LIGO discovers gravitational waves

Here is a good article by Emanuele Berti explaining the history and discovery.

A lot more is about to come out in the next few weeks.

This has been one of those research projects that has attracted my attention for most of my career. I would loved to have been part of such an experiment; but its development over the years has been one of those experiments that always seemed tantalizingly within reach but kept slipping just "over the horizon" in terms of technological feasibility.

No one has yet definitively discovered a magnetic monopole ...

Well, I'm not a particle physicist, but ---- de Broglie believed in the symmetry of nature strongly enough to posit that since light waves are also particles, then all particles should also be waves. And he was right. So, in my view, following de Broglie: if there are gravitational waves then there are associated gravitons, and since the gravitational waves move at the speed of light, the gravitons must be massless. "Discovering" the graviton, I guess, is a different thing and maybe will never happen. I guess we'd have to get evidence of quantization of gravitational waves (but surely they are?? --- everything is).

I am very curious indeed to hear the creationists’ reaction to this stunning news.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/gravitational_waves.png

By assuming that a graviton with mass would modify the phase of the waves, they determined an upper bound on the particle's mass of 1.2×10^−22 eV∕c², improving the bounds from measurements in our Solar System and from observations of binary pulsars. These findings will be discussed in detail in later papers.

Maybe the black holes collided during Noah's Flood? :)

When the creationist responses start in the next few days they will show the following characteristics -

1) They will be wrong in contradictory ways. Some will deny and attack the discovery. Others will pretend to understand and support the physics but will falsely claim that gravity waves are "a problem for evolution" or "a problem for materialism" (combining the straw man claim that science has something to do with philosophical materialism with misunderstanding of and false claims about this discovery).

2) Creationists will not challenge other creationists, no matter how much they contradict each other.

If gravitational waves are actually ripples in space-time itself, would they be constrained to travel no faster than the speed of light?

If gravity turns out to be quantized,can space-time be far behind?

OTOH, I have no idea how quantized space-time could be reconciled with the observed rotational symmetry of the universe.

Happy Darwin Day!
from author "et. al. # 500 +_ 50", (There are about 1000 authors on our discovery paper.)

This is a once in a lifetime moment for us gravity wavers. Perhaps lost in the buzz is that multiple discoveries have been made.
First, the direct detection of gravitational waves. Second, the direct detection of a close binary pair of blackholes (that 'eat' each other to
become a 60 solar-mass black hole. Third, a confirmation
of Einstein's equation in the extreme "strong gravity" limit. Fourth, the confirmation of the numerical calculation of waveforms for binary
blackholes, starting from Einstein's equation.

As for gravitons, they will never be discovered this way. These waves are very classical, meaning they contain maybe 10^50 (?) or so gravitons, if they have the expected quantum values, and so their presence or absence is undetectable.

Scott F said: If gravitational waves are actually ripples in space-time itself, would they be constrained to travel no faster than the speed of light?

Warren Johnson said: Happy Darwin Day! from author "et. al. # 500 +_ 50", (There are about 1000 authors on our discovery paper.) This is a once in a lifetime moment for us gravity wavers. Perhaps lost in the buzz is that multiple discoveries have been made. First, the direct detection of gravitational waves. Second, the direct detection of a close binary pair of blackholes (that 'eat' each other to become a 60 solar-mass black hole. Third, a confirmation of Einstein's equation in the extreme "strong gravity" limit. Fourth, the confirmation of the numerical calculation of waveforms for binary blackholes, starting from Einstein's equation. As for gravitons, they will never be discovered this way. These waves are very classical, meaning they contain maybe 10^50 (?) or so gravitons, if they have the expected quantum values, and so their presence or absence is undetectable.

Warren Johnson said: Happy Darwin Day! from author "et. al. # 500 +_ 50", (There are about 1000 authors on our discovery paper.) This is a once in a lifetime moment for us gravity wavers. Perhaps lost in the buzz is that multiple discoveries have been made. First, the direct detection of gravitational waves. Second, the direct detection of a close binary pair of blackholes (that 'eat' each other to become a 60 solar-mass black hole. Third, a confirmation of Einstein's equation in the extreme "strong gravity" limit. Fourth, the confirmation of the numerical calculation of waveforms for binary blackholes, starting from Einstein's equation. As for gravitons, they will never be discovered this way. These waves are very classical, meaning they contain maybe 10^50 (?) or so gravitons, if they have the expected quantum values, and so their presence or absence is undetectable.

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said: If gravitational waves are actually ripples in space-time itself, would they be constrained to travel no faster than the speed of light?

An interesting and very good question. Let's see if this can be explained in layman's terms without any math whatsoever; a rather difficult task in my opinion. Basically it comes down to the fact that clocks are physical systems whose sequences of events must travel in a "spacetime manifold" and be compared at spatial locations in that manifold. in order to measure speed. Time and space are interlocked for us; we are embedded in that spacetime manifold and can't get out of the game. The speed of anything in the universe is determined by clocks and lengths. Clocks are physical systems that produce sequences of physical events taken as standard markers against which other phenomena are compared as temporal events. Lengths are set out in some sort of grid in space. Information about these events has to travel and be compared at specific locations within this spacetime. Anything that traverses between two points in space and compared one-to-one with events coming from a "clock" will have these measurements "conspire" (this is where the math is) to have an extreme upper limit of the speed of light. Events coming from clocks have to traverse space in order to be compared locally at each point in space with other events. Space and time are intricately intertwined. In other words, we are embedded in a spacetime in which the physical systems and lengths we use to measure speeds will behave according to special and general relativity. The speed of light is the upper limit in that spacetime. Also, in that spacetime, accelerating anything with mass up to the speed of light takes infinite energy. A simple, shorter, but more mathematical answer would be that there are a number of "four-vectors" in relativity that are invariant under Lorentz transformations from one reference frame to another. For example, (Δr)² - (cΔt)² , where (Δr)² is the square of the spatial interval between events, remains constant in all inertial reference frames. Space and time measurements are interlocked in this way. A more complete answer involves the concept of spacetime being locally Lorentzian; and that tells us the mathematical structure of spacetime in relativity and how space and time are interconnected so as to conspire to produce speed measurements having the upper speed limit being c, the speed of light for massless particles. Other spacetimes have been and are still being explored; but so far, we have Einstein's special and general relativity determining how things get "measured out."

Scott F said: The question was motivated by the notion that motion within space is limited, but that space itself (as in the Big Bang) can expand faster than the speed of light. I think you answered it, but it was more of a question of, if a gravity wave is, not a motion within space-time, but a motion of space-time, whether that effect of deforming space-time was also velocity limited.

Why should this minor physics thing be relevant to creationists? why does the author of the thread think it is? what is his prediction creationists would be dismayed by this?
I saw on a ID blog about this and its welcome. In fact they said it confirmed Einstein or something.
I don't follow physics stuff like this and don't know why its a surprise.
However it seems cool to prove the simple working order of the universe at this level.
Just like a thinking creator would do it!
Biology is more complicated and so the greater intellectual challenge anyways.
Creationists know that!

Robert Byers said: Why should this minor physics thing be relevant to creationists? why does the author of the thread think it is? what is his prediction creationists would be dismayed by this? I saw on a ID blog about this and its welcome. In fact they said it confirmed Einstein or something. I don't follow physics stuff like this and don't know why its a surprise. However it seems cool to prove the simple working order of the universe at this level. Just like a thinking creator would do it! Biology is more complicated and so the greater intellectual challenge anyways. Creationists know that!

Matt Young said: Regarding gravitons: I am not obsessed, and I certainly realized that this wave was not a single graviton. But I still wonder, given all the difficulty marrying quantum mechanics and general relativity, do we nevertheless presume that the gravitational field can in principle be quantized? Or is it possible that my friend is right, and there are no gravitons?

Robert Byers said: Why should this minor physics thing be relevant to creationists? why does the author of the thread think it is? what is his prediction creationists would be dismayed by this? I saw on a ID blog about this and its welcome. In fact they said it confirmed Einstein or something. I don't follow physics stuff like this and don't know why its a surprise. However it seems cool to prove the simple working order of the universe at this level. Just like a thinking creator would do it! Biology is more complicated and so the greater intellectual challenge anyways. Creationists know that!

Scott F said: The question was motivated by the notion that motion within space is limited, but that space itself (as in the Big Bang) can expand faster than the speed of light. I think you answered it, but it was more of a question of, if a gravity wave is, not a motion within space-time, but a motion of space-time, whether that effect of deforming space-time was also velocity limited.

I'm also envisioning the layman's notion of mass "deforming" the shape of space-time. You "experience" the acceleration of gravity because of the shape of the space-time that you pass through around the massive object. For example, if a massive object were to come into existence suddenly (an analog of dropping a rock into a pond), would you experience the gravity of that object before you saw the light from that object, or would the gravity (i.e. the deformation of the surrounding space-time) and the light "arrive" at your location at the same instant? If I understand your explanation, the light and the gravity wave (the change in the deformation of space-time) would arrive at your location at the same instant (more or less).

When the creationist responses start in the next few days they will show the following characteristics - 1) They will be wrong in contradictory ways. Some will deny and attack the discovery. Others will pretend to understand and support the physics but will falsely claim that gravity waves are “a problem for evolution” or “a problem for materialism” (combining the straw man claim that science has something to do with philosophical materialism with misunderstanding of and false claims about this discovery). 2) Creationists will not challenge other creationists, no matter how much they contradict each other.

Why should this minor physics thing be relevant to creationists? why does the author of the thread think it is? what is his prediction creationists would be dismayed by this? I saw on a ID blog about this and its welcome...

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said: If gravitational waves are actually ripples in space-time itself, would they be constrained to travel no faster than the speed of light?

An interesting and very good question. Let's see if this can be explained in layman's terms without any math whatsoever; a rather difficult task in my opinion. Basically it comes down to the fact that clocks are physical systems whose sequences of events must travel in a "spacetime manifold" and be compared at spatial locations in that manifold. in order to measure speed. Time and space are interlocked for us; we are embedded in that spacetime manifold and can't get out of the game. The speed of anything in the universe is determined by clocks and lengths. Clocks are physical systems that produce sequences of physical events taken as standard markers against which other phenomena are compared as temporal events. Lengths are set out in some sort of grid in space. Information about these events has to travel and be compared at specific locations within this spacetime. Anything that traverses between two points in space and compared one-to-one with events coming from a "clock" will have these measurements "conspire" (this is where the math is) to have an extreme upper limit of the speed of light. Events coming from clocks have to traverse space in order to be compared locally at each point in space with other events. Space and time are intricately intertwined. In other words, we are embedded in a spacetime in which the physical systems and lengths we use to measure speeds will behave according to special and general relativity. The speed of light is the upper limit in that spacetime. Also, in that spacetime, accelerating anything with mass up to the speed of light takes infinite energy. A simple, shorter, but more mathematical answer would be that there are a number of "four-vectors" in relativity that are invariant under Lorentz transformations from one reference frame to another. For example, (Δr)² - (cΔt)² , where (Δr)² is the square of the spatial interval between events, remains constant in all inertial reference frames. Space and time measurements are interlocked in this way. A more complete answer involves the concept of spacetime being locally Lorentzian; and that tells us the mathematical structure of spacetime in relativity and how space and time are interconnected so as to conspire to produce speed measurements having the upper speed limit being c, the speed of light for massless particles. Other spacetimes have been and are still being explored; but so far, we have Einstein's special and general relativity determining how things get "measured out."

harold said: My advice to anyone who wants to be a physicist is "pound math, early, often and to as advanced a level as you can get."

Robert Byers and others
The two black holes collided and produced that gravitational wave around 1.3 billion years ago.

Just seen. The thoughts of Albert Mohler (as posted at Sensuous Curmudgeon). Some might find this edifying.
https://baptistnews.com/ministry/people/item/30924-mohler-applauds-discovery-of-gravitational-waves-but-says-it-doesn-t-prove-anything

What if the gravitational waves show signs of something to add to dark matter and dark energy, another unsuspected major component of the universe?

I attended a symposium on the discovery of gravitational waves yesterday at Kenyon College. Two members of the Kenyon physics department are members of the LIGO team, Dr. Madeline Wade and Dr. Leslie Wade. My mind was boggled going into the symposium, and remains boggled.

It was fun to hear about the early reactions and read some of the team emails from that time. It was also enlightening to hear about the exhaustive analyses that allowed discarding alternative explanations for the detection, alternatives that ranged from environmental noise to the malicious faking of the signal.

ashleyhr said: Just seen. The thoughts of Albert Mohler (as posted at Sensuous Curmudgeon). Some might find this edifying. https://baptistnews.com/ministry/people/item/30924-mohler-applauds-discovery-of-gravitational-waves-but-says-it-doesn-t-prove-anything

That link you provided to Uncommonly Dense is quiet revealing of the emotional self-defensiveness of wannabe scientists who have failed miserably and want to blame the scientific community. They have retreated into a belief that they are superior because they have discovered that all scientists are wrong.

ashleyhr said: Just seen. The thoughts of Albert Mohler (as posted at Sensuous Curmudgeon). Some might find this edifying. https://baptistnews.com/ministry/people/item/30924-mohler-applauds-discovery-of-gravitational-waves-but-says-it-doesn-t-prove-anything

“When we look at what was announced yesterday, we come to it with the full affirmation of all that is revealed in Scripture and of everything Scripture tells us about creation. And we come to understand that a world that is corrupted and affected by sin will actually give us — even through the scientific method — false data that can lead people to false conclusions. “And we also understand that we are fallen, fragile, fallible thinkers and so as we look at this, if we’re operating from a basically secular worldview, if we believe the universe is going to have to tell us the story all on its own, then there’s no way we’re going to come up with the right story.”

Those who claim that they are compelled to follow the Divine word of Scripture no matter what the evidence says are rarely consistent.

The Bible clearly says that the Sun makes a daily trip around a fixed Earth. That was accepted for something like 2000 years by everyone. So one cannot claim that the geocentric passages of the Bible are clearly intended to be understood metaphorically. Something is not clear if no one noticed it for a couple of thousand years.

Therefore, someone who claims that the evidence has no worth contrary to the plain meaning of the Bible has no business in accepting heliocentrism.

But it's worse than that. I would like to hear what compelling evidence that heliocentric creationists have for their belief in heliocentrism. In particular, what evidence they have that over-rides the Bible in compelling acceptance of the annual revolution of the Earth about the Sun.

And on the other hand, what clear Scirptural proof-text for the fixity of species (or "kinds").

“When we look at what was announced yesterday, we come to it with the full affirmation of all that is revealed in Scripture and of everything Scripture tells us about creation. And we come to understand that a world that is corrupted and affected by sin will actually give us — even through the scientific method — false data that can lead people to false conclusions. “And we also understand that we are fallen, fragile, fallible thinkers and so as we look at this, if we’re operating from a basically secular worldview, if we believe the universe is going to have to tell us the story all on its own, then there’s no way we’re going to come up with the right story.”

Just Bob said:

“When we look at what was announced yesterday, we come to it with the full affirmation of all that is revealed in Scripture and of everything Scripture tells us about creation. And we come to understand that a world that is corrupted and affected by sin will actually give us — even through the scientific method — false data that can lead people to false conclusions. “And we also understand that we are fallen, fragile, fallible thinkers and so as we look at this, if we’re operating from a basically secular worldview, if we believe the universe is going to have to tell us the story all on its own, then there’s no way we’re going to come up with the right story.”

Seems to me like he's saying that we do, in fact, live in the Matrix.

Ladies and Gents! - Ken Ham, in his Feb. 14th blog entitled "The Creation Model Makes Successful Predictions" does not explicitly reference gravity waves. But I believe any thinking, rational person who is familiar with the man, his background, and the issues involved, can read between the lines - Ken Ham wants you to think "The Creation Model" predicts gravity waves. And now that they have been "discovered", they become a successful prediction of "The Creation Model".

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is backwards - taking a new discovery, then claiming your "Model" is validated because it has long predicted that result. It's backwards, and it's wrong.

And it's not the only thing Ken Ham has backwards.

prongs said: Ladies and Gents! - Ken Ham, in his Feb. 14th blog entitled "The Creation Model Makes Successful Predictions" does not explicitly reference gravity waves. But I believe any thinking, rational person who is familiar with the man, his background, and the issues involved, can read between the lines - Ken Ham wants you to think "The Creation Model" predicts gravity waves. And now that they have been "discovered", they become a successful prediction of "The Creation Model". See vaticinium ex eventu in Wikipedia. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is backwards - taking a new discovery, then claiming your "Model" is validated because it has long predicted that result. It's backwards, and it's wrong. And it's not the only thing Ken Ham has backwards.

Robert Byers said: Why should this minor physics thing be relevant to creationists? why does the author of the thread think it is? what is his prediction creationists would be dismayed by this? I saw on a ID blog about this and its welcome. In fact they said it confirmed Einstein or something. I don't follow physics stuff like this and don't know why its a surprise. However it seems cool to prove the simple working order of the universe at this level. Just like a thinking creator would do it! Biology is more complicated and so the greater intellectual challenge anyways. Creationists know that!

Childermass said:

Robert Byers said: Why should this minor physics thing be relevant to creationists? why does the author of the thread think it is? what is his prediction creationists would be dismayed by this? I saw on a ID blog about this and its welcome. In fact they said it confirmed Einstein or something. I don't follow physics stuff like this and don't know why its a surprise. However it seems cool to prove the simple working order of the universe at this level. Just like a thinking creator would do it! Biology is more complicated and so the greater intellectual challenge anyways. Creationists know that!

It really depends on whether they are old-earth creationists or YECs. Creationists who accept the actual age of the universe will more than likely accept the finding. Any YEC who even remotely understands the finding must reject or admit the errors of their ways. Of course a lot of YECs won't understand enough to realize that this refutes their dogma. But then again, there are so many physics reason that refute a young universe that one more won't make that much difference.

harold said: When the creationist responses start in the next few days they will show the following characteristics - 1) They will be wrong in contradictory ways. Some will deny and attack the discovery. Others will pretend to understand and support the physics but will falsely claim that gravity waves are "a problem for evolution" or "a problem for materialism" (combining the straw man claim that science has something to do with philosophical materialism with misunderstanding of and false claims about this discovery). 2) Creationists will not challenge other creationists, no matter how much they contradict each other.

prongs said: Ladies and Gents! - Ken Ham, in his Feb. 14th blog entitled "The Creation Model Makes Successful Predictions" does not explicitly reference gravity waves. But I believe any thinking, rational person who is familiar with the man, his background, and the issues involved, can read between the lines - Ken Ham wants you to think "The Creation Model" predicts gravity waves. And now that they have been "discovered", they become a successful prediction of "The Creation Model". Ladies and Gentlemen, that is backwards - taking a new discovery, then claiming your "Model" is validated because it has long predicted that result. It's backwards, and it's wrong. And it's not the only thing Ken Ham has backwards.

The reason for this is that we start with the right answer. And if you start with the assumption that animal kinds, or people, or plants, or you name it, fungi, started 6,000 years ago and didn’t evolve over millions of years, you get the right answer.

Just Bob said:

“When we look at what was announced yesterday, we come to it with the full affirmation of all that is revealed in Scripture and of everything Scripture tells us about creation. And we come to understand that a world that is corrupted and affected by sin will actually give us — even through the scientific method — false data that can lead people to false conclusions. “And we also understand that we are fallen, fragile, fallible thinkers and so as we look at this, if we’re operating from a basically secular worldview, if we believe the universe is going to have to tell us the story all on its own, then there’s no way we’re going to come up with the right story.”

Seems to me like he's saying that we do, in fact, live in the Matrix.

Scott F said: I read that as saying, the world itself has been distorted by sin, and that the actual data is false; that reality is a lie. ... Here, he is claiming that the very data itself cannot be trusted; that you cannot trust measurement of the actual world that we live in, because those measurements will be false no matter who makes them. He is explicitly ...claiming that it is simply impossible to make "true" measurements in a fallen world.

I don't see why this will trouble creationists. They already manage to go on and on and on about fine tuning, while simultaneously dialing basic physical properties like decay rates and the speed of light up and down as ad hockery demands. If all else fails, they'll slide it neatly into their Last Thursdayism folder along with starlight.

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Just Bob said:

Scott F said: I read that as saying, the world itself has been distorted by sin, and that the actual data is false; that reality is a lie. ... Here, he is claiming that the very data itself cannot be trusted; that you cannot trust measurement of the actual world that we live in, because those measurements will be false no matter who makes them. He is explicitly ...claiming that it is simply impossible to make "true" measurements in a fallen world.

Right. That's the Matrix. (But do NOT watch any of the movies except the first one. Ever.)

Ken Phelps said: I don't see why this will trouble creationists. They already manage to go on and on and on about fine tuning, while simultaneously dialing basic physical properties like decay rates and the speed of light up and down as ad hockery demands. If all else fails, they'll slide it neatly into their Last Thursdayism folder along with starlight.

Just Bob said:

Scott F said: I read that as saying, the world itself has been distorted by sin, and that the actual data is false; that reality is a lie. ... Here, he is claiming that the very data itself cannot be trusted; that you cannot trust measurement of the actual world that we live in, because those measurements will be false no matter who makes them. He is explicitly ...claiming that it is simply impossible to make "true" measurements in a fallen world.

Right. That's the Matrix.

Owlmirror said:

Just Bob said:

Scott F said: I read that as saying, the world itself has been distorted by sin, and that the actual data is false; that reality is a lie. ... Here, he is claiming that the very data itself cannot be trusted; that you cannot trust measurement of the actual world that we live in, because those measurements will be false no matter who makes them. He is explicitly ...claiming that it is simply impossible to make "true" measurements in a fallen world.

Right. That's the Matrix.

Not exactly. The Matrix is a completely mechanistic simulation; one's senses are all being deceived, but escape is possible via red pills that allow awakening and detachment of the sensory feeds. Mohler's worldview description is more vague about how the lies of reality are being perpetrated, but a plausible inference is that it is not our senses that are the problem, but that which our senses are perceiving. It is presumably impossible to escape. You can only reject belief in the "lies". There are disturbing theological implications when one tries to examine the idea too closely, which is probably why he's being so vague. PS: Omphlaos, by Philip Gosse, pre-dates the Matrix by about as much time as Darwin's Origin of Species.

Though truth be known, I suspect most young-earth organizations will try to ignore gravity waves or give only a token response as it probably not good for business to make the public aware of any problems with Albert Einstein.

We are lucky enough to live in a place and time so advanced that the sudden death of an active and prosperous man at the age of 79 is a surprise. Yet we should reflect that mortality is still a strong feature of human existence.

Justice Scalia lived a long and, from the perspective of his own aspirations, highly successful and probably enjoyable life, and early indications suggest that he died without much suffering, probably in his sleep. At the personal level he seems to have lived within the bounds of what I would call being, or meaning to be, a good man. At the social level the harm he did was mild to moderate by twentieth century standards, tempered by the fairly strong democratic republic structure of the United States (which persistently creates extreme injustices but also persistently tends to correct them), and can probably be reversed quite handily now that he is gone. Thus, unless information to contradict this arises, I see no reason to engage in hypocritical hand-wringing. By global history standards he was one of the luckiest men who ever lived. His departure from public life, and yes we might say that we wish he had retired instead, but at any rate, his departure from public life, is overall a good thing.

In terms of the threat of creationist science denial in taxpayer funded schools, it is a major blow to creationists. Justice Scalia literally wrote the dissent in Edwards. The very best that creationists can hope is that he might be replaced by someone equally supportive of creationism, and odds are that even a President Trump, should history be that unlucky, would prioritize other considerations. The strongest judicial supporter of sectarian science denial as science in public schools, at taxpayer expense, is gone.

Is Judge Jones eligible?

TomS said:

Owlmirror said: PS: Omphlaos, by Philip Gosse, pre-dates the Matrix by about as much time as Darwin's Origin of Species.

The Wikipedia article on "Omphalos hypothesis" cites earlier writers who had the idea, back to the 4th century CE.

k.e.. said: Is Judge Jones eligible?

Re Scott F.'s question:

A massive object cannot just appear suddenly (no more than a single charge can just appear in electrodynamics). The energy-momentum tensor (the source of the gravitational field) is covariantly conserved. I'm not a gravitation specialist, but I remember that the emission of gravitational waves is suppressed because you need a changing quadrupol moment of the mass distribution.

Creation Ministries International (CMI) has apparently just recently pulled their webpage "Detection of Gravity Waves and Young-Earth-Creationism", http://creation.com/detection-of-gravitational-waves-and-young-earth-creation. I wonder why?

All I can see in their reference is: "How do creationists respond to the discovery of gravitational waves?"

I didn't get to see the webpage before it was deleted. Anyone make a copy?

harold said: We are lucky enough to live in a place and time so advanced that the sudden death of an active and prosperous man at the age of 79 is a surprise.

Hans-Richard Gr�mm said: Re Scott F.'s question: A massive object cannot just appear suddenly (no more than a single charge can just appear in electrodynamics). The energy-momentum tensor (the source of the gravitational field) is covariantly conserved. I'm not a gravitation specialist, but I remember that the emission of gravitational waves is suppressed because you need a changing quadrupol moment of the mass distribution.

Owlmirror said:

Just Bob said:

Scott F said: I read that as saying, the world itself has been distorted by sin, and that the actual data is false; that reality is a lie. ... Here, he is claiming that the very data itself cannot be trusted; that you cannot trust measurement of the actual world that we live in, because those measurements will be false no matter who makes them. He is explicitly ...claiming that it is simply impossible to make "true" measurements in a fallen world.

Right. That's the Matrix.

Not exactly. The Matrix is a completely mechanistic simulation; one's senses are all being deceived, but escape is possible via red pills that allow awakening and detachment of the sensory feeds. Mohler's worldview description is more vague about how the lies of reality are being perpetrated, but a plausible inference is that it is not our senses that are the problem, but that which our senses are perceiving. It is presumably impossible to escape. You can only reject belief in the "lies". There are disturbing theological implications when one tries to examine the idea too closely, which is probably why he's being so vague. PS: Omphlaos, by Philip Gosse, pre-dates the Matrix by about as much time as Darwin's Origin of Species.

Your better restaurants will often still make their own mayonaise.

Glen Davidson

Well, mayonnaise, anyhow.

Scott F said: Oh, agreed. The "sudden appearance" of a massive object is just the thought experiment analogy of dropping a stone into a pond, in order to see the ripples. As I've been reading, I discovered that the equivalent would be the sudden acceleration of a massive object, which is (in fact) the very thing that was detected in the case of the spiraling black holes, bringing the question full circle (so to speak).

Next question. Presumably the system of a pair of black holes orbiting each other at a sub-second rate would contain one heck of a lot of angular momentum, which must also be conserved. I presume that this is how one creates a spinning black hole? How could one potentially detect if a black hole was spinning or not? I presume that a spinning black hole would have a different effect on the local environment than one that was not spinning (or spinning less).

I haven't seen any dissent from the report. Is this an iron-clad result? I'd like for it to be true, but that is a sign for me to be cautious about it. (Not that I have anything to contribute.)

CMI has their page back up. What impact does the detection of gravitational waves have on biblical creation?

In it, John Harnett says, " ... a prediction I made in 2006 was wrong." And, "... where I reasoned that gravitational waves did not travel as waves through vacuum, though gravitational energy from the binary PSR B1913+16 was indeed lost to space as heat. But, alas, I now admit I was wrong." Good to know, he's acting like a real scientist would act, here.

Strangely, he concludes the detection of these waves confirms the constancy of the speed of light through cosmological time (when there already exists abundant evidence for this before gravity waves) - "Thus the cdk idea is thoroughly rejected."

Good to hear him admit that, but I feel certain a host of creationists would like to argue with him about it.

But in true form, he affirms that gravity waves in no way provide support to the Big Bang Model of conventional science.

He supports a 5-dimensional cosmology: "To date I have not found the required space-time-velocity theory, with an extra time-like dimension, that fits the Creation period, though I am continuing to search."

Let's see if Jason Lisle of ICR will take a stand on gravity waves next.

harold said:

Though truth be known, I suspect most young-earth organizations will try to ignore gravity waves or give only a token response as it probably not good for business to make the public aware of any problems with Albert Einstein.

Once again we see that rational PT commenters, sometimes including me, have a strong tendency to overestimate creationists and give them too much credit. Sure you might think that if YEC they would at least diplomatically keep their mouths shut, and also that if not overt YEC they might accept the discovery. But the sample examined so far (UD and Ken Ham's response) already shows that they are responding as I predicted - either falsely claiming that the discovery validates them (including extreme YEC Ken Ham) or attacking the discovery as false and a conspiracy. And some of the ones who are attacking it probably are not overt YEC. Their decisions to ignore, attack, or attempt to appropriate are solely based on the prominence of an announcement - that is, the feature they value is attention (a feature strongly correlated with monetization, of course). They ignore the most important basic elements of science - but only because no-one is announcing them in a press conference. Here the announcement was public and prominent, so they must react.

TomS said: I haven't seen any dissent from the report. Is this an iron-clad result? I'd like for it to be true, but that is a sign for me to be cautious about it. (Not that I have anything to contribute.)

Childermass said: Still this will be testable when enough detectors are up to allow good determination of the location in the sky of the signal. When this happens they will start pointing telescopes of all types at that location.

Just Bob said:

Childermass said: Still this will be testable when enough detectors are up to allow good determination of the location in the sky of the signal. When this happens they will start pointing telescopes of all types at that location.

Is there likely to be a detectable visual signal from such an event in a galaxy that far away?

Childermass said: Another thing: the YEC movement really does have a long history with the denial of both relativity and quantum mechanics that they don't exactly like bringing up now. The Institute for Creation Research published a book in 1983 on how Einstein and quantum mechanics were all bunk. It was called Physics of the Future: A Classical Unification of Physics and was written by Thomas G. Barnes. And he had a very long string of articles on his crank physics and chemistry published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. This included crank models of atoms. There are still YECs who don't care if they get laughed at for hating Einstein but they don't tend to be in the big YEC organizations, for example Andrew Schlafly and his Conservapedia. If Ken Ham started to take a very public anti-Einstein position, it would cost him and AiG money and followers. And yet if one is really serious about being a YEC who into "science", one really needs to be against pretty much all modern physics.

prongs said: Their constituents don't understand physics, but they do understand bible stories written for children.

Warren Johnson said:

Robert Byers said: Why should this minor physics thing be relevant to creationists? why does the author of the thread think it is? what is his prediction creationists would be dismayed by this? I saw on a ID blog about this and its welcome. In fact they said it confirmed Einstein or something. I don't follow physics stuff like this and don't know why its a surprise. However it seems cool to prove the simple working order of the universe at this level. Just like a thinking creator would do it! Biology is more complicated and so the greater intellectual challenge anyways. Creationists know that!

Astronomers, physicists, chemists, and geologists all agree that biologists know what they are doing. We all respect the biologist's superior knowledge of life, and accept their consensus: modern evolution theory is correct. We all honor Darwin as a great scientist, one of the few from so long ago that is still a pleasure to read. The anti-Darwinists are a very tiny minority, mostly not actual scientists. As Mike Elzinga suggested above, we all agree that the "creation science" of Answers in Genesis is really science fiction contradicted by accepted science at every turn. For example, astronomers agree that the universe is MUCH older than the 6000 years that Ken Ham allows. We know it to be about 14 billion years old. And we know that the earth is about 4 billion years old.

Scott F said:

harold said: We are lucky enough to live in a place and time so advanced that the sudden death of an active and prosperous man at the age of 79 is a surprise.

I look at the deer, birds, and other wild critters around our neighborhood, huddling out of the rain and the cold, struggling daily for food, and I also look at many of the humans in the world doing the same. I can flip a switch if I'm too cold or too hot, and I can open a door or two and have a hot or cold meal in seconds. I can google, and have all of the world's knowledge (if not its wisdom) literally at my finger tips. Even just a hundred years ago, this was a fantasy. I had never watched it before, but I happened to catch an episode of Downton Abbey the other day. What struck me was when the head cook shooed off one of the talkative young scullery maids, because the cook had to make the mayonnaise for that evening's meal. Crap! She had to literally make the mayonnaise! I just have to reach into my refrigerator to open a jar that I purchased for the equivalent of 4 minutes of work, and instant sandwich. I am constantly reminded that, for all it's complications, civilization (and in particular, the Enlightenment and all it has provided) is a really, really nice thing to have. Why do people continue to willingly reject Science? To reject reality? It is simply baffling.

prongs said: Almost all modern-day YECs have drawn their line in the sand at the Big Bang Model - they hate it. Now this is really quite strange, seeing as how Georges Lemaitre is considered by many the father of the Big Bang Model - he called it The Cosmic Egg - and he was a Catholic Priest. So far as I can tell he did not mix his religion with his physics, and didn't claim God created the Big Bang, but clearly, one would think, this notion would appeal to every Christian. The fact that YECs oppose it with such vehemence leads me to believe they are not thinking logically (scientifically), nor religiously (they should love the Big Bang), but rather politically ("the opposition is wrong, at all cost"). It gets them more donations, I suppose. Their constituents don't understand physics, but they do understand bible stories written for children. So the YEC leaders preach against those know-it-all scientists and their incomprehensible theories (too complicated to be in the Bible). And the sheep are comforted.

Childermass said: These binaries are often going to be the result of a merger of two large galaxies though I am not sure how obvious that will be after enough time passes to allow the merger.

Another thing: the YEC movement really does have a long history with the denial of both relativity and quantum mechanics that they don’t exactly like bringing up now. The Institute for Creation Research published a book in 1983 on how Einstein and quantum mechanics were all bunk. It was called Physics of the Future: A Classical Unification of Physics and was written by Thomas G. Barnes.

Scott F said:

Childermass said: These binaries are often going to be the result of a merger of two large galaxies though I am not sure how obvious that will be after enough time passes to allow the merger.

Are you sure about that? IIRC, the estimated mass of the two black holes was each well under 100 solar masses. That's the size of "simple" stellar black holes, not galactic black holes. Isn't it?

harold said: Childermass said -

Another thing: the YEC movement really does have a long history with the denial of both relativity and quantum mechanics that they don’t exactly like bringing up now. The Institute for Creation Research published a book in 1983 on how Einstein and quantum mechanics were all bunk. It was called Physics of the Future: A Classical Unification of Physics and was written by Thomas G. Barnes.

The key word here is "1983". Up until they lost Edwards v. Aguillard, Creation Science was hard core Jack Chick style overt YEC, focused as much on attacking physics as anything else. They found that they ran into trouble in court due to the fact that no non-religious rationale for assigning a young age to the universe could be demonstrated. Self-aware people concerned only with spiritual issues would have just stopped there and said either "maybe those scientists are right and the Bible has metaphorical parts" or "we believe it despite the science". However, creation science was a political and legal construct, so instead of doing that, they decided to try another strategy to get disproven sectarian science denial into taxpayer funded public school science class. One very damning aspect of ID is the total support it receives from YEC. If it actually were "mainstream science with doubts about evolution" YEC individuals would be expected to oppose it. Yet they cheerlead for it. Since Edwards they have been downplaying the physics denial and focusing on biological evolution denial, with, of course, physics denial still playing a supporting, quieter role. That's a legal/political decision they made. Because the social/legal/political goal of getting sectarian science denial into public schools is their priority.. That's where creation science came from. ID is just an attempt at a "court proof" version of creation science. They've always been able to teach anything they want privately - both creation science and ID are as political as they are religious.

Childermass said: Also I don't think you comprehend the nature of the Barnes book. Evolution is not mentioned. The Bible is not mentioned. No God talk of any kind. Heck, the Big Bang shows up only twice in the index. If the author was not a known creationist, ICR not the publisher, and CRSQ not cited quite a few times then one would not even know it was a creationist book. It is basically a hard-care (crank) physics book. Ignoring that it would be too advanced for high school, I doubt one could make a constitutional case against it. Indeed one could easily imagine a non-creationist crank physics person writing a very similar book.

Am I correct in understanding that the changes which are measured in the devices are not the "length" but rather the speed or acceleration or something else related to the change of length? It seems rather implausible that one can measure to a small fraction of the dIameter of proton.

Childermass said:

harold said: Childermass said -

Another thing: the YEC movement really does have a long history with the denial of both relativity and quantum mechanics that they don’t exactly like bringing up now. The Institute for Creation Research published a book in 1983 on how Einstein and quantum mechanics were all bunk. It was called Physics of the Future: A Classical Unification of Physics and was written by Thomas G. Barnes.

The key word here is "1983". Up until they lost Edwards v. Aguillard, Creation Science was hard core Jack Chick style overt YEC, focused as much on attacking physics as anything else. They found that they ran into trouble in court due to the fact that no non-religious rationale for assigning a young age to the universe could be demonstrated. Self-aware people concerned only with spiritual issues would have just stopped there and said either "maybe those scientists are right and the Bible has metaphorical parts" or "we believe it despite the science". However, creation science was a political and legal construct, so instead of doing that, they decided to try another strategy to get disproven sectarian science denial into taxpayer funded public school science class. One very damning aspect of ID is the total support it receives from YEC. If it actually were "mainstream science with doubts about evolution" YEC individuals would be expected to oppose it. Yet they cheerlead for it. Since Edwards they have been downplaying the physics denial and focusing on biological evolution denial, with, of course, physics denial still playing a supporting, quieter role. That's a legal/political decision they made. Because the social/legal/political goal of getting sectarian science denial into public schools is their priority.. That's where creation science came from. ID is just an attempt at a "court proof" version of creation science. They've always been able to teach anything they want privately - both creation science and ID are as political as they are religious.

Creations' goal being to be able to weasel into public school is not something I need to be told. I would say they are more religious than political. Politics is the mere tool to try to get religion in. But there is more here than just Edwards. It is also the Internet. If creationists put up anti-Einstein crap up these days it will get held up as a laughing stock in a way it was not the case in 1983. Also I don't think you comprehend the nature of the Barnes book. Evolution is not mentioned. The Bible is not mentioned. No God talk of any kind. Heck, the Big Bang shows up only twice in the index. If the author was not a known creationist, ICR not the publisher, and CRSQ not cited quite a few times then one would not even know it was a creationist book. It is basically a hard-care (crank) physics book. Ignoring that it would be too advanced for high school, I doubt one could make a constitutional case against it. Indeed one could easily imagine a non-creationist crank physics person writing a very similar book.

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

Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22

design_proponents.22

Just Bob said:

Childermass said: Still this will be testable when enough detectors are up to allow good determination of the location in the sky of the signal. When this happens they will start pointing telescopes of all types at that location.

Is there likely to be a detectable visual signal from such an event in a galaxy that far away?

TomS said: Am I correct in understanding that the changes which are measured in the devices are not the "length" but rather the speed or acceleration or something else related to the change of length? It seems rather implausible that one can measure to a small fraction of the dIameter of proton.

There is a typo in the link above -- to read the Wikipedia article "Of Pandas and People," just go here.

harold said: 1) I STRONGLY defend the point that creationist public efforts were much less concentrated solely on evolution prior to Edwards. The association of the Barnes book with ICR supports my point. The fact that it may merely be "a crackpot book that coincidentally mimics creationism and is approved of by creationists" does not indicate any lack of understanding of anything on my part.

Other pushers of this argument include Walter T. Brown, who had a PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT

Matt Young said: There is a typo in the link above -- to read the Wikipedia article "Of Pandas and People," just go here.

What about Lee Spetner who has PhD in Physics from MIT (1950). He seems to be pushing the probability argument too and the hyper-evolution of AiG.

Michael Fugate said: What about Lee Spetner who has PhD in Physics from MIT (1950). He seems to be pushing the probability argument too and the hyper-evolution of AiG.

Contrary to what a few creationists seem to think, black holes were not made up to salvage evolutionary ideas. God probably made neutron stars and black holes on Day Four, along with the other astronomical bodies. This first direct confirmation of gravitational waves is just another example of how far out and cool God’s creation can be.

Mike Elzinga said: Here is what Danny Faulkner says over at AiG.

Contrary to what a few creationists seem to think, black holes were not made up to salvage evolutionary ideas. God probably made neutron stars and black holes on Day Four, along with the other astronomical bodies. This first direct confirmation of gravitational waves is just another example of how far out and cool God’s creation can be.

I don't think Danny understands the larger implications of the discovery. He still thinks that having creationists propose several solutions to the distant starlight problem (note how he worded that) is sufficient to explain why the universe is young.

Then there's the decreasing distance between us and the Andromeda galaxy... (i.e., just wait for it to get here!)

Steve C said: For less exotic sources of gravitational waves, such as a pair of neutron stars merging to form a black hole, an accompanying electromagnetic signal is quite probable. LIGO is set up to quickly notify optical astronomers when something is seen, and there's a lot of interest in "multimessenger" astronomy.

Steve C said:

TomS said: Am I correct in understanding that the changes which are measured in the devices are not the "length" but rather the speed or acceleration or something else related to the change of length? It seems rather implausible that one can measure to a small fraction of the dIameter of proton.

It is a measurement of length (really change of length), just a very clever one, using interference of light. LIGO is an interferometer, designed so that when two beams of light are combined at a detector, they are precisely out of phase. As a result, they exactly cancel (the crests of one wave line up with the troughs of the other.) If one of the beams is shifted even a fraction of a wavelength, the cancellation is no longer exact, and the detector picks up a signal. There's enough power in the system that even a very small shift away from exact cancellation gives a visible signal. (When it reaches design sensitivity, the instrument should be able to see shifts of a part in 10^{23}.)

Scott F said:

Steve C said:

TomS said: Am I correct in understanding that the changes which are measured in the devices are not the "length" but rather the speed or acceleration or something else related to the change of length? It seems rather implausible that one can measure to a small fraction of the dIameter of proton.

It is a measurement of length (really change of length), just a very clever one, using interference of light. LIGO is an interferometer, designed so that when two beams of light are combined at a detector, they are precisely out of phase. As a result, they exactly cancel (the crests of one wave line up with the troughs of the other.) If one of the beams is shifted even a fraction of a wavelength, the cancellation is no longer exact, and the detector picks up a signal. There's enough power in the system that even a very small shift away from exact cancellation gives a visible signal. (When it reaches design sensitivity, the instrument should be able to see shifts of a part in 10^{23}.)

I was curious about that. Wouldn't the "yard stick" or measuring device (in this case, a beam of light) also be effected by the distortion of space-time? Just as I asked the question, the answer became obvious. Yes! In fact, what is being measured is not a "change in length", but in a difference in change in length. That's why you need the perpendicular beams of light. The gravity wave doesn't change the dimensions of space time uniformly. It changes the "size" of space time in one direction only, perpendicular to the wave front. As the wave front passes, objects in one direction change in length, but objects perpendicular to that do not. I suppose it might be possible that if the wave front came in parallel to the plane defined by the two perpendicular beams of light, that the detector wouldn't see them. Or, perhaps if it was in the same plane, but the direction of propagation was at 45 degrees to the right angle of the detector, that the legs might be deflected identical amounts. In either case, it seems to suggest that the detector would have varying sensitivity to the direction of the wave front. Of course, this is just uninformed guess work.

Scott F said: I suppose it might be possible that if the wave front came in parallel to the plane defined by the two perpendicular beams of light, that the detector wouldn't see them. Or, perhaps if it was in the same plane, but the direction of propagation was at 45 degrees to the right angle of the detector, that the legs might be deflected identical amounts. In either case, it seems to suggest that the detector would have varying sensitivity to the direction of the wave front. Of course, this is just uninformed guess work.

W. H. Heydt said: As I understand it (my 5 quarters of lower division Physics were nearly 50 years ago), LIGO is basically a super-sensitive version of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Optical Coherence Tomography is one of many examples of where the Michelson interferometer is used.

Scott F said:

Steve C said:

TomS said: Am I correct in understanding that the changes which are measured in the devices are not the "length" but rather the speed or acceleration or something else related to the change of length? It seems rather implausible that one can measure to a small fraction of the dIameter of proton.

It is a measurement of length (really change of length), just a very clever one, using interference of light. LIGO is an interferometer, designed so that when two beams of light are combined at a detector, they are precisely out of phase. As a result, they exactly cancel (the crests of one wave line up with the troughs of the other.) If one of the beams is shifted even a fraction of a wavelength, the cancellation is no longer exact, and the detector picks up a signal. There's enough power in the system that even a very small shift away from exact cancellation gives a visible signal. (When it reaches design sensitivity, the instrument should be able to see shifts of a part in 10^{23}.)

I was curious about that. Wouldn't the "yard stick" or measuring device (in this case, a beam of light) also be effected by the distortion of space-time? Just as I asked the question, the answer became obvious. Yes!

In fact, what is being measured is not a "change in length", but in a difference in change in length. That's why you need the perpendicular beams of light. The gravity wave doesn't change the dimensions of space time uniformly. It changes the "size" of space time in one direction only, perpendicular to the wave front. As the wave front passes, objects in one direction change in length, but objects perpendicular to that do not.

I suppose it might be possible that if the wave front came in parallel to the plane defined by the two perpendicular beams of light, that the detector wouldn't see them. Or, perhaps if it was in the same plane, but the direction of propagation was at 45 degrees to the right angle of the detector, that the legs might be deflected identical amounts. In either case, it seems to suggest that the detector would have varying sensitivity to the direction of the wave front.

Many years ago, I remember an on-line debate between Tom van Flandern (now deceased, who was a genuine astronomer that got a little crazy in his later years) and Steve Carlip. Tom insisted that the Earth in its orbit around the Sun, was held in place by the force of gravitational attraction pointing to the true position of the Sun and not the optical image of the Sun. He concluded that the speed of gravity must therefore be infinite, or nearly so. No amount of explanation about static fields and reference frames could convince old Tom - he could not be persuaded that static fields don't propagate at infinite speed.

Steve Carlip taught everyone about quadrapole fields (like gravity) and why we might expect them to propagate at the speed of light, rather than some other speed. He explained that gravity doesn't propagate at the speed of light, but more precisely, changes in gravity propagate at the speed of light.

Someone asked Steve what would happen to the Earth if the Sun suddenly winked out of existence. First, Steve explained that the Sun can't suddenly wink out of existence. Such things don't happen in our Universe. But, if it did, then that change in gravity should propagate toward the Earth at the speed of light. The Earth would remain in its orbit for about 8 minutes before heading into Outer Space on a tangent trajectory.

That's the story I remember, and I'm sticking to it.

Many thanks to Steve Carlip.

There is another concept that gets mentioned only occasionally; and that is the case where a sufficiently massive star with planets collapses into a black hole.

If there were simply a collapse without a giant burst of energy as a result of the "swallowing" of another object that tipped it over the threshold, the orbiting planets would not experience any change. The same mass that was the star is simply concentrated into a smaller radius.

However, collapsing into a black hole is usually a bit more complicated because before the collapse there is some process , e.g., nuclear fusion, that is producing an outward flow of energy that keeps material of the star from collapsing inward.

After the "nuclear fuel" runs out, fusion stops and collapsing begins with the result that a huge shockwave of rebounding material flows outward producing shockwave-fused elements that are heavier than the material that was fused within the star. Any orbiting planets would be destroyed and the gravitational field at the locations of the planets would be less because of the loss of material that gets blown off during the collapse. The remainder of the collapsing star, whether it goes to a neutron star or a black hole, will be less than that of the original star.

Isaac Newton was the first to calculate that the gravitational field of a spherical object could be taken as a point mass at the center of the object.

And while we are on this subject, you may have noticed that the two black holes that spiraled into each other had a total mass that was larger than the final black hole. This is the general rule in condensing matter; merging and bonding particles have less mass after they bind than before. This is what totally inelastic collisions are all about; and we can't have condensing matter unless energy is spread around into the surrounding medium or space. In the case of merging black holes, most of that energy (mass) goes off in the form of gravitational waves.

This notion of the spreading around of energy is what ID/creationists never get. They think the second law of thermodynamics means that things come all apart and that entropy is disorder. All of ID/creationism's calculations of the "improbability" of the formation of complex molecules are based on a profound ignorance of what a totally inelastic collision means.

Physics students in high school learn about elastic and inelastic collisions; and this is usually a point in the course in which the instructor or textbook gives a little "look-ahead" into the broader meanings of these concepts. In chemistry, high school students learn about endothermic and exothermic reactions and the conditions under which such reactions occur. Most students of chemistry have done the electrolysis of water and then get to ignite the gasses they collect. This is where they get introduced to the fact that it takes an input of energy to take compounds apart and energy comes out when compounds are formed.

Watching molten metal solidify, and feeling the heat coming off, is a dramatic demonstration of energy being spread around in order for atoms to bond into a solid.

Kids in middle school learn about the phases of matter; solid, liquid, gas, plasma.

As I look back on what is taught in the basic sciences in middle school and high school, I still find it amazing that students coming from sectarian backgrounds and becoming ID/creationists show absolutely no awareness of these concepts; and I am referring especially to the PhDs among them.

I remember wrestling with the notion of an event horizon. How could a black hole have any gravitational effect or electric charge outside the event horizon if all that mass and charge were inside? If gravity were mediated by gravitons traveling at the speed of light, how could they get outside the event horizon to be felt by ponderous objects on our side of it?

I had to ask a physicist. He explained to me that from a great distance, all the matter that goes inside the event horizon appears piled up just outside it, red shifted and apparently frozen in time. The mass and charge are there, on the surface of this "frozen star", as Oppenheimer called it. (Yes, that Oppenheimer, of atomic bomb fame.)

Just inside the event horizon, because photons cannot get across it and get back outside, the event horizon (an imaginary surface) propagates outward at the speed of light. The properties of space-time are very different far from the black hole, at the event horizon, and inside it. Part of the difficulty is that physicists don't know what exact set of equations they should use to model space-time in the vicinity of such strong gravity. I have read that time becomes space-like, and space becomes time-like, inside the event horizon. It all depends on the equations one uses to describe space-time.

Such mathematical physics is far beyond creationists, but it doesn't stop them saying all scientists are wrong, except themselves.

Well, if it's changes in gravity that propagate at the speed of light, instead of the gravity itself, then what's "inside" the black hole doesn't have to get out for it to exert gravitational force. The space-time is already curved, so to speak.

I'm a bit fuzzy on how that applies to electric charge if the black hole has a net charge.

Oh, here's a thought, combining prong's latest with Mike's latest.

So, gravity (or changes in gravity) propagate at the speed of light. But light can't escape a black hole. Yet, gravity (or the hypothetical graviton) can escape a black hole. I was just reading that in the 1/5 of a second it took for the two black holes to coalesce, about 3 solar masses were converted to and radiated away as gravitational energy in that 1/5 of a second, radiating about 50 times the energy of all the electromagnetic radiation of the rest of the entire universe in that fraction of a second.

Hmm… So, if light can't escape a black hole, but gravity waves can, meaning that energy can escape a black hole, what (if anything) does that tell us about the nature of… nature?

It's enough to stretch one's mind, presumably in the direction of the gravity wave. :-)

Henry J said: Well, if it's changes in gravity that propagate at the speed of light, instead of the gravity itself, then what's "inside" the black hole doesn't have to get out for it to exert gravitational force. The space-time is already curved, so to speak. I'm a bit fuzzy on how that applies to electric charge if the black hole has a net charge.

Apologies to all the actual physicists out there with all this ignorant neophyte flailing about, but it really is great fun to learn about such things.

It also has a magnetic field too, doesn’t it?? Certainly neutron stars (pulsars) do, IIRC.

Scott F said: It's enough to stretch one's mind, presumably in the direction of the gravity wave. :-)

Mike Elzinga said: I keep trying, but my puny mind is only successful at doing this when I dream. I wake up and my ability to visualizing higher dimensions immediately evaporates.

Just Bob said:

Mike Elzinga said: I keep trying, but my puny mind is only successful at doing this when I dream. I wake up and my ability to visualizing higher dimensions immediately evaporates.

But are you sure you're actually visualizing it in your dream, or are you only dreaming that you're able to do it? When I was a kid I was often able to fly in my dreams ;-)

Scott F said: Oh, here's a thought, combining prong's latest with Mike's latest. So, gravity (or changes in gravity) propagate at the speed of light. But light can't escape a black hole. Yet, gravity (or the hypothetical graviton) can escape a black hole. I was just reading that in the 1/5 of a second it took for the two black holes to coalesce, about 3 solar masses were converted to and radiated away as gravitational energy in that 1/5 of a second, radiating about 50 times the energy of all the electromagnetic radiation of the rest of the entire universe in that fraction of a second. Hmm… So, if light can't escape a black hole, but gravity waves can, meaning that energy can escape a black hole, what (if anything) does that tell us about the nature of… nature? It's enough to stretch one's mind, presumably in the direction of the gravity wave. :-)

prongs said:

Scott F said: Oh, here's a thought, combining prong's latest with Mike's latest. So, gravity (or changes in gravity) propagate at the speed of light. But light can't escape a black hole. Yet, gravity (or the hypothetical graviton) can escape a black hole. I was just reading that in the 1/5 of a second it took for the two black holes to coalesce, about 3 solar masses were converted to and radiated away as gravitational energy in that 1/5 of a second, radiating about 50 times the energy of all the electromagnetic radiation of the rest of the entire universe in that fraction of a second. Hmm… So, if light can't escape a black hole, but gravity waves can, meaning that energy can escape a black hole, what (if anything) does that tell us about the nature of… nature? It's enough to stretch one's mind, presumably in the direction of the gravity wave. :-)

Actually Scott, the gravitons don't escape the black hole. The gravitational effects of the black hole are felt by distant objects because all the mass inside the black hole (close up) is piled up just outside the event horizon (viewed from far away). So all the charge, and all the mass, continue to interact with our Universe. From afar, time for that matter seems to come to a standstill, or so I have read, so it never crosses the event horizon and enters the black hole.

At the event horizon, it appears that space-time itself is being sucked into the black hole at the speed of light. If that is indeed true, what happens to the zero-point energy of all that space-time. Is it also sucked inside? (How could it not?)

And does that energy drive the expansion of a new Universe formed out of all the matter and energy that collapsed initially into the black hole in our Universe? How could we ever know? Is that what drives the expansion of our Universe? The black hole, in another Universe, from which we were formed? It's mind-bending. Physicists don't need drugs, they have reality, black holes and all. I wish I had another lifetime to study it, and become fluent in the equations of space-time.

Scott F said: Oh, no way. Seriously? I had not heard that one before. I was under the impression that all the matter just continued to scrunch down to the singularity, maybe getting turned into energy in the process.

But "time" for a photon is also at a standstill. Yet, the photon still moves relative to the rest of the universe.

And, here's a thought. If angular momentum is also conserved, and all that mass with all that angular momentum is scrunched down to a singularity, how fast would the singularity (with a radius of zero) have to be spinning to conserve that same angular momentum? If the radius of the "singularity" were zero, then the angular momentum would disappear. Right? Presumably, the outer edge of the singularity could not be rotating faster than the speed of light, right? Would the conservation of angular momentum set a limit on how small the spinning singularity could be? Nuts!!

At the event horizon, it appears that space-time itself is being sucked into the black hole at the speed of light. If that is indeed true, what happens to the zero-point energy of all that space-time. Is it also sucked inside? (How could it not?)

And does that energy drive the expansion of a new Universe formed out of all the matter and energy that collapsed initially into the black hole in our Universe? How could we ever know?

It's mind-bending. Physicists don't need drugs, they have reality, black holes and all.

Hmm that was supposed to be a substantive reply but only one character made it through. I'll try again later.

eric referenced:

Physicists don't need drugs, they have reality, black holes and all.

prongs said:

eric referenced: Physicists don't need drugs, they have reality, black holes and all.

Reality is stranger than fiction .... and also more interesting. The next 100 years will be very interesting. Wish I could see them.

eric said: 2. Regardless of what happens inside each BH, its motions will warp spacetime outside of the event horizon too, and it’s that warping that we detect. Another example would be rotational frame dragging; another effect “of” the BH which changes the space outside of the event horizon.

And, here's a thought. If angular momentum is also conserved, and all that mass with all that angular momentum is scrunched down to a singularity, how fast would the singularity (with a radius of zero) have to be spinning to conserve that same angular momentum? If the radius of the "singularity" were zero, then the angular momentum would disappear. Right? Presumably, the outer edge of the singularity could not be rotating faster than the speed of light, right? Would the conservation of angular momentum set a limit on how small the spinning singularity could be? Nuts!!

4. I'm going more out on a limb here, but I believe prongs' comment addresses this question: in our external frame of reference, the infalling black hole mass never reaches the singularity in any finite amount of time, so "what happens when it does" is not a problem.

And of course, the mass of the star that initially collapsed to form that black hole would presumably be well below the event horizon.

The American Physical Society has put up a policy analysis based on the statements made by a House Republican during a scientific briefing of the LIGO discovery.

Lamar Smith's (R - TX) introduction of a bill in the House of Representatives - a bill specifying that the NSF should fund only research that is "in the national interest" - appears to demonstrate the underlying hostility toward and ignorance of basic science among Republicans.

Such a bill would not only have prevented LIGO from even getting a start, it would have prevented the funding of the kind of work that Michael Faraday did.

One gets the impression that the Republican Party thinks that the only "research" that should be funded is the kind of research that will put far more money in their pockets right now than they spent on the research. No matter how many technological spin-offs from basic research they have around them and can hold in their hands, these characters never seem to be able to make the connection; even when it is repeatedly pointed out to them.

Scott F said:

prongs said:

eric referenced: Physicists don't need drugs, they have reality, black holes and all.

Reality is stranger than fiction .... and also more interesting. The next 100 years will be very interesting. Wish I could see them.

Yeah, I don't think I'd like to live forever, but I'd sure like to see how things turn out. :-)