Slashdot Mirror
The Earth As a Gravitational Wave Detector
b30w0lf writes "Gravitational wave detection — i.e. the detection of propagating ripples in spacetime — is a hot subject these days, with ground-based interferometer experiments like LIGO active, and hopes for a space interferometer like LISA. However, physicist Freeman Dyson proposed back in 1969 that the earth itself could be used as a gravitational wave detector. The idea is behind the approach is that gravitational waves impact the earth's crust, causing potentially detectable seismic waves. Using Dyson's approach, Physicists at Harvard and NINP, Florence were able to put an upper limit on the intensity of gravitational background radiation based on a year of observational seismic data (abstract, full pre-print). The upper limit they found improved currently laboratory upper limits by 9 orders of magnitude."
Noise is "easy" enough to account for, but what about other things that could generate similar signals. like constant gas expansion in the mantle, or whatever? I'd be fascinated to know if they have some tools to help with that.
The Guardian link is reporting on a likely confirmation of gravitational waves. But the seismograph study seems to be ruling them out, at least near the frequency of 1 hz. They made a new, more sensitive detection mechanism and found nothing, thus ruling out the existence of any wave above a very low energy level. Am I missing the point?
The crucial thing is that they improved the limits in the narrow frequency band where the Earth is a resonant detector :
This is very cool, but note that it is at a frequency where there are not a lot of expected sources (stellar-mass binary black hole coalescence is up in the kHz range).
The announcement on Monday about inflationary gravitational waves is likely to get a good deal more scientific attention.
Orders of magnitude are an important part of understanding the significance of sample data, versus error. That's like, high school chemistry stuff. It seems relevant to the fact that they're trying sample incredibly small variations.
"The upper limit they found improved currently laboratory upper limits by 9 orders of magnitude."
Requesting clarification for term: "currently laboratory upper limits".
I know Slashdot takes a lot of heat for reposting old stories, but this one is truly impressive. Its 45 years old! Most Slashdot readers weren't even born yet. The Beatles were still together. I was 2.
Its like the editors went, oh old stories huh? You think these are old stories? I'll show you old stories, mofo!
Tomorrow: Jules Verne in 1877 suggested it might be possible to bootstrap space navigation by hitching a ride on a passing comet (tagged: screwyouwhiners)
No, seriously, good luck.
There is an absolutely stupid amount of background noise they'll need to account for and rule out.
Hell, these waves themselves WILL be background noise, quite literally.
It't need to be very specific, in a small range as well. Very small range.
It is like trying to find an area of space with no neutrinos. We've barely even left the solar system. That is how hard a problem that sounds.
Since the moon is much more stable than the Earth, would it be a better detector? Have seismic readings been taken on the Moon?
love is just extroverted narcissism
You know, "orders of magnitude" are not that thing when you ask for extra large dishes in a restaurant.
Ezekiel 23:20
Neither.
What they did is say is basically "We now have a detector 10^9 times more sensitive, which is capable of detecting gravitational waves up to 10^9 times smaller than previous detectors, if there are waves. We didn't see any waves with this detector. Therefore if they exist, they are smaller than what our new detector can detect".
In other words, if there are gravitational waves, they are smaller magnitude than they are able to detect with the new detection system. This doesn't rule them out, it just blacks out a potential energy/amplitude range in which they might have existed before nothing was seen in that search band.
They've more or less reduced the probability set, and pissed in a number of esoteric theories cheerios, but not done a lot else to prove or disprove gravity waves.
It's the difference between having to look for a lost item in an entire warehouse, or having to look for it in a crackerjack bix sized area of the warehouse - albeit it'll take a lot more expensive and redesigned equipment to even look in part of the crackerjack box.
Frankly, if we threw 4 ten ton spheres into relatively deep space (e.g. solar orbit), arranged them at the vertices of a tetrahedron, and then used laser interferometry between the spheres, and then threw another ten ton sphere across the solar system at a non-trivial speed, and through the tetrahedron, not intersecting a face or the body center, we could pretty much say once and for all if there were gravity waves or not, based on delay (or non-delay) of the effect of the moving sphere being "not there, then suddenly there, then suddenly not there", at least to about 1/2 the wavelength used by the interferometers (hence the need for a "non-trivial speed" for what is, in effect, a gravitational probe inserted into the system, to do the experiment).
Doing the more or less definitive experiment would be expensive (as in "on the order of the cost of the LHC").
They've sunk over a billion into the Hanford and Livingston observatories. The LIGO observatories from 2002 to 2010 were only operational for a very small fraction of the time, plagued by equipment problems, never acheived the design sensitivity, and NEVER detected anything useful. Most of their data was contaminated by local noise, including the highway a few miles away. They blindly collected terabytes of raw data that has never been fully analyzed and they have minimal local data analysis capability.
Now NSF is pouring even more money into it in the hopes they can improve the sensitivity and actually detect something? At best they might record a perturbance that is correlated between multiple sites (they also partner with an Australian site I believe), of which the value of that data is still debatable.
I wish the NSF would pull the plug on this waste of resources and invest in something more useful like cleaner nuclear power.
Here is the null result. I presume there are new analytical techniques every few years.
Gravitational Waves.
Order of magnitude does not mean what you think it means if we are talking about wavelength.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Where does a gravity wave theoretically come from? All I can imagine is that they would come from a mass increasing or decreasing in magnitude, and I don't know of any way that happens.
It doesn't rule them out, but holy cow, a nine-order-of-magnitude sensitivity leap is huge. This must be a devastating wake-up call to the theorists who were predicting amplitudes that LIGO-style detectors have a snowball's chance of finding.
The extreme sensitivity of this approach means that nobody will invest in another LIGO-style detector, correct?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I don't know the answer to this, but looking at some LIGO charts (http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/images/refdes03.gif) they seem to be looking at 10-100Hz (roughly). Are there interesting or even expected sources in the frequency band investigated in this paper?
December 27, 2004 at 21:30:26 UT, a burst of gamma rays from SGR 1806-20 passed through the Solar System. The burst was so powerful that it had effects on Earth's atmosphere, at a range of about 50,000 light years.
At 00:58:53 UTC on Sunday, 26 December 2004, an undersea megathrust earthquake occurred in the Indian Ocean which caused a tsunami which killed 250,000 people.
I don't know the answer to this, but looking at some LIGO charts (http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/images/refdes03.gif) they seem to be looking at 10-100Hz (roughly). Are there interesting or even expected sources in the frequency band investigated in this paper?
Gravitational waves are emitted at a wide spectrum of frequencies by different astronomical bodies. LIGO's frequency range is limited mostly by seismic activity at the low end and radiation pressure noise (essentially the momentum imparted by photons hitting mirrors) at the high end. It's about as well as we can do on Earth, currently. Indirect detections via astronomical techniques can avoid the issue of seismic activity disrupting measurements, and so it is possible to look at much lower frequencies. These frequencies, however, correspond to different sources to the ones LIGO can potentially see, so we can learn new information about different parts of our universe from both detection techniques.
We aren't though, the reflexive reference would have to be to the noun "intensity" in the summary.
Look and ye shall find. Unless it runs you over first, of course. Otherwise, the gorilla-in-the-picture effect is quite dominant.
At least they're talking about it. Who can guess what might come out of that?
If I may be forgiven an admittedly very very foolish (what else, indeed) question :
If an impact on the Moon can cause a massive gamma (etc.) emission, why can't the impact of a gamma (etc.) flash cause an impact emission?
My apologies to the esteemed gentry very justly offended by such raucous croaking. Good day, then.
Now if they could design a simple hand-held device to detect HAARP extremely low radio frequencies and put thaty bunch out of business, they'd have something. HAARP technology is responsible for a plethora of human tragedies, cataclysmic seismic and weather related events in recent modern times. The technology is so much in our faces that they don't even whince at such disdain for their secret weapon use.
Well, the summary said intenisty, but some posters argued it was not intensity but wavelength / frequency.
Perhaps I (we?) should read the article itself :)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Or maybe there is more than one thing that is relevant than a single number? The summary makes it quite clear they are talking about orders of magnitude in intensity, but like other gravity wave projects, this is specific to a particular frequency band. Posters pointing out that what frequency you look at too aren't contradicting the summary or what orders of magnitude is referring to in this case.
http://www.ego-gw.it/