Giant Gravitational Wave Detectors Could Hear Murmurs From Across Universe (sciencemag.org) 31
sciencehabit writes: Just 5 years ago, physicists opened a new window on the universe when they first detected gravitational waves, ripples in space itself set off when massive black holes or neutron stars spiral together. Even as discoveries pour in, researchers are already planning bigger, more sensitive detectors. And a Ford versus Ferrari kind of rivalry has emerged, with scientists in the United States simply proposing detectors 10 times bigger than the ones they have now, and researchers in Europe pursuing a more radical design that would combine six detectors in a single underground observatory. Researchers say detectors 10 times more sensitive than the ones they have now could detect all black hole mergers within the observable universe and spot hundreds of mergers of neutron stars, laying bare the nature of the ultradense matter in neutron stars. But, it's early days for the U.S. project, which is called the Cosmic Explorer, and the European project, which is known as the Einstein Telescope.
Re: Better idea, not mentioned: (Score:1)
You have heard of time zones, have you?
And given what I posted (look at the damn PBS SpaceTime video) and your response to it, I'd say you are projecting your own mental illness.
Everyone downmodding me because of you, should be ashamed.
Re: (Score:3)
It certainly has potential, though I believe it would only detect very large-scale gravitational waves and be completely blind to anything at frequencies that a detector within our solar system would detect.
It also rests on a huge number of astrophysical assumptions about how pulsars actually operate, as well as how gravity behaves over long distances - something coming under increasing scrutiny as we continue to fail to find any direct evidence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy after more than a century of sea
Re: Better idea, not mentioned: (Score:1)
Yes, that is the point. The video literally said exactly that.
Because LIGO can only detect medium waves, and this detects the gravitational wave background, which is an amazing discovery.
So no, it doesn't have "potential". It is already avery real nd very great thing.
The reactions to my post were the single biggest mess-up I saw in Slashdot history. I can only explain it by everyo e being heavily intoxicated due to weekend-related shenenigans.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what you're missing is that it's NOT a better idea - aside from the fact that both detect gravitational waves, it's a completely unrelated idea. It's like saying a telescope designed to image the extremely-long-wave CMBR is better than the Hubble. It's not, it's just different. For virtually anything the Hubble is good for, the CMBR telescope will be useless (and vice-versa)
Similarly, a "telescope" for imaging the CGBR is completely useless for detecting "current" black hole and neutron mergers.
How the fuck is this trolling? It's PBS SpaceTime! (Score:1)
The link goes to a PBS SpaceTime video!
It is interesting, very on-topic, and there is not a single thing there that could eve offend anyone.
WTF? Slashdot, I demand an apology!
Value of the Results? (Score:3, Interesting)
At this point, I'm tempted to ask "so what?" Since we've already established that such mergers "are a thing" then does having the ability to detect more of them increase our understanding of the universe?
The linked article barely touches on this, noting "It could spot all black hole mergers within the observable universe and even peer back to the time before the first stars to search for primordial black holes that formed in the big bang. It should also spot hundreds of kilonovae, laying bare the nature of the ultradense matter in neutron stars."
Unfortunately, there is nothing further. It isn't clear how the detection of primordial black holes would help our understanding of the early universe. When we as a species went looking for the Higgs particle, we had a much clearer idea of what we were doing - detection of the Higgs would not only help validate the Standard Model, it would also provide the portion of the model that explained how matter acquired mass. Understanding the properties of the Higgs would help us understand more about "how mass works".
I'm not suggesting that because the linked article doesn't give us that insight means that the experiment is somehow worthless - just observing that, sometimes, a couple of extra sentences that explained this and gave context would help to enhance our appreciation of the proposal. Which is odd - if those in favour would like the funding to build the proposed detector, then maybe a clearer explanation of the benefits would be a good thing to have?
Re:Value of the Results? (Score:5, Informative)
Read Roger Penrose's recent theory of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. There are other theories as well that investigating gravitational waves would help with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Penrose is a smart guy, like hawking level smart. He's also bit of a whackadoodle whos got a history of hetrodox ideas that don't pan out.
I stronly suspect his CCC things gonna end up like his "quantum conscious" and other nutty ideas that don't pan out. Cool math, stumbling at the evidence.
Don't believe the hype.
Re: (Score:1)
Since we've already established that such mergers "are a thing" then does having the ability to detect more of them increase our understanding of the universe?
Surely the answer to that has to be 'yes' - either the additional data are in line with our expectations therefore confirming current theories to some degree or they contradict our expectations giving us something to work with towards new theories. Either way I'd say that enhances our understanding.
Re: (Score:3)
That's similar to claiming that the detection of the earliest lifeforms would not help us with understanding Biogenesis.
Re: (Score:1)
Life evolves. So developing a very good understanding of the earliest life forms and then being able to trace how they evolve would certainly enable us to better understand things like the "right ingredients for life to form", which in turn might help us look for life in the wider universe. By contrast - and to be a bit simplistic for a moment - "a black hole is a black hole is a black hole". We have a pretty good understanding how black holes form. So ar
Re: (Score:1)
These detectors aren't cobbled together in a garage with 3D printers. They cost huge amounts and that money is taken from everyone. You have to make a more concrete argument than "We'll know more about xxx." to convince those people and rightfully so.
For instance: The Large Hadron Collider took about a decade to construct, for a total cost of about $4.75 billion.
Re: (Score:2)
A black hole formed after a supernova, a stellar black hole, for instance is somewhere between 3 and 30 solar masses. A galactic center in turn has hundreds of thousands or even billions of solar masses.
It is theorized (but not proven yet) that primordial black holes could be somewhere in size between stellar black holes and galactic cores.
Re: (Score:2)
The question I'm asking is: does a primordial black hole differ fundamentally from, say, a black hole formed in the last billion years?
The obvious answer is we do not know for sure. It would be nice if there was a way to find out—maybe we should build more sensitive gravity wave detectors.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not so sure I want to see Mum and Dad go at it...
Re: (Score:2)
LIGO also has detected events involving neutron stars, and just recently the analysis of the data for a "cosmic gravitational background" has begun, which would give information going back to the big bang and possibly of black holes that form by other processes than from stars. An event with black holes rotating on axis not parallel to their mutual merger axis was detected just last September.
There is so much new physics yet to come out of LIGO and its sister detectors your question almost made me cough on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really insightful comment, and done much more respectfully than the "this is more mental masturbation by scientists" comment that's not as highly scored.
I am a physicist, and I've worked on a couple of "megaprojects" like this. The issue you're describing of not understanding "why are we doing this?" is actually a HUGE problem with modern physics (and a lot of science in general). If we, as scientists, can't describe why a set of work is helpful to the average person, then we're not doing our jo
Re: (Score:2)
Once finished, they're going to hear this ... (Score:2)
... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=072Nu54avdU [youtube.com].
Obviously.
And just like that, the world changed (Score:3)
"Gravitational Wave Detectors Could Hear Murmurs From Across Universe"
Scientists working at the underground laboratory might find it very challenging to sneak out a quiet fart without serious repercussions.
Just more science (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither you nor anybody else has any idea what consequences basic research will have for humanity.
Why do you waste your time on a site featuring science and technology when you clearly don't understand the foundations of either?