Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Struggle To Stay Grounded After Possible Gravitational Wave Signal (theguardian.com)

schwit1 writes with news that cosmologist Lawrence Krauss has set the scientific community abuzz by confirming a rumor floating around for the past several months that the LIGO experiment may have discovered gravitational waves. The excitement centers on a longstanding experiment known as the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) which uses detectors in Hanford, Washington, and Livingston, Louisiana to look for ripples in the fabric of spacetime. According to the rumors, scientists on the team are in the process of writing up a paper that describes a gravitational wave signal. If such a signal exists and is verified, it would confirm one of the most dramatic predictions of Albert Einstein’s century-old theory of general relativity. Krauss said he was 60% confident that the rumor was true, but said he would have to see the scientists’ data before drawing any conclusions about whether the signal was genuine or not. But many scientists are trying to calm the hype. Krauss admits he hasn't spoken to anyone within the LIGO team. Further, to enhance the integrity of their work, the LIGO team will occasionally "purposefully inject false signals in to their data to test the sensitivity of their analysis techniques and to keep people honest." A LIGO spokesperson said, "We’ll certainly let you know when we have news to share."

40 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. Stay grounded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I suggest a thick copper cable.

    1. Re:Stay grounded? by maroberts · · Score: 1

      I prefer a thin superconducting one.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    2. Re:Stay grounded? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

      I thought that that is what gravity was supposed to do.

    3. Re:Stay grounded? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So there's this rumor and the article neither confirms or denies it. What's the point of the article

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    4. Re:Stay grounded? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So there's this rumor and the article neither confirms or denies it. What's the point of the article

      Clickity-click-click.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:Stay grounded? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Give me one with a really high resistance. I don't want to conduct power, just avoid building up a charge.

  2. Not sure by Yoda222 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is he confirming that the object of the rumor is true, or is he confirming that a rumor exists?

    1. Re:Not sure by czert · · Score: 2

      Krauss admits he hasn't spoken to anyone within the LIGO team.

      I don't think he's in the position to confirm anything...

    2. Re:Not sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's confirming that he has no idea what he's talking about.

    3. Re:Not sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is only rumored that he claimed to confirm anything.

    4. Re:Not sure by bentcd · · Score: 2

      He appears to be confirming that he has commented on the potential existence of such a rumour.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    5. Re:Not sure by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      He appears to be confirming that he has commented on the potential existence of such a rumour.

      Can we confirm that the comment on the potential existence of the rumor may or may not exist, or is it in an undetermined state?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    6. Re:Not sure by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There was a sighting on FaceBook, so I'm declaring that there very definitely is such a rumor. It'd be nice if it was actually, you know, true or something.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Gravity waves already confirmed, nobel prize by Kludge · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hey, folks, gravity waves were already confirmed, the Nobel prize was already awarded:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    It is funny how experimental physicists get all excited about things that were confirmed by astronomy a while back.

    1. Re:Gravity waves already confirmed, nobel prize by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hey, folks, gravity waves were already confirmed, the Nobel prize was already awarded:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      It is funny how experimental physicists get all excited about things that were confirmed by astronomy a while back.

      That's an indirect detection. LIGO does direct detection.

    2. Re:Gravity waves already confirmed, nobel prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is funny how experimental physicists get all excited about things that were confirmed by astronomy a while back.

      It's hell of a difference observing something that you can explain with gravitational waves and being able to verify by repetition.

      Think of a magic show. The magician appears to conjure doves out of thin air.
      Now, a scientifically minded person will think that he probably kept it in his sleeve the whole time.
      It's not until you can recreate the process that you will know if the dove was in the sleeve or if the magician picked up the dove with the other hand while you weren't looking.

      Astronomy is great for disproving theories since you can see examples on a large scale. It is also great for figuring out new theories.
      Trying to verify theories with astronomy on the other hand is impractical since we don't have a method to move stars around to see if they are what caused a phenomenon or if it's just a coincidence.

    3. Re:Gravity waves already confirmed, nobel prize by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It wasn't even an indirect detection, it was a series of observations about physical results that could be explained if the theory for gravity waves holds true. LIGO will actually measure gravity waves.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:Gravity waves already confirmed, nobel prize by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      It's not until you can recreate the process that you will know if the dove was in the sleeve or if the magician picked up the dove with the other hand while you weren't looking.

      Technically you can't know if that's what the magician did. You can only rule out what he could not have done.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    5. Re:Gravity waves already confirmed, nobel prize by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      It wasn't even an indirect detection, it was a series of observations about physical results that could be explained if the theory for gravity waves holds true.

      Did you say Theory of Gravity? Curse you, I just kicked my Civilization habit!!!

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    6. Re:Gravity waves already confirmed, nobel prize by blackanvil · · Score: 1

      Trying to verify theories with astronomy on the other hand is impractical since we don't have a method to move stars around to see if they are what caused a phenomenon or if it's just a coincidence.

      Yet. We can't do this, or blow up stars, or set up colliding black holes *yet.*

    7. Re:Gravity waves already confirmed, nobel prize by ntipouan · · Score: 1

      Alas, they didn't get the Nobel prize for discovering gravity waves. But "for the discovery of a new type of pulsar, a discovery that has opened up new possibilities for the study of gravitation". (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/index.html)

      So, I guess you're not exactly right.

      --
      deltaS>=0 (c.s.)
  4. Not Krauss' discovery by DrNico · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if it does turn out to be true, what is Lawrence Krauss doing giving the game away on other scientists discoveries before they are published? This would be one of the discoveries of the decade and he has not done the work and has no right to announce it. Further, it could cause problems if the researchers do have a result and try to publish. High impact journals often have rules about not disclosing results before they appear in print.

    1. Re:Not Krauss' discovery by tinkerton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree Krauss's announcement is problematic, but not because of some claim to have been involved in the discovery. With the mediatisation of science you get a lot more noise in the system and science is a lot about minimizing noise, about having statements that are as solid as possible. Science, as the title says, is about being well grounded.
      Journals have other reasons as well for nondisclosure.

    2. Re:Not Krauss' discovery by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Does it matter if it's published in a high-impact journal? It sounds like it's the sort of thing that makes journals high-impact.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Douchebag move by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

    If I were on LIGO, I would be righteously pissed at Krauss. If it's true, it's a total douchebag move to grandstand off somebody else's discovery.

    1. Re: Douchebag move by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What great social good is Krauss providing by trying to scoop the investigators? I may not like the journal model, but it's what we have and the announcement is theirs, not his, by social convention. If this were a cure for cancer, he'd have cause (people about to undergo dangerous treatment might avoid it), but confirmation of gravity waves? Everybody loses except Krauss.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re: Douchebag move by CurryCamel · · Score: 1

      Maybe a reporter just got him a few drinks, it isn't like he held a press conference.

      No, its more like he would have tweeted[1]. You know, like in TFA, second link in TFS.
      Congrats, AC. You have now proven that you fit in on /. You may now register an account.

      [1] Caveat. Of course, that might be a spoof accout, set up by said reporter. How could I tell.

  6. Title by pruedz · · Score: 1

    "Scientists Struggle To Stay Grounded After Possible Gravitational Wave Signal"

    Oh you, Slashdot...

  7. Re:Nope, false alarm by JustOK · · Score: 2

    Say again. Over.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  8. 60% confirmed! by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

    My earlier rumor about LIGO has NOT been confirmed by independent sources. Stay tuned! Gravitational waves may NOT have been discovered!! Boring.

    Well the article did say Krauss was "60% confident that the rumor was true". If you're quantum gambling, that's better than cat odds.

  9. All detections are "indirect" by Kludge · · Score: 1

    All modern detections are "indirect".
    Did someone search through the jungles and return with a Polaroid photo of the Higgs boson? No.
    The Higgs boson appeared as a tiny excess of a certain type of distribution of secondary particles from billions of high energy interactions. The boson itself was never seen or measured. It is possible that a different physical phenomenon or error was responsible for that tiny excess.
    Just because you do it in a laboratory does not make it more "direct".

  10. Prediction vs. observation by Kludge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You obviously are not up to speed on PSR B1913+16.
    The observations of PSR B1913+16 did not just fit models of gravitational waves, PSR B1913+16 was predicted to radiate gravitational waves. Using the configuration of the pulsars, astronomers made predictions decades into the future about how that configuration would change over time due to the radiation of gravitational waves. Short story: they nailed it.
    Your comparing astronomy to a magic show demonstrates your vast ignorance of modern astronomy.

  11. Gotta Love Guardian Headlines by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    Of course my first thought was, "Their gravity experiment backfired on them, and now they are floating?".

    Second thought was, "Awesome trick headline there /. Worthy of The Guardian. Nice to see editors here actually contributing something."

    Third thought was, "Oh, of course. They took it verbatim from The Guardian. Should have known."

  12. an indirect observation by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The measurements are exactly consistent with Einstein and no other theory. But they did not directly see waves in this project. The energy loss loss has to go somewhere with gravity radiation the best candidate.

  13. rumors happen in particle physics all the time by peter303 · · Score: 1

    You see possible signals. They usually want five standard deviations as proof, but start getting excited around three. Higgs went through several years of this.

  14. 13 TEV resonance in 2015 by peter303 · · Score: 1

    There is an energy bump observed at the very top energy of LHC after its recent restart. This is a double photon decay mode, hinting at an unanticipated new force vector particle. people have speculated a hgiher energy Higgs or even a Graviton.

  15. Yes we can! by X10 · · Score: 1

    Or rather, no we can't. I'm convinced that gravitational waves exist, but at the same time, I'm convinced we can't currently detect them, or detect them at all.

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
  16. The Guardian, news for idiots, by idiots. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 2

    Why did you waste my time with this possible hint about a maybe with no details from people who do not actually know anything?

  17. Re:Gravity From Energy by Bengie · · Score: 1

    But at what frequency? Energy is the cause of gravity. When a mass-energy event occurs, the gravity doesn't go away, it just suddenly moved away quickly. From a distant observer even the speed of light is slow. Would it even look like anything happened?