Can Gravity Waves Produce Anti-gravity?

[Airbrush]

Can the detection of gravity waves lead to anti-gravity?

[Strange]

Why would that be? All it does is confirm another prediction of GR. As far as I know, GR does not include antigravity, in which case the answer has to be no.

[ydoaPs]

Well, the waves might be able to cancel out a gravitational field temporarily. Would you consider that anti-gravity?

[ajb]

By anti-gravity one means a repulsive gravitation force, usually. You can have such effects in general relativity, due to vibrating cosmic strings for example. I do not know if one can have such a similar effect due to gravitational waves, I have not heard of such a result.

[ydoaPs]

By anti-gravity one means a repulsive gravitation force, usually. You can have such effects in general relativity, due to vibrating cosmic strings for example. I do not know if one can have such a similar effect due to gravitational waves, I have not heard of such a result.

Would that be possible to do with multiple wave sources creating an interference pattern?

[ajb]

Would that be possible to do with multiple wave sources creating an interference pattern?

I do not know.

[I-try]

As stated in my earlier post on this thread, I read GR as emphatically declaring that gravitation is an illusion because the concept does not have physical reality by resulting from the action of a force. GR also requires that gravity only results because matter is compelled (indicating a force is acting) to follow geodetic pathways formed by the curvature of what is referred to as space-time. Those conceptual ideas resulting from the mathematical accuracy derived from the inclusion of known measurements of physical realities in combination with the geometrical mathematics applied, and therefore providing accurate information regarding the concept gravitation not resulting from a gravitational force.

 

If GR is to be regarded as accurate, then why is there a continued attempt to define those concepts as physical realities resulting in each case, by reference to the force of gravity or to gravitation as a force. Perhaps the answer may be because of the desire to continue with the more than thirty years of failure to directly receive a gravitational wave (a wave posses intrinsic force) emanating from the continual approach of close orbiting pulsars.

[Schneibster]

There's no such thing as anti-gravity. It's like anti-space. Meaningless.

 

There is contragravity; it's theoretically possible to superimpose two gravity fields on one another such that, over some region of effect, the net gravity is zero, or opposite to the gravity of one of the fields that the user wishes to cancel. However, it takes an entire planet to hold a little teeny piece of paper down, and I can momentarily counter all the force of that entire planet on that piece of paper with a breath.

 

Maybe one day we'll know enough about gravity to generate it using something other than planets and stars. Until we do, contragravity is a dream; but not an impossible one.

 

So to answer your question, substituting contragravity for impossible antigravity, yes, gravity waves can produce momentary contragravity, if they are strong enough. However, the gravity waves we can see in the CMBR aren't, and unless a pair of black holes in close orbit comes flying out of nowhere and passes through our Solar System we'll never see any that are strong enough to make more than a tiny contragravity effect; so far we've never actually directly measured a gravity wave, even using miles-long laser beams and incredibly sensitive detectors (the experiment is called LIGO and is a single google away; the top hit is probably the experiment's web site).

 

And BTW such a pair of black holes would probably irreparably damage our orbit and likely exterminate life on Earth, not to mention irradiating us with X rays. So the fact we'll never see it up close and personal is probably a Good Thing.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Schneibster

[Wso]

Gravity waves couldn't necessarily be used to make anti gravity. You could have two sources of gravity pulling in opposite directions, as schneibster said earlier, but this isn't really antigravity. You could try to make an interference pattern, as ydoaPs suggested, but this would only be possible if you had something that could block out some parts of the gravitational waves, and I suppose if you had a gravity blocking wall, then cutting holes in it to try and make anti gravity interference patterns would seem a bit odd. The only way I can think of to produce anti gravity is to warp space time and utilize the fact that gravity doesn't travel faster then light to make temporary spots of increased gravity forming interference patterns, these interference patterns might help a little but again, if you can warp space like this, do you really need anti gravity when you can just warp it to the point where it's almost gone? If I worded something bad or said something wrong please mention it.

[ydoaPs]

You could try to make an interference pattern, as ydoaPs suggested, but this would only be possible if you had something that could block out some parts of the gravitational waves

Or, as I said, multiple waves.

[SamBridge]

Waves don't necessary need to have minimum caused by the amplitude that extends below 0. For instance, if I describe a wave through time as x=sin(t) + 1, it only ranges from 0 to 2. And, just as you have mass or no mass but not negative mass, you also have gravity or no gravity but not negative gravity since gravity is directly related to mass, anti gravity would simply require a completely different force.

Edited April 9, 2014 by SamBridge

[spocktorwho]

There's no such thing as anti-gravity. Gravity is a purely attractive force.

[Wso]

There's no such thing as anti-gravity. Gravity is a purely attractive force.

Well that depends on your definition I guess. If you mean reversing gravity, then your right, gravity is just (as we currently understand it) attractive. There are other means to defy gravity though, but when I jump I don't confused it anti gravity. Counteracting gravity, setting up a system where the effects of gravity are counteracted compleatly by some other force, could be called anti gravity.

[swansont]

Well that depends on your definition I guess. If you mean reversing gravity, then your right, gravity is just (as we currently understand it) attractive. There are other means to defy gravity though, but when I jump I don't confused it anti gravity. Counteracting gravity, setting up a system where the effects of gravity are counteracted compleatly by some other force, could be called anti gravity.

 

That's not how it's generally defined. Making up new and expansive definitions to shoehorn an idea in is an exercise is semantics, not science.

[spocktorwho]

Well that depends on your definition I guess. If you mean reversing gravity, then your right, gravity is just (as we currently understand it) attractive. There are other means to defy gravity though, but when I jump I don't confused it anti gravity. Counteracting gravity, setting up a system where the effects of gravity are counteracted compleatly by some other force, could be called anti gravity.

Yes, I meant reversed gravity. Thanks for clearing that up.

[md65536]

Waves don't necessary need to have minimum caused by the amplitude that extends below 0. For instance, if I describe a wave through time as x=sin(t) + 1, it only ranges from 0 to 2. And, just as you have mass or no mass but not negative mass, you also have gravity or no gravity but not negative gravity since gravity is directly related to mass, anti gravity would simply require a completely different force.

If you're counting negative parts of a wave, you might count temporary effects of particles increasing their separation due to gravitational waves (not "gravity waves", which means something else) as "anti-gravity". I wouldn't do that, unless you expressed the effect mathematically and if the maths still fit the intended meaning of "anti-gravity".

 

See the first few animations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

Particles oscillate as gravitational waves pass, alternatively brought closer together and farther apart. The particles follow the distortion of spacetime, so there should be no force or pseudo-force pushing them apart at any moment, so that probably shouldn't be counted as anti-gravity.

Edited April 29, 2014 by md65536