about Riemannian geometry.

If we have a 4D spacetime with 'inner curvature', why can't we just embed that 4D manifold in a 5D Eucledian manifold and make that inner curvature a real curvature?

Well, there are two things here.

First, embedding into an Euclidean manifold isn't even possible for a flat Minkovski space because the Euclidean space has a positive definite metric, while the spacetime metric is indefinite.

Other than that, embedding the curved space into a higher-dimensional flat space with indefinite metric is certainly possible (probably even in a higher-dimensional Minkowski space, but I'm not sure about it), although in general AFAIK 5 dimensions are not sufficient. But there are infinitely many such embeddings, and the physics doesn't depend in any way on them, because only the inner curvature enters the GR equations. Since the embedding doesn't give you anything but unnecessary complications, there's no point to do it. Indeed, Occams razor tells you to do without.

Re:Linearization

[Anonymous Coward]

your a moron

Right.

Everybody knows

[Vinegar Joe]

Gravity sucks.

Re:Everybody knows

[Anonymous Coward]

Gravity sucks.

It always lets us down

Re:Everybody knows

[laejoh]

It's the law!

Re:Everybody knows

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is no gravity. The earth just sucks."

Get it right.

Re:Everybody knows

[ionix5891]

not if you are in australia

Re:Everybody knows

[Sinning]

Then it lets you down under.

Re:Everybody knows

[Anonymous Coward]

Gravity doesn't such because it doesn't exist. God only tried to fool us into believing that gravity is real to test our faith. He did something similar to that thing about dinosaurs, but I can't tell you any more, because I'll go to hell.

There are too many that believe and support my previous paragraph.

Re:Everybody knows

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. Free blowjobs in Australia?

Re:Everybody knows

[Spy der Mann]

Gravity sucks.

It always lets us down

Ergo, Gravity != Rick Astley.

Re:Everybody knows

[Anonymous Coward]

You're giving me nothing to look up to

Success!

[benwiggy]

An experiment is only a failure if you don't learn anything from it.

Re:Success!

[Thanshin]

An experiment is only a failure if you don't learn anything from it.

There are still degrees of success.

I tend to consider it a failure if all I learned is: "I should wear fireproof clothes for all my pyrotechnical flamabilities experiments.

Especially after the third time I learn the same lesson.

Re:Success!

[clone53421]

That's a valuable lesson, but that would indicate that the first two times were failures...

Re:Success!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Especially after the third time I learn the same lesson."

That's not so bad. At least you'll still have one good arm...

Re:Success!

[offrdbandit]

Any experiment that doesn't result in a large explosion is a failure.

Re:Success!

[Anonymous Coward]

My advice to you is to stay out of medical research. Or at least keep a safe distance if you expect a positive result.

Re:Success!

[sadler121]

So Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage are now doing experiments to verify general relativity and string theory?

Re:Success!

[chaim79]

They are already doing experiments on Time Travel, so why not?

Re:Success!

[Anonymous Coward]

An experiment is only a failure if you don't learn anything from it.

If I don't learn anything? So all you guys depend on me? No wonder the world is in shambles.

Re:Success!

[AdmiralXyz]

The next generation of scientists, brought up on Mythbusters, are going to be much more interesting than those in days gone by.

Re:Success!

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the Big Bang?

Re:Success!

[Anonymous Coward]

My missing hand and I beg to differ... =P

Re:Success!

[bth]

As Adam says: "failure is always an option".

Re:Success!

[Anonymous Coward]

You learn things only once. Then you only refresh

Re:Success!

[shadwstalkr]

Go talk to some older chemists about the days before strict lab safety. Days gone by were pretty exciting.

Re:Success!

[Convector]

That's not necessarily a good thing for science.

Re:Success!

[mapsjanhere]

There was that beautiful standard model of a big bang. Then we learned about galactic rotation, and added dark matter. Then we learned about expansion, and tossed in inflation and dark energy. Then we learned about the missing gravity waves. What will we add next?

Re:Success!

[Anonymous Coward]

You joke, but where I am working now, we are doing destructive tests on bearings that are developed in-house.

. In true mythbusters fashion, as soon as we reach a limit on a piece of equipment, we remove the safety limits and keep pushing until blows up.

Re:Success!

[jimmydevice]

Fenyman was making physics fun before Jamie and Adam were daddy's little squirt.

Re:Success!

[Javit]

As another poster mentioned, Richard Feynman set a pretty high bar.

A great interview: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/feynman/

Re:Success!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mythbusters pale in comparison to the guys of the Manhattan project

Re:Success!

[moosesocks]

Darn right.

Think about those enormous machines that were built to detect the drift of "the ether," but only measured said drift to be an extremely precise value of zero. Although initially viewed as failures, because they failed to find anything, these experiments were arguably among the most important experiments of modern physics precisely because, as it turned out, there was nothing to be found (when you think about it, the notion of a vacuum is indeed pretty damn weird)

Re:Success!

[geekoid]

Considering the importance of the lesson you learned, I would call it a success.

Re:Success!

[cbraescu1]

Is that you, Adam Savage?

Re:Success!

[dkf]

The next generation of scientists, brought up on Mythbusters, are going to be much more interesting than those in days gone by.

Some old-style scientists went in for very big explosions indeed. If the names Teller and Sakharov mean nothing to you, let's just say that Jamie and Adam's biggest to date isn't even close on a logarithmic scale...

Re:Success!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. LIGO has cost millions of taxpayer dollars. To prove that Einstein was right? Gotta wonder about priorities...

Re:Success!

[MichaelSmith]

Hmmm. Maybe the ether soaks up energy from gravitational waves.

Re:Success!

[TrekkieGod]

There was that beautiful standard model of a big bang. Then we learned about galactic rotation, and added dark matter. Then we learned about expansion, and tossed in inflation and dark energy. Then we learned about the missing gravity waves. What will we add next?

Hmm...whatever's necessary to explain the observations?

Let's try the more accurateThere was that beautiful standard model of a big bang. It fit a great many observations, but we discovered it didn't explain everything. Then we added some things to it and now it explained more of our observations, but it still didn't explain everything. Then we added more things and it explained yet more observations...

That's the way it's supposed to work. As long as the modifications to the theory contain falsifiable predictions, it's all good. They can always be removed or modified again if a new observation doesn't fit the predictions. The model always gets better and better.

Re:Success!

[localman]

Or read this story: Criticality Accident.

The old days were very exciting, and sometimes horrifically dangerous. I always think of that when I think about the long ongoing path of mankind's discovery.

They were playing with plutonium cores and neutron reflectors with their bare hands for heaven's sake!

Crazy.

Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say, nothing would be more exciting for a physicist, than to find out that current set of theories are incomplete. The worst, that could happen for a physicist, would be that the observations could be explained with GR.

Re:Unsettling?

[Schiphol]

> The worst, that could happen for a physicist, would be that the observations could be explained with GR.

This kind of (extremely common) remarks strike me as frivolous. It is one thing to say that physicists enjoy being disproved, because this shows the length of the road ahead; it is another thing to say that physicists would hate to attain knowledge in one particular area or other. Science is in the business of securing truths, not in the business of idly advancing ever-refutable theories.

Re:Unsettling?

[lxs]

Karl Popper would want a word with you, were he still alive that is.

Re:Unsettling?

[Schiphol]

Well, there has been some philosophy of science since, and much of it has been realist.
This is an option that, if workable, is preferable. Many philosophers of science believe it is workable -although admittedly, some don't.

Re:Unsettling?

[drinkypoo]

Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a *bullshit* artist!

Re:Unsettling?

[Attila Dimedici]

. Science is in the business of securing truths, not in the business of idly advancing ever-refutable theories.

I'm sorry, science is in the business of proving theories wrong. All current scientific theories are merely those that have yet to be proved wrong. They are extremely valuable in that they can be used to predict future behavior of the universe to a significant degree of confidence. However, scientific theories cannot be proven true, they can only be proven false.
The great weakness of science is that people have a tendency to view theories that have been around for a long time and not proven false to be true. All it really means is that they are reliable predictors of the behavior of the universe insofar as our technology allows us to observer the behavior of the universe. Sometimes this means that they are good theories that are very useful (say General Relativity), other times it merely means that our technology has not yet reached the point where we can reliably test any of the theory's predictions (say the various String Theories).

Re:Unsettling?

[Schiphol]

It is one thing to establish that some statement is true -i. e., getting to know it-; it is another thing to prove it true, if proving involves something like perfect certainty. Knowledge does not entail certainty, thinking otherwise is simply bad epistemology.

So you may be right that science cannot prove statements right (I do not wish to advance judgement about this), but this is still compatible with science being in the business of securing truths, attaining knowledge about the world.

Re:Unsettling?

[angel'o'sphere]

However, scientific theories cannot be proven true, they can only be proven false.

As soon as they are proven flase, they are not scientific theories anymore, or? So what is the point in crafting a theory if you want to proof it false later?

Just nittpicking/joking ... I never understodo why /. crowd is allways reiterating: a theroy need to be falsifieable. Sorry, I have a very strong physics background. I enver heared about anythign like this statement except on /. In basic physics education, you learn the experiments that supported certain theories and not any experiement that flasified anything and you certainly only learn in a very limited way old theories and how they got "debunked". So that mentioned statement is only understandable for a theoretical informatics or a phylosopher but not for a layman.

Why is the /. crowed unable to simply state: if you can not make an experiment to to gather empiric data _SUPPORTING_ a certain theory, then it is not a scientific theory? That one would make much more sense and is understandable for everyone.

Your post however makes completely sense ;D

angel'o'sphere

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is in the business of securing truths

Really?

Just because they failed to detect any

[spike1]

Doesn't mean the gravitational waves aren't there.
Maybe they've just got the detection method wrong.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[raymansean]

I was just thinking the same thing. I can not see it != it does not exist.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[codeButcher]

I can not see it != it does not exist.

Good for your karma that this is a discussion about physics and not theology.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean karma or karma

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[4D6963]

That's the wrong way to look at it, when you fail to detect something that SHOULD have been detected using what you used, that means that things just actually aren't quite as you expected them to be. Sure there still may be some be gravitational waves, but this proves that they're nothing like we thought/nowhere as strong, if they exist at all.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[wrf3]

Either theology is a subset of physics (the atheistic view) or physics is a subset of theology (the theistic view). If the latter, there comes a point where the two might be hard to distinguish.
I'm reminded of the Jastrow quote, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[someone1234]

Yeah, theologians detected gravity waves for centuries.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Anonymous Coward]

The main difference lies on the previous asumption:

- Religious: there exists a (or some) god/s that can't be seen in any way.
- Physicists: there exist some gravitational waves that produce these effects, and therefore should be observable by these means.

If you have the means and doesn't observe the waves, either you made an error when building them or the description of the wave's effects is wrong. Therefore, these "waves", as were described, doesn't exist. Period.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[codeButcher]

Interesting view. While I admittedly tend towards what you term the theistic view (physics is a study of creation, which by (theistic) definition is certainly not a set of objects/phenomena containing also the Creator that created it) I do not have much hope that the theologians will be sitting at that pinnacle. They seem to have frighteningly little knowledge even of their exclusive field of study.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[maxwell demon]

Even if science were to come to the conclusion that some theologians were right all the time (it's completely impossible that all of them are right, because they contradict each other), it would still be a great achievement, because the theologians only have their faith, while the scientists would in that case have scientific proof. Or, to remain in the picture, while the theologists have been brought to the peak, and just had to believe it's the peak they were told it is, the scientists know the way to the peak and can therefore be completely certain of being on the right one. And BTW, even for the theologians sitting on that peak it would be great news, because they then would finally have a good argument that they got to the right peak, and the other theologians sitting on the other peaks were wrong.

However, it is more likely that when the scientists get over the final rock (assuming there is one), the'll find no theologian there, because those all sit on those lower peaks where it is much easier to get to.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[mdwh2]

And you surely have plenty of examples backing that quote up, of where scientific discoveries were known centuries in advance by people who merely theolog-ised about it. (What does that involve anyway? Talking to "God"?)

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem of "negative" results, is that maybe you didn't detect something because it's actually not there, or maybe you just did your experiment wrong. Differentiating the two is non-trivial.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[I cant believe its n]

I can not see it != it does not exist.

Good for your karma that this is a discussion about physics and not theology.

Good for your Dharma that this is a discussion about physics and not biology.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[jahudabudy]

Well, ignoring the debatable use of the word "know" in the context of belief without evidence, there are in fact numerous examples of theologically passed wisdom that we now scientifically know is correct. Cheap example: Jewish dietary prohibitions. Violating these religious restrictions would have been a really bad idea 2000 years ago. More modern: power of prayer. There are many studies that attribute various benefits to meditation/relaxation/prayer. Spending a small amount of time each day in prayer is good for you, just like religion has been saying for years.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[wrf3]

I think you completely missed the point. If there is a God, then studying what He/She/It created is of far lesser importance than studying God Himself. Once God is found, everything else pales in comparison. The secrets of the universe are not in what it does, or how it works; but who made it. I think that's what Jastrow was saying, anyway.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[drinkypoo]

when you fail to detect something that SHOULD have been detected using what you used, that means that things just actually aren't quite as you expected them to be.

This part is true.

Sure there still may be some be gravitational waves, but this proves that they're nothing like we thought/nowhere as strong, if they exist at all.

This part is false. In fact, it might indicate some flaw in the experiment, or its implementation. Or it might indicate the presence of another previously unaccounted-for force.

P.S. Not impressed with the implication that a "random slashdotter" has nothing new to add to a scientific discussion. If that is your attitude, you clearly have nothing to add. Since you're also wrong about the necessary implications of an experiment not producing the intended results, you're clearly talking from the wrong orifice. Or perhaps, typing with the wrong organ.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Yaos]

The waves are so large they only appear to not exist, like being on a massive wave that appears to be flat.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Archangel Michael]

things just actually aren't quite as you expected them to be

This goes along with some of the greatest scientific discoveries .... "HUH!?!?!?!?! THATS ODD?!?!?!"

It is these moments of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot that often give us the greatest insights. The ramifications of these types of discoveries can take decades to fully decode and understand.

I love it when experiments have unexpected results, because those are the most exciting to a scientist.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[TapeCutter]

"as [the scientist] pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

He can see the theologians who have taken that final leap to the top of the rock but the force of logic seperates his real world rock from where the theologians of inumerable religions have been sitting for centuries arguing about who's imaginary friend has the bigus dickus.

Like a glass ceiling the force of logic stops him from pulling himself up the last rock, so he sits down with his back against the rock admiring the view. He muses to himself that his mind is but a tool by which the universe can observe itself. He wonders about the quantam mechanics in the rock that is countering the force of gravity and holding him and the theologians up.

Every now and then the scientist tries to show the theologians the virtue and fruits of critical thinking that surrounds us in the modern world but all such attempts at enlightenment have resulted in the theologians shouting "my god did it" and tossing feaces at the scientist and each another.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[flaming error]

> The secrets of the universe are not in what it does, or how it works; but who made it
If "who made it" is a secret, how does one study it?

> If there is a God, then studying what He/She/It created
> is of far lesser importance than studying God Himself.

Why is that? That's like saying that rather than studying Newton's Laws, we should just study Sir Isaac Newton. Or rather than studying how a mechanical watch works, we should research its inventor.

If there is a Creator, it's unclear how one could study "God Himself." I'm sure "He/She/It" would be a very interesting being, but this Creator hasn't seen fit to allow Himself/Herself/Itself to be studied with any sort of clinical rigor. In some religions He goes so far as to denounce seekers of signs. He/She/It hasn't seen fit to clarify the confusion from the many and varied theologies of the world; we don't know if we should study him in the Q'uran or the Rig Veda or the stars or music or psychedelic drugs or special recipes of Kool-Aid.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Anonymous Coward]

If I understand correctly, the waves do exist--they just didn't find the ones they were looking for. According to someone I spoke with--during the science runs, the system was so incredibly sensitive that they'd have to discard data if an aircraft was flying overhead.

I'm not sure if this was due to motion from the compression waves, or a large quantity of mass passing over it... whereas they were looking for big waves, I think the system tended to find "gravitational trembles" all over the place--which is one of the reasons they needed three such systems spread out. The waves they were looking for...were...*big*

But I'm not a theoretical physicist--I bet somebody here can explain a lot better, or ossibly correct me.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[wrf3]

If "who made it" is a secret, how does one study it?
"Secret" in the sense of that which isn't known, not what can't be known.

That's like saying that rather than studying Newton's Laws, we should just study Sir Isaac Newton. Or rather than studying how a mechanical watch works, we should research its inventor.
Well, yes. It's an interesting commentary on the times when impersonal things are of more interest than personal things.

If there is a Creator, it's unclear how one could study "God Himself."
Perhaps that's because science is so wrapped up in impersonal things that it doesn't know how do deal with things it can't control. A Turing Test on the universe might prove fruitful. But, as with computers, one runs the risk that it might not want to talk to you.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[maxwell demon]

Well, if you RTFA you'll find that there are only a few non-established theories which predict gravitational waves that large that they could be detected with the current setup. Therefore all this experiment tells is that those theories are not true. Or, to quote from TFA:

Rather than be disappointed by the null findings, physicists say the results were expected, and in fact help them narrow down possibilities for what the universe was like just after it was born.

And later:

Most physicists think the models that would have produced gravitational waves above the threshold that could have been seen so far are unlikely, he said.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[canadian_right]

I don't know any atheists who believe theology is a subset of physics. Theology is a branch of sociology, anthropology or philosophy. Studying theology might tell you something about people, but certainly not about physics.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[wrf3]

Intelligence, and hence theology, has to be the product of the interaction of particles. Therefore, it has to be fundamentally rooted in physics.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[The End Of Days]

Violating these religious restrictions would have been a really bad idea 2000 years ago.

Could you explain the scientific reasons for not mixing meat and dairy? Once you've done that, could you explain why fish and dairy together are okay, once again within the scientific context? Then for a follow up, explain the scientific basis for the requirement that meat and dairy need totally separate cookware and utensils.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Deosyne]

Enabled by, but not the study of. Logic fail.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[wrf3]

Where does intelligence come from, if not from the interactions of sub-atomic particles (strings/waves, ...)?

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Boronx]

The theologians had their chance.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Spy der Mann]

However, it is more likely that when the scientists get over the final rock (assuming there is one), the'll find no theologian there, because those all sit on those lower peaks where it is much easier to get to.

Or perhaps theologians are sitting on a balloon above, where the rope ladder is called faith.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Spy der Mann]

Could you explain the scientific reasons for not mixing meat and dairy?

I don't know, but that reminds me of the last time i mixed dairy and citrus fruits. Then I found myself praying in the "purgatory". Does that count as faith?

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[drinkypoo]

Kiss my ass. Someone not involved in the research who only knows superficially what's being dealt with talking about how the researchers performing the research and their peer-reviewed article got it wrong is the one who's talking out of his arse.

You don't know him from Adam, and you're assuming he doesn't know anything about what he's talking about, which is why it's right back on you.

That's why everytime there's a story about science on Slashdot there's a half dozen armchair researchers who've gotta explain why it's all wrong.

The only argument in defense of your attitude is that most of the people who do know what the hell they're talking about on Slashdot... aren't talking, because they're sharpening up their papers. But every so often someone will drop some amazing fucking science on this site, and I mean that in both the literal and "urban" sense. There are a lot of people on this site more intelligent than you and I put together, and some of what they are talking about will sound like nonsense to either one of us. This guy might have been a jackass, but you dismissed his argument based on your opinion of him. The simple truth is that there are a number of physicists who visit Slashdot, and that's why the comment I referenced has picked up at least one troll mod... so far.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Spy der Mann]

> The secrets of the universe are not in what it does, or how it works; but who made it
If "who made it" is a secret, how does one study it?

> If there is a God, then studying what He/She/It created
> is of far lesser importance than studying God Himself.

Why is that? That's like saying that rather than studying Newton's Laws, we should just study Sir Isaac Newton.

Your logic is flawed. Sir Isaac Newton didn't INVENT Newton's Laws. He merely discovered them. Because Sir Isaac Newton was never ABOVE his "own" laws (unless he managed to levitate and never told anyone about it).

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Anonymous Coward]

My Intelligent designer detection method is wrong too.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[linzeal]

Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[pluther]

But it does mean that it doesn't have the properties you expect, if one of those properties is that it should be detectable via such and such a means.

The detector they were using should have seen the gravitational waves in the way they were looking for them. That they did not throws doubt into General Relativity, a very well-established theory.

This could be the most exciting lack of evidence since they failed to find rabbits in pre-cambrian strata.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[JamesP]

Either theology is a subset of physics (the atheistic view) or physics is a subset of theology (the theistic view). If the latter, there comes a point where the two might be hard to distinguish.

How about NO?!

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[raymansean]

and they calibrated the detector how? No seriously, did they have a sample set of gravitational waves to calibrate the detector? There are only two outcomes of an experiment, either the results support your hypotheses or they do not. The results of this experiment failed to support the hypothesis. The conclusion would be that the detector failed to detect gravitational waves. To answer "Why?" would be speculation. I hate reading the page long conclusions of journal articles that speculate as to why the results are what they are. Save the speculation for conferences and the lab, publish the results, summarize the results in the conclusions. If you want to include speculation in the paper include it in the discussion.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't mean the gravitational waves aren't there.
Maybe they've just got the detection method wrong.

Right as it was shown in his solar eclipse experiments

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[geekoid]

no it's not.

You can't study God. You can conjectures and circle jerk about interpetation, but you can not study something you can not observe and test.

Those theologians suffer from arrogance of ignorance, nothing more.

Theology is nothing but an outmoded concept.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[mdwh2]

I thought someone would do that - replace "theologically" to mean "things that were practiced by religions".

So try again. Obviously there are lots of things that people have known before we fully understood them, but we still knew them through observation, which is the first step in scientific progress.

When Jastrow talked about a "band of theologians", I do not think that this is what he meant. Moreover, it implies that not only did they know the facts, but also knew the theories that explain the facts.

And if Jastrow really did mean "sometimes lay people know things before scientists investigate them", then sure, I entirely agree. But that's got nothing to do with science versus religion, or "atheistic view" versus "theistic view"! This just means that humans are capable of understanding things from observation, and not just scientists. It has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.

It's a common fallacy - claim that religion is better than science, or something like that, and then back-peddle to a position of saying that thousands of years ago people who happened to be religious knew things, citing an example where they found these facts out through observation and testing (you know, just like science). I mean what, are you suggesting they discovered the facts by speaking to God? The point is exemplified by the fact that Jews are a race.

This is no better than homeopaths who claim that because certain traditional medicines were found to work (e.g., bark as a painkiller), science must be somehow lacking, and there must be something better about "their" way.

There are many studies that attribute various benefits to meditation/relaxation/prayer. Spending a small amount of time each day in prayer is good for you, just like religion has been saying for years.

Just to clarify: as a form of relaxation, mediation, or a placebo, sure, but prayer does not work in anyway beyond that. So claiming that as a success to theology seems rather misleading.

And those studies were, I hope, scientific, not "theological studies" (I'm not sure what that would involve?), so again, you are talking about science here.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[mdwh2]

Sure, but even if there is a god, there seems little evidence that theologians have any way of knowing anything about this god. How do we know if it's true? How come they all disagree so much - they can't all be right!

So even if there is a god, the idea that theologians will be sitting smugly thinking they knew it all along is rather absurd.

Put it another way - if there is a god, then why isn't there a single example where theologians have discovered something through studying god[*]? So either their methods don't work, or there isn't a god. In either cases, the theologians are of no use.

If there is a god, and god can be studied, then why is that outside of the realm of science anyway? It certainly is in the realm of science. And if either there isn't a god, or god can't be studied - then theologians won't have any better luck. Jastrow falls for the common fallacy that limitations of science can easily be overcome if only we took some different method (usually religious, but it's never explained how). The reality is that the limitations apply to any method we apply.

[*] To anyone reading, please take note of this point in italics before butting in with an example of "But religious people practiced things thousands of years ago that we later discovered was a good idea after all".

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[mdwh2]

If you wanted to understand how a computer program I wrote behaved, would you have better luck watching the program run, or would you study me instead?

(At best, you might argue you could learn something by communicating with me, but that's not the same as "studying" me, nor is it necessarily a better way. And there's no evidence that people who claim they are communicating with God are doing so - if this was really a good way, how come no discoveries have come from this method, and how come they all disagree with each other?)

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[jahudabudy]

I thought someone would do that - replace "theologically" to mean "things that were practiced by religions".

What other "theological knowledge" would you suggest?

It's a common fallacy - claim that religion is better than science, or something like that, and then back-peddle to a position of saying that thousands of years ago people who happened to be religious knew things, citing an example where they found these facts out through observation and testing

I'm not at all suggesting that religion is better than science, I'm just saying that there are religious practices from thousands of years ago that we have scientifically validated as beneficial. And yes, there are even more that we have invalidated as mere superstition. And we don't know how they obtained their "knowledge"; maybe observation and testing, as you suggest, maybe paranoid hallucinations, maybe speaking to God. Your post I was responding to suggested that there were no examples of religions believing things that we now know to be true (i.e., reaching some metaphorical peak of knowledge before science). I gave a couple of easy examples of things religious people believed (I don't like the term knew in this context, but that is b/c I prefer scientific based knowledge) long before science proved them true. They believed them based on their religion; I don't know what else you might mean by theological knowledge.

Basically, I think it a bit mean-spirited and insecure to insist that only science has ever reached any true knowledge. Hell, if I believe that the universe tends toward entropy b/c a pink unicorn told me so after eating a bunch of acid, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It makes my arguments very very unconvincing to others, it doesn't make listening to pink unicorns while on acid a good method of learning about the universe, but I'm still right.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[budgenator]

Isaac Asimov: isn't the the guy that said "either everything we know about particle research is wrong or the sun has gone out, therefore the sun has gone out" many years ago when the solar neutrino flux was observed to be well below expected values because he didn't know about neutrinos flavor oscillation .

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Bacon Bits]

I see you've been talking to the Christians again....

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Reservoir Penguin]

The idea that scientific method is the ONLY true way of obtaining knowledge is a recent one. There are other valid ways such as direct expreince and mystic studies. I put two years toward physics major and switched to math after becoming disgusted with the blind faith in scientific method (and the way physisists use and abuse math). There is overwhelming evidince that homeopathy saved millions during the spanish flue pandemic and I've seen accupancure perform what can only be deascribed as miracles by the westerners during my travels in China. Scientific method has it's uses but when it goes against ny commion sesne, well I go with common sense.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[Reservoir Penguin]

First of all - they don't all disagree with each other. Secondly, the irony is that physics itself is aproaching the limits of practical application of scientific method. To be meaningfully tested some of the theories already require energies beyond what can be obtained by us. And what is the string theory flavour of the year? There are multiple and none can be tested. So what is theoretical physics today? is it still science, or is it math? Purhaps theology?

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[ResidentSourcerer]

Remember that Einstein got started through the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect the ether.

If there is no gravitational waves, is GR fundamentally wrong, or does it just need a tweak.

"Science is not the process of replacing wrong theories with correct ones. It's the process of replacing wrong theories with ones that are more subtly wrong

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[4D6963]

More importantly, it was sarcasm.

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[maxwell demon]

The idea that scientific method is the ONLY true way of obtaining knowledge is a recent one.

The idea that electromagnetic waves can transmit information is also a recent one. On the other hand, the idea that earth is flat is very old.

The age of an idea doesn't tell you whether its true.

There are other valid ways such as direct expreince and mystic studies.

There's nothing wrong with direct experience. Indeed, any scientific knowledge ultimately comes from direct experience and reasoning about that experience. However, people tent to do invalid generalizations from their direct experience, and then claim those generalisations were their direct experience, which they weren't.

About mystic studies, well, can you tell me just one convincing reason why I should accept them as sources of truth?

There is overwhelming evidince that homeopathy saved millions during the spanish flue pandemic

{{citation needed}}

and I've seen accupancure perform what can only be deascribed as miracles by the westerners during my travels in China.

Such as?

Scientific method has it's uses but when it goes against ny commion sesne, well I go with common sense.

Well, that's your choice. How can you be so sure that your common sense is right?

Re:Just because they failed to detect any

[oblivionboy]

You may have no choice. The God may not be too cooperative, and you'll be back to studying the universe because of no other recourse.

Hex

[tygerstripes]

+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++

Re:Hex

[Sumbius]

Preorder now, the Universe Boot-up CD for only 119,95$. --- Microsoft God division---

Re:Hex

[Philip K Dickhead]

Morons!

Gravity is a particle!

Re:Hex

[rubycodez]

it's a particle that waves from a float in a parade

Re:Hex

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like light is a particle, right? Hmm...

Re:Hex

[blackraven14250]

It's a good actor.

Re:Hex

[Anonymous Coward]

awesome ligo video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kapaztyPFVI

Re:Hex

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

it's a particle that waves from a float in a parade

Yeah, it's just like the parade in your dad's hometown.

Open or Closed String Models?

[Gazzonyx]

Will these tests apply for open, closed, or both so far as strings are concerned? IIRC, open and closed string models are mutually exclusive and should each have a different 'signature' that could be tested for.

Re:Open or Closed String Models?

[horace]

This comes down to how long it is. A cosmic string isn't the same thing as a string in string theory. A cosmic string is very long macro scale topological feature of the universe while a string theory string is a model for subatomic particles. However you can investigate cosmic strings in string theory leading to the theory of stringy cosmic strings of Vafa et al..

Re:Open or Closed String Models?

[Lumpy]

And can you test for it if you are inside one of those strings?

What if our solar system is inside one of those loops?

Re:Open or Closed String Models?

[should_be_linear]

And if neither of these works, still there are twisted strings, 11-dimensional strings, combined strings, '80ies-style-disco strings, strings inside strings, so one of string theory will easily handle this crisis.

Cart before the horse.

[Zaphod-AVA]

Isn't it supposed to be observe, *then* theorize? I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that with most string theories, they are doing the opposite.

Re:Cart before the horse.

[ledow]

More like a cycle... observe, theorise, observe to check results, refine theory.

In this case, this is exactly what's happened - the observations looks like they may not fit the theory perfectly - hence, once that's been double-checked, go back and revise the theory and try to find out why.

If you don't test the theory, it's worthless. And if you posit a theory, only observation will definitively "prove" it. Science is about positing theories, observing results, and if they fit the theory - WONDERFUL... you just "predicted" part of the universe that nobody has before.

Re:Cart before the horse.

[Thanshin]

Unless horses get so expensive and building carts so cheap you'd rather prepare a thouosand different carts just to be absolutely sure of which kind of horse you're going to invest all your effort trying to find.

Re:Cart before the horse.

[AikonMGB]

Not exactly.. you make some observations about the world around you, use that to come up with a theory, and then you perform experiments and observations to test that theory. One of the core components of a theory is it's ability to make predictions about things that we haven't observed yet; observing them a posteriori, we can determine whether the theory is at least plausible. A theory that makes no predictions is, to many academics and scientists, the equivalent of mental masturbation.

If you deal only with past observations, then you could come up with any number of theories to explain something, all of which are wrong because they fail to properly predict events in other scenarios.

Aikon-

Re:Cart before the horse.

[Shihar]

Not really. String theory is based on observations like any theory. You can observe things, see that it lines up with your theory, and you can falsify string theory. The problem with string theory, and the reason why people complain about it, is that most of its observations are also true of the boring old theories we have right now or true of other variations of string theory. People get a little annoyed when you come up with a dozen contradictory string theories and according to all known observations they could all be true and no one can figure out a way to disprove any of them shorting of lighting off a big bang.

Re:Cart before the horse.

[raymansean]

A lot of people confuse a hypothesis for a theory. All it takes for a hypothesis to become a theory is for there to be "some evidence" to support the hypothesis, even if the evidence is just pure math.

Re:Cart before the horse.

[FTWinston]

Thats half-way there. Observe, then theorise, then make a prediction, and test that. The problem is that we have General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and both describe their own domains very well (the very large and very small, respectively) - but we have no way of combining the two into a single, unified theory.

String theory in its various permutations could be (partial) theoretical solutions to this, but coming up with testable predictions of such theories (such as large-amplitude gravitational waves) is horrendously tricky. Indeed, some theories are pretty much untestable by definition - many string theories have been considered to come into this category.

So we have our observation (GR and QM both work well, but are hard to unify), we have many predictions (string theories, etc), and now we have a test of many such theories in the form of this experiment.

"Observe then theorise" is all well and good, but when you can't you can test predictions of your theory, its not worth much.

Re:Cart before the horse.

[OMGcAPSLOCK]

"Thats half-way there. Observe, then theorise, then make a prediction, and test that. The problem is that we have General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and both describe their own domains very well (the very large and very small, respectively) - but we have no way of combining the two into a single, unified theory." Paging Nassim Haramein. I went up to London last week to witness Haramein give a talk on a paper he has just submitted for peer review entitled "The Schwarzschild Proton" (Best Paper Award at the CASYS09 conference), where he outlines some very specific ways in which we can begin to unify the two apparently conflicting theories. He has a model for the mechanics of the Universe that dispenses with the need for String Theory, the Strong and Weak Forces, and Dark Matter, and can show how this model would fully support General Relativity all the way down to the Planck Scale. http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/schwarzschild_proton_a4.pdf

Re:Cart before the horse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it supposed to be observe, *then* theorize? I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that with most string theories, they are doing the opposite.

"God did it" is a perfectly good theory within this logic. Confirmation experiment is vital to science.

Re:Cart before the horse.

[Alzheimers]

The observation that there is an attractive force between two masses was made a long time ago. We've gone through several theories, and none seem to perfectly match experimental data. This is yet another in a long string of attempts to explain the original observation.

Re:Cart before the horse.

[dissy]

Isn't it supposed to be observe, *then* theorize? I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that with most string theories, they are doing the opposite.

In a sense, they are doing it in the order of observe then theorize.

We have had a good 50-60 years worth of observations that are unexplainable with current theory.
After that, they came up with these string theories.

Sadly, since one can't directly observe the things that the string theories describe, and at least last time i paid any attention, we couldn't even indirectly observe them! That is a dead end.
Ok, dead end isn't a fair description. It's more like a very long and dark tunnel we are moving through. It May be a dead end, or it may empty out into something great. From where we are at right now in that tunnel, it's all pitch black ahead and we do not know what lies there.
I'll let the string theorists worry about making that trip however ;}

That's why observations such as this one from LISA are so important. They let us refine theories made on the past 60ish years of observations that we have no theory for!

Re:Cart before the horse.

[DragonWriter]

Isn't it supposed to be observe, *then* theorize? I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that with most string theories, they are doing the opposite.

Actually, its supposed to be observe, theorize (or, more precisely, create hypotheses) to explain observations, conduct structured tests of hypotheses, observe results, rinse, repeat.

Where the existing models work for most things, but have known gaps or inconsistencies, its perfectly acceptable in science to propose new models for the existing observations to resolve those issues, though to be useful they have to ways that they can be, via testing, distinguished from the existing models, even if they reduce to the existing models for the conditions in which previous observations were conducted.

String theory fits into that, though often the hypotheses are difficult to test in practice.

Re:Cart before the horse.

[AshtangiMan]

In this case there are theories, but in general you start by observing and or hypothesizing, and after many many years of disproving the hypothesis, modifying and retesting you get to theories.

Re:Cart before the horse.

[maxwell demon]

And how does his model explain the deep inelastic scattering experiments? I cannot see how this could possibly work.

They exist.

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be noted that the existance of gravitational waves is pretty much certain - measurements of pulsars like the Hulse-Taylor binary match up perfectly with the predictions of GR.

What LIGO is about is trying to observe them directly, rather than just observing the effects of them.

Re:They exist.

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be further noted that it is possible to synthesize excited bromide in an argon matrix.

Re:They exist.

[aicrules]

Pretty much certain? Yes, a lot of observations have fit the theory of gravitational waves, but this one in particular went against it. The observation method may be flawed in some way, but it COULD mean that the other observed effects are actually attributable to something else. Whether flawed or not, this observation did not disprove or prove the existence and/or nature of gravitational waves. It only served to potentially better define them.

Re:They exist.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know... Wouldn't that be like lasing a stick of dynamite?

Re:They exist.

[John Hasler]

> Yes, a lot of observations have fit the theory of gravitational waves, but
> this one in particular went against it.

No it didn't. It set an upper limit on them, but that limit is compatible with current theory.

Re:They exist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. I can't believe I had to go down this far to find actual discussion of this. Back in the day, if there was a science based story on slashdot that I wasn't familiar with the discussion would always give me at least enough background on an experiment to understand the significance. Now it's just pages of lame jokes before an actual discussion of the story begins.

Re:They exist.

[PiSkyHi]

I have no doubt about gravity waves existing either, but most physicists still seem to be deluded about what they really are and how they are observed.

My comment from March this year

When I hear the words "the unit for distance decreases", I cringe and think "relative to what ?"

LIGO - is its expenditure a testament to the importance of its goal ? or is it just the result of a badly thought out experiment ?

Re:They exist.

[photonic]

This result does not contradict 'the theory of gravitational waves'. As mentioned by the OP, there is indirect evidence for their existence, for which Hulse and Taylor got the physics Nobel prize in 1993. The result published now sets a new upper limit on the strength of certain types of signals. This excludes some of the more exotic (stringy) models for the astrophysical generation of GWs (under the assumption that LIGO does indeed have the sensitivity it claims). It did in no way disprove the existence of GWs in general, or rule out some of the less exotic models, which predict much lower levels.

Re:They exist.

[Whillowhim]

Exactly. The initial design for LIGO was only expected to be sensitive to the largest possible sources of gravity ways. The theories on most of these weren't proven in any real sense, so it was decided to go look for them. Many theories predict a much lower level of background noise, which LIGO cannot yet detect without a _very_ long run time. It is faster to upgrade the device and continue looking with more sensitivity than to integrate more to look for coherency in a noisy signal. The evidence we've seen so far of gravity waves comes from sources that would be much weaker than the current LIGO sensitivity, or else from sources that are expected to be very rare (2 neutron stars colliding should give off a ton of gravitational energy, but how often does this happen within X light years?).

The original LIGO sensitivity also matched or slightly exceeded other gravitational wave observatories that were being designed around the globe, so it was decided it was a good place to start. However, while other observatories in more populated areas get a lot of their sensitivity by having very complicated suspension systems for the mirrors and active isolation systems to reduce outside noise, LIGO gets its sensitivity by being in the middle of nowhere with plenty of space to build massively long beam tubes, which are a direct multiple of the sensitivity. Thus, it was easier to get LIGO running with simpler suspension systems, but upgrading the sensitivity does not require replacing the entire device. Simply replacing the mirror suspension systems with the more advanced ones that others have been working the bugs out on should give a large boost to the sensitivity. And since others have been working with these new systems, they'll be better understood and hopefully take less time and fiddling after they're installed in the LIGO facilities.

Re:They exist.

[Anonymous Coward]

This result does not contradict 'the theory of gravitational waves'. As mentioned by the OP, there is indirect evidence for their existence

"Epicycles" is the point. Observations matched them well.

Re:They exist.

[Anonymous Coward]

What LIGO is about is trying to observe them directly, rather than just observing the effects of them.

An additional complexity - LIGO isn't actually sensitive to gravitational waves like those emitted from binary neutron stars. LIGO is most sensitive to waves with periods of under a second, while something like the Hulse-Taylor binary should produce waves with periods of minutes.

LIGO should still see something eventually - there are other mechanisms (like irregularities on the surface of a spinning neutron star) which should produce gravitational waves in its frequency range. But it's not as guaranteed as the lower-frequency ones.

There's another project, LISA, which works on similar principles (ie, interfering laser beams), but between satellites with a separate of a few million kilometres. This should be sensitive to gravitational waves with periods of a few minutes, like the ones from the Hulse-Taylor binary - but the satellites haven't been launched or even built yet.

Finally, you can look for gravitational waves with a period of years by looking at variations in timing of pulsars in different directions. These might be produced by, say, supermassive black holes (from the centres of galaxies) coalescing.

At this point, it's anyone's guess which group will be the first to actually detect gravitational waves.

Re:They exist.

[ctrl-alt-canc]

Maybe not: see for example this paper. Indirect observation of gravitational waves proves nothing. We shouldn't forget that aether was supposed to exist by indirect proof...

Intelligent falling!

[blirp]

This is obviously because gravity does not exist, but the observed effect is a result of an higher intelligence pushing things down.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Re:Intelligent falling!

[jellomizer]

I always though the expansion of the universe is pushing us upwards at an increasing rate, to give the impression to us that we were always being pulled down. Of course simulations of that theory doesn't seem to account for orbital patterns.

Re:Intelligent falling!

[Rude Turnip]

Shhhh!!!! It's the terrible secret of space...

Re:Intelligent falling!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the fact that people on the other side of the world aren't falling off.

Re:Intelligent falling!

[__aasqbs9791]

Well, we'll know that for sure when Chuck Norris dies. That is assuming he doesn't decide to just kill Death.

Re:Intelligent falling!

[Tony]

This is obviously because gravity does not exist, but the observed effect is a result of an higher intelligence pushing things down.

It's the Man! I knew it.

Re:Intelligent falling!

[Reziac]

Of course gravity doesn't exist. The earth sucks.

Geez, you'd think people would know these things by now.

On second thought, maybe the volume of dense people has triggered a tiny black hole ...

Re:Intelligent falling!

[winwar]

Once again the Man is keeping us down.

Re:Intelligent falling!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is obviously because gravity does not exist, but the observed effect is a result of an higher intelligence pushing things down.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I applaud you my friend, gravity does not exist, anyopne wishing to disprove me can grab a huge jam jar and quickly open it and close it whilst jumping off a very high cliff, we will honestly check inside and give you the noble prize if we find the graviton inside it.

the emperor

cosmic string

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, some models predict the existence of cosmic strings

so, sort of like a quantum filament?

No Wonder

[DynaSoar]

Little wonder they didn't find anything. LIGO is a great big but brand new Michelson-Morley design. It took those guys many years to get a result.

Of course LIGO is right and good and should be honored for a valiant try despite no results, and M-M are wrong despite results (rarely replicable but a few times) because they were mistaken from the get go. Gravity waves from oscillating N dimensional strings make sense but waves in the ether don't and neither does different light speeds like the speed of light in a vacuum, let's call it c, or the speed of light in water, 0.98c, except different frequencies have different values in water. Anyway, Einstein was right, the speed of light is the same regardless. Einstein was still right even though LIGO got no results.

The above is a tongue in cheek adaptation of the LIGO news to the spirit if not content of Collins & Pinch's "The Golem" (actually M-M is covered). Should be required reading for those who'd mount a high scientific horse as well as those who'd seek to dismount them.

They are interferometers with more than a few essential similarities. Both should see something or else nothing regardless of theory because nature doesn't care for theory.

A problem with both is the directions -- both perpendicular to local gravity. They're looking for crosswise wind ripple effects on a waterfall. Build one with a vertical leg. As for orbital designs, same problem. But the rotation of the Earth should drag some frame. Put up two in opposing orbits (E-W/W-E).

Re:No Wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

"oscillating N dimensional strings make sense"

no, a dog dragging his butt to scratch his arse makes sense.

until we can actually sense these gravity waves i'm holding out on this as newton's calculations are effectively kelpers planetary geometry with a G added.

IANAP

Re:No Wonder

[4D6963]

Wow, great insight, random Slashdotter! If only those physicists visited Slashdot more often they'd know what's wrong with their results and conclusions!

Re:No Wonder

[brian0918]

Strings make about as much sense as probabilities considered as physically real, or observer-dependent reality - ie, no sense. The equations might be elegant, but they don't explain anything. "Oh, it's strings!... wait, strings of what? And hold on, they're one-dimensional?!"

Desiring a specific result does not make that result any more real, or coherent. Physics is built on philosophy, not the other way around. Until you understand the underlying concepts, you haven't understood a thing. Of course, it is possible to not understand a thing, get the equations right, and make practical applications from those equations, but progress (in both theory and application) requires a fundamental understanding.

Re:No Wonder

[blueg3]

Of course LIGO is right and good and should be honored for a valiant try despite no results, and M-M are wrong despite results (rarely replicable but a few times) because they were mistaken from the get go. Gravity waves from oscillating N dimensional strings make sense but waves in the ether don't and neither does different light speeds like the speed of light in a vacuum, let's call it c, or the speed of light in water, 0.98c, except different frequencies have different values in water. Anyway, Einstein was right, the speed of light is the same regardless. Einstein was still right even though LIGO got no results.

Criticisms of science who doesn't understand optics, much less basic relativity? Actually, he doesn't understand basic science, since he applies "makes sense" as if it's meaningful.

A problem with both is the directions -- both perpendicular to local gravity. They're looking for crosswise wind ripple effects on a waterfall. Build one with a vertical leg.

Interferometry isn't affected by static fields like local gravity. If it were, their sensitivity is so high that you'd see the local-gravity effect even though their equipment is "perpendicular" to Earth's gravity because their equipment is not perfectly perpendicular to Earth's gravity.

Re:No Wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

why put them only in earth orbit? why not at the earth-moon lagrange points, or even better at the earth-sun lagrange points. you have much less local gravity to deal with (almost none).

Re:No Wonder

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

1 side brain can't reason without the opposite side.

Americans are so dumb, educated stupid and evil, they have snot for brain.

Believers have snot brain. Educated have snot brain. God worship only needs a snot brain, but it takes Opposite Brain Analysis to know Harmonic Life.

Einstein was singularity stupid, and you are singularity stupid. "Born Cubic, THINK CUBIC", you rotate a 4 corner stage life. Singularity educated humans are not intelligent.

Re:No Wonder

[maxwell demon]

Maybe because it would cost much more to bring it to the Lagrange points?

Re:No Wonder

[DynaSoar]

Of course LIGO is right and good and should be honored for a valiant try despite no results, and M-M are wrong despite results (rarely replicable but a few times) because they were mistaken from the get go. Gravity waves from oscillating N dimensional strings make sense but waves in the ether don't and neither does different light speeds like the speed of light in a vacuum, let's call it c, or the speed of light in water, 0.98c, except different frequencies have different values in water. Anyway, Einstein was right, the speed of light is the same regardless. Einstein was still right even though LIGO got no results.

Criticisms of science who doesn't understand optics, much less basic relativity? Actually, he doesn't understand basic science, since he applies "makes sense" as if it's meaningful.

A problem with both is the directions -- both perpendicular to local gravity. They're looking for crosswise wind ripple effects on a waterfall. Build one with a vertical leg.

Interferometry isn't affected by static fields like local gravity. If it were, their sensitivity is so high that you'd see the local-gravity effect even though their equipment is "perpendicular" to Earth's gravity because their equipment is not perfectly perpendicular to Earth's gravity.

Wow, straw man attacks from half bit wits in the absence of anything substantial outside of a high school text book. Got yer standard 3 degrees do ya? Can't tell. If so I'll see ya and raise ya 1 and keep the invites to Santa Fe as a hole card.

That said, you're specifically the sort of rabid dogmatist the tongue in cheek line (did you manage those big words, or just jump right to 'reply'?) referred to. I've taught from Collins and Pinch in my methodology classes since it was published because most people, students worst, have such misconceptions about the conduct the therefore the content of science. Take a big bow.

When you've removed your ass hat for making a claim of non-existence of an effect which if can be said to be based on anything is based on lack of evidence, feel free to tell the class how you intend to reconcile your statement that local gravity with the fact you've posted in under an article about an experiment that hopes to find waves in it. From distant sources to be sure, but in the local field, or we need to talk to the Hanford folks about how they've managed to negate it. I won't pressure you to figure out exactly where in the gravitational field of a rotating body inertial frame dragging (predicted by general relativity, yes?) does not prevent the field from being truly static, but I'll give you two names -- Lense and Thirring. Two more if you're still stumped -- LAGEOS and LAGEOS II.

I didn't pick on the sentence after "Interferometry isn't affected..." because I'm pretty sure you tried so hard to make a point that you didn't make sense, unless you can make it home whether you turn right 90 degrees or 270 (a logical extension of vertical being equivalent to very nearly horizontal). I also didn't whack you with the fact that the in-theories-only 'static' gravitational field precludes a unified field solution, string or not (all others being decidedly dynamic), because by now if you're still sitting in the saddle and your feet are on the stirrups, then the saddle has done slid around the bottom of the horse.

Re:No Wonder

[blueg3]

Your nonsensical writing style seems familiar. Have you sent unsolicited manuscripts to any university physics departments recently? We have a whole stack of nonsense papers in the lounge that I read from time to time.

Of course...

[chill]

Gravity is related directly to space, which in turn is directly related to time. Time, as we know, is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so. Therefore, gravity is an illusion. Q.E.D.

Re:Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is your real name is Eoin Colfer?

Re:Of course...

[molo]

Illusivity is not transitive.

-molo

Re:Of course...

[kalirion]

Just because it's an illusion, doesn't make it any less real.

Re:Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gravity is related directly to space, which in turn is directly related to time"

Didn't know that. So who's house do they go to at thanksgiving?

Re:Of course...

[Kjella]

As long as noone tries to take my illusions away. Hands off the grub.

it could be

[FudRucker]

their equipment is not sensitive enough to detect the gravity waves, you're talking about billions of years ago when they started and billions of light years of distance traveled since the universe began with a big bang...

Sending the theoreticians back where they belong

[bradbury]

This is good news. Now maybe the string theorists, such as Michio Kaku, will spend a little more time back at the drawing board and a little less time pretending to be Carl Sagan crossed with Alan Alda.

Also, knocking the wind out of the theories that tend to be playing with fabric of the universe (e.g. string theory) is good, as it is one step away from knocking the wind out of those other dark denizens of "magic physics", namely "dark matter" [1] and "dark energy"!

1. Especially when at least dark matter can be explained by the evolution of advanced technological civilizations based on *known* physics (through molecular nanotechnology and extreme engineering) and the construction of Jupiter and Matrioshka Brains. "Look Ma, no hand waving, just putting those I have to work doing something useful" [2].
2. For those of you who do not understand this statement, answer the question, "Why 17 years after "Nanosystems" was published do we still not have an complete atomic level design for a molecular nanoassembler?" [3]
3. For those who are uneducated in molecular design, "Nanosystems" sketches the broad outline of a mechanical nanoassembler arm which requires 4-8 million atoms. In 1992-3, Merkle and Drexler showed that the design of simple molecular machines of several thousand atoms was possible even using the primitive software available in those days. So the design of a simulatable molecular assembler doesn't require "magic physics" -- it simply requires the dedication of enough people to doing the design (or the automation thereof) that it gets done. For the last 3-5 years supercomputers have been been powerful enough to simulate such a complete design to "prove" it would work. Show a design, show it will work and the only remaining barrier is building one [4]. For those who doubt the ability to build molecular machines (and eventually nanorobots), I'd suggest that you go read a textbook or two on cellular biology or microbiology.
4. For those who are uneducated in nanotechnology "enabling" in general and are thinking "Why should I care?" -- well, such things as "real" Star-Trek type replicators, the ability to live for "free" (given a few sq. m of land), indefinite lifespan extension, elimination of most causes of premature death (viruses, bacteria, starvation, etc.), elimination of the "problem" of global warming, inexpensive colonization of the solar system, etc. all come to mind.

Failure to find gravitatoinal waves = good

[damburger]

Whilst scientists, being human, sometimes form attachments to a particular theory, the failure to find predicted gravity waves can only possibly be good for physics. It is also an exciting time for physicists; failures of existing theories to explain observations provide the kind of mystery a scientist can make a name for himself or herself by solving.

Re:Failure to find gravitatoinal waves = good

[John Hasler]

These results do not represent a failure of existing theory.

Re:Failure to find gravitatoinal waves = good

[damburger]

They represent a failure of some existing theories.

Re:Failure to find gravitatoinal waves = good

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they do, these gravity waves should have been detected. There's something missing in General Relativity. Maybe a new Dark Something.

Re:Failure to find gravitatoinal waves = good

[bhiestand]

Please don't let it be "The Dark Force" and please don't let it be dark gravity... please, please, please!

They'd better find cosmic strings eventually...

[Nautical Insanity]

...because they're what I'm going to need to pull to get into heaven.

Puslars

[bobbuck]

We know that pulsars conserve energy because they keep turning their lights off!

Re:Puslars

[Alzheimers]

Pulsars are very green. They rely almost entirely on Solar power!

Re:Puslars

[QuoteMstr]

Bah, pulsars just run on solar power that was stored up over previous aeons.

Pulsars run on fossil fuel!

Re:Puslars

[JorgeFierro]

How come this was moderated Offtopic?

Re:Puslars

[Jesus_666]

Does that mean I save energy if I rotate my house? Do I save more if I rotate it really fast?

Re:Puslars

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

Wow, where did you find inspiration for such a funny comment?

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[Anonymous Coward]

this guy is one of those UFO nuts, slashdot, why the fuck are you modding him up?

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[Vellmont]

Now maybe the string theorists, such as Michio Kaku, will spend a little more time back at the drawing board and a little less time pretending to be Carl Sagan crossed with Alan Alda.

I doubt it. There is no such thing as "String theory". It should be more accurately called "String Theories". It's like a multi-headed hydra that lives forever. Falsify one part of it and 3 other theories pop up to replace it.

The only thing that can really kill String Theories is a experimentally verified competing theory that's unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity. Kill the body and the head will die.

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[deoxyribonucleose]

Impressively OT! So 90 % of the mass of the Milky Way (and every other galaxy we've measured the rotation of) consists of computronium in the form of Jupiter or Matrioshka brains? Interesting theory, but where's the infrared radiation? Or have they progressed to perform fully reversible computations? Now that would be sailing very close to magic!

For those who think nano-engineering is going to be easy, I suggest go reading a book or two on control theory and thermodynamics. Even if we manage to build something resilient enough to survive outside a pure laboratory environment (much less a computer simulation!), and smart enough to do useful work, energy supply and heat dissipation is still going to be huge problems. I personally think it's going to be solvable, but we ain't gonna be getting any magic pixie dust, just another technology with clear limitations and associated costs. Especially when applied to complex biological systems such as, y'know, the Earth and ourselves.

Feynman on String Theory

[bencollier]

Along similar lines, from Richard Feynman: "I don't like that they're not calculating anything. I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with a n experiment, they cook up an explanation - a fix-up to say, "Well, it might be true." For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there's a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that's all possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there's no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn't eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn't produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn't look right."

Re:Feynman on String Theory

[bencollier]

Of course, the bit that seems to have been disproved here is the "Cosmic String", which Wikipedia tells me is unrelated to String Theory in any large way.

Hold the presses.

[Anonymous Coward]

A (admittedly tiny) part of string theory was tested (one would swear string theory was designed so as to be untestable) and failed?

What
A
Shocker.

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[4D6963]

I like to see string theory crumbling as much as the next man, but err.. that :

dark matter can be explained by the evolution of advanced technological civilizations based on *known* physics (through molecular nanotechnology and extreme engineering)

If given the choice between these two propositions, I think I'll stick with string theory and its 26+ space dimensions. But kudos to you for pioneering a new approach to astrophysics that consists in claiming "space aliens did it".

wonder how many careers this just ended

[Sir_Real]

I'd be very curious to see how many career paths this experiment just derailed. How large is this subset of string theory that just got wiped out? Also, what does it mean if the bigger version of this test doesn't find gravitational waves? Does it poke a big fat hole in relativity?

Re:wonder how many careers this just ended

[maxwell demon]

Also, what does it mean if the bigger version of this test doesn't find gravitational waves? Does it poke a big fat hole in relativity?

From TFA:
"If Advanced LIGO doesn't see gravitational waves I think people will be very surprised," Mandic told SPACE.com. "It is likely such a situation would require revision of General Relativity."

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[vlm]

Why 17 years after "Nanosystems" was published do we still not have an complete atomic level design for a molecular nanoassembler?

Patience, young grasshopper. Game of Life rules published in Martin Gardners column in October 1970, first turing machine in GoL that I'm aware of, April 2000. Wait at least another 13 years or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life#cite_note-0

http://www.rendell-attic.org/gol/tm.htm
 

Heh

[farooge]

At what point will everyone realize how silly all these imaginary mathematical constructs are?

Gravity waves do not exist, strings do not exist, dark matter/energy does not exist, redshift does not = distance, black holes do not exist and the sun is EXTERNALLY powered.

Eddington was wrong.

More like water then we think?

[hesaigo999ca]

They tend to think that these rings are going outwards in a perfect circle like...however each planet and star's gravitational pull could adversely affect the rings progression, so think then of the waves created by these pulls then also rebounding off of each other as a wave would either help another wave if in the same direction, or a wave could affect it conversely if it was in the opposite direction.

I think this would be a better model to explain and search for these cosmic strings

Maybe

[RealErmine]

Maybe the LIGO scientists forgot to take the lens cap off. That's usually the problem for me, anyway.

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you stop taking your meds again? You know how that affects you!!

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[kahizonaki]

No, no...I was confused at his post too (wow this guy reads too much SF!) but then I realized that his first statement is not about the existence of advanced civilisations, but rather suggests that an advanced civilisation will have more of the tools and ability to solve these problems. He is suggesting that WE need to focus on such efforts as nanotechnology and such, because once we're one of those `high tech civilisations', doing physics will be easier. To an extent I think he's got a point; we can certainly do much better physics now than Gallileo (if only because of apparati), and nanotechnology may indeed allow us to build larger (or smaller) and more stable structures, which may be necessary to directly detect some of the more elusive universal secrets.

The LISA mission

[fulldecent]

Please see the LISA mission:

http://lisa.nasa.gov/

LISA can be thought of as a giant Michelson interferometer in space. The spacecraft separation sets the range of GW frequencies LISA can observe (from 0.03 milliHertz to above 0.1 Hertz).

Re:The LISA mission

[peater]

> LISA can be thought of as a giant Michelson interferometer in space.

What's gravity got to do with a dead pop icon? Is Lisa the biological mother?

Re:The LISA mission

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not ready... it exists only on paper

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[Anonymous Coward]

Nanotech is being suppressed by the lizard people and the string theorists

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[fulldecent]

If you talk to a string theorist, it feels like you are talking to a religious person.

How do they know it works?

[GospelHead821]

The summary says that if they fail to detect gravitational waves with the next experiment, many theorists will be unsettled. There's something that I don't understand about this kind of an experiment, though. How do they know that the equipment they've built actually does what it's designed to do? We've never detected one before, so all we're going on is the model. Failure to detect gravitational waves could suggest that the model of the universe is wrong. Isn't it also possible, however, that the equipment we've constructed to measure this event doesn't actually behave in the way it's supposed to behave? If we don't detect gravitational waves, it would be a lot less unsettling to believe that the instrument designers made a mistake than to believe that general relativity has a hole in it. (General Relativity has been a solid model for a long time. Gravitational wave detectors, on the other hand, have not worked yet.)

Maybe they can't be detected

[MrKevvy]

My own "pet theory" for this was that they would never be detected because although they do exist, they perturb the measurement device to the same degree that they do everything else, ie a gravity wave may perturb one arm of a LIGO detector, but it also correspondingly perturbs the waves of the laser beam passing through it. As a result it isn't detected.
An analogy: It would be like measuring everything in a room with a ruler, then scaling the whole room including the ruler up or down. You wouldn't see a change with the same scaled ruler; you'd have to bring one in from outside.

I bounced this idea off a few physicists (including Bruce Allen who runs the Einstein@Home project on LIGO) but they don't seem to like it. :^) Maybe it will turn out to be correct, who knows. It certainly seems to be turning out to be more difficult to detect gravity waves than was initially predicted.

Re:Maybe they can't be detected

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that gravity waves (and the movement they induce) travels at a finite speed, which is the same as that of the laser light they use.

Re:Maybe they can't be detected

[gilroy]

My own "pet theory" for this was that they would never be detected because although they do exist, they perturb the measurement device to the same degree that they do everything else

In what way does it make sense to say "they exist", then? If they by definition cannot be measured, then they can't interact with the Universe in any way. From a scientific viewpoint, then, they don't exist.

I'm pretty sure that the problem here is that theory predicts there should be some measurable effect and so far, there isn't.

Re:Maybe they can't be detected

[Anonymous Coward]

I toured the LIGO facility in LA back in '02-03 range, and after touring emailed the director with a letter to the same effect... he never responded... seems a good way to continue to milk research $. Gravity does bend light. Very possible that it would move the light beam just as it moves the corresponding mirrors, although they are mounted in a specialized spring dampening system (they used it to cancel out shaking from trucks passing by on the road miles away). Really neat idea, cool facility. Back when I toured, they admitted the process needed work (they hadn't found anything), and claimed in a few years, they would reach the precision needed to detect the waves... been 7 years since I toured. Still no answers... like I said, gives the researchers jobs and $$.

Re:Maybe they can't be detected

[sbillard]

I just posted something similar in this thread. Your "pet" theory seems like common sense to me.
I don't understand how they expect to detect a gravity wave. It's a distortion of space itself.
Only an "outside" observer would notice the ripple.

I bounced this idea off a few physicists...but they don't seem to like it

I wonder if your idea was disliked due to something you've obviously misunderstood, or if it was disliked because it was threatening to them?

Re:Maybe they can't be detected

[Anonymous Coward]

It's impossible to bring in an "outside" ruler in your example, because space itself is being stretched. You need to use interferometry. Fortunately, this approach completely does away with the possibility of your pet theory. I tried to do a graduate project with LIGO but my supervisor had so little time for me that he couldn't even define what needed to be done, so I'm just a bit resentful that you've been bothering these fine folks with your half-baked hypotheses! Posted AC because I would, some day, like to get back to LIGO.

Re:Maybe they can't be detected

[MrScience]

This is why the laser is split, and sent down two perpendicular paths. Sure, a wave might stretch the spacetime of the X axis... but that same stretching wouldn't effect a similar increase in the return time of the Y axis. This very stretching of the measuring device itself against one axis(thus modifying the round-trip time of the split laser as compared to a perpendicular path) is the very thing that they are measuring.

Your pet theory, and their experiment, match. :)

Re:Maybe they can't be detected

[John Hasler]

> I'm pretty sure that the problem here is that theory predicts there should be
> some measurable effect and so far, there isn't.

"Standard" theory predicted exactly what they got. Only some of the more exotic theories predicted any results at this stage.

Re:Maybe they can't be detected

[Anonymous Coward]

My own "pet theory" for this was that they would never be detected because although they do exist, they perturb the measurement device to the same degree that they do everything else, ie a gravity wave may perturb one arm of a LIGO detector, but it also correspondingly perturbs the waves of the laser beam passing through it. As a result it isn't detected.
An analogy: It would be like measuring everything in a room with a ruler, then scaling the whole room including the ruler up or down. You wouldn't see a change with the same scaled ruler; you'd have to bring one in from outside.

I bounced this idea off a few physicists (including Bruce Allen who runs the Einstein@Home project on LIGO) but they don't seem to like it. :^) Maybe it will turn out to be correct, who knows. It certainly seems to be turning out to be more difficult to detect gravity waves than was initially predicted.

old example
box on a balloon
ruler on balloon
change inflation
it is still 3 units

Re:Maybe they can't be detected

[LandruBek]

It sounds like you are saying something along the lines of, "It's impossible to build an accelerometer"; but that is patently false. It's easy to measure large accelerations such as gravity, and geoscientists already measure variations in gravity. The tricky part (or so we thought) was "just" engineering an adequately sensitive detector.

Re:Maybe they can't be detected

[Anonymous Coward]

We should build a facility which costs billions of dollars, employs thousands of scientists for decades, and produces absolutely nothing.

Owait, they already have that, it's called 'Tokamok fusion research'.

Re:Maybe they can't be detected

[bhiestand]

We should build a facility which costs billions of dollars, employs thousands of scientists for decades, and produces absolutely nothing.

Owait, they already have that, it's called 'Tokamok fusion research'.

I really thought you were going to say "Internet Porn"...

lose-lose

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can't find gravitational waves, obviously they lose. If they DO find them, it cost millions of taxpayers dollars to prove that Einstein was right. What a shocking revelation that would be.

Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be, but we should be careful: it might be that we are using distorted (read: not optimal) models right now. We have large holes/contradictions with our theories and no "Grand Unification" on the horizon (string theories din not bring us much closer so far). We might be in a period similar to the end of 19 century when many thought we know nearly everything, there are just some holes we have to fill in. These holes proved to be most important for the development of physics for the next 50 years. Remember Michelson experiment? That was very elegant instrumentation setup and probably the most "successful failure" (to find aether) ever, leading eventually to ditching aether and introduction of ToR. I am not saying that we should ditch the gravitational waves (yet) but if we will continue getting contradicting results we might need some new Lorentz & Einstein to pull us out from the mess.

Yes! My theory still holds up!

[GodfatherofSoul]

I proposed the "really tiny strings" theory long ago that said that a really tiny string is attached between the gravitational bodies like the earth and the moon. Sure, some laughed and countered with their silly "spooling paradox" argument, but sometimes it takes decades to appreciate a true genius.

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[4D6963]

That's a bit of a stretch, but alright.

Here's some pedantry for ya

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is only Solar power if it comes from the Sun (as known as Sol).

If it comes from some other star, then it is stellar power.

Similarly, there is no such thing is "another solar system". There is only one Solar system. But there are many stellar systems.

Re:Here's some pedantry for ya

[The End Of Days]

Hey, I'm having a party tonight and I want to make sure it wraps up by 1 o'clock. Could you stop by at about 12:55 and bore everyone out of the place for me?

Re:Here's some pedantry for ya

[sexconker]

I approve of this pedantry.

Re:Here's some pedantry for ya

[FredFredrickson]

haha, I wish I had a mod point for you. +1 awesome funnytimes

Re:Here's some pedantry for ya

[mqduck]

+/-1 Pedantic

Looks like the creationists were right

[The Excluded Middle]

Maybe gravity IS just a theory.

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[Abcd1234]

You *are* aware that Dark Matter has been observed, right? Or did you just miss the announcement of the Bullet Cluster results (among others)? As for Dark Energy, that isn't really a theory, so much as an observation with no explanation. Specifically, the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. This is a fact. *Why*, we don't know, so we just call it Dark Energy for now. It's a placeholder, nothing more.

So please, take your trolls and go back into your basement, as it's pretty clear you don't really know what you're talking about.

So the Nexus does not exist!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean the Nexus where Captain Kirk has been resting for a while doesn't exist!?

I'm gonna sue Rick Berman for misleading information on "Star Trek Generations".

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I dunno...this seems pretty interesting to me, and might lead to 'nanomolecular assemblers' as you call them, or 'replicators' ;-), which is my preferred term. Google "DNA origami", etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_origami

Come again?

[JSBiff]

How does *failing* to find the thing which was predicted to exist by Einstein, prove Einstein right? Granted, they weren't *expecting* to see gravitational waves at this point, because they were only looking for waves which would have been at such a high magnitude that they weren't expected to exist *except by string theorists* because of part of string theory. So, that part of string theory was *dis-proved*, but Einstein's theory has not yet been proved correct (though they expect it will be 'soon' when they start looking for smaller magnitude waves).

Anyhow, what's wrong with proving that our ideas about the natural universe are either correct or incorrect (or somewhere in between, in some cases)? You know, one never knows all the applications of scientific knowledge until long after that knowledge is obtained. Perhaps spending all this money now to do this science today, will lay the groundwork for very useful applications in the future? Perhaps the knowledge gained from these observatories will help us figure out how to make fusion work economically, or help us develop more advanced spacecraft, or even more advanced terrestrial vehicles? Or help us detect the aliens which are spying on us with advanced cloaking devices but can't hide their G-waves (ok, that last is mostly a joke, but one never knows)?

Scientific knowledge is, in itself, largely useful - how much has our technology and economy, our health and standard of living, improved, because of scientific advances achieved in past centuries that are only now being put to great use?

It's the Michaelson/Moreley experiment, all over..

[mmell]

They tried almost exactly the same experiment around the turn of the century, trying to verify the existence of Aether as the "substance" of space. Their experiment also had negative results.

WHICH, as it turns out, were not necessarily because there is no aether (although I'm pretty sure there isn't), but rather because Lorenz/Fitzgerald contraction "squeezed" their interferometry equipment by exactly the same amount that any existing "aether" would have distorted the light beams they used to make their experimental observation. In effect, what they proved is that their equipment is subject to the same rules as the light their equipment was manipulating. Yes, General Relativity is one theory which explains their results and I'm sure there are others.

I'm still waiting to hear if astrophysicists have detected any scalar fields in the universe - for example, variations in the "constants" assigned to physical phenomena such as gravity. That'd be a real bit of supporting evidence for several string theories ('branes, n-dimensional manifolds, the existence of realities/universes other than ours) and would probably trash current relativistic theories, although like any good theory, it'll be modified to fit the available data and another test concieved. See: Scientific Method.

But if the design follows from the model. . .

[JSBiff]

But, the design for the equipment followed logically from the model, right? Now, of course, it's possible that someone screwed up in the design so that it doesn't *accurately* reflect the model, but, *if* the design is a faithful implementation of the model, and the design fails to detect what it's supposed to detect, then there might be a flaw with the model, right?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while you're right that a flaw with the equipment might cause failure, it's equally true that a flaw with the model would cause equipment failure as a direct consequence, no?

How do they know they've been watching long enough

[JSBiff]

I have a question: how do they know they've been watching long enough for the large-magnitude waves? Is it because string theory also predicts the period-length of the 'bursts of gravitational waves', and we've been watching for at least one whole period?

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[Anonymous Coward]

But kudos to you for pioneering a new approach to astrophysics that consists in claiming "space aliens did it".

Xenu did it!

Particle?

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Moron!

There is no such thing!

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[Anonymous Coward]

[grammar nazi]the plural of apparatus is:

apparatus[/grammar nazi]

I made that mistake in fluid dynamics in college and got laughed at.

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[ColdWetDog]

Nah, I liked your reply better. But you have to admit there is a certain elegance that comes from handwaving complicated problems away.

Magic Pixie Dust. Works for Apple and God.

Mixed Metaphors

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to see string theory crumbling as much as the next man, but

Unraveling. You'd like to see string theory unraveling as much as the next man.

Re:Mixed Metaphors

[4D6963]

Yeah well, I don't even know what unraveling means, I'm French, so big deal. I mean even Firefox's spell checker doesn't know it.

Meanwhile in Denmark...

[spencerg83]

Scientists have successfully discovered and manufactured the building blocks of life in what is being called the "LEGO Group".

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I thought you were going to suggest we light Michio Kaku's head on fire.

Clear up a bit of confusion here:

[bjorniac]

Disclaimer: I don't work on LIGO, but I work with people who do.

LIGO didn't expect to see a signal above the noise here. What it has done, is largely rule out a lot of 'exotic' sources - sources with equations of state that don't fit the normal matter we see, but some of the more ambitious parts of string theory thought might be possible. What they have achieved is a phenomenal reduction in their 'noise curve' - the background above which a signal must register to be considered real. So far it's only been a one-way test - just ruling out exotic sources, but nothing that we think should necessarily be there.

LIGO primer and vast oversimplification:

LIGO is an interferometer. The way it works is that a laser is split into two parts, each of which goes down an equal length tunnel, at right angles to one another. If the light went the same distance, when it is reflected back, it should still be in phase, and should interfere constructively (think back to intro physics and the way waves on a string add). If a gravitational wave which had the right polarization passed through the region in the time of detection, one tunnel will have been 'shorter' due to the contracting geometry caused by the wave, and hence the beams will no longer be in phase when they return, so will not interfere constructively in the same way.

So why is it so hard to see waves? Well, all kinds of things (drilling, trucks going by, someone sneezing!) can cause a minute wobbling of any part of the equipment and thus will cause the waves to interfere in the wrong way. What LIGO looks for is a specific 'signature' measured at three sites concurrently, the signature being the waves predicted to occur from certain galactic events (two black holes spiraling into one another, for example). They do some pretty impressive data processing to look for this, but so far have only found that they can't see anything above the noise. We've ruled out some of the less likely things that could be going on - types of matter that some string theories allow, but certainly aren't predicted to exist by established theories (like GR).

However, over time with a few additions to 'advanced' LIGO, or the amazing LISA project we should have a two-way test: Either we'll see the wave that GR predicts to exist from standard black hole collisions, or theoretical physicists have a lot of explaining to do.

Re:Clear up a bit of confusion here:

[cathector]

great post.
the thing i don't quite understand is why the laser is not affected by the gravity wave. that is, if it's the geometry of space itself which is contracting, it seems like the laser will be subject to that as well.

Re:Clear up a bit of confusion here:

[bjorniac]

The laser itself will be subject to it, as will everything occupying the space through which the wave passes. However, this will not make a difference in the interferometer itself, as what we're looking for is the difference between the two beams, both created by the same laser (one beam that goes through a 'beam splitter' - a mirror at 45% to the beam that deflects 50% of the beam). On a practical level, the amount of distortion we are looking for is absolutely tiny, which is why we have to do it using interferometers which notice a tiny phase shift in beams that travel around 4km. Other ideas for testing this have included torsion balances and Casimir forces between plates, but nothing so far has been able to match the precision of this setup.

For a comparison, the LISA project aims to have three satellites separated by around 5 million kilometers, and will aim to measure deviations in the order of fractions of millimeters.

Re:Clear up a bit of confusion here:

[Anonymous Coward]

Would not the wavelengths of light also compress and thereby cancel out the effect caused by the gw?

Re:Clear up a bit of confusion here:

[sbillard]

Wouldn't the gravitational wave distort space itself and everything in it?
Perhaps I'm not thinking correctly, and I'm sure the folks working on this are far smarter than I. I would expect you can only observe this from the perspective of a higher dimension. The fact that space is warped by a gravity wave is not "known" to the light beam.

Imagine a perfect 3-D Euclidian space, now put an observer in that space with a laser or a full blown LIGO. Observer fires the laser and the light travels perfectly straight and covers a specific distance in a specific amount of time.
Both you and the observer agree on this.
Now bend, twist, or scrunch up that perfect 3-D Euclidian space, making it more like hyperbolic geometry. This is the effect we expect from a gravity wave, yes? When the observer fires his laser this time, he sees the light travel perfectly straight and covers the same "distance" as before.
But you would disagree. From your "outside" perspective, you would say the light did not travel "straight" this time, and that the light traveled a shorter distance, if "space" was scrunched up, or a longer distance if "space" was stretched.

How then, can we possibly detect a distortion of space when it is the same space we occupy? We are the "observer" above and LIGO will always tell us the light in each arm is traveling the same distance, even if one arm is distorted by a gravity wave.

What am I missing (besides a degree in physics)?

Re:Clear up a bit of confusion here:

[bjorniac]

You're almost there - what we're looking for is a contraction along one axis, and an expansion along the other (for the simplest case). Therefore to your observers (remember speed of light is a constant in all reference frames) you would see the light ray along the shorter distance get back before the one along the longer distance. The observer watching from within the system won't see the light go perfectly straight. The curvature of space itself is very much observable to someone living within that space.

An example that might help illustrate this is the first real experimental test of GR - photographs of the sky during a solar eclipse. Here it was seen that stars appeared out of place from where they 'should' be if the light had traveled through a straight (flat/Euclidean) geometry. This effect was the effect of the sun's gravitation bending the light rays.

More recently we've been able to see light from distant stars that goes on either side of a large mass that bends them both towards us, the light from one side traveling further than the other. The lensing effect is now quite famous and is very useful in examining distant events that would otherwise be hard to see (somehow having something 'in the way' of our sight actually improves our ability to see it!).

I hope that helps, though I realize that it might not be as clear as you'd like.

Re:Clear up a bit of confusion here:

[bjorniac]

If the wavelengths compressed (assuming frequency remained the same) we'd see that their speed was different than the speed of light, which violates the theory of relativity. If the frequency changed, this would also be measurable (and indeed, we do see the frequency of photons change due to gravitation in some places, for example cosmological redshifts which are doppler-shifted photons, although their frequency change is a feature of the energy change in escaping a gravitational field.)

Re:Clear up a bit of confusion here:

[BranMan]

Great post - maybe you can clear up a conundrum for me.... From General Relativity it follows gravity waves can exist. OK - I'll buy that. Now, what if anything can actually produce gravity waves? Consider - matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be converted from one to the other. Now, the matter in the universe is all already there - if you follow my meaning - there is no sudden influx of matter anywhere. Since all matter is already putting out gravity constantly, and the matter cannot be moved around faster than gravity acts, and matter is not leaving or entering the universe by another means, then WHAT can produce gravity waves? From what I can see, nothing can. Maybe, just maybe, the collapse of a star into a black hole or neutron star might make a gravity wave. As in one. Ever.

Am I really missing something fundamental here? Sounds like a paradox - gravity waves can exist, but nothing can make them.

Re:Clear up a bit of confusion here:

[bjorniac]

Energy is just another form of matter - that's what Einstein's E=mc^2 was all about. Gravitational waves carry energy, and they are radiated away from accelerating objects (sometimes we call it gravitational radiation as it is much like electromagnetic radiation, ie radio waves). Even the earth-sun system emits waves, albeit of an absolutely tiny energy (not enough that it would ever be noticeable).

The most likely sources to be observed are those of inspiralling systems, eg two black holes merging. This site: http://www.einsteinathome.org/gwaves/sources/index.html probably explains things better than I can.

Re:Clear up a bit of confusion here:

[BranMan]

Whoa there. Compounding the confusion now. If gravity waves carry energy, and are radiated (you say from accelerating objects, but really don't all objects radiate gravity all the time?)... Where is all that energy coming from? And why, if everything radiates gravity, doesn't all matter in the universe simply 'evaporate' into gravitons, since that energy has to come from somewhere? Or is it somehow balanced by 'absorbed' gravitons from elsewhere?

Re:Yes! My theory still holds up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I can't believe it, but I think I just solved the Spoolling Paradox! I propose the "two really tiny strings" theory... one at the top pole of each and one at the bottom. BAM!

Stretchy rulers

[grikdog]

If your ruler is as stretchy as the thing you measure, you're not likely to notice a difference. It's a frame problem. On the other hand, "gravity waves" could be simple nonsense, like Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," which has semantics but denotes nothing.

Please clarify...

[ghetto2ivy]

I'm missing how not finding large gravity waves means that they don't exist. I get the Copernican principal of mediocrity (we live in a rather typical corner of the universe), but it still seems the conclusion violates basic scientific method: just cause I don't see it, doesnt mean it doesn't exist. I would understand if the experiment were detecting something thats predicted in great quantities (neutrinos,) but IIRC gravity waves (as opposed to gravitational fields) are supposed to be quite rare -- caused by only a few rather large events. Now maybe I'll go RTFA and see if its jsut a usual /. sensationalized summary.

Re:Please clarify...

[mark-t]

Occam's razor.

I believe a similar principle is used to create the scientific acceptance that God is not real.

I think he was thinking of dyson spheres ..

[roguegramma]

I think the grandparent post was thinking of dyson spheres and computational shells around a sun.

Basically a civilization so advanced that it uses all the power generated by its sun by placing a shell absorbing all light around the sun and absorbing all energy, making the sun appear dark.

There would be more than one shell, as the next shell will be there a bit far outer to absorb the Schwarzschild radiation and other waste energy from the inner shell, maybe using it to do computations.

So instead of dark matter there would be dark stars surrounded by dyson spheres.

cosmic strings != a subset of string theory

[cyberanth]

This indeed does place a bound on the possible existence of cosmic strings, however the description of this article seems to imply that cosmic strings have something to do with string theory. The two concepts are completely unrelated. In cosmology, cosmic strings are 1D topological defects caused by a phase change in a region of spacetime. They do not require string theory and string theory does not require them. They just happen to be two concepts in theoretical physics that used the word "string" to describe 1-dimensional entities.

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apparatus?jss=0), both are valid:

apparatus /æpræts, -rets/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ap-uh-rat-uhs, -rey-tuhs] Show IPA
Use apparatus in a Sentence
-noun, plural -tus, -tuses.
1. a group or combination of instruments, machinery, tools, materials, etc., having a particular function or intended for a specific use: Our town has excellent fire-fighting apparatus.
2. any complex instrument or mechanism for a particular purpose.
3. any system or systematic organization of activities, functions, processes, etc., directed toward a specific goal: the apparatus of government; espionage apparatus.
4. Physiology. a group of structurally different organs working together in the performance of a particular function: the digestive apparatus.
Origin:
1620-30; --see GOLGI APPARATUS
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Cite This Source
Medical Dictionary

apparatus apparatus (p'-r'ts, -rt's)
n. pl. apparatus or apparatuses

      1. An integrated group of materials or devices used for a particular purpose.
      2. A group or system of organs that collectively performs a specific function or process.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cite This Source

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[angel'o'sphere]

4. For those who are uneducated in nanotechnology "enabling" in general and are thinking "Why should I care?" -- well, such things as "real" Star-Trek type replicators, the ability to live for "free" (given a few sq. m of land), indefinite lifespan extension, elimination of most causes of premature death (viruses, bacteria, starvation, etc.), elimination of the "problem" of global warming, inexpensive colonization of the solar system, etc. all come to mind.

Even if you have running assemblers, aka you have nanotechnology established, all the points you mention then still needs to be researched and solutions need to be found.

How do you want to counter global warming with nanotechnology?
How do you want to colonize other planets in the solar system with nanotechnology ...

All stuff you mention still stays impossible until you have engineered solutions, nanotechnology in it self is not a solution to anything.

angel'o'sphere

I don't believe in gravity waves

[Anonymous Coward]

Airbender is havesting all the gravity waves in our galaxy and using them to blow out candles.

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

Time is an effect not an action
Space is an area not an object

Gravity exists only when mass in rotation of itself, not just linear movement, if you can't generate the mass in rotation then you will have no gravity (this is out gyro's work). Kicker #2, gravity doesn't exist inside gravity at the same level or same rotation. TFA appears to be leaving out alot of steps.

Re:By Neruos

[clone53421]

Gravity exists only when mass in rotation of itself, not just linear movement

Please stop talking about things you clearly don't understand. Gravity is a property of all mass and has nothing at all to do with movement, either rotational or linear.

Re:By Neruos

[maxwell demon]

Actually according to GR gravity is a property of energy and momentum, and has a lot to do with movement. Which doesn't change the fact that a non-moving non-rotating mass still has a gravitational field (because it has still energy: E=mc^2)

Re:By Neruos

[agentc0re]

You're new here huh?

NASA/JPL mapped gravitional waves long ago

[BanjoBob]

I have a book from NASA from years ago on Pioneer or Voyager that not only talks about gravitional waves, there are pictures of how they were mapped by the explorer satellites. The distortions and waves were pictured nicely in relation to the Sun as the satellites traversed the Solar System. I'll have to go through the old boxes and find those books.

Re:It's the Michaelson/Moreley experiment, all ove

[florescent_beige]

Good thing I checked existing posts because I was going to write about M-M.

Maybe a great big null result would be a revolutionary thing. I think it would be very interesting to have a something that mainstream physics can't explain.

There would be no guarantee that this time around there would be a mind like Einstein around to explain it though. Even so it would break the monotony of living under the boring old standard model.

Nothing Can Move in Spacetime

[Louis Savain]

No, science adjusts models to accommodates new data

You mean, for example, how physicists invent superstitious nonsense like dark matter and dark energy to explain data that contradicts their pet theories (e.g., general relativity)? Of course not. That would be preposterous. :-D

By the way, did any of you know that nothing can move in spacetime, by definition? Surprise! In Conjectures and Refutations, Sir Karl Popper (of falsifiability fame) called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens". Popper compared Einstein to good old Parmenides who, whith his devoted pupil Zeno, also maintained that nothing can move and that change was an illusion! And yet spacetime is the central model of modern cosmology. ahahaha...

Folks, the reason that gravity waves have not been found is simple: Einstein was wrong. Gravity is a nonlocal phenomenon and is instantaneous, just as Sir Isaac assumed centuries ago. This is the reason that Newtonian gravity is so accurate. Isn't it time for science to adjust the model to accomodate the data? I think so.

Re:Nothing Can Move in Spacetime

[DamnStupidElf]

Folks, the reason that gravity waves have not been found is simple: Einstein was wrong. Gravity is a nonlocal phenomenon and is instantaneous, just as Sir Isaac assumed centuries ago. This is the reason that Newtonian gravity is so accurate. Isn't it time for science to adjust the model to accomodate the data? I think so.

Mercury and the GPS network disagree with you. What was that the GP said about people ignoring evidence?

Re:Nothing Can Move in Spacetime

[DeadChobi]

Look, having met the scientists at LIGO Hanford, I can tell you that they don't have the precision yet to detect anything really meaningful. You're suggesting that just because we haven't detected one phenomenon predicted by a niche scientific theory that gets a chuckle from most scientists except the proponents of the theory that Einstein is completely wrong?

And FYI, Newton had to make a TON of wierd distinctions in order to make Gravity a non-localized instantaneous effect. For example, he had to posit a difference between Inertial Mass, which is the quantity of matter causing an object to avoid changes in motion, and Gravitational Mass, which is the quantity of matter causing an attractive force. What's disturbing about this disunity is that, for all intents and purposes these quantities are experimentally the same. So why do we need to define two different kinds of mass?

Consider this: How do you explain gravity lensing if Einstein was wrong? How would Newton's theory explain the changes in motion of a particle with no gravitational or inertial mass?

On a more practical note, having listened to the guys at LIGO Hanford admit that they don't have the precision to actually detect a gravity wave emanating from more common and observable events, I can tell you that this doesn't prove or disprove anything. Yet.

Re:Nothing Can Move in Spacetime

[HiThere]

You might want to post your exact definition of "move", so that we can tell whether you are being stupid, or just expecting something that the evidence doesn't say you should expect.

There are problems with Einstein's Relativity, and especially with his gravity. These don't have to do with the word play you are considering, however, but rather with how it can be reconciled with quantum theory. Einstein always had trouble with quantum theory. He kept trying to knock it down, and the most unbelievable predictions kept showing up. Check into Bell's Theorem. Nobody has yet solved the problem, and when they do significant changes in the metaphysic behind physics can be expected. But this doesn't have much to do with the problems that you are positing. (Or maybe it does. See the Many-Worlds hypothesis.)

But you seem to be assuming that just because someone encounters a problem that they can't understand how to solve, that this proves that everything is wrong. Sorry. Reality doesn't work that way. (Neither does math. It's been recently shown that it would require an infinite number of axioms to be able to prove all statements that are inherently true given the basic postulates of number theory. I.e., there's lots of true things that we'll never be able to prove are true. That's a much more plausible place to attach your arguments.)

Re:Nothing Can Move in Spacetime

[arminw]

...that Einstein is completely wrong...

  Einstein may have not been completely right either. Neither Einstein nor today's scientists still have the foggiest idea of what gravity really is. It is an extremely weak force, 36 orders of magnitude smaller than the electric force. Devising an experiment to detect such a weak force may be impractical at least with today's technology. Therefore, whether scientists at LIGO or anyplace else found something or nothing is irrelevant. The fact is, we just don't know, and might as well admit it.

We know that matter somehow generates gravity, but exactly how that happens is unknown. Gravity has to be instantaneous, otherwise the Earth would have left its orbit long ago, because if gravity traveled only at the speed of light, the Earth and the sun would not "feel" each others gravity until eight minutes later.

Re:Nothing Can Move in Spacetime

[Anonymous Coward]

You're stupid as fuck. And you know it.

Re:Nothing Can Move in Spacetime

[Louis Savain]

I am not saying that Newton was 100% right or that Einstein was 100% wrong. I am saying that Newton was right about gravity being instantaneous and Einstein was wrong about same. That's my take on it and you're free to disagree, of course.

Until and unless physicists can explain gravity from first principles, all they got is Ptolemaic epicycles, IMO. The hard truth is that physicists are just as ignorant about the nature of gravity as the man in the street. A little humility would do them a lot of good.

Re:It's the Michaelson/Moreley experiment, all ove

[mmell]

Would you settle for Stephen Hawking? I'll bet he and Albert Einstein could've spend days arguing the fundamental nature of the Universe.

Shame the two couldn't have met - can you imaging the science those two could have accomplished together?

It is the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[javester]

He is the power behind gravity as He pushes as down with His noodly appendages...

See http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Gravity#Gravity_and_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Ramen

The news makes me think of this quote

[IronChef]

"We have not succeeded in solving all of your problems. The solutions we have found only serve to raise a whole new set of problems. We are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level and about more important things."

I cannot find a source for this quote, but I dig it.

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[Boronx]

He stole the idea from Frederik Pohl.

No, man....

[sgt_doom]

"Gravity sucks.

No, dood, it's "Vacuum sucks but gravity is really heavy, man!"

Geez....must I hav e to explain this to everyone?????

It doesn't explain gravity, it describes it

[snowwrestler]

Big difference. The "rubber sheet" is a simplified model of Einstein's approach to gravity, which is descriptive. In other words general relativity doesn't tell us "why" gravity works, it just provides the maths for modeling the "shape" of a gravitational field and predicting what will happen to objects moving within it. So the GP is exactly right--general relativity doesn't tell us why things roll around on the rubber sheet. But it does tell us with great accuracy where they will go. This practical approach goes all the way back to Newton.

Anal probes

[phorm]

Aliens really do seem to take a lot of unjust blame for the anal probes.

Really, they're more than happy to use oral probes, it's just that most abduction candidates clench their teeth and refuse to accept them.

Of course, that could be due to probes being re-used between candidates, and seeing where it was used on the abductee ahead in line...

How the experiment works...?

[Anonymous Coward]

So from what I can tell, they have two apparatus separated by a distance. The orientation of the apparatus with the universe seems to be unimportant unless they are trying to detect waves from some particular source. The orientation of the two apparatus to each other seems critical. They both need to be oriented identically with the each other.

So, some of the issues I imagine they had to deal with are:
* Localized disturbances (plate tectonics)
* Temperature variation between the two locations
* Tidal forces as the earth bulges?
* ???

This must be a really difficult experiment.

They have to be extremely confident that everything has been taken into account to claim that no findings are a result.

It reminds me of the Simpsons quote (which is the only reason I wrote this comment :) ) :

"Dear Lord: The gods have been good to me. For the first time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is. So here's the deal: You freeze everything the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. Thy will be done." - Homer Simpson

-- Legerde

Re:How the experiment works...?

[legerde]

So from what I can tell, they have two apparatus separated by a distance. The orientation of the apparatus with the universe seems to be unimportant unless they are trying to detect waves from some particular source. The orientation of the two apparatus to each other seems critical. They both need to be oriented identically with the each other.

So, some of the issues I imagine they had to deal with are:
* Localized disturbances (plate tectonics)
* Temperature variation between the two locations
* Tidal forces as the earth bulges?
* ???

This must be a really difficult experiment.

They have to be extremely confident that everything has been taken into account to claim that no findings are a result.

It reminds me of the Simpsons quote (which is the only reason I wrote this comment :) ) :

"Dear Lord: The gods have been good to me. For the first time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is. So here's the deal: You freeze everything the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. Thy will be done." - Homer Simpson

-- Legerde

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[herovit]

Yep. And most string theorists would cheer. They work on string theory because it's the best theory we have that unifies QM and GR. They'd love to find a better one.

(martyros is the one who brought up math)

[xigxag]

Did you ever try to perform a complex calculation in your sleep? It never really works out because your brain can't hold in all the figures -- all the numbers and formulae change when you're not looking at them. Or at least, maybe they've changed, you have no way of knowing, no way of verifying your proof. That's what a "miraculous" universe is like, a shifting dream. Like you said, there's nothing concrete about it, but then, there's no rules, and without rules you can't have math, or any game.

First nail...

[Anonymous Coward]

in the coffin of string theory?

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[master_p]

Perhaps it is not mass that pulls things together, it is the void that pushes things together. That would explain gravity as well as the dark energy.

Bad Labrador

[Bad Labrador]

You have already found gravitational waves, you just don't know it. The Big Bang Theory is wrong and Einstein made a subtle mistake in labelling Minkowskis Four dimensional space time continuum as "superfluous erudition" and calling it merely "purely formal", and in his 1924 revised edition of "Relativity" he wrote of Minkowskis work: " It must be clear even to the non-mathematician that, as a consequence of this purely formal addition to our knowledge, the theory perforce gained clearness in no mean measure." Well it isn't "purely formal", but Einstein never understood that and Minkowskis died prematurely before he could explain the implications to his former pupil, one of which is that the radial recessionary velocity of distant galaxies is an artifact of curved spacetime and not evidence of an expanding universe. Alexander Franklin Mayer wised up and his written a book about it.: http://www.jaypritzker.org/pages/GetBook.html

ligo music video

[Anonymous Coward]

ligo music video (awesome!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kapaztyPFVI

I've come to an obvious conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

and that conclusion is....

Gravity Sucks!

Gravity: Speed of Light vs Instantaneous

[AGMW]

Gravity has to be instantaneous, otherwise the Earth would have left its orbit long ago, because if gravity traveled only at the speed of light, the Earth and the sun would not "feel" each others gravity until eight minutes later.

Hmmmm. I can see what you are saying but I'm not sure it's true. Sure, if a planet suddenly appeared in a specified orbit it would take 'time' (8 mins for a planet at Earth's distance, for example) before the gravitational effects would 'start', but as I understand it, that's not how a planet arrives in its orbit. They are assumed to coalesce over long periods of time into the planets, and during that time there will be a constant gravitational force, albiet a delayed one.

Think about waiting for a bus which is 8 minutes late. If the busses are 8 minutes apart you still catch a bus, it's just the earlier one, and to all intents and purposes you are unaware of the late running.

We could test this theory if we could remove the sun. If the Earth continued in its orbit for 8 minutes or so then we'd know, however briefly, that gravity travels at the speed of light.

Re:Gravity: Speed of Light vs Instantaneous

[arminw]

...We could test this theory if we could remove the sun....

We already test this theory every time we put a satellite into orbit. Nothing coalesces out of a cloud of gas and Newton's mechanics of gravity do not concern themselves with the speed of light at all. In practical terms, gravity calculations are quite straightforward, but we still have not the foggiest notion what gravity is or what gives rise to it. Gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. If I put you into a closed cabin in space that accelerates at exactly 32 f/s per second, there is no experiment you can do, that you are not on the surface of the earth inside that cabin.

The waves are there but ...

[nognsoutie]

They only come out with the fairies at the full moon. Right now they're hiding. Wait a bit and try again.

Re:God is manifest

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you completely miss the point. You cannot study God as He is not manifest. The only thing we can study is his manifestation, the universe. God will never be found, yet he is everything and everywhere. By studying the structure and operation of the universe, we are studying God. Just like studying evolution is studying the mechanism by which God created Life. Testing the validity of theoritic models of gravitational waves is at the cutting edge of physics. Excluding portions of superstring theory is very valuable. God doesn't mind, He is amused.

Any news on the Allais effect?(pendulums&eclip

[sam_vilain]

The recent eclipse in Asia was being used to investigate strange gravity effects aka the "Allias effect". A NASA page on it seems to have bitrot.

Does anyone have any more details on this Gravitational Effect?

Re:Sending the theoreticians back where they belon

[bhiestand]

It's funny you put it that way. My fear has always been that one of them will actually be right, but we'll stop even bothering to disprove String Theorists long before we test his claims.