Slashdot Mirror
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."
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).
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
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.
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No! No! You have to Invert the Tachyon Beam!
Pulsars are very green. They rely almost entirely on Solar power!
Bah, pulsars just run on solar power that was stored up over previous aeons.
Pulsars run on fossil fuel!