Return to Video

Gravitational waves: the long journey of science | Gabriela González | TEDxCórdoba

  • 0:29 - 0:33
    1,300 million years ago,
  • 0:33 - 0:39
    there were two huge black holes
    that were dancing tango.
  • 0:40 - 0:46
    They were, while dancing,
    forming waves in space-time,
  • 0:46 - 0:49
    deformations of space-time.
  • 0:49 - 0:53
    And they were getting closer and closer,
    turning faster and faster,
  • 0:53 - 0:55
    almost at the speed of light,
  • 0:55 - 0:59
    until, embracing each other,
    they formed a single black hole,
  • 0:59 - 1:03
    60 times the mass of our Sun,
  • 1:03 - 1:05
    with a radius of 200 km.
  • 1:06 - 1:10
    And gravitational waves
    took the message of that embrace,
  • 1:10 - 1:14
    at the speed of light,
    to the rest of the Universe.
  • 1:15 - 1:21
    This, sounding like science fiction,
    a Hollywood movie, was true.
  • 1:22 - 1:24
    And we know it was true
  • 1:24 - 1:28
    because we measured
    those gravitational waves,
  • 1:28 - 1:30
    last year in 2015.
  • 1:31 - 1:36
    The story of this discovery
    is also pretty long.
  • 1:36 - 1:40
    When this event happened
    1,300 millions years ago
  • 1:41 - 1:43
    in a faraway galaxy,
  • 1:44 - 1:49
    on Earth, the first multicellular
    organisms were just appearing.
  • 1:50 - 1:55
    Life, humanity, societies grew, advanced,
  • 1:55 - 1:58
    and a little over 100 years ago,
  • 1:58 - 2:00
    in 1915,
  • 2:00 - 2:04
    Einstein published his
    theory of general relativity.
  • 2:05 - 2:07
    It's a theory of gravity.
  • 2:07 - 2:11
    Relativity and gravity don't sound like
    the same thing, but they are.
  • 2:11 - 2:14
    His theory says that two masses
    attract each other,
  • 2:14 - 2:17
    two black holes,
    or the Earth and the Sun,
  • 2:17 - 2:20
    attract each other, not because,
    as we're taught at school,
  • 2:20 - 2:22
    there's a gravitational force,
  • 2:22 - 2:26
    but because all masses,
    according to this theory,
  • 2:26 - 2:28
    deform space-time,
  • 2:29 - 2:32
    just as we do when
    we lie down on a mattress.
  • 2:32 - 2:35
    When we, a physical mass,
    lie down on a bed,
  • 2:35 - 2:38
    we deform the mattress,
    making a depression.
  • 2:39 - 2:44
    And if someone else lies down on the bed,
    they will roll closer to us.
  • 2:44 - 2:48
    That is the force of gravity
    as Einstein imagined.
  • 2:48 - 2:52
    The Sun deforms space-time.
  • 2:52 - 2:55
    The Earth does not feel
    an instant gravitational force,
  • 2:55 - 2:59
    but it sees the space-time curvature,
  • 2:59 - 3:04
    and the Earth spins around the Sun
    as we know it to do.
  • 3:05 - 3:07
    What is space-time?
  • 3:07 - 3:11
    We have to imagine space-time as a grid,
  • 3:11 - 3:15
    not a two dimensional grid,
    but a three dimensional one,
  • 3:15 - 3:18
    the three spatial dimensions
    that we can measure with rulers,
  • 3:19 - 3:21
    with time, with clocks.
  • 3:21 - 3:24
    A grid of rulers and clocks.
  • 3:24 - 3:28
    Four dimensions,
    and all of them are connected.
  • 3:28 - 3:33
    That is the space-time that gets deformed
    according to Einstein's theory.
  • 3:34 - 3:36
    The theory is pretty complicated,
  • 3:36 - 3:39
    but what matters with theories
    are the predictions they make,
  • 3:39 - 3:41
    and the checking of those predictions
  • 3:41 - 3:43
    to prove them right or wrong
    experimentally,
  • 3:43 - 3:45
    so as to know whether to believe
    the theory or not.
  • 3:45 - 3:49
    And Einstein's theory
    makes many predictions,
  • 3:49 - 3:51
    all of them very crazy,
  • 3:51 - 3:52
    quite incredible.
  • 3:52 - 3:54
    One, for example,
  • 3:54 - 3:58
    the first to be verified
    a few years later in 1919,
  • 3:58 - 4:00
    is that light does not travel
    in a straight line
  • 4:00 - 4:05
    but deflects when it passes
    close to a mass,
  • 4:05 - 4:09
    it deflects a little bit,
    by a certain amount.
  • 4:10 - 4:12
    And that was verified in 1919,
  • 4:12 - 4:16
    and the theory
    was rather better believed.
  • 4:16 - 4:18
    But it also made other predictions.
  • 4:19 - 4:22
    For example, it being
    a theory of space and time,
  • 4:22 - 4:26
    that clocks are not always synchronized.
  • 4:27 - 4:30
    If we start, me and you,
  • 4:30 - 4:35
    with atomic clocks synchronized
    to the millionth of a second here,
  • 4:36 - 4:40
    but then you go and hike up the Aconcagua,
  • 4:40 - 4:43
    our clocks will no longer be synchronized.
  • 4:43 - 4:46
    Yours will be always ahead of mine.
  • 4:48 - 4:49
    And why is that?
  • 4:49 - 4:52
    It's because space-time is dynamic,
  • 4:52 - 4:56
    and your clock is further
    from the Earth than mine.
  • 4:57 - 5:02
    Distances and gravity change time too.
  • 5:03 - 5:07
    Another prediction was
    this prediction of gravitational waves.
  • 5:07 - 5:11
    Since masses distort space-time,
  • 5:11 - 5:13
    and masses are moving,
  • 5:13 - 5:17
    those little ripples in space-time
    are also moving,
  • 5:17 - 5:19
    and they are traveling
    at the speed of light.
  • 5:19 - 5:23
    And what they do, is to take distances
    and stretch and shrink them,
  • 5:23 - 5:27
    stretch and shrink them,
    in proportion to distance.
  • 5:27 - 5:29
    But when Einstein,
  • 5:29 - 5:32
    or any of the other scientists
    that followed him,
  • 5:32 - 5:35
    calculated how much
    the distances distorted,
  • 5:35 - 5:36
    it was very, very little.
  • 5:36 - 5:41
    He even wrote that this would
    probably never be measured.
  • 5:41 - 5:43
    And many people thought he was right,
  • 5:43 - 5:46
    that this was one of those predictions
    that cannot be measured.
  • 5:47 - 5:49
    As I said, it is a long story.
  • 5:49 - 5:54
    In the 70s, people thought that
    it indeed could be measured.
  • 5:54 - 5:55
    There are some instruments
  • 5:55 - 5:58
    that are widely used
    in physics and engineering
  • 5:58 - 6:01
    to measure distances very precisely,
  • 6:01 - 6:03
    which are called interferometers.
  • 6:03 - 6:07
    Interferometers because they use light,
    and the interference of light.
  • 6:07 - 6:09
    We take a ray of light,
  • 6:09 - 6:11
    split it in two
    with a half-silvered mirror,
  • 6:11 - 6:13
    reflect them back with mirrors,
  • 6:13 - 6:16
    and when the two rays
    arrive back, they interfere.
  • 6:16 - 6:19
    The waves interfere destructively,
  • 6:19 - 6:22
    they destroy each other,
    and there is no resulting light,
  • 6:22 - 6:25
    if this distance
    and this distance are the same.
  • 6:25 - 6:28
    But if this distance gets shorter
    and this one gets longer,
  • 6:28 - 6:30
    or the other way round,
  • 6:30 - 6:35
    then the interference out here
    is not totally destructive,
  • 6:35 - 6:38
    and we can see a little light, or not.
  • 6:38 - 6:44
    So, by measuring with a photodetector
    how much resulting light there is,
  • 6:44 - 6:50
    we can measure the difference in distance
    between this distance and that distance.
  • 6:50 - 6:53
    It looks simple enough
    to measure distances,
  • 6:53 - 6:54
    and it is used a lot,
  • 6:54 - 6:56
    but what's the amount we have to measure?
  • 6:56 - 6:58
    That is the big question.
  • 6:59 - 7:03
    The theory predicts that,
    resulting from these black holes,
  • 7:03 - 7:06
    the distance between
    the Earth and the Sun
  • 7:06 - 7:11
    changed by an atomic diameter.
  • 7:12 - 7:15
    And all smaller distances
    by less than that.
  • 7:15 - 7:20
    But those scientists in the 70s,
    starting with scientists at MIT,
  • 7:20 - 7:22
    said this can be measured.
  • 7:22 - 7:27
    If we construct interferometers 4 km long
  • 7:27 - 7:30
    in a vacuum with hanging mirrors,
  • 7:30 - 7:37
    we could get to measure differences
    between this 4 km and that 4 km
  • 7:37 - 7:40
    of a millionth of a proton.
  • 7:41 - 7:45
    Many laughed; others didn't.
  • 7:45 - 7:48
    Many other people
    started believing this.
  • 7:49 - 7:53
    The national science agency
    of the United States
  • 7:53 - 7:56
    bet on this in the 90s.
  • 7:56 - 7:59
    From the 70s to the 90s,
  • 7:59 - 8:02
    when these interferometers
    began to be constructed,
  • 8:02 - 8:05
    two interferometers, two LIGOs,
  • 8:05 - 8:07
    one in the state of Washington,
  • 8:07 - 8:10
    and one in the state of Louisiana -
    quite close to where I live -
  • 8:10 - 8:12
    3,000 km apart.
  • 8:13 - 8:15
    They were completed in the 2000s.
  • 8:15 - 8:19
    First generation technology
    was operated and it went well.
  • 8:20 - 8:22
    It didn't discover gravitational waves,
  • 8:22 - 8:25
    but it was known that the technology
    had to be made more advanced.
  • 8:26 - 8:30
    In 2010, the second generation
    of this technology began to be installed.
  • 8:31 - 8:32
    It worked.
  • 8:33 - 8:34
    It works - more or less.
  • 8:34 - 8:38
    In 2015, we said that we should start
    taking a look at what is happening,
  • 8:38 - 8:42
    in spite of needing
    to do more work on the detectors.
  • 8:42 - 8:47
    In 2015, we started collecting data
    with these two detectors.
  • 8:48 - 8:49
    And in September,
  • 8:49 - 8:52
    on September 14th, 2015,
  • 8:53 - 8:56
    these photodetectors told us
  • 8:56 - 9:02
    that, 3,000 km away, we had signals
    indicating this gravitational wave.
  • 9:03 - 9:04
    We couldn't believe it.
  • 9:06 - 9:09
    And in December it happened again.
  • 9:10 - 9:12
    Listen.
  • 9:12 - 9:18
    (Sounds)
  • 9:20 - 9:23
    That sound seemed impressive to us.
  • 9:25 - 9:26
    We marveled.
  • 9:27 - 9:30
    It left us speechless
    and dancing afterwards.
  • 9:31 - 9:33
    This is the sound of the Universe.
  • 9:34 - 9:36
    This is the music of the Universe.
  • 9:36 - 9:39
    We felt that from that moment -
  • 9:39 - 9:42
    Before that we were looking
    at the Universe
  • 9:42 - 9:46
    with electromagnetic waves
    and telescopes and observatories,
  • 9:46 - 9:49
    and now we were listening to it,
  • 9:50 - 9:51
    with gravitational waves.
  • 9:51 - 9:54
    We had added another sense.
  • 9:54 - 9:55
    And from then on,
  • 9:55 - 9:59
    we have not only been working
    to measure more gravitational waves,
  • 9:59 - 10:04
    but we have also been talking about this.
  • 10:04 - 10:05
    And many people ask me:
  • 10:05 - 10:08
    "And what are gravitational
    waves good for?"
  • 10:09 - 10:12
    And I say, "And what are
    gravitational waves good for?
  • 10:13 - 10:17
    What is astrophysics good for?
    What is science good for?"
  • 10:17 - 10:20
    Ah, that we know. We all know
    what science is good for.
  • 10:20 - 10:24
    All the technological advances
    that we use in communication,
  • 10:24 - 10:28
    in transport, in medicine,
    all that is based on science,
  • 10:28 - 10:29
    we all know.
  • 10:29 - 10:32
    But gravitational waves, astrophysics?
  • 10:33 - 10:36
    Actually the path
    science takes, is very long.
  • 10:37 - 10:41
    It starts with basic theories
    relating to how the Universe works,
  • 10:43 - 10:45
    and then, they are applied.
  • 10:45 - 10:48
    First they test to see
    if the theories are good or bad.
  • 10:48 - 10:51
    After that, ways in which
    they can be applied are discovered,
  • 10:51 - 10:56
    in general, in other areas
    of physics or chemistry.
  • 10:57 - 11:01
    Engineers take hold of it all
    to build precision instruments.
  • 11:02 - 11:07
    And finally, sometimes,
    new useful technologies appear.
  • 11:08 - 11:15
    If Einstein had been asked in 1915:
    "What is your theory good for, sir?"
  • 11:16 - 11:19
    He would have said:
    "To better understand the Universe,
  • 11:19 - 11:20
    to explain gravity.
  • 11:20 - 11:22
    What else does a theory
    need to be good for?"
  • 11:24 - 11:31
    Yet, today, many of you
    are going to use the theory of relativity
  • 11:31 - 11:32
    when leaving here
  • 11:32 - 11:34
    if you are going somewhere you don't know.
  • 11:34 - 11:39
    Because GPS needs
    the theory of relativity.
  • 11:39 - 11:40
    It needs many other things,
  • 11:40 - 11:45
    but if it doesn't take into account
    that the clocks in the GPS satellites
  • 11:45 - 11:48
    and ours, our clock, our little device,
  • 11:48 - 11:50
    are desynchronized
  • 11:50 - 11:53
    because they are
    at different distances from Earth,
  • 11:53 - 11:56
    the GPS will lead us to the wrong place.
  • 11:56 - 12:00
    And I, that uses it all the time,
    would get lost.
  • 12:01 - 12:05
    So the theory of relativity,
    almost 100 years later,
  • 12:06 - 12:08
    has practical applications.
  • 12:09 - 12:10
    And so it is with everything.
  • 12:10 - 12:14
    Science takes a lot of time
  • 12:14 - 12:17
    in producing useful
    applications and technologies,
  • 12:17 - 12:21
    and many people working
    with many different abilities.
  • 12:23 - 12:27
    If we think what technologies
    we wouldn't have today,
  • 12:28 - 12:30
    what wouldn't have been invented
  • 12:30 - 12:35
    if basic effects in physics,
    in chemistry, in mathematics,
  • 12:35 - 12:39
    had not been studied a 100 years ago,
  • 12:39 - 12:44
    there would be a lot of technologies
    that would not exist today.
  • 12:44 - 12:51
    The laser, GPS, medicines,
    medical applications.
  • 12:51 - 12:53
    A whole load of technologies.
  • 12:54 - 12:56
    The challenge I put to you
  • 12:56 - 12:58
    is to imagine
  • 12:58 - 13:02
    when you hear about a discovery
    like the one of gravitational waves
  • 13:02 - 13:09
    or any other discovery in astronomy,
    in physics, in mathematics,
  • 13:09 - 13:12
    that show up in the newspapers
    many times a year,
  • 13:12 - 13:14
    when you hear about those discoveries,
  • 13:15 - 13:19
    what technologies
    will there be in a 100 years
  • 13:19 - 13:22
    that will use these theories?
  • 13:23 - 13:25
    That is the challenge for you.
  • 13:25 - 13:27
    Thank you.
  • 13:27 - 13:34
    (Applause)
Title:
Gravitational waves: the long journey of science | Gabriela González | TEDxCórdoba
Description:

Gabriela is a renowned scientist from Córdoba. She proposes to reflect on what was most asked during the last year following the discovery of gravitational waves: what is science good for?

Gabriela has a B.Sc. in physics from the National University of Córdoba (Argentina) and a Ph.D. from Syracuse University (USA). Nowadays, she is a professor at the Louisiana State University, where, together with her research group, she is dedicated to the calibration, characterization and data analysis of the gravitational waves detectors in the states of Louisiana and Washington (USA). She is the elected spokeswoman of the LIGO scientific collaboration project (Laser Interferometer Gravitational waves Observatory), and she was part of the scientific team that announced to the world the discovery of gravitational waves in February 2016. This work, led by Gabriela and carried out by a team of more than a 1000 scientists from 15 countries, corroborates propositions of the theory of relativity enunciated by Einstein a century ago. From that moment on she has achieved great international recognition, and the journal "Nature" has named her one of the 10 most influential scientists of 2016.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx

more » « less
Video Language:
Spanish
Team:
closed TED
Project:
TEDxTalks
Duration:
13:58
  • Hello. Thank you for the revision of the English subtitles. I have some doubts about two changes that were performed during it.
    First, Valentina changed "distort the space-time" by "deform the space-time" in many sentences. I asked Gabriela what was the correct one or which one she thought was best for this translation, and she told me "distort" that is why I used it. Is there any other reason why "deform" should be use? Or can we leave the one Gabriela told me?
    Second, I looked up for the English name of the parts of the interferometer in the LIGO webpage (since this talk is about LIGO) and it was used "photodetector". Even though "photocell" (as Valentina wrote) exists, it is not commonly used in this context (it can be checked also by the number of results that show in Google when looking "photodetector interferometer" and "photocell interferometer"). Is it possible to change back the word to photodetector?
    Thanks for your help and time!

  • Hi there. The reason I changed distort to deform is that strictly speaking distort could be both used meaning to twist something out of shape (as you're using in this context), but also meaning to give a disproportionate meaning to something (as in the world "tergiversar" in spanish). To deform however, it's generally used only meaning to change the shape of something. By no means I'm implying that your translation is incorrect, as this is only a review (and as such, not the final approved version).
    About the photodetector/photocell issue, the only reason I changed it was that this world kept showing up as not found in my browser's dictionary. I checked this world in several places (more general dictionaries, to be honest) and photocell is what I found the most. Also, I happen to be familiar with this photocell term in a totally different context (specifically, in a more technical setting where photocells are used to detect the presence of objects passing through an emitted infrared beam that is detected by said photocell). Perhaps I'm a bit biased in this regard, because since I'm no expert in laser interferometers, I haven't really heard this photodetector term all that much.
    In any case, I have to say that your translation was very much on point Virginia! Keep up the good work.

    Kind regards,

    Valentina

  • Hi Valentina. Thank you for your explanations! With respect to the photodetector word I checked for example in the LIGO webpage where they explain the interferometer and all its parts (http://www.ligo.org/science/GW-IFO.php). Also in the paper published in 2016 about the discovery of gravitational waves (http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102), the authors talk about photodetectors and not photocells. That was my reason to choose "photodetector" at the end.
    Once again, thanks for your time and explanations!
    Kind regards,
    Virginia.

  • I read that the LIGO photodetector is based around a photodiode.

  • Hello Robert. Yes, as you stated, the photodetector is based around a photodiode. However I thought that photodiode was a pretty technical word that Gabriela does not use in her talk. That's why I used photodetector.
    Thanks for your help!

English subtitles

Revisions