Can a Gravity Wave be detected at a point ?

Click For Summary
A point-sized detector cannot effectively measure gravitational waves due to their quadrupole nature and the requirement for large-scale apparatus to detect their effects. Gravitational waves induce transient differences in length, which are best observed using extensive L-shaped setups that utilize laser interference. The relationship between gravitational waves and changing accelerations, or "jerk," is weak, as significant changes in gravitational fields typically necessitate large movements. While tidal forces create slight variations in gravitational fields, they do not equate to the measurable effects of gravitational waves. The discussion highlights the challenges of reconciling mathematical models with physical phenomena in the context of Einstein's Equivalency Principle.
WarpedWatch
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Can a Gravity Wave be detected at a "point" ?

Greetings,

This question concerns Einstein’s Equivalency Principle, of which I confess I am mostly ignorant.

Can you measure a gravity wave with a “point-sized” detector?

Einstein’s famous “thought experiment” involving his elevator leads us to the conclusion that acceleration and gravity are the same, yet the concept only works out if we shrink the elevator down to an infinitesimal. (Otherwise we can detect the gradient of the gravitational field of the planet and thus tell the difference between the effects of gravity and the effects of a moving elevator. )

But if I allow myself to shrink a measurement device down to an infinitesimal, could I still measure the passing of a gravity wave? It seems to me that all the methods for measuring gravity waves require extremely long paths that (I’m guessing) must span the “trough and valley” of a gravity wave. Would a “point-sized” measuring system (one that does not extend across a significant part of the gravity wave) simply ride “up and down” on the ripple of space-time and thus experience zero effects? Or would such an accelerometer (one that is not allowed to look outside of its localized area) be able to tell that it is being jiggled around?

My question stems from a concept in engineering.

a = “mechanical” acceleration
g = gravitational acceleration

a = g
da/dt = dg/dt

In engineering, da/dt is known as “jerk” which is one measure of mechanical shock.
But when trying to come up with an example of dg/dt, I can only think of gravity waves, and though jerk can be measured by a “point-like” accelerometer, I don’t know about gravity waves. And is there some limit to how small an ideal detector could be miniaturized before hitting some kind of quantum limit?

many thanks for your time,
Mark
 
Physics news on Phys.org


WarpedWatch said:
Greetings,
Can you measure a gravity wave with a “point-sized” detector?

No, nothing interesting happens at a point when a gravitational wave disturbs it.

Gravitational waves are quadrupole and extremely weak. It is thought that one should be able to detect them using a very large L-shaped apparatus. I think the effect they are looking for is transient differences between the static length of the apparatus and the relative length as observed by interference of laser beams reflected along the two arms.

For more details see the Wikipedia article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave" (with the usual caution that although Wikipedia is often very useful and helpful, it is not always entirely accurate).

Gravitational waves are only very loosely related to changing accelerations and "jerk". It's very difficult to achieve a measurable dg/dt jerk value by causing gravitational fields to change, because it is typically necessary to move a large distance in order to experience a change in gravitational field, but that motion in itself typically involves external accelerations. However, as a possible example, tides caused by the moon and sun create very slight variations in the direction and magnitude of the gravitational field experienced at the surface of the earth, and hence create the gravitational equivalent of "jerk".
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Jonathan,

thanks very much for taking the time to answer my question. Much appreciated.

I remember an Einstein scholar years ago saying that the thing about Einstein that baffled him the most was his development of the Equivalency Principle. "How did he know to do that?" I remember him saying, shaking his head, utterly at a loss. Taking things to infinitesimals is a handy way of getting the math to work out, I know, but it always leaves me wondering what things of this sort really "mean". It raises that eternal question about mathematics: is math just an incredibly self-consistent system of modeling nature that just so happens to be very useful or does it say something about the way the world is really put together?

Considering your answer, I'm now stuck with conflicting images of the necessity for shrinking Einstein's elevator to a point ... and having nothing interesting happening at a point when a gravity wave passes through it. It's a problem with my intuition, I suppose. It's probably my brain comparing apples to oranges.

thanks again,
Mark
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K