gravitons

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"...which implies they are emitting gravitational radiation..."

A guess, a hypothesis, an implication, nothing more.

When the gravitational radiation is measured, come back and tell me.
Have gravitational radiation been measured at all anywhere?

Bear in mind that this is something they went looking for. It isn't abduction, they didn't see the effect and then form a hypothesis, they looked at Einstein's theory and made observations of a binary pulsar. The measurements were done at the inductive stage. I agree it's not the same as seeing the path length of a laser vary, but then again that's quite hard to do.

Does anyone know the mechanics of these experiments. They're the kind of thing where if someone in the lab sneezes they get a false positive - do they have multiple experiments and look for correlations between them?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Bear in mind that this is something they went looking for. It isn't abduction, they didn't see the effect and then form a hypothesis, they looked at Einstein's theory and made observations of a binary pulsar. The measurements were done at the inductive stage. I agree it's not the same as seeing the path length of a laser vary, but then again that's quite hard to do.

Only because a direct measurement is hard to do doesn't validate the hypothesis better. "It has to be true because it was very hard to set up the experiment" is not good science. "We found the Higgs particle because it cost us zillions of Euros to find it" is neither good science.

We can look at the Einstein equations and make a hypothesis that there are gravitational radiation. But that is a guess, a qualified guess if you like, but still a guess.

There are 'proofs' that the time is quantified. And there are 'proofs' that time is continous. Which one theory is a guess and which one is the truth? both are science. But what is true is a matter of taste.

We haven't made a measurement of gravitational radiation yet. Until then it is a guess, a qualified guess.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
We haven't made a measurement of gravitational radiation yet. Until then it is a guess, a qualified guess.

Please explain what measurement mechanism might exist that won't be also a 'qualified guess' and how it differs from this particular measurement.
Almost all planets discovered so far have been observed indirectly ie we have not seen any light coming from the planet itself. Is it also just a qualified guess that those planets are there? If not, why not?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please explain what measurement mechanism might exist that won't be also a 'qualified guess' and how it differs from this particular measurement.
Almost all planets discovered so far have been observed indirectly ie we have not seen any light coming from the planet itself. Is it also just a qualified guess that those planets are there? If not, why not?

We don't even know for sure that there exist such a thing as gravitational radiation. We have sought for gravitons, found none. We have sought for gravitational waves, found none. Do you think it is easier to find gravitational radiation? No, of course not.

The interpretation of equations can be explained by something they call 'gravitational radiation', but it is still unfound.

I am not saying that there is no such thing as gravitational radiation. I just say that we guess that this is the explanation to some phenomena. Because it is a guess, a qualified guess.

But if you want to search for the truth, then go to any church, they have the truth, the big truth, the truth that is the only truth there is.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
We have sought for gravitational waves, found none.

Of course they have found none, because every time they measured them you announced that it was just a guess. And you will continue to announce that they are guessing for whatever measurement they make.

The interpretation of equations can be explained by something they call 'gravitational radiation', but it is still unfound.
So what constitutes 'found'? Would you need to be able to touch the waves yourself? Would you want it to be put in a test tube? What measurement would satisfy you?

But if you want to search for the truth, then go to any church, they have the truth, the big truth, the truth that is the only truth there is.
So in your opinion, all science is just qualified guesswork?

Some scientists believe most of Gravity exists in another dimension and we experience just a small part of its strength ...that's why we cant find the graviton.. the math demands that we live in 11 dimensions.

Originally posted by woadman
Some scientists believe most of Gravity exists in another dimension and we experience just a small part of its strength ...that's why we cant find the graviton.. the math demands that we live in 11 dimensions.

More specifically, string theory and M Brane theory demands 11 dimensions.

The only problem is there are 10^500 possible solutions and we don't know which one applies to our universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course they have found none, because every time they measured them you announced that it was just a guess. And you will continue to announce that they are guessing for whatever measurement they make.

[b]The interpretation of equations can be explained by something they call 'gravitational radiation', but it is still unfound.
So what constitutes ...[text shortened]... at is the only truth there is.[/b]
So in your opinion, all science is just qualified guesswork?[/b]

I'm pretty sure that we mean the same thing. You just don't like the word 'guess'. It's alright by me.

But if you change 'guess' to 'truth', then we have a fundamental different view of science methodology.

If anyone declare what is the Ultimate Truth, as fundamentalists do in the Spiritual Forum, then we can go there and continue the discussion there. But we are here in the Science Forum, are we not? And scientists are happy when they have found a theory that explains things better than everything have been explained earlier.

So let's not quabble too much, and go on. The best scientist is the scientist who make the best guess. God alone knows how near the Ultimate Truth the guess is.

And this ends my participation in this matter. You may have the last word.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I'm pretty sure that we mean the same thing. You just don't like the word 'guess'. It's alright by me.

I just think we are pretty confident about a vast body of scientific knowledge and calling it a 'guess' is an understatement. I would, for example, not call the scientific finding that atoms exist 'the best guess to date'. I would call it scientific fact.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Only because a direct measurement is hard to do doesn't validate the hypothesis better. "It has to be true because it was very hard to set up the experiment" is not good science. "We found the Higgs particle because it cost us zillions of Euros to find it" is neither good science.

We can look at the Einstein equations and make a hypothesis that there a ...[text shortened]... made a measurement of gravitational radiation yet. Until then it is a guess, a qualified guess.

No, you've misunderstood the process. Einstein's theory has been tested. Various predictions that it makes such as the precession of Mercury, bending of the path of light by astronomical objects and gravitational time dilation have been observed. The theory is validated. It is incorrect to call the predictions of a tested theory hypotheses. Hypotheses are things one makes before one has a theory, once the hypothesis is sufficiently tested and passes the test then it is called a theory and its predictions are expected to be reliable. Gravitational waves are a prediction of the theory and so indirect observation is good enough. Direct observation of gravitational waves is obviously better, but Einstein's theory held up under that test.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No, you've misunderstood the process. Einstein's theory has been tested. Various predictions that it makes such as the precession of Mercury, bending of the path of light by astronomical objects and gravitational time dilation have been observed. The theory is validated. It is incorrect to call the predictions of a tested theory hypotheses. Hypothes ...[text shortened]... ation of gravitational waves is obviously better, but Einstein's theory held up under that test.

Einestein wasn't always right, you know. But in relativity, he was the champ. His theories has been tested and been verified. How has denied this?

But it is a leap gravitational radiation. That one isn't tested, but only a interpretation of the result of equations. A guess. A qualified guess.

Do people misunderstand what I mean with 'guess'? I don't mean by 'guess' that I don't believe in it, or it is totally wrong? No, not at all. But until it is confirmatively tested it is a test. Yes, it is hard to get out there and measure it oneselves, but that doesn't imply that it is the Truth only because it is hard to do the experiments.

I am satisfied with the notion of 'We believe it is true'. But to say "...the observation of binary pulsars orbits decaying, which implies they are emitting gravitational radiation..." is the ultimate truth, I object to.

But don't extrapolate it like I am against everything, like you implied. Einstein was mostly right, but not every time.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Einestein wasn't always right, you know. But in relativity, he was the champ. His theories has been tested and been verified. How has denied this?

But it is a leap gravitational radiation. That one isn't tested, but only a interpretation of the result of equations. A guess. A qualified guess.

Do people misunderstand what I mean with 'guess'? I don't ...[text shortened]... t like I am against everything, like you implied. Einstein was mostly right, but not every time.

A theory is a logical structure. It may cease to be valid based on new information, but until it's invalidated it is provisionally true. If any of its predictions turn out to be false it breaks the entire theory and we need a new one. Theories can't be half right. We don't regard predictions of an otherwise validated theory as untrue just because no direct measurements have been made. We do expect it to break down at very short distance scales and be replaced by some sort of quantum theory, but that's not the scale we are looking at. Given the level of verification of the theory and the indirect evidence I have a high level of confidence that they exist.

ESA has some space based systems in the pipeline and they are more immune to noise than Earth based ones. LISAPathfinder is due for launch next year and is a proof of concept mission to demonstrate the necessary technologies, with two 2kg masses 38 cm apart it is probably not going to detect a gravitational wave but it's successor should. LISA - Laser Interferometer Space Antenna - will have it's test masses 5 million km apart, which should give it a good level of sensitivity. Sadly it's not due for launch until 2034 so there's a while to wait before we get any results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna

Originally posted by DeepThought
A theory is a logical structure. It may cease to be valid based on new information, but until it's invalidated it is provisionally true. If any of its predictions turn out to be false it breaks the entire theory and we need a new one. Theories can't be half right. We don't regard predictions of an otherwise validated theory as untrue just because no ...[text shortened]... it before we get any results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna

I say it is a guess, a qualified guess, but still a guess.

Now you say that an experiment will be don 2034. Okay, then we will wait to see if the guess is correct (probably but not yet conclusive) or wrong and bring back the theorists to the drawing board. Until then I propose a pause in this discussion about guess or fact.

Remember that noone was dead sure about the Higgs particle until it actually was found. Some even says that they cannot be sure it was the Higgs they really found, or soumething else unknown. Ergo - a guess.

With this posting I leave this discussion and let you have the last word if you wish.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Remember that noone was dead sure about the Higgs particle until it actually was found. Some even says that they cannot be sure it was the Higgs they really found, or soumething else unknown. Ergo - a guess.

Actually, the don't even know if anything was found. They are merely 99.99999999999999% sure that they did ie 'just a guess'. The particle itself was never observed, nor can it be observed. What was 'observed' was the products, and even then, the observations were done by machines an not humans, so no human ever saw the products with their own eyes. In addition, the products may be produced by a number of other known processes, so even knowing that they came from the Higgs particle was entirely a matter of theory and statistics and not a direct observation.