(shakes head)--carry on.
Gravitational waves from black hole merger
- Thread starter Plazma Inferno!
- Start date
(shakes head)--carry on.Yet 3 solar mass were lost in the merger.
The cern paper which Paddoboy linked explains that, GRB and GWB can be associated.
The cern paper did not mention about Hawking Radiation, though it explains about GRB.
A quote from the abstract of the paper which i linked says
Fermi GBM Observations of LIGO Gravitational Wave event GW150914 said:
So, we have to wait for another GW detection for LIGO paper confirmation.
That means present LIGO analysis is incomplete.
By light I mean particle photon or any EM radiation. GRB is em radiation. So i termed this as light.
See my post #220.
understand post #219 and 205
Common sense changes along with the data, observations and knowledge we gain.eg: It was once common sense that space and time were both absolute.
We know better now that our further observations and data has shown that to be false.
Logic is the application of common sense, gained with observing, experimenting, and researching the data.
Yes. And none of the things you listed came from inside a black hole.
"One of my paper was not accepted because it did not make enough sense." - I can believe that.
No, we wait for another confirmation of gravitational waves to see if we have any other EM signal that can be more firmly associated with such GW's.Twistng facts will not get you anywhere.
No again. The present LIGO confirmation of gravitational waves and coalescing BH's, is just that...confirmed. The EM counterpart that was briefly seen is what is in question.
Any accretion disk present could explain that. As others have continually told you, no EM signal escapes the EH of any BH.
"Can be" is not the same as confirmed, no matter how you chose to interpret that for your own cause.
Why would it mention anything about an effect so minimal that its time frame can be measured over the life of the universe.
Many common-sense based views may not be scientifically correct, but that does not mean that common sense can be completely alienated from science or logic. This is pretty simple, do not shake and shrug so much on this trivial point.
Paddoboy said:
Paddoboy, You missed the point that short duration GRBs have characteristic quite similar to evaporating primordial BH, and evaporation of primordial BH is through HR only.......thats mainstream.
Rubbish........Again, LIGO is not fitted out to detect any EMR.
And the short duration one that was detected, is no certainty as was the gravitational wave certainty. The detected EMR is not as yet totally confirmed as to its part in this great discovery, and of course any HR/GRB applies at the time of BH evaporation itself. What were you saying about missing the point?
But yes of course the detection of VSGRB's are evidence of evaporating primordial BH's via Hawking Radiation, which you have emphatically denied in the past.
Nice to see some recognition of mainstream.
Last edited:
Rubbish........Again, LIGO is not fitted out to detect any EMR.
And the short duration one that was detected, is no certainty as was the gravitational wave certainty. And of course any HR/GRB applies at the time of BH evaporation. What were you saying about missing the point?
Did I say that LIGO can detect EMR ?
You made an emphatic point that since HR takes long long time and it is so minimal then why should it be referred with GRB ? Thats a poor argument. Short duration GRBs and HR could be linked.
No, LIGO confirmed gravitational waves, binary BH pairs and spacetime curvature.
Please take the time to read the paper. My point was and is, that the observed GRB, is not totally confirmed as to direction and what part it has played with this magnificent discovery of gravitational waves and BH confirmation.
Heady stuff!
But yes of course the detection of VSGRB's are possibly evidence of evaporating primordial BH's via Hawking Radiation, which you have emphatically denied in the past.
Nice to see some recognition of mainstream.
The present LIGO confirmation of gravitational waves and coalescing BH's, is just that...confirmed. The EM counterpart that was briefly seen is what is in question.
Any accretion disk present could explain that. As others have continually told you, no EM signal escapes the EH of any BH.
Hawking Radiation of course is caused by virtual particle pair creation with one being consumed by the BH, and the other escaping and so becoming real.
The partner that has fallen in being negative and thus subtracting from the BH's mass, as in line with accepted quantum mechanics.
Any accretion disk present could explain that. As others have continually told you, no EM signal escapes the EH of any BH.
Hawking Radiation of course is caused by virtual particle pair creation with one being consumed by the BH, and the other escaping and so becoming real.
The partner that has fallen in being negative and thus subtracting from the BH's mass, as in line with accepted quantum mechanics.
I'm always in control as well as having the common sense to recognise the confirmations I spoke of......
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211
https://losc.ligo.org/events/GW150914/
The G150914 detection paper:
LIGO DCC, arXiv, or Phys. Rev. Letters
This paper and all the companion papers can also be found at papers.ligo.org
.
[paste:font size="5"]Estimated source parameters
QuantityValueUpper/Lower error
estimateUnit
Primary black hole mass36+5 -4M sun
Secondary black hole mass29+4 -4M sun
Final black hole mass62+4 -4M sun
Final black hole spin0.67+0.05 -0.07
Luminosity distance410+160 -180Mpc
Source redshift, z0.09+0.03 -0.04
Energy radiated3+0.5 -0.5M sun
TABLE I. Estimated source parameters for GW150914. We report the median value as well as the range of the 90% credible interval. Masses are measured in the source frame; to convert masses to detector frame, multiply by (1 + z). The source redshift assumes standard cosmology.
click for DATA
click for DATA (L1 only)
click for DATA (Numerical relativity)
click for DATA (Numerical relativity)
click for DATA
click for DATA
FIG. 1. The gravitational-wave event GW150914 observed by the LIGO Hanford (H1, left column panels) and Livingston (L1, right column panels) detectors. Times are shown relative to September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC. For visualization, all time series are filtered with a 35–350 Hz band-pass filter to suppress large fluctuations outside the detectors’ most sensitive frequency band, and band-reject filters to remove the strong instrumental spectral lines seen in the Fig. 3 spectra.
- Top row, left: H1 strain. Top row, right: L1 strain. GW150914 arrived first at L1 and 6.9 (+0.5 −0.4) ms later at H1; for a visual comparison the H1 data are also shown, shifted in time by this amount and inverted (to account for the detectors’ relative orientations).
- Second row: Gravitational-wave strain projected onto each detector in the 35–350 Hz band. Solid lines show a numerical relativity waveform for a system with parameters consistent with those recovered from GW150914 confirmed by an independent calculation. Shaded areas show 90% credible regions for two waveform reconstructions: one that models the signal as a set of sine-Gaussian wavelets and one that models the signal using binary-black-hole template waveforms. These reconstructions have a 95% overlap.
- Third row: Residuals after subtracting the filtered numerical relativity waveform from the filtered detector time series.
- Bottom row: A time-frequency decomposition of the signal power associated with GW150914. Both plots show a signal with frequency increasing with time.
Numerical relativity DATA
Reconstructed DATA
separation DATA
velocity DATA
FIG. 2. Left: Estimated gravitational-wave strain amplitude from GW150914 projected onto H1. This shows the full bandwidth of the waveforms, without the filtering used for Fig. 1. The inset images show numerical-relativity models of the black hole horizons as the black holes coalesce. Right: The Keplerian effective black hole separation in units of Schwarzschild radii and the effective relative velocity.
Hanford DATA Livingston DATA
FIG.3. The average measured strain-equivalent noise, or sensitivity, of the Advanced LIGO detectors during the time analyzed to determine the significance of GW150914 (Sept 12 - Oct 20, 2015). Hanford (H1) is shown in red, Livingston (L1) in blue. The solid traces represent the median sensitivity and the shaded regions indicate the 5th and 95th percentile over the analysis period. The narrowband features in the spectra are due to known mechanical resonances, mains power harmonics, and injected signals used for calibration.
Search Result C3 DATA
Search Background C3 DATA
Search Result C2 C3 DATA
Search Background C2 C3 DATA
Search Results DATA
FIG. 4. Search results from the generic transient search (left) and the binary coalescence search (right). These histograms show the number of candidate events (orange markers) and the mean number of background events in the search class where GW150914 was found (black lines) as a function of the search detection statistic and with a bin width of 0.2. The scales on the top give the significance of an event in Gaussian standard deviations based on the corresponding noise background . The significance of GW150914 is greater than 5.1 σ and 4.6 σ for the binary coalescence and the generic transient searches, respectively. (Left): Along with the primary search (C3) we also show the results (yellow markers) and background (green curve) for an alternative search that treats events independently of their frequency evolution (C2+C3). The classes C2 and C3 are defined in the text. (Right): The tail in the black-line background of the binary coalescence search is due to random coincidences of GW150914 in one detector with noise in the other detector. (This type of event is practically absent in the generic transient search background because they do not pass the time-frequency consistency requirements used in that search.) The blue curve is the background excluding those coincidences, which is used to assess the significance of the second strongest event candidate.
More at the link
3 solar mass were lost in this event. Isn't this mass loss from inside a black hole. It is assumed that the two events GRB and GWB have a common origin. http://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/gbm/publications/preprints/gbm_ligo_preprint.pdf . A quote from the abstract of the link says:
Fermi GBM Observations of LIGO Gravitational Wave event GW150914 said:
My paper is not published but my theory is not wrong. To develop this theory I made one prediction. I find my prediction is confirmed by an article published in the journal Nature.
Last edited:
the actual trivial point is your own post(#230).
(shrugs)--again, common sense is a completely different element than logic and has no place in science.Yes. The mass was converted to gravitational radiation. This is neither EM radiation nor emitted matter.
Again, no radiation or mass can escape from a black hole. Gravity can (which is why it's a black hole to begin with.) Black holes can also have observable characteristics of mass, charge and spin, and thus that information can escape.