View source for Talk:Gravitational wave

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Astronomy|cosmology=yes|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=Top|relativity=yes}}
}}
{{ITN talk
|date1=11 November 2002
|date2=11 February 2016}}
{{To do}}
{{Archive box|banner=yes}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=2160
| archiveprefix=Talk:Gravitational wave/Archive
| maxarchsize=100000
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads=4
| minarchthreads=1
| numberstart=1
| format= %%i
}}


== Don't remove information about sources of results ==

Recently the [[North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves]] announced the successful culmination of 50 years of development of the idea of detecting gravitational waves by pulsar observations. Someone removed the reference to the research consortium and replaced it with the non-specific passive tense "was claimed to be detected", despite the consortium being clearly identified in the reference. This is not good Wikipedia practice! Wikilinking the consortium would have been, so I have done so in a new edit. [[User:Elroch|Elroch]] ([[User talk:Elroch|talk]]) 19:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
:The text about this appeared like a press release promoting North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves. Since this was a joint project it is [[WP:UNDUE]] to just mention one part of the collaboration. The focus of the article should be on the findings not the organisation. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
::It is of course entirely normal practice to credit the scientist, research group, project, organisation or collaboration that achieved and published an advance in knowledge. I am sure you will agree that the solution was to credit others contributing to the same advance, as [[User:Hfst]] has commendably done. [[User:Elroch|Elroch]] ([[User talk:Elroch|talk]]) 12:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

== Acceleration vs motion ==

There's a bit of confusion in the lede, resulting in a back and forth with an anon IP. What matters is a change in energy tensor, not "acceleration" per se.  In fact, Einstein and Rosen discuss gravitational waves arising from masses in "relative motion" with respect to each other, but do not mention "acceleration". [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 14:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

:And an additional problem is that motion spherically symmetric around a distant point (eg black hole formation) does not radiate. IMO this does not need to be in the first sentence but should be in clear in the article and maybe the intro. (I have a bunch of refs I add when I am near them in a week or so). [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

::Indeed, a system of masses that probably most readers would agree is "accelerating"! [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 15:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for noting my confusion and providing the correction. My faulty understanding had been that it was acceleration that primarily figured for generating GW (versus not), and it was therefore some angular aspect of the quadripole moment making an equivalence with acceleration that managed to do so as well. [[Special:Contributions/24.19.113.134|24.19.113.134]] ([[User talk:24.19.113.134|talk]]) 00:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

== Misleading Wording in "Sources" ==

This part of "Sources"

    In general terms, gravitational waves are radiated by objects whose motion involves acceleration and its change,      provided that the motion is not perfectly spherically [[symmetric]] (like an expanding or contracting sphere) or      rotationally symmetric (like a spinning disk or sphere).

Should say "circularly symmetric" or "continuously symmetric".  A square is rotationally symmetric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_symmetry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_symmetry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_symmetry

[[User:John G Hasler|John G Hasler]] ([[User talk:John G Hasler|talk]]) 22:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

== Aren't the words "moving at a constant velocity" redundant? ==

I'm referring to the statement: {{tq|"An isolated non-spinning solid object moving at a constant velocity will not radiate".}}. [[User:HOTmag|HOTmag]] ([[User talk:HOTmag|talk]]) 18:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:I think that is the least of the issues with that section. Without sources there is no way to verify the claims. I'm inclined to delete the section. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 19:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)