[yor_on]

Damn, I can't help commenting on this one. First of all, a allcompasing eulogy to BC who made me very happy with his comment about electrons " Empirical evidence suggests "smaller than a breadbox"."

And then we have " The time uncertainty originates from Olympic skiing and the distance originates from a micrometer. "

All of this makes me very sure we're closing in on the matter in question..
Make no doubt about it.

[yor_on]

Scientifically speaking a micrometer can measure even a bread box split in two, so there should be a reasonable chance for it to measure a electron, nes pa? Then we come to Olympic skiing, as we all know it's hard to watch ones wristwatch when accelerating down a steep hill, at least not very recommendable, so there will most certainly be a time uncertainty. But then again, isn't there clock towers in the end of the course? Measuring? Maybe we could use those to test it?

[alancalverd]

Face it, Galileo measured g by timing the swing of a censer against his pulse, and completely overturned Aristotelian physics thereby. So anyone with a stopwatch and a micrometer should be able to detect the collision of neutron stars, particularly as it happened 120 million years ago, so there was plenty of warning in the newspapers. 

[yor_on]

Heh, another scientific approach to the problem :)
I'm proud of us. It's a pleasure doing science

[Bored chemist]

https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+microscope&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS845US845&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu4uyip-ThAhWR_1QKHULLCgQQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=QwNWanSAwjmi0M:

100um = 10^-4 m

What was the purpose of this post?

I suspect we will never know. But there are some nice pictures.

[alright1234 (OP)]

Modern technology can accurately measure time to 3.5 parts in quintillion (10¹⁸): https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149568-the-most-precise-atomic-clock-ever-made-is-a-cube-of-quantum-gas/

Why you think we can only measure time to 1 part in 1,000 is beyond me...

You are mistaken the time that is produced by a clock with the measurement of a time interval. Example, to measure the time of a person running the 100 meter dash; the measurement uncertainty to measure the time interval to complete the race is dependent on the mechanism that determines when the person starts and stops. The uncertainty of the actual time (3.5 parts in quintillion) is trivial compared to the start-stop uncertainty.

[alright1234 (OP)]

https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+microscope&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS845US845&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu4uyip-ThAhWR_1QKHULLCgQQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=QwNWanSAwjmi0M:

100um = 10^-4 m

What was the purpose of this post?

I suspect we will never know. But there are some nice pictures.

To show that the maximum length uncertainty is approximately 1/10,000 meters which is just my opinion but please give some direct experimental reason that it could be lesser. Certainty a couple of orders not 10^-18 m. I remember someone from Harvard did a seminar where the Weber bar formed a disturbance of 10^-128 or something like that.

[Bored chemist]

the measurement uncertainty to measure the time interval to complete the race is dependent on the mechanism that determines when the person starts and stops

And, by using light gates we could fairly easily get that error down to a few tens of nanoseconds if we wanted.
That's a much easier job than measuring the length of the course to that precision.

You really don't understand science do you?

[Bored chemist]

please give some direct experimental reason that it could be lesser.

Because that's the whole point of the measurement system they use.

As I said  in the thread about the Cavendish experiment, the problem here is that you are not apparently clever enough to understand how people measure things.

[Kryptid]

You are mistaken the time that is produced by a clock with the measurement of a time interval. Example, to measure the time of a person running the 100 meter dash; the measurement uncertainty to measure the time interval to complete the race is dependent on the mechanism that determines when the person starts and stops. The uncertainty of the actual time (3.5 parts in quintillion) is trivial compared to the start-stop uncertainty.

And you honestly think that the clocks that are used in the Olympics are the best that scientists have access to?

which is just my opinion

Who cares what your opinion is? We only want facts. We can see individual atoms with scanning tunneling microscopes and those are much, much smaller than 1/10,000 of a meter.

[alancalverd]

Ah, the mark of a true scientist. He remembers that someone from Harvard did something. Clearly an authority on everything.

Here's my favorite story about that institution. A woman gets into a taxi at Logan airport and says "I've been away a long time. Take me somewhere I can get scrod."
Taxi driver says "I guess you're a Harvard alumna, English  major"
"Why do you think that?"
"Nobody else uses the pluperfect subjunctive."

[RobC]

Modern technology can accurately measure time to 3.5 parts in quintillion (10¹⁸): https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149568-the-most-precise-atomic-clock-ever-made-is-a-cube-of-quantum-gas/

Why you think we can only measure time to 1 part in 1,000 is beyond me...

You are mistaken the time that is produced by a clock with the measurement of a time interval. Example, to measure the time of a person running the 100 meter dash; the measurement uncertainty to measure the time interval to complete the race is dependent on the mechanism that determines when the person starts and stops. The uncertainty of the actual time (3.5 parts in quintillion) is trivial compared to the start-stop uncertainty.

I think you should let this guy have the last word.

[Bored chemist]

Modern technology can accurately measure time to 3.5 parts in quintillion (10¹⁸): https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149568-the-most-precise-atomic-clock-ever-made-is-a-cube-of-quantum-gas/

Why you think we can only measure time to 1 part in 1,000 is beyond me...

You are mistaken the time that is produced by a clock with the measurement of a time interval. Example, to measure the time of a person running the 100 meter dash; the measurement uncertainty to measure the time interval to complete the race is dependent on the mechanism that determines when the person starts and stops. The uncertainty of the actual time (3.5 parts in quintillion) is trivial compared to the start-stop uncertainty.

I think you should let this guy have the last word.

I think we should let the facts have the last word.

[evan_au]

the Weber bar formed a disturbance of 10^-128 or something like that

Weber thought that it might be possible to detect gravitational waves causing a strain of 10^-16.
- But generating that strain would take an extremely close black hole merger
- We now know from LIGO results to date that you would need to wait an extremely long time (on average) to detect an event this strong.
- The Weber Bar had specific resonances, so you would need a black hole of just the right frequency to trigger it. In contrast, LIGO has a frequency response of about 40Hz to 1kHz, so it can detect a wide range of events; the distinctive "chirp" signal helps to distinguish signal from noise and gives a lot of information about the colliding objects.
- To get a positive detection, a Weber bar would need to be much more sensitive than LIGO - after all, it was trying to measure changes in the length of a bar 1 or 2 meters in length, while LIGO is working with arms 4 kilometers in length x 400 reflections = 1600km
- No wonder Weber never managed to produce an unequivocal signal from black holes!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_bar

- Even replacing the aluminium bar with $9 million worth of niobium metal (most of a year's production) still didn't detect any black holes. Eventually the Australian government wanted it's money back, and the rare-earth bar was sold for market price.
See photo on page 9 here: http://www.gravity.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/2923380/BOOKLET_UWA_approved_130578_VICCHA_v2.pdf

The proposed "enhanced LISA" Project proposes to put an interferometer in space with million-kilometer arms, which would have a much better low-frequency response than LIGO, and should be able to detect mergers with supermassive black holes. But that is at least a decade away.

This article shows the relative sensitivity of proposed gravitational wave detectors, which can detect strain down to around 10^-22.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna

[yor_on]

 You wrote " The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. " So does sunlight, propagates without a medium. And it has a wave particle duality. You searching for a aether? Einstein defined it as SpaceTime, and the way he looked at it this can't really be split into 'parts' theoretically, so the gravitational wave is more like a disturbance inside SpaceTime propagating at 'c'. As for starts and stops, it depends on what type of instruments you use to measure with and your setup. NIST have atomic clocks that are incredibly accurate https://phys.org/news/2018-11-nist-atomic-clocks-earth.html
=

I'll add this one for 'c' https://phys.org/news/2019-03-symmetry-space-time-atomic-clocks.html

Instead of thinking of it as a wave you could imagine it as displacements inside SpaceTime, as if you have two buoys being at rest relative each other, your instrument keeping a constant watch of the distance between them. When gravity passes them it change that distance momentarily. Just as Nist experiments of placing synchronized clocks at different elevations in a gravitational potential changes their synchronization. In this case the synchronization made is your 'instrument' for measuring the displacement, and the 'de-synchronization' of the clocks your proof for gravity passing/differing. It's also a proof of (gravitational) time dilation's naturally.

[alright1234 (OP)]

You wrote " The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. " So does sunlight, propagates without a medium. And it has a wave particle duality. You searching for a aether? Einstein defined it as SpaceTime, and the way he looked at it this can't really be split into 'parts' theoretically, so the gravitational wave is more like a disturbance inside SpaceTime propagating at 'c'. As for starts and stops, it depends on what type of instruments you use to measure with and your setup. NIST have atomic clocks that are incredibly accurate https://phys.org/news/2018-11-nist-atomic-clocks-earth.html
=

Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion that do not effect GW's formed by a Pulsar.

[Kryptid]

Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion

Please provide a link to a reputable source supporting this claim.

[Bored chemist]

You wrote " The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. " So does sunlight, propagates without a medium. And it has a wave particle duality. You searching for a aether? Einstein defined it as SpaceTime, and the way he looked at it this can't really be split into 'parts' theoretically, so the gravitational wave is more like a disturbance inside SpaceTime propagating at 'c'. As for starts and stops, it depends on what type of instruments you use to measure with and your setup. NIST have atomic clocks that are incredibly accurate https://phys.org/news/2018-11-nist-atomic-clocks-earth.html
=

Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion that do not effect GW's formed by a Pulsar.

Marking your own implausible response as the best  is a bit like laughing at your own jokes when nobody else does.

[alright1234 (OP)]

Really? Was Cavendish funny?

[Kryptid]

Really?

Really... what?

Where is the link I asked for?