3
$\begingroup$

Even though the consensus is that gravitational waves almost definitely exist, it has been well documented that there is no direct evidence.

My question; what are the alternatives to gravitational waves for explaining the evidence we have?

I believe indirect evidence for their existence, such as the 'Hulse-Taylor pulsar', is either too weak for us to detect sufficiently or there is too much 'background noise', so is the only other explanation that these results are a mathematical anomaly?

Also, how and why has the validity of the evidence for gravitational waves changed over time? i.e. Have gravitational waves always been considered the most valid explanation for the results of the 'indirect evidence'? Are there any results which retroactively have been attributed to gravitational waves?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ @WetSavannaAnimalakaRodVance I was under the impression that the gravitational waves produced by this binary pulsar start system were too weak to detect on Earth, and that we would have to wait millions of years until the stats collided before we could be able to gleam satisfying readings. Also other collisions (such as that of black holes) which would produce strong enough gravitational waves are far to infrequent and the probability of them occurring within a close enough distance is slim. $\endgroup$
    – Gridley Quayle
    Commented Feb 22, 2015 at 1:28
  • $\begingroup$ @WetSavannaAnimalakaRodVance Regarding the anomalies, I read this on Wikipedia (I know, it's Wikipedia). 'The 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for measurements of the Hulse–Taylor binary system that suggests gravitational waves are more than mathematical anomalies'. To be this suggested that a previous or alternative explanation could be that these results are 'mathematical anomalies'. Although I really do appreciate that this is really unlikely, I am just wondering what else could possibly explain these results other than gravitational waves, seeing as the results are 'indirect'. $\endgroup$
    – Gridley Quayle
    Commented Feb 22, 2015 at 1:32
  • $\begingroup$ I thought this is what you meant - so I think you need to replace "indirect" with "direct" in " believe indirect evidence for their existence". "More than mathematical anomalies" in the Nobel could be understated language for "statistically significant" - I could imagine this could be the kind of butt-covering language a committee like Nobel might use. $\endgroup$
    – Selene Routley
    Commented Feb 22, 2015 at 8:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Danu and other reviewers: I'm going to vote to leave this open and close the other as a duplicate of this. I think this is better written, and also less obsolete (compare seeking alternative explanations for the indirect evidence versus seeking alternative explanations for all the evidence). Note we aren't beholden to chronological priority. $\endgroup$
    – user10851
    Commented Feb 15, 2016 at 4:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Umm, never mind. The system won't let me do that since there are no answers here. $\endgroup$
    – user10851
    Commented Feb 15, 2016 at 4:42

0

Reset to default

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.