Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) On 2/26/2016 at 11:04 PM, StringJunky said: What things 'are' is of no consequence in science. All that matters is that those things have measurable parameters. What they were looking for WRT gravitational waves is changes in distance-with-time between the two arms at each of the two LIGO observatories. I am not sure that I can personally accept that " What things 'are' is of no consequence in science. All that matters is that those things have measurable parameters." One would never climb out of a hole , if you were completely unaware one was in a hole , unless you could visually step back and see that you were in a hole . You would carry on about your business as a ' mole ' underground eating worms , or whatever moles eat , and leading a happy life as a mole . Perhaps there is a whole big world or universe or even bigger entity out there to be discovered. But to do that we need to figuratively see ' what things really are ' , yes , no ? I personally think this is important when we are dealing with some of these colossal investigations of the Universe at large . Mike Edited February 28, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
StringJunky Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) On 2/28/2016 at 9:04 AM, Mike Smith Cosmos said: I am not sure that I can personally accept that " What things 'are' is of no consequence in science. All that matters is that those things have measurable parameters." One would never climb out of a hole , if you were completely unaware one was in a hole , unless you could visually step back and see that you were in a hole . You would carry on about your business as a ' mole ' underground eating worms , or whatever moles eat , and leading a happy life as a mole . Perhaps there is a whole big world or universe or even bigger entity out there to be discovered. But to do that we need to figuratively see ' what things really are ' , yes , no ? I personally think this is important when we are dealing with some of these colossal investigations of the Universe at large . Mike AFAIU if one can't measure it it's not science. I think what something is ontologically for a scientist is the equations and formulae derived from what they measure. Edited February 28, 2016 by StringJunky
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) On 2/28/2016 at 11:32 AM, StringJunky said: AFAIU if one can't measure it it's not science..What happens if you do not yet know what to measure , and how to measure it ? It does not stop it existing , or being hyper important to our next step in understanding the Universe and how it works ? Does it ? Mike Edited February 28, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
StringJunky Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) On 2/28/2016 at 11:37 AM, Mike Smith Cosmos said: . What happens if you do not yet know what to measure , and how to measure it ? It does not stop it existing , or being hyper important to our next step in understanding the Universe and how it works ? Does it ? Mike It's speculation until you can measure it. Consider that, for 100 years gravitational waves didn't exist until they were actually measured. It's the only wave to separate fact from figments of our imagination. Edited February 28, 2016 by StringJunky
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) On 2/28/2016 at 11:44 AM, StringJunky said: It's speculation until you can measure it. Consider that, for 100 years gravitational waves didn't exist until they were actually measured. It's the only wave to separate fact from figments of our imagination.Yes , but it took someone with imagination to think , maybe Einstein " , well now "said Einstein ," there are electro magnetic waves , because they were predicted by others including maxwell. And we now use them in Radio Communication. So just maybe , gravity has waves in this ' general theory of relativity , that I have just produced . Now I need to see if I can predict ( Gravity Waves ) to go with this Theory " . Einstein must have said . And now nearly a 100 years later there is something to measure . And LIGO has measured something ? Mike Edited February 28, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/28/2016 at 1:07 PM, Mike Smith Cosmos said: Yes , but it took someone with imagination to think , maybe Einstein " , well now "said Einstein ," there are electro magnetic waves , because they were predicted by others including maxwell. And we now use them in Radio Communication. So just maybe , gravity has waves in this ' general theory of relativity , that I have just produced . Now I need to see if I can predict ( Gravity Waves ) to go with this Theory " . Einstein must have said . And now nearly a 100 years later there is something to measure . And LIGO has measured something ? Mike Maybe he did that, but I don't recall that being mentioned as the impetus in what I've read. More likely he came up with the framework, i.e. the mathematical model, and he saw (or others saw) that this phenomenon (gravitational waves) was a prediction. There are many examples of this approach in physics.
StringJunky Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/28/2016 at 4:11 PM, swansont said: Maybe he did that, but I don't recall that being mentioned as the impetus in what I've read. More likely he came up with the framework, i.e. the mathematical model, and he saw (or others saw) that this phenomenon (gravitational waves) was a prediction. There are many examples of this approach in physics. I think Einstein changed his mind twice about them existing after his theory predicted them.
Pugdaddy Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 Would the Gravitational wave cause the NIST-F2 atomic clock in Bolder, CO to lose/gain time? Just curious.
imatfaal Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 On 3/15/2016 at 7:42 PM, Pugdaddy said: Would the Gravitational wave cause the NIST-F2 atomic clock in Bolder, CO to lose/gain time? Just curious. If they gained or lost a measureable/noticeable amount of time and as we already know that orientation and position matter for gravitational wave detection then we could construct a really neat and easy gravitational wave detector by setting up a small array of atomic clocks at different angles and inclinations. As they actually built vast underground interferometers I am guessing that the aforementioned atomic clock detector wouldn't work at today's accuracy - if at all. And if you are lucky you might soon receive a pretty amazingly accurate answer about the atomic clocks in Washington USNO
Unity+ Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) Time to start creating space surf boards for gravity surfing(bad joke). Edited March 15, 2016 by Unity+
imatfaal Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 On 3/17/2016 at 2:31 PM, Pugdaddy said: I found this, http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00996 Perfect - good spot.
Pugdaddy Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I read the PDF file... well sort of. The math is beyond my capability, but I think I got the jist of it. The interferometer method measures change in spacial distance between the test masses and the atomic clock method measures change in the tick rates of the atomic clocks. Sound right? Can they really quantum entangle the clocks to achieve improved timing precision?
Recommended Posts