Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #690405
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 06:15 -0700 |
| References | <72abe286-e049-4042-934b-871dfb7f2b28@googlegroups.com> <fb45c192-7062-4ac8-bba5-e960fd438302@googlegroups.com> <pfr294$qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| Message-ID | <d7fe9f0d-e39c-45f2-ae47-fdee70280d01@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: LIGO |
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:22:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > And that’s for BUILDING.. Measurement is much better. You know about AFMs?
> >
> > ___________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > It is not physically possible to measure a distance of 10^-10 m much less
> > 10^-18 m. The expansion of the mirrors caused by the temperature is more than 10^-10.
> >
>
> Don’t you think it makes better sense to read the LIGO design report to see
> how they achieved this precision, rather than just stating out of ignorance
> that it’s impossible and they must be lying?
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
The mirrors are both thermally and mechanically isolated.
Odd got the issue exactly right.
The key is precision versus accuracy.
The LIGO interferometer must be very precise in order to
measure the difference in lengths on the two arms.
It does not matter the accuracy of the length measurement
for this system to work. The accuracy needs to be stable
(not changing from run to run). But the precision is what
provides the resolution for showing the CHANGE in length.
Ed
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
LIGO furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:28 -0700
Re: LIGO moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 18:08 +0000
Re: LIGO "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 13:26 -0700
Re: LIGO "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-12 13:31 -0700
Re: LIGO benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 18:21 -0400
Re: LIGO numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 13:30 -0700
Re: LIGO numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 13:54 -0700
Re: LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
Re: LIGO "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 15:08 -0700
Re: LIGO "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-12 20:23 -0700
Re: LIGO numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:34 -0700
Re: LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 01:17 +0000
Re: LIGO furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 16:06 -0700
Re: LIGO numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 18:21 -0700
Re: LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 12:21 +0000
Re: LIGO Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:15 -0700
Re: LIGO benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 11:33 -0400
Re: LIGO furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:28 -0700
Re: LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 18:40 +0000
Re: LIGO numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 12:27 -0700
Re: LIGO furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:00 -0700
Re: LIGO Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:04 -0700
Re: LIGO furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 11:22 -0700
Re: LIGO Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-15 14:45 -0400
Re: LIGO furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 12:56 -0700
Re: LIGO Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-15 17:00 -0400
Re: LIGO Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 17:01 -0700
Re: LIGO numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 14:55 -0700
csiph-web