2 ms·
> 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
by 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.