Gravity: Making Waves Videos

r06u3AP Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - Just one problem - the spacetime interval is frame invariant. Which means that you can't use a local speed of light measurement in an inertial frame to detect changes in interferometer arm length (or, equivalently, changes in light speed). That would mean that the laws of physics change according to gravitational intensity which would violate Relativity.

r06u3AP Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - Besides, we already have a wonderful 'gravity wave' detector. It's called 'tides'. I feel pretty safe in assuming that the H2O molecules in the oceans move quite a bit further than a nuclear width.A third of a billion dollars spent on LIGO, but it can't even see the MOON???Tell me this isn't a government project!

r06u3AP Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - If you could see a change in the propagation times of light in that manner, we would have been seeing a variation in the speed of light of about 24.8 hours period in every interferometer throughout the world for the past 100 years.

BrunoTheQuestionable Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - LIGO is most sensitive to GWs between about 60Hz to 1kHz. A period of 24 hours is WAAAY outside its detection range.

r06u3AP Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - Hmm, that seems strange, why should there be a 60 Hz low frequency response cutoff?

BrunoTheQuestionable Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - The arm length seems to be the critical factor. Simulation of the LISA observatory with an arm length a million times that of LIGO show best sensitivity between about 0.002Hz to 0.02Hz.

r06u3AP Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - Well, even so, you'd think that an instrument that should detect changes down to a fraction of an atomic nucleus width should be affected by the strongest signal in our neighborhood, that causes entire oceans to rise and fall! I wonder if they can build an interferometer that is resonant at 11.2 microHz, just as a proof of concept?

BrunoTheQuestionable Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - It is sensitive to the condition where one arm increases in length, while the other decreases in length. This would be characteristic of a GW passing perpendicular to the plane of the detector. It makes sense that it would be most sensitive when the arm length is equal to the wavelength of the GW.

BrunoTheQuestionable Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - Sounds like an interesting spare time project for RoadRunnerLaser !

r06u3AP Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - Even if one arm is perpendicular to the line pointing to the moon and the other arm is parallel to it? OK, let's build a small interferometer on a vertical turntable, spin it at it's resonant frequency and see if we actually see a gravity-induced change in the speed of light between the arms. It can even have four arms, for balance! Money is obviously no object!

BrunoTheQuestionable Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - Interesting - an Earth detector !Maybe you're right. I don't think a resonant system would be necessary though with such a strong signal. I wonder what length change we would be looking for ? Time for some research.

vhbeazel Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - are the tides due to water or magma? who can tell? we suspected in 1991 that the tides are em resonance effect on molten metal...far greater than the movement of water. What do you think?

allentazwell Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - newton is/was correctalbert is wrong.billions to prove newton wrongthe cost of apple to prove him correct.gravity radiates from the atom, if it sounds to good to be wrongchances are it ain't.

airc123 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - 2 dimentional to measure a 3 dimentiona?Yea space is contracted and expanded in all directions. The GW is not polerized!

airc123 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - You do not need alot of mass rember as at the speed of mass goes to infinity

Etimespace Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - If you look at galaxy, you understand that in the galaxy energy is denser as outside the galaxy . When you go galaxy inside and you look at star, you understand remote in the star energy is denser as because of outside. In the atoms' cores energy is denser as atomic outside the core . Energy in protons / neutron is denser as their outside, and so on. Outside the visible macrocosm, is energiconcentration in which energy much denser as in the visible macrocosm.

r06u3AP Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - I have to retract that earlier statement, I now have a better understanding of how the system works. My apologies.

r06u3AP Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - I take this one back. LIGO isn't looking for changes in light speed and there isn't a violation of Relativity. I do wonder how they settled on a 26 pound mass for the mirrors, though.

zloben9000 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - this is a STUPID IDEA..if there were waves there would be resistance and the MOON WOULD FALL DOWN !

zloben9000 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - because making waves would consume energy |!

LifesVoyager Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - What a long way we are from understanding gravity.

clubber001 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - fucking morrons you are just some ignorant people trying to look smart and cant come up with anything new imbeciles who can not see the world trying to explain everything in the same same old way and that`s why you will never be able to do it ...

anarchopinko Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - ? Every prediction made by GR has been confirmed - this will be the last one. What are you talking about. How does gravity radiate from an atom?

anarchopinko Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - He says as he types on his computer made possible by QM...as he uses his GPS made possible by GR. Are these the same old ways?

elizabethjamespenyla Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - don't waves cause oftentimes things to come up on shore?