Slashdot Mirror


Testing the Theory of Relativity

HD 456 wrote to us with an MSNBC story about the new observatories that are starting to come online for the purpose of gravity wave research. One is located outside New Orleans, the other in Washington State, the facilities will shoot lasers down 2.5 mile tunnels in an attempt to detect changes in gravity caused by black holes. Redundancy in facilities is being used to avoid having false background noise skew results. In addition to garnering more information on black holes, the scientists also hope to collect data concering the origin of matter.

169 comments

  1. I thought of this first! by Signal+11 · · Score: 1

    I honest to god was speaking to a friend just yesterday about this very issue. I wanted to take a laser, shoot it several miles down a tunnel, and put a large magnet to answer the question "is light matter or energy"? Damn. Guess that's one less experiment for me to worry about. Freaky. Very freaky. Deja vu freaky.

    --

    1. Re:I thought of this first! by aibrahim · · Score: 1
      No, you didn't think of it first. This idea has been bandied about for rather some time. At least a decade or so.


      This isn't to say that you didn't come up with it independently. I invented it in high school, and quickly found out it was already proposed. Makes you think they already had all the good ideas eh ?

      --

      Don't post innacurate information
      If you do, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
    2. Re:I thought of this first! by Kaa · · Score: 1

      I wanted to take a laser, shoot it several miles down a tunnel, and put a large magnet to answer the question "is light matter or energy"?

      Never mind that these guys are trying to answer a different question, but I am intrigued: how a magnet was going to help you decide whether light is matter or energy? And what would happen if it's both?

      Kaa

      --

      Kaa
      Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
    3. Re:I thought of this first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wanted to ... answer the question "is light matter or energy"

      Here's the answer: E=mc^2

    4. Re:I thought of this first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post deserves a 2?

    5. Re:I thought of this first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was not moderated, since he has enough karma, it posts automaticly at a 2.

    6. Re:I thought of this first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you, I wuz gonna say that ;-)

    7. Re:I thought of this first! by _Shaft_ · · Score: 1

      The universe does this for us... We can observe the bending of light around super-heavy objects (black holes) already... no need for magnets and lasers...

      as far as I know at least

    8. Re:I thought of this first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This fool gets a karma high enough to post as a 2, and I barely ever get moderated up. Sigh.

      Posting as AC so that I dont lose karma for this.

    9. Re:I thought of this first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Einstein prove matter and energy is the same thing? E=mc^2

    10. Re:I thought of this first! by hubie · · Score: 1

      We can observe the bending of light around astrophysical objects, and in particular you can find some beautiful images of the "Einstein Cross" that demonstrate this. However, the ultimate test of GR is whether gravitational waves exist. This would not only nail the coffin door shut on the few black hole skeptics around, but it would make some pretty profound statements about the fate of the universe.

      For a nice page on relativity see this site .

    11. Re:I thought of this first! by Science_Nut · · Score: 1

      Observing the bending of light is only one test of relativity. Detecting a gravity wave is another; and it's a different phenomenon. Any interference seen in the LIGO apparatus will be due to the warping of space-time as a wave passes through - space-time fluctuates. The bending of light is an observation of a static effect, of how gravity shapes space-time.

  2. Nice by pvthudson · · Score: 1
    Hopefully that Fred Moody (Abcnews.com) guy doesn't read the article and freak out again.

    --


    Its karma, Kramer.

    1. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Fred Moody has an ass for a brain, its no joke when you say he has a black hole for a brain.

    2. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good call. That guy's such a pessimist.

      Ya know, if everything goes bye-bye, it don't matter cause, well, cause we're not here to care.

      http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/FredMoody/mood y.current.html

      Btw, light is not matter. Of course, matter isn't really matter, either. Not that it matters, really. Neither here nor there.

      ----
      Stop thinking and you'll see what I mean (no, I'm not suggesting Eastern mysticism -- just stop for a second or two...). Do it a good 20 seconds and you'll know just what I mean. (plus I'll give you a cookie)

    3. Re:Nice by wass · · Score: 1
      Hahaha, thanks for the link, I got a real kick out of reading that article.

      If he's so worried about us pesky humans playing God, why is he publishing on an online medium? I mean, weren't we playing god 100 years ago when Faraday and Maxwell were working out the basics of E&M, and Shockley/Bardeen/others again with solid state research to bring us the transistor, which directly leads to the computer on his desk.

      In fact, metallargusts of antiquity were playing God as well, so we shouldn't use metals, lest we upset the delicate balance of the universe. Wait, he does denounce the combustion engine. I guess this implies he walks/bikes/etc wherever he goes, so as not to upset the ecosystem.

      He seems to be the only clear-thinker among us, if it weren't for him I'm sure we'd all be up a paddle.

      --

      make world, not war

    4. Re:Nice by wass · · Score: 1
      we'd all be up a paddle

      Haha, i shouldn't be so hasty to submit my words. Of course, I meant to say, "We'd be all up a certain river without a paddle"

      --

      make world, not war

  3. ... by Signal+11 · · Score: 3

    Contary to the belief of Fred Moody (as pointed out by another reader) - merely observing a black hole will not create one. Only stupid people generate black holes. Fortunately those are kept between their two ears, and they are buried with them. Relax, Fred. Just don't go near stupid people - they have a tendancy to suck.

    --

    1. Re:... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, just what I was complaining about. This fool CONSTANTLY gets moderated up!

    2. Re:... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a conspiracy. Him and some moderator buddies are playing 'moderate up the other guy'

      Well, that's what I want to believe. He doesn't deserve a Karma better then mine =) Ego thing.. And honestly, he doesn't deserve a Karma of 230.

      Especially reading his posts, some of them deserving moderation indeed, in the other direction!

      Once he has a Karma that high, I imagine he gets to moderate a lot. With those moderator points he could crank his friends who then become Moderators and moderate HIM up! IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!! I hear black helicopters!!!

      =) I was trying to be tounge in cheek, but I lost it somewhere in there.

  4. Gravity waves @ home! by Denor · · Score: 1

    How complex are these gravity waves going to be? To me, it seems that we're going to have to filter out the background noises (the redundancy seems to solve most, but not all, of that) and then try to see if the lasers were changed, and if so, by what and in what manner.

    This seems to lend itself to the kind of distributed effort seen by seti@home - which does a lot of the same things (mainly filtering out background noise & analyzing for signals). On the other hand, it might not be quite so complex. I don't know if I'm giving up on detecting extraterrestrial life from my desktop just yet, but analyzing gravity waves would be a very fun thing to have my computer doing!

    --
    -Denor
    1. Re:Gravity waves @ home! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they will be analyzing stuff online - its part of the internet 2 group. i dunno if they will be letting civilians in on it though, the bandwidth needs are pretty steep

  5. Gravity Wave? by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 1

    I'm confused...
    I thought Relativity described gravity in terms of warped space, not particle/waves.

    --

    "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    1. Re:Gravity Wave? by c-A-d · · Score: 2

      It is described in terms of warped space, but the waves this article are talking about are similar to a wave in the ocean (a transverse wave) only the ocean is space/time

      --
      some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
    2. Re:Gravity Wave? by John+Bridges · · Score: 2

      Sure does.

      But a little bit of theoretical work with a binary system shows that energy can be lost from the system in the form of ripples in Space/Time - our good old fashioned gravity waves.

      By analogy with electromagnetism it was then supposed that these waves take the form of discrete packets of energy - gravitons.

      So if we presume that dear old gravity and quantum mech can be married at some level, its reasonable to assume that gravitons behave both like waves and particles (I recommend books by Richard Feynman if you want to get a good feel for this - and avoid Hawking like the plague, he can't write and he gets it wrong. Its amazing what a bit of media manipulation can do).

      Richard Feynman - the greatest Physicist of the 20th Century.

    3. Re:Gravity Wave? by astrophysics · · Score: 2

      A gravity wave refers to a "packet" of basically periodic warping of space. The warping of space affects the "distance" which the photons must travel before reaching the detectors. Thus, the phase of the photons will be different if there is a significant warping of space time along the path of the photons. The experiment will measure relative phase shifts of the photons to detect the gravity waves.

    4. Re:Gravity Wave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct!

      Waves are very much part of relativity. Whenever you start talking about waves, you always need to ask, "what's waving?". In the case of light, its an electric and a magnetic field wiggling and hurling forth.

      In the case of gravitational waves, what is waving is the fabric of spacetime itself. So, we are indeed still talking about warped space here. The gravitational wave is nothing more than a warped piece of space in which the warp itself is moving at the speed of light.

      If the wave travels through any part of spacetime that contains a massive object, it will cause hiccup like a buoy in the ocean. If you can measure that hiccup, you've helped to confirm the predictions of Relativity.

      Hope this helps.

    5. Re:Gravity Wave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Richard Feynman - the greatest Physicist of the 20th Century

      Absolutely ! How come practically noone outside of physics has even heard of him ? IIRC QED is still the most accurate theory ever devised.

  6. Panic. by Mr_Plow · · Score: 1

    the facilities will shot lasers down 2.5 mile tunnels in an attempt to detect changes in gravity caused by black holes

    great... that's the kind of irresponsible science that goes on, eh? Putting black holes in 2.5 mile tunnels? Someone could get hurt!
    ------------------------------------------------ ----------

  7. Universal observations from inside a tunnel by osu-neko · · Score: 3
    I just love how we're observing things like black holes light-years away by looking at things inside dark tunnels. Kind of reminds of observing solar neutrinoes by looking at things in a dark cave.

    Of course, since everything in the universe interacts with everything else gravitationally, I ought to be able to deduce the superstructure of the universe and the motion of anything and everything in it by observing how my tea leaves settle on the bottom of my cup. With sensitive enough instruments, of course. My grandmother, for instance... :-)

    --

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    1. Re:Universal observations from inside a tunnel by vectro · · Score: 1

      There was a subplot about this in one of the Hitchhiker's Guide books... IIRC, it was about a piece of cake which the machine analyzed and found out everything about the universe. However, anyone to whom this information was imparted would immeadiately die, because they could not deal with the fact that their entire life was but "an insignificant little dot on an insignificant little dot."

      On a somewhat related note, I asked my high school phyics teacher (possibly my best teacher throughout my 4 years) about this, and he told me that this had been thought of back when Newton came up with his original laws. Someone back then said something along the lines of "It's all a matter of decimal places." Dunno why, but there is some reason this won't work. Possibly because it yields an infinate number of simultaneous equations which would require an infinate number of infinately accurate, infinately precise data points to reconcile.

    2. Re:Universal observations from inside a tunnel by HP+LoveJet · · Score: 1

      Yep. The Total Perspective Vortex (Adams) and the Laplacian Omniscience Fallacy (Laplace). (I may not have the canonical name of the fallacy, but it's close.)

      IIRC, quantum uncertainty is the bugaboo, and not even infinitely precise measurements and calculations will save you: there's a Gedankenexperiment involving dropping an elastic, symmetrical, smooth sphere--precisely vertically--onto a similar hemisphere in a vacuum. How many times will it bounce before it goes off center?

      spawn_of_yog_sothoth

      --
      spawn_of_yog_sothoth
    3. Re:Universal observations from inside a tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Possibly because it yields an infinate number of simultaneous equations which would require an infinate number of infinately accurate, infinately precise data points to reconcile.

      Perhaps it's because 'infinitely' is so often misspelled?

    4. Re:Universal observations from inside a tunnel by binarybits · · Score: 1

      Dunno why, but there is some reason this won't work.



      Three things:

      One, lack of information. This includes both lack of knowledge about the laws of physics, and the inability to gather the necessary physical data, both because there is so much of it and because it would require observation at the sub-atomic level.

      Two, as others have pointed out, you run into problems with the fact that the process of measurement affects the measurement. This encompasses both Heisenburg uncertainty, and it also includes the fact that the computer that holds this information would have to be included as part of the universe. Since it is not possible to make a computer that is "outside" the universe, you cannot model the whole universe without encountering a problem of infinite recursion, sort of like telling a computer to back up the contents of an entire hard drive onto that hard drive. Once it gets to the backup file, it will go into an infinite loop.

      Third, you run into problems of chaos theory and spontaneous order. The problem is that a small error in measurement can lead to an enourmous change in the outcome. This is one reason why there is a limit to the accuracy of weather forecasting, for example. No matter how accurate the measurements we make, there will still be a small error, and that error will become larger as you try to predict farther out into the future. So if you make a small error in one measurement, that small error can cause all of your predictions to be off.

    5. Re:Universal observations from inside a tunnel by Abigail-II · · Score: 1
      lack of information. This includes both lack of knowledge about the laws of physics, and the inability to gather the necessary physical data

      This experiment is there to increase our knowledge of the laws of physics. With your reasoning, all experiments would be pointless. Either we already know what the experiment could possible tell us, or we don't, in which case we can't do the experiment.

      you run into problems with the fact that the process of measurement affects the measurement

      Yes, and if I stand on a scale, that will influence my mass as well. That doesn't mean that the measurement is pointless. The conclusion of the Heisenburg principle isn't "all measurements are pointless". The conclusion is "there is a limit on what you can measure simultaneously".

      you run into problems of chaos theory and spontaneous order. The problem is that a small error in measurement can lead to an enourmous change in the outcome.

      Yes, and that's true for a lot of problems. But you can also calculate how much errors in your measurement influence the final result. Weather forecasting is a perfect example. There's a limit, but todays limit is further than yesterdays, due to the ability to use more data, and better precision. Nowadays, you see 5 day forecasts. I certainly remember the times you got only 3 days, and the forecast for the third day was much less detailed than you get nowadays for 5 days.

      Limits are nothing more than limits. As long as you know what your limits are, you can still do a lot. Limits don't mean "all measurements are pointless". Limits also chance over time.

      -- Abigail

    6. Re:Universal observations from inside a tunnel by binarybits · · Score: 1

      I never said that all measurements were pointless. What he had said was that in theory you could learn about everything in the universe by observing thier interactions with a small object here on the Earth. My point is that although you can certainly gain some information using this kind of technique, there are severe limits for the reasons I indicated. For example, you are never going to produce a detailed map of the surface of a planet in a galaxy a million light-years away by looking at an insect here on Earth. In principle it might be possible, but the limits I pointed out makes that an impossibility in practice.

      Nowadays, you see 5 day forecasts. I certainly remember the times you got only 3 days, and the forecast for the third day was much less detailed than you get nowadays for 5 days.

      OK, to take this example, the idea that was originally proposed would seem to say that some day we'll have 10-year forecasts with absolute precision. My point is that this could never happen, no matter how much we learn about weather patterns and how much data we collect. There are simply too many variables that affect the result in too many unpredictable ways.

      So, to be clear on this, I did not say "knowledge is impossible and all measurements are pointless." My point was simply that the nature of the universe limits the degree to which we can deduce the properties of distant objects based soley on the gravimetric or other interactions with local objects.

  8. Time Travel? by rmull · · Score: 1

    Must be... they haven't done it yet, and they're already using the past tense of shoot!

    --
    See you, space cowboy...
  9. small mistake by Hobbex · · Score: 2


    There was a tiny mistake in dialect translation during the production of this story, they aren't working on any high-level theoretical physics down in Louisiana, they are working on something much more down to earth:

    Backhoes.

    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

    1. Re:small mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh*
      I'm taking personal offense at this....sure, LA is the second poorest state in the nation at the moment (right down there with MS), but we (i'm from new orleans..in NY at college at the moment) aren't a bunch of fucking hicks like you see in the Waterboy. I know it was a joke, but watch yourself.

    2. Re:small mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. There's this Line, right? And right now you're standing on it.

      There could be a whole school of physics developed to explain where the Line is at any given point in time and space. Maybe even using massive laser tubes buried below ground.

      The simple solution is that this is a public forum, and the Line is a much closer to you than you think.

  10. Gravitational Waves Exist! by Thorsett · · Score: 5

    Despite the suggestion to the contrary in the MSNBC story, gravitational waves have already been shown to exist. Joe Taylor and Joel Weisberg and their collaborators have demonstrated, using a binary star system, that Einstein's prediction of the rate at which energy is radiated away by accelerating masses is correct to better than one half of one percent. (This was the subject of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded to Taylor and Hulse.) These results also prove, for example, that gravitational waves travel at the same velocity as electromagnetic waves (ie, the speed of light, or 300,000 km/s).

    LIGO is an exciting project that may open a whole new field of gravitational wave astronomy and directly probe the properties of such exotic objects as black holes and neutron stars. But it will do it using well-established physical principles.

    1. Re:Gravitational Waves Exist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Egads, why go so far afield to prove your point?

      It was proven a long time ago that "gravity lenses" exist using nothing more than a telescope and a black and white camera - i.e. it has been observed that light noticably bends around a large body of matter.

      Get a grip, in 1993 this was already ancient history.

    2. Re:Gravitational Waves Exist! by Thorsett · · Score: 1

      Ah, but gravitational radiation was much harder than gravitational lensing to understand theoretically. Eddington, for example, believed that the waves predicted by Einstein were really just an illusory effect caused by using a non-reasonable coordinate system to analyze the problem. This was a major debate that continued for nearly half a century until Bondi settled the theoretical questions within general relativity -- and then until around 1980 when the pulsar observations provided the experimental confirmation.

    3. Re:Gravitational Waves Exist! by astrophysics · · Score: 1

      These observations are indirect in the sense, that if you beleive GR, then the increased binding energy of the binary implies gravity waves. However, if you don't beleive GR, then the inference that there are gravity waves does not stand up. Since multiple different theories (mostly variations on GR) can accurately explain all previously observed gravitational phenomena, it makes sense to do new experiments trying to distinguish between the theories.

    4. Re:Gravitational Waves Exist! by ToLu+the+Happy+Furby · · Score: 2

      Despite the suggestion to the contrary in the MSNBC story, gravitational waves have already been shown to exist.

      That's all well and good (actually, it was a very informative post), except that there was no such suggestion in the article.

      Here's what it actually said: "There is evidence that the waves exist, but technology has not been powerful enough to detect them." And that's exactly true: we have evidence that they "must" exist--because we see energy radiated away from a binary star system at the predicted rate--but we have not actually directly detected them yet, which this experiment is designed to do.

      On the other hand, I agree that the article didn't do too much to clear up the point.

    5. Re:Gravitational Waves Exist! by Orville · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, the point of LIGO is not to prove "existance" (as pointed out, this has already been done), but rather to determine if the laser technique will work. The goal of LIGO is to create a "network" of these laser based gravity wave detectors in order to infer direction of the gravity waves... (There was a PBS show called "The Astronomers" awhile back that described this technique in pretty good detail. Heh... I remember more from a PBS show that I do from getting a BS in Astronomy. That's probably a bad thing...)

    6. Re:Gravitational Waves Exist! by mattorb · · Score: 1

      This isn't a comment so much as a question -- I'm just curious as to what phenomena/theories you're thinking of. I couldn't think of something offhand which would a) predict all previously observed stuff and b) not imply some sort of wave propagation equivalent. Ie, it's well known (and, given the nick, you're probably aware :-)) that no scalar theory of gravity (eg, Nordstrom metric) can accurately predict gravitational deflection of light; I'm just not clear on what well-posed alternatives exist. Then again, I don't know GR that well. :-)

    7. Re:Gravitational Waves Exist! by astrophysics · · Score: 2

      GR is a non-linear theory. Most often the equations are linearized when discussing gravity waves. (It has been shown that gravity waves exist in the full non-linear equations, but that was a significant accomplishment.)

      Any theory which when linearized gives the same equations will "predict" gravitational waves. (I don't know if any alternatives have been shown to support gravity waves in their non-linear equations.) However, different theories would predict different this in the non-linear regime, presumablely where these gravity waves are being created. Studying the waveforms may allow you to gain some insight about the non-linearities in the equations, thus supporting one theory or another.

      This what I was refering to. I don't know of a (possiblely valid) theory that works and doesn't imply some sort of gravity waves. But I'm no expert.

  11. Grav wave from passing bus vs. distant black hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's my understanding that gravity waves from distant black holes would be so tiny that the gravity wave of a passing bus or 747 would be enormous in comparison. It's like having your ear on the ground in California near the 101 Freeway listening for approaching footsteps from someone in India. Local noise is just gonna trample your hearing.

  12. What about the eclipse ? by pvente · · Score: 2

    A few months ago, I can't remember where I read it (maybe at /.), a gravitational experiment was set up to measure the effect that an eclipse had on large pendulums like the one in the Smithsonian. Cameras were placed to detect small variations in the pendulum's drift. As I recall, the very early preliminary data suggested that pendulums within the eclipse zone had variations, whereas those outside the zone did not. Now that would be something if true ! Has anyone heard anything more about this ?

    1. Re:What about the eclipse ? by rde · · Score: 2

      I don't recall seeing it here, but NASA gave it a mention on their rather spiffing web site. If you haven't subscribed to their daily bulletins, do so now.

    2. Re:What about the eclipse ? by Yarn · · Score: 2

      This kind of measurement can measure gravitational lensing, which shows that light has mass.

      Astronomers first attempted to measure this in an eclipse the year after Einstein published. (1928 or thereabouts). They got results, but it was later found that the measurements they made were smaller than the margin for error.

      I think that the effect is pretty much accepted now :)

      --
      -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
    3. Re:What about the eclipse ? by AstroJetson · · Score: 1

      Gravitational lensing has been observed many times in astronomy - the canonical example is Einstein's Cross (a quasar split into 4 images by an intervening galaxy). However, the fact that light is bent by gravity does not imply that it has (rest) mass.

      --
      Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
    4. Re:What about the eclipse ? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Physics isn't my phorté, but I was wondering:

      Can light have "rest" anything?

      --
      It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:What about the eclipse ? by rde · · Score: 1

      Can light have "rest" anything?
      Relativity tells us that if you're travelling at c, then time stops (for you). Therefore you're everywhere in the universe at the same time. Therefore if you go from a to be, you don't move. Therefore you're at rest.
      I rest my case.
      Anyway, when was the last time you saw a moving photon?

    6. Re:What about the eclipse ? by Oms · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, gravitational lensing shows (as general relativity predicts) that a body of large mass warps space-time, thus bending the "straight lines" that light follows. Saying that light has mass is something completely different.

      That the Focault pendulum chnages its behaviour during an eclipse is pretty amazing, but it has nothing to do with gravitational lensing. G-lensing is a well-understood, one might even say trivial, effect. How an eclipse can affect a pendulum is not understood at all!

    7. Re:What about the eclipse ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says no such thing.

  13. Relativity FAQ by Duke+of+URL · · Score: 4

    Here's a usenet relativity FAQ if your interested in some info.
    Here's some info on black holes too, while I'm at it.

  14. How about space probes? by rde · · Score: 2

    Imagine if two probes (say Deep Space 8 and, er, 8.5) were equipped with lasers, so that they could shot at each other once they were outside major planetary influences. It's the only satisfactory solution (imho), because when you're on a planet there's no way you can say for sure that you've accounted for every microscopic movement. Granted, you've still got planet x out there somewhere, but what the heck. If the experiment was screwed up by the discovery of a new planet (or brown dwarf) I wouldn't complain too much.

    1. Re:How about space probes? by Thorsett · · Score: 1

      This is the LISA project, which hopes to launch in 2008: see NASA's LISA homepage.

    2. Re:How about space probes? by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      It's a nice idea but with one little flaw.

      They use laser-interferometers. To build one of those you need *two* laserbeams with exactly the same length and at exactly 90 degrees from eachother to form an L shape.
      Actually, it's one beam that's reflected down two tubes...

      What you do is that you messure the difference in lenght that occurs when a gravitywave passes.
      The wave will make the space "compress" in the direction it is travelling.

      Using three probes, one for every point in the L , it would be very hard to position them and keep them in place with enough accuracy.

      You could, of course, build two rigs in space which then could be a lot larger than the 4 kilometer ones they use for Ligo.
      (Longer = higher sensitivity)

      You would still need two to filter out satelites and instrumental errors.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    3. Re:How about space probes? by thisrod · · Score: 1
      There have been plans to do this for a while, with a group of satelites in orbit around the sun. The acronym for it is LISA. The big advantage is that the arms of the interferometer can be a lot longer, which is the simplest way to make it more sensitive. Here is the first page google threw back at me.

      And you thought $3.5e8 was a lot of money...

      The big risk with building gravity wave detectors is if they don't detect anything. This would be a really surprising result if it were true, so no one would believe it unless more experiments with bigger instruments were done to confirm it. But getting money to repeat an experiment which didn't work the first time would be next to impossible, so everyone could be left in a frustrating situation.

    4. Re:How about space probes? by alis · · Score: 1

      In general using space probes would be exceedingly difficult as you don't have nearly the control that you do when you're in an earth-based observatory. The way LIGO works is by detecting very small vibrations in very delicate suspended masses. Laser interferometry is the only way to get measurements on small enough distances to detect gravitational waves. We're not actually trying to measure the deflection of the beams, but rather the motion of these masses. There's an absurd amount of calibration and fine-tuning going on that's difficult to replicate in a space probe that's going to be launched off.

      In fact, though, there are plans to set up a series of probes in space as part of LIGO to check for lower-frequency waves than the ground-based observatories will detect. I believe the first of the probes is supposed to be launched within a decade or so, but I can't recall all the details.

    5. Re:How about space probes? by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      The European Space Agency, was, and, as far as I know, still is, considering a mission on these lines for sometime around 2010. Their mission involves six probes, two at each corner of an equilateral triangle with sides 5 million kilomters long, orbiting the Sun well away from the Earth and Moon. They would continuously measure the distance between the probes to an accuracy of a small fraction of a wavelength of light (something like one part in 10^16 of the distance). The technical challenges of this, are, of course, immense, but it would go far beyond LIGO in both seinsitivity and the range of frequencies of gravitational radiation that it could detect, allowing it study much less violent, but neaer and commoner events than those LIGO can spot.

      Steve

  15. Isn't this redundant? by MostlyHarmless · · Score: 1

    Call me stupid, but hasn't the theory of Relativity been proven several times over? I remember at least one experiment involving atomic clocks on airplanes...

    --
    Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
    1. Re:Isn't this redundant? by vinay · · Score: 1

      Science is all about redundancy! That's probably for the better too. I remember reading about the atomic clocks experiment, and it did prove Einstein's theories, but this experiment (and I'm sure the many that will follow) prove Einstein's theories from different perspectives. At least that's how I look at it. :-)

      Mayhap it'll give us a more interesting glimpse of how things work (which is what it's all about, isn't it?

    2. Re:Isn't this redundant? by astrophysics · · Score: 1

      There are many different predictions of general relativity. That's one reason it's so nice. A relatively simples model makes lots of predictions. Many of these predictions have been verified. Others have not.

      Also, several different theories (mostly GR variations) can explain nearly all observed gravitational phenomena. Therefore doing new experiments may allow scientists to distinguish these theories.

    3. Re:Isn't this redundant? by Mr.+Piccolo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you can't _prove_ scientific theories, only mathematical theorems.

      You can gain evidence that the theory is right and increase your confidence in it though.

      It only takes ONE REPEATABLE experiment, though, to refute a scientific theory, so that's reason enough to keep testing a theory's predictions.

      --
      Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
    4. Re:Isn't this redundant? by Mattsson · · Score: 2

      But that only deal with Einstein's theories about time/space vs. speed.
      The prediction of gravitywaves has, as stated in an earlier post, been proven by measuring the energyloss caused by gravitywave radiation in binary star systems.
      But noone has yet detected *an actual gravitywave*!
      Only by second hand observation.
      And, of course, a new kind of instrument to look into space with is never wrong.
      Look at what the telescope, then the radio-telescope and later x-ray/gamma ray/infra-wave detectors have meant for astronomy and our understanding of the univers!
      The introduction of gravitywave observatories will most probably lead to so far unknown discoveries.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
  16. How it works by cybercuzco · · Score: 4
    This is basically a Michalson interferometer on a monster scale. The Michalson interferometer splits up a light source, in this case, a laser, into two beams, sends them down tow tunnels at right angles to each other and then recombines them and projects the result against a screen or detector. This thing is EXTREMELY sensitive to changes in the path lengths. A change in the path length of half a wavelength of the light used is enough to cause an interference pattern at the dtector. The longer the paths used, the more sensitive it is to disturbances. This thing can detect the gravitational pull of a human walking by the end of it. Needless to say they get lots of interference, like the moon, cars, trucks, squirrels etc. Which is why they need a whole bunch of them spread out. Presumably a gravity wave will hit all the detectors at the same time, since gravity moves as fast as it wants to and doesnt have to be held back by the speed of light rule. Anything that doesnt occur at both detectors at the same time is thrown out. Pretty neat really, Einstein was right about everything else, i feel confident he'll be found right once again. Damn Sylvan fissure ::pounds skull::

    --

    1. Re:How it works by metawronka · · Score: 1

      >Presumably a gravity wave will hit all the >detectors at the same time, since gravity moves >as fast as it wants to and doesnt have to be >held back by the speed of light rule.. NO!!! Gravity moves at the speed of light. The importance of the seperation is that local interference will presumably not be the same at both points, allowing a statistical cancellation of the error effects. (BTW, I left my account logged on in a library computer and some idiot has been doing those second-first-post messages. A -31 karma's pretty bad...maybe I should just cancel this account.)

    2. Re:How it works by cybercuzco · · Score: 1
      Actually gravity isnt bounded by the speed of light because it is a phenomenon that is outside of space. Its really just the bending of spacetime itself and as such, is not limited to the speed of light. A gravity wave is a wave in spacetime where as light is a wave that travles through spacetime. A comparison would be waves in water vs waves in air. A wave in water travels much slower than a wave in air ( sound) because they are in different media, the same is true for gravity, its in a different media than light, so it obeys different speed limits

      --

    3. Re:How it works by kwijebo · · Score: 3

      You're right that LIGO is basically an enormous Michalson interferometer, but in order to increase its apparent length it measures the superposition of a laser beam that has bounced back and forth across its length many times. As you say, the longer the path used, the more sensitivity to displacements in length it has.

      But it is NOT true that LIGO can detect the gravitational pull of a human walking by the end of it. A litte background: gravitational waves are created by changes in the gravitational quadrupole moment of a system. Electromagnetic waves, in contrast, are created by changes in the electrical dipole moment of a system.

      Getting changes in the quadrupole moment of a system requires doing something funky with the angular momentum of the system. That can happen when black holes collide (they radiate a bunch of their angular momentum away), and I don't know when else it might happen. But it definitely DOESN'T happen (on any reasonable scale) in any terrestrial processes, or any that we know of in our solar system.

      It is true that a passing truck, or even a passing person, can cause mechanical vibrations that will affect LIGO's measurements. LIGO is an incredibly accurate system for measuring differences in distances between its perpendicular lengths. Gravitational waves should, according to GR, cause a change of length in one axis and not the other. Mechanical vibrations will also cause a difference in position for the mirrors, so LIGO has a VERY complicated system of mechanical dampers to minimize this effect.

      Finally, the last time I checked, most GR experts were of the opinion that gravity waves propagate at the speed of light, not at infinite speed.

    4. Re:How it works by Bill+Currie · · Score: 2

      I thought the speed of sound in water was higher than in air, rather than lower. However, you and I might be talking about two different things as aquatic surface waves do travel much slower than sound in air. This makes me wander what speed air waves travel at the interface between air and vacuum (though I know there is no real interface as such, too much of a gradient)

      --

      Bill - aka taniwha
      --
      Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

    5. Re:How it works by sri · · Score: 1

      Presumably a gravity wave will hit all the detectors at the same time, since gravity moves as fast as it wants to and doesnt have to be held back by the speed of light rule

      Actually, gravity waves do travel at the speed of light, at least according to the theory of general relativity. Of course, this is subject to experimental verification, which is one of the reasons why these gravity wave detectors are being built.

      What's really amazing about this project is the fact that they're going to be looking for an extraordinarily weak signal in a bunch of background noise. So how do they know that what they're looking at is the real thing? Well, that's one of the main reasons for having multiple detectors. With the sites in both Washington and Louisiana, they'll be able to look at coinicdences between the signals to determine if the event was a gravity wave or simply some local fluctations due to seismic activity or fluctuations in the laser or one of the other countless things that might give rise to a false signal. I used to be skeptical that these things would be able to detect anything at all (except noise), given that the amplitude of the waves they're trying to detect is smaller than the size of an atom! But I now know (due to a class that I'm taking that's being taught by Kip Thorne) that a lot of thought has been put into all of this and I'm fairly confident that we'll see gravitational waves with LIGO. For more information on the project, check out the Caltech LIGO website.

    6. Re:How it works by alis · · Score: 2

      Ummm... in short, no.

      If you want to believe special relativity, EVERYTHING moves at most at the speed of light. Everything. Period. Gravity can indeed be characterized as bending or warping spacetime, but that doesn't exempt it at all. Information, in the form of gravity waves or whatever, cannot travel faster than the speed of light; if you allow any sort of transmission of information or energy (yes,gravity waves carry energy) faster than the speed of light you get yourself into really nasty paradoxes.

      The idea is that gravity waves coming from far away will look like the same signal everywhere just delayed a bit, whereas interference from close by will only appear on a single detector or can else be triangulated to a nearby location. Hence we can filter out unwanted signals.

  17. Re:Grav wave from passing bus vs. distant black ho by Yarn · · Score: 2

    I believe you can filter this kind of noise by having multiple detectors.

    Several detectors 100s of miles apart will get the same signal from a distant black hole, but will get very different signals from local perturbations.

    --
    -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
  18. Or maybe they don't... by John+Bridges · · Score: 1
    Showing that the energy flux from a particular system corresponds to the theoretical energy loss via gravitational radiation doesn't prove that the waves exist.

    It increases the likelihood that the theoretical predictions are correct, BUT, I believe to really drive the point home we need to observe localised fluctuations in the S/T continuum.

    Of course that's failed miserably so far

    Its good to get excited tho

  19. annoying-ass article by mattorb · · Score: 4
    I think this article is largely missing the point. GR has been amply proven, at least to the extent that LIGO isn't going to add much to the proofs -- gravity waves exist (see earlier post about a Nobel given out for this work).

    A large part of what makes LIGO interesting -- at least to those who believe it will work (see below) -- is the prospect of eventually being able to do some real astronomy with the thing; that is, the idea that particular astrophysical phenomena would send out unique and detectable gravitational wave signatures.

    Kip Thorne, one of the world's bad-asses on this subject, I think talks about LIGO in his book from a few years back, Black Holes and Time Warps. Highly recommended if you're interested in this sort of thing.

    Finally, it's worth pointing out (as the article did not) that there are real questions about the odds of getting useful data out of the thing. Admittedly, I trust Thorne's opinion on this a lot more than most, but there's definitely a pretty narrow zone where a) we'll detect lots of gravitational waves with LIGO and b) we wouldn't have detected them already. (If I'm not mistaken, there have been small-scale versions of LIGO done already.) I wish I could point you to a link on this, but I can't think of anything useful.

    Just my two cents. :-)

    1. Re:annoying-ass article by Acinonyx · · Score: 1

      Yep, I have that book on hand. Good read. To spell out why LIGO will probably work better, it's all in the redundancy. Eventually there will be as many as 8 (?) different instruments at 4 sites (2 at each) to guarantee that it isn't background noise. Because of quantum physics and all that jazz, the wires supporting the detectors creak, even when perfectly isolated. Every part of it will actually make noise. With one detector, it's likely you'll see noise, with two, very unlikely both will creak at the exact same time. With 8, it's almost guaranteed that you'll get good data, not to mention the sites need to be spread out to triangulate. The farther they are appart, the better data you get, since gravitational waves have massive wavelengths. They also have to be perfectly synchronized to the same clock, otherwise the information is worthless. Personally, (I didn't read the article, but I understand the concept from said book) I think the data collected if any will be very valuable and greatly increase our understanding of the universe. With each step forward, from light to infrared to x-rays, we learn astounding new things that revolutionize our concept of the universe and our place in it. This should be no different.

  20. The Louisanna exp is a HUGE PORK BELLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love physics, but damn. Hey lets use a SWAMP for a several KM long tunnel. They have had to back fill so much swamp it would have been done already if they built it anywhere else. Very stupid. yeah senators. And please don't claim, its geologically stable we have to build here. It would have been much more usefull as an interferometer if they built it in australia or the moon or space.

    1. Re:The Louisanna exp is a HUGE PORK BELLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually i think the lasers are above ground and LSU has a very good GR group

    2. Re:The Louisanna exp is a HUGE PORK BELLY by astrophysics · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Tell your congresspeople to support LISA, a similar experiment, but to be done in space. The improved sensitivy (mainly from being off the earth) will allow many more scientific discoveries and very interesting astrophysics.

    3. Re:The Louisanna exp is a HUGE PORK BELLY by jacobm · · Score: 1
      Well, while you may want your congresspeople to support LISA, that doesn't mean that doing the project on Earth is a bad idea. I talked to one of the guys involved in this project a few years back and he said that while space-based projects aren't susceptible to as many noise problems, they're massively more expensive than ground-based strategies because

      1. You have to GET the thing into space, which is really frickin' expensive.
      2. You have to make sure the thing is space-proof: ie, it won't die due to the extreme cold or radiation, etc., which is also really frickin' expensive.
      3. As if that weren't enough, if the thing breaks or just doesn't work exactly as expected (these things have to be precise), you can't just go in and fix it- you have to launch a mission or build a new one. Which is, as you can guess, really really frickin' expensive.

      Comparatively, swampland is a GREAT place to put one of these things...
      --
      -jacob
    4. Re:The Louisanna exp is a HUGE PORK BELLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The spot in LA that it's being built at is NOT a swamp! Since I live about 70 or 80 miles from there, I should know.

    5. Re:The Louisanna exp is a HUGE PORK BELLY by astrophysics · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to imply LIGO was a bad idea. I'm glad LIGO is being funded, and hope LISA will be funded similarly. I'm not involved with either, but I've heard people who are say the pricetag on LISA might actually be less than for LIGO. I suspect that is due in large part to the fact that LIGO has already developed lots of the technology they would need for LISA. Personally, I'm skepitcal that LISA would be as cheap as advertised, but the scientific possibilities more than make up for that.

  21. What do you get when two black holes collide? by slickwillie · · Score: 1

    Dueling singularities?

  22. This story from the BBC by Suit · · Score: 2

    http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/sp ecials/total_eclipse/newsid_415000/41527 3.stm

    Is what you are referring to I think.

    V. interesting stuff !

    --
    Life is just a bowl of All Bran - Small Faces
  23. The distinction isn't relevant by vlax · · Score: 3

    Your magnet will have no effect. Photons have no charge, and are uninfluenced by the other photons in the magnetic field. Energy does not exist apart from mass and vacuum has no mass, so it's difficult to say that photons aren't matter. Of course, it's also semantically unimportant to distinguish between matter and energy at all.

    1. Re:The distinction isn't relevant by astrophysics · · Score: 2

      Actually, there are "second order" effects which allow one high energy photons to interact (indirectly) with each other. But this is a very small effect.

    2. Re:The distinction isn't relevant by David+A.+Madore · · Score: 1

      As you pointed out, quantum interference might deflect the beam. Another thing might: the energy of the magnetic field will create a gravitational field that would bend the light. Stupid question: which effect is the greater (assume a 1kW argon laser and a 10 tesla magnetic field in a volume of one cubic meter - you have four hours to give a detailed answer :-)

  24. Only on Slashdot... by binarybits · · Score: 1

    analyzing gravity waves would be a very fun thing to have my computer doing!

    Where else will you find "computer, "analysing gravity waves," and "fun" in the same sentence? :P

    Not that that's a bad thing.

    1. Re:Only on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOMEBODY actually suggested this at a LIGO data analysis group meeting. someone else suggested that by making it a WORD macro virus we could get more, ahem, volunteers. ;^)

  25. looking for what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, prey tell, is the medium which allows these waves to propergate? Or have we forgotten that Michelson/Morley didn't actually prove anything. Unfortuneatly with everybody thinking about how right Einstein was we can't think about how wrong he might be.

    1. Re:looking for what?? by phil+reed · · Score: 3
      What, prey tell, is the medium which allows these waves to propergate?

      The structure of space-time itself. It's not the ether, since electromagnetism propagation is different.


      ...phil

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    2. Re:looking for what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electromagnetic propergation is different in that it somehow doesn't require a medium? Ether, structure of space-time, call it what you will.

    3. Re:looking for what?? by astrophysics · · Score: 1

      Well, your point of view is one reason to do the experiment. A small minority of scientists still don't beleive in gravity waves. Therefore we look and see who is right. Michelson-Morley had much lower sensitivities.

      However, a humougous majority of scientists beleive that space time itself is being distorted in a quaesi periodic way and that this is at least theoretically observable.

  26. Laser Principles by Hrunting · · Score: 5
    Other principles they will be testing:
    1. The Cat Theory
      This theory states that no matter how hard it tries, the cat will never be able to catch a moving laser.
    2. The Eyeball Theory
      This theory states that no matter how large the warning on the side of the laser, someone will inevitably see what happens when they shine it in their eye.[1]
    3. The Policeman Theory
      Shine a laser through a donut and one can theoretically throw a policeman into a brain lock as they try to defend themselves from the obvious sniper while also try to obtain the donut
    4. The Stupid People Theory
      See number 1, substituting 'stupid person' for 'cat'.
    5. The Nasal Theory
      This theory states that, whoa, dude, when you shine the laser up your nose, it glows like Rudolph, man! *puff*[2]
    6. The Austin Powers Theory
      This theory states that sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads are more deadly than mutated sea-bass.[3]

    And yes, I want one of these in pen form.

    [1] They go blind
    [2] I in no way condone the use of illegal drugs
    [3] Being conducted in conjunction with the Darwin Society.
    1. Re:Laser Principles by Loligo · · Score: 2

      >The Eyeball Theory
      >This theory states that no matter how large the
      >warning on the side of the laser, someone will
      >inevitably see what happens when they shine it
      >in their eye.[1]

      This just reminds me of the old joke disclaimer..

      "Do not shine laser into remaining eye"

      -LjM


    2. Re:Laser Principles by PurpleBob · · Score: 1

      How long would it take for one of those mini-lasers to make someone go blind? Because I know of a lot of stupid people who have them.
      --

      --
      Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
    3. Re:Laser Principles by grappler · · Score: 2

      The Austin Powers Theory
      This theory states that sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads are more
      deadly than mutated sea-bass.


      I assume you meant to say "laser" beams, right?

      --
      grappler

      --
      Vidi, Vici, Veni
  27. this project is good, but why Hanford?? by SEAL · · Score: 1

    I guess I should prefix this with "I am not a physicist, but..."

    Consider this quote from the article:

    However, small earthquakes, acoustic noises and laser fluctuations can cause a disturbance at one site that could lead scientists to believe they have detected a gravity wave.

    Now recall that Hanford was one of the nation's big plutonium production sites back in the day. There's still alot of waste around the site. It is also near a river (acoustic noise).

    Certainly these factors are probably much less significant than, say, earthquake-prone California. But if I were tasked with selecting a site, I think I'd prefer somewhere flat and boring. The less disturbances the better. Like I said, though, I'm not a physicist, so perhaps they feel that they can compensate for these factors.

    Best regards,

    SEAL

    1. Re:this project is good, but why Hanford?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a physicist but... you would probalby find that there are other (geometric, a la Bruce Cathie) reasons for the siting of the facility.

    2. Re:this project is good, but why Hanford?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would past Pu production have to do with anything? Do neutrons cause earthquakes?

    3. Re:this project is good, but why Hanford?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are going to parallax the data and eliminate any local effects. Of course local probably refers to at least the solar system. The gravitational effects produced from a distant black hole would be less than effects caused by a backhoe moving on the other side of the planet from the sensor.

      It's amazing how sensitive this equipment must be when you think about it. Anybody got any numbers?

  28. Dragging up what little I remember by vlax · · Score: 2

    I once had a degree in Physics and some knowledge of the subject. Now all I've got is the degree. Any better informed physicists want to take a shot at this?

    Einstein described gravity in terms of warped space/time, and the motion of particles through it as the shortest possible path through a curved space. His numbers worked (confirmed as early as the 1920's if I recall) so folks mostly bought it. Einstein hoped to express all forces as some form of curve in space, but that didn't work out for him - other forces are selective in their effects, while gravity happens to everybody.

    Now, these days we tend to view things in terms of particles. The reasons are less experimental than logical. We're not talking about tiny billiard balls hurling through space, quantum mechanical particles are a little too weird for that.

    Take the following well established notions:

    1- Energy does not exist apart from a mass (or alternately that mass and energy are the same thing - the two statements are pretty much the same.)

    2- Vacuum has no mass - it isn't a medium that can carry energy.

    3- Gravity, like the other three forces, transports energy.

    Given these three, we pretty much must conclude that gravity is transported by particles. It might be a particle which, like the photon, has zero rest mass, but if energy is moving through empty space, a particle, by definition, must be carrying it.

    Of course, saying so doesn't answer any questions at all. Why should the action of gravity particles distort space/time? If you have a good answer and experimental data to back it up, the Nobel committee has a sizeable cash prize waiting for you.

    1. Re:Dragging up what little I remember by wass · · Score: 1
      vacuum has no mass - it isn't a medium that can carry energy.

      Ummm, well how about the Voyager spacecraft travelling through space? They have mass, E=mc^2, so they thus have energy, and they surely appear to be 'carried' through this vacuum medium. Of course, one can claim that space isn't a pure vacuum but has a few hydrogen particles per cubic meter, but then again that is what light (and gravity) is travelling through from the sun anyway.

      I think you may have meant to accord with the notion that space (vacuum) has no ether, thus the logical way of explaining energy being transferred through it is as a particle, because what can the E&M or gravity waves oscillate to carry them forward?

      Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your point. It just strikes me as a not-well-understood notion (from my point of view, that is). I cannot wait to get to grad school and do E&M again (as well as GR and QM)...

      --

      make world, not war

    2. Re:Dragging up what little I remember by EricWright · · Score: 1
      1- Energy does not exist apart from a mass (or alternately that mass and energy are the same thing - the two statements are pretty much the same.)

      It's best not to even worry about mass. Photons have energy E = hf, but have no rest mass (rest being the key word, here). They can be considered to have relativistic mass (m = E/c^2) but scientists typically are interested only in the energy transport. Two photons with energy E1 and E2 can collide and create a particle - antiparticle pair with mass m1 and m2 such that (m1+m2)c^2 .le. (E1+E2). (How do you get a less than sign using html?)

      2- Vacuum has no mass - it isn't a medium that can carry energy

      Vacuum is merely a term used to describe the state in which there is a total absence of matter. The "vacuum" of outer space isn't a true vacuum, but has matter densities that are basically insignificant (intergalactic medium densities are of order 1 particle per 10^6 m^3 or so). However, EM waves pass through this "vacuum" and carry energy all the time (that's how we see distant objects). Having mass is certainly not a requirement to transmit energy, especially when you consider energy to be EM radiation, rather than discrete photons.

      3- Gravity, like the other three forces, transports energy

      No problems, here!

      Using particles and waves is merely a convenience to describe the quantum world. In fact, it takes both to accurately describe it. Case in point... Photons interact with sub-atomic particles, transmitting energy via collisions, as if photons were particles. However, particles cannot create interference patterns, waves can. So, these little guys are sometimes like waves, and sometimes like particles, depending on how you look at them.

      I for one cannot wait to see the results from LIGO. As a former (ie., I left academia last month!) astrophysicists, I can tell you that some of my colleagues were very interested in what LIGO might tell us about the behavior of massive, compact objects like binary neutron star systems and black holes.

      Eric

  29. Re:Grav wave from passing bus vs. distant black ho by astrophysics · · Score: 1

    No, the gravity waves from a passing bus or 747 are actually very small, even by LIGO's standards. However, the shaking of the earth due to seismic activity or a bus (passing very close to a detector) will be detectable. Fortunately, it's easy to model a passing bus, seismic activity can be characterized, and there is a small but significant range in which gravity waves from coallscing compact objects could be detected.

  30. True by vlax · · Score: 2

    I did neglect to consider things like quantum interference, which in principle would make a difference. It would be hard to measure though unless the experiment was designed to look for it.

  31. Gravity: a force or a wave or a particle by laertes · · Score: 5

    As far as I recall, general relativity defines gravity as the curvature of space-time. Gravity waves are the result of changes in the curvature of space time. Gravity waves are theorised have these properties:

    Gravity waves will be accompanied by gravitons, a hypothetical particle that has zero rest mass and twice the spin of a photon.

    Gravity waves and gravitons propagate outward at the speed of light.

    Gravity waves compress mass in one direction perpendicular to the direction they travel, and expand it in a direction perpendicular to both the direction of compression and direction of travel.

    Gravity waves are moving ripples in space-time.

    Black holes coliding make big gravity waves.

    Gravity waves pass through matter.

    This experiment it is trying to get empirical evidence on all of the above claims. This has been a goal of some physicists since the theory was proposed in 1916. However, this goal has previously been beyond experimenters technological reach. It takes today's most sophisticated lasers and detectors to isolate a gravity wave from far away. Any local vibrations reaching either the lasers (like noise, or earthquakes) or the detectors will be easily confused with gravity waves. However, the mass of nearby objects does not interfere, just the vibrations they produce.

    As for the design of the installation: it is in the shape of an L, because (as I mentioned before) gravity waves both compress and expand matter as they pass through it. On laser moves faster, and the other slower. This is different from a Michalson inferometer, which checks if normal gravity (that is: curvature of space-time) bends light. A Michalson inferometer isn't used to determine the nature of gravity waves.

    Gravity affects all of the universe simultaneously (although it doesn't affect it much, it does affect it). Gravity waves are held back by the speed of light limit though. So, the two installations would get waves at different times, depending on the orientation of the earth to the event.

    Of course, this is all conjecture, and that's why we US taxpayers get this installation. If this had already been proven, we wouldn't need these two new observatories.

    PS: Check out the observatories homepage for more info!

    --

    Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
  32. Orign Of The Matter by PureASM · · Score: 0

    The views:

    [Muslim Theory: Everything came from everything.]

    [Atheist Theory: Everything came from nothing.]

    [Agnostic Theory: Nothing came from everything.]

    [Jon Katz Theory: All theorys are non-sense and are really intellegent.]

    ???
  33. Server Too Busy by mcelrath · · Score: 0
    I just got served this page from this link. Think a MS server is responsible? I LOVE MICROSOFT!!! So that's how they beat linux on some web benchmarks. They serve a busy page for all requests.

    For the humor impaired: everything in bold is sarcasm

    --Bob

    --
    1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
  34. Caltech LIGO Info by ElJefe · · Score: 2

    http://ligo.caltech.edu

    Caltech's Press Release

    I don't know why their writing articles on this now. LIGO has been in the works for quite a while now.

    Just to give you an idea of how sensitive these things are: my roommate spent the summer working on calculating shifts in the earth's crust caused by the sun and moon, so that the correction factors can be applied. If I remember correctly, at one point Kip Thorne (the Feynman Professor of Physics here at Caltech) was working on correcting for the change in Earth's momentum caused by raindrops hitting the surface.

    -ElJefe

  35. Gravity does not move infinitely fast! by SL2C · · Score: 1

    Gravity waves move at the speed of light just like excitations of any other "massless field" (The field is the local geometry of spacetime itself). This "speed limit" is in fact necessary for the theory to be relativistic in the first place (i.e. not having a preferred frame of reference). The principle of (special) relativity o.t.o.h. is really well established, if gravity would violate it, we would most probably have seen the effects already (for example, in the original Michelson experiment which failed to find any velocity of the Earth w.r.t. the so-called "aether", which would have been a preferred frame, at any time of the year).

    Since gravity waves are a feature of any field theory of gravitation, such as GR, they had better be found or not only would GR be ruled out but also any theory of gravity based on our understanding of classical and quantum field theory. Although for LIGO to detect it, the waves will have to be pretty strong (some not-too far supernova for example might do). Next-generation experiments are expected to be able to detect waves that originate from more common sources such as close binaries (mentioned in an earlier post).

    On a more fundamental note, you never prove a scientific theory, you only (try to) disprove (falsify) it. In Einstein's words, "no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong."

    1. Re:Gravity does not move infinitely fast! by cybercuzco · · Score: 1
      Youre right of course, i havent been keeping up on the latest research, but on furter examination I read that indeed gravity does move at the speed of light. The implications of this are disheartening for faster than light travel, which were mostly based on using gravity to move a peice of space at huge velocities. If gravity can only move at lightspeed, it will be much harder to get around the light limit. grrr guess my warp drive will have to wait

      --

    2. Re:Gravity does not move infinitely fast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always change the laws of physics.

    3. Re:Gravity does not move infinitely fast! by SL2C · · Score: 1

      Well don't throw in the towel so quickly :-)

      Actually it might be possible to move effectively faster than light WITHIN general relativity.

      One idea is wormholes but I believe it is not clear, or rather, doubtful, that wormholes can be generated and made stable at all.

      Anyway, the speed limit is a local thing: You are not allowed to move faster than a light beam next to you, but actually if you can warp the spacetime in a clever way you could possibly travel arbitrarily fast, as seen from far away (although a light ray coming in from the behind would be even faster!)

      I remember a physicist, M. Alcubierre, describing such a "clever space-time geometry" but unfortunately I can't locate the paper on the web anymore. It's published in Class. Quant. Grav. though, in case you have access to a physics library... That paper was serious, the best thing being that the distortion needed is PURELY LOCAL, just a few meters around the "USS Enterprise". The problem was that in front of the spaceship you need a negative energy density. This is frowned upon in classical physics but possible in principle in quantum theory.

      You can also search arxiv.org (aka xxx.lanl.gov), the physics preprint archive, for the word "warp" or "warp drive"; you'll be surprised about the number of titles showing up.

    4. Re:Gravity does not move infinitely fast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ye cannae change the laws of physics
      laws of physics
      laws of physics
      ye cannae change the laws of physics
      laws of physics, jim.

      There's klingons on the starboard bow
      starboard bow
      starboard bow
      There's klingons on the starboard bow
      starboard bow, jim.

      "We come in peace" (shoot to kill)
      (shoot to kill)
      (shoot to kill)
      "We come in peace" (shoot to kill)
      (shoot to kill, men)

      There's klingons on the starboard bow
      starboard bow
      starboard bow
      There's klingons on the starboard bow
      scrape 'em off, jim!






    5. Re:Gravity does not move infinitely fast! by Fruan · · Score: 1
      NOw, the problem I see with *making* wormholes is that you need to infulence both ends ... and because you can't infulence anything outside that funny light-cone thing you have, they *still* don't let your *net* travel become faster than light!

      Now, naturaly occuring wormholes are another matter, but good luck finding one in our own back yard :o)

      --
      Shawn Poulsen (Fruan)

      "On Slashdot, many obvious things are insightful." - Annonymous Coward, 2000/7/9

  36. No medium necessary by vlax · · Score: 2

    The whole reason why we talk about forces as being particles is that particles can move through a vacuum. Electromagnetism works across a vacuum because the force is carried by a particle: the photon. Radio waves do not need a medium to travel in because they are composed of photons.

    "Gravitons" are what gravity particles are called. In principle, it works the same as radio, except with a different particle. Of course, there are important (and unexplained) differences between radio and gravity - that's what keeps physicists employed.

  37. lame "big bang" theory by lanner · · Score: 0
    Am I the only one out here who does not buy into this Big Bang theory? Since when did the universe say "START!" and "END!"? We are not talking about processes here. Never has anything been so simple.

    These scientists think too small. Where it is that one part within the universe is expanding, it is being compressed in another, just like any environment here on this plane of a world.

    1. Re:lame "big bang" theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. It seems to simple to be true. Maybe the BB theory is within our object. If so, we're not the only BB. Atoms has atoms...

    2. Re:lame "big bang" theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear hear, I couldn't agree more. The big bang THEORY is complete bollocks and is contry to all observations regarding living process on this planet (Am I allowed to think of the universe as being 'alive' too?) and the rest of our immeadite environment.

    3. Re:lame "big bang" theory by lilgorgor · · Score: 1

      guess you're too smart for us. what with our 'research' and all. we'll just let you take the helm now.

    4. Re:lame "big bang" theory by jacobm · · Score: 1

      I have always wondered what people who say things like this must think of scientists. Is the idea that at the research labs, PhD's sit around the bong taking hits and saying things like, "Whoa... dude... what if the universe, like, is the result of this huge explosion where there were all these particles and anti-particles and stuff? That would be awesome. Somebody start writing: I feel a paper coming on."

      Differing scientific opinion, based on facts, is certainly incredibly important to scientific reasoning. Differing scientific opinion in the absence of facts is just annoying.

      --
      -jacob
    5. Re:lame "big bang" theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, hawking showed that if you take time to be an imaginary number (i.e. measured as multiples of the square root of minus one), the singularities at the start and end of the universe
      vanish into -not-particularly-special points on a hypersphere.
      They are only significant when you look at them from our perspective - they're like two points on the surface of a sphere, which we happen to call the poles - you can keep going towards a pole, but eventually you find you're now going away from it.

    6. Re:lame "big bang" theory by afs · · Score: 1

      You slam "these scientists" for thinking "too small," yet here you are making a world of half-witted judgements. But the irony is likely lost on you.

      "START" reads "the first observable event";
      "END" reads "the last observable event."

      There are no assumptions about what comes "before" and "after," or what this even means in a human sense. It is undefined because we cannot (yet) know. This is very different from START being the absolute beginning of all things.

      Physicists are (surprisingly?) flexible about the nature of the universe..

    7. Re:lame "big bang" theory by lanner · · Score: 1
      Well, do not take me as an antipopular-opinion-everything. My opinion is entirely just that -- opinion. I have no facts about what I say, but feeling I do.

      And I do believe that the Big Band theory is correct; it is simply not whole. The process earth inside of the shell has defined the shell as being the universe -- completely without understanding and beyond the fact that the platform exists, sitting on someone's desk, inside of a corporate network on some strange world.

      Gosh, I hope we are on something like LINUX or Open Source. I would be really embarrassed if we were being run on a Windows system. I am getting nervous about a universal abend here.

      Damn it Jesse, stop thinking!

  38. Waste of money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This observatory is the first step in the gravity wave research program. 5 km gravitational observatory suppose to follow and goal is 7.5 km. So generally speaking it is huge waste of money. Plus at the same time there are other techniques which suppose to provide ability to detect gravity waves. They include observation of the effect of the gravity wave on ionized gases. Latter approaches allows to build observatory for about 3 million $ only. But they require serious theoretical researches to be conducted first. Such researches has been done in Russia. So now russian scientists are trying to gather enough money to build observatory which will cost much cheaper then 300 millions $. Only problem is that it is easier to get 300 millions from US governament than 300 thousands $ from Russian.....

  39. you mean "pork BARREL" by Mr.+Nedd · · Score: 1
    Ermm. Just for future reference, you should know the difference. Pork belly = bacon. Pork Barrel = public works projects given to a congressmans district. Pork belly = delicious for all except the Jewish, the Muslim and the vegetarian. Pork Barrel = great for those who get paid for it, slightly irritating for those who don't.

    pork belly

    pork barrel

    we clear?

    1. Re:you mean "pork BARREL" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks Mr. Nedd I am now in the no.

  40. Bad Flashback by vlax · · Score: 2

    All the way to my quantum mechanics final exam.

    I can't even remember where to begin to calculate the photon density in the field. If I did, I might be able to work that half out (although I'd probably get the wrong answer - seem to recall not doing that well on my quantum final either.)

    The interference from a field that's parallel to the beam sure as hell won't be much. Of course at the edges it won't be parallel... I think I'll need some extra paper.

    Thank God I quit physics. :^)

  41. Alcubierre warps by vlax · · Score: 2

    Alcubierre's homepage (http://www.astro.cf.ac.u k/pub/Miguel.Alcubierre/index.html) has a broken link to the paper itself. I can't find another copy.

    The New Scientist has an article about it here.

  42. Gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We may or may not have an experimental machine that can create fields of artificially altered gravity (the effect diminishes with distance). We can or cannot alter gravity by up to 5%.

  43. Warp travel links by SL2C · · Score: 1

    The warp paper mentioned in my other post is at

    http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/doc/alcubierre/


    Also there is a news article mentioning some of the ideas at

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid _364000/364496.stm

  44. Space has an Elasticity by kevlar · · Score: 1


    One thing I find interesting by this fact, is that since gravitational waves travel at the speed of light, space therefore has an elasticity.

    For example, if a huge black hole were to open up where the sun is, and engulf it, the Earth wouldn't feel the effects of it for 7 minutes (I think its 7 minutes at c to the Sun?). I find that pretty cool.

  45. Gravity Probe B by QuantumET · · Score: 3

    For people interested in tests of general relativity...

    Gravity Probe B is a satellite that will be launched in a few years' time. It plans to check for one untested prediction of general relativity (the frame-dragging effect of massive spinning objects like the earth) by placing several hyperaccurate gyroscopes in orbit and measuring the change in the rotation axis of those gyroscopes from this effect.

    It's been under works for 30 years now... here's the website for the project.

    The whole system has to be incredibly accurate... I worked with this over the summer, and the technical details are scary (for example, the gyros used are the smoothest spheres ever made by man... if they were expanded to the size of the earth, the greatest height difference between valleys and peaks would be about 16 ft)

    1. Re:Gravity Probe B by Robert+Link · · Score: 2

      ...the technical details are scary...

      Indeed. Gravitational effects tend to be miniscule, so any noise in the system tends to kill you. Only by filtering out virtually everything can you hope to see the signal from gravitational physics. To give an example from LIGO, the displacements of the test masses in LIGO are roughly 10^-16 cm, or about 10^-8 of the diameter of a hydrogen atom. An interesting bit of trivia Kip Thorne mentioned in one talk he gave was that the test masses behave classically in LIGO I, but by the time LIGO II comes along quantum mechanical effects will start to become measurable. That means that if LIGO II comes to pass, it will be the first time that the quantum mechanical behavior of a macroscopic object has been observed directly. Amazing stuff indeed.


      -r

  46. HEMOS - LEARN TO SPELL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want me to come over to your house and "concer" hour head? I you can't spell, at least be the geek you profess to be and use a tool to do it for you. -Duh.

  47. So let me get this right... by TrentC · · Score: 1

    Thy're going to take an object and multiply it by the square of the speed of light to get some energy?

    Jay (=

  48. They try the same in Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AFAIk they are building an equal experiment near Hannover/Germany, and another one somewhere in the UK. I think the german experiment is ccalled GEO (sorry, don't know the URL), and they want to present the first results at the Expo2000.

    1. Re:They try the same in Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, I found the URL - well, not exactly, but try this linklist at the Albert-Einstein-Institut.

  49. not directly observed yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This astronomical observation just proved that massively orbiting bodies obey Einstein's laws of motion, rather than Newton's. Einstein predicts a different orbital decay rate.

  50. No, there are closely competing theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which predict some or near Einstein's effects, but not exactly. Physics Today mention some in their October issue.

  51. building for 15 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard planning lectures at CalTech in the late 1980s. Budget problems since then slowed it down. People have tried to kill it like the Superconducting Super Collider, but not successful.

  52. mostly politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the scientists work at Caltech and MIT, so these were more logical sites. However strong Congressmen from these WA and LA wanted to spread big science money around. I believe there were about six finalist suitable sites before the choice.

  53. Your wrong about Michelson's experimental results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from "The Ether Drift and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth," by D. C. Miller, Rev. Modern Physics, Vol. 5, p. 232, July 1933, Michelson correctly concluded that the solar system was sailing in a southerly direction, toward Dorado (-70deg x 5hr.right) through the ether at 203 km per sec. His greatest problem was gravity of the earth and its effect on the horizontal rigidity/stability of his machine. Several interferometers were built, but they were all deployed in the north american continent. The ideal location to measure this motion on the surface of the earth would be somewhere along an "equatorial axis" to this etheric motion. Maurice Allais corroborated some of Michelson-Morley experiments in 1955, with his observations of the anomalies of paraconical pendulums during lunar eclipses.

  54. How does the curve of the earth effect this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do the tests take into account the curvature of the earth. 2 miles alows alot of change.

  55. yea, by Wah · · Score: 1

    it'll give us a chance to escape...
    :-s

    --
    +&x
    1. Re:yea, by shogun · · Score: 1

      Well not much really, since you also would not notice that anything has happened for those 7 or 8 minutes...

  56. Re:How about space probes? -> It's called LISA by Robert+Link · · Score: 1
    There is a proposal to do just what you describe. It's called LISA, short for Laser Space Interferometer Antenna. ESA has a LISA web page that gives all the gory details. Note that the big win from going into space is not getting away from the planet's gravity, as you might guess at first, but getting away from mechanical vibrations induced by being in contact with the ground. Gravitational wave disturbances produced by movements within the earth are negligible, even to a device with the LIGO's extreme sensitivity.


    As you might imagine, the major obstacle to LISA is the expense of the thing. I suspect that the success (or lack thereof) of LIGO will have a big impact on whether LISA ever gets funded. However, all the signals that we know are out there (coalescing neutron stars and the like) are likely to be too weak to detect with LIGO I (only the most optimistic estimates give an appreciable event rate with LIGO I). If LIGO II gets funded, then it will almost certainly see some events, and that could renew interest in LISA. LIGO II isn't scheduled to begin installation until 2004 (assuming it gets funded at all), so I expect we won't see a space-based gravitational wave observatory until sometime after then.


    -r

  57. Re:Gravity Probe B - aethernet? *snicker* by Ripp · · Score: 1

    Seriously, though....

    If they were to find that there were some frame-dragging effects, wouldn't this throw a humongous monkey wrench into the whole 'there is no aether' thing?

    The way I was taught, *There was no "aether"*

    To me, any indication of reference frame dragging would indicate otherwise. Maybe not *exactly* the same thing that the MM experiement "disproves", but still.....

    --
    Blech. Signatures.
  58. Re:annoying-asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey fuck you

  59. In case you didn't know by Dark+Ramon · · Score: 1

    I'm kind of surprised that they left out the whole reason for producing LIGO. Its primary purpose is not to prove that gravitational waves exist. We're pretty darn sure of that already. The stated goal of LIGO is to devise a way to make a gravitational wave "telescope". The idea is that you can cross index electromagnetic phemonema with gravitational waves and build up a database of types of celestial events, eventually to the point where you can tell what was happening on the other side of the galaxy without searching for electromagnetic signs. Because gravitational waves can pass through objects relatively uneffected, they have the potential to make observations of phenomena that are farther than our telescopes can reach or that are interfered with by other events. Check out www.ligo.caltech.edu/ to get it straight from the horse's mouth.

    --
    "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member" - Groucho Marx
  60. Ever been to Hanford? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I'd prefer somewhere flat and boring If you have ever been to Hanford, you know that it is flat and boring (not that I expect many people have been there). I actually had a chance to tour LIGO at Hanford last spring. It was super cool, to say the least. One of the reasons they chose Hanford was the sheer size of the reservation there. They don't have to worry about major consturction in the area, the nearest building to LIGO was about 2-3 miles away at least (The FFTF in fact, also a cool place to see). The place in Louisiana is the same way, it's in the middle of a tree farm or something like that, so they only worry about the occasional logging crew every 50-75 years or so. The idea is not having the ground move too much. The coolest thing is seeing those concrete tunnles stretching out 2.5 miles in the desert. As I recall, the variations they wanted to measure were on the order of 1/1000th the width of a proton. (I could be way off on this, it's been over 6 months, but it was small.) When I was there they were in the process of building the thing. They have some massive stainless steel vacuum chambers there for the lasers. Very cool stuff. I only wish some of my pictures had come out better, especially of the inside. -C.M. Reed P.S. It's not acoustic noise you need to worry about, its any exterraneous ground movement other than what you want to see caused by gravitational waves.

  61. Event rates and LIGO 2 by -Set- · · Score: 2
    I saw a talk, given by a prominent astrophysicist at Harvard, at university last year concerning the event rates for the current and forthcoming generations of LIGO. Apparently, for this incarnation of LIGO, with the sensitivity of the electronics available, there will be approximately 2 events recorded over the life of the detector. Yes, two events, ever. This takes into account the probability that a sufficiently massive gravitational interaction (two black holes ramming into each other, or the inspiral of two neutron stars) occurs sufficiently close to the Earth that we can detect it.

    Y'all should know, though, that the next generations of LIGO are already "in the slot", and they promise to increase the event rates quite a bit. The whole trick is to isolate the mirrors as much as possible from disturbances that aren't gravity waves. Fortunately, there are very clever people working on the problem as we speak.

    BTW...perhaps the best isolation would be to shoot the whole Michelson interferometer mess up into orbit. I'm pretty sure that some guys at NASA are working on this too. It's worthwhile to check out the LIGO page. Set

  62. Magnetic field -> gravitational field ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you saying that a magnetic field can create a gravitational field ?

    1. Re:Magnetic field -> gravitational field ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever tryed to produce a electric feld without getting a magnetic feld as well???

    2. Re:Magnetic field -> gravitational field ? by David+A.+Madore · · Score: 1

      Of course. A magnetic field has energy, which is the same as mass under relativity, and anything which has mass produces a gravitational field. And light does get deflected by gravitational fields. This is utterly negligible, of course, but then, so are the quantum interferences.

  63. Why just check 2 dimensions ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they only interested in gravity waves from certain directions ?

    1. Re:Why just check 2 dimensions ? by lowsix · · Score: 1

      Just a guess, but setting up a tunnel on the order of a kilometer deep or up would be pretty tough.

      Also with multiple detectors on the earth this is quite easily accomplished and may already be incorporated into the current plan.

      Wow I got to post.

      Lou

  64. too bad Kip isn't doing LIGO anymore... by moller · · Score: 1

    He said something about it, like he doesn't want to work on a big government funded project or something. So he's doing superstring theory now and little things that give the rest of us nosebleeds. On the plus side, if I were a phys major I could take a class from him. :)

  65. Related links. by Edwin+Oostra · · Score: 1

    Here's the link to another group doing research in this field:

    http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/gravwave/index.html

    And here's a quick overview of the timeline of this field of research:

    http://www.gsu.edu/other/timeline/gravity.html

    --
    Beware of Wight Supremacists!
  66. Louisiana Influences by Greg+Merchan · · Score: 1

    From what I hear:

    The facility has a fence at a fairly large distance away. Not because of the sensitivity of the experiment though, but to cut down on the number of bullets entering the facility. Yup, locals apparently can't tell the difference between a building and an animal. Or maybe they were shooting at animals (humans are too). Or are they just really bad shots? No, wait! It gets better! I'm in the cafe and there's this guy telling me about some eerie government facility that seems to be top secret, hush hush and all that. On and on he goes with conspiracy theory...
    Suddenly he identifies the facility (by location)- you guessed it - LIGO. (He didn't know the name)
    Apparently the fence is what aroused suspicion among the locals.

  67. Try this dopey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To save you and your buddy some of your honest to god time and $$$ you can duplicate this on a much smaller scale by putting a magnet near your monitor, see what it does to the image??? Yep, that's the effect a magnetic field has on light passing through a vacuum (the crt). It aint freaky, its simple Physics 1.0.1.

  68. Louisiana is a great place by johnhebert · · Score: 1

    Hey, I have a sense of humor.

    Down here in Louisiana, we like to pass a good time, so I'll let that remark slide. But we also like to work hard, whether it is on a backhoe (yeah, I've done that) or detecting gravity waves (I'm going to the dedication today, just down the road).

    And as a proud citizen of Louisiana, I challenge your lamer ass to a game of Dune2000. Weenie.


    --
    "Classic UFO's ... crafts for kids..." Interpretations from
  69. Uhhhh.. Who's the dopey one?!? by Darby · · Score: 1

    A CRT doesn't shoot light, it shoots Cathode Rays otherwise known as electrons. These, unlike photons do have an electrical charge.
    ---CONFLICT!!---

  70. Not long enough... by Fastolfe · · Score: 1