Gravitational waves from black hole merger

I think the loss of mass which is converted into energy in this case follows the Einstein's equation e=mc^2. I think the energy following this equation is electromagnetic energy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you must believe that 2 black holes combined based on the gravity waves that were detected by LIGO. The energy of those waves equate to approximately 3 solar masses. You then state that the energy is actually in the form of electromagnetic waves and not gravity waves? Huh?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As far as I know, the majority of the energy lost was due to gravitational radiation. I don't know how to quantify that.

What is the mechanism by which such bodies would form?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I'm also anxious to see the answers to the above....particularly the second.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nothing about this equation determines what form the resulting energy must take. Take, for instance, hydrogen fusion. While some of the mass converted to energy ends up in the form of gamma rays, the rest is in the form of kinetic energy of the resulting Helium nuclei.

 

You very rarely say too much, but whenever you say it, and whatever you say always makes the greatest of sense.

 

Mr. delusional narcissist(the god)--
It is massively obvious that you simply have never touched the foundation course of Proof in Geometry and Pre-Calculus(let alone higher levels of proof in mathematics)--as you sit here and spew your professional mental malfunction-ist, link clicking delusions..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shakes head)--carry on.

 

Einstein developed his famous equation e=mc^2 with the particle photon in mind. We know that photon carries electromagnetic energy. So, here 'e' can be considered as electromagnetic energy. Incidentally gamma rays were also detected with some time delay. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03920v3.pdf

 

Gravitational radiation generates from an accelerating mass whereas electromagnetic energy is generated when the mass is annihilated into energy following e=mc^2.

When the two massive black holes collide, it is a sort of a bang and some mass is lost to energy. The way in nuclear fusion/fission a particle is fragmented by collision, similar fragmentation also could have happened here.

 

Gamma rays are electro magnetic energy. We know that energy can transfer from one form to other form. So, rest of the electromagnetic energy transformed into kinetic energy of Helium nuclei.

 

Einstein also developed his famous theory called General Relativity. One of the predictions of that theory is that two massive objects orbiting each other would lose energy by emitting gravitational waves. The discovery of the gravitational waves by LIGO confirms that prediction. The prediction was not that the energy would be in the form of EM radiation. So I do not understand your point unless you are just being contrary. Of couse in an an event like this I would be shocked if there was not also gamma rays produced.

 

Do you think orbiting objects were loosing mass before collision? Though they were emitting gravitational radiation before collision.

I am not denying LIGO detection.

How EM radiation(e=mc^2) is converted into Gravitational radiation, that is to be understood. Do you have a explanation for this?

Gamma rays are not accounted in LIGO analysis. That was a NASA detection.

 

The LIGO team would be shocked if the seeming match with a GRB were true. That's because so much time must have passed before any merger occurred, any appreciable intervening ordinary matter would have long been sucked out of the relevant joint space. Thus a particularly clean 'pure BH-BH merger' event with only GW's expected. Of course if the two objects were actually of the 'gravastar' type with a physical surface, a GRB event might be a possibility. But according to official articles, the observed aLIGO signal essentially rules out such 'gravastars'. Hence, logically, much excitement about nothing more than a time coincident flash in the sky.

 

Sure.

Good.

Why do you think EM radiation was converted into gravitational waves?

I know.

 

So, gravitational radiation generated before collision. All loss of mass happened before collision. You think so?

 

That is my understanding of the event.

 

In this case one must consider the equivalence of energy and mass. The objects lost kinetic energy, but due to E = MC² this is much the same as a mass loss.

E.g. Photons have no mass if at rest, but the energy that they have when moving at speed of light, makes the behave as if they had a mass. Gravity can attract photons, even if they don't have a mass while not moving - all their mass comes from their energy.

And yes, objects become "heavier" if they accelerate (e.g. they gain mass by gaining energy). This has been confirmed in experiments.

 

No, the only part of this energy conversion that was in the form of electromagnetic radiation are the gamma rays, the kinetic energy of the helium was never electromagnetic in nature. I don't no why you insist that Mass-energy conversion must be in the form of electromagnetism. If it is because "c" is in the formula, then you are operating under a misconception. c may be the speed of electromagnetic radiation, but it is more generally the invariant speed of the universe. Electromagnetic radiation's speed(and gravitational radiation's speed) is determined by c, c is not determined by electromagnetic radiation.

 

I think this should be stated differently. For example: mass "warps space" or in older terminology, makes gravity. That the photon advances on a curved path thru this warped space. It is not really attracted into curved path - the photon's path is "always straight ahead" motion. The straight ahead path is bent.

Also I'm not happy with refering to a "photon's rest mass" (zero) as "while {it is} not moving." Photons always move at the speed of light in the medium they are in.

I'm quite sure you know all this, but think you may confuse some who are not sure with your choic of words.

 

It's much easier to understand when you forget about gravity attracting objects. That's the Newtonian model where the gravitational interaction is 'action at a distance'. 'Action at a distance' is predicted to happen instantaniously over any distance. GR predicts gravity is local phenomena and the interaction propagates at the speed of gravity which is c. For example I'll use a natural geodesic that we call an orbit. Say the Earths orbit around the Sun. As the Earth moves over it's orbital path it generates gravitational radiation [gravitational energy] in the form of waves which propagates the local g field momentarily changing the local spacetime curvature, gravity, as it passes through. The energy is expressed as a tidal acceleration in the local g field. So GR is a local theory of gravity which can modify the local spacetime curvature, gravity, at the speed of gravitational radiation c. Gravity doesn't attract anything. The local spacetime curvature determines the natural path of objects in the gravitational field. The gravitational waves don't leave any energy along the path and the gravitational energy, in waveform, is conserved globally. The interaction I described associated with the Earth moving along it's orbital path, emitting gravitational radiation, is infinitesimally small compared to the gravitational radiation emitted during the merger of the two large solar mass black holes. This was a huge as it gets as evidenced by the 3+ solar mass that was emitted in gravitational radiation during the spacetime event associated with the LIGO measurement. Still the Earth is radiating away a very small portion of it's mass over it's geodesic path. These are inertial paths so we don't need to refer to them as accelerated as we would in Newton's model.