Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers



LIGO The Absurdity of Detecting Gravitational Waves




Encap

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2011
Messages
6,043
Points
113
Here's a video explaining how the LIGO interferometer works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iphcyNWFD10

I can understand the "Absurdity " comment.

Was the gravitational-wave experiment worth its $1.1-billion of public fundng cost if it merely confirms that Einstein was right?
As one historian of technology put it: “So a 100 year old theory has been confirmed experimentally--big whup. Did anyone think Einstein was wrong? There wasn't any controversy, was there? Was anyone credible claiming that spacetime isn't curved, or that black holes don't exist? I can get that this was quite an experimental trick and technological feat… But this isn't doing anything to convince me that public funds spent on this stuff wouldn't be better spent on medical research. Or clean fuels, or any number of things that would apply scientific expertise toward justice or the alleviation of human suffering." See: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-the-gravitational-wave-claim-true-and-was-it-worth-the-cost/

Big money projects/programs = job security for scientists---the bigger the better even if just interesting to a few people but of no practical value or use.

Is always the case---the eternal seach for funding----the money wave -- no funding no job, no fun, no life.

I have seen so many programs where all the funding is used for is to generate more programs/efforts that all need funding --if a problem is solved or question mark fully resolved, the job is over/finished.
 
Last edited:

steve001

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
2,492
Points
113
I can understand the "Absurdity " comment.

Was the gravitational-wave experiment worth its $1.1-billion of public fundng cost if it merely confirms that Einstein was right?
As one historian of technology put it: “So a 100 year old theory has been confirmed experimentally--big whup. Did anyone think Einstein was wrong? There wasn't any controversy, was there? Was anyone credible claiming that spacetime isn't curved, or that black holes don't exist? I can get that this was quite an experimental trick and technological feat… But this isn't doing anything to convince me that public funds spent on this stuff wouldn't be better spent on medical research. Or clean fuels, or any number of things that would apply scientific expertise toward justice or the alleviation of human suffering." See: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-the-gravitational-wave-claim-true-and-was-it-worth-the-cost/

Big money projects/programs = job security for scientists---the bigger the better even if just interesting to a few peole but of no practical value or use.

Is always the case---the eternal seach for funding----the money wave -- no funding no job, no fun, no life.

I have seen so many programs where all the funding is used for is to generate more programs/efforts that all need funding --if the problem is solved the job is over/finished.
Perhaps all big science should be done away with if there's no immediately apparent application, but then I'm reminded of the first ruby laser, a device that had no practical application when it was first invented. I'm glad people with your perspective aren't in control.
 

Encap

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2011
Messages
6,043
Points
113
You are the one who put up a thread w. video called " LIGO The Absurdity of Detecting Gravitational Waves" --not me.

After looking into the LIGO history I simply said I can understand why the word "Absurdity", which is an unusual word to use, based on reading a few articles by people who questioned the level of public funding and/or the science, so I put a link to one of the articles.

I am not at all against research and development or experimentation or progress in science.
At the same time all businesses are driven by money and there are abuses in every business and the "scientist" and "science programs" business is no different.

As I mentioned I have seen the abuses of the system and the kind of thing that goes on up close and people funding programs have to be careful with money or thngs can easily get out of control.
If you have no experience with the abuses that can and do go on then you don't know about or see that side.
I am very familiar with a famous national laboratory where many "scientists" there have a motto of "why use anything else when gold will do" who have used huge amounts of gold in fabricating equipment when many much lower cost materials could have been used. They did it to drive up the value of the program they were doing for purposes of funding next year. Nobody cares about a $1million dollar program but make it $10 or $20 million and it gets noticed.

There are good and bad sides to the "scientist" business--especially when people and large or potentialy large/huge amounts of money are involved---that is why I said I can understand why the word unusual word "Absurdity" was used.

Anyway at best LIGO is controversial as well as being expensive--- see: The Great 'gravitational-waves' hoax debunked
The article's editors note says: " "Was the “gravitational-wave experiment” worth its $1.1 billion cost to the tax payer ? Is there any substance to the outlandish claims seen across MSM headlines recently about those elusive “gravitational waves” supposedly detected? The answer is, of course, NO.
The detailed rebuttal below proves the whole thing is yet another money-making scam courtesy of government sponsored “science”. "

If you google the subject there are a lot articles on both sides.

Gravity Waves are not a law, it is still a theory. Like a lot of science it is how you interpret the data.
We will have to see what comes of LIGO in the future --- one thing is for sure--it's going to cost a mountain of money
 
Last edited:

Alaskan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
12,967
Points
113
Someone say mountain of money? Where? I want to work on that project and take some for myself, like rats after the cheese.... or is it pie? I like laser science, but 1 billion could be better spent on other science projects, I think.
 

steve001

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
2,492
Points
113
You are the one who put up a thread w. video called " LIGO The Absurdity of Detecting Gravitational Waves" --not me.

After looking into the LIGO history I simply said I can understand why the word "Absurdity", which is an unusual word to use, based on reading a few articles by people who questioned the level of public funding and/or the science, so I put a link to one of the articles.

I am not at all against research and development or experimentation or progress in science.
At the same time all businesses are driven by money and there are abuses in every business and the "scientist" and "science programs" business is no different.

As I mentioned I have seen the abuses of the system and the kind of thing that goes on up close and people funding programs have to be careful with money or thngs can easily get out of control.
If you have no experience with the abuses that can and do go on then you don't know about or see that side.
I am very familiar with a famous national laboratory where many "scientists" there have a motto of "why use anything else when gold will do" who have used huge amounts of gold in fabricating equipment when many much lower cost materials could have been used. They did it to drive up the value of the program they were doing for purposes of funding next year. Nobody cares about a $1million dollar program but make it $10 or $20 million and it gets noticed.

There are good and bad sides to the "scientist" business--especially when people and large or potentialy large/huge amounts of money are involved---that is why I said I can understand why the word unusual word "Absurdity" was used.

Anyway at best LIGO is controversial as well as being expensive--- see: The Great 'gravitational-waves' hoax debunked
The article's editors note says: " "Was the “gravitational-wave experiment” worth its $1.1 billion cost to the tax payer ? Is there any substance to the outlandish claims seen across MSM headlines recently about those elusive “gravitational waves” supposedly detected? The answer is, of course, NO.
The detailed rebuttal below proves the whole thing is yet another money-making scam courtesy of government sponsored “science”. "

If you google the subject there are a lot articles on both sides.

Gravity Waves are not a law, it is still a theory. Like a lot of science it is how you interpret the data.
We will have to see what comes of LIGO in the future --- one thing is for sure--it's going to cost a mountain of money
That's part of the title of the video which apparently you didn't watch. I added the anagram LIGO because people would recognize it's about how a laser is used to see gravitational waves. I think you should complain to Veritasium about the title and you should contact Prof. Rana Adhikari LSC - LIGO Scientific Collaboration to tell him what you think.
I wonder how much money you waste on lasers? And you aren't doing any experiments I imagine to justify the expenditure. I bet you are great fun to be around.
 

steve001

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
2,492
Points
113
I like laser science, but 1 billion could be better spent on other science projects, I think.
Such as.
Do you understand the purpose of this machine other than the obvious detection of gravitational waves?
Are you aware there a broader technological applications to other areas of science and engineering...? If not take a look at the LIGO site.
 

Alaskan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
12,967
Points
113
I am, but I have other things I'd rather have that money spent on, that's all, personal preferences.
 

Encap

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2011
Messages
6,043
Points
113
That's part of the title of the video which apparently you didn't watch. I added the anagram LIGO because people would recognize it's about how a laser is used to see gravitational waves. I think you should complain to Veritasium about the title and you should contact Prof. Rana Adhikari LSC - LIGO Scientific Collaboration to tell him what you think.
I wonder how much money you waste on lasers? And you aren't doing any experiments I imagine to justify the expenditure. I bet you are great fun to be around.

I don't know where the irrational juvenile type personal attacks on me come from, why or what they are really about so I won't comment on that other than to say it is displaced meaningless emotion driven nonsense - your imagination getting the best of you.

LIGO is public/government funded program, funded with tax dollars, not money any of the people involved in LIGO earned or had available for personal use or purchases. They spent government handouts amounting to $1.1billion which I thought excessive based on what that amount can do in the real world-just personal opinion-nothing more.
If what you are saying is the only thing better than money is other people's money, I can see the reality and humor of that, in this case, I guess.
Anyone can spend any amount of money and look pretty good while doing it. It takes no talent or ability at all to lose any amount of money. Even a chimpanzee could spend $1billion, look pretty good while doing it, and benefit a lot of people with it--no doubt.

It was an interesting topic and post and I gave you a +rep for posting it with the comment "interesting but expensive feat" so whatever your issue is, it's not with me.

PS Of course I watched the video-- Veritasium says in his introduction: "That's a simple enough story to tell but what I found...is that it hides the absurdity of what was required to make that detection"
I was agreeing with that comment and agreeing with the title of your thread.

As I mentioned above " We will have to see what comes of LIGO in the future --- one thing is for sure--it's going to cost a mountain of money" or better said "other people's money"

I am, but I have other things I'd rather have that money spent on, that's all, personal preferences.

Exactly my take also.
 

Benm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
8,113
Points
113
I don't mind spending on this type of research. Problem is that it's just very expensive work to do, similar to the LHC that cost something around 10 billion dollars to construct and operate, but has to some degree demonstrated the higgs boson today.

Fundamental scientific research will become more and more expensive, just because all the affordable work has been done already. You can build equipment to detect and characterise the electron for a month's salary if you still had to today, but the more exotic things get, the more expensive they become.

This does not mean no practical application will come from the research though. We have no real use for higgs bosons as it is, but the material science gained in constructing the LHC could very well be useful for constructing fusion reactors, which are developed not that far from the LHC site as we speak.
 

Accutronitis

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2016
Messages
1,414
Points
0
Gravity Waves are not a law, it is still a theory. Like a lot of science it is how you interpret the data.

I not sure you understand the weight a "theory" holds over a "law" in science ?

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman's terms, if something is said to be "just a theory," it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook's law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
 
Last edited:

Alaskan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
12,967
Points
113
http://www.kchemistry.com/PDF's/LawTheoryHy.pdf

I'd much rather see you speak for yourself at a lower quality of information than cut and paste whole pages from a web site. It's just too easy! Although I must admit, I cut and paste to bring information here too, but without exception put the link on the page too. Some might want to see the article with pictures :)
 
Last edited:

Accutronitis

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2016
Messages
1,414
Points
0
Well I wasn't talking to you but thanks for your opinion on the use of cut and paste......
 

Encap

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2011
Messages
6,043
Points
113
I not sure you understand the ..... phenomena.

Sure I do, however, LPM is not a forum of scientists. Glad you understand what I meant about detection of gravity waves vis a vis LIGO using common everyday language--not a law/fact just a prediction.

LIGO and it's result are controversial despite the amazing amount of money spent and hype that might lead someone to think otherwise which is just like hype the last time "gravity waves" were detected by the BICEP2 people which turned out to be --polarized dust emission within our galaxy--not gravity waves.

Remains to be seen what LIGO actually detected and where the research goes from this point forward--there are several alternative explainations

We shall see. As I mentioned now twice " We will have to see what comes of LIGO in the future --- one thing is for sure--it's going to cost a mountain of money" or better said "other people's money" The problem with other people's money is that eventually you run out of other people's money also, so...
 
Last edited:

Accutronitis

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2016
Messages
1,414
Points
0
Encap why did you bother to quote me if you were going to change what is said to something I didn't say in the quote ?

Your quote shows me saying "I not sure you understand the ..... phenomena."

But what I actually said was "I not sure you understand the weight a "theory" holds over a "law" in science ?"

If you change what I really said it's not a quote anymore, is it ?

And why are you answering a question I really didn't ask before you changed what I asked ?
 
Last edited:

Alaskan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
12,967
Points
113
Members keep irritating you here it seems, he probably didn't intend on that ending up to be read as a direct quote, I can't imagine that intention. Probably was trying to paraphrase the way he interpreted the statement but it ended up inside the quote, in error.
 




Top