What is a gravitational wave?

[Mordred]

The accretion disk itself for starters.

 

"Material, such as gas, dust and other stellar debris that has come close to a black hole but not quite fallen into it, forms a flattened band of spinning matter around the event horizon called the accretion disk (or disc). Although no-one has ever actually seen a black hole or even its event horizon, this accretion disk can be seen, because the spinning particles are accelerated to tremendous speeds by the huge gravity of the black hole, releasing heat and powerful x-rays and gamma rays out into the universe as they smash into each other"

 

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_event.html

 

The accretion disk itself has mass.

 

Then you also have the photon sphere.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere.

 

like I said most of the mass is the singularity but not all of the mass.

 

The sheer energy levels in the accretion disk and accretion jets are huge. A good detail is this paper.

 

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499:''Black hole Accretion Disk''

 

Without going into the Einstein field equations let's look at an example. The mass of the Earth is 5.9722±0.0006)×10^24 kg. However the average mass density increases from the average mass density of the galactic medium as you approach Earth.

 

When we set the mass upon an objection in space we need to define a cutoff point.

For a galaxy that cutoff point is 100* the energy density compared to the critical density.

 

For a BH and I can be corrected on this point it's the radius of the Schwartzchild metric. This simply means the mass of the singularity within the EH. Not the mass surrounding the EH.

PS although great enthusiasm in learning the standard models in regards to mass loss it's appropriate to include the relation covered in your other thread ( through mod action).

[latex]e^2=pc^2+(m_o^2)^2[/latex]

 

Further discussion here for readers.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93487-split-from-gravitational-waves-discovered/page-1

 

!

Moderator Note

the split of threads is justified, appropriate to discretion of moderator

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Are we seeing this event because we are in line with jets ?

Or

Is it radiating energy in all directions ?

 

 

And is it ? , that the event just happens to coincide with when we are looking ? Or has the event been going on for some time , and we have looked somewhere down the history of its activities? ( all- be- it , that it has taken quite some time to reach us ? )

 

Mike

 

Edit ( I have done it again, overlap,. Must be something to do with, when we all wake up ? Or telepathic waves ! )

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Robittybob1]

Pretty good. Thanks for the debate Mordred. I'm going to see if I can find by internet search where those 3 solar masses come from.

[Mordred]

.

Are we seeing this event because we are in line with jets ?

Or

Is it radiating energy in all directions ?

 

image.jpg

 

And is it ? , that the event just happens to coincide with when we are looking ? Or has the event been going on for some time , and we have looked somewhere down the history of its activities? ( all- be- it , that it has taken quite some time to reach us ? )

 

Mike

Those jets I should specify are artist renditions. Those renditions are based upon the mathematics within the article. Too lengthy to do justice on a forum.

 

What it boils down to is a BH cannot gobble all the available matter there is a limit, the leftover is emitted via the jets. The article covers the details.

 

PS there are images of jets exitting a galaxy such is the energy levels of the jets.

Pretty good. Thanks for the debate Mordred. I'm going to see if I can find by internet search where those 3 solar masses come from.

Good self research is always a plus. Provided the sources are good. It's always better to trust resources that apply the actual math. (I hate pop media style articles) in my collection of over 300gb of pdf not a single reference or article is pop media related. Granted you need math to fully appreciate them.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Thanks !

 

What about the coincidence of timing, happening , and us looking ? Or drawn out in time ? A sudden event right 'now ' ( whenever now is ) , or it's going on over a long time , and we have just seen it ?

 

Mike

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mordred]

Thanks !

 

What about the coincidence of timing, happening , and us looking ? Or drawn out in time ?

 

Mike

We account for measurement via factors such as redshift. Understand this detail. We don't always use visual telescopes. More often we use radio telescopes, infrared, etc but seldom visual. This being the case we must account for observer influence ie redshift as one example

 

Accretion jets luckily happen over a decent time period, depending on availability of material

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mordred

[Robittybob1]

We account for measurement via factors such as redshift. Understand this detail. We don't always use visual telescopes. More often we use radio telescopes, infrared, etc but seldom visual. This being the case we must account for observer influence ie redshift as one example

 

Accretion jets luckily happen over a decent time period, depending on availability of material

What was that image of? Was that supposed to be a BH?

.

Are we seeing this event because we are in line with jets ?

Or

Is it radiating energy in all directions ?

 

image.jpg

 

And is it ? , that the event just happens to coincide with when we are looking ? Or has the event been going on for some time , and we have looked somewhere down the history of its activities? ( all- be- it , that it has taken quite some time to reach us ? )

 

Mike

 

Edit ( I have done it again, overlap,. Must be something to do with, when we all wake up ? Or telepathic waves ! )

what is this?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We account for measurement via factors such as redshift. Understand this detail. We don't always use visual telescopes. More often we use radio telescopes, infrared, etc but seldom visual. This being the case we must account for observer influence ie redshift as one example

Accretion jets luckily happen over a decent time period, depending on availability of material

We account for measurement via factors such as redshift. Understand this detail. We don't always use visual telescopes. More often we use radio telescopes, infrared, etc but seldom visual. This being the case we must account for observer influence ie redshift as one example

Accretion jets luckily happen over a decent time period, depending on availability of material

Yes, but this event was detected by the " logo or algo " which are 100's of meters of building . Was this just aligning , due to the orbit and rotation of the earth , to point at the supernova event ? Or was it a coincidence of timing , like the event happened a few days ago , ( + or - a few hundred years ) allowing for the eons of time for the signal effect to reach here ?

 

Mike

[Mordred]

Man your questions can be hard to fathom. For one Chandra telescopes has the ability. BH,S not being the only objects that can produce jets. Pulsars can as well. There are numerous events to describe the rest.

 

I am having tough time describing the direction of your last post to clarify a direction of interest.

 

(No insult intended reads as a scattering of observer based results/ adjustments)

 

A BH jet can last as long as it takes to .. Say for example absorb a star. Length of time depending on mass and proximity of the star

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Man your questions can be hard to fathom. For one Chandra telescopes has the ability. BH,S not being the only objects that can produce jets. Pulsars can as well. There are numerous events to describe the rest.

I am having tough time describing the direction of your last post to clarify a direction of interest.

(No insult intended reads as a scattering of observer based results/ adjustments)

A BH jet can last as long as it takes to .. Say for example absorb a star. Length of time depending on mass and proximity of the star

.

.I must apologise for my garbled question. Put it down to waking up, on a Sunday morning , still half in dreams .

 

I am trying to get to the bottom ( in my mind ) of the apparent coincidence of the events.

 

(1) the recent observation of the gravitational waves . (2) the event itself ( two black holes colliding ).

 

In view of the time taken for the gravity wave to arrive .?

 

In reality these two events are separated in time by a considerable amount of ' actual time' . It seems a remarkable coincidence that these occur as and when we are looking ( over the last few years) .

 

Or am I missing something .

 

Like there are so many of these events , that we are bound to see one . (As in the example of other long distant gamma ray bursts? )

 

Hope that is a bit clearer?

 

 

Mike

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mordred]

In this case sheer coincidence in so far as the two BH colliding and the gravity waves the waves are a result of the collision.

 

In so far as looking, well LIGO has been looking 24/7. For years to record the event. Problem being the sensitivity. They probably were not expecting results as soon as they did after upgrade. However this can often happen, New improvements can often yield results on a faster time scale.

 

The gravity waves themself wouldn't occur without the merger event. Only certain events can lead to gravity waves. Keep in mind BH mergers can vary in time, depending on orbits

 

(If I understand your questions correct is why can we measure this now as opposed to before). The main problem has been in filtering interference and separation distance of the waves gravity being such a weak force it's extremely difficulty to isolate from background influences such as noise

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

Like there are so many of these events , that we are bound to see one . (As in the example of other long distant gamma ray bursts? )

 

I think I have seen some comments from the scientists involved saying that the fact it was detected so soon after the upgrade might mean that these events are more common than previously expected. But we won't know until we get more results.

[Mordred]

(Are these results absolute proof definitely not. The data needs study from independent examiners. Give it 6 months or so. Bicep2 is a good lesson on that aspect,)

 

I think I have seen some comments from the scientists involved saying that the fact it was detected so soon after the upgrade might mean that these events are more common than previously expected. But we won't know until we get more results.

Good point, time will tell one event only tells us were on the right track. Now we need repeatability Edited February 14, 2016 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In this case sheer coincidence in so far as the two BH colliding and the gravity waves the waves are a result of the collision.

In so far as looking, well LIGO has been looking 24/7. For years to record the event. Problem being the sensitivity. They probably were not expecting results as soon as they did after upgrade. However this can often happen, New improvements can often yield results on a faster time scale.

The gravity waves themself wouldn't occur without the merger event. Only certain events can lead to gravity waves. Keep in mind BH mergers can vary in time, depending on orbits

(If I understand your questions correct is why can we measure this now as opposed to before). The main problem has been in filtering interference and separation distance of the waves gravity being such a weak force it's extremely difficulty to isolate from background influences such as noise

.

It escapes me at the moment , how far away this event was ? Was it a million light years ?

 

If so 5 years in 1,000,000 is amazing coincidence ?

 

Mike

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mordred]

.

It escapes me at the moment , how far away this event was ? Was it a million light years ?

 

If so 5 years in 1,000,000 is amazing coincidence ?

 

Mike

Give me a few I'll tell you. After I look at the Cosmo calc in my signature lol.

[Strange]

It escapes me at the moment , how far away this event was ? Was it a million light years ?

 

About 1.3 billion.

 

Actually, that makes it less implausible not more because it means the system is able to detect signals from a very large volume of space.

[Mordred]

 

About 1.3 billion.

 

Actually, that makes it less implausible not more because it means the system is able to detect signals from a very large volume of space.

Not really we often observe events in the past. The sheer amount of energy released and the proper distance which most articles don't mention .. most articles don't specify the proper distance the event occurred from the time of occurance. I need clarification clarification on the redshift value to give better numbers Edited February 14, 2016 by Mordred

[Robittybob1]

Not really we often observe events in the past. The sheer amount of energy released and the proper distance which most articles don't mention .. most articles don't specify the proper distance the event occurred from the time of occurance. I need clarification clarification on the redshift value to give better numbers

It is amazing what they can tell from the information. I can't wait to read more discussion on the mass loss calculations and the distance the waves have traveled. I suppose expanding space weakens the signal on Earth for they will be redshifted.

[Mordred]

It is amazing what they can tell from the information. I can't wait to read more discussion on the mass loss calculations and the distance the waves have traveled. I suppose expanding space weakens the signal on Earth for they will be redshifted.

Correct redshift will be an effect, probably already compensated for.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Not really we often observe events in the past. The sheer amount of energy released and the proper distance which most articles don't mention .. most articles don't specify the proper distance the event occurred from the time of occurance. I need clarification clarification on the redshift value to give better numbers

.

.

-- 1.3 billion years ago, the event occurred , that's 1,300,000,000 years . Then 3 days or so ago the effect passed the detector . Then was gone. Good job someone was looking in that direction .

 

Presumably , if the same sort of collision happens anywhere in the entire 3 dimensional sphere of space going back a whole 13.6 billion years and the arrival time ends up next week , we will see another blip ?

 

Obviously galaxies were not ready immediately . But after the 300,000 year re-combination plus a little development time for the first generation super massive stars formation , and their supernova ending after a short time. There on in 'anything goes' , so to speak . And can/ will be , seen , gravitationally if our resolution is up to it .

 

If we can see with our enhanced ' Gravitational eyes ' the sky will be ablaze with pictures of the development of the whole Universe. Like a ' Drive in Movie ' .. Extraordinaire !

 

 

Mike

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

.

.

-- 1.3 billion years ago, the event occurred , that's 1,300,000,000 years . Then 3 days or so ago the effect passed the detector . Then was gone. Good job someone was looking in that direction .

 

The detector doesn't look in a particular direction. It can pick up signals from anywhere.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The detector doesn't look in a particular direction. It can pick up signals from anywhere.

The detector doesn't look in a particular direction. It can pick up signals from anywhere.

.

 

O.k. That is great ! But I imagine they can compute exactly which direction , the signal , did in fact come from?

 

So as to project a three dimensional picture ,if necessary ? I hope so ? Then we can look forward to some gravitational images of the exploding universe?

 

Mike

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

O.k. That is great ! But I imagine they can compute exactly which direction , the signal , did in fact come from?

You get some idea with two detectors, you get a 'strip' in the sky. With three or more you can narrow this down to small regions.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You get some idea with two detectors, you get a 'strip' in the sky. With three or more you can narrow this down to small regions.

Sounds really good .

 

Will the images be up to the quality of Hubble space telescope but only exploding , or violently moving matter ?

 

Do hope so . Now they have had success , they can get more money .

 

Mike

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Will the images be up to the quality of Hubble space telescope but only exploding , or violently moving matter ?

We will be able to produce coordinates to point other telescopes at. Soon we will have a multi-wave picture of the universe; optical, x-ray, infra-red, radio and gravitational!