Gravitational waves from black hole merger

hansda said:
To be specific Hawking Radiation is consisting of "photons, neutrinos, and to a lesser extent all sorts of massive particles". http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html

I dont know if GW is also consisting of such particles.
Click to expand...
No, gravity waves are not composed of particles. A gravity wave is a disruption of space time. The gravity wave will have an effect on matter but does not propagate through matter it propagates through space time.
 
Please report sock puppets to the moderators. Do not make accusations without evidence.
The God said:
You are such an intelligence, you should be able to find it out wihout self destructing....
Click to expand...
i think it was done so your other sock-puppet, that was banned from here, will not be recognized, correct?
 
krash661 said:
i think it was done so your other sock-puppet, that was banned from here, will not be recognized, correct?
Click to expand...
Correction Krash, "rajesh" actually just disappeared off the scene after the demolition of his so called paper, and most of his other unsupported allegations re 21st century cosmology were put to the sword: Happily, I played a significant part in that. :)
 
hansda said:
Thats why I am putting my questions in this forum so that some forum reader can get the answers or atleast make an attempt to answer them.
Click to expand...
Sometimes though answers are only forthcoming from reputable experts off this forum and learned institutions.
And of course as has been recently shown in two other threads, some people are asking questions with no intention of considering any answer that may conflict with their preconceived agenda.


hansda said:
Can you answer my questions in the post #97 or in the post #100.
Click to expand...
hansda said:
OK.
Suppose a black hole with 30 solar mass collides with another black hole of 60 solar mass; how much mass will be lost due gravitational radiation?
Click to expand...
Perhaps one of our mathematicians can do that for you: I don't know.
hansda said:
At least, can you give some formulations for this mass loss in the collision? Consider m1 and m2 as the masses of two black holes.( The way the mass loss for hawking radiation is around 1/m^2 ). It is said that the mass loss is happening as per GR. Which formulation they used in this calculation? Is there any standard formula for this? I believe some energy loss also would have been due energy transformation into sound and heat energy. Some visible smaller massive bodies like asteroids and comets also could have been formed due to collision of these two giant massive invisible black holes.
Click to expand...
Again I don't know.
So again I suggest if no one else can answer your question that you contact LIGO or a professional to give you the answer.
I will say that no asteroids and/or comets can be formed by any collision of any BH's, as we are talking about two singularities [the mass in an unknown state] and an amount of curved space enveloped by EH's. [But I was sure that much had been answered?]
What does happen and what has already been explained to you is that when two BH's collide/merge, a certain amount of energy is radiated away in the form of gravitational waves, the amount depended on the size of the BH's and how they merged and/or collided.
Call it faith if you like but the amount can be calculated via GR, but which I am unable to do.
That though does not make it any the less real or cast any doubts on the confirmations of the recent great discovery.
 
paddoboy:

paddoboy said:
You [The God] speaking for expletives deleted my friend?
Click to expand...

No, The God does not speak for me, paddoboy. Please do not start off-topic hares running, especially not any dragging me into personal sparring between you and others with whom I have no connection whatsoever. Thanks.

Having said that, I must confirm that The God was correct in his observation that your initial response to my question and points and reasonings was of no substance or value whatsoever to the discussion I am trying to have with learned members. Please, if you have nothing pertinent and substantive to offer said discussion, then can you hold off from interrupting with trivial repetitive empty rhetorical assertion posts? Thanks.

Actually upon reading my answer, I did happen to put it rather carelessly and not meaning what I wanted to say...
Let me rephrase.......
Detecting the gravitational wave from the BB, 13.83 billion years ago will certainly be far more difficult, but of course the detection of gravitational waves from coalescing BH's 1.3 billion years ago is effectively confirmed and any "casting of doubts" onto those results is now null and void...kapoot!: That most certainly has been confirmed, along with direct confirmation of BH's.
There now, that's better! Thank you my friend.
More to come I would imagine, so interesting times ahead I'm sure you'll agree.
Click to expand...

Your rephrase is still empty of substantive argument or point, and still valueless to learned discussion I am trying to have with others who are not just restating claims and assertions about the very things which my posted points and reasonings are questioning. Do you not see what you are posting is just rhetoric and acceptance of that which is being questioned in my discussion with others? Please do not keep linking and restating assertions. The discussion requires arguments and reasonings addressing the initial questions and points and reasonings I posted for learned members' consideration. I did not post same just for your reiteration of the points and claims I am trying to have resolved in discussion with others. Please try and curb your enthusiastic acceptance of what you have been told by others which you are unqualified to critically examine scientifically. The proper and useful thing to do is to either argue the relevant points or desist from interrupting and cluttering others' discussions. Thanks.


The rest of his [expletives deleted] post is neither here nor there, and if either or both of you still have doubts, or just plain questions, or both, than there is an appropriate reputable process to go through in line with the scientific method and peer review.
Again, I predict interesting times ahead with this new way of researching data from the Universe around us.
Click to expand...

Your layman's opinion that any part of the questions, points and reasonings in my relevant post were "neither here nor there" is not proper or valid for you to make, since you are an admitted layperson, uninformed in the further matter being discussed, and who just keeps interrupting with your posts empty of substance or substantive relevant arguments to the points raised in my discussion with learned members. Please try to control your eagerness to speak even when you have nothing substantive to offer. Thanks.

I also note you keep repeating gratuitous advice to me, urging me to not discuss the matters here and instead ask the LIGO etc experts. That is silly and non-scientific advice on many levels, not the least of which is that it is patently futile to question LIGO claims and setups etc and then ask the same LIGO group to admit they may have erred. That is why I came here to discuss with third party learned members with whom I have a chance to actually get more than just the LIGO claims and assumptions (like you keep reiterating). If I wanted that, I would have just read the papers and commentaries from that LIGO group (which I have) and be done with it. But then I would not have my questions, points and reasonings aired in scientific discussion such as with learned third party members here, which I appreciate greatly. Please desist in future from making the same futile and silly suggestion when I am trying to question the claims of the very group you advise I go to for help in the matters. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
expletives deleted said:
Your rephrase is still empty of substantive argument or point, and still valueless to learned discussion I am trying to have with others who are not just restating claims and assertions about the very things which my posted points and reasonings are questioning.
Click to expand...

My dearest expletives deleted, you are totally wrong in all you claim.
And my rephrase is totally correct. let me add with all due respect also, that your silly attempts to exclude me from commenting on your errors will never work. I am sorry for you in that regard.
Let me answer again.......
Detecting the gravitational wave from the BB, 13.83 billion years ago will certainly be far more difficult, but of course the detection of gravitational waves from coalescing BH's 1.3 billion years ago is effectively confirmed and any "casting of doubts" onto those results is now null and void...kapoot!: That most certainly has been confirmed, along with direct confirmation of BH's.
More to come I would imagine, so interesting times ahead I'm sure you'll agree and are just as excited as I am!.
The rest of your post appears to be just the usual whinging and efforts to keep me out of commenting on your errors expletive deleted, my apologies for being so blunt.
Again, I predict interesting times ahead with this new way of researching data from the Universe around us.


Oh, and you still have questions about what are your apparently mis statements in the other thread.....I'm sure you know which one.
 
Here is an excellent link that gives the facts as is, not the fabricated nonsense we see dished up the amateur lay people who somehow believe mainstream science is defrauding us all...quite funny and hilarious if it wasn't so bloody stupid!

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts

Facts
Comprised of the world's largest precision optical instruments and two of the world's second-largest vacuum systems, LIGO is a marvel of engineering and human ingenuity. Read on for some quick facts about LIGO, its past, and its exciting future as a research facility.

Evolution of LIGO's Detectors

Construction of LIGO's original gravitational wave detectors was completed in 1999. The first search for gravitational waves began in 2002 and concluded in 2010, during which time, no gravitational waves were detected. Nevertheless, much was learned from the experience to prepare for the next phase of LIGO’s search for gravitational waves.

The lessons learned during Initial LIGO's operation led to a complete redesign of LIGO's instruments, which were subsequently rebuilt between 2010 and 2014. This redesign made LIGO's new interferometers 10 times more sensitive. A 10-fold increase in sensitivity means that the new and improved LIGO will be able to listen for gravitational waves 10 times farther away than Initial LIGO. This is an enormous improvement since listening 10 times farther away will give LIGO access to 1000 times more volume of space (volume increases with the cube of the distance. So 10 times farther away means 10x10x10=1000 times the volume of space), and 1000 times more galaxies that host sources of gravitational waves. This much deeper search for gravitational waves began in September 2015.


Increasing its reach in distance by 10 times, the new LIGO will probe 1000 times more volume of space containing than it did in its first search for gravitational waves.


Ten times distance reached equates to 1000 times more volume of space probed



LIGO and Cutting Edge Discovery Science

LIGO is actually a sophisticated physics experiment designed to detect gravitational waves from some of the most violent and energetic events in the Universe. By making gravitational-wave detections, LIGO will provide physicists with the means to answer key scientific questions, such as:

  • What are the properties of gravitational waves?
  • Is general relativity the correct theory of gravity?
  • Is general relativity still valid under strong-gravity conditions?
  • Are nature's black holes the black holes of general relativity?
  • How does matter behave under extremes of density and pressure?
  • What happens when a massive star collapses?
  • How do compact binary stars form and evolve, and what can they tell us about the history of star formation rates in the Universe?
For more detailed information on LIGO's impact on the broader scientific community, visit LIGO's Impact on Science.

LIGO's Extreme Engineering

LIGO exemplifies extreme engineering and technology. LIGO consists of:

  • Two “blind” L-shaped detectors with 4 km long vacuum chambers...
  • built 3000 kilometers apart and operating in unison...
  • to measure a motion 10,000 times smaller than an atomic nucleus (the smallest measurement ever attempted by science)...
  • caused by the most violent and cataclysmic events in the Universe...
  • occurring millions of light years away!
A few of LIGO's most remarkable engineering facts are listed below.

Most sensitivity: LIGO is designed to detect a change in distance between its mirrors 1/10,000th the width of a proton! This is equivalent to measuring the distance to the nearest star to within the width of a human hair!

World's second-largest vacuum chambers: Encapsulating 10,000 m3 (350,000 ft3), each vacuum chamber encloses as much volume as 11 Boeing 747-400 commercial airliners. Put another way, the air removed from each of LIGO’s vacuum chambers could inflate two-and-a-half MILLION footballs, or 1.8 million soccer balls! LIGO's vacuum volume is surpassed only by theLarge Hadron Collider in Switzerland.

Ultra-high vacuum: The pressure inside LIGO's vacuum tubes is one-trillionth of an 'atmosphere' (in scientific terms, that’s 10-9torr). It took 40 days (1100 hours) to remove all 10,000 m3 (353,000 ft3) of air and other residual gases from each of LIGO’s vacuum tubes to reach an air pressure one-trillionth that at sea level.

Air pressure on the vacuum tubes: 155-million kg (341-million pounds) of air press down on each 4 km length of vacuum tube. Remarkably, the steel tubes that hold all that air at bay are only 3 mm (0.12 inches) thick.

Curvature of the Earth: LIGO’s arms are so long that the curvature of the Earth is a measurable 1 meter (vertical) over the 4 km length of each arm. The most precise concrete pouring and leveling imaginable was required to counteract this curvature and ensure that LIGO’s vacuum chambers were truly "flat" and level. Without this work, LIGO's lasers would hit the end of each arm 1 m above the mirrors it is supposed to bounce off of!
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Many questions answered there, and many more at the link, if people truly would like the gist of this great mission which has confirmed what we really already knew....That gravitational waves were truly a result of GR as Einstein's GR predicted, and that BH's also exist as predicted.
 
hansda said:
If energy can escape a black hole in many ways, your statement in post #122 that, "Nothing can escape a black hole (outside of very specific circumstances which don't apply with massive black holes.)" is not true.
Click to expand...
There are very few specific circumstances where MASS can escape a black hole; they generally don't apply to massive black holes. ENERGY can escape in many ways. Although they have an equivalency, they are not the same.
I think the black hole speed were much higher than the proton speed(.1%c) in the two black holes collision.
Click to expand...
?? Right. So they are two very different cases for many reasons.
 
Please do not insult other members.
krash661 said:
i think it was done so your other sock-puppet, that was banned from here, will not be recognized, correct?
Click to expand...

Don't consume your limited battery power on such trivial issues......shaking head is a better exercise, consumes less CPU power.
 
Brucep statement as liked by Paddoboy said:
The Hawking radiation make up the gravitational waves.
Click to expand...

origin said:
That is correct Gravitational Waves and Hawking Radiation are 2 different things.
Click to expand...

So, Paddoboy now will you ask your so and so Brucep to correct himself ? He is also required to correct himself on that Physics 101 that the momentum of a falling object remains conserved.

When I questioned Brucep on his above 'statement as liked by you', he promptly and peekingly declared me crank, now who is the crank "origin or Brucep" ? You decide.

The problem with you and brucep 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. You are a smart guy, you don't write in your language, you just copy paste. Brucep thought enough of monosyllable abuses, and ventured into details and got fused...He shoud have sticked to his heavy on dope mode.
 
The God said:
So, Paddoboy now will you ask your so and so Brucep to correct himself ? He is also required to correct himself on that Physics 101 that the momentum of a falling object remains conserved.
Click to expand...
No not at all...Your misinterpretations are par for the course for you, and as the forum knows you will never admit to any error no matter how obvious, which once again brings your agenda into question.
I'll let bruce explain if he hasn't got you on ignore as others do.
The God said:
When I questioned Brucep on his above 'statement as liked by you', he promptly and peekingly declared me crank, now who is the crank "origin or Brucep" ? You decide.
Click to expand...

No contest: You win hands down! :)
The God said:
The problem with you and brucep 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. You are a smart guy, you don't write in your language, you just copy paste. Brucep thought enough of monosyllable abuses, and ventured into details and got fused...He shoud have sticked to his heavy on dope mode.
Click to expand...
And you continue to side step and ignore your errors in every thread, hoping all will magically disappear: :)
Let me just educate you again:
This recent LIGO experiment has confirmed that gravitational waves are a result of catastrophic cosmological scenarios, and that BH'S are also confirmed along naturally with the curvature of spacetime.
At one time or another, you have dismissed all as unreal and shown yourself to be just what this forum as a whole think of you.
Oh, and of course my friend, if you need to keep carrying on with your anti GR evangelistic mission along with your gemini twin, in the hope of getting me banned, remember, I am able to participate in other forums, and am still a member of two of them: You would not last a week anywhere else. ;)
 
paddoboy:

paddoboy said:
Oh, and of course my friend [The God], if you need to keep carrying on with your anti GR evangelistic mission along with your gemini twin, in the hope of getting me banned, remember, I am able to participate in other forums, and am still a member of two of them: You would not last a week anywhere else.
Click to expand...

Upon reading this I was about to report your making yet again (even after warnings from moderators) an unwarranted and unfounded insinuation of some association between me and another member [The God] with whom I have no association whatsoever other than being a fellow member. But then I thought you may have been referring to some other person as The God's "gemini twin", so I paused before reporting this in order to ask you if you did mean to imply me as the "gemini twin" to The God; or did you mean someone else unnamed? Can you please clarify if you meant me or not so I don't make an error in this matter, paddoboy? Thanks.
 
Please do not troll.
expletives deleted said:
paddoboy:
Upon reading this I was about to report your making yet again (even after warnings from moderators) an unwarranted and unfounded insinuation of some association between me and another member [The God] with whom I have no association whatsoever other than being a fellow member. But then I thought you may have been referring to some other person as The God's "gemini twin", so I paused before reporting this in order to ask you if you did mean to imply me as the "gemini twin" to The God; or did you mean someone else unnamed? Can you please clarify if you meant me or not so I don't make an error in this matter, paddoboy? Thanks.
Click to expand...
reported for attempted bullying tactics.
 
paddoboy:

paddoboy said:
reported for attempted bullying tactics.
Click to expand...

And what do you call what you did in that post I quoted. I refrained from reporting it and asked for your clarification. So you turn it on me? Is there no middle ground with you? I will not report it. Please reconsider comments like in your post I quoted before you post them, and then don't post them. Peace.
 
Moderator note: I have just handed out several warnings relating to the childish squabbles that are going on among several of the participants of this thread.

If you intend to report the kind of name-calling and sniping at each other that has been happening here, bear in mind that a moderator may well review the thread as a whole, evaluating the posts of both complainant and target of the complaint. It may well be the case that both parties end up with warning points.

The kind of tit-for-tat reports being filed here, seeking to use the moderators as tools in a personal battle or flame war, are a drain on moderator time and energy. And the constant sniping at each other distracts from discussion of the thread topic.

I recommend you sort out your personal issues with each other in private conversation, or in some other forum, rather than in the public forums. Nobody else really needs to read that stuff.

I urge participants to review our posting guidelines. Recall that a personal insult usually involves some kind of negative comment about another member, along with the word "you". If you find yourself posting something of that nature, consider carefully.
 
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.
Click to expand...
hypocritical much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top