Have we really measured gravitational waves?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- In 2017, a Nobelprize was awarded for the direct detection of gravitational waves, as predicted by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. But really we are still no sure that the events are indeed of astrophysical origin and not misidentified noise that originates on Earth.
In this video I tell you what gravitational waves are, how to measurement (directly and indirectly), what the problem is with the existing direct detection, what's the matter with LIGO's Nobelprize winning figure, and what's with the glitches.
References:
* Better climate predictions
www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/op...
www.extremeearth.eu/
* Articles I have written recently about LIGO
In English
backreaction.blogspot.com/2019...
In German
www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...
* How can LIGO detect signals?
arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702079
arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511083
* Plot was made by eye quotes:
www.newscientist.com/article/...
* List of LIGO/Virgo run 3 alerts and retractions
gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/... - Věda a technologie
I did think of an elephant.
Good data
Dammit! I can't do this because I will for sure think of an elephant 😁 Excuse a dumb question from a noob but how does this correlate with science?
So Sabine is psychic after all. I also thought of an elephant, but only after she said it. Does that count?
Elephant came to mind first, before she said it.
I did think of a giraffe, so I guess my "measurement" is rubbish.
Rarely if ever is a dispute among physicists addressed in a video. Well done Sabine
Thanks so much for the feedback! This one gave me some headaches indeed.
The truth of reality needs no specific forum.
@@SabineHossenfelder A question, Sabine: Are you being honest in your videos and comments? If so, what can describe a more appropriate adjudicator of current science and physics, other than someone that understands most all these subjects and common sense as well? Like you. You strike me as someone that would rebel from that which is entrenched, speculated and inferred, but not real. The truth must be the most powerful. Misleading is not valuable at all.
You should watch Sean Carroll more
@@SteelBlueVision Sean is a great regurgitator of the current repetiore of baloney that he has memorized. Nothing else. Put me in my place, Sean!
"In science it's the evidence that counts, not opinions." Thanks for that.
yes
« Let’s fix the thing and get the thing down over the fax » - joe biden
I love this woman! I could listen to her talk for hours!
@Science Revolution I'd love to see all the scientific papers where you get these ideas from
@Science Revolution Joke of the Millenium. What you are talking about among others is the "Ether" theory. It has been destroyed by the Michelson-Morley experiment, period. And the Casimir effect clearly shows that vacuum is not empty and that quantum mechanics and therefore the theory of vacuum structure are correct. Btw, if all this was wrong, computers would not work the way they do and we would not be able to design semiconductors the way we do. So according to you, I cannot write this right now. Yet: I do, and that is not opinion, it is fact. What is more: If gravity can only exist in matter, what is keeping the planets on their orbits? And if gravity travels at the speed of earthquake waves, why do we not see an extreme delay in the mutual attraction of e.g. Earth, Moon and Sun as they do their dance in the solar system? Orbits would look massively different if there was such a long delay.
Finally: IF gravity and electromagnetic force both were the same but just "stable" and "oscillating" then moving charged particles would behave differently as there would also be a relativistic portion of the "stable" part. Maybe you do not know, but magnetism is a relativistic effect of moving charges, and explaining and exactly calculating that is really one of the easiest parts or relativity.
This is why I enjoy your channel so much. You focus on the data and don’t make assumptions that others make. It’s very refreshing
Now THIS is what I call a kick-ass video. Kudos for holding their feet to the fire.
I appreciate the political price you may pay for being honest. As a lay person, it is often difficult to discern between academic optimism and reality. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to make this, great job.
Amen
And to see that through all these centuries, it is human psyche that hasn't changed - we overthrew religion for science, and now it is these "scientists" who are neither so forthcoming about how they do what they do, nor accepting the vulnerability of their observation. I'm not arguing FOR religion or theism, but can't help compare the behavior of religious folks vs science folks, observe the belief systems in the psyche of people that make them do what they do, pre Renaissance or in the 21st century. People still get punished for speaking their truth - scientific advancement is no use until it does not help address the transformation of consciousness. An atheist is just a theist of something else, as it seems here. I don't follow science stuff in any regular or intense way, so don't have any identification with anyone or anything in the scientific fields, but to ME, the LIGOR team had virtually lost its credibility as scientists. Thanks, for being a better scientist, and being honest about its vulnerabilities (referring to your transparent stance in other videos that physicists don't know how to reconcile with wave function collapse and ideas on quantum+gravity).
Sabine could end up as a physics martyr. But the reason would be for the truth and her taking a spear to the chest in defense of the real truth. She is not afraid to say the truth as she sees it. The prominent and controlling scientists will just have to deal with her and opinions. Too bad, How sad. Sabine is not a controlled entity, and they hate that she is not. You go girl.
She's either overlooking or intentionally avoiding mentioning details that refute her argument, though. Go look for my post.
@@derekdwhite Derek, Appreciate your professional connection to LIGO but the essential considerations are:
1. Are the actual claimed 'correct signals' (true positives) verified independently. Answer : NO.
2. Are 'glitches' (presumed false positives) assessed correctly, and if so, are they next fully understood? because if not, this casts doubt about whether the run that caused the presumed true positives is even technically valid, leave alone that these supposed true positives have not been independently verified. The answer. must be NO again...
3. We ASSUME gravitational waves propagate 'transverse and limited at C, as per Einsteins hypothetical GW. Given we had an astronomical event emitting EM radiation, LIGO was given the chance to detect a signal (which did not happen, any claim again not verified).
So if equipped to actually detect astronomic GW, together with EM waves, its correct working has not been established. But more probable (as discussed before) LIGO could not fundamentally detect GW's as GW's travel longitudinal and not limited to C. Either way, so far it would appear LIGO is the 737-MAX of the physics industry . It's just not going to fly.....Maybe it will get there one day (perhaps it can be modified to filter out instant C2 speed observations between two detectors). Until then, they do have a Nobel Prize, which for congress and the ordinary man is all that matters. They'll never hear of any critical reports so don't worry
Sabine, you're one of the best voices of the rational world. I love everything you upload.
I - a bricklayer - never had the opportunity to formally study many of the things I am highly interested in (such as physics) - so like everyone else I have to defer to experts in fields that I am not well versed in. You are consistently the best and most rational explainer of the subject matter you touch upon (mostly physics, though not always). I can't overstate how important your opinions and views are to me.
Thank you Sabine.
i - a plasterer recommend this. balls out physics czcams.com/play/PLqTvm5jDjptlE-18Njd562ZjXvqOn-TLE.html
@Bertrand de Born Amen!
Bricklayer here, also - and I agree
I, as a maker of bespoke and exotic animal balloons most definately concur. I desperately need to stop being a closet astro physicist.
@Bertrand de Born The circuitry of "Jesuitical Fabulation" requires less proof, and more fantasmic "Hyperbolic Bullock's" based on mathematical equations with no basis in REALITY?
These psycho physicist, are nothing more than Gang Banging "Particle Junkie's?"
Oh, what a Web we weave, if first we try to deceive?
Peace ~Inertia
Wait, hold on. I'm not understanding why "throwing away data" seems to be a problem for you. You neglect to mention that glitches are only detected in one interferometer at a time, so their source is obviously not astrophysical. Glitches are (usually) incredibly loud, so if it was an astrophysical event, they would absolutely be detected in all interferometers near-simultaneously and at near the same strength, by virtue of the fact that the signal strength would fall off at a rate of 1/(distance from the source). By contrast, gravitational waves DO follow this pattern and are detected not only in both of LIGO's detectors, but sometimes also in Virgo's detector (their interferometer is less sensitive and as such misses some signals LIGO detects) and the source can be triangulated by the delay you mention in the time it takes light to travel, similar to the way GPS works by triangulating your position via the time it takes for a signal from a satellite to travel to your phone, to give a pretty solid estimate of both the direction and the distance of the source. These facts combined make the distinction between a glitch of terrestrial origin and a gravitational wave very clear.
6:16 and 8:11 - While the detection of a gamma-ray burst was indeed announced first, it was the LIGO-Virgo Collaboration's announcement of gravitational waves that predicted that the source of the gamma-ray burst came from the merger of neutron stars. It had long been theorized that such a merger would cause an as-of-then unseen kilonova, therefore it was predicted that the light from a kilonova might be seen in the direction of the gravitational wave signal. Under the LIGO-Virgo Collaboration's recommendation of sky localization after triangulating the source of the event, telescopes around the world were turned in the direction of the predicted source, and the light from a kilonova was recorded for the first time - by a multitude of telescopes and observatories, no less. This confirmed not only the prediction that the colliding of neutron stars would cause a kilonova, but also that the signal LIGO and Virgo had detected came from the merging of two neutron stars in a specific nearby galaxy. In other words, by your own words, the LIGO detection counts as a "confirmed prediction". This article shows the light flare and subsequent fading over the next handful of days the Hubble telescope detected that occurred simultaneously with August 2017's detection of gravitational waves: www.sci-news.com/astronomy/light-gravitational-wave-event-gw170817-05329.html
You should also note that ONLY glitches are passed to GravitySpy (ciera.northwestern.edu/programs/gravityspy/) for citizen science. As far as I understand, it is not used to distinguish gravitational wave signals from glitches, only to classify glitch patterns that are obviously not gravitational waves. The separating of gravitational waves from glitches is done long before the data makes its way to public hands.
Two good catches. Sabine should address these.
@@StefenTower If she did, her whole argument would be nullified.
Thank you! I've watched several of Sabine's videos now and she seems to always take the suspicious angle. It seems from your comment she's excluded some data from her video here that doesn't support her conclusion - the same thing she's accusing the LIGO team of doing. It's important to be critical of all scientific discoveries, but there's a difference between critique and suspicion.
throwing away too much data is certainly a problem. If you do, how do you then know it's not just generating patterns more or less at random which you filter for the ones you like (looks like a gravity wave on both detectors)?
Are *all* discarded observations only ever on one detector?
@@cas1652 Great question. First, nothing is ever actually "discarded". Every scrap of data from either detector during their live runs is kept and can be analyzed at any time. There are actually teams dedicated to doing just that, as it is analyzing the glitches in an effort to discover their source that allows those working on the actual LIGO facilities to eliminate the source of glitches and improve the interferometers' sensitivity. In other words, patterns are never discarded; even in the case of glitches, patterns are the number one thing looked for, as they can give insight into their origin. When Dr. Sabine says "discarded", I have to assume she means "discounted as gravitational waves".
The bigger question is what happens when a glitch overlaps an actual gravitational wave signal, or in general when the terrestrial noise in a detector is strong enough to drown out a signal. This actually isn't that uncommon. There is a level of confidence in the astrophysical origin of a signal that must be reached before the LIGO-Virgo Collaboration will publicly announce a new gravitational wave signal. Sometimes this happens immediately by virtue of the strength of the signal; sometimes further investigation needs to be done first. This was the case with GW170817: a glitch in one of the detectors directly overlapped the received signal, so the collaboration was not confident enough in the results to send out an immediate notice. Dr. Sabine even says in this video that she "understands" this motivation and did not critique it further. Ultimately it would be far more destructive for the purposes of research to announce to the world "this is a gravitational wave" than it would be to say "we're not confident in this one yet". Even in the case when a signal can only be labeled as a "likely" detection, however, the signal will continue to be studied within the collaboration, sometimes for months after, even if the signal is not publicly announced.
I cannot comment on information that hasn't been made public yet (everything I've mentioned so far can be found in google searches or in reading published papers), usually because I simply don't know, just like you probably don't know what complaints have come across your company's HR desk (unless you happen to work in HR, in which case, I don't know how you do it). Within LIGO, as within any large organization (there are over 1,200 members of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration), there are specific areas of expertise and responsibility. In the case of multi-detector events that aren't gravitational waves, I have no specific knowledge. Keep in mind, though, that the LIGO interferometers are built specifically to detect and measure the stretching and squeezing of spacetime. Any signal caused by, for example, the movement of tectonic plates would not result in this stretching and squeezing, so LIGO's data would very likely not be useful as it is not remotely built to read anything besides gravitational waves. It'd be like asking your fitbit to start detecting radio waves and playing movies for you. That said, the data still safely exists; if USGS ever contacted LIGO and wanted to see their data, I doubt anyone would say no.
In science, debates are settled with logic and proof, not violence or childish insults.
I like how you keep science honest by jabbing them with the sharp elbows of reality! Peer review is essential in science to prevent pseudo science!
came for the physics, stayed for the german humor
Ha-ha
German humour is nothing to laugh about. :-)
@@TheGreatSteve German humour is an oxymoron.
Can you imagine if Sabine had instead made a music video, singing about this whole topic?
And the pretty outfits.
LIGO is suppose to restart after upgrades in March '23. I would love to see an update to this after we see the results from that.
Thanks for helping to preserve respect for the scientific process, your commitment to it is obvious and admirable. I really enjoy your channel, Thanks
Your honesty is refreshing.
Dr. Hossenfelder,
I love your concise and clear communication. I also appreciate your subtle humour
You are saying things that go very much against my education, my academic training and my acquired "believes". And I do beg you to continue doing so.
You are the voice from outside the filter bubbe that every sensible human and every scientist even more should be listening to.
Thank you very much for being the voice I am not happy to hear.
And, no, that is sincere, no irony at all.
What I like most about you, is your "do or die"-attitude towards science. The last phrase in this video couldn't be more accurate: "in science, it's evidence that counts, and not oppinion". If there is someone, who'd be smart enough, and of enough integrity, it is you, Mrs. Hossenfelder. Putting science back on it's feet. Thanks for this video.
Your Intellectual honesty is amazing.
Thank you soo much.
We should probably hear the other side of this story, before judging.
The fire power of the counter part is huge and have to defend also political interest probably more then physic interests.
Public never see this kind of problems emerge so clearly.
Hidden management of science left scientists alone in their battles.
Not fair I must say.
This attitude is amazing in any case.
diegooo1972, I don’t see much intellectual honesty in someone who first start by saying they have no doubt gravitational waves were detected and then proceed by expanding on the topic that these detections could be glitches, or something else. That’s the exact opposite of intellectual honesty.
You may have seen another video.
@@pansepot1490 Sabine essentially acknowledges this at the very end of the video. In essence she is saying that it's okay to have an opinion or belief even as a scientist, but ultimately it has to be backed up empirically before being accepted as fact and awards given out.
Thank you, Ms. Hossenfelder, for reminding everyone of what distinguishes "good science" from "bad science". Not there there aren't shades of gray, everyone must guard against wishful thinking creeping into their methodology.
It is not about good or bad science. It is about the accuracy and the availability of the data to all people.
"Selectively throwing away data that's inconvenient." Thank you so much.
Glitches aren't inconvenient data. They are obviously not astrophysical events and are utterly unrelated to gravitational wave signals, by virtue of the fact that they only happen in one detector at a time where gravitational waves are detected in more than one interferometer simultaneously and their astrophysical source can be triangulated. She's neglecting to mention that small, damning detail.
Derek, I am pretty sure she was already talking about the remaining dataset that were detected in all of them at once. Otherwise, her comparison would not make any sense. Besides, LIGO is highly sensitive and surely it detects billions of false events that wont occur in the others. At least in my lab a far inferior sensitivity tool can i.e. detect nearby subway construction detonations.
@@joonasmakinen4807 That's exactly the point, though. Detecting a subway signal is classified as a glitch. One famous glitch source from one of the two LIGO interferometers was from birds pecking at ice outside the facility. Only one facility can detect glitches at a time because they are terrestrial. There are NO glitches that all interferometers can detect, ever. Anything picked up by multiple interferometers can be triangulated and its astrophysical source pinpointed. And you are correct: her explanation doesn't make any sense. It sounds like she either doesn't know what she's talking about or is otherwise being intentionally misleading.
Derek, yes. It is still possible that a globe-wide terrestial phenomenon will be detected in all of the detectors at once, what was her point. Why do you assume such events do not exist and what is basis for it? After all, we have recently discovered an electromagnetic link between Sun and Earth (and Sun and other planets such as Saturn), so any ’glitches’ occuring in these planetary interactions and Sun’s activity must also be considered. For instance, what is an explanation to the Earth’s anomalous ’glitches’ in its rotation speed? We need to allow our presuppositions to be tested in order to truly grow in knowledge of truth. She just did that to us in this video and I respect her for doing so because it is true way of science.
@@joonasmakinen4807 the strength and time of every signal is logged. We know how long it would take for a wave of any sort to propagate through the earth based on the earth's materials, so any signal detected by LIGO, whether terrestrial or extraterrestrial, can be triangulated (notice she didn't mention that once in the video). There is no earth-based source that could create a signal that is identically strong in each interferometer while still exhibiting any amount of time delay, based on the 1/(distance from source squared) strength falloff that three-dimensional signals propagate. It sounds like you already do physics research, so you should know as much.
She also didn't mention that it was LIGO who predicted the precise astronomical origin of GW170817 (the binary neutron stars she mentioned in the video whose signal was joined by a gamma ray burst). Under LIGO's guidance, observatories turned their telescopes in that direction, and the first-ever kilonova was witnessed by several dozen observatories, confirming that 1) neutron star mergers create kilonovae (something only predicted at the time) and 2) LIGO and Virgo did, in fact, detect a gravitational wave of astrophysical origin, with a precise sky localization to go with.
I am not a physicist (I am an educator) so I don't feel qualified to access the accuracy of some of the things mentioned in these videos... But I know this. This is by far the best video series to serve really interesting knowledge without turning it into physics-for-morons or requiring a Ph.D. in physics; in fact, I believe PBS (or its equivalents in the EU) should fund you. I also admire the somber tone with occasional and subtle jokes/references thrown in, such as the burning of the post-it with a 42 on it when discussing the loss of information. I think we all owe you much for the scientific-communication service you are doing. And as to why billions of dollars should be spent on saving this planet as opposed to having a slightly more complete list of particles, I don't know how anyone can make a counter argument.
Don't let them intimidate you, Sabine. Criticism, sound criticism the type you do is the foundation of science.
It truly is
Agreed... if they can't handle sound criticism they should stop being scientists.
I am relatively new to your presentations. I honestly love them and you do a wonderful job of explaining very complex things. Thank you.
One of the things I love about Sabine’s videos, is that she doesn’t blindly accept anything as fact. She tries her best to argue the opposing view, as any possibility of the opposite being true, even if a fraction of a percent, means that the theory can not be said to be true
"In science, it's evidence that counts, not opinion."
Wow. Good quote to add to my collection. Thanks Sabine.
"In science is evidence that counts, not opinion"
Thank you for this video.
"I think the gravitational wave community is doing a crappy job."
You're the best, Sabine.
The more videos I watch the more I love this channel
I must admit that for a long time I was like the phycicsts that complained about you. My mind was closed and refused to watch any of your videos. Today I discovered a video that interviewed you, I thought I would watch it so that I could have a bit of a laugh at your crazy ideas. To my astonishment and guilt I instead found that all you said was logical, coherent and well worked out. I apologise for my unfounded previous, misguided, born of ignorance view. I have now watched many of your videos and they are all fascinating and thought provoking, like "yeah, why didn't I think of that? " Now I have subscribed and I will be enjoying your vids from now on. Thank you for your hard work and for your mind. Excellent work!
The glitch vs actual detection cycle seems pretty straightforward in all honesty. A legitimate signal would be a close to simultaneous, 1sec>=,1 signal that resonates with both detectors with the same pattern interference. If the resonance doesn't register with both detectors then it is an anomaly or a glitch. The patterns of the glitches may be interesting but hardly of note if they are not paired together by both detectors, as the detectors are designed as a pair to sort out the vibration noise that would happen in their respective localities with geological tremors or whatsoever. The system is very simple for relegating the detection to a pretty high sigma rating because it requires detection from both receptors to be a qualified target, rather than just one detector.
Yes and no. Geological tremors and their effects are easily independently measured and accounted for. Apparently there are many events that cannot be explained by any known disturbances. Since these disturbances are of an unknown character, we cannot conclude that whatever causes them does not also propagate at the speed of light, like gravitational waves are supposed to. Hence, the 'both are measuring it consistent with the speed of light' argument loses a lot of its decisiveness. Neutrino bursts travel at the speed of light. Dark matter might? If these events do or do not overlap with expected EM emissions in the long run is certainly a relevant question.
@@eelcohoogendoorn8044 Gravitational waves don't cause EM radiation. They don't bend the tight laser, they bend the mirror the laser reflects off of in the interferrometer which then causes the interference pattern detected. Other than that it works pretty much the same as radio: Wavelength, frequency and amplitude. The LIGO laser is basically the guitar string being plucked by the gravitational wave rather than being part of the wave itself; the pluck being caused by a physical distortion of the mirror.
.
@@i-v-l9335 did I imply any such thing? I know how gravitational waves should affect an interferometer in theory; but the correctness of the theory is exactly the point under discussion
@@eelcohoogendoorn8044 Of course there are going to be glitches. Remember the Alpha Centauri planet that is still debatable? Asking the system to be clean is pipe dream no different than the Hubble Redshift debacle presented in Stephen's Quintet.
The best example of Gravitational waves permeating at light speed is from the kilonova of two colliding neutron stars we found by both gravitational wave and optical observation.
@@i-v-l9335 the video mentioned no overlap with optical detection had been found yet; but it seems that info is out of date then. Yeah that adds a lot of weight to an already very convincing experiment.
"This is highly inappropriate. We should not be giving out Nobel Prizes if we do not know how the predictions were fitted to the data" - Is it okay to be in love with someone for their intellectual honesty? There is so little of it left today.
You mean like how Obama was awarded the Peace Prize for something they 'hoped' he would do. All he really did was get elected, and promised a bunch of things. The Nobel Prizes are becoming as relevant as the Oscars.
@@aliensoup2420 "Are becoming?" They were irrelevant long before Obama won the Nobel Prize for Not Being George Bush Jr. They were irrelevant the day three terrorists (Arafat, Rabin, and Peres) were awarded the "Peace" prize.
They gave one to Obama.. for doing nothing .. that in its self shows just how worthless these prizes really are .. 🤔
It’s definitely okay. I did it and it worked out fine.
@@scottlogan780 Yes, but please remember, gentlemen, that Nobel Peace Prizes are awarded by a different committee (highly political) in a different country (Norway). Remember Yasser Arafat who got a Nobel Peace Prize for being a nice terrorist? Peace Prizes are like trinkets found in a box of cereal, but they are separate from science prizes.
Sabine, I guess your purpose is mainly to explain science and ignite curiosity about it. And not only that. You're showing exactly what it means to "Use the Scientific Method". Maybe there are people that are not satisfied with what you're doing but they either don't understand or don't want to accept your point. But finally - "In science it's the evidence that counts, not opinions." - very good point that has to be accepted and followed.by anyone.
Thanks for putting so much effort. It's worth it. Really.
I live about one hour from LIGO Livingston and have intention to visit once they are open to the public again. Thank you Sabine, you have given me many new questions to think about and and ask on my visit.
Thank you for these videos! I love your clear and patient explanations.
This is the kind of question-blind-Faith-in-authority that I need. Thanks for putting this out there.
I admire integrity. It takes courage to critically think and ask questions of a community of people who are emotionally invested in the outcome.
That’s largely why I’m binging this channel right now: even though I don’t always agree with the conclusions, the balanced intellectual honesty makes her more trustworthy than those who always tow the party line, IMHO.
In my opinion many scientists have now become too disconnected from rest of humanity and become very arrogant. It is so nice to hear your presentations, you speak with respect to listener and don't talk down to then. Those other scientists that are upset at you because you said something against their funding, they can go jump into a black hole.
One of the best physics/science communicators, period. Thank you!
I want to thank you for this. For a very long time I have had same questions and asked them to one person giving a colloquia at the University I worked for years ago. At that time I doubted that LIGO actually worked for the reason you mentioned -namely that the spectrometer arm that contracted or wobbled due to the fluctuations in space would wobble the same way for the light in that path. I have since come to understand, as you said, that while that is true, the light doesn’t respond to the fluctuations the same way that the path change of that arm do (i am still not entirely clear on why but i accept that there will yet be an interference pattern due to that paths’ wobbling). I subscribed after watching your video on the Anthropic Principle which also addressed precisely issues i have had and for which i had difficulty convincing my friends in Physics. I think you do a great job of explaining these items and I commend you for your courage and insistence that consensus is insufficient for evidence or verity
Of exactly how many " gravitational waves" have you direct immediate personal experience as direct immediate and personal as pain?
@@nowhereman3955 Thanks for the correction. If I were petty I would say that there were several colloquia I attended but in fact I was thinking of one colloquium.
I find it curious, there seems to be a group of negative groupies with a consistent number of dislikes - sad. I love the way you think, and express yourself in a clean and unambiguous manner.
I don't know how I found this channel but it's a gem. Hopefully will be one 100th as smart as this woman one day.
Brilliant! They balk at you because you keep them honest like an internal affairs officer of physics would. Good job & carry on!
Sabine, I have never seen the explanations so logical and perfectly articulated as yours. Keep up the good work!
I’m an older undergraduate physics student, a new subscriber to your channel, and a new fan of your work. Thank you for the great videos.
Cudos! Your best video yet. I’m a new fan! As a Metrologist I agree with your points. My .02 if i may. Food for thought: opposing field lines do not cross, they compress and refract. Ligo will pick up the compression /refraction in OUR magnetic field from an outside field, not the outside field itself. There is an assumption in the wave shape. 2 bodies with physical mass will oscillate around the null spatial vector before conjoining. Black holes are not physical mass, but are an area of field coherency in free space. 2 of them would conjoin the same as 2 magnets, for the same reason. There is no oscillation there. The fields jostle, align and instantly conjoin at the smallest spatial vector. A new bloch wall can be seen forming even before 2 magnets make physical contact. A rise in noise floor with a single peak would be expected over an oscillation when coherent bodies align. If this were not a possibility, could you elaborate?
Great video! We need more scientists like this upfront, honest, and genuinely seeking truth, not just the next round of funding.
"In science its evidence which counts, not opinion".
But to secure funding its advertisement which counts, not the truth.
Thanks for your candid opinion.
Funding should not trump proper scientific rigor. Your passive aggressive ad-hominem doesn't bode well as an argument either.
@@randall.chamberlain What was that? There was no aggression.
@@randall.chamberlain While pretending money and politics don't have an influence on science may not be passive aggressive I don't think it is much of an argument either.
If you count on public funds you have to expect that the politicians will just trow money away or they will look for answers that are convenient for they agenda . Either way some of the expenditure or funds will go to someone's pockets .
@@jamesgoudreau1940 I know money and politics influence science. We're human in the end. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to overcome our biases. She has a very strong point by calling out certain behaviors, in an intellectual, rational and respectful way.
We all should.
Besides the incredibly interesting technical content, I admire how you address people who don't agree with you. I'm learning. Thank you!
Excellent! Great information and said very clearly, unlike so many others. CZcams took a looooong time to recommend this to me even though I have been watching science videos for 2 decades. Thank you Sabine.
"most of the time if people have issues with what I am saying it's because they do not understand what I am saying to begin with" 😂😂😂😂. Lol. Best comment ever.
It's a nice appeal to authority. She apparently doesn't understand or is unwilling to say WHY there is no algorithm, even in principle with our current understanding of physics. I wonder who can explain why that is without insults or conspiracy by the scientific reason why?
I enjoy hearing her talk. He voice has such an honest, dispassionate tone.
I´m with you, but does that tone deveive us?
I'm really thankful for the lessons,I've been learning so much with you.
Thank you so much for your videos. The clarity of your analysis really helps to improve the public understanding of science.
You're an awesome scientist, I love your call out to the scientific community. Unfortunately, much of physics and science in general has been hijacked by an almost cultist mentality. Your ability to constantly test and hypothesize is refreshing.
Feynman would be proud.
Fynmen spoke the truth. Noboby since then has. The truly intelligent know this.
@@josephjohnson3738 Nonsense
@@greggor07 such an intelligent argument, yours, is not.
@@british.columbia The handle suits you perfectly
Feynman would have picked the safes of all the nobel winning institutes and debunked their finds right there and right then.
Sabine you are rockin it! Keep up the good work and don’t let anyone bring you down!
I'm loving to watch your videos. It's good to see sensible people talking.
And I really mean sensible, you're not right or wrong, you're point out the questions of the subject. I think people should do that a little more.
I remember the first inkling I had that particle physics, much as I adore it, was not for me when I was in grad school and the funding for the Superconducting Super Collider was yanked. I remember thinking to myself that it should have been pulled, that there was still plenty of good physics to be done with existing colliders, that the whole thing was a d*ck contest between us and the Europeans (since the LHC was also getting built), and that we shouldn't have started building it before we knew if it was needed since they had bulldozed people's homes in the process.
The rest of the faculty were outraged at the scrapping of the SSC though, acting as if it was the worst thing to happen to US science since Ben Franklin came in off the roof. I kept my mouth shut, but I knew that as much as the science itself sat easily in my head and as much as I loved it, these people were not my tribe. There were other reasons I got out, but that was a biggie. The science is magnificent. The people who do it ... not so much. It ends up damaging the science itself since multiple points of view don't exist. There's a lot of groupthink in the physical sciences, unfortunately.
I spent almost 30 years as a bio-engineer/biologist in the aerospace field. Worked for the main contractor for the Space Shuttles for awhile. There were a lot of projects where an astrophysicist's pet project is cut and the moaning and claims that science would be set back 50 years was amazing, the butt hurt whining was humorous to me. There is a lot of competition for funding and don't expect the truth when it is being presented to JPL, NASA or Rockwell. Mostly it was trying to get funding from the government thru certain agencies, if from a private company you better have your ducks all in a row.
Ever notice how some projects always have cost overruns? Because the developer of a satellite let's say, didn't really figure out how much it really would cost or they purposely mislead the board approving it as they figured it might get rejected if the true cost was handed in. The James Webb is a perfect example of not even knowing how you're going to or even IF you can develop and build it. Estimated from $1 billion to $10 billion is a heck of a cost overrun. It would not have been approved if they said it might run $5 billion let alone $10 billion.
Yes! And a million people with the same opinion still isn't evidence.
I’m not a physicist but was exited when the detections of GWs were announced. Like Sabine’s physics videos, the songs and all. But...
My take on the GW170817 was that for the first time there were 3 simultaneous detections that allowed the calculation of a thick point in the sky (intersection of 3 hyperbolic surfaces. As opposed to a thick line in the sky before). It pointed to the astronomical event. The fact that this was not a “prediction” by so many minutes does not disqualify the result as one of the greatest achievements in physics. Do not know the details of the “ligo team not responding” to some requests. Might be justified. Not all comments deserve a response.
Sabin is doing a great job addressing and educating the general public (like others: Sean Carroll, Brian Greene...). She is also very special with the unorthodox songs. Since the “public” (me as one of the group) may not understand the exact meaning, the general impression is that something not “scientific” is going on. Do not believe this is the case. Hope that countering the mainstream is not a PR thing.
Another great job Sabine, thank you for your posts they are without a doubt the most informed on the channel and an inspiration
Very interesting. You explained something I had been wondering about--the facts that if spacetime gets distorted, then everything inthe Ligo detector would get distorted, too, which would make the gravitational waves invisible. Or it would seem to. I'm still not sure I understand your answer, but so far you're the only one I've come across who has tried to explain it. I appreciate that.
One of the principles of special relativity is that the speed of light is invariant for all observers. This leads to the famous conclusion that time and space dilates. So, a gravitational wave will dilate space in one direction, but since light always travels at the same speed, you now have 2 orthogonal arms of different length where the light will traverse one "quicker" relative to you, hence an out of phase interference pattern emerges.
@@randall.chamberlain I get it now! Thank you for that explanation.
@@randall.chamberlain Good work Randall
Sabine rocks.
Sabine Hossenfelder is knowingly and deceitfully lying about physics.
@@frankdimeglio8216 how? Examples please
THE ULTIMATE AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA:
Ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Great !!! "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=MA.
Consider the man who IS standing on what is the EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!!
E=mc2 IS F=ma. The linked AND BALANCED opposite of what is THE SUN is A POINT in the night sky. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Therefore, the linked AND BALANCED opposite of what is THE EARTH is ALSO A POINT in the night sky. Great. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma.
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the Earth AND the Sun are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!!!!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. E=MC2 IS F=MA.
The EARTH and the SUN thus constitute and comprise what are the MIDDLE AND THE FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE (IN BALANCE) in full and BALANCED compliance and conformity with the CLEAR and universal fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! It ALL CLEARLY does make perfect sense. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) INDEED, BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Now, very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. Great.
NOW, OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. Notice the black space of THE EYE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. THE DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. Now, carefully consider what is the semi-spherical, translucent, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE SKY. Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is CLEAR. THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE (AS WATER). GREAT. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as this unifies AND balances gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This clearly explains BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!) ACCORDINGLY, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, the BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE is essential; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma.
Our EXPERIENCE is NECESSARILY that of what is the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AS we are BALANCED between what are THE SUN AND c (A POINT); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent WITH/as F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY does make perfect sense. THINK about what is QUANTUM GRAVITY.
"Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution !!! Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Gravitational force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Magnificent !!!
E=mc2 IS F=ma. Is a two dimensional surface or SPACE visible or invisible ? The answer is that it is BOTH. So, the electron AND photon are structureless. A PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in relation to E=mc2 AS F=ma. A PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in relation to the Sun AND c (A POINT). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=MC2 IS F=MA. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=MC2 IS F=MA. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense.
The BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE is essential. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) It is a very great truth that THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. Beautiful. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 Wonderful theory. Can you make a prediction based on that?
She is a deceptive fraud spreading mis-information, keeping the Lie alive.
I need to start to listen to your videos in my way to work...you are a very honest person when it comes to science...
Dear Sabine, you have a diamond strong logical way of thinking. Keep that way! Happy to have discovered your channel. Fully support you for the new accelerators though I am particle physicists by education. Beside I think CERN did a mistake by building LHC. They should have simply upgraded LEP.
Sabine, great video! I'm very interested in this subject and related subjects. The lack of access to the research details continues to be bad for science. Why does it have to be like this? On the issue of proper source identification in signals that are measured, there seems to be a common issue of leaping to a conclusion that fits the observer's bias. I think the CMB may have been handled like this as well.
You are SO clear in explaining the science, as well as the 'political' issues in these things.
balls out physics czcams.com/play/PLqTvm5jDjptlE-18Njd562ZjXvqOn-TLE.html
She’s a crook
well, she's clear in explaining half the science, anyway. go look for my post to read up on the details she either overlooked or intentionally left out that refute her arguments.
There was one event that had an independent electro-magnetic confirmation: GW170817 came from the collision of two neutron stars and was also detected electromagnetically by gamma ray satellites and optical telescopes (quoted from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO).
Just wanted to say, I really enjoy these videos and I'm really enjoying your book.
Great discussion of a problem that is more pervasive in modern science than most people realize. Hang in there Sabine and keep ‘ holding their feet to the fire’.
I have an interesting story about LIGO. In the early stages of the project, I did the mechanical design for the pick-off telescopes and the end mass telescopes for LIGO. These telescopes were used in reverse as beam expanders.
I was doing a fit check at Caltech inside one of the spherical housings when I noticed two high ranking military officers. The entire mock-up seemed to be below ground, in some sort of basement of Caltech since I went down several flights of stairs to get there. I exited the sphere and made this off-the-wall statement, "Oh, I know what you guys are actually doing, you're making UFO detecters".
The two military officers stared at me with a look that could kill an elephant at 1,000 paces. They were SERIOUS as a hart attack.
The project manager pulled me aside and very sternly said to me, "We don't say things like that down here".
All I could think of on my drive back to my office was, "These guys are being financed by taxpayers through the military industrial complex to look for UFO's!"
My thoutht exactly
Damn
And then you remembered that you forgot your meds.
Sabine, I believe the high precision correlation of findings between multiple detectors (2x LIGO + VIRGO) addresses most of your criticisms. As I understand it, the glitches detected do not correlate and therefore are thrown out. If an unidentified measurement can be shown to have occurred in 2 or more detectors within 1/100 of a second of each other, someone should be writing a paper about it!
As for the GRB being identified in LIGO data after a GRB was otherwise detected, astronomy has other cases where a predicted finding is identified in previously collected data. I don't see that as bad science, just effective use of available resources, so long as the data in question is reliable. Typically, that reliability is achieved by making the data public well in advance of the event. It can also be be achieved through cryptographic signature with timestamp. I have no idea is either of those was true in the case of the LIGO data, but as you say, I have no evidence of the data being manipulated either.
I am so glad you do what you do. Thank you!
Thank you! Science needs more like you.
Science needs EVERYONE like her. It used to be that way before all the money grubber scientists of today. They are disgusting. Same with politics!
flat earther interviews famous astrophysicist czcams.com/video/Cy1xJSgGKXs/video.html&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=cihSQXInNUFPsMEC%3A6
I don’t care what “ they” say, I think you’re the greatest
"In science its evidence which counts, not opinion".🤔
If they don't think what Sabine says is accurate, why don't they correct her? Why don't they do that? All they do is run a smear campaign and attack her character.
They don't want you to even ask whether a 40 billion dollar detector is worth the money or whether that money is best spent elsewhere. They want you to give them a blank check and have them fill in the amount!
@@IvanIvan1974 Correct.
@paul w Depending on the goal🤑
@@IvanIvan1974 Except for the crisis formally known as global warming. That only requires opinion....
I think sometimes we have to look at questions in more detail. The FERMI and INTEGRAL telescopes saw a short burst signal and announced it immediately, LIGO issued a GCN slightly later due to the vetting that was needed, that's true. However they gave a much smaller search area on the sky on the very edge of the FERMI localisation and they stated that the source was at a range of 40±8Mpc. Subsequent optical determination of the range gave a figure of 41.7Mpc.
That range figure was crucial in the discovery of the optical counterpart allowing the thousands of galaxies in the target area to be reduced to hundreds. The source was found by Swope, which only has a field of view of less than 0.246 square degrees or about 6 millionths of the sky, in just the 9th image taken. The host galaxy was the 12th most likely candidate on the Swope target list.
It is important to also realise that the luminosity was one of the lowest seen, the LIGO signal only depends slightly on the orientation of the binary orbit whereas optical detection is strongly dependent on being in the polar beam. Comparing the FERMI signal amplitude with the known range of previous SGRB would have predicted a much greater range.
Not only did LIGO correctly determine the sky location but their luminosity distance, issued several hours *before* SSS17a was found, was a major factor in locating the kilonova. To my amateur eye, that range figure seems to qualify as a "prediction", and one without which discovery would have been much less likely. If Swope had used the FERMI location, it would never have been found.
arxiv.org/pdf/1710.05452.pdf
Don’t just use one Paper.
I think you are absolutely right and honest in your opinions. We are sure about one thing: you are a Genius Sabine and thanks for these wonderful videos.
Interesting. Love that you are sitting down this time (this is serious:-)
I have a back injury, standing for extended periods is pretty painful at the moment. But, yes, the format has some advantages.
@@SabineHossenfelder So sorry to hear that. Hope you are feeling better soon.
@@SabineHossenfelder gotta keep those hammies and hips loose, issues propagate upwards. Upper back generally requires some yoga to get things back in place. Hope things get better, I'm currently healing from a knee injury!
@@SabineHossenfelder Get well soon! To me, this behavior shown here looks very scientifically, correctly skeptic of their own research and results. I dont know how his/their paper(s) looked - have you any concerns about their procedure? czcams.com/video/ViMnGgn87dg/video.html
I have digged a bit in your blog and I can understand your reservations and demands better now.
Good video. I had doubts about the gravity waves detection when some experts raised some reasonable questions , but I think now it's settled and I'm convinced we did detect the gravity waves.
You do raise good questions though.
lol, keep lapping up that propaganda
WOW! This is refreshing. I admire Sabine’s courage to ruffle feathers. She has received imbecilic criticism from some top notch particle physicists. It would have been much easier for her to just not comment on their failings. It tells me that she is more devoted to actual science than she is in going along to get along. It reminds me that even the most intelligent people on earth are not immune from arrogance and stubbornness, and that even people whom you would assume to be “enlightened” have a toxic reaction to admitting that they are wrong about anything. While I do not completely understand the physics that Sabine is discussing, I absolutely LOVE the fact that she has the courage to call Bull Shit on the most intelligent people in the world! Keep Up the Great Work!
I must say I am very impressed with your expression. That is to say I believe you to be an excellent teacher. So much more!
"...but in science, it's evidence that counts, not opinion."
you are so brave Sabine! very inspiring
One of Dr Hossenfelders strengths is her "no nonsense, no jargon approach". Her position here is perfectly clear and perfectly reasonable. Either her questions are easily answered or else more work needs to be done.
Hey Sabine I love ur vids btw keep going^^
I have a question, what's the difference between gravitate Waves and Electromagnetic waves ?
Hey you should go on Sean Carroll podcast mindscape! I would love to hear you guys discuss the best interpretation of quantum mechanics. As well as many other ideas
I had many reservations when the news broke of the detection of gravitational waves. I felt like the wool was being pulled over my eyes and I had essentially the same critique as you described near the end in regards to what they were really detecting.
the most important thing i learned from this channel is that high end scientists are still human, with all our imperfections and biases.
Good on you Sabine for pointing out the evidence needed in LIGO detection. As a consumer of science knowledge, we expected all discoveries are back up by thorough evidence to arrived at this discovery. Like you now, although I still believed that we have pickup the gravitational wave, I wish all other possibilities are iron out. Hopefully LISA can better clear things up if it gets the go ahead for detection.
For me though, I am unsure whether to support further LISA or larger LIGO detection in spending large amount of funds since I do not know what knowledge we can gain from peering into gravitational wave.
Hope you can do a video on the benefits of detecting gravitational wave like
-would it help us detect dark matter
-would it help us detect dark energy
-would it solve the universe expansion rate
and so on.
All the best Sabine
Thank you for continuing to cover this. As a layman I can't evaluate gravitational wave detection on its scientific merits. Instead I evaluate the results based on how credible they are. When I learned that gravitational waves were detected as soon as the detector was upgraded, that sounded fishy. I then learned that they were detected before the detector was supposed to be officially collecting data. That was fishy too. Then I learned that scientists had a way of injecting data into the detector such that no one working on the detector could tell whether that data was real or injected. That was also suspicious. And then I learned that even the scientists working on the detector were skeptical for months afterwards that the signal was real. I'm sure you're aware of the psychological experiment where a person is placed in a room of people who say that a clearly shorter line is the longer one until he himself starts saying it too, even though he clearly sees the opposite.
And then there is the reaction to people questioning the validity of the detections, even when it's other scientists trying to independently analyze the data. They are viciously attacked, not on the merits of their work, but on anything but. I also heard that at least some of the original data around the detections isn't even being released. Why is that? Why all the secrecy? If I claim that 2+2=4 and someone questions the result, I can produce the mathematical proof for them and for others to see. If the scientists were as confident of their results as they claim to be, why not just show their work for everyone to see? Why go into conniptions when other scientists raise valid scientific doubts? And, of course, the way they attack you for merely presenting the facts to us does not make them look good either. Also, it is my understanding that nobel prizes in fields such as physics are awarded after the results have been proven without any doubts. Sometimes a prize is awarded fifty years later when the scientist is a senile old man. Other times the scientists are already dead and are not eligible for the nobel prize. If there are still valid doubts about the detection, why was the nobel prize awarded so soon after the discovery?
Thank you for continuing to cover this.
Couldn't have said it any better
Couldn't have said it any better.
So does anybody know who the other two members of the injection team were (aside from David Reitze and Jeff Kissel) in 2015 yet? Anamaria Effler and Robert Schofield seem like strong possibilities... There should be zero problem disclosing this information now so what's the deal?
A little sunlight
Flat earth much? Listen, this information has been peer reviewed. Not only are the detections real, they are always confirmed by both detectors. They also match Einstein's predicted wave forms. So take off your tinfoil hats accept the future and dont buy into paranoia.
trucid2 Your comment sums up why an Atheist doesn't trust the organized religions of our time...but besides, LIGO is runned by individuals like Kip Thorne that for long years have worked on this project. I personally think it very unlikely that they would except nothing BUT the truth. I think a second LIGO style detector, funded properly and in size comparable runned by a different team would cancel out doubts. But we really already knew LIGO was limited and a space based system is necessary not only to cancel out Earth based fake signals but to pinpoint these waves properly... the cost through would surely cause people in these times to cry the blues...I say TAX the churches here in the USA and use the money for science, the irony alone...lol...sometimes it's in a way sad that Science & Religion separated.... it used to be interconnected - now armies of science haters are being raised and some of them get government positions while the scientific community fights internally over funding.
@@jjhhandk3974 Your reaction is exactly what I mentioned earlier. You didn't address any of the points I brought up and instead attacjed me directly by comparing me to a flat earther. By the way, you're confusing the way peer review is suppised to work in an ideal (impossible) world to the way it actually works. In reality peer review is a mechanism for reinforcing groupthink among the scientists. Peer review is an ideological and popularity screening, allowing papers that agree with the consensus through, while rejecting papers that question it. The merits of the paper might play some small role, but are largely irrelevant. The scientists doing the peer review are entrenched in the field, with their own interests to protect. Isn't it fishy that the scientists who peer review a peper remain anonymous? They can prevent competing ideas from being published and remain anonymous while doing so.
I love critical analysis: If the signals originated from the earth i.e. artifacts, then the amplitudes and frequencies from the signals at the different locations should have been different. Sabine, was this the case?
Sabine is not listening now
You explain so clearly, thank you!
I am immediately in love with this channel and this scientist.
"The first one to raise a fist is the first one to run out of ideas."
Fist or an aggressive tone.
Or is the most skilled in unarmed combat.
@@jayriley9828 Or someone who just enjoys violence...
Ideas are worthless unless they are backed with actions, for ideas only valid if they are persuasive!
You don't uses ideas with someone who has a knife to your wifes throat, you waste them!
"There is no middle ground for discussing ideas in a dispute between between the firefighter and the arsonist" - - Winston Churchill
Agreed on all points
Thank you for thinking carefully about what is going on here. We need more people like you, to make certain that real progress is being made. Especially now when it is difficult to directly detect new evidence that will help us to reshape physics.
Keep doing what you are doing exactly like you are doing it. It is great!
CZcams is littered with various kinds of debates (political, economical, religious, social,...), and accompanying them there are many one-sided videos on all of these topics from each side of the table.
However, from what I've seen, in the realm of science there are very few debates, and those that exist are all purely scientific-oriented.
I would say the issue presented in this video encompasses all of the above aspects (except religion), and I can't find any one-sided videos from the other side of the issue Sabine is talking about here. Why is that? I (and I believe many others) would love to hear what they have to say about this.
A full-on direct debate would be most interesting as well as most helpful in clearing up the situation. Is there any chance of this happening?
@Dirk Knight I didn't mean that kind of debate. I'm sure scientists debate all kinds of topics at their conferences, but I meant a public debate the video of which we could all watch here on CZcams.
Also, if Sabine is not part of it (as she's opposing their side), it's not a debate, it's an echo chamber chit-chat.
A debate about which is the correct interpretation of the quantum theory is fine to be confined to the inner circle of scientists (although some of us peasants love hearing all about it), but a debate if a $40B facility should be built or not definitely needs to be public (as in 'accessible to the public and their grandchildren who would be paying for it').
Have you heard of peer review?
@@dannygjk I will assume you're talking to me.
Yes, I have. What has that to do with anything I've said?
Sabine has presented here (in a very clear and understandable way, imo) a viewpoint which is not aligned with that of many of her colleagues (to the point of them wanting to slap her, no less).
1) I would say she deserves a response to her criticism of them (after all, she is one of the 'peers' you're talking about, isn't she?) and I'm expressing my wish for that response to be publicly available for our viewing. What is wrong with that?
2) The debate about building the bigger collider should not be confined to 'peers' only. They are not the ones who would be paying for it and even more, they would be profiting from it.
Dule, fizika (pogotovu ona nova) je ono što se dogovore profani na jakim fakultetima.
Oni vole da drže svoje položaje (što je razumljivo), skoro nikad ih nećeš čuti da nešto debatuju.
Fizika je priča o prirodi i svaki deo te priče je pun rupa, uvek je tako bilo i uvek će tako i biti.
Ponekad mi "popunimo" te rupe i popnemo se jedan sprat više... kad tamo rupa još više. I tako doveka.
@Dirk Knight I didn't imply that I would like to debate anyone on anything. The debate should be done between the parties with the opposing opinion, in this case Sabine and those people she mentioned. I said I would just like to see it.
One of the science presenters I like viewing is Sean Carroll. I'd say he would disagree with you on that claim about interpretation being a done deal (his presentations are where I concluded there is a dispute on this subject even today). I can't debate you on that, I'm not educated enough. I can (and do) just watch all these popular science videos on the Internet and see what I can pick up.
I don't think Sabine said $40B would be better used in combating climate change, I believe she said something like 'getting better weather data/predictions'. I believe the distinction is important.
I think I understand what you're trying to say in general, but should we all just roll over and accept all the shady things done to us in front of our eyes? It's tough, man. I'm perfectly aware yours or mine or even Sabine's opinions on their own would make no difference, but I think spreading awareness about an issue is the only way big wrongs can be overcome. [Edit: I believe this is Sabine's main motivation for making these videos; she surely isn't doing it to get rich from ads]
Thank you so much for standing up for intellectual honesty and for insisting the scientific community hold itself to rigorous standards. I'm also appalled at the idea that non-conforming data may have been discarded. How often has anomalous data been the source of new insights and unexpected breakthroughs?
The data is not discarded. She was incredibly misleading to say so. All data from all live runs across all interferometers is kept for all time, and is constantly analyzed. There are teams dedicated to identifying the source of said glitches. When she says the data is "thrown out", she means it's listed as "obviously not a gravitational wave". This is why someone who isn't a member of the collaboration shouldn't be "teaching" others about how it operates.
Derek White is absolutely providing accurate information regarding how excessively loud non-astrophysical transient signals are marked as “non-astrophysical” and are recorded but not used for astrophysical analysis. They are vetoed. A data veto does not mean “throw away this data and pretend it doesn’t exist.” It means “mark this data as not able to accurately represent astrophysical signals.” “Throw away” is misleading terminology.
Love the skepticism and the explanation
Hossenfelder demonstrates the professional scepticism which is the proper role of the scientist; outstanding.