Gravitational-wave Singularity

[stevebtaylor]

gravitational waves, as predicted by Einstein, are an integral component and

an "inescapable conclusion"of the mass to energy transformation equation,

 

E=mc^2

 

As defined, gravitational waves are pertubations in a gravitational field. when an object changes its configuration, its gravitational field changes.

the strongest waves come from massive objects changing configuration at high velocity. so, when mass is converted to energy a gravitational wave is produced. this would certainly apply to the collapse of a massive star to a singularity. (if a gravitational wave is not used in calculating this event, then it cant really be used anywhere else)

 

in conclusion then, a gravity wave is the primary trigger for the collapse of a massive star to a singularity.

[Radical Edward]

no need for waves really, simply having a gravitational field such that there is no force that can overcome it is quite adequate. Even very large low density areas of space in gas clouds can just collapse into black holes. to be honest, your conclusion does not really follow your argument.

[stevebtaylor]

the formula requires a gravitational wave in the mass to energy transformation equation

[Radical Edward]

show me.

[Amr Morsi]

It is not a must to have a star collapse in order to produce gravitational waves. They can also be produced from 2 masses rotating around each others. In general, gravitational waves are produced from any accelerating mass....... very similar to electromagnetic waves.

 

It is also to be noted that when a star collapse into a black hole, this doesn't imply a transformation to energy, but it is contraction of mass over space.

By the way, simple spherically-symmetric contraction of stars or expansion doesn't emit gravit. waves, as stated by Einstein.

[stevebtaylor]

gravity waves are not limited to just mass collapse. however if g waves arent used here how can they be used elsewhere?

g waves are derived from E=mc^2 and indicate that they are required in the transformation of mass into energy.

as for a singularity composed of energy, i will develop this line. for now though, the singularity is a stable form of energy, as is often required by nature

[Amr Morsi]

I totally agree with you.

But, what do you mean by "the singularity is a stable form of energy"?

[Arch2008]

Matter and energy are the same thing. Both have the property of mass. If the Sun collapsed to a singularity, the singularity would have the mass of the Sun. So mass is not converted to energy. If you mean that the Sun emits gravitational waves, then the singularity would emit the same waves. There would be no perturbation in the Earth’s orbit. As to gravity waves between something like merging black holes, there is no evidence of this, so no “inescapable conclusion” there.

[Radical Edward]

gravity waves aren't derived from E=mc^2. That is a result from special relativity, which has nothing to say on gravity waves.

[stevebtaylor]

gravitational-waves are derived from general relativity or special relativity.

Edited March 27, 2010 by stevebtaylor
clarification

[ajb]

gravitational-waves are indeed derived from special relativity.

 

Not really.

 

It is the case that often one will think about gravitational waves as fluctuations about the Minkowski metric

 

[math]g_{\mu \nu} = \eta_{\mu \nu} + \kappa h_{\mu \nu}[/math]

 

but the dynamics of the graviton field [math]h_{\mu \nu}[/math] is determined by general relativity (in the linear approximation). You can cast this in the form of the wave equation.

[stevebtaylor]

the quote attributed to einstein has been used in many instances by lots of people. the one refered to concerned the inevitability of g-waves.

Edited March 27, 2010 by stevebtaylor
spelling

[Royston]

Gravitational waves are certainly not derived from SR, the simple reason being, that SR is not a theory of gravity. For the equivalence principle to hold, spacetime needs to be curved aka a relativistic theory of gravity.

 

Waves are produced via accelerated bodies in a curved spacetime. That's the raw basics, I, or someone with more expertise can go into more detail if you want.

 

EDIT: Oops, ajb beat me to it.

[ajb]

A lot of work was done in the 1980's on colliding gravitational waves. It was shown that they can form curvature singularities. I don't know any of the details here, nor if that has anything to do with the opening post.

 

I also know that lots of work has been done over many decades on gravitational waves emitted from collapsing and colliding bodies. I don't know if one can in some sense run these calculations backward as suggest that gravitational waves started the collapse.

[stevebtaylor]

thank you for the interest and corrections. a clarified version follows.

gravity waves were predicted by einstein.

there are gravitational waves and gravity waves.

e=mc^2 is a mass to energy transformation equation.

the singularity is a unique object formed under unique conditions.

 

this proposes that the formation of the densest structure known requires the addition of all available energy sources to occur.

gravity waves are defined, in part, as perturbations in a g-field. when an object changes its configuration, its g-field changes. the strongest waves come from massive objects changing configuration at high velocity. this is applied to the final collapse of a star to a singularity.

i prefer to have all energies crush the matter to attain the final result.

 

now, your contributions are welcome on this next bit.

gravitational waves emitted would take energy away. a concession here would propose either that it is emitted multi-direction and so perhaps half would be added, or that the emission of a gravitational wave would initiate a gravity wave. this gravity wave would travel inward through the infalling cloud which has slowed down the speed of light and provide the trigger to spatial contraction. thus, g-waves, either type, would be an integral component in the formation of a singularity.

Edited March 28, 2010 by stevebtaylor
spelling

[ajb]

..

gravitational waves emitted would take energy away.

 

Yes, though I am sure this is very difficult to formulate exactly. For example, there are (as far as I know) no gravity wave solutions that are asymptotically flat.

[stevebtaylor]

there is no work being done in this area at all ( far as i know either). however, ive been over and over this stuff and am convinced that, to fit the definition, either gravitational or gravity waves are explicitly required in a mass-energy conversion.

another related area would be crushing mass to energy with the objective of investigating black hole formation.

[stevebtaylor]

a lot of work has been done. however, it seems that an infalling cloud whose opaqueness has slowed down the speed of light could use some help in getting up to relativistic speeds where another relativistic event, spacial contraction, can occur.

why is the emission of gravitational waves viewed or calculated as a dissipation of energy? are the no grounds for adding it to the collapse, or at least getting half?

[stevebtaylor]

a lot of the work done was in theory. i suggest experiments that test spatial contractioin and the bound energies there.

[Amr Morsi]

Contraction only, if symmetrical, doesn't produce gravitational waves, there must be mass to energy transfer.

 

The gravitational wave can be either a radiation, that extends to r=infinty, or a furnituring; which changes the gravitational field around a mass density.

 

Any reduce in mass, which is the source of the spacetime curvature, is accompanied with reduce in total energy. And due to the law of conservation of energy, energy carried by gravitational waves must account for the decrease in energy.

[stevebtaylor]

okay. here the imploding star is not symmetrical.

this proposal is mass to energy conversion. would this make a difference?

is furnituring an implosion?

 

no reduction in gravitational effect of mass. the condensed energy is gravitationaly equivilent to the previous mass, less what is not required.

i prefer an increase in energy to form a singularity.

[Amr Morsi]

An increase of energy of what? You are saying that mass has transformed to energy.... what type of energy?

I suppose you are talking about Gravitational Potential Energy between the particles of the star. If the particles become closer to eachothers, then the total Gravitational Potential Energy between particles will decrease more, resulting in emitted energy. But, how this energy becomes stored in a singularity?

 

A theoretical singularity may form due to the contraction of some mass in a point, or even a sheet. Is this what you are talking about?

[stevebtaylor]

the mass, when accelerated to relativistic values, changes to energy.

preferably high-energy. (am i even close on this stuff?)

the star is imploding for the final crunch...that kind of energy!

storing energy in a singularity. well put.

the star implodes. spatial contraction occurs. maybe a gravitational wave.

high energy energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation, generically speaking, lightwaves have their wavelength shortened.

correct me on this if it is wrong. the sine-wave described by a photon and its electro and magnetic fields exhibits force fields emanating around it?

it is those weak fields that under stress will re-orientate horizontally. taken together, across the span, they would have strength to store energy.

as theoretical as this sounds, i want a singularity in this universe, obeying the laws of physics.

[Amr Morsi]

the mass' date=' when accelerated to relativistic values, changes to energy.

preferably high-energy. (am i even close on this stuff?)

[/quote']

 

We are not talking about high speed. In addition, when a mass accelerates, it doesn't transfer to energy; it is its kinetic energy which increases.

 

 

high energy energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation, generically speaking, lightwaves have their wavelength shortened.

 

Then the difference in energy has been emitted, not stored.

 

correct me on this if it is wrong. the sine-wave described by a photon and its electro and magnetic fields exhibits force fields emanating around it?

 

Electromagnetic Field exhibits force upon electric charges only, not masses.

 

 

as theoretical as this sounds, i want a singularity in this universe, obeying the laws of physics.[/

 

For sure, approximate singularities do follow the laws of physics. See how delta dirac function work in General Relativity.

[stevebtaylor]

thanks again, and

 

what radiates from the event horizon? are not those masses eventually radiated away as high-energy energy?

 

if the amplitude of the wave is not increased then it is indeed a loss of energy. excuse me for omitting that detail in this instance.

 

first, is the photon still considered to carry the electro-motive force?

next, permit me to use a very simplified thought experiment to ask a question.

in a metal wire, there are concentric rings or fields of force surrounding it. are there concentric fields or forces around each of the electro and magnetic waves of the photon as it is in motion? is this a clearer picture?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

a definition has standing waves produce matter.

two similar waves travelling in opposite directions will establish a standing wave.

this is repeating what ive said in another thread. one thread will be chosen.