3 ms·
Pretty sure you can rig something far better than radar if you have the ability to detect extremely tiny gravitational waves via an array of hyper-accurate cloc
by mullingitover 2mo ago
Pretty sure you can rig something far better than radar if you have the ability to detect extremely tiny gravitational waves via an array of hyper-accurate clocks.
- NitpickLawyer 2mo ago> detect extremely tiny gravitational waves via an array of hyper-accurate clocks. I wonder how tiny is feasible. Would it get to a level of accuracy where you could detect neutrinos? We know they have some (v tiny) mass, so it should in theory be detectable that way?
- inigyou 2mo agoMoving objects don't emit gravitational waves though. They have to be orbiting.
- actionfromafar 2mo ago1. Isn't everything orbiting something? 2. If a black hole passed us by, no gravitional wave?
- NetMageSCW 2mo agoIs a single peak really a wave?
- terminalbraid 2mo agoFirst, that claim is patently false. Two objects with size accelerating directly towards each other (i.e. zero orbital angular momentum hence zero "orbit") will produce waves. A moving object will produce detectable changes in gravity so arguing about "waves" in the context of atomic clocks detecting gravity is irrelevant.
- winwang 2mo agoI don't GR but I'm fairly certain dipole does not work for gravitational waves (i.e. two objects accelerating straight at each other). Supposedly, there's a specific definition of "gravitational wave" here. You can, of course, detect the change in gravity though, regardless of "gravitational wave" or not.