This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
First observation of gravitational waves article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving First observation of gravitational waves was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 February 2016. | ![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 14, 2018. |
Archive 1 |
Why do all the graphs start at time = 0.3 seconds, roughly? Why not at zero? I am guessing this is because the wall-clock time was hh:mm:ss.30 in UTC, so they are using wall-clock time, but (1) this is not explained and nobody has been able to answer this question for me, and (2) what are the values of hh, mm, and ss, in UTC? I see the date, but not the time. Thanks. 146.115.179.89 ( talk) 22:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Now that a second one has been confirmed, are we going to create Second observation of gravitational waves? Or merge it (pardon the pun) with this page and rename it Observations of gravitational waves or Direct evidence of gravitational waves? Tayste ( edits) 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on First observation of gravitational waves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 10 November 2017. The result of the move review was endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Head count roughly split and both sides have reasonable arguments which centre around different naming criteria (consistency for those in support, recognisability for those in oppose). Splitting is an editorial decision outside the scope of RM and can be followed up on in the section below. Jenks24 ( talk) 01:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
First observation of gravitational waves →
GW150914 – When we
last discussed this back in February 2016, we only had this case of a gravitational wave, and it wasn't clear if that would remain the case or not. We now know that these are regularly-detectable events rather than a one-off, and we have a series of articles on them, titled
GW151226,
GW170104,
GW170814, and
GW170817. This one doesn't match that pattern. As such, I think this is worth re-discussing whether we should move this to
GW150914 (while keeping the current name as a redirect). Thanks.
Mike Peel (
talk) 23:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
Steel1943 (
talk)
15:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
There seems support for a split above, the only opposition I can see is on the grounds that the article isn't big enough to need splitting, which doesn't seem to me to be a valid reason for not splitting.
If we're going to split as proposed, then the proposed move is pointless anyway. (Disclosure: I'm against the move in any case.)
Other comments? Andrewa ( talk) 19:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I would personally consider at least two alternate solutions: first to rename the article "First direct observation of gravitational waves". This seems to resolve both your objection, and the desire that the title be one that readers will find comprehensible and context-setting for what they are about to read.
Another solution might be to have an article about the "event of discovery" which focusses on the history of the team, the cultural impact, the scientific implications, etc., and to have another article "GW150914" which has the scientific details only, similar to GW151226. I immediately see both advantages and disadvantages in this approach.
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) James ( talk/ contribs) 01:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
First observation of gravitational waves be
renamed and moved to
First direct observation of gravitational waves.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
First observation of gravitational waves → First direct observation of gravitational waves – See User:Jimbo Wales detailed analysis on this topic here. Jimbo's argument is that this is not necessarily the first observed gravitational waves but it is the first directly observed gravitational waves. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 03:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 18:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
So since the observed length change happened during this event, gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? always? I felt this wasn't explained or clear, if someone could answer and maybe put it in the article. I know that Space-Time could expand faster than light, so this makes me curious, and also how it might relate to gravitons. Cornelius ( talk) 11:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW - seems a team of Danish physicists at the Niels Bohr Institute have raised doubts [1] about the first detection of a gravitational wave - this concern was added to the main article, but later reverted by another editor.
QUESTION: Are the doubts about the first detection of a gravitational wave worth noting (see possible edit addition below) in the main article - or not? Perhaps for an "historical reason", if for no other reason?
Comments Welcome from other editors.
[Possible Edit Addition]
--- Doubts of detection ---In October 2018, doubts about the first detection of a gravitational wave have been raised by a team of physicists at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, who consider the original gravitational wave signal detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) an "illusion." However, LIGO Executive Director David Reitze of Caltech noted in response, "Their analysis has been looked at by many people who have all concluded there is absolutely no validity to their claims." [1]
References
- ^ a b Ouellette, Jennifer (31 October 2018). "Danish physicists claim to cast doubt on detection of gravitational waves - LIGO responds: "There is absolutely no validity to their claims."". Ars Technica. Retrieved 1 November 2018.
In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW - Seems, more recently, in December 2018, a relevant report [1] was published in Quanta Magazine - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Sorry to inform all of you that we need to refrain from editing for a while due to copyright infringement by User:Rowan Forest (former name BatteryIncluded). He copied and pasted copyrighted contents to Circumstellar habitable zone, and then Administrator Diannaa removed it. I also assessed the edit history of First observation of gravitational waves and found at least one infringement... For more information, please visit Talk:Circumstellar_habitable_zone#Violation_of_copyright_laws and join the discussion. Thank you, -- ProfessorPine ( talk) 08:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Why is there no reference to questions raised against the detection by members of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen?
See: Exclusive: Grave doubts over LIGO's discovery of gravitational waves
It doesn't mean one is agreeing with their analysis -- but, it should be mentioned. The fact (revealed below) that an edit mentioning it has been suppressed makes me wonder about the integrity of this entry. Mwidunn ( talk) 18:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
First observation of gravitational waves article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving First observation of gravitational waves was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 February 2016. | ![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 14, 2018. |
Archive 1 |
Why do all the graphs start at time = 0.3 seconds, roughly? Why not at zero? I am guessing this is because the wall-clock time was hh:mm:ss.30 in UTC, so they are using wall-clock time, but (1) this is not explained and nobody has been able to answer this question for me, and (2) what are the values of hh, mm, and ss, in UTC? I see the date, but not the time. Thanks. 146.115.179.89 ( talk) 22:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Now that a second one has been confirmed, are we going to create Second observation of gravitational waves? Or merge it (pardon the pun) with this page and rename it Observations of gravitational waves or Direct evidence of gravitational waves? Tayste ( edits) 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on First observation of gravitational waves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 10 November 2017. The result of the move review was endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Head count roughly split and both sides have reasonable arguments which centre around different naming criteria (consistency for those in support, recognisability for those in oppose). Splitting is an editorial decision outside the scope of RM and can be followed up on in the section below. Jenks24 ( talk) 01:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
First observation of gravitational waves →
GW150914 – When we
last discussed this back in February 2016, we only had this case of a gravitational wave, and it wasn't clear if that would remain the case or not. We now know that these are regularly-detectable events rather than a one-off, and we have a series of articles on them, titled
GW151226,
GW170104,
GW170814, and
GW170817. This one doesn't match that pattern. As such, I think this is worth re-discussing whether we should move this to
GW150914 (while keeping the current name as a redirect). Thanks.
Mike Peel (
talk) 23:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
Steel1943 (
talk)
15:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
There seems support for a split above, the only opposition I can see is on the grounds that the article isn't big enough to need splitting, which doesn't seem to me to be a valid reason for not splitting.
If we're going to split as proposed, then the proposed move is pointless anyway. (Disclosure: I'm against the move in any case.)
Other comments? Andrewa ( talk) 19:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I would personally consider at least two alternate solutions: first to rename the article "First direct observation of gravitational waves". This seems to resolve both your objection, and the desire that the title be one that readers will find comprehensible and context-setting for what they are about to read.
Another solution might be to have an article about the "event of discovery" which focusses on the history of the team, the cultural impact, the scientific implications, etc., and to have another article "GW150914" which has the scientific details only, similar to GW151226. I immediately see both advantages and disadvantages in this approach.
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) James ( talk/ contribs) 01:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
First observation of gravitational waves be
renamed and moved to
First direct observation of gravitational waves.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
First observation of gravitational waves → First direct observation of gravitational waves – See User:Jimbo Wales detailed analysis on this topic here. Jimbo's argument is that this is not necessarily the first observed gravitational waves but it is the first directly observed gravitational waves. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 03:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 18:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
So since the observed length change happened during this event, gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? always? I felt this wasn't explained or clear, if someone could answer and maybe put it in the article. I know that Space-Time could expand faster than light, so this makes me curious, and also how it might relate to gravitons. Cornelius ( talk) 11:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW - seems a team of Danish physicists at the Niels Bohr Institute have raised doubts [1] about the first detection of a gravitational wave - this concern was added to the main article, but later reverted by another editor.
QUESTION: Are the doubts about the first detection of a gravitational wave worth noting (see possible edit addition below) in the main article - or not? Perhaps for an "historical reason", if for no other reason?
Comments Welcome from other editors.
[Possible Edit Addition]
--- Doubts of detection ---In October 2018, doubts about the first detection of a gravitational wave have been raised by a team of physicists at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, who consider the original gravitational wave signal detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) an "illusion." However, LIGO Executive Director David Reitze of Caltech noted in response, "Their analysis has been looked at by many people who have all concluded there is absolutely no validity to their claims." [1]
References
- ^ a b Ouellette, Jennifer (31 October 2018). "Danish physicists claim to cast doubt on detection of gravitational waves - LIGO responds: "There is absolutely no validity to their claims."". Ars Technica. Retrieved 1 November 2018.
In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW - Seems, more recently, in December 2018, a relevant report [1] was published in Quanta Magazine - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Sorry to inform all of you that we need to refrain from editing for a while due to copyright infringement by User:Rowan Forest (former name BatteryIncluded). He copied and pasted copyrighted contents to Circumstellar habitable zone, and then Administrator Diannaa removed it. I also assessed the edit history of First observation of gravitational waves and found at least one infringement... For more information, please visit Talk:Circumstellar_habitable_zone#Violation_of_copyright_laws and join the discussion. Thank you, -- ProfessorPine ( talk) 08:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Why is there no reference to questions raised against the detection by members of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen?
See: Exclusive: Grave doubts over LIGO's discovery of gravitational waves
It doesn't mean one is agreeing with their analysis -- but, it should be mentioned. The fact (revealed below) that an edit mentioning it has been suppressed makes me wonder about the integrity of this entry. Mwidunn ( talk) 18:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)