Menu toggle open
Menu toggle close Back
site logo
World Science Scholars

3.5 Detecting Gravitational Waves

discussion Discussion
Viewing 11 reply threads
    • September 2, 2020 at 4:05 pm

      The basic design of the interferometer used by LIGO was invented by Albert Michelson and used in a famous experiment that sought to prove the existence of aether. It failed to do so, as we now know that aether does not exist, but the interferometer design was a boon to science and is widely used in many different fields. What do you think about the importance of null or negative results? Should scientists be as strongly encouraged to publish negative results as they are to publish positive findings? Explain your answers.

      • February 22, 2022 at 12:54 pm

        Yes, all data should be public domain as we learn from our mistakes; one should not let the ego get in the way of learning and all of humanity need not repeat those mistakes.

      • November 9, 2023 at 1:03 pm

        That’s a great question. Null or negative results are super important in scientific research. They can save time and resources by steering other researchers towards more promising areas. Unfortunately, they don’t always get the attention they deserve. The pressure for positive results can lead to selective publishing, distorting the overall view of the scientific community. So, yes, I think scientists should be encouraged to share and publish these results as much as the positive ones. Transparency strengthens the knowledge foundation!

    • September 6, 2020 at 6:19 am

      This is relatively easy to answer: As an old saying goes, you best learn from your mistakes – and you’ll never do the same mistake twice. Success is always nice, but in my experience, most knowledge can be gained from failed experiments. When you publish these “flops”, you avoid other people repeating the mistake. So, revealing the technical flaw in the LHC some time ago finally confirmed that no particle can exceed the speed of light.

    • September 7, 2020 at 7:09 pm

      Failures provide valuable info.

    • September 19, 2020 at 8:27 am

      Yes, every negative result should also be widely explained which will help the other experimental physicists to take the learning and move forward. This will help in saving lot of time and cost.

    • September 30, 2020 at 12:09 pm

      Yes

    • June 1, 2021 at 4:47 pm

      It’s definitely useful – scientists should provide the results of the experiments, regardless of what these are and what they imply, as what matters is the truth, not what the scientists hope the truth is.

    • September 5, 2022 at 12:54 pm

      Hello Ladies and Gentleman,

      The appeal to the lords we seek approval from occurs across the spectrum of human activity.

      Negative publishing is important for debunking, and outruling.

      But when we cannot allow the ears of our lords to hear anything, the whitewashing occurs.

      Also what occurs are successful things becoming state secrets, such as aEther and the B2 bomber technology. There are other things that go on as conspiracy theories to which are no such thing, yet in the interests of national security as quieted.

    • March 28, 2023 at 7:47 am

      mistakes are just what we use to know how to go farther, was it Edison who said about his fails that they were not failures he just discovered 867 ways not to make a light bulb?

    • March 28, 2023 at 7:51 am

      Besides the fact that those failed results to your experiment, could be the proof needed for another theory to be proven?

    • August 25, 2023 at 8:07 am

      Ladies and Gentlemen,

      What happens when the GRADAR starts to report more back than intended?

      Is this ignored?

      Radar and Sonar were military applications, even if eventually. Sonar needed improvement from the initial sensors lacking distance parameters.

      What happens when a military application for GRADAR starts to reveal SETI?

      CLG
      🙂
      🍵☕🍵🍵

      Albert Michelson made really good ideas with his basic design for LIGO. As an interferometer similar to any other, we see almost a wave of fashion reposition other technologies for telescope use. This is occuring with ICE CUBE & HAARP.

      Attachments:
      You must be logged in to view attached files.

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend