Starship Asterisk*

by **douglas** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:49 am

Speaking of Internally-disallowed conceits, this well-written article on problems ascertaining the proton's true diameter leaves one wondering if the methods used, smashing "particles" into targets at incredible energies, are merely muddying the results ..

" .. protons and neutrons contain much more. Quark-antiquark pairs constantly form and annihilate around the three persistent quarks."

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/the ... out-proton

by **douglas** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:01 pm

Possible event horizon structure echoes in LIGO detections.

http://www.nature.com/news/ligo-black-h ... wn-1.21135

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronom ... 106201723/

by **douglas** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:36 pm

I'm assuming Mr. Siegel's "no other explanation" means no outbursts at any wavelength were detected for this star, N6946-BH1's, disappearance.

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startsw ... ?width=960

The visible/near-IR photos from Hubble show a massive star, about 25 times the mass of the Sun, that has winked out of existence, with no supernova or other explanation. Direct collapse is the only reasonable candidate explanation.
NASA/ESA/C. Kochanek (OSU)

"The 30-ish solar mass binary black holes first observed by LIGO are very difficult to form without direct collapse."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 1ee5f5216d

" ... By 2015, the Hubble and Spitzer telescopes couldn’t see it, nor could they detect any radiation coming from where it once was."
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/ma ... lapse-fail

"A small amount of IR light has been detected from where the star used to be. This radiation probably comes from debris falling onto a black hole."
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/red-s ... 04897.html

by **Chris Peterson** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 2:22 pm

douglas wrote:Is conceiving of a body retaining any kind of external integrity a falsity as it transitions to > speed of light? Once inside the event horizon there is no "outside".

The question is meaningless because no body transitions to greater than c. Photons and other zero rest mass particles always travel at c. Massive bodies always travel at less than c. That's why massive bodies can't orbit inside the photon sphere of a black hole (1.5 times the event horizon radius). If they could exceed c, they could continue to orbit.

There's no reason that a body wouldn't maintain its integrity inside the event horizon. In the case of a supermassive black hole, the tidal forces at the event horizon are small- you don't get spaghettification. A person in a space suit, for instance, would survive falling through the event horizon of a black hole. At that point, they're still outside the singularity.

by **douglas** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:59 pm

FLPhotoCatcher wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
FLPhotoCatcher wrote: Yes, but If a small black hole orbits just inside the event horizon of a super-massive black hole, does it 'warp' the event horizon of the larger black hole?
A body can't orbit inside the event horizon of a black hole. The closest possible orbit you can have is 1.5 times the radius of the event horizon. Inside that the orbital velocity exceeds the speed of light. Once a body crosses the event horizon, it can only fall into the central singularity (technically, the radial dimension inside the event horizon is time-like, not space-like.

I believe the shape of the event horizon for a non-rotating black hole can be briefly perturbed from spherical (or oblate spherical for a rotating black hole) by material falling through it, but no information is being conveyed from the inside to the outside. The perturbation is external.
Interesting. Thanks Chris.

Is conceiving of a body retaining any kind of external integrity a falsity as it transitions to > speed of light? Once inside the event horizon there is no "outside".

Are spacetime analogs, for instance, a type of internally-disallowed conceit?

Do metamaterials really exhibit these energies and effects, or merely highlight the limits of human measurement & apperception?
https://phys.org/news/2011-07-metamater ... runch.html

Hyperbolic metamaterial interfaces: Hawking radiation from Rindler horizons and the "end of time" arxiv.org/abs/1107.4053

by **douglas** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:24 pm

chuckster wrote:
According to Stanislaw Lem, one product of black hole gravity waves that can be taken advantage of for interstellar journeys is time running backwards within them. With various other forms of propulsion, you achieve a relativistic velocity towards a destination near to a local black hole that you then 'ping' with a large "sidereal" gravity bomb that gets the black hole ringing back and forth between a cigar shape and a pancake shape for a second or two, creating extra-powerful gravity waves with "retrochronal toroids" within them. The ship [of Truly God-like Energies] had racked up unacceptable amounts of time dilation getting there, but entering the toroids allows it to turn back its clock, and return to Earth a few years subsequent to its departure.

fixed that for 'ya

Also wondering how Stan determines "unacceptable amounts of time dilation", and of course, how subtle is a technology that "bombs" a black hole?

by **FLPhotoCatcher** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:44 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
FLPhotoCatcher wrote:
neufer wrote: Photons, gravitons and all other real particles with trajectories into the event horizon never return and augment the mass of the black hole.

Virtual particles with trajectories into the event horizon also never return but they reduce the mass of the black hole.
Yes, but If a small black hole orbits just inside the event horizon of a super-massive black hole, does it 'warp' the event horizon of the larger black hole?
A body can't orbit inside the event horizon of a black hole. The closest possible orbit you can have is 1.5 times the radius of the event horizon. Inside that the orbital velocity exceeds the speed of light. Once a body crosses the event horizon, it can only fall into the central singularity (technically, the radial dimension inside the event horizon is time-like, not space-like.

I believe the shape of the event horizon for a non-rotating black hole can be briefly perturbed from spherical (or oblate spherical for a rotating black hole) by material falling through it, but no information is being conveyed from the inside to the outside. The perturbation is external.

Interesting. Thanks Chris.

by **Chris Peterson** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:49 am

FLPhotoCatcher wrote:
neufer wrote:
FLPhotoCatcher wrote:
I'm guessing gravity waves can not escape black holes, since supposedly nothing can. But what happens to gravity waves inside, say, a super-massive black hole that are being created by an orbiting smaller black hole? If gravity waves can not escape the large black hole, then the smaller black hole's gravity effects on the overall shape of the event horizon SHOULD DISAPPEAR INSTANTLY AFTER IT PASSES THE EVENT HORIZON. This does not seem correct. Can G waves even be created inside a black hole?
Photons, gravitons and all other real particles with trajectories into the event horizon never return and augment the mass of the black hole.

Virtual particles with trajectories into the event horizon also never return but they reduce the mass of the black hole.
Yes, but If a small black hole orbits just inside the event horizon of a super-massive black hole, does it 'warp' the event horizon of the larger black hole?

A body can't orbit inside the event horizon of a black hole. The closest possible orbit you can have is 1.5 times the radius of the event horizon. Inside that the orbital velocity exceeds the speed of light. Once a body crosses the event horizon, it can only fall into the central singularity (technically, the radial dimension inside the event horizon is time-like, not space-like.

I believe the shape of the event horizon for a non-rotating black hole can be briefly perturbed from spherical (or oblate spherical for a rotating black hole) by material falling through it, but no information is being conveyed from the inside to the outside. The perturbation is external.

by **FLPhotoCatcher** » Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:06 am

neufer wrote:
FLPhotoCatcher wrote:
I'm guessing gravity waves can not escape black holes, since supposedly nothing can. But what happens to gravity waves inside, say, a super-massive black hole that are being created by an orbiting smaller black hole? If gravity waves can not escape the large black hole, then the smaller black hole's gravity effects on the overall shape of the event horizon SHOULD DISAPPEAR INSTANTLY AFTER IT PASSES THE EVENT HORIZON. This does not seem correct. Can G waves even be created inside a black hole?
Photons, gravitons and all other real particles with trajectories into the event horizon never return and augment the mass of the black hole.

Virtual particles with trajectories into the event horizon also never return but they reduce the mass of the black hole.

Yes, but If a small black hole orbits just inside the event horizon of a super-massive black hole, does it 'warp' the event horizon of the larger black hole?

by **distefanom** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:03 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
distefanom wrote:I think in the space around us (i.e. our own galaxy), should be way more smaller black holes, gliding around around and (maybe) way more often,that gigantic solar masses collide to form black holes, so one should expect a "background noise" way higher than the one detected?
LIGO is only sensitive to the inspiral of medium mass black holes. It cannot detect individual black holes of any mass, so any that might be around us would have no effect (and solar mass black holes are gravitationally no different than stars, in any case).

2) If it ìs true that Several times the sun size black holes can be detected so far away in space & time... How we can be sure that the "ringing" LIGO detects is due to this kind of mass collision?
The complex details of the gravitational wave waveform recorded by LIGO (that is, the time-dependent change in both amplitude and frequency) are exactly described by General Relativity. That's extremely strong evidence that we're observing black hole inspirals (and there are no alternative explanations at all).

Many Thanks, Chris, for your kind explanation!

by **neufer** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:38 pm

FLPhotoCatcher wrote:
I'm guessing gravity waves can not escape black holes, since supposedly nothing can. But what happens to gravity waves inside, say, a super-massive black hole that are being created by an orbiting smaller black hole? If gravity waves can not escape the large black hole, then the smaller black hole's gravity effects on the overall shape of the event horizon SHOULD DISAPPEAR INSTANTLY AFTER IT PASSES THE EVENT HORIZON. This does not seem correct. Can G waves even be created inside a black hole?

Photons, gravitons and all other real particles with trajectories into the event horizon never return and augment the mass of the black hole.

Virtual particles with trajectories into the event horizon also never return but they reduce the mass of the black hole.

by **chuckster** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:51 pm

Ann wrote:
Case wrote:
Boomer12k wrote:So.... can we "surf" to Alpha Centauri on one?
Math homework problem: how close does a black hole merger have to be, to create a wave strong enough that a space ship from Earth can ride it to the next star? As the wave is directional, how much steering is possible? How do we get off the wave at our destination?
Reminds me of the age-old question: How do you get off at the right destination if you dive head first into a black hole in the hopes of finding a wormhole teleporter?

And how do you avoid getting spaghettified or turned into a seriously tenderized slab of meat if you get really close and personal with the black hole itself, or if you hitch a ride on the incredibly powerful gravitational waves generated by a really nearby black hole merger?

Ann

According to Stanislaw Lem, one product of black hole gravity waves that can be taken advantage of for interstellar journeys is time running backwards within them. With various other forms of propulsion, you achieve a relativistic velocity towards a destination near to a local black hole that you then 'ping' with a large "sidereal" gravity bomb that gets the black hole ringing back and forth between a cigar shape and a pancake shape for a second or two, creating extra-powerful gravity waves with "retrochronal toroids" within them. The ship had racked up unacceptable amounts of time dilation getting there, but entering the toroids allows it to turn back its clock, and return to Earth a few years subsequent to its departure.

by **FLPhotoCatcher** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:42 pm

Awesome detector!

I'm guessing gravity waves can not escape black holes, since supposedly nothing can. But what happens to gravity waves inside, say, a super-massive black hole that are being created by an orbiting smaller black hole? If gravity waves can not escape the large black hole, then the smaller black hole's gravity effects on the overall shape of the event horizon SHOULD DISAPPEAR INSTANTLY AFTER IT PASSES THE EVENT HORIZON. This does not seem correct. Can G waves even be created inside a black hole?

by **neufer** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:03 pm

douglas wrote:
Would any human-protective technology powerful enough to resist tides also make it impossible to use a wormhole?

: [b][color=#0000FF]Global mean surface-temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the 5-year lowess smooth. Blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence interval.[/color][/b]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves wrote:
<<King Canute set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the incoming tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.'">>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement wrote:
<<On June 1, 2017, United States President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would cease all participation with the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation. In accordance with Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date by the United States cannot be before 4 November 2020, four years after the Agreement came into effect in the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin praised the withdrawal and stated that the world should "not worry [and] be happy".>>

by **neufer** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:48 pm

csw wrote:
Does LIGO offer us evidence of the direction the waves came from? We know the merged black holes are X light years away, but do we know where they are? Just curious.

The time delay between the two operating sites isolates the source to a broad circle or arc in the sky.

When there are three or more operating sites the intersection of the three or more sky circles will give us a much more well defined direction.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:42 pm

csw wrote:Does LIGO offer us evidence of the direction the waves came from? We know the merged black holes are X light years away, but do we know where they are? Just curious.

Yes, the direction can be estimated. LIGO currently consists of two detectors, one in Washington and one in Louisiana. Together, the detectors form a gravitational wave telescope. By comparing the timing and phase relationship between coincident events at the two detectors, it is possible to constrain the source to a specific band of the sky. They play other tricks with the interferometric signal itself to further narrow the direction.

Eventually, as more detectors are added (such as the Virgo system soon coming online in Europe), the direction will be finely determined for most events.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:31 pm

douglas wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
douglas wrote:" .. LIGO's current observing run .. began November 30, 2016 .. "

That detection rate from the edge of the observable universe implies The Big Crunch is a LONG ways away.
The Big Crunch Evaporation strikes again?
Not sure what you're trying to say here. However, the three detections range from z=0.09 to z=0.2, corresponding to light travel times of 1-2.5 billion years and luminosity distances of 1-2.5 Gly. These inspirals occurred quite nearby in comparison to the edge of the observable universe (z>1100, light travel time 13.7 billion years).
If I'm reading physorg right, general relativity forbids any modification to these waves at any distance:

I'm not sure what you mean by that. GR forbids dispersion. That says nothing about gravitational waves being modified.

That said, I don't understand the connection between your earlier post and this one.

by **csw** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:18 pm

Does LIGO offer us evidence of the direction the waves came from? We know the merged black holes are X light years away, but do we know where they are? Just curious.

by **douglas** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:52 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
douglas wrote:" .. LIGO's current observing run .. began November 30, 2016 .. "

That detection rate from the edge of the observable universe implies The Big Crunch is a LONG ways away.
The Big Crunch Evaporation strikes again?
Not sure what you're trying to say here. However, the three detections range from z=0.09 to z=0.2, corresponding to light travel times of 1-2.5 billion years and luminosity distances of 1-2.5 Gly. These inspirals occurred quite nearby in comparison to the edge of the observable universe (z>1100, light travel time 13.7 billion years).

If I'm reading physorg right, general relativity forbids any modification to these waves at any distance:

" .. The study also once again puts Albert Einstein's theories to the test. For example, the researchers looked for an effect called dispersion, which occurs when light waves in a physical medium such as glass travel at different speeds depending on their wavelength; this is how a prism creates a rainbow. Einstein's general theory of relativity forbids dispersion from happening in gravitational waves as they propagate from their source to Earth. LIGO did not find evidence for this effect.

"It looks like Einstein was right—even for this new event, which is about two times farther away than our first detection," says Laura Cadonati of Georgia Tech and the Deputy Spokesperson of the LSC. "We can see no deviation from the predictions of general relativity, and this greater distance helps us to make that statement with more confidence."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-gravitati ... s.html#jCp

by **douglas** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:47 pm

Ann wrote:
Art wrote:
Light sails take maximal advantage (i.e., almost total reflection) of the free massless particles impinging on them but are extremely inefficient in making use of the energies involved. Gravitational wave sails take minimal advantage (i.e., almost total transparency) of the free massless particles impinging on them and they are equally inefficient in making use of the energies involved.
Ah! So we will have to dive head first into black holes in the hopes of finding wormholes inside, then!

Ann

Would any human-protective technology powerful enough to resist tides also make it impossible to use a wormhole?

by **neufer** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:07 pm

Ann wrote:
Art wrote:

Light sails take maximal advantage (i.e., almost total reflection) of the free massless particles impinging on them but are extremely inefficient in making use of the energies involved (i.e., momentum impulse = 2E/c). Gravitational wave sails take minimal advantage (i.e., almost total transparency) of the free massless particles impinging on them and they are equally inefficient in making use of the energies involved (i.e., momentum impulse = E/c).
Ah! So we will have to dive head first into black holes in the hopes of finding wormholes inside, then!

That's what Darwin ended up doing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forma ... n_of_Worms

(... and worms are pre-spaghettified.)

by **Ann** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:57 pm

Art wrote:
Light sails take maximal advantage (i.e., almost total reflection) of the free massless particles impinging on them but are extremely inefficient in making use of the energies involved. Gravitational wave sails take minimal advantage (i.e., almost total transparency) of the free massless particles impinging on them and they are equally inefficient in making use of the energies involved.

Ah! So we will have to dive head first into black holes in the hopes of finding wormholes inside, then!

Ann

by **neufer** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:45 pm

Case wrote:
Boomer12k wrote:
So.... can we "surf" to Alpha Centauri on one?
Math homework problem: how close does a black hole merger have to be, to create a wave strong enough that a space ship from Earth can ride it to the next star? As the wave is directional, how much steering is possible? How do we get off the wave at our destination?

The best emitter of gravitational waves is a close circularly orbiting binary pair of neutron stars or black holes.

Likewise, the best absorber of such gravitational waves is a matching identical adjacent close circular orbiting binary pair of neutron stars or black holes.

(Note, however, that a close elliptically orbiting mismatched binary pair of neutron stars or black holes can self propel itself.)

Even in such extreme cases the reaction motions are no where near relativistic.

Light sails take maximal advantage (i.e., almost total reflection) of the free massless particles impinging on them but are extremely inefficient in making use of the energies involved (i.e., momentum impulse = 2E/c). Gravitational wave sails take minimal advantage (i.e., almost total transparency) of the free massless particles impinging on them and they are equally inefficient in making use of the energies involved (i.e., momentum impulse = E/c).

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:28 pm

douglas wrote:" .. LIGO's current observing run .. began November 30, 2016 .. "

That detection rate from the edge of the observable universe implies The Big Crunch is a LONG ways away.
The Big Crunch Evaporation strikes again?

Not sure what you're trying to say here. However, the three detections range from z=0.09 to z=0.2, corresponding to light travel times of 1-2.5 billion years and luminosity distances of 1-2.5 Gly. These inspirals occurred quite nearby in comparison to the edge of the observable universe (z>1100, light travel time 13.7 billion years).

by **douglas** » Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:15 pm

" .. LIGO's current observing run .. began November 30, 2016 .. "

That detection rate from the edge of the observable universe implies The Big Crunch is a LONG ways away.
The Big Crunch Evaporation strikes again?

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)

Re: APOD: Black Holes of Known Mass (2017 Jun 02)