Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Could This Bold New Technique Boost Gravitational-Wave Detection? ( 32

Slashdot reader astroengine writes: One of the most expensive, complex and problematic components in gravitational wave detectors like the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) — which made the first, historic detection of these ripples in space-time in September 2015 — is the 4-kilometer-long vacuum chambers that house all the interferometer optics. But what if this requirement for ground-based gravitational wave detectors isn't required? This suggestion has been made by a pair of physicists at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) who are developing a method that could allow extremely sensitive interferometers to operate in the "open air."

Their work, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, uses the weird quantum properties of light to counteract interference from turbulence in the air to allow interferometer measurements to be made. Their method, which is a variation on the classic Young's double-slit experiment, has been demonstrated in a tabletop experiment — but gravitational wave scientists are skeptical that it could be scaled up to remove sophisticated vacuums from their detectors.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Could This Bold New Technique Boost Gravitational-Wave Detection?

Comments Filter:
  • Clickbait (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Sunday March 11, 2018 @08:51AM (#56242237) Homepage

    Dear slashdot editor,

    Fuck you and your fucking clickbait-style headline.
    I have read neither the fucking summary nor the fucking article because fuck you.

    kind regards,
    Go fuck yourself.

    • i'm out of mod points, but +1 this.

    • What is so "click bait" about this topic? It appears to be a very interesting concept.
      • Re:Clickbait (Score:4, Insightful)

        by chihowa ( 366380 ) on Sunday March 11, 2018 @03:05PM (#56243463)

        It's not the topic, which is interesting, but the headline that is bullshit clickbait. "Could this one weird trick boost gravitational-wave detection?"

        More and more headlines are reading like that and I find myself coming here less and less. (Interestingly, since I rarely come here, I get mod points every time and use them instead of posting. Posting less, I get fewer responses and less of a pull to engage in discussion, which makes me come even less. Negative feedback loop...)

    • Please, don't hold back: tell us how you REALLY feel.

      Seriously though wow the bar for people whining has got low. We have an article which is really only of interest to nerds. And you're complaining. Perhaps the new tag line should be Slashdot: fuck the articles, we're going to whinge.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11, 2018 @08:51AM (#56242239)

    Clickbait buzzword headlines. Jesus christ Slashdot advertisers, I mean "editors."

  • This is not a new method, the Handbury & Brown effect ( sensitive to the the Bose-Eisntein statistics of pairs of photons has been demonstrated in the 50's and used to measure the diameter of stars because the technics is insensitive to the atmospheric turbulence.

    • The irony here is that after reading your comment, I learned something new, gleaned from a virtuous and vigorous clickbait immune response.

      Maybe half the esoteric physics I know I've learned from clickbait demolition.

      Likewise, not that long ago, maybe half of all neurological knowledge could be tracked to a skull-ripping dumdum hand-me-down from the grisly aftermath of the Eastern front.

      • by epine ( 68316 )

        Damn, I meant to type "Pauli" but my fingers had religious momentum.

      • I just saw a very interesting video on how that whole detector works, and the troubles they face making the measurements. []

        Seems the only way they can be even remotely accurate enough is to eliminate every variable but one, and air was a biggie.

  • it could be scaled up to remove sophisticated vacuums from their detectors.


    Vacuums are pretty simple by definition.

  • ... anybody?

  • Just launch them into space, there you have a lot of space

    • Space isn't empty, contrary to popular belief. Even intergalactic space has a few atoms per cubic meter. If you need a true vacuum it's actually surprisingly hard to achieve.

At work, the authority of a person is inversely proportional to the number of pens that person is carrying.