Chad Hanna Public Lecture: Windows on the Universe 

He does do a good job. He's goofy enough to be funny especially with his little laugh grunt but he still serious enough to make it interesting and feel like you might learn something. I would definitely watch more of his videos

He's nervous

Slimmilar : I thought about that as well.

thanks

good looking out compadre!

no it didn't... it was 2:42 ;)

I’m at 34:29 and I’m still waiting for it to start...

The fore leads us hopelessly further into a future where we can do the latter with ease.

We're just looking for the next big thing, while trying to appease our biological *need* to understand our origins. When we find enough of these big things, it will open an age of untold advancement, as we truly will be transcendent in a fashion.

It also seems to suggest that there is a stream of energetic neutrinos that is ejected some hours earlier than the actual main event, which of course, then releases these very energetic bursts of gamma rays, x-rays, visible light, sounds waves, and everything else along the electro-magnetic spectrum. It's like the heavens are sending us a notification, alerting us to get ready because something big and spectacular is on its way. How wonderful is that.

Richard Lewis : an astute observation.

Richard Lewis gravitational waves are the warping of space-time. light (electromagnetic waves) propagates through a electromagnetic field, which permeates time-space. warping time-space warps the electromagnetic field which in turn warps the electromagnetic waves propagating through it. this is how i understand it.

Think of two large stars in a binary system; eventually they both run out of fuel, collapse to black holes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Formation_and_evolution I'm fairly sure there aren't a significant number of "wandering black holes", because gravity would pull each to the center of the nearest matter / galaxy :-)

It was barely informative at best I've heard far better on the subject

Presumably "dry cleaning fluid" is also relatively cheap, easy to handle, not desperately toxic (though I seem to remember that carbon tetrachloride got banned :-) -- as opposed to e.g. liquid chlorine, which would be tricky to use in swimming-pool-sized amounts albeit richer in chlorine ;-)

no. - unless something can be in two places at once.

@@thecatsman thx

In fiction everything is possible. MG1

Space isn't being stretched (or compressed) /very much/ by gravity, though; look at the size of the LIGO sites, compared to the tiny variations they found. Gravity lensing is (presumably) almost static, but the chirps that LIGO found were very short duration; so (e.g.) take red-shift readings daily, eventually take a mean, add some error bars?

by mixing two measures of vodka with one measure of gin and then you can be a Master of the universe

its not really "distance" they are looking for, but direction and velocity, redshift gives you the speed, and gravity waves the direction, as Chad said, measuring distance is incredibly hard, however, the more his team detects waves, the more accurate they can be, and his hopes are that in the near future they can pin down a number.

This is a good question. I hear that the observations of the event horizon telescope we're getting tomorrow are going to be unexpected. My hope and to some degree belief is that they will challenge the current understanding of time and space and spur on the work that will lead to greater precision in our descriptions.

I like

@@3877michael I wonder why you like my comment.

no

Lots of windows at LIGO are X11. Sorry to trample your joke.

@@lucasthompson1650 dont worry about it, it was a dumb joke anyway

I noticed that too. I wonder if there was an extended period of star decay before going supernova which produced a bunch of neutrinos before the star died?

there would have to be some explanation like that otherwise they were moving faster than the light or at least as fast as the light but they started the journey first

I also had a problem with this. I was thinking that neutrinos traveled at something like (100-(1x10^-9))% of C. If this was the case, and that object was about a billion lightyears away, shouldn't the neutrinos have arrived about a year later?

Light interacts with matter a lot more than neutrinos. It takes light a bit longer to get out of the supernova remnant than neutrinos.

@@MrAlRats even so the light wouldnt have continued to b slow once it got out. it wouldve overtaken the nuetrinos. there would need to b a significant delay between the nuetrinos getting out and the light getting out not fractions of a second

Watch the video first, then ask questions about it.

Without any idea what it is about? Do you often do that? Just charge in, no thought? Seems so...

I actually watched the video and your question was thoroughly explained. Seems like you are the one charging in here with no thought.

So why not just say what it is about? My comment was not aimed @ you, I did not type your nonsensical name! And yet...

If you are referring to the title, then it's a 'windows' on the universe, which is a good analogy of gravitational waves. Something like G. W's allow us to look out of universe.

Mate you do know that your comment makes no sense (the BIG clue for this is in the title, The Premier Institute for THEORETICAL Physics), i really do hope i dont have to explain any furthur ! , perhaps you watched this after consuming to much "sauce" and once you wake up again with a clearer head you may realise yr error , lol , goodluck ! . R .

Your question makes perfect sense, ignore the haters. Regarding detection of rogue planets and stars, probably not with gravitational wave detectors - at least not in the near future. Planets and main sequence stellar bodies simply don't ripple spacetime enough to be measured by anything we can currently conceive of building. I'm not even sure if a single body planetary object would even cause ripples larger than a plank length … but computationally assisted laser interferometry at large scales is still in it's infancy, so who knows? Regarding detecting activity around Sagittarius A*, the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way: Now you're talking! Absolutely yes, but again, not with ground based interferometers. Even though it is relatively close, with a mass around 4 million times that of the Sun, we would still need a space-based gravitational wave detector like Dr. Hanna mentioned. This would work like LIGO except you wouldn't need tubes to house the lasers (space is already nearly a vacuum) so the laser emitter, beam splitter, detector, and mirrors could all ride stationary Lagrange points, with the distance between the mirrors and the splitter being around 5 million km apart - vs the mere 4km arms of the two LIGO facilities.

I look forward to a map of the "gravity sky".

Surely you know that the event horizon telescope is holding six press conferences around the world to reveal their first images of Sagittarius A?

@@lancetschirhart7676 That has nothing to do with interferometers.

I can handle that as long as he doesn't say, "I mean..." at the start of every sentence. :)

@@pat8988 I mean, those were excellent questions.

Why would you make fun of them either way??

@@lancetschirhart7676 Because it is not science to be looking for aliens.

@@JungleJargon Why not? We are an existence-proof of complex life in this Universe. If we look for aliens, we'll either find them, or that there aren't any. Either would qualify as a major discovery. Judging by life on Earth, it seems that chances are pretty good we'll find "alien" microorganisms even if there's a Fermi Paradox "Great Filter" (such as the evolution of Eukaryotes) that makes complex multicellular creatures like us exceedingly rare.

@@JungleJargon Why not?

@@kevincrady2831 You are proof of having been directed. You can't use directed things as evidence of no direction. You are blind to the evidence in front of you.

So are you going to share your mushrooms with the rest of the class?

@@gubzs ?

David Lloyd-Jones not only is this dumb, it is also mind bendingly boring. Your whole take on this is not curiosity but a pedantic quibble on poetic language? Remind me to never hit you up at a party you nincompoop

I'm sort of amazed to see this guy's impressive, hopeful, exciting work dissed by a passing troll here. When is the last time YOU grappled with questions this fundamental with the intent refine mankind's understanding in a verifiable, eventually mutually-accepted way? (Even if that simply means learning enough to ask better questions). Glib, drive-by pot shots at serious investigators always impress me aa a particularly easy-and-shallow form of pseudo-intellectual opportunism. But hey, at least you're not listening to Qanon or David Wilcock. I'll give you that much.

J. Curtis hear hear

You _really_ think he was implying a teleological Great Spirit, or are you just taking the word "messenger" and stretching it to an almost impossible conclusion? Let me offer an alternative and you tell me if this is more plausible than that he is arguing teleology behind EM waves and gravitational waves, and that they were put there by a Great Spirit, in order to earn research grants. Light Is a _messenger_ because we _see_ things when light bounces off of them and hits our retinas. It really is that simple! A "messenger" is something that delivers information. All of the information you see right now, these very words, are conveyed to you through light. If light from the screen did not reach your eyes, then the information on the screen would not reach you. The words you see are the "message," and the transmission signal, the light, is the "messenger." Get it?

@@lancetschirhart7676 "Great Spirit" was a joke, but there is no "stretching it to an almost impossible conclusion" in what I wrote. If there's a messenger then there's a message and somebody sending it. Your second paragraph, on the other hand, is a fine example of stretching things to an almost impossible conclusion: nobody ever refers to light on the things around us as a messenger. You just made that up yourself.