Although nice .. I think this is getting far more media hype than it's worth .. there are a ton of issues just being glossed over .. and the findings are not being reported in a scientifically accurate way.
The more scientifically correct description would be far less sensational .. something like.
LIGO's test results give indirect evidence that is consistent with the predicated properties of predicted gravitational waves.
- - - - - - -
They have direct evidence of what the lasers did .. (within a +/- margin of error) .. not what caused the laser to do it .. what ever it is .. is by definition indirect.
- - - - - - -
I'm also not much of a fan of the glossing over they seem to be doing about the extreme tiny scales this is at .. and what that means.
Due to the extremely tiny scale of the measurement Quantum Mechanical Uncertainty prevents actual 'confirmation' ... only a certain maximum % of certainty is possible .. but it is not being accurately reported that way.
For example .. they claim to measure the position:
"A change in the lengths of the arms smaller than one-ten-thousandth the diameter of a proton (10-19 meter) can be detected."
"The stretching and squishing changes the tunnels' lengths by a tiny amount, and that change can be detected by lasers."
In order to know the tunnel's lengths changed by that tiny scale of "one-ten-thousands" the diameter of a proton .. that means they have to know exactly the position of both ends of that tunnel to equally tiny scale .. thus they have to know the exact locations of the electrons outside the atoms making up the material of the ends of the tunnel .. In order to know (rule out) .. that it wasn't just the ends of the tunnel moving this tiny tiny amount .. and not actual space-time curvature effecting the length.
- - - - -
They only make it worse when they also claim to simultaneously know the position of multiple different things that are in different reference frames all at simultaneously the same time .. Relativistic Simultaneity like that is not something that should just be glossed over ... like they are doing.
- - - - -
They only make it worse still .. by also claiming to measure the power output .. ie the energy per unit time .. of the wave .. which means they are making both a position and a momentum measurement at the same time of the same item .. This only serves to compound the issue of the extremely tiny scale they claim to be measuring with extremely high certainty (5σ) the positions above .. they seem to be glossing over the 'Uncertainty Principle' implications and the relativistic simultaneity implications .. of what they claim to be doing.
- - - - - - -
Yes .. It's nice .. I guess .. I'm just a bit nit picky
