THE news that gravitational waves had been detected reverberated beyond the halls of physics. Confirming a long-standing prediction of Einstein鈥檚 general theory of relativity, the discovery presaged a new era in cosmology. Then came the doubts. No experiment could reproduce the claimed signal, and theorists began to question whether Joseph Weber鈥檚 massive aluminium bars, set up at the University of Maryland, could really have been moved by ripples in space-time.
The theory and experimental practice of gravitational-wave detection have advanced immeasurably since these events of the summer of 1969, and few would bank on history repeating itself. Yet Weber鈥檚 debunked claim is a reminder of how bias and wishful thinking can easily colour the best of scientific minds.
Advertisement
Now, as we report this week, questions have been raised about the quality of the analysis behind the LIGO collaboration鈥檚 celebrated 2015 gravitational wave detection (see 鈥�Exclusive: Grave doubts over LIGO鈥檚 discovery of gravitational waves鈥�). The dissenting researchers are credible and their own analysis is peer-reviewed. It should not be dismissed out of hand.
To be clear: few people doubt gravitational waves are out there or that LIGO is our best bet to find them. Its peerless instruments are the result of decades of expert development to shut out extraneous noise that would confound this delicate detection.
But no scientific discovery should be beyond scrutiny 鈥� no matter how advanced the technology that made it, how big and expert the team behind it, or how good the internal checks and balances they employ.
The Weber controversy, which simmered on until his death in 2000, had an upside: it spurred the development of superior detection technologies that underlie LIGO today. Robust, open debate is science鈥檚 lifeblood.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淏eyond question?鈥�
