Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • $\begingroup$ The LIGO detection doesn't tell us anything we didn't know about gravitational waves (gravity waves are something else!) or "how they work". They allow us to observe phenomena that generate such waves which are exactly as understood, or the hardware and signal analysis wouldn't work! $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18, 2016 at 4:13
  • $\begingroup$ @JDługosz Glad to know that we know everything it is possible to know about gravity. I haven't been keeping up on it as much... how did they resolve that graviton thing? It was my understanding that gravitational waves were predicted in 1916 but not confirmed until LIGO started up a few weeks ago, so there is still time for us to learn something new from actual observation vs mathematical modeling. It may be that I'm not using the right words though, and so I'll see about reworking my answer. Thank you for the feedback :) $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18, 2016 at 14:41
  • $\begingroup$ Well, waves are indirectly detected via orbital decay rate of pulsars. Modeling the phenomenon correctly allows them to look at the signal and figure out what caused it. If it's totally bizzare and didn't conform to models, that would be new. If it's close enough but subtlety different that indicates something to figure out in the details. In particular, gravity is dead solid perfect only down to the energy scale where it becomes important in QM and at very small distances; in short, the big band and black holes. ... $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18, 2016 at 16:54
  • $\begingroup$ And black holes are being looked at! So the inspiral (astronomical distances) ought to be free of deviation from theory: additional bumps will inform about (e.g.) other objects nearby that it ran into. The merger itself might have some new detail that makes subtle impressions on the signal, and that may be details of quantum gravity we don't know or other objects affecting the situation. Long term observation of many such events and with moltiple instruments will be needed to determine which. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18, 2016 at 16:58
  • $\begingroup$ Gravaton thing: any time you quantize a continuous field, particles show up in the math. Gravitational forces on individual particles are so small that it's usually ignored; detecting an all-or-nothing lump of momentum change from gravity will be far too small of a lump size to detect with any forseeable technology. You elude to a laser-type phenomena with gravity, which indeed depends on the existance of particles (as Bosons) even if they're not detected individually. That's worth developing. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18, 2016 at 17:03