Talk:Gravitational wave

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


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

[edit]

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

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. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested addition: Einstein’s original derivations and historical foundations

[edit]

Hello, I would like to propose adding a scholarly reference that directly addresses and reconstructs the content described in the article’s section on Einstein’s 1916 gravitational wave paper.

The Wikipedia article currently summarizes Einstein’s 1916 paper as the outcome of efforts to reconcile the absence of negative gravitational charges with wave generation in general relativity, culminating in his June 1916 publication. However, the mathematical and conceptual structure of that paper—and its follow-up in 1918—has not been thoroughly analyzed in the current literature referenced here.

The book Einstein’s Legacy: From General Relativity to Black Hole Mysteries by Galina Weinstein (Springer Nature, 2025) provides a line-by-line reconstruction and analysis of both Einstein’s 1916 and 1918 gravitational wave papers. It explores Einstein’s derivation steps, interpretation of the three wave types (as later characterized by Weyl), and the key approximations he used. The book also connects these methods to later applications. For example, it demonstrates how Hans Thirring and Josef Lense employed Einstein’s approximation techniques to analyze rotating systems in 1918, decades before the Kerr solution was established.

Reference: Weinstein, Galina. Einstein’s Legacy: From General Relativity to Black Hole Mysteries. Springer Nature, 2025. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-73572-1

Please let me know if this contribution would be suitable for enriching the article’s historical development section, particularly the paragraph discussing the 1916 and 1918 gravitational wave models. Best regards, Contributor Dg1702 (talk) Contributor Dg1702 (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds awesome (if it doesn't unbalance the section). Johnjbarton (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Johnjbarton! I appreciate your encouraging feedback. I’ve revised the contribution to keep it concise and aligned with the tone and balance of the current section. I suggest inserting the following sentence directly after: “The result was published in June 1916,[4] and there he came to the conclusion that the gravitational wave must propagate with the speed of light.”
A detailed reconstruction of the derivations and mathematical structure of Einstein’s 1916 and 1918 gravitational wave papers appears in Einstein’s Legacy: From General Relativity to Black Hole Mysteries (2025) by Galina Weinstein. The book presents a line-by-line analysis of Einstein’s approximation methods, his formulation of the wave types later characterized by Weyl, and the underlying physical assumptions. It also connects these derivations to subsequent work by Hans Thirring and Josef Lense, who used Einstein’s linearized field equations to analyze rotating systems—decades before the development of the Kerr solution for rotating black holes.[X]
With the citation:
[X] Weinstein, Galina. Einstein’s Legacy: From General Relativity to Black Hole Mysteries. Springer Nature, 2025. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-73572-1
Please let me know if this phrasing fits well or if any fine-tuning is needed before proceeding further. Dg1702 (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think this approach fits with wikipedia science articles. In fact I would argue that this strategy is inappropriate. By reporting on what Galina Weinstein wrote ("A detailed reconstruction...") you are effectively analyzing Weinstein. Rather we need to treat Weinstein as the analyst and summarize what the author says about Einstein's treatment of waves and cite the book. HTH. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Johnjbarton — I understand your point now and appreciate the clarification. Instead of suggesting a new paragraph, I’d like to propose a more minimal edit:
I suggest simply adding a citation to the book at the end of the following sentence in the History section:
“The result was published in June 1916,[4] and there he came to the conclusion that the gravitational wave must propagate with the speed of light, and there must, in fact, be three types of gravitational waves dubbed longitudinal–longitudinal, transverse–longitudinal, and transverse–transverse by Hermann Weyl.[27]”
The book provides historical and mathematical commentary on this exact derivation and the identification of the three wave types:
Weinstein, Galina. Einstein’s Legacy: From General Relativity to Black Hole Mysteries. Springer Nature, 2025. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-73572-1
Please let me know if this citation is acceptable. Dg1702 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead. I will make adjustments. Thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational Standing Waves

[edit]

I've already suggested this on the wikipedia article for standing waves, and I think it might be a potentially good thing to add to this article as well.

The hypothetical phenomenon of gravitational waves propagating in opposite directions and superimposing to form spacetime distortion oscillations is currently theoretical (and will likely continue being that way considering the sheer unlikeliness of ever observing such an occurence) and perplexingly complicated mathematically, but the concept has definitely been pioneered in theoretical physics oriented around General Relativity.

I'd thus propose adding a brief section covering this niche, though fascinating, idea. Xyqorophibian (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proper citation would be
  • Szybka, S. J., & Cieślik, A. (2019). Standing waves in general relativity. Physical Review D, 100(6), 064025.
However, as far as I can tell the only citations for this work is by the authors themselves. I don't think this makes the content notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Johnjbarton.
Thank you for the specifying citation conventions and notability policies of Wikipedia.
As for your first sentence, I'm confused (I am not an author of that paper).
Though after further research I sorta agree that there's probably not enough about this particular topic for much to be written about it.
Your reply is appreciated.
Xyqorophibian (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? I guess by first sentence you meant "...only citations for this work is by the authors themselves."? If you look at the citations on Google Scholar, there are 10, but only one that is published and not by Szybka. That is what I meant by not yet notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right.
I apologise for the misunderstanding. Xyqorophibian (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading and Inaccurate Definition

[edit]

The definition of gravitational waves in this Wikipedia article,

Gravitational waves are oscillations of the gravitational field that travel through space at the speed of light; they are generated by the relative motion of gravitating masses

, is not completely correct.

First off, describing them as oscillations implies they exhibit some kind of periodicity (i.e. not necessarily even perfect repetition, but just at least some constant frequency) and this is already a contradiction considering that waves (including gravitational waves) can be aperiodic (i.e. have no single constant rate at which they cause oscillations). And even aside from that, thinking of waves as travelling oscillations is a misconception (instead, they are propagating dynamic disturbances that can cause oscillations).

Secondly, defining gravitational waves as being a phenomenon occurring in gravitational fields is just wrong as the idea of a gravitational wave originates from General Relativity (which doesn't use gravitational fields to describe gravitational interactions between masses), not the gravitational field - oriented Classical Mechanics (which doesn't predict gravitational waves at all).

Lastly, this a subtle/minor difference but wouldn't it be better to say that they travel through spacetime rather than space itself?

Other than that, the other details are fine.

I'd suggest changing the definition to being something like this:

A gravitational wave is a wave of spacetime distortion/curvature that propagates at the speed of light and is produced by the relative motion of gravitating masses.

I know, still not perfect (e.g. doesn't specify that motion as a source must lead to a time-varying quadruple moment of mass distribution) but it's still more accurate in a technical sense than the current one. Of course there's always points for refinement, like obviously distortion/curvature could be linked to the mathematics behind General Relativity.

Hope this will serve as a potential improvement, no (destructive) criticism intended. Xyqorophibian (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your criticism. To make the case for the alternative we need some secondary sources.
One choice would be page 561
  • Zee, Anthony (2013). Einstein Gravity in a Nutshell. In a Nutshell Series (1 ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-14558-7.
  • "...Einstein's gravity predicts the existence of ripples crisscrossing the fabric of spacetime..."
Johnjbarton (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Johnjbarton,
Thank you for your acknowledgement of my points and your agreeance with my definition.
I'll edit the gravitational wave definition on this article to my alternative version, though I'm afraid I won't be able to do much with those sources because I am unfamiliar with citations & referencing as an inexperienced Wikipedian.
Glad this has helped out somehow, though I entirely expect corrections and refinements to be made (after all it can still improve). Xyqorophibian (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]