zlacker

>>qqqqqu+(OP)
The LIGO detector. I've never heard a logical explanation for it. If your explanation is that gravitational waves stretch and squash spacetime so light takes different amount of time to bounce from an emitter back to a measurer, then you don't have even a slight understanding of how it works. If your explanation doesn't involve higher spatial dimensions (not time) then you don't understand it. If you haven't even considered higher spatial dimensions when explaining LIGO then you shouldn't even try for the incorrect explanation above because you don't have any of the pieces of the puzzle.

>>steveb+2m
> If your explanation is that gravitational waves stretch and squash spacetime so light takes different amount of time to bounce from an emitter back to a measurer, then you don't have even a slight understanding of how it works.

Well, I'll bite. I'm a physicist and I understand LIGO. What's your alternative explanation?

>>knzhou+cm
I have no idea how it works, I don't have an explanation, I just know the one spouted by people doesn't make sense

>>steveb+Bm
Well, if you're uncomfortable with LIGO, you're in good company. Once a whole decade went by in physics where people couldn't agree if it would work in principle or not. And it is true that a lot of common explanations are bad (e.g. "it's just a ruler" is not complete by itself because "why doesn't the light get stretched too?"). Nonetheless, today we have a variety of independent explanations.

Maybe you'll find this paper helpful: https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.18578

>>knzhou+Tm
Thank you for this link. I read it once and think I've gotten more of the picture and I'm going to re-read it to see if I can get more. What's baffling to me is everyone who has tried to explain the LIGO detector doesn't even realize this question exists. I've independently thought this question and when people start explaining LIGO to me, and I take the time to spell out the question, they realize they don't understand LIGO either.

If light is emitted at a constant wavelength independent of the stretching of the universe, doesn't that imply light is traveling through a higher spatial dimension, otherwise the emitter itself would be stretched with the universe and we'd never be able to observe differences in the speed of light? If I understand this paper, once light is emitted, it's "stuck" to space and will stretch along with it. But if the emitter wavelength stays constant doesn't that imply it's waving through a higher dimension?