YES. By the term "light", I mean any EM radiation.
What you think about the light which escaped, in this case of two black hole collision. I already provided the links for this escape of light in the posts #190 and #198.
Gravitational waves from black hole merger
- Thread starter Plazma Inferno!
- Start date
YES. By the term "light", I mean any EM radiation.
What you think about the light which escaped, in this case of two black hole collision. I already provided the links for this escape of light in the posts #190 and #198.
Are you trying you be funny? Or are you just not interested in a valid answer?
The definition of a BH singularity is where our laws of physics and GR do not apply: Like the instant of the BB itself. They are beyond our knowledge.
Matter/energy once it crosses the EH, is spagethiffied and broken down into its most basic components by the forces of tidal gravity which overcome even the strong nuclear force holding the particles we do recognise together: Molecules are broken down into atoms, atoms are broken down into protons and neutrons and eventually into quarks and these obvious effects of tidal gravitation increase as the singularity is reached and infinite spacetime curvature approached.
Matter/energy is in an unknown state as that continues.
NOTE: Which you have also been told.....The singularity is never exposed and is always hidden by the EH, even as the merging/collision takes place.
After so many pages, I'm not sure what you are asking about.That has been answered also............................
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.
LIGO did not have any EM wave detector alongwith GW detector. How you are so sure that there is no EM wave alongwith GW.
Here is another paper on Fermi detection. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03920v3.pdf . According to this paper
That means the probability is almost zero that the Fermi detection is false. This paper also says thatFermi GBM Observations of LIGO Gravitational Wave event GW150914 said:
That means the direction of Fermi detected EM wave is consistent with the LIGO detected GW.Fermi GBM Observations of LIGO Gravitational Wave event GW150914 said:
Are you reading, what you are posting? From the above it can be said that, Gamma-Ray Bursts and Gravitational-Wave Bursts can be associated.
Section 2. of the paper you linked, explains GRB–GWB association . So EM wave radiation alongwith GW radiation is not unlikely.
here is part of your problem. " common sense " has no place in science.
common sense is a completely different element than logic.
Your uncomfort with BH is palpable, but thats how it is. It is funny and unscientific to say that matter resides at singulairty in some state.....the answer is we do not know about anything inside EH and moreover no matter can exist with zero volume and infinite density....that means no singularity, thats for sure.
PS: This argument will lead you knowhere. See, now things have become so murkier (no pun intended) with declaration of GW detection (because of merging of 2 BHs), that people have started thinking that they have found the evidence for BH too. dislodging BH from the mainstream psyche by any means will take some time...my prediction, by 2020 as you say common sense science will come back...
Why common sense has no place in science ?
Yes, true for AI based programmed devices like robots etc, common sense has no place but for human beings and human scientists common sense is as important as 2 + 2 = 4.
common sense is a completely different element than logic.
(shrugs)-- if you were not such a pretending, want-too-be, ppiss-ant link clicker and nothing more, you would understand why that is.common sense is a completely different element than logic.
Well I do not click the links, you can ask Paddoboy by PMing him. I do not pretend because I know what I write, I am not want-too-be, infact I am here on earth to expose all those who have become something by pretending....;you can shrug:shrug:shrug...ad infinitum
Anyway you can explain for the benefit of all others why common sense is not required in science...once you stop shrugging.
(shrugs again)--common sense is a completely different element than logic.
(shrugs)-- if you were not such a pretending, want-too-be, ppiss-ant link clicker and nothing more, you would understand why that is.
except when it comes too yourself, correct?
are these not your own words?--
The God said: ↑
" The problem[...] is, self learning advanced concepts without any formal education on the subject. Thanks to internet, people can read and claim mastery, but they goof up and get exposed when they start writing in their language. "
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gr...-black-hole-merger.155284/page-9#post-3364105
Last edited:
Obviously the truth is self evident with regards to these pretending "want to be's"I mentioned somewhere about their nonsense being like a house of cards....isolated tracks of nonsense, begets even larger tracts of nonsense.Culminating in ludicrous 9/11 and Moon landing hoax types of conspiracies. eg: the fictional claims that the GP-B results were fraudulent along with the confirmed LIGO results.
It lurches from silly to ridiculous, to outrageous, to ludicrous.
? I did not claim or say LIGO had any EM detector.
While the detection of gravitational waves and BH's have ben confirmed, the associated EM is less than certain.
I published that paper myself earlier: Again while LIGO has confirmed gravitational waves and BH's, any EM association is not at this stage confirmed."Can be" is not 100% confirmation, sorry about that.
Agreed: What I said......
With the bit on the EM detected by the FERMI, we are not sure, and that depends on trajectory and other factors......
What we are sure of though is that LIGO has finally confirmed gravitational waves, BH's, spacetime curvature, and obviously even more certainty with GR.
Atoms can fall into the black hole. They just won't be atoms after they reach the final destination. Once they're inside they won't get back out again before, during, or after the merger event. Any electromagnetic signal that can be associated with the merger event occurs due to dynamics outside the merging apparent horizons. When they merge the gravitational radiation, waves, create tidal acceleration that can rip the spacetime outside the horizon apart. The only 'must' you need to concern yourself about is nothing is getting back out of the merged black holes. The only em radiation escaping black holes is Hawking Radiation.
Look. Pay attention. It's pretty simple answer. LIGO is a gravitational wave interferometer. Designed to detect gravitational waves. Not electromagnetic waves. We have other experimental apparatus to detect electromagnetic radiation. For an event such as this there will be an immediate attempt to find out whether any electromagnetic signal might correlate to the merger event where the gravitational wave originates. Scientists work together. They actually work for you since you get to share in the discovery. If you want to argue about the details figure out what they are first. Read the entire abstract of the paper you linked. Hopefully they'll get a chance at a complete analysis.
Last edited:
No light escaped. You do not understand the article you posted if you think it suggests "light escaped from a black hole" - nor is gravitational radiation the same as light.
Common sense does not apply in high energy physics, quantum physics or the physics of black holes. There is nothing "common" to the human experience that gives us any references we can use to understand such phenomena.
I dont know, what is your idea of "common sense". You can follow this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense . To make science, it has to make some sense. One of my paper was not accepted because it did not make enough sense. So common sense is must for science.
Yes, common sense is different from logic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic ) . But can you understand logic without common sense.