The next step will be to detect the
graviton, the theorized quantum particle that carries the gravitational wave (much like the
photon carries the electromagnetic wave).
I removed this because I'm not sure how much sense this makes.
Detecting gravitational waves is in a sense detecting gravitons,
unless they are talking about discriminating
individual
gravitons. If the last is the case, I'm not sure is just a next
step, but something further away in the future. If a professional
physicist thinks the comment does belong in the main page, please
put it back. --
AN
If I were 15 years old and simply did not know what gravity was, really, this article wouldn't be a whole lot of help...I'm not saying articles should be pitched at 15-year-olds, but that they should be blessed with simple explanations of complex concepts when helpful (as in this case, surely). My $0.02 as usual. --LMS
Thanks, Larry, for pointing out that encyclopedias are supposed to eventually have readers. And readers need introductions.--
MichaelTinkler
The person who wrote the "complete overhaul" simply erased the previous article and wrote a new one. Information was omited,
ad none of the previous content was kept. I hate it when someone does that. --
AN
- I actually tried to keep as much content as possible, and even used the old article as a guide for what content I should include. I did not try to incorporate everything, however, because some of it belonged in discussions about particle physics/quantum mechanics. If you fell I omitted something important, by all means reincorporate it (I tried to make the format extensible), or replace the new article with the old one. Which one is better for a general audience encyclopedia, though?
- Note that even though the masses of the individual objects are important, the distance between them is a term that is squared, so that it has a much greater effect. For instance the sun is many thousands of times more massive than the moon, but because the moon is closer, its gravity causes larger tides in the ocean than the sun's gravity.
This is simply untrue. I've just written tidal force which explains why the Moon affects the tides more than the Sun.
Is there anything useful to be gained by comparing the different terms in the equation? I don't think so. (After all, we wouldn't even be here if gravity were anything other than inverse square.) I've removed this paragraph from the main article.
On another point, the derivation of g in this article invokes the principle of equivalence, which I guess should be an article in its own right... (I don't have time right now to start it, or the knowledge to complete it!)
My notes on M-theory, which come from statements made by physicists working in superstring theory, mention the gaps Einstein left behind are finally resolved. I do not understand much of this, but am happy that a "20 year old problem" has been removed, for the people who started all this with the formulations of string theory. Perhaps include a ref to M-theory with this data at the end of your article. It may update your credibility.
Did Galileo actually try dropping weights? My recollection is that he did an early, elegant thought experiment: he envisioned dropping two one-pound weights, each with a small chain atop it, simultaneously, and then linking the two chains and dropping the resulting paired weight.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)