The gravity of the situation
- This topic has 205 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So:
https://theconversation.com/gravitational-waves-found-the-inside-story-54589
Quote:Astronomers have used light to study the universe with optical telescopes for hundreds of years. We have expanded that view hugely since the middle of the 20th century, by building detectors and instruments sensitive to all the forms of what physicists mean by light: the electromagnetic spectrum, from gamma rays to radio. Yet the discovery of gravitational waves represents our first steps into studying the universe through the gravitational-wave spectrum, which exists independently from light, probing directly the effects of gravity as it spreads across the cosmos. It is the first page in a whole new chapter for astronomy, and science.In essence, through co-operation and technology, we, human beings, have developed a new sense, after having advanced so far through one sense (the study of light) we can now begin to think about ways of measuring these gravitational waves.
This technology has already corroborated (netter than "confirmed") Einstein's general relativity, and they may allow us to exploe and detect dark matter in order to corroborate the standard model. Also, a new sense may help us to stumble upon new evidence, new phenomena that may require us to generate new theories.
One commentator below the article asks why we are wastign time and effort on such things while poverty, etc. exists? It's arguable, though, that this is the good example, fo what we could be doing, instead: exploring the unvierse, together. If we want concete examples of what we are talking about, this is the sort of thing humans are capable of.
Actually, have scientists "found", "discovered" gravitational waves or have they, rather, come up with a more accurate description of what has been observed?
They have 'observed' gravtitational waves (or, they have found a way to observe them) for the first time. It involved increasing the sensitvity of the equipment. But, what they observed was what they expected to find, according to theory.
1. A historically-specific human social group produced a social 'theory' ('physical reality' did not speak to humans, not even to elite bourgeois physicists), a theory which corresponded to the interests, purposes and ethics of the social group.2. A historically-specific human social group employed that theory in social practice to attempt to construct 'knowledge' ('physical reality' did not 'actively impinge on an individual's biological senses', not even an elite bourgeois physicist's senses), a 'knowledge' which corresponded to the interests, purposes and ethics of the social group.3. Since this 'social knowledge' is a 'social construction' (and not the one-off 'discovery' of a 'physical reality', which is then 'true forever'), it can be changed by a different socio-historical group, which has different interests, purposes and ethics, and so can produce a different theory, employ a different practice, and thus produce a different 'knowledge'.This is Marx's method of 'theory and practice', in which historically-specific social groups actively produce their social knowledge of an 'inorganic' nature: that is, they produce 'organic nature', 'nature-for-us'.'Inorganic nature' is not the 'active side', and humans do not passively reflect 'inorganic nature', we create our object, our 'organic nature'.'Gravitational waves' are a socio-historical construct, they are 'knowledge'. They now form part of current 'organic nature'.But given a different society, theory and practice, they may, in the future, also disappear into 'the ether'.
Quote:When a gravitational wave passes by, the stretching and squashing of space causes these arms alternately to lengthen and shrink, one getting longer while the other gets shorter and then vice versa. As the arms change lengths, the laser beams take a different time to travel through them.That really happened, it will always have happened, future generations may forget, but it did happen. No human made the light take different times to pass down the tube, if the light had taken a constant time, then their theories would have been refuted.
ALB wrote:Oh no, what have I done !I can predict what you won't do, ALB.Materialists never do. They worship 'matter', and sit passively at its feet.They can't accept Marx's view that we actively construct our object, like 'gravitational waves'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:When a gravitational wave passes by, the stretching and squashing of space causes these arms alternately to lengthen and shrink, one getting longer while the other gets shorter and then vice versa. As the arms change lengths, the laser beams take a different time to travel through them.That really happened, it will always have happened, future generations may forget, but it did happen. No human made the light take different times to pass down the tube, if the light had taken a constant time, then their theories would have been refuted.
That's your ideological opinion, YMS, but it's not Marx's or mine.Your opinion contains no socio-historical perspective, and so can't explain change.You believe in 'Eternal Truth', once 'discovered', 'known forever'.That belief cannot even explain changes in bourgeois science.
ALB wrote:Oh no, what have I done !you to blame this time, then
LBird wrote:That's your ideological opinion, YMS, but it's not Marx's or mine.Your opinion contains no socio-historical perspective, and so can't explain change.You believe in 'Eternal Truth', once 'discovered', 'known forever'.That belief cannot even explain changes in bourgeois science.Changes in science happen when the evidence changes. Could you explain, though, how the scientists made the light take different times to traverse sections of the tube?Knowledge won't be known forever: one day there will be no humans to know things, but that won't change the fact that if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there, the tree fell.What happened to your realism?
I'll leave this thread to the materialists, now, and let them remain cheerleaders for bourgeois physics, which even their physicists have known for a hundred years does not suffice.Since YMS is not a Democratic Communist and Marxist, his ideological opinions are those of the bourgeosie, and so carry no weight.But, to those of you reading, who do consider yourselves socialists and influenced by Marx, ask yourselves, in all of these discussions:- who stresses socio-historical production?- who stresses socio-historical change?- who stresses the proletariat?- who stresses 'theory and practice', rather than 'evidence' (ie. 'practice and theory')?- who stresses democracy, rather than elite physics?- who stresses change, rather than stability?- who stresses the revolution required in physics?
Yes, that's right, you can't account for what happened at aLIGO, so retreat into ad hominems and flee the field, only to return to make arguments by assertion and appeal to authority later on.
Vin wrote:ALB wrote:Oh no, what have I done !you to blame this time, then
I suppose so but under normal circumstances it should be possible to have a rational discussion as to whether "gravitational waves" have always existed waiting to be "discovered" (as the original report suggested) or whether some stream of phenomena in principle observable has now come to be observed, and labelled "gravitational waves". In other words, the phenomenon always existed and it's just that it has now been described, more accurately/usefully in terms of being able to predict the way it will continue to manifest itself. But, unfortunately …
ALB wrote:In other words, the phenomenon always existed and it's just that it has now been described, more accurately/usefully in terms of being able to predict the way it will continue to manifest itself. But, unfortunately ……Marx's theories intervened.But you wouldn't know anything about them, would you, ALB?Y'know, socio-historical production and change.No, you're all for 'always existed', merely being 'described', 'useful prediction'.You make me laugh. It's as if you've never read Marx.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.