Translational Motion of Black Hole

If CC actually owes to a DE and not a mysterious intrinsic curvature (curvature without cause), then it's simply a case of noting any such DE energy density is not Lorentz invariant. There looks to be some discussion of such issues this article: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.6296

Just pointing out that one could in principle determine frame dependent changes in DE density, while 'inside a box' theoretically perfectly shielded from CMBR. Hence 'not quite' Lorentz invariant vacuum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The CC term is, of course, covariant. What is discussed in the article is from a completely different opera, about renormalization. The point is that renormalization is a procedure which is inherently not Lorentz invariant - one cuts away high energies, but what is the meaning of "high energy" is not Lorentz-invariant. So, the high art of renormalization contains an element of hiding this break of Lorentz invariance. This is possible, because renormalization is an operation which changes the parameters of the theory to renormalized ones, so once the initial theory is Lorentz invariant, the renormalized will be too, which makes it possible to hide this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are right. I see what I missed previously:

"'...BH moving' is no more fundamental than 'you moving'. It's all relative, as in Special Relativity."

That is exactly correct. Sorry; it must have been a snippet from someone else's post I was reading.

The sigma field of QFT, moving, is likewise, is no more fundamental than 'you moving', as in Special Relativity, is it? So, why is a quantum field not treated in the same manner as we treat matter and energy in Special Relativity? If a quantum field is moving or at rest, that needs to be moving or at rest with respect to something else, or else what you have is another aether theory. Special Relativity works, as you say, all the way down.

Let's say we compare the inertial/gravitational interaction of a feather with that of a BH. Which one do you think is more likely to be closer to "at rest" with respect to a universal stationary quantum field from which the origin of the instant that is the present of universal quantum entanglement derives? Both the feather and the BH derive their inertia from the Higgs mechanism. But at cosmological distances, even BHs are 'easily' moved at relativistic speeds compared to us, as is a feather. Do they both fall away from us at the same rate at cosmological distances? They would have to, wouldn't they? Hydrogen clouds do. Why do you suppose that might be?

I think Special Relativity wins as the most powerful scientific theory ever, and it should not be something that stops at the EH of a BH, nor the threshold of quantum interactions. E=mc^2 was only the beginning. GR lost some its power because of Minkowki's pollution of the concept of time, and the introduction of Euclidean/Pythagorean coordinate systems thrown in with time as a conceptual stumbling block. We want the purity of Special Relativity in all its glory back.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If by quantum field above you mean vacuum energy or zero point field (ZPF), I don't think it is as straight forward as it seems from your comment.

I am no expert on the issue, but from what I have read, even though it is assumed that vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles exist even in vacuum conditions, that is in the absence of any massive object, they are as far as I have seen always interpreted as the result of boundary condition interactions, when dealing with an object and the vacuum, quantum field or ZPF.

Most of the theoretical work I have looked at, has been limited to the EM spectrum of the vacuum and its interaction with fundamental charged particles, or partons (electrons and quarks). The assumption is that for an inertial Parton the ZPF EM background is isotropic.., and Lorentz invariant with respect to accelerations... But this still assumes that the vacuum potential relative to the Parton (which I think should be extendable to complex objects, but have seen no theoretical work that does so), is boundary condition dependent.

Keeping in mind that vacuum energy remains a theoretical component, of QFT, QED and SED, it is in some respects ether like. But don't get carried away with the word ether here... The fact that how it interacts with charged particles or even an object is dependent on boundary conditions, would suggest the specific boundary establishes the frame of reference for the interaction... There could be no preferred frame or even any thought of an absolute frame, associated with the vacuum.

It is kind of like saying that there is a background field potential associated with the vacuum, whose only real characteristics emerge in the presence of a charged particle or object... A magnet has a magnetic field that is nothing more than a potential and does nothing, until an object that can interact with it is introduced. Kind of like an ether.., BUT NOT!

 

Of course they can. You are constantly being intellectually dishonest in continuing to ignore fossil fields and nonlinearity.
The same goes of course for your other invalid perceptions re BHs and EHs

In any respect, the accepted mainstream cosmologists and physicists seem to have no problem with your fabricated scenario.
Here is a cosmology tutorial that may help alleviate your unsupported fixations re cosmology and BHs
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
And here is another tutorial that outlines the basis of relativity that may help also, and of course as you were advised to seek by a Professor in another thread.....
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

 

Thanks danshawen. A pity so few others here have such proper manners.

You are likely aware QM/QFT are highly abstract mathematical theories designed ab initio to be consistent with intuitively weird experimental/observational facts. Also, bear in mind there are competing conceptual schools of thought, not just a single 'catholic' dogma.
Still, it's hard to see how a particular vacuum quantum field could not have some kind of rest frame. As pointed out in #62, UV cutoff & renormalization have some arbitrary features. That work around that one can't sensibly go 'all the way down' to zero length scale while maintaining uncertainty principle holds without limit. My inclination is to say there is no universal rest frame but uniformity of CMBR best defines a local such frame for underlying vacuum quantum fields. The spectrum of field fluctuations remains Lorentz invariant - at least to any conceivable accessible level. While standard QFT sees everything as fields, here's an example of how one school of thought - particle-centric, sees things: http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5263

On that last bit - that's not how many understand it: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64232/your-mass-is-not-from-higgs-boson

Well galaxies and clusters/superclusters of such all nicely move along at or close to the overall relevant local Hubble flow, so my guess is the BB/inflation event(s) dictated such matters long ago. BH's and feathers are all just dust on such scales.

Hmm....well....pass on that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-182.html#.VXZ_j9Kqqko

Giant Black Hole Kicked Out of Home Galaxy:

Astronomers have found strong evidence that a massive black hole is being ejected from its host galaxy at a speed of several million miles per hour. New observations from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory suggest that the black hole collided and merged with another black hole and received a powerful recoil kick from gravitational wave radiation.

"It's hard to believe that a supermassive black hole weighing millions of times the mass of the sun could be moved at all, let alone kicked out of a galaxy at enormous speed," said Francesca Civano of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), who led the new study. "But these new data support the idea that gravitational waves - ripples in the fabric of space first predicted by Albert Einstein but never detected directly - can exert an extremely powerful force."

Although the ejection of a supermassive black hole from a galaxy by recoil because more gravitational waves are being emitted in one direction than another is likely to be rare, it nevertheless could mean that there are many giant black holes roaming undetected out in the vast spaces between galaxies.

"These black holes would be invisible to us," said co-author Laura Blecha, also of CfA, "because they have consumed all of the gas surrounding them after being thrown out of their home galaxy."

Civano and her group have been studying a system known as CID-42, located in the middle of a galaxy about four billion light years away. They had previously spotted two distinct, compact sources of optical light in CID-42, using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope.

More optical data from the ground-based Magellan and Very Large Telescopes in Chile supplied a spectrum (that is, the distribution of optical light with energy) that suggested the two sources in CID-42 are moving apart at a speed of at least 3 million miles per hour.

Previous Chandra observations detected a bright X-ray source likely caused by super-heated material around one or more supermassive black holes. However, they could not distinguish whether the X-rays came from one or both of the optical sources because Chandra was not pointed directly at CID-42, giving an X-ray source that was less sharp than usual.

"The previous data told us that there was something special going on, but we couldn't tell if there were two black holes or just one," said another co-author Martin Elvis, also of CfA. "We needed new X-ray data to separate the sources."

When Chandra's sharp High Resolution Camera was pointed directly at CID-42, the resulting data showed that X-rays were coming only from one of the sources. The team thinks that when two galaxies collided, the supermassive black holes in the center of each galaxy also collided. The two black holes then merged to form a single black hole that recoiled from gravitational waves produced by the collision, which gave the newly merged black hole a sufficiently large kick for it to eventually escape from the galaxy.

The other optical source is thought to be the bright star cluster that was left behind. This picture is consistent with recent computer simulations of merging black holes, which show that merged black holes can receive powerful kicks from the emission of gravitational waves.

There are two other possible explanations for what is happening in CID-42. One would involve an encounter between three supermassive black holes, resulting in the lightest one being ejected. Another idea is that CID-42 contains two supermassive black holes spiraling toward one another, rather than one moving quickly away.

Both of these alternate explanations would require at least one of the supermassive black holes to be very obscured, since only one bright X-ray source is observed. Thus the Chandra data support the idea of a black hole recoiling because of gravitational waves.

These results will appear in the June 10 issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., manages the Chandra Program for the agency's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass., controls Chandra's science and flight operations.

 

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Extreme_space/Speeding_black_hole

Speeding Black Hole:

8 November 2002
A nearby black hole, hurtling like a cannonball through the plane of our Milky Way, has provided possibly the best evidence yet that stellar-mass black holes are made in supernova explosions.

This black hole is streaking through space at a rate of 400 000 kilometres per hour - four times faster than the average velocity of the stars in the galactic neighbourhood. What has made it move so fast? The most likely 'cannon' is the explosive kick of a supernova, one of the Universe's most titanic events.

When massive stars end their lives, they explode violently as supernovae. They leave either a neutron star or a black hole as a remnant, depending on how massive the star initially is. Scientists have found indirect evidence for the existence of about a dozen black holes. However, direct evidence linking supernovae and their black-hole remnants has been missing, until now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Black hole hurtling across the plane of the Milky Way
Black holes, by definition, swallow light so they are 'invisible'. However, you can spot them indirectly. In this case, the runaway black hole has a companion star, which the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope could track. Hubble's high resolution has allowed astronomers to measure the motion of this black-hole system across the sky using images taken in 1996 and 2001. Scientists combined Hubble data with those obtained from ground-based telescopes and got surprising results. The black hole is streaking across the plane of our Milky Way at a velocity of four times that of stars around it!

"This is the first black hole found to be moving fast through the plane of our galaxy," says Felix Mirabel of the French Atomic Energy Commission and the Institute for Astronomy and Space Physics of Argentina. Mirabel and the second author of the discovery, R. Mignani, conclude: "it must have been shot out of a supernova by the force of the explosion."

 

A couple of nice simulations mathematically derived at the link.

http://physics.aps.org/story/v1/st3
Focus: Moving a Black Hole
March 25, 1998• Phys. Rev. Focus 1, 3
Simulation of a moving black hole

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2512
Errors that behave. The normalized Hamiltonian constraint N is analytically zero everywhere, and in the simulation the error safely fades away far from the black hole. Points in the flat region were inside the hole and excluded from the calculation.




Video courtesy of Mijan Huq, University of TX at Austin.
This video shows the value of the metric tensor component grr along the z-axis as the black hole moves in the z direction. The time is shown in units of four-thirds of the black hole mass M.



Video courtesy of Mijan Huq, University of TX at Austin.
This video shows a surface plot of grr as a function of x and z, with y held constant; time is in units of M.


According to general relativity, a large accelerating mass produces ripples in spacetime, just as accelerating charges generate electromagnetic radiation. In the 80 years since that prediction by Einstein, no one has directly detected these “gravity waves,” but that may change in the next decade, as a new generation of detectors goes online. These detectors will rely heavily on computer simulations to identify and interpret the expected minuscule signals from cosmic events, but the computations pose unprecedented challenges. In this week’s PRL, the largest collaboration ever to attack the problem demonstrates a step forward–the reliable simulation of an isolated black hole moving in three dimensions.

The detection of gravity waves could open up a new type of astronomy with a new way of looking at the universe; until now astronomers have only observed in the electromagnetic spectrum. To help in the detection process, the Binary Black Hole Grand Challenge Alliance formed in 1993 with the goal of predicting gravitational waveforms of a coalescing black hole pair, one of the most promising events for producing detectable gravity waves. Along the way the team hopes to develop the computational tools to study general relativity and astronomical events in the previously inaccessible strong-gravity regime.

Black hole simulation is difficult for several reasons. First, the Einstein equations are not simple: Ten second-order, nonlinear differential equations must be solved at every point in a four-dimensional spacetime grid. Second, black holes contain singularities, so points within the event horizon must be excised–excluded from the calculation–but are reintroduced as they emerge from the black hole. Third, general relativity allows complete freedom in choosing three-dimensional, spacelike slices of spacetime, just as an apple can be sliced into flat pieces or any curvy shape a chef desires. A poor choice leads to coordinate pathologies, such as two distinct points becoming infinitely far apart, but the only way to check a coordinate choice is to test it in a computation. A fourth difficulty comes from the inherent imprecision of numerical methods: As time evolves in the simulation, spurious ripples develop which spoil the run if they become amplified.

In the latest PRL paper, the Alliance demonstrates progress in a number of these areas. They report the first full, three-dimensional simulation of a moving black hole lasting for a significant time. In the standard G = c = 1 units, space and time event horizon is at a radius of 2 M), and the Alliance simulated a black hole for a time of 60 M. The group used a spacetime slicing scheme which ran successfully for this time, and their method of bringing points back into the computation as they emerge from the hole introduces only small errors, which fade with time and distance (see figure). As the team develops this method for “strong-field” simulation close to the hole, they will eventually combine it with other simulation modules from the Alliance [Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1812 (1998) and one soon to be published in PRL] which extract the far-field radiation–the signal we would see from Earth. Richard Matzner, of the University of Texas at Austin, and the director of the Alliance, says he has a “nebulous bet” with Kip Thorne, of the California Institute of Technology, in Pasadena, CA. Thorne is one of the leaders of the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) project, and Matzner bets the Alliance can calculate binary black hole waveforms before LIGO can begin observing them in late 2001.

 

Oh well, there's always the next next decade to look forward to.

 

The link was primarily for the nice simulations in helping those troubled with the fact that moving BHs create no problem as far as GR is concerned.
Whenever we find gravity waves it will just be another confirmation of GR.
A pity LISA was scrapped, but cosmologists will learn to live without it.
Perhaps you are unaware of how hard they apparently are to detect, but of course we do have reasonable evidence for their existence in the "Hulse Taylor Pulsar orbiting period.
But we all are aware that the real cosmologists/physicists are always at the coal face reviewing and researching further data for further and further validation.
And they along with their tireless work are the experts that matter.

http://www.astro.cardiff.ac.uk/research/gravity/tutorial/?page=3thehulsetaylor

 

In the next decade, I believe this 'wandering black hole' turned out to be a neutron star, or remnants of a collapsed white dwarf within the Chandrasekar limit. As these are formed by the remnants of a supernova explosion, it isn't uncommon for them to pick up a lot of momentum and wander about a galaxy like this one. Escape velocities might also be possible. It is estimated that a galaxy the size of the Milky Way might host as many as perhaps 1,000 neutron stars wandering around. Perhaps it was formerly part of a binary system.

Until such a thing gets moving (and even after they are), their trajectories are impossible to predict. We can't even nail a number to galactic escape velocity, evidently, as pointed out by the early dark matter work of Vera Rubin.

 

A wandering black hole is an oxymoron, because if we assume a black hole is a space-time singularity, its motion will add SR to GR, and cause the point to contract; paradox. In other words, a black hole cannot be a point and also move, or a speed of light reference equivalent would be exceeded. Such black holes would need to be larger than a point, so the space-time additions of SR and GR, equal a point.

 

And a stationary black hole is an impossibility.

 

Saggitarius A, at the center of the Milky Way, is already moving at relativistic speeds with respect to other galaxies at cosmological distances. So are hydrogen nebulae in our galaxy that are not gravitationally a part of such massive objects. Bowling balls and feathers. What science experiment does that sound like? Call it dark energy if you wish. Looks like another manifestation of gravity and the principle of equivalence to me. Guth could be right. Or there could be other reasons it seems to be expanding. But everything seems to be falling away at the same rate, doesn't it?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most of your philosophical musings are no more than word salad, as is any musings you seem to have re cosmology.
BHs move, OK?

 

So, the conclusion is that there is no Black Hole Singularity....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually, Black Hole Singularity is nothing but a glorified trivial solution of Einstein Field Equations.

 

No, the conclusion is that most physicists do not believe the classical predicted point singularity will eventuate, probably due to the horrible infinities.
Most believe a surface of sorts somewhere between where GR fails at the Planck/Quantum level, and that same predicted point singularity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The BH still exists, and a singularity of sorts, just below the quantum/Planck level [ but not reaching the point singularity] will certainly exist, until removed or pushed back further by a future QGT.

 

Its great that you clarified your position wrt Q-reeus agitation. Still this does not help Q-reeus argument.

When a BH is formed from the contracting Star Core, the entire mass collapses to singularity once the contraction pushes the core below Rs (EH).....

Now the BH is moving (for the point in OP at this stage it does not matter with respect to what, its moving and changing its position, thats sufficient to create this paradox), the paradox is how the associated properties of the BH move along with it. BH is not defined as a material object inside EH, its highly curved spacetime inside EH. So how this highly curved spacetime inside EH, is able to carry along the associated fields with itself. Few of the BH properties like spin etc are assigned to spacetime outside EH, how do they move when outside EH is disconnect with inside EH.

 

In other words, GR predicts its own downfall or just simply a case that GR is making a statement about its domain of applicability.