Have you considered the Planck/quantum level, or will you consistently fail to admit you are in error and continue to drag up red herrings?.
Do better.
Baryonic Number Conservation
- Thread starter The God
- Start date
Do better.
Have you considered the Planck/quantum level, or will you consistently fail to admit you are in error and continue to drag up red herrings?.
Do better.
Till yesterday you were of the opinion along with many that BB came before Inflation....now you have changed your position that BB came after inflation.
Can you show me where?
As I have informed you, when anyone speaks of that quantum/Planck era, they are in the main speculating......
Two kinds of speculation...the speculation based on current knowledge and data by professionals, and the speculation dreamed up by those with an agenda, probably religious.
Your speculation is not the first kind.
I was aware of the 'counterexample' of GW loss from ordinary binaries when posting earlier, but it's good you picked up on it. Of course in that case baryon number is conserved, and it's only in the peculiar case of merger/collapse to a final BH that in standard semi-classical GR, non-conservation is implied.
As you know, I prefer a different theory of gravity, where thrilling new physics aka pathological situations don't tend to rear their ugly head.
See I can understand, once you have two BHs (or even one of the two) spiralling into each other, then you have to live with B number non conservation...Discussions here will not yield anything
The point is once you say that spiralling binaries (exclusively non BH type) emit GW energy....lets focus on Gravitational Radiation emitted before the minnet collapse to BH if any, so how does B number conservation adhered to ? This calls for specific particle level conversion equations, which I do not think is the case.
Not quite sure what you're driving at. Say two white dwarfs inspiral to form a NS. There is no hint there of violation of baryon number - regardless of GW emission. Baryons are simply locked down into a very depressed gravitational potential, but with no change in net number. But if, in semi-classical GR scenario, two NS's merge to form a BH, we have a never-never land situation, that most assume is 'resolved' eventually through HR evaporation. Regardless of whether information is preserved in that theoretical evaporation scenario, there is no chance of baryon number conservation. And unless some kind of hocus-pocus exotic physics is invoked, baryon number ought to be wiped to zero. Given standard expectation of equal numbers of baryons and anti-baryons radiated in late-stage, explosive evaporation dominated by massive particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
This link provides the formula for radiated energy, it even associates the radiated energy with angular momentum..all fine, the basic issue is if we talk of mass loss, then how the baryon number remains conserved.
Is it like this ?
1. That till final collapse inspiralling energy radiation is out of rotational/linear energy...no mass loss, nothing is violated.
2. Only when binaries merge to form (either the NS or BH), do we have associated mass loss, caused due to non gravitational processes, and this in turn further distorts the curvature.
PS: The original question will of course stand as out of around 60, solar mass, 3 solar mass is lost in energy. This much energy cannot be binding energy...so some amount of real mass would have converted violating the B Number.....but then you have BH, so we can afford to live with such minor issue ? The interesting question is in case of merging/inspiralling BHs, what is the share of rotational energy vs gravitational energy (also left at EH) radiated. Mass is meaningless and cannot be extracted from singularity.
Last edited:
Neither 1 or 2. It's as I put it last post. Sorry if that does not gel.
I re read your post...I am yet to find out a mechanism/process/source of this loss of 3M in recent case. Similarly during inspiralling (before merger whether BH-BH or NS-NS or WD-WD or WD-NS) which energy is radiated if #1 of my above post is not ok.
Oh ok I missed that you had changed subject - hijacking your own thread in effect. The mechanism is supposed to simply fall out of the EFE's as applied to the case of a time varying mass quadrupole moment. The usual formula is a weak field limit one, and numerical GR is supposed to provide accurate results for strong field case i.e. BH-BH mergers. It might be interesting to get an admission as to what other gravity theories would also match the observed chirp profile. My guess is only GR has been given the supercomputer time to work out accurate templates. I'm very much in a minority in believing that the particular wave solutions popularly expounded at e.g that Wiki article, don't make sense when seen from the right perspective. Loosely, there is a boundary issue not looked at right. Carver Mead's G4v GW's are allowable solutions, though not necessarily therefore what nature provides. Must go.
It appears that subject is changed, but actually not. Conversion of mass into energy certainly wipes out B numbers...So I am trying to figure out the exact source of this radiation energy.......
Two inspiralling binaries have following energies....
1. Rotational
2. Linear Kinetic
3. Gravitational
4. EM
4. Heat
5. Rest mass energy
6. If I missed any then that too
Now the first part is straightforward with respect to (WD-WD, NS-WD, NS-NS, NS-BH, BH-BH) various stages of inspiralling, which of the above energy is transmitted as Gravitational Radiation.
The basic idea is that every contribution to stress-energy-momentum tensor gravitates thus will contribute to generation of GW's in an in-spiral situation. The ugly problem for GR is that all vacuum field solutions have zero Ricci scalar, which explicitly means gravity i.e. 'gravitational field' is not a source of gravity. As enshrined in the EFE's in fact. Yet it is made to be by various mathematical shell-game maneuvers. That matter was thrashed out in earlier threads you should have recalled.
It does. Conservation of baryon number is a rule that can be broken. You can for example melt baryons in a quark-gluon plasma. Have a look at the physicsworld article Of gluons, atoms and strings : "This screening effect causes hadrons to "melt", liberating their constituents into a plasma of quarks and gluons. Such a plasma may have existed about 1s after the Big Bang..."
It's rest mass energy. When you drop a brick some of its mass-energy is converted into kinetic energy, which typically gets dissipated, whereafter the brick has a mass deficit. The same thing happens if you drop a proton into a black hole. I don't know if you spotted that paddoboy started a thread about a firewall being a long way outside the event horizon. Friedwardt Winterberg wrote a paper about this sort of thing in 2001, saying the proton would be destroyed on the way into the black hole, and would be converted into a gamma ray burst. I first read this paper about two years ago, and I've get to meet anybody who can explain why it's wrong. I don't think it is. Which suggests that every time you see a gamma ray burst, you're seeing non-conservation of baryon number in action.
PS: I "root" for relativity, and I don't doubt that gravitational waves exist, but I'm not convinced by the recent LIGO news.
Farsight comes in to muddy the waters. Wrong on both counts. The 'melting' of hadrons is not a baryon number violating process. And in GR or most any other serious theory of gravity, it's the entire stress-energy-momentum tensor that determines what constitutes gravitating mass. Not just rest mass, which at any rate was artificially distinguished in #31 from heat, and depending on definition, gravity (as gravitational potential, not 'field').
So what you are saying that the energy radiated is actually a littel bit from here and a little bit from there. It is a mix of rotational, charge and rest mass energy....and 3 solar mass is arrived after dividing the same by c squared ?
Conversion factors are unimportant - often c = 1 is used. You are not by this stage familiar with the formal structure of EFE's? Contents of stress-energy-momentum tensor is no secret:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/stress.energy.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor
I personally have issues with relevance of at least some of the stress terms, but that's another story. The formalism is clear enough. Bye for now.
when you come back...
Can the Gravitation radiation energy source be idenified clearly ?
1. Source of radiation energy during inspairalling but before collapse (for all binaries wd-wd, ns-ns, bh-bh, wd-ns, ns-bh).
2. after collapse for wd-wd forming only NS.
The final state in either case exists in a lower aggregate gravitational potential. There is no mysterious net missing anything overall, if that's what you are implying.
I'm not muddying the waters, I'm clarifying them.
Do the research and pay attention: when you drop a brick some of its mass-energy is converted into kinetic energy, which typically gets dissipated, whereafter the brick has a mass deficit. The same thing happens if you drop a proton into a black hole. Before you dropped it there was no rotational energy *, or linear kinetic energy, or gravitational energy, or EM energy*, or heat.
* One might claim that intrinsic spin is rotational energy and that EM energy is rest mass energy, but I don't think TheGod was referring to them in the subatomic context.
Whatever you say Farsight. Whatever you say. Have another nice day.