I wonder how far this has progressed.
Quote from: Mulletron on 01/18/2016 01:51 amI wonder how far this has progressed.Same here. If it becomes accepted that gravity waves are a physical thing. The next question becomes how do we generate them today within either existing technology or technology we already have on the drawing board but havent funded the engineering for yet.
Well, we all know that New Scientist leans towards pop-sci and tends to hype news stories.But if Gravity Waves are really a thing, then it should be possible to constructively or destructively combine many tiny such waves together in superposition, shouldn't it?
The Mach Effect apparatus of oscillating masses should be able to produce many tiny waves, and perhaps these waves or their constructive combination could be detected by atom interferometry.
Well, we all know that New Scientist leans towards pop-sci and tends to hype news stories.But if Gravity Waves are really a thing, then it should be possible to constructively or destructively combine many tiny such waves together in superposition, shouldn't it?The Mach Effect apparatus of oscillating masses should be able to produce many tiny waves, and perhaps these waves or their constructive combination could be detected by atom interferometry.It seems to me that atom interferometry is the key to better detection and analysis of gravity waves. If this budding field of science could be developed, then it would allow gravity waves and their nature to be studied in greater detail.
Quote from: birchoff on 02/07/2016 11:20 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 01/18/2016 01:51 amI wonder how far this has progressed.Same here. If it becomes accepted that gravity waves are a physical thing. The next question becomes how do we generate them today within either existing technology or technology we already have on the drawing board but havent funded the engineering for yet.I can't see how it would be possible to generate these in our foreseeable future at a level that would be useful, considering what it takes in nature to produce them.
That's not a "superposition" in the sense of a quantum superposition, so it's better to use a different word to avoid confusion.
Yes, it's possible, but that doesn't really help anything. You need just as much energy to produce two waves that you combine to a particular magnitude as it would take to just create a wave of that magnitude in the first place. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Don't bring up the Mach Effect, it has nothing to do with gravitational waves.
Oscillating masses produce tiny waves. But they're so tiny that you can't produce a measurable gravity wave by combining them without have an impractically large number of them -- as much oscillating mass as if you just had one enormous mass you were oscillating. Either way, the energy involved is impractical.That's why nobody has been able to detect gravity waves until now.
Detecting gravity waves may be new physics but it isn't unexpected physics. What would be surprising is if they didn't detect gravity waves. And if you are hoping for a gravity based propulsion system then it may be better to hope that gravity waves are not detected. That at least gives you a mystery that may resolve into an unexpected finding that gives you your gravity drive. Anyway they are expected to announce on the 11th.
Quote from: Star One on 02/08/2016 06:22 amQuote from: birchoff on 02/07/2016 11:20 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 01/18/2016 01:51 amI wonder how far this has progressed.Same here. If it becomes accepted that gravity waves are a physical thing. The next question becomes how do we generate them today within either existing technology or technology we already have on the drawing board but havent funded the engineering for yet.I can't see how it would be possible to generate these in our foreseeable future at a level that would be useful, considering what it takes in nature to produce them.Dont think I am as pessimestic. "OBSERVED" Nature has not needed to do the things we want to do. Therefore I feel its safe to argue that the way nature generates G-Waves is more a side effect of other things it needed to do. Now, My next question is, How hard have we honestly looked at the possibility for generating Gravity waves. How much curiosity has been road blocked in the quest to generate them, because we didnt know if they were simply a mathematical artifact or a physical object? In addition if g-waves are simply vibrations of space time and all mass deforms space time. Then Energy deforms space time since all mass is energy. Now that c2 part of the calculation leads to you needing alot of energy to equal the changes that asteroids, comets, planets, stars and black holes make to space time. However, energy at least in the form of EM can do something those other forms cant or at the very least havent been observed to do. Resonate. The first question I would love to see an answer to is if there is a frequency at which EM can resonate that would amplify the small changes to space time that it naturally makes.
We are a factor of 10 quintillion (10^19) away.
Quote from: eeergo on 02/10/2016 10:03 amWe are a factor of 10 quintillion (10^19) away.It's probably less extreme than that once you factor in the (as yet unknown) distance losses.
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the first publication of Albert Einstein’s prediction of the existence of gravitational waves. With interest in this topic piqued by the centennial, researchers from UK universities in Glasgow, Birmingham, and Cardiff will discuss their ongoing efforts to observe and measure cosmic gravitational waves for scientific research at the Science Media Centre in London starting 3pm GMT on Thursday, 11 February.Simultaneously in the US, the National Science Foundation is gathering scientists from Caltech, MIT, and the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) at the National Press Club in Washington, DC for a status report on the effort to detect gravitational waves — or ripples in the fabric of spacetime — using the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO).