Not for the first time, the world of physics is abuzz with rumours that gravitational waves have been detected by scientists in the US.Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist at Arizona State university, tweeted that he had received independent confirmation of a rumour that has been in circulation for months, adding: “Gravitational waves may have been discovered!!”
So what does / can this mean for spaceflight?
So what does / can this mean for spaceflight?QuoteNot for the first time, the world of physics is abuzz with rumours that gravitational waves have been detected by scientists in the US.Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist at Arizona State university, tweeted that he had received independent confirmation of a rumour that has been in circulation for months, adding: “Gravitational waves may have been discovered!!”http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/12/gravitation-waves-signal-rumoured-science?CMP=twt_gu
ESA may have a much harder time justifying LISA
Quote from: Graham on 01/12/2016 01:49 pmESA may have a much harder time justifying LISAIf the rumors are true (and that's still very much an IF, we shouldn't get to excited yet) I'd hope for the opposite. If we know that there's something out there to observe, it might be a good time to push for the restoration of the original scope of the program. Be really nice if NASA got back on board, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Quote from: 1 on 01/12/2016 06:31 pmQuote from: Graham on 01/12/2016 01:49 pmESA may have a much harder time justifying LISAIf the rumors are true (and that's still very much an IF, we shouldn't get to excited yet) I'd hope for the opposite. If we know that there's something out there to observe, it might be a good time to push for the restoration of the original scope of the program. Be really nice if NASA got back on board, but I wouldn't hold my breath.By analogy, astronomers didn't stop with the first detection of radio waves. "Yup, there are radio waves out there - we can stop now." Cheers, Martin
I suppose the question becomes now you can detect them can you do anything with this?
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/13/2016 07:37 pmQuote from: ppnl on 01/13/2016 07:04 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/13/2016 04:12 amThe original topic, as specified in the title of the thread, is not new physics, so it belongs in a different section.Well the detection of grav-waves is new and it is physics...But it's the same old physics.The term "new physics" means physics different from what is commonly accepted by professional physicists. Gravitational waves are not that.New experimental results come in all the time in physics. That doesn't make them "new physics".What's the point of having a section with "New Physics" in the title if we're not going to follow it?With that kind of horribly narrow definition you place yourself even further left field than cold fusion & EM drives.
Quote from: ppnl on 01/13/2016 07:04 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/13/2016 04:12 amThe original topic, as specified in the title of the thread, is not new physics, so it belongs in a different section.Well the detection of grav-waves is new and it is physics...But it's the same old physics.The term "new physics" means physics different from what is commonly accepted by professional physicists. Gravitational waves are not that.New experimental results come in all the time in physics. That doesn't make them "new physics".What's the point of having a section with "New Physics" in the title if we're not going to follow it?
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/13/2016 04:12 amThe original topic, as specified in the title of the thread, is not new physics, so it belongs in a different section.Well the detection of grav-waves is new and it is physics...
The original topic, as specified in the title of the thread, is not new physics, so it belongs in a different section.
Any difference between the measured observable and prediction could indicate new physics.
That's how physicists define new physics. New observations are advances in science, but it is only a hint toward new physics if the confirmed results do not match theory. If the new observations match theory, then it is a confirmation of the theory, not new physics.When the Michelson-Morely experiment indicated that the aether did not exist, that was an indication of new physics. Quantum Theory, Special and General Relativity were the new theories that tried to explain the new physics of their day. They have been very successful, but the search for more continues.
Quote from: RonM on 01/13/2016 09:03 pmThat's how physicists define new physics. New observations are advances in science, but it is only a hint toward new physics if the confirmed results do not match theory. If the new observations match theory, then it is a confirmation of the theory, not new physics.When the Michelson-Morely experiment indicated that the aether did not exist, that was an indication of new physics. Quantum Theory, Special and General Relativity were the new theories that tried to explain the new physics of their day. They have been very successful, but the search for more continues.Respectfully, as a physicist, I feel some clarification is needed here. Subsequent measurements are often advances in existing physics, but brand spankin new measurements are often considered new physics simply because they act as a forcing function on any and all other competing theories. Even GR and QM, as successful as they've proven to be, are understood to be at best incomplete; and are in need of a more generalized, unified theory. At worst, we must still accept the (very remote) possibility that they're both completely wrong. Comfirmation of gravity waves would now require the formulation of any future unified theory to support them. Else, this would not be a strict requirement. In my opinion, the first direct detection of gravity waves, much like the first direct detection of the Higgs boson, would be enough to say we've moved our knowledge into new territory.To your example, if an aether had been detected, the Michelson-Morely experiment would still have indicated new physics as well. It would have required a new, non-local generalization of Maxwell's equations rather than a new understanding of space and time, but everyone knew something was wrong with those equations; and any result, even an 'expected' one, would lead them in a new direction.
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/12/2016 01:43 pmSo what does / can this mean for spaceflight?QuoteNot for the first time, the world of physics is abuzz with rumours that gravitational waves have been detected by scientists in the US.Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist at Arizona State university, tweeted that he had received independent confirmation of a rumour that has been in circulation for months, adding: “Gravitational waves may have been discovered!!”http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/12/gravitation-waves-signal-rumoured-science?CMP=twt_guIt means nothing practical concerning space propulsion during our lifetimes, but here you have:a patent application http://www.google.com/patents/US20070001541a recent paper (2012) http://www.gravwave.com/docs/DirectionsForGWPropGraWaV.pdfauthors that think that "Applications of the present analysis will lead to a unique propulsion system capable of enabling the fast exploration of the solar system, the local star system, and possibly the whole galaxy."
completely unrelated but totally fascinating gravity stuff: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160108083918.htm