Gravitational waves claimed to be detected by aLigo

[boogabooga]

If you have 1000 authors, how do you find a "peer" that is not already an author or knows one of the authors?

Or are they including all of the technicians and whatnot?

AIAA is engineering and not pure science, hence the different standards.

The conference papers are not peer-reviewed. But, that is sort of the point. You give your talk and the audience will sort of peer-review you during the Q/A session. You can then submit your paper to one of the AIAA peer-reviewed journals if you wish, and those can be kind of tough.

 

[kamaz]

The conference papers are not peer-reviewed.

Depends on the conference.

 

[Urwumpe]

Naaaaaah.

The problem is something else. Since reviewers don't get paid, then a reviewer who gets the paper throws it at the bottom of the drawer and will only read it after three months and multiple e-mail reminders from the editor.

And of course the "Oh my god, that is an interesting paper. Cancel all my lectures for the next week, I am attending my third grandmothers funeral"-factor.

 

[kamaz]

Comic explanation: http://imgur.com/gallery/EXlzn

 

[Quick_Nick]

500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Joules!
EDIT: Or twenty quadrillion Earth-masses worth of TNT.

New metric: It is also almost exactly the yield if you replaced all stars in the Milky Way with the same mass of TNT.
If you want to lump it into one sphere of TNT, maintaining density rather than collapsing into a black hole, the sphere would reach halfway to Pluto from the Sun.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

New metric: It is also almost exactly the yield if you replaced all stars in the Milky Way with the same mass of TNT.
If you want to lump it into one sphere of TNT, maintaining density rather than collapsing into a black hole, the sphere would reach halfway to Pluto from the Sun.

That.... is a lot of energy.

How much matter/antimatter would be needed to make the same energy release?

 

[Linguofreak]

That.... is a lot of energy.

How much matter/antimatter would be needed to make the same energy release?

The figure I first heard quoted for the energy release was actually given in units of mass, to wit, 3 M☉. (!)

 

[Andy44]

This is awesome.

And so a whole new type of science is born: "gravity wave astronomy", to take its place alongside visible light and radio astronomy.

I am guessing somebody has pretty much locked up a Nobel prize for the year already...

 

[Quick_Nick]

That.... is a lot of energy.

How much matter/antimatter would be needed to make the same energy release?

Well I'm getting all my numbers from the assumption that the energy was as much as the relativistic energy of three solar masses. Which would imply 1.5 Suns of matter and 1.5 Suns of antimatter colliding and annihilating completely would be equivalent.

 

[Andy44]

The funny thing is that a sphere of TNT with a half-Pluto-orbit diameter would probably not be able to explode at once, it might take years or decades for it all to burn lol.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Well I'm getting all my numbers from the assumption that the energy was as much as the relativistic energy of three solar masses. Which would imply 1.5 Suns of matter and 1.5 Suns of antimatter colliding and annihilating completely would be equivalent.

...
...
...
Error: Stack overflow. :lol:

That's just ridiculous how much energy was released.

 

[Quick_Nick]

The funny thing is that a sphere of TNT with a half-Pluto-orbit diameter would probably not be able to explode at once, it might take years or decades for it all to burn lol.

Ignoring dozens of reasons this wouldn't happen in a conventional manner, some rough numbers tell me it would take 32 years to 'burn' out from the center!
Low decades. I'll give you an A+!

 

[Urwumpe]

New German composite word madness coined yesterday: "Gravitationswellenastronomie", gravitational wave astronomy.

 

[Col_Klonk]

Load of bollocks.. I detected gravity waves decades ago...

The sea has low tides.. and high tides.. caused by, yep! you know this one - Moon gravity. Moon goes round earth.. 28 day wave..:facepalm:

Gravity waves travel faster than light speed :hello:

 

[jedidia]

"Gravitationswellenastronomie"

Now that sounds like straight out of a Perry Rhodan novel! :lol:

The sea has low tides.. and high tides.. caused by, yep! you know this one - Moon gravity. Moon goes round earth.. 28 day wave..

Gravity is as much a gravity wave as the sea is a wave. i.e. even if you know there's a sea, it's still a big deal to be able to observe individual waves.

Gravity waves travel faster than light speed

The we would today observe the gravity waves being emitted tomorrow... I'm not sure I like the implications. You might want to go over your physics again...

 

[Linguofreak]

New German composite word madness coined yesterday: "Gravitationswellenastronomie", gravitational wave astronomy.

It seems such an obvious term for the concept that I'd be surprised if it wasn't coined long before the recent observations, especially because I know that I've run across the uncompoundized English version of the phrase.

 

[Urwumpe]

The sea has low tides.. and high tides.. caused by, yep! you know this one - Moon gravity. Moon goes round earth.. 28 day wave..:facepalm:

Different phenomena - the actual effect of a gravitational wave by the moon orbiting around Earth would be hardly detectable. We can not measure the distortion of space caused by the moon. Even if we can assume that it must exist, as you say.

The phenomena is not about simply changes in the gravity field, but the speed of propagation and the assumed effect on space time.

---------- Post added at 10:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------

It seems such an obvious term for the concept that I'd be surprised if it wasn't coined long before the recent observations, especially because I know that I've run across the uncompoundized English version of the phrase.

The small German wikipedia article is as old as 2008, the first mentions in literature seem to be from 2005. So you are right, it did already exist before. But it was not really popular knowledge, as it is since yesterday.

 

[Col_Klonk]

The we would today observe the gravity waves being emitted tomorrow... I'm not sure I like the implications. You might want to go over your physics again...

You're implying that gravity is linked to 'time-travel'.. not me ! :thumbup:

You see an explosion far away before you hear it... what would be wrong with instantaneous (or near instantaneous) gravity, faster than light ?
Gravity obviously travels in a different 'medium' to light's duality (electromagnetic or photons), as with light vs sound

 

[Urwumpe]

You're implying that gravity is linked to 'time-travel'.. not me ! :thumbup:

No, actually you are: if gravity propagates faster than the vacuum speed of light, it would break causality - you could observe the effect before the cause. And that regardless where you are or how fast you are moving, in any inertial frame.

 

[Notebook]

BBC Article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35553549

N.