Talk:GEO600

10²¹? or 10⁻²¹? cm? Pérez 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This length change is a relative change of 10⁻²¹. This means that ${\frac {\delta l}{l}}=10^{-21}$ , where $\delta l$ is the change in arm length, and $l$ is the original length. Hence, if the detector arm length was $1m$ , the actual length change would be $10^{-21}m$ . However, for e.g. GEO, where the arm length is $600m$ , a relative change of $10^{-21}$ corresponds to a length change of approximately $6\times 10^{-19}m$ .

I apologise if the following 2 questions are meaningless:
What frequencies are prediced for gravity waves?
What gravity wave frequency range is this gravity wave detector capable of detecting?

"are by far the most sensitive scientific instruments ever designed." - this is not a valid statement, sensitivity cannot compared on a global scale, e.g. will the LHC be more sensitive than GEO 600? would not be a valid question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.169.138.172 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space-Time Convolution Section

I just added the section on the Space-Time limit discovery. I've cited the link for the source of the information, but I'm afraid my writing style is somewhat poor. Would really appreciate it if someone could touch up my work. Thanks. --¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavithran (talk • contribs) 09:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how to discuss / source 'holographic noise' claims

I did a lot of rewriting to reflect the fact that the supposed connection between 'excess noise' at the detector, and Hogan's claim of a theory of 'holographic noise', is highly speculative - to the extent that only one person (Hogan himself) is making any clear claim about it.

Now we have the following 2 sentences tacked on the end:

This noise appears to be the smallest measure of space time. At the moment this confirms Planck's length as being the smallest unit of measure.[7] (referring to New Scientist article)

There are three problems. First, it presents a highly speculative theory as if it were 'apparent' fact: this noise appears to be the smallest measure of space time. This is extremely vague, and weasel phrasing. One might also say, The moon appears to have a human face... what is "appearing" to who? Second, one can never meaningfully talk about the 'confirmation' of any speculative theory by a currently unexplained experimental glitch. As I carefully explained in the previous text, and as appears in the New Scientist article, the observational glitch might result from any number of things within the detector which have nothing to do with 'holography'. Third, the New Scientist article itself does not claim to 'confirm' anything: the article only says that the noise might have something to do with Hogan's 'holography' theory. On these grounds I am going to delete these sentences as inaccurate (and also edit the Planck length article). --Tdent (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree---thanks for the edit. -- Spireguy (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym?

Does anyone know if GEO stands for something? — BobQQ (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also was searching for that, and I found this in the John Gribbin's book: "Universe: a biography": "The GEO bit of the project's name comes from Gravitational European Observatory - the more natural European Gravitational Observatory was felt to give an acronym with the wrong public image, even if the experimenters do have a high opinion on themselves." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.234.186.193 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GEO600. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726184925/http://www.geo600.org/research-highlights/geo600-has-reached-a-sensitivity-of-2b710-22-221ahz-1 to http://www.geo600.org/research-highlights/geo600-has-reached-a-sensitivity-of-2b710-22-221ahz-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GEO600. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]