3 ms·
I would rate the weak coupling as a far second or third point of interest behind linear signal fall-off vs inverse square for most other kinds of signal such as
by HappMacDonald 3y ago
I would rate the weak coupling as a far second or third point of interest behind linear signal fall-off vs inverse square for most other kinds of signal such as electromagnetic waves.
Gamma ray burst is twice as far away? It's four times dimmer. A thousand times as far? A million times more dim.
Gravitational wave signal from <event> is twice as far away? Makes it twice as hard to detect. A thousand times as far away? Only a thousand times as hard to detect.
- marsten 3y agoTo be clear, gravitational waves follow the same inverse square law as EM radiation, in terms of power. This is after all just a statement of conservation of energy. The linear drop-off you're referring to is when we look at it in terms of field strength (in this case the spacetime strain). Since power is proportional to field squared, this implies a linear drop-off in the field. It just so happens that for GWs it's easier to detect the field, whereas for (most) EM radiation it's easier to detect power. There are field-detection methods for EM radiation as well, which are useful for weak signals. Homodyne and heterodyne detection are good examples.