Geo600 search for gravity waves

[AWA]

About a year ago there was some buzz about a background noise that scientist Craig Hogan interpreted as possible evidence of the texture of space and confirmation of the holographic principle. I believe later on the noise was explained as misadjustment of the machine. Anybody aware of the last news on GEO600 experiments on gravity waves? Was the background noise confirmed as an artifact?

 

[Stingray]

I heard Hogan give a talk on this a few months ago. From what I remember (which might be wrong!), the noise discrepancy is still unresolved. Its spectrum doesn't really match what Hogan predicts, and it wouldn't really have any statistical significance if it did. Still, it's tantalizing, and they're planning a dedicated experiment at Fermilab.

 

[AWA]

Thanks for the update Stingray. It's indeed intriguing though, I'm looking forward to hearing something about that experiment. I personally don't think these guy at Hannover are going to find what they are looking for in the first place (gravitational waves) since I don't think they exist, and the much talked about paper by Verlinde might point in that direction. But it is always interesting in science to come up with unexpected results, as in this not yet elucidated "quantum noise", as long as is not some silly detector out of tune

 

[bcrowell]

I personally don't think these guy at Hannover are going to find what they are looking for in the first place (gravitational waves) since I don't think they exist,

If gravitational waves don't exist, how do you explain the perfect agreement between theory and observation in the orbital decay of the Hulse-Taylor pulsar? The system is losing a huge amount of energy, and the rate at which it's being lost is exactly what GR predicts for emission of gravitational waves.

 

[nicksauce]

Verlinde's paper derives Einstein's equations from the holographic principle (and some other things). Einstein's equations imply gravity waves. So how does Verlinde's paper point in that direction?

 

[AWA]

Bcrowell, of course I can't explain that and I don't intend to,if I could I'd be famous :)
Perhaps I released that personal opinion a bit too lightly. My only point being that they haven't been detected yet, therefore my interest in GEO600 and LIGO experiments.
As for Verlinde's paper, I was thinking of the second paragraph on point 6.1 of the conclusion, is it totally out of the question to imply from that and the rest of his view of gravity as entropic force that he aims to challenge some assumptions of General Relativity such as gravitational waves? Not that he refers to gravitational waves anywhere on the paper but his perspective on gravity could implicate it in some way if proven right.

 

[TcheQ]

I personally don't think these guy at Hannover are going to find what they are looking for in the first place (gravitational waves) since I don't think they exist,

You don't accept the evidence of general relativity?

 

[AWA]

I skeptically(as any scientist should) accept GR as a good approximation until some other theory is capable of explaining facts better or in simpler ways or fitting more with the rest of physics theories. But I wold think this is kind of obvious, as all theories are provisional.
We should not forget that "evidence" or facts that were taken as evidence in certain historical settings were subsequently interpreted differently.
Do you believe GR is the Final theory about gravity and spacetime?

 

[Stingray]

A lot of people try to make up alternatives to general relativity in order to test its limits. As far as I'm aware, they all include gravitational waves (although details may vary). It is almost automatic that a relativistic theory of gravity must have wavelike solutions.

 

[TcheQ]

I skeptically(as any scientist should) accept GR as a good approximation until some other theory is capable of explaining facts better or in simpler ways or fitting more with the rest of physics theories. But I wold think this is kind of obvious, as all theories are provisional.
We should not forget that "evidence" or facts that were taken as evidence in certain historical settings were subsequently interpreted differently.
Do you believe GR is the Final theory about gravity and spacetime?

Skepticism is valid in the face of contradiction, but to tout skepticism in the context you do is like saying you are agnostic. You either support the scientific and technological advancement of mankind through innovation and reason, or you do not.
Not all theories are "provisional". Are Math theories "provisional"? exp(x) isn't "provisional", but needs to be used in the correct context. Relativity need to be used in the correct context. We already know it's not a unified theory, or it would be called precisely that.

Why is it you think the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics is spending so much on their research, if after 100 years no better theory to explain orbital decay of objects such as psr 1913+16?

 

[AWA]

Before I'm burned at the stake for my "gravitational" heresy I'll settle the question by saying that skepticism is always healthy as opposed to dogmatism that I'm starting to get a glimpse of around here; science is also questioning the stablished once in a while.

 

[TcheQ]

science is always questioning the stablished

Fixed.

If science is not dogmatic in it's principles, then there would no framework of understanding that we take for granted today.