[HN Gopher] Galaxy-Size Gravitational-Wave Detector Hints at Exo... ___________________________________________________________________ Galaxy-Size Gravitational-Wave Detector Hints at Exotic Physics Author : pseudolus Score : 115 points Date : 2021-02-05 15:05 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.scientificamerican.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.scientificamerican.com) | tengbretson wrote: | I just think that if there were a wave detector the size of a | galaxy I'd have probably seen it by now, right? | ccapo wrote: | The detector could just _be_ the entire galaxy, it doesn 't | have to be an artificial construct. To your question, you have | already seen it, hiding in plain sight. | morpheos137 wrote: | Writing copy in the English language is a dying art. | titanomachy wrote: | I believe you misinterpret the article. Physicists on earth are | using small timing fluctuations in the radiation arriving from | multiple far-flung pulsars to try and detect gravitational | waves. This is what is meant by a galaxy-sized gravitational | wave detector. | spekcular wrote: | It was a joke. | btilly wrote: | Yes, it was. And that is a reason to downvote. | | People aren't on Hacker News for the jokes, and a | significant fraction don't like seeing threads hijacked by | silliness. We've all seen Reddit, and are choosing not to | be there for a reason. | | That's not to say that you can't get away with jokes here. | But the bar for them to work is _very_ high. | mhh__ wrote: | Space is awfully big though - the actual structure presumably | would be detectable with hindsight but these galaxies are an | unbelievably long way away and a detector would presumably be | thin on that scale. | michael_j_ward wrote: | Personally, i found this hilarious, so I don't understand why | you're being downvoted | _underfl0w_ wrote: | Didn't downvote so can't be 100% certain, but it may be | related to the fact that this isn't Reddit. | tengbretson wrote: | They don't all land, I guess. | andrewflnr wrote: | We do get people that stupid here occasionally, so I didn't | read it as a joke. Poe's law, etc. Ed: FWIW, I didn't | downvote. | magicalhippo wrote: | For those who want a bit more details in a fairly accessible | format there was a recent and IMHO interesting talk[1] at | Perimeter Institute about these results from one of the founders | of NANOGrav. | | The NANOGrav collaboration behind these results was using the | Arecibo telescope as one of their primary data sources. Due to | the extremely low frequencies involved, they relied on data over | many years to reduce noise. Here's what they said before it fell | apart[2]: | | _Many of these pulsars can be timed only with Arecibo thanks to | its incredible sensitivity. NANOGrav's most recent analyses show | that a detection of gravitational waves is likely imminent. Any | gap longer than several months in our 16 years of data will | impede our ability to characterize the low-frequency | gravitational-wave universe and carry out the associated multi- | messenger science. It will also likely add systematics to our | datasets that will make them more difficult to model. If Arecibo | wasn't repaired, its loss would be a disaster for both US | gravitational-wave and radio astronomy._ | | They made a follow-up statement after the loss[3], so it's not a | fatal blow but definitely a tough loss: | | _While our future sensitivity to gravitational waves will | decrease without Arecibo, legacy Arecibo observations will anchor | combined future datasets which will be integral to opening this | new window on the universe at low frequency gravitational waves | and to gleaning insights into how galaxies form and evolve._ | | [1]: http://pirsa.org/20100068 | | [2]: | http://nanograv.org/announcement,/press/2020/08/19/Arecibo.h... | | [3]: | http://nanograv.org/announcement,/press/2020/12/02/Arecibo.h... | TimTheTinker wrote: | Fascinating, particularly the analysis of pulsar signals for | meta-phenomena. | | I bet gravitational waves aren't the only thing we'll learn to | detect from pulsars. | MeteorMarc wrote: | Although the article reads as sensational, it is actually based | on three recently accepted papers in Physical Review Letters. It | also gives some insight into several research groups wanting to | claim being the first having seen evidence for new physics, be it | from sparse observational data. | mcguire wrote: | " _Last September, the collaboration posted a paper on the | preprint server arXiv.org, which hosts scientific articles that | have yet to go through peer review, showing that its monitored | pulsars all displayed similar blips. (The paper has since been | peer-reviewed and published.)_ " | | Yeah. One would thought they would lead with the peer-reviewed | publications rather than preprints. | aardvark179 wrote: | The arxiv is freely accessible, the journal link isn't. | m-watson wrote: | There is a fourth now | https://twitter.com/PhysRevLett/status/1354866900036153352 and | a write up in Physics (The more casual write ups at APS about | major topics): https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/15 | | The actual article links: | | [1]- | https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12... | | [2] - | https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12... | | [3] - | https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12... | | [4] - | https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12... | titanomachy wrote: | I actually thought the article, and the physicists it quoted, | did a pretty good job of balancing excitement with cautious | skepticism. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-05 23:00 UTC)