Gravity wave announcement live now.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: MuldersGirl

" Ladies and Gentlemen , we have detected gravitation waves !" , that's how the conference started.
The waves detected were produced by two black holes circling each other then merging over 1 billion years ago , the total power output from the collision was 50 times the power of all the stars in the universe but very brief.

They then went on to explain how LIGO is constructed and how it detects the waves , very technical and utterly brilliant.

Ok lol, 50 times the power of all the stars in the universe? Where did they get the extra energy from? Seriously, what BS. It's the physical virtual universe, it's not a Bank where they can simply add more fake numbers to a balance sheet. Did the black holes borrow the energy from the Rothschild's dark matter and now all the stars in the universe owe the Rothschilds the energy back, with interest?

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Discotech

So it not only proves the existence of gravity waves but also that the speed of light CAN be slowed,

No. It proves that gravity changes the shape of space.
Light isn't slowed, the distance it travels gets longer.

It doesn't change the shape of light as well ?

What happens to any mass in its wake?

Sounds like Inflation theory should be considered.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

it is quite possible, A supernova for example can in an instant out-shine an entire galaxy. The level of energy released is insanely high, BUT, did you know the observed photons are only about 1-5% of the total energy? most of the energy the is released is in neutrinos.

We also know of other very energetic events that occur quite frequently, which are gamma ray bursts. These too are wildly energetic and are thought to be binary neutron star combination (similar to this)

The point of what is happening here is that the combination of two black holes is an extremely energetic event, except it would appear that since no photonic energy makes it out (thanks to the crazy strong gravitational forces) The process does release a huge amount of energy, all be it in a space-time ripple.

The energy of the universe in this context is the observed energy of the universe, so basically all the stars in the sky. Again its an extremely high number but I can believe it.

Neutron stars themselves are theorized to experience huge out bursts of energy when matter falls onto them, due to disruption of the neutron star's nuclear structure. It is not a pure E=MC^2 energy conversion but it could be pretty close. Think of the energy required to move the Earth's crust in an Earth quake.. lots of energy.

Imagine that being done on the surface of a 20km wide atomic nuclei, the surface of which could be said to be the hardest known material in the universe. A surface made of pure strong nuclear force.

Pulling a single nucleon a few nanometers above the surface and dropping it off would release a colossal amount of energy. So yes... two blackholes of 30 or so Solar masses... colliding... yes i can believe the event would be insanely energetic.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Phage
Albert was right.


Again.

bollocks, only interpreted to suit gr

It's hilarious how you dismiss out of hand yet more solid evidence of a prediction made by GR because it doesn't suite your narrative.

the same thing could be explained thru time compression curves as the energy put out is essentially the zero point energy out of the time domain

a reply to: Phage

Albert was right.

This one pretty much wraps it up, I think.

a reply to: BarefootInWinter

In the only article I read so far, they discussed how these waves came from a collision of 2 black holes. They mentioned it takes a strong event like this to create these waves. So, what other events would possibly cause these waves? Are black hole collisions rare? How often will they be able to get a chance to detect more waves? Does it require particularly "massive" holes?

Excellent question. They got results almost as soon as they switched the apparatus on. Which seems to imply, at first sight, that such events are common.

But no, they are not. They are exceedingly rare.

But the Universe is very big, and once a gravitational wave is set in motion it takes billions of years, travelling at the speed of light, to spread across it. These waves barely interact with matter, so they don’t lose energy as they propagate through the cosmos. They just go on and on.

And in the fourteen billion years, give or take, that the Universe has existed, there have no doubt been plenty of events energetic enough to create detectable spacetime ripples — that is, gravitational waves.

So, although the events that create them are very rare, detectable gravitational waves should be common.

And it seems that they are.

a reply to: Nochzwei

the same thing could be explained thru time compression curves as the energy put out is essentially the zero point energy out of the time domain

Making things up is great fun, but people who really know stuff laugh at you.

a reply to: Astyanax

Oh, well, that is actually pretty cool. I can't wait to see how often they detect them. It seems like the amount we pick up could then be used to better determine both the size and age of our universe perhaps.

It makes me wonder about the edges of our universe too. If edges or barriers exist, what they were made of or how they are structured would either absorb the waves, bounce them back, or maybe allow them to pass through to the "outside."

Are the waves uniform in size no matter the power of their creating event? I mean, if the black holes were both twice as massive, would the detected wave be different? If so, I would like to see the wave associated with an event like the supposed big bang.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

it is quite possible, A supernova for example can in an instant out-shine an entire galaxy. The level of energy released is insanely high, BUT, did you know the observed photons are only about 1-5% of the total energy? most of the energy the is released is in neutrinos.

We also know of other very energetic events that occur quite frequently, which are gamma ray bursts. These too are wildly energetic and are thought to be binary neutron star combination (similar to this)

The point of what is happening here is that the combination of two black holes is an extremely energetic event, except it would appear that since no photonic energy makes it out (thanks to the crazy strong gravitational forces) The process does release a huge amount of energy, all be it in a space-time ripple.

The energy of the universe in this context is the observed energy of the universe, so basically all the stars in the sky. Again its an extremely high number but I can believe it.

Neutron stars themselves are theorized to experience huge out bursts of energy when matter falls onto them, due to disruption of the neutron star's nuclear structure. It is not a pure E=MC^2 energy conversion but it could be pretty close. Think of the energy required to move the Earth's crust in an Earth quake.. lots of energy.

Imagine that being done on the surface of a 20km wide atomic nuclei, the surface of which could be said to be the hardest known material in the universe. A surface made of pure strong nuclear force.

Pulling a single nucleon a few nanometers above the surface and dropping it off would release a colossal amount of energy. So yes... two blackholes of 30 or so Solar masses... colliding... yes i can believe the event would be insanely energetic.

They said 50 times the energy of all the stars in the universe. Nobody said just the photons, so it appears a bit of a fail. If I have a bottle (closed system cum universe) and the bottle has an energy content of say 120,000 Mjoules (which happens to be the approximate energy content of one litre of hydrogen) and 0.0000000000000000000001% of the hydrogen in the bottle suddenly produces 50 times (50 x 120,0000 Mjoules of energy) the energy of the closed system, you would be asking how that is possible.

I simply question this kind of sensationalized BS. Another point is that gravity waves are enormous and I don't believe we have the physical technology (which requires extremely large interferometers, 10 to 20 au on an axis) to measure gravity waves. Unless of course they are doing it by temporal proxy, which is unlikely.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Ok lol, 50 times the power of all the stars in the universe?

I believe what they mean is the collision event briefly produced more energy than the energy being emitted by all the stars in the universe, well the observable universe anyway. It's not a very well put statement to be honest.

a reply to: BarefootInWinter

It makes me wonder about the edges of our universe too. If edges or barriers exist, what they were made of or how they are structured would either absorb the waves, bounce them back, or maybe allow them to pass through to the "outside."

The Universe, although it is almost certainly not infinite, has no edges or boundaries. This is an apparent paradox, I know. It can be resolved mathematically but it is rather difficult to visualize.

Are the waves uniform in size no matter the power of their creating event?

This is a fantastically complicated question — but roughly speaking, their amplitude and wavelength are dependent on the amount of energy that goes into creating them.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Nochzwei

the same thing could be explained thru time compression curves as the energy put out is essentially the zero point energy out of the time domain

Making things up is great fun, but people who really know stuff laugh at you.

my theory mate and laugh all you want, but the last laugh will be mine.
besides wt stuff you know lol, lets hear it

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Your being to nice the fact of the matter is such events from a certain perspective could be related to as miniscule.

a reply to: Astyanax

The Universe, although it is almost certainly not infinite, has no edges or boundaries.

The Universe could very well be infinite, it's even very likely to be infinite imo. A curved closed space or a flat finite space are more complicated structures and therefore less likely to exist. Infinite flat space is the most elegant solution whether you want to accept it or not.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

They said 50 times the energy of all the stars in the universe. Nobody said just the photons, so it appears a bit of a fail.

You appear to have forgotten that mass is convertible to energy. To exceed the energy output of all the stars in the universe by a factor of fifty, you merely need to convert a large amount of matter into energy. Which is what happens when black holes collide.

I simply question this kind of sensationalized BS.

It is not BS, and it is not sensationalized. It is merely beyond your understanding. There are times, my friend, when one has no choice but to trust the experts.

I am astonished at the number of people on ATS who think they are cleverer than physicists. To get a job as a physicist, you have to pass through a selection process that eliminates all but the most intelligent people, and involves the acquisition of more specialized knowledge than someone who has not gone through the process can even realize. To decide that they are wrong just because you cannot understand how they can be right shows a rather — shall we say, innocent? — outlook.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Ok lol, 50 times the power of all the stars in the universe?

I believe what they mean is the collision event briefly produced more energy than the energy being emitted by all the stars in the universe, well the observable universe anyway. It's not a very well put statement to be honest.

Observations of a scientific nature should be concise and contain verifiable facts based on accurate measurements. Think they meant, means subject to subjective interpretation, that is not science. Still a fail as far as I am concerned unless someone can explain how a couple of colliding black holes can produce 50x the energy of the entire universe and don't use vacuum based paired particle production, that won't fly since there is no vacuum in a black hole. Any fabricated reason for this kind of energy borrowing (from who knows where) would violate every law of thermodynamics as well as other laws.

Cheers - Dave

I'm just impressed that Einstein "detected" through brute math and physics, over a century ago that this phenomena existed. Now its proven.
Speechless.

a reply to: Nochzwei

my theory mate and laugh all you want, but the last laugh will be mine.

I doubt that I shall live to see it.

besides wt stuff you know lol, lets hear it

Here is the difference between the likes of you and the likes of me. I am an educated person, and more than ordinarily knowledgeable; and it was physics I studied at university. However, I would be the first to admit that I know little about the specialized physics people on ATS enjoy discussing. That is why I follow what you would call the mainstream model, and why I quote recognized sources and authorities in order to back up what I say. I am, or hope I am, displaying the behaviour proper to an educated layman when approaching a big, difficult, specialized subject.

You, on the other hand, think you know it all — and that your knowledge trumps that of (what you would call) the scientific establishment. Pray tell, on what actual evidence do you base this agreeable opinion of yourself?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

They said 50 times the energy of all the stars in the universe. Nobody said just the photons, so it appears a bit of a fail.

You appear to have forgotten that mass is convertible to energy. To exceed the energy output of all the stars in the universe by a factor of fifty, you merely need to convert a large amount of matter into energy. Which is what happens when black holes collide.

I simply question this kind of sensationalized BS.

It is not BS, and it is not sensationalized. It is merely beyond your understanding. There are times, my friend, when one has no choice but to trust the experts.

I am astonished at the number of people on ATS who think they are cleverer than physicists. To get a job as a physicist, you have to pass through a selection process that eliminates all but the most intelligent people, and involves the acquisition of more specialized knowledge than someone who has not gone through the process can even realize. To decide that they are wrong because you cannot understand how they can be right is rather... shall we say, unwise?

Not at all, mass is energy, the total energy of the universe is based on the mass (latent energy), kinetic energy and radiation. You can't justify these kinds of statements of "50x the energy of all the stars in the universe." You presume to know who has phd's, patents and has worked in gravity interferometry, I suppose "channelling" is a science now?

Cheers - Dave