Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Ah, the good old WYSIWYG days (Score 1) 79

It might be a more stable platform than the current web stack where different browser brands under different OS settings render things in different places and different ways. Back in the day they were positioned mostly by absolute coordinates, reducing positioning surprises. Auto-flow has mostly failed.

Comment Re:It helps to know what to look for (Score 1) 396

It pretty much took numerical simulations using supercomputers to be able to predict the gravitational wave signal from colliding black holes.

That's an interesting conjecture. Were pre-super-computer simulations off by orders of magnitudes, and/or had an error range orders of magnitudes? I'm not a physics expert.

Comment Up-Sides? (Score 1) 126

There may be some upsides to their DNA that we don't yet know about. Diseases and extreme problems are better understood because that's what medical experts are expected to focus on. But there could also be some nice traits we picked up from them such that they counter the negative traits enough to survive in our genome.

And the down-sides of them may only show up in some people. That is, they depend on combinations of other genes to manifest themselves.

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 396

Okay, there was some uncertainty over the what phenomena could cause gravity waves, but that still creates mostly the same in issue on the generation side.

Colliding black holes is about as big as you can get. There's nothing known that's more massive, except "collective" objects like galaxies and dust clouds.

Those things are either too diffuse to generate GW's, above noise, or would create them as such a low frequency to be beyond the frequency range of current detectors.

Comment Re: Cool! (Score 1) 396

I understand that, but I've never seen an article about past attempts with statements similar to, "most existing theories on gravity say we shouldn't expect to detect gravity waves with [current gizmo] because it's not sensitive enough, but part of the purpose of [current gizmo] is to verify this expectation."

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 396

They have been trying to detect GW's for roughly half a century, making instruments gradually ever sensitive when nothing found. Was their magnitude so uncertain that they had no idea how sensitive the detector had to be to detect them?

If it's nearly a guaranteed result, as you implied, then why the huge uncertainty over the sensitivity needed? Or did the early trials merely hope the models were wrong when trying to detect results beyond what the tech of the day could handle relative to the (faint) magnitude the models suggested?

For example, why build a detector that is only sensitive to waves of 100 units or larger if the models say the actual waves should only be 2 units of size? You wouldn't build the 100 unit-size detector unless you had a decent reason to believe the models could be wrong. But I've never seen that assumption stated in the write-ups over the years they've been building all these detectors.

Slashdot Top Deals

Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there. -- Josh Billings