Talk:LIGO

1999 promise

In this 1999 Physics Today article LIGO Director Barry Barish and Rainer Weiss state: "After LIGO's first data run, we plan to interleave subsequent searches with a series of detector upgrades that promise to lead to ever-enhanced sensitivity, making the direct detection of gravitational waves a reality within the next decade." I think this is far more reliable source than Rana Adhikari's dubious private communication (to whom?) referenced in the WP article ("In 2004, it was reported that theorists estimated the chances of an unambiguous direct detection by 2010 at one in six."). Actually (as documented here) Adhikari stated in 2007: "I tell students they're lucky [...]. They're getting in at the right time -- it's right before we see something." Well ... .

First light

First light seems to be an astronomy term. As well as I know, it applies, even though it isn't an optical detector. That is, it should apply. Might ask an astronomer, though. Gah4 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally used for images taken by telescopes. LIGO doesn't detect light and it doesn't take images. Searching for 'LIGO "first light"' produces tons of unrelated articles about multi-messenger astronomy (detecting electromagnetic signals together with gravitational waves). I don't find any article talking about "first light" for LIGO. The infobox still shows the entry because the template for telescopes uses "service entry" and displays it as "first light" - which is fine for optical telescopes but weird for gravitational wave detectors. --mfb (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect physicists would also use it for radio telescopes, as it is still photons, though not visible. Even more likely for IR telescopes, again not visible but maybe also light. I am trying to find a WP:RS one way or the other. Note that Second sound isn't actually sound, though that doesn't seem to bother anyone. Gah4 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, WP:RS number one says first sound based on the audio frequency output from the detector. Or, it seems to me, that GW couples to mechanical vibrations. Early (unsuccessful) GW detectors tried to measure vibrational modes of large masses. Gah4 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, WP:RS number two says YES. (In all caps.) That it applies to the first detected signal from any astronomical instrument. That is, in a more generalized sense than you might expect. Gah4 (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gah4, Since thermal energy conduction and sound are the manifestations of the same mechanism (phonon propagation), "second sound" is similar to your photon example. —Quondum 18:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible closure of half of LIGO

Should really mention that the US govt is proposing to close the Louisiana LIGO site [1] Fig (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I would disagree with any changes based on government proposals. They change too fast. It seems that much of what Trump/DOGE actually claimed to change, never actually was changed. If it actually does change, though, it should be added. Gah4 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Gah4 (talk · contribs), the growing governmental instability makes it unwise to state it as factual or inevitable, but it is probably fine to say it's a proposed thing IF it actually makes it to Congress, even as a budget proposal. Even if it (hopefully!) doesn't pass then, it can be easily refactored into a historical footnote ("Was in danger of being affected, but then was not..."). -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fig wright coming to this topic a bit past its relevancy but I'd agree with the other commenters here that it's not really worth bringing up anymore. Although this caused quite a bit of concern within the collaboration, it was never widely publicized, and ultimately didn't materialize to anything-- LIGO remains funded as normal and the threat of funding loss ultimately didn't have a major impact on the science. 4amlasers (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GW250114

Shouldn't GW250114 be added to the list of LIGO "detections" section? Pdolc (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.