Readers may recall when we covered the first detection of gravitational waves from space, heralding a new era in astronomy. It was big news. Now, a second detection has been announced.
From NASA’s Astronomy Picture of the Day: (h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard)
A new sky is becoming visible. When you look up, you see the sky as it appears in light — electromagnetic radiation. But just over the past year, humanity has begun to see our once-familiar sky as it appears in a different type of radiation — gravitational radiation. Today, theLIGO collaboration is reporting the detection of GW151226, the second confirmed flash of gravitational radiation after GW150914, the historic first detection registered three months earlier.
As its name implies, GW151226 was recorded in late December of 2015. It was detected simultaneously by both LIGO facilities in Washington and Louisiana, USA. In the featured video, an animated plot demonstrates how the frequency of GW151226 changed with time during measurement by the Hanford, Washington detector. This GW-emitting system is best fit by two merging black holes with initial masses of about 14 and 8 solar masses at a redshift of roughly 0.09, meaning, if correct, that it took roughly 1.4 billion years for this radiation to reach us.
Note that the brightness and frequency — here mapped into sound — of the gravitational radiation peaks during the last second of the black hole merger. As LIGO continues to operate, as its sensitivity continues to increase, and as other gravitational radiation detectors come online in the next few years, humanity’s new view of the sky will surely change humanity’s understanding of the universe.
Added: I had an interesting discussion with Dr. Leif Svalgaard about gravity that I thought was worth sharing since I found the topic fascinating.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Anthony Watts wrote:
I wonder, what is the speed of Gravity waves?
Thanks,
Anthony
From: Leif Svalgaard
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:04 PM
To: Anthony Watts
Subject: Re: GW151226: A Second Confirmed Source of Gravitational Radiation
The same theory that predicts them [GR] also predicts that they propagate with the speed of light.
Gravitational waves are ‘ripples’ in the fabric of space-time caused by some of the most powerful processes in the universe – colliding black holes, exploding stars, and even the birth of the universe itself. Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves in 1916, derived from his general theory of relativity. Einstein’s mathematics showed that massive accelerating objects (such as neutron stars or black holes orbiting each other) would disrupt space-time in such a way that waves of distorted space would radiate from the source. These ripples travel at the speed of light through the universe, carrying information about their origins, as well as clues to the nature of gravity itself.On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Anthony Watts wrote:
Yes, but how does the universe have gravitational cohesion at that speed? Maybe the waves are speed of light, but the effect of gravity across distance must be instantaneous, otherwise how would galaxies manage to form or stay together?
A
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Leif Svalgaard wrote:
The effect of gravity is not instantaneous. We know this because the finite speed is needed be make the predicted positions of planets [and spacecraft] come out right.
Galaxies form because the gravity of Dark Matter helps to draw the intergalactic matter together.
See also http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/08/25/what-is-the-speed-of-gravity/
Note: several updates were made to this story about an hour after publication, to correct the title, to replace “gravity waves” with “gravitational waves” so that they weren’t confused with the meteorological term “gravity waves” which I’ve always thought was wrongly named, and to add some new discussion I had with Dr. Svalgaard about the speed of gravity. Also added was an illustration. I’m sorry for the issues, I had partially written the story and set it to auto-publish hours ahead, and then I got distracted by a phone call and didn’t complete the story before it published.
Incorrect statement in the quote in the OP
“On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Leif Svalgaard wrote:
The effect of gravity is not instantaneous. We know this because the finite speed is needed be make the predicted positions of planets [and spacecraft] come out right.
Galaxies form because the gravity of Dark Matter helps to draw the intergalactic matter together.”
The fact is the calculations actually require finite speed, not the planets and stars.
If anyone really believes both space time is a geometric distortion of space time and at the same time think geometric formations cannot change at both extremes at once should think again.
It is utterly laughable to “believe” that if the Sun just vanished, that earth would continue it’s orbit for 8 more minutes before any effect is detected is hilarious, earth would immediately be thrown into chaos.
At the sub atomic level,things move faster than light, quantum experiments have shown immediately propagated changes, not ones we can predict but certainly appearing to be instantaneous, though not instant but in fact so fast is the information exchanged that we mere mortals see this as instant.
So information is exchanged at faster than light speeds at the quantum level, or sub atomic level.
Why does this not figure into the bunk relativity has left us with,
Relativity has lead to all sorts of fantastical nonsense, binary black holes being the best, 2 objects both with infinite space time curvature orbiting each other, if one doesn’t understand the implication of that for space time theory, I suggest a LOT more reading is needed
Well Mark; what is truly laughable is that YOU would actually believe that the sun could “just vanish” and in fact do it in under eight minutes.
And you think that is a valid test for the speed of gravitational radiation.
If you want to “prove” to the rest of us that gravity travels at infinite speed; or any other value; at least propose a test that is itself a believable event.
G
Someone tell me which institution spend significant bucks trying to disprove much bunk in Astronomy? None. There is no skepticism in Relativity, dogma all the way.
You can prove this, I already have by pointing out all the contradictions, and all I get in reply is “they said it” and no answers to simple straight forward questions.
Gravitational interactions are information exchanges and there is absolutely no science on this earth that understands the nature of this exchange of information, only lots of trying in vein to understand it.
We cant explain action at a distance, still, and it is the biggest question.
Space is a volume with coordinates, nothing more. It’s not a fabric. X Y Z, we use it to fix a point in a defined space, more making stuff up with maths and assigning physical properties.
This is where the singularity nonsense came from, a singularity was both physical and a coordinate with no physical presence, as in 0 volume.
As for two binary black holes, I suggest some reading on this, there are at lest 4 distinctive black hole theories and this article on here defies some of them as does mainstream theory.
For example, some are static, always there always have been always will. How does this fit in with the Big Bang?
The Universe came from a singularity, that appeared from nowhere apparently. That would have been one massive black hole, but somehow, the energy was too much for the black hole and the universe popped out.
But, nothing can apparently escape a black hole and there was no space time either before the big bang allegedly, complete nonsense.
Now as for Gravitational radiation, gravity cannot create radiation, Gravity only has it’s own energy field when there is a mass to provide it, according to relativity. Otherwise, no mass, then only a static field exists, in other words mass is needed in relativity to make the static space time gravitational field to actually do work, gravitational waves are a distortion of Einstein’s partly gibberish relativity, because his calculations create an empty universe, mass must be added, but seeing as there was no space time outside of the big bang, then there was no static field either.
So even by Dogma, this bogus interpretation of signals is laughable
Wrong. Space time is a “fabric”, in that it curves according to Einstein’s equations. 100 years of testing backs this up.
Next time you are trying to find the Starbucks, just remember that your GPS technology depends on understanding this curved space and the precise corrections having been made to account for it:
“a clock closer to a massive object will be slower than a clock farther away. Applied to the GPS, the receivers are much closer to Earth than the satellites, causing the GPS clocks to be faster by a factor of 5×10^(−10), or about 45.9 μs/day.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
on that claim of atomic clocks adjusted within GPS satellites to fix relativistic errors .. (as above)
http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/ Ron Hatch (an engineer with numerous GPS patents) has openly stated for years that GPS has nothing to do with ‘relativistic time adjustments’.
http://alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm Bottom of the page – the error factors are irrelevant as they’re corrected by earth bound reference stations on a weekly basis.
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/
Next time you read an explanation of Einstein’s theories of gravity ask yourself how a single mass can express gravity and create this ‘dent’ or curve in space – normally the gravity force equation includes *two* masses acting on each other..
And sure, early stargazers wondered what kept galactic spirals in check.. Knowing our planets are kept in check by a large mass (the sun) it was no stretch for them to postulate a similar, very large mass did the same for galaxies. Not seeing a large sun, the postulation became – the thing must be small.. But then it had to have great mass! Still not seeing anything.. Oh, it must be so dense it gobbles up light. After all, what else could it be.. some sort of an unknown thing? That couldn’t possibly be, so they set about mathematically proving such a thing could exist.. simple really, take a mass, divide by zero and you have infinite density 🙂
It’s elegant, but without evidence, and requires more fudges to expound on the theory. But ass someone else pointed out before such a relativistic mass would make images on the further side of a viewed galaxy tilted slightly off the horizontal plane somewhat problematic to view as the light should be doing very weird things and unlike the ‘our-side’ of the theoretical black hole which would be a sea of stars, the ‘other’ side should probably tear drop to a point and not be as we see it –
” And sure, early stargazers wondered what kept galactic spirals in check.. Knowing our planets are kept in check by a large mass (the sun) it was no stretch for them to postulate a similar, very large mass did the same for galaxies. Not seeing a large sun, the postulation became – the thing must be small.. But then it had to have great mass! Still not seeing anything.. Oh, it must be so dense it gobbles up light. After all, what else could it be.. some sort of an unknown thing? That couldn’t possibly be, so they set about mathematically proving such a thing could exist.. simple really, take a mass, divide by zero and you have infinite density :)”
But that isn’t how this ha]ened, they were predicted to exist prior to any real reason to think they were there.
“It’s elegant, but without evidence, and requires more fudges to expound on the theory.”
Again not true, we are now able to see the stars at the center of the galaxy in tight orbits around a super massive object, they can calculate the mass of the object because we’ve been watching the orbits of the stars for a few decades.
“But ass someone else pointed out before such a relativistic mass would make images on the further side of a viewed galaxy tilted slightly off the horizontal plane somewhat problematic to view as the light should be doing very weird things and unlike the ‘our-side’ of the theoretical black hole which would be a sea of stars, the ‘other’ side should probably tear drop to a point and not be as we see it –”
And we do see exactly these types of effects on the very massive of objects, just Google gravitational lensing, there are multiple images available.
Micro
http://lensing.davecoss.com/m31-0lensedimage.gif is suggested as such an image yet the lensing appears in front of the galaxy, by rights every galaxy should exhibit lensing but they do not – but this image is not what I meant, maybe you could point me to an image that illustrates what you mean?
What I means was the light in front (the arms) should not exhibit lensing, but all the stars behind the center should be viewable as focused to a point, much like the perabola-in-a-teacup .. a tear drop
To me, atmospheric lensing is as possible, if not more probable than gravitational lensing. We know optical lensing occurs with light changing speed passing through denser media such as an atmosphere – it’s not totally whacky when other physicists also see it this way too and doubt gravitational lensing, favouring known optical lensing.
you’re quite right it didn’t happen this way, but the theory of galactic spirals also demanded the theory of a ‘holding force’ and my illustration is a simplification.
again true, calculated – but unobserved. It is still very elegant though and a good theory..
We guess something is holding them there and our maths suggest a sizeable thing, but we’ve not seen things falling into this massy thing, nor have we seen the center of any galaxy traveling at the near relativistic speeds that should occur near such a massy object.
Here are a few of what I believe are actual images, likely from Hubble.
http://www.roe.ac.uk/~heymans/website_images/abell2218.jpg
yup, that shows the lensing effect of something in front of one galaxy (of the many) in that image.. lensing that could as easily be formed by light passing through a gas lens. thanks though – none show what i’d expect to see were gravity the cause. Can you see? think of it this way.. if I laid cornflakes across the table and popped a big bowl of water in the middle, those at the back would be visibly distorted while I maintained a clear view of the ones at the front.. If I moved the bowl to the front, all the cornflakes will be distorted as this galactic image is.. Were there a black hole evident in each galaxy, all should exhibit distortion.. emanating only from each center
+1
BAC
So who at LIGO will tell us what black holes these are? no one, because they dont know if they found black holes at all, a black hole a signal does not make, let alone two black holes orbiting each other.
Why 2? Because as always whatever the maths requires to work then becomes physical reality, which is exactly what is wrong with modern astrophysics, creating from maths and adding physical properties without having confirmed ANYTHING.
GR and SR cant understand force and acceleration, and these are supposed to be theories that explain everything.
Yet when you ask a boffin, they have to use a theory that GR and SR argue against, as in Newton baaaahahahahaha
” Quasars are also meant to be black holes that eject black holes :D”
No, they are feeding black holes that are ejecting relativistic matter along the axis of rotation, quasar just happen to have the axis pointed in our direction, but we see many galaxies from a different angle, and can actually see jets.
Quasars are also meant to be black holes that eject black holes 😀
When you point out a Neutron star’s physics is boll0cks, they invent strange matter. When you tell them their calculations are wrong for galaxy mass and rotation, they create Dark Matter.
Still one question never answered, why does light not scatter when stars pass our own super massive black hole in close orbit, we have observed, and no changes in light, how is this possible, why did a hydrogen cloud pass by it unmolested? We predicted an event, nothing happened, what did they do.. and here is the example of why Dogma rules
They observed the gas pass by unperturbed and went to their calculations to calculate a force required to prevent the gas being perturbed, and came up with binary stars in the cloud of hydrogen gas, yes if you guessed it, exactly, because they see through their calculations only, that means no other answer can be derived from the equations, it is a newer example of the Muon fallacy, which is using relativity to make calculations to prove relativity. A lends to be to prove A = Logical fallacy
*A lends to B to prove A = Logical Fallacy
Relativity couples the gravitational field to it’s sources, this wave claim is a mockery of relativity and science in general.
LIGO are detecting radiation, not gravity. Big difference
@Mark-H…
I like your comments. You have a fan, me.
I never could become a believer in the BBT.
Science isn’t a voting contest. Theories fall by falsifying them not by how many people vote for them. Here on this site the 97% consensus mantra is criticized for exactly that reason. Given what has happened in climate science you need to go and get a 97% consensus before we care what you voted for.
I would have written “a second set … has” not “have”.
http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-speed-of-gravity.html
I do not believe we can measure a ripple in gravity effect, involving a force 10 ^-34 times weaker than coulomb force and that dissipating at 1/d² around 14191200000000000000000km away (using 1.5bil light yrs).
It is at once astonishing to consider a force of gravity, e.g. holding earth in orbit around the sun.
It is even more of a challenge to imagine that if the sun were to disappear instantaneously, the earth would stay in that orbit for another 8mins or so.
So lets use your argument. The sun is much closer than a distant star and emits 1 x 10E45 photons per second in our vicinity. So I have no chance to see what a couple of photons per second from a distant star at night.
I am using your logic because the signal is what …. sort of 1x10E-45 times as weak. That is a billion or so times weaker than your example.
As proved by Neillusion ther are no such thing as stars in the sky at night 😉
LdB says:
So I have no chance to see what a couple of photons per second from a distant star at night.
You cannot see a couple of photons from the distant star in daytime, when the Sun is shining, not at night.
Not to mention that a distant star emits an enormous multitude of photons, not a couple of them.
Not to mention that you wouldn’t see a couple of photons eveb under the starlight at night, you would need a totally dark chamber to register them (a human eye can register a single photon, but only in total darkness).
Failed analogy.
You can record a few photons per second from distance. What you have to do is accumulate enough exposure time to build a signal above the background poisson distribution, but if you only get a couple photons above background, you need million of exposures, but you can do it, and I have.
No it’s not a Failed analogy Alexander it the exact same thing. The light strength from star is tiny compared to the sun which exactly the same comparison he made.
What you did was realized that night screens the signal as you have considerably more intelligence than Neillusion. The background noise level of light get suppressed by the earth creating a shadow and you can magically see the stars totally ignoring the difference in the signal levels.
Nowhere in Neillusions post did he he talk about screening or filtering the signal, it was a fact based solely on the signal strengths and that is all we needed to know.
LIGO does exactly the same trick so it can see such a small signal. Now I am willing to bet you Alexander that Neillusion won’t go and read how it’s done.
LdB:
Nope, your ratios (sunlight/starlight vs. local gravity/gravity from 1.5 billkion light-years) are incomparable by many orders of magnitude.
It’s a useless conversation, anyway (as Han Solo used to say).
No Neillusion. What is truly a challenge is to understand just how the sun would disappear instantaneously.
Can you give us a link to some peer reviewed paper that reports on the observation of the instantaneous disappearance of a star ??
g
From the Einstein’s beautiful formula it follows that:
Time equals a square root of (Energy divided by (Mass multiplied by the Distance squared)).
Therefore, red shift is a measure of time change (the more mass, the slower is the time; the more distance, the slower is the time), not of some mythical accelerating expansion of the Universe (which is impossible, because the Universe in infinite until proven otherwise experimentally, which is, in turn, impossible). And the whole pyramid of creationist fairy tales, the Big Bang Theory, crumbles down.
Granted, I am a music composer and a translator, not a scientist, but Dr. Jayant Vishnu Narlikar (famous mathematician and astrophysicist) is, and he comes to the similar conclusion (time equals mass divided by the constant “a,” which he defines on the basis of empirical observations). In the long run, Fred Hoyle shall be vindicated.
P.S. LdB (above) is trying to wriggle out if the trap he created for himself by appealing to the feelings of skeptics facing the “global warming consensus” argument, without realizing that Big Bang, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are all expressions of the dogmatic “consensus” as much as “anthropogenic climate change” and “anthropogenic global warming” hoaxes. Et voila! Another trap.
Alexander perhaps you need to read more … here are some poles for you
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609594/Half-Americans-dont-believe-Big-Bang-40-cent-doubt-climate-change-evolution.html
http://www.cnet.com/news/only-20-percent-of-americans-surveyed-believe-in-the-big-bang/
The numbers are fairly consistent belief in Big Bang runs at 15-25% in the population depending on country
The numbers for dark matter lower again
The numbers for dark energy lower still.
So I am not sure how you call that a consensus and dogma, the view is clearly in the minority which is why so much of this appears on WUWT.
So your challenge is to show me any pole of the general population that shows Big Bang belief as a majority.
I suppose you are talking about “polls,” not about the inhabitants of Poland.
BBT dogma exists among state-funded cosmologists, anthropogenic catastrophic climate change dogma exists among state-funded climatologists.
I am not interested in polls. General population beliefs are irrelevant here.
The same source pays Pied Piper in both cases:
A wondrous portal opened wide
As if a cavern suddenly hallowed,
And the Piper advanced and the children followed…
Right so now your consensus is created by reducing the set to people that you label state-funded (whatever that means) and I suppose its a giant conspiracy. So I guess there is consensus that there is only one true god Allah, you just have to select the set of people right. You might want to be careful using that consensus at the moment, but it is equally valid as your consensus.
LdB, I never claimed to represent any consensus. You did.
“When I became a student of Sir Fred Hoyle, cosmology was a subject most people wanted to work on, but today if some students asked me if they should work on cosmology I would not be very encouraging. The reason being this particular aspect of cosmology, that is theory has become more like a religious dogma. If you believe it it you prosper, if you do not believe in it the chances of your success are very low. This should not happen, there should be a possibility of, what I would call ‘the freedom of speech’ or ‘freedom of action’. People who do not like where the present cosmology is going should have a podium or a stage to voice their difficulties. In the 60’s this was possible but it’s not possible now. It can be rectified by allowing more freedom of speech.”
— Dr. Jayant Vishnu Narlikar
How about somebody switched on a gravity drive? Here, locally 🙂
Re; Gaetan Jobin
June 16, 2016 at 8:02 am
SHHHHHH!!!!!
(I told you, nobody’s supposed to know . . . )
“I know the universe is a big place, but to have two sets of double black holes merge within one year says there are a heck of a lot of black holes out there.”
Yes, like many commenters before me said, there are. But there are different assumptions about WHY there are. One of my favorite is “The amazing thing about enormous numbers (of distance, objects, time, etc.) is that they mean that anything that CAN happen, no matter how vanishingly small the probability of it, WILL happen! Not only that, it will happen a LOT!
Actually this would be the third set of gravity waves. The first set has been monitored world-wide for many years:
http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/geo_signals/geo.gif
http://www.vims.edu/research/units/labgroups/tc_tutorial/_images/_tide_analysis/mideast1.gif
fractional difference in weight (e.g. you) due to sun (nightside vs dayside) is approx 3^-8. The sun is 150 000 000km away, 1/dxd factor for G is ~2×10^-15.
2 black holes say 10x mass of sun, distance 14 191 200 000 000 000 000 000km, 1/dxd, is ~2×10^-43, take to 2×10^-42.
So the effect of the black hole merger is 10^-27 (-42- -15) smaller than effect of sun on us (already miniscule, order of 10^-8), now add in the fact that the change that forms the ripple, due to motion of black holes, is significantly smaller, by several orders of magnitude again, than this even.
The math is approximate, but illustrates the ball park.
Gravitational force between two 1kg masses, 1m apart is .000 000 000 0667N (googled). I guess that the g force changes arising from a bouncing ball in the vicinity of the building would be easier to detect by orders of magnitude. I haven’t done the math for that but the numbers I first gave are the influence on my thinking and believing that they have not measured the gravity signal of two merging black holes. The coulomb force (rather different to e.m. radiation ‘pulses’) is 10^34 bigger than gravity. I would guess, as a previous comment made much earlier, that some electric effect, perhaps from electric plasma discharges in our own galaxy, has (much) greater effect and was detected. Could be a charged body (comet) approaching a neutral body, rapidly discharging surplus charge, faster and faster as it approaches and perhaps strikes neutral body.
I gave the thought expt of sun disappearing in an instant and gravity lasting another 8mins being very hard, no impossible, for me, to get my head around. Much easier to ‘see’ that light would keep coming for another 8mins since the light ‘corpuscles’ set off and keep going, photons are independent entities once emitted (for the sake of this issue, anyway). It highlights the fact that no-one has detected the graviton, the gravity force mediator – why can’t we do this? Is it too small? These are just a few signs that make me question the claims, even that G travels at speed of light, and challenge the idea that we can detect infinitesimally small gravity effects at such a distance.
“as other gravitational radiation detectors come online in the next few years, humanity’s new view of the sky will surely change humanity’s understanding of the universe.”
It will not change physicists understanding of the universe. Einstein predicted it 100 years ago and his theory was confirmed by Eddington’s solar eclipse observation in 1919. General relativity was established even before Hubble discovered there are galaxies aside from the Milky Way. The bigger discoveries are dark matter and dark energy that physicists still don’t understand exactly what they are.
No such thing as “Dark matter”. Never been observed. Doesn’t exist. It’s a fudge factor to get their “model” to work.
I get the sense that all they have here is a “needle” moving on a piece of “test” equipment and their assessment is that their brand of “Spaghetti Monster” did it.
That’s not science.
The problem is their “model” is Newtonian mechanics. If dark matter doesn’t exist, Newtonian mechanics is in trouble. Almost all physicists would rather postulate there is something out there they could not see than conclude Newton’s laws are wrong because that would contradict all the astronomical observations that agree with Newton’s laws.
there is nothing wrong with the established general idea that there is something of mass or perhaps energy that cannot be seen, and quite a lot of it. We can only see stars because they are burning and sending out light that we pick up. There are lots of other things out there and many things unknown I’m sure. There are for instance cosmic electric plasma currents with huge magnetic fields that could have the ‘mass’ive effect attributed to dark matter. 99.x % of the universe is plasma. The name ‘dark matter’ is simple but has taken on a fudge factor identity that attracts criticism as being fairy dust/matter that must be in the fantasy mind of scientists to magically explain away their error. I questioned/suspected this at first but on deeper examination, it is as regular and real as expecting another planet in the solar system due to unexplained anomalies in the orbits of other planets. It is nothing like a magic fudge as many suggest. The cosmic microwave background, big bang and expanding universe is much much more suspect.
Question: Was this latest gravity wave accompanied by a gamma-ray burst?
This report says no gamma-ray burst.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/06/16/second-gravitational-wave-makes-it-official-merging-black-holes-dont-burst/#656b55c668b4
Is it right?
Mike Jonas June 17, 2016 at 1:49 pm
—————————————————
From the article in your link..
Two neutron stars collide and you get the gamma ray burst.
Two blackholes merge (collide) and you get gravitational wave.
…But in terms of light, or electromagnetic radiation, the types of masses spiraling in are predicted to result in very different outcomes. If two neutron stars inspiral and merge, the collision of their surfaces will lead to a complex, runaway fusion reaction, emitting an extraordinary amount of energy in an extremely short amount of time. This type of event, which LIGO is now sensitive to out to a few hundred million light years, is the suspected origin of short-period gamma-ray bursts. One of the main science goals of gravitational wave astronomy is to work with observatories such as ESA’s INTEGRAL and NASA’s Fermi satellite to measure both gravitational waves and high-energy radiation from these events simultaneously.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/06/16/second-gravitational-wave-makes-it-official-merging-black-holes-dont-burst/#656b55c668b4
I asked because, if I remember correctly, the first detected gravitational wave was reportedly accompanied by a gamma-ray burst within some fraction of a second. Also, again if I remember correctly, there was some dispute over this. So I was interested to know whether a gamma-ray burst had accompanied this gw. Its existence or not may possibly resolve something???
GRBs are thought to be the beam off the axis of a feeding blackhole(iirc), but we don’t see them unless the beam is pointed towards us, so not find a grb might not be all that unusual.
@Mike Jonas:
The Forbes story has it about right in all respects: several papers were published in short order after the one which alleged a link between the 1st LIGO “sighting” and a possible GRB. Upon further review, these additional findings blew up any real chance of a connection between most/all GRBs & LIGO-observable GWs, and no such connection is expected in the future.
For example, one paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04156) found that the “total probability of the [LIGO] source being spatially coincident with our fields [of observation] was finally only 4.2 per cent”, and the transients they found “appear to be fairly normal supernovae and AGN variability and none is obviously linked with GW150914.” The bulk of the work done since then has continued to confirmed the null hypothesis, i.e., that there was no correlated GRB (or other EM-observable event) for either of the two LIGO events.
lsvalgaard June 16, 2016 at 7:12 pm
Well, observation beats prediction. But Dark Matter is actually predicted, e.g. from the acoustic baryon peaks: http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.png
————————————————-
Sorry Dr. S., that link gave a, “404 Error File Not Found”
But this is pretty good. The “bullet cluster,” turned out to be pretty cool. Now what’s that little swirly betwixt the two clusters and where is that going? lol
The title of the image below is the bomb. lol
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0608/bullet_cluster_c60w.jpg
The Matter of the Bullet Cluster
Composite Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/CfA/ M.Markevitch et al.;
Lensing Map: NASA/STScI; ESO WFI; Magellan/U.Arizona/ D.Clowe et al.
Optical: NASA/STScI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al.;
“””Explanation: The matter in galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56, fondly known as the “bullet cluster”, is shown in this composite image. A mere 3.4 billion light-years away, the bullet cluster’s individual galaxies are seen in the optical image data, but their total mass adds up to far less than the mass of the cluster’s two clouds of hot x-ray emitting gas shown in red. Representing even more mass than the optical galaxies and x-ray gas combined, the blue hues show the distribution of dark matter in the cluster. Otherwise invisible to telescopic views, the dark matter was mapped by observations of gravitational lensing of background galaxies. In a text book example of a shock front, the bullet-shaped cloud of gas at the right was distorted during the titanic collision between two galaxy clusters that created the larger bullet cluster itself. But the dark matter present has not interacted with the cluster gas except by gravity. The clear separation of dark matter and gas clouds is considered direct evidence that dark matter exists.”””
A good test of whether people actually go have a look. Obviously, most don’t care to; totally happy in their [unfounded] beliefs.
The link should, of course, be: http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
For all us lightweights in the room just trying to get a grip on all this stuff..
See nifty image on page 11 of the article below, depicting the departing Bullet Cluster …
DARK MATTER IN COSMOLOGY
VLADIMIR LUKOVIC PAOLO CABELLA NICOLA VITTORIO
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1411-3556-Dark-Matter.pdf
Page7-8
4. Gravitational lensing
Another evidence for DM existence and another method of measuring matter distribution
in galaxies and clusters comes from gravitational lensing. For studying gravitational lensing in the beginning the most luminous clusters were selected.
However, in modern times there are many clusters detected solely by lensing effects.51
Recent observations of Bullet cluster reveal separation of visible matter,
ICM and dark matter halo, which were individually located using X-ray observations
and lensing technique. This is why Bullet cluster is often cited as one of the
best astrophysical evidences for dark matter models….
Page 11
…More famous example, Bullet cluster
1E 0657-558, on the contrary, shows distinct offset of X-ray emitting hot gas
from dark matter halos inferred by weak lensing method.67 This is a pair of galaxy
clusters (figure 3), where the smaller (7 × 10 13 M) subcluster (bullet) is just exiting
the collision site, away from a 2 × 10 15 M cluster, almost tangentially to the
line of sight. A prominent bow shock gives an estimate of the subcluster velocity,
4500 ± 1000 km/s. The optical image shows that the gas lags behind the subcluster
galaxies. The weak-lensing mass map reveals a dark matter clump lying ahead of
the collisional gas bullet, but coincident with the effectively collisionless galaxies.
The hot X-ray gas has been separated by ram pressure-stripping during the passage.
This separation is only possible if the dominant mass is in the collisionless component,
i.e. in the non-baryonic dark matter halo, not in the baryonic X-ray gas. From
these observations, one can directly estimate the upper limit on cross-section of the
dark matter self-interaction,….
Except light lensing is caused by actual matter not gravity, plasma, molecular clouds.
All of the claimed lensing effects of Einstein rings are better explained and repeatable in the lab, refraction by plasma. Also the examples have the same light colours typically, which also asks a question, light lensing wont change light colour, refraction does change light colour.
So you have one with nothing but mathematics for evidence and the second much more scientific explanation can be tested.
Furthermore, if space time is a fabric, light must travel the geometric path, as space time is the very medium through which it travels, we are supposed to believe light only travels the road when it chooses?
As such light will always traverse “space time” in this theory yet it does not, and relativists have to invoke Newton to try explain why, but Newton’s gravity does deal with force, General Relativity cant explain force, as gravity is geometric. This switch to Newton’s forces is done quite disingenuously, to plug the obvious holes.
Your long quotes read as “we have never found it and are interpreting everything through our theory we wont let go” 😀
The calculations never considered the abundance (a well established abundance at this point) of plasma both visible and invisible. Major evidence is the stars that form along strings of plasma, we are talking amounts we cant even calculate.
APEX telescope
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FAdJnzebyBc/T8QFOxu9vzI/AAAAAAAAAIc/kA2OwN0ibyc/s1600/apex-star-forming-filament-taurus.jpg
Dark Matter doesn’t emit radiation it’s a fiction, end of bloody story, something that does not exchange information in a way we can measure, cannot be held to be a valid hypothesis. All there are are interpretations of abstract effects we understand little of, and born of the very theory they are seeking to confirm, like Muons lol. Muons had to be calculated with Relativity so a wrong answer could never be produced, yet this passed as “science”.
Also I debunked light lensing above if you read, we have observational evidence in our own Milky Way. Stars passed in close orbit to a supermassive black hole and also a cloud of hydrogen passed by unmolested. This is what we observe over what we think, so everyone concerned avoids these extremely important observations because they are diametrically opposed to the theory.
Dark Matter must be 100% reflective for a start to not interact electromagnetically, and does not experience radioactive decay.
Yep, complete fantasy.
As for the two orbiting black holes, given the very definitions of black holes, two orbiting black holes violate the very definition of a black hole. BHs are described as having no boundaries and infinite space time curvature (which by the way is infinite gravity – Infinite not a number, and infinite gravity ludicrous, no universe) so you have infinite space time curvature points spinning around each other? It just gets totally ludicrous when you examine what these clowns are claiming
The very people in general who support the idea of black holes generally do not understand there are 4 or 5 definitions and the details of those definitions.
“Black Hole” the basic theory has departed from science, it’s a held assumption now like AGW. No one tries to break it.
Please read up on the tragedy of what they do to save theories and the Neutron Star is a perfect example of self delusion, when what they interpret defies physics, do they go back? no, they invent new matter out of thin air, with mathematics.
If light lenses the way claimed (by space tame curvature, not force remember if you are a relativist) images like this would be full of evidence.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/hubble_friday_12182015.jpg
M-H, They are there, you just can’t see them in such a wide field of view (~1-2 arc minutes) of small (stellar), close (250,000ly or closer) objects. It’s like trying to say “We can’t see any white blood cells in this image of several test tubes of blood taken through a set of binoculars.” The response is “Well, duh!”
Try doing an image search for “Einstein rings” or “Einstein arcs.” Then try checking every last one of the references for the Wikipedia entry which covers all the different ways Relativity (General & Special) has been validated. (Here’s a hint: your smart phone had to be engineered & constructed with BOTH in mind in order to even function.)
Earlier, george e smith said:
“The gravitational force is incredibly weak. It is many orders of magnitude weaker than the Coulomb force between electric charges….”
For those interested, the Electro-Magnetic (EM)force is only greater than the force of gravity over short distances. This is due primarily to the fact that the EM force tapers with distance much more rapidly than gravity. Also contributing to this is that the EM force can easily be blocked/attenuated by intervening material; gravity (G) & gravitational waves (GW) cannot. (This makes GW largely immune to such things as diffraction, refraction, or reflection… effects to which every other kind of known radiation is subject.)
In the same way, the Weak (W) & Strong (S) forces are MUCH stronger than the EM force. However as with EM & gravity, their strength also tapers off much faster over distance than EM does. As a result, W & S are really only applicable at distances on the scale of atomic to sub-atomic particles; anything beyond that scale is overwhelmed by EM, and then eventually by G.
Bottom line: S, W, EM & G are listed in order from strongest to weakest, but that same order also describes which force is dominant at increasing scales of distance. Ignorance (accidental or intentional) of this relationship among the fundamental forces of nature can (& often does) give rise to — I’ll go with alternative — ideas of cosmology such as the Electric Universe, but such ideas are often quickly shot down by empirical observations, many of which don’t even require a telescope.
GES also said earlier:
“ANYTHING that EXISTS must be producing some sort of observable effect, … the observation of the effect is itself the proof of the existence of a causal agent. Of what, is where we get to scratch our heads.”
Absolutely spot on!
Smokey: Your are incorrect when you say “This is due primarily to the fact that the EM force tapers with distance much more rapidly than gravity.” In fact, both the gravitational and electric forces have the same dependence on distance r, falling off as 1/r^2. The reason why gravity tends to be more important on large scales and less important on small scales is that large scale objects tend to be very massive and very nearly electrically-neutral. At the other extreme, small objects such as the elementary particles like and electron or proton tend to have very small mass and a much larger charge-to-mass ratio.