It would seem so, unless I am grossly mistaken, which has happened before!
Gravitational waves from black hole merger
- Thread starter Plazma Inferno!
- Start date
If the Black Holes are colliding at a speed much higher than 0.1%c, that means atoms of the two black holes are colliding at that speed. If atoms are colliding at that speed, we can also say that protons of the two black holes are colliding at that speed. So, it is turning out to be similar to proton-proton collision and some mass would be lost to Light energy or Electro-Magnetic radiation. Incidentally, NASA also detected some Electro-Magnetic radiation from the same source of GW which LIGO detected. But this mass loss to EM radiation is not accounted in the LIGO analysis.
Last edited:
The only atoms that would be associated with a black hole would be any atoms in the accretion disks.
Any charged particles that were accelerated by the combining of the black holes would emit EM radiation.
Could you supply a source, the last I heard was that the exact location of the event was not known.
Correct, LIGO only detected gravity waves and the mass loss was based on the gravity waves detected.
Many things travel faster than 300 kilometers per second. (Cosmic "rays" for example.) That doesn't make their dynamics during collisions similar.
Well, no. A black hole is a singularity; there are no "protons on its edge." (There is, of course, gas and dust just outside the black hole though.)
If I said Hawking radiation I misspoke. Not the first time. Hawking radiation has a electromagnetic black body spectrum so it's definitely not gravitational radiation which propagates the g_field. I meant to say gravitational radiation. Quantum gravity would predict the gravitational radiation is gravitons.
https://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/more-physics-woo-the-einstein-cranks/
The Skeptical Teacher:
Musings of a science teacher & skeptic in an age of woo.
More Physics Woo: The Einstein Cranks
Posted by mattusmaximus on May 19, 2009:
What the hell is it about Einstein’s theories of relativity? For some reason, physics cranks seem to have a fetish for trying to undo or modify relativity in an effort to push their own “theories” of physics. In the process, these folks often display a glaring lack of understanding of the very physics they are proposing to overthrow, and sometimes they even venture into the realm of conspiracy mongering. I like to refer to this particular species of woo as the “Einstein cranks.”
In particular, I have had an interesting series of discussions recently with one such physics crank on the JREF Forum. Allow me to illustrate some examples of how various physics woo-meisters often get physics dead wrong and display logical fallaciesof all stripes when making their arguments.
It all started when a guy nicknamed “MacM” came on the Science, Math & Technology section of the JREF Forum claiming that he’d show how the scientific community had relativity all wrong. If you feel like shoving your head through a cheese grater, go read the thread for yourself. For the purposes of this post, I will just give some of the highlights…
MacM attempts to outline why it is that the physics community is incorrect in applying special relativity. After going round and round with him multiple times, along with many others well versed in relativity doing the same, it became apparent that he was basically creating a straw man of relativity theory, claiming that it says things it does not. In addition, he was failing to understand some of the most fundamental principles of the very theory he was criticizing, such as insisting in the existence of some absolute frame of reference (called the “aether frame”) when experiments have shown consistently that none exists.
Next, MacM displays a shocking ignorance of many aspects of physics in his arguments. Not only did he (intentionally?) misrepresent relativity theory in his posts, but he also screwed up various aspects of classical Newtonian mechanics as well, including – though not limited to – inertial vs. non-inertial frames of reference, centrifugal forces, freely-falling motion & apparent weightlessness, the conservation of linear momentum, and Newton’s 2nd Law (F=ma). Yet, when his errors were very clearly and on numerous occasions pointed out to him, he either ignored or ridiculed the criticism.
In addition, despite his appalling lack of physics understanding, it seems that MacM also has an equally appalling lack of necessary mathematical know-how. In fact, despite his repeatedly claimed expertise, he seemed to almost disdain math because it didn’t fit with his “common sense” views on the matter. For example, when I clearly pointed out to him (complete with fully worked out mathematical derivation) that his insistence that Newton’s 2nd Law (F=ma) applied in special relativity was dead wrong, he ignored the derivation and flatly declared that “all this math is just a waste of time.” Yet when he thinks it’ll score points for him, he pulls very bad & inconsistent math out of his butt to (he thinks) reinforce his arguments. This kind of “heads I win, tails you lose” method of argumentation is par for the course for many pseudoscientific cranks, and it shows how they are not really interested in genuine inquiry, just “winning the argument.”
Another interesting tidbit in our collective interaction with MacM was when he claimed that he had actually built a device (he called it an “inertial drive”) which violated the known laws of energy & momentum conservation (also known as aperpetual motion device). The thread on the JREF Forum is here, but a quick summary of it reveals that he is either lying about his claims or (more likely) just so ignorant of the physics involved that he really does believe that he’s done what he says he’s done. Yet, again, when his errors were pointed out – repeatedly and at length – he simply retreated to his same, tired accusations that we didn’t know what we were talking about and he had the truth all along. In fact, his behavior smacked quite strongly of a conspiracy theorist in this regard.
MacM seems to have given up on these threads. I think the final nail in the coffin for him was when some posters told him to simply go out and make his device work exactly as he claims it would. In fact, more than one poster challenged him to apply for theJREF Million Dollar Challenge (or even the Nobel Prize). He has yet to take up the gauntlet of said challenge…
So why is it that these “Einstein cranks” go after relativity so much? I think it is at least partly because the notion of Einstein as a lone scientist working to overcome the prevailing paradigm in physics appeals to them (of course, in reality Einstein had many contemporaries with whom he worked on relativity). Perhaps the tendency to view Einstein as a kind of independent and anti-authoritarian figure in science who attained fame & glory gives them the sense that if they overthrow his ideas on relativity that they’ll attain even greater fame. Who really knows? I’m not a psychologist, I’m a physicist – and what I can tell you is most of these “Einstein cranks” don’t know the first thing about physics.
In fact, I’ll go further… it seems to me that many of them do the same kind of thing many creationists do when attacking evolution – they almost intentionally misrepresent physics so that they can attempt to topple what they think physics is with some crackpot notion they’ve dreamed up.
It could very well be that, in the end, Einstein is wrong and that relativity theory will eventually be relegated to the dustbin of scientific history. But it is going to take more than the wild-eyed insistence on the part of pseudoscientists on the Internet to topple relativity. If anything will topple Einstein’s theory, it is going to be from within science, due to a careful application of the same thinking which led to the very paradigm shift he championed.
The Skeptical Teacher:
Musings of a science teacher & skeptic in an age of woo.
More Physics Woo: The Einstein Cranks
Posted by mattusmaximus on May 19, 2009:
What the hell is it about Einstein’s theories of relativity? For some reason, physics cranks seem to have a fetish for trying to undo or modify relativity in an effort to push their own “theories” of physics. In the process, these folks often display a glaring lack of understanding of the very physics they are proposing to overthrow, and sometimes they even venture into the realm of conspiracy mongering. I like to refer to this particular species of woo as the “Einstein cranks.”
In particular, I have had an interesting series of discussions recently with one such physics crank on the JREF Forum. Allow me to illustrate some examples of how various physics woo-meisters often get physics dead wrong and display logical fallaciesof all stripes when making their arguments.
It all started when a guy nicknamed “MacM” came on the Science, Math & Technology section of the JREF Forum claiming that he’d show how the scientific community had relativity all wrong. If you feel like shoving your head through a cheese grater, go read the thread for yourself. For the purposes of this post, I will just give some of the highlights…
MacM attempts to outline why it is that the physics community is incorrect in applying special relativity. After going round and round with him multiple times, along with many others well versed in relativity doing the same, it became apparent that he was basically creating a straw man of relativity theory, claiming that it says things it does not. In addition, he was failing to understand some of the most fundamental principles of the very theory he was criticizing, such as insisting in the existence of some absolute frame of reference (called the “aether frame”) when experiments have shown consistently that none exists.
Next, MacM displays a shocking ignorance of many aspects of physics in his arguments. Not only did he (intentionally?) misrepresent relativity theory in his posts, but he also screwed up various aspects of classical Newtonian mechanics as well, including – though not limited to – inertial vs. non-inertial frames of reference, centrifugal forces, freely-falling motion & apparent weightlessness, the conservation of linear momentum, and Newton’s 2nd Law (F=ma). Yet, when his errors were very clearly and on numerous occasions pointed out to him, he either ignored or ridiculed the criticism.
In addition, despite his appalling lack of physics understanding, it seems that MacM also has an equally appalling lack of necessary mathematical know-how. In fact, despite his repeatedly claimed expertise, he seemed to almost disdain math because it didn’t fit with his “common sense” views on the matter. For example, when I clearly pointed out to him (complete with fully worked out mathematical derivation) that his insistence that Newton’s 2nd Law (F=ma) applied in special relativity was dead wrong, he ignored the derivation and flatly declared that “all this math is just a waste of time.” Yet when he thinks it’ll score points for him, he pulls very bad & inconsistent math out of his butt to (he thinks) reinforce his arguments. This kind of “heads I win, tails you lose” method of argumentation is par for the course for many pseudoscientific cranks, and it shows how they are not really interested in genuine inquiry, just “winning the argument.”
Another interesting tidbit in our collective interaction with MacM was when he claimed that he had actually built a device (he called it an “inertial drive”) which violated the known laws of energy & momentum conservation (also known as aperpetual motion device). The thread on the JREF Forum is here, but a quick summary of it reveals that he is either lying about his claims or (more likely) just so ignorant of the physics involved that he really does believe that he’s done what he says he’s done. Yet, again, when his errors were pointed out – repeatedly and at length – he simply retreated to his same, tired accusations that we didn’t know what we were talking about and he had the truth all along. In fact, his behavior smacked quite strongly of a conspiracy theorist in this regard.
MacM seems to have given up on these threads. I think the final nail in the coffin for him was when some posters told him to simply go out and make his device work exactly as he claims it would. In fact, more than one poster challenged him to apply for theJREF Million Dollar Challenge (or even the Nobel Prize). He has yet to take up the gauntlet of said challenge…
So why is it that these “Einstein cranks” go after relativity so much? I think it is at least partly because the notion of Einstein as a lone scientist working to overcome the prevailing paradigm in physics appeals to them (of course, in reality Einstein had many contemporaries with whom he worked on relativity). Perhaps the tendency to view Einstein as a kind of independent and anti-authoritarian figure in science who attained fame & glory gives them the sense that if they overthrow his ideas on relativity that they’ll attain even greater fame. Who really knows? I’m not a psychologist, I’m a physicist – and what I can tell you is most of these “Einstein cranks” don’t know the first thing about physics.
In fact, I’ll go further… it seems to me that many of them do the same kind of thing many creationists do when attacking evolution – they almost intentionally misrepresent physics so that they can attempt to topple what they think physics is with some crackpot notion they’ve dreamed up.
It could very well be that, in the end, Einstein is wrong and that relativity theory will eventually be relegated to the dustbin of scientific history. But it is going to take more than the wild-eyed insistence on the part of pseudoscientists on the Internet to topple relativity. If anything will topple Einstein’s theory, it is going to be from within science, due to a careful application of the same thinking which led to the very paradigm shift he championed.
The mass loss in gravitational radiation was predicted to be ~ 3 solar mass. There is no loss of mass via electromagnetic radiation in the predicted black hole merger spacetime event. Read what I wrote about how the gravitational radiation propagates the g_field. Regardless the analogy made between gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves the only thing they have in common is the propagation speed and the photon and graviton are bosons.
Firstly, and I'm sure you have been told before, any BH is really just critically curved spacetime, with a Singularity in the middle where the mass resides in some unknown state: The EH's are actually colliding [just spacetime] and after they form into one larger BH, the singularities merge into one. No atoms are colliding unless accretion disks are accompanying the BH's concerned.
With the bit on the EM detected by the FERMI, we are not sure, and that depends on trajectory and other factors......
I published the paper concerning that early in the other gravitational wave confirmation thread...here it is again.......
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.04735v2.pdf
ELECTROMAGNETIC COUNTERPARTS TO BLACK HOLE MERGERS DETECTED BY LIGO
Abraham Loeb1 Draft version
February 24, 2016
ABSTRACT
Mergers of stellar-mass black holes (BHs), such as GW150914 observed by LIGO, are not expected to have electromagnetic counterparts. However, the Fermi GBM detector identified a γ-ray transient 0.4 s after the gravitational wave (GW) signal GW150914 with consistent sky localization. I show that the two signals might be related if the BH binary detected by LIGO originated from two clumps in a dumbbell configuration that formed when the core of a rapidly rotating massive star collapsed. In that case, the BH binary merger was followed by a γ-ray burst (GRB) from a jet that originated in the accretion flow around the remnant BH. A future detection of a GRB afterglow could be used to determine the redshift and precise localization of the source. A population of standard GW sirens with GRB redshifts would provide a new approach for precise measurements of cosmological distances as a function of redshift.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Plus this from the SWIFT.......
http://cds.cern.ch/record/612834/files/0304228.pdf
Swift Pointing and the Association Between Gamma-Ray Bursts and Gravitational-Wave Bursts
ABSTRACT
The currently accepted model for gamma-ray burst phenomena involves the violent formation of a rapidly rotating solar mass black hole. Gravitational waves should be associated with the black-hole formation, and their detection would permit this model to be tested, the black hole progenitor (e.g., coalescing binary or collapsing stellar core) identified, and the origin of the gamma rays (within the expanding relativistic fireball or at the point of impact on the interstellar medium) located. Even upper limits on the gravitational-wave strength associated with gamma-ray bursts could constrain the gamma-ray burst model. To do any of these requires joint observations of gamma-ray burst events with gravitational and gamma-ray detectors. Here we examine how the quality of an upper limit on the gravitational-wave strength associated with gamma ray burst observations depends on the relative orientation of the gamma-ray-burst and gravitational-wave detectors, and apply our results to the particular case of the Swift Burst-Alert Telescope (BAT) and the LIGO gravitational-wave detectors. A result of this investigation is a science-based “figure of merit” that can be used, together with other mission constraints, to optimize the pointing of the Swift telescope for the detection of gravitational waves associated with gamma-ray bursts.
Last edited:
Here's actually the original paper I was trying to find......
http://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/gbm/publications/preprints/gbm_ligo_preprint.pdf
Fermi GBM Observations of LIGO Gravitational Wave event GW150914
ABSTRACT
With an instantaneous view of 70% of the sky, the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) is an excellent partner in the search for electromagnetic counterparts to gravitational wave (GW) events. GBM observations at the time of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) event GW150914 reveal the presence of a weak transient source above 50 keV, 0.4 s after the GW event was detected, with a false alarm probability of 0.0022. This weak transient lasting 1 s does not appear connected with other previously known astrophysical, solar, terrestrial, or magnetospheric activity. Its localization is ill-constrained but consistent with the direction of GW150914. The duration and spectrum of the transient event suggest it is a weak short Gamma-Ray Burst arriving at a large angle to the direction in which Fermi was pointing, where the GBM detector response is not optimal. If the GBM transient is associated with GW150914, this electromagnetic signal from a stellar mass black hole binary merger is unexpected. From our measurement of the fluence seen by GBM, we calculate a luminosity in hard X-ray emission between 1 keV and 10 MeV of 1.8 +1.5 −1.0 × 1049 erg s−1 . The observation by Fermi GBM encompasses 75% of the probability map associated with the LIGO GW event localization at the time the GW event was detected. Assuming the two events have a common origin, the combined LIGO and GBM observations can reduce the 90% confidence interval on sky location from 601 to 199 square degrees. Future joint observations of GW events by LIGO/Virgo and Fermi GBM could reveal whether the weak transient reported here is a plausible counterpart to the GW event GW150914 or a chance coincidence, and will further probe the connection between compact binary mergers and short Gamma-Ray Bursts.
extract:
Further observations by LIGO and Virgo in coincidence with a detector sensitive to hard X-ray or gamma-ray transient events will determine whether short bursts of high-energy electromagnetic radiation accompany stellar mass black hole binary mergers. Because of the weakness of GW150914-GBM and its large localization uncertainty, chance coincidence may play a role in both the identification of GW150914-GBM as an astrophysical phenomenon and its association with the GW event, even with the false alarm probability of 0.0022 that we calculate in section 2.2. If the association is real, then the alignment of the merger axis with our line of sight is serendipitous. Another possibility is that the electromagnetic emission is not narrowly collimated and we can expect further joint detections of stellar mass black hole binary mergers and GRBs. This paradigm may be in tension with the non-detection of GW candidates in the last science runs of the previous configuration of LIGO/Virgo, S6/VSR2&3 (Abadie et al. 2012). None of the GRBs with known redshift detected during S6/VSR2&3 was within the BBH detection horizon (100 Mpc). It is possible, however, that some of the 90% of GRBs with unknown redshifts were within this horizon.
You can see here. http://phys.org/news/2016-02-gamma-ray-accompany-ligo-gravity.html . I think there was no EM wave detector alongwith the GW detector in the LIGO set-up. The EM wave detector would have confirmed or nullified any EM wave from the same source.
Last edited:
Singularity is a hypothetical concept. If a black hole has mass, it must be having atoms. If it is having atoms, they are having protons also.
No; one does not follow the other. Photons have mass but no atoms, for example.
Neutron stars are quite massive but have few protons.
Photons are massless; though they have energy and momentum.
In that case we can have neutron-neutron collision and mass can be lost to light energy.
Your question has been answered previously.
All the mass in any BH resides at the singularity in an unknown state.
When BH's collide or merge, the EH's are colliding and merging, keeping the singularities "clothed" by the EH. In a short time the two singularities also merge.
Yes, provided you define light as any EM radiation. Since light cannot escape a black hole, that does not apply to the black hole collision case.
There is no concept of atoms, beyond neutron star core.....
This is the most troublesome aspect of a BH, that how such a massive mass can reside at a point ? cannot go there and check.
As you have been told before, the mass of any BH exists in some unknown state.....so no, atoms, protons etc probably do not exist at the singularity.
And of course the main reason that we know BH's exist is simply the fact that the GR equations tell us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory, and of course the "dying pulse train," experiment gives us convincing indirect evidence for BH's: The recent advanced LIGO discovery confirms their existence.
Last edited:
Which answer you would like to pick.
If BH singularity is an unknown state, HOW do you know about all these facts of the BH. If something is known, how it is unknown?
I am not asking about the existence of a BH.
Last edited:
Where they can vanish? At the most they can be in the form of energy.
No need to go there. Things should be understood through our common sense considering the preservation of total mass and energy.