12 Nov 18
1 edit
@ogb saidWe actually knew that😉 And the reason they haven't been found is perhaps they just don't exist. BTW, there are gravity waves like in the atmosphere and there are gravitational waves like LIGO detected.
so what's taking so long to find one? And no..a Gravitational wave is NOT the same thing
12 Nov 18
@metal-brain saidOther than that the other forces we observe are quantized there is no real evidence for gravitons. However, whether gravity is quantized or not what "waves" is the metric tensor. Classical General Relativity predicts gravitational waves without needing to be quantized.
If gravitons don't exist what is waving?
12 Nov 18
@deepthought saidI expected someone to say it is space-time itself that is waving. I have never heard anyone claim it is the metric tensor. A metric tensor is a measurement of a field. It cannot possibly wave.
Other than that the other forces we observe are quantized there is no real evidence for gravitons. However, whether gravity is quantized or not what "waves" is the metric tensor. Classical General Relativity predicts gravitational waves without needing to be quantized.
You seem to be hung up on the metric tensor for some strange reason. It seems like anything you cannot answer you claim it is a metric tensor.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
16 Nov 18
@metal-brain saidNeither the graviton nor the space-time waves - the mind waves. Thus sayeth the tortoise to Achilles.
I expected someone to say it is space-time itself that is waving
17 Nov 18
@shallow-blue saidGravitational waves were discovered. Something is waving.
Neither the graviton nor the space-time waves - the mind waves. Thus sayeth the tortoise to Achilles.
17 Nov 18
@metal-brain saidWell, that's because the metric tensor completely describes the field (actually it overdescribes it). In your final sentence you made a statement that cannot be correct - that because the metric tensor is a measurement of a field it cannot wave. The first problem is that it is not a measurement of a field, it is a description. The second, and rather more severe, problem is that the field patently changes, otherwise there could be no dynamics at all, nothing that gravitates could move otherwise it would alter your static field. An alternative sense of your statement is that the measurement cannot change, but a measurement happens, as an idealisation, at a particular point and a particular time. Successive measurements would reveal an oscillation, the metric describes this but is not in itself a measurement.
I expected someone to say it is space-time itself that is waving. I have never heard anyone claim it is the metric tensor. A metric tensor is a measurement of a field. It cannot possibly wave.
You seem to be hung up on the metric tensor for some strange reason. It seems like anything you cannot answer you claim it is a metric tensor.
18 Nov 18
@deepthought saidA description cannot possibly wave. You are still making no sense.
Well, that's because the metric tensor completely describes the field (actually it overdescribes it). In your final sentence you made a statement that cannot be correct - that because the metric tensor is a measurement of a field it cannot wave. The first problem is that it is not a measurement of a field, it is a description. The second, and rather more severe, proble ...[text shortened]... surements would reveal an oscillation, the metric describes this but is not in itself a measurement.
@metal-brain saidStop trying to be clever, you're no good at it.
A description cannot possibly wave. You are still making no sense.
22 Nov 18
@deepthought saidIt is called logic. Try it sometime.
Stop trying to be clever, you're no good at it.
I can describe waves in the water. Is it the description that is waving or the water? It is the water.
A description cannot possibly wave. You are still making no sense.
22 Nov 18
@metal-brain saidIf the description does not have propagating oscillations in it then it's a bad description, so both if you think about it.
It is called logic. Try it sometime.
I can describe waves in the water. Is it the description that is waving or the water? It is the water.
A description cannot possibly wave. You are still making no sense.
22 Nov 18
@deepthought saidYou know better. You really should give it up.
If the description does not have propagating oscillations in it then it's a bad description, so both if you think about it.
22 Nov 18
@metal-brain saidYou think gravitons would be analogous to water particles in a wave?
It is called logic. Try it sometime.
I can describe waves in the water. Is it the description that is waving or the water? It is the water.
A description cannot possibly wave. You are still making no sense.