Talk:Gravitational wave background

message: The article lost me here. What sort of nonlocal effects? And how would that explain them? 138.38.24.108 (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This would produce a relativistic explanation of nonlocal effects." 

message: Hey - this page is out of date; Gravitational Waves have been detected.  So says Michael Abramson.50.35.107.122 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a few updates, and we will remember that while gravitational waves have been discovered, the GWB, that is, the background itself, still awaits discovery and study.  It's like the difference between microwaves and the CMB or between neutrinos and the CNB.  Good faith! Paine  18:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date 

message: The opening paragraph gave me the impression that it was written by someone who does not actually know the subject.  For example, do supernovae actually liberate gravitational waves?  I don't think so; a supernova is a spherically-symmetrical event, and to generate GW there has to be change in the quadrupole moment.  Two black holes orbiting their common centre of mass are sufficiently unsymmetrical; many other processes are not. Philip Trueman (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That part was written before I came to this article; however, I left it in because it may yet be true, at least theoretically.  If you take a look at two reference citations in the Supernova article, nos. 12 and 75, we see that the sharply quick collapse that follows the supernova may indeed generate gravitational waves.  Do you think the lead is misleading even though the sharp collapse that leads to the black hole or neutron star is a part of the supernova event?  Follow Jimbo! Paine  03:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  Well, I don't claim to be the expert requested.  Clearly there would be some GW emission - I think I saw somewhere that the orbiting of the planets of the Solar System about the Sun generates about 5kW of GW.  The supernova only needs to be slightly asymmetrical to generate something, but I doubt whether it would be measurable at any distance.  My feeling is that the lead is misleading, but I will defer to an expert should any appear. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert either, just a long-time astronomy lover who was floored by the recent detection of GWs (I didn't think they were detectable with present technology).  I have included the reference citations noted above and reworded the supernova passage to be not so conclusive.  If you still think the article needs an expert's touch, you might try using  to call one over.  Follow Jimbo! Paine  18:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this needs an expert 

message: Over the coming few days I will restructure and add more content to this page. While I am familiar with this topic I haven't been an active Wikipedia editor so any comments in good faith are appreciated!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharanbngr (talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring 

message: Today, news broke that researchers have detected direct evidence of the GWB ( ). There will be a press conference tomorrow with further details. I will add a brief sentence mentioning this in the detection section. Since I'm not very familiar with the subject, I will keep from making more substantive edits. It would be great if an expert could bring this page up to date with these most recent findings. Rondo Burleske (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some updates; still more to come.  I'm not an expert wikipedia editor, though.  So I can use some help. CA2MI (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs an update