Physicists discover new way to visualize warped space and time

On one side of the black hole, the gravitational waves from the spiraling vortexes add together with the waves from the spiraling tendexes. On the other side, the vortex and tendex waves cancel each other out. The result is a burst of waves in one direction, causing the merged hole to recoil.

Would an observer on the surface of the Black Hole feel an associated acceleration as the Black Hole recoils, or is this, somehow, an example of reaction-less, or inertial-less, propulsion?

This could make sorting through lhc data much easier. Computationally intensive though.

is this, somehow, an example of reaction-less, or inertial-less, propulsion?

Given that the origin of inertia isn't clearly understood, I have a feeling that this is actually a very difficult question to answer.
Very interesting theoretical work. Hopefully this can lead to new ways to test gravitational theory.

Is it known at what rate gravitational waves propagate? Is the limit of a gravitational wave's velocity also equal to the speed of light?

Just curious,

Shootist: I guess the concept of 'feeling acceleration' loses its meaning on a surface of black hole. But one can assume, that acceleration would be felt, if one wasn't crashed by the immense gravity towards the center already. It's more of a vector thing in that situation; I guess.

SincerelyTwo: As far as science knows at this time - in vacuum, yes. (I mean, it equals the speed of light in vacuum).

So all the while I was playing with my Spirograph as a kid, I was drawing gravitational waves, and didn't know it? How cool is that?

Would an observer on the surface of the Black Hole feel an associated acceleration as the Black Hole recoils,

Well, as it's a reaction to engery expulsion, I don't think the equivalence principle applies. I would think the black hole does experinece an acceleration.

or is this, somehow, an example of reaction-less, or inertial-less, propulsion?

Not exactly, as there is an opposite and equal reaction in the kinetic energy taken away by the gravitational waves. However, it essentially amounts to the same thing, from our perspective. If we could duplicate this effect (perhaps with magnetic fields?), it just might lead to some very interesting results.

Is it known at what rate gravitational waves propagate? Is the limit of a gravitational wave's velocity also equal to the speed of light?

Just curious,

I believe it was about 5 years ago, an experiment using an occultation proved gravity propagates at C and not instantaneously as argued.

Given that our understanding of what happens inside of a black hole is inferred from the geometry of space-time through special relativity. Is it possible that the description is incomplete causing our interpretation to inaccurately reflect reality?

To elaborate on what I'm trying to ask; Will sufficiently dense matter, such that it becomes degenerate, change the interactions of elementary particles? Specifically how is the higgs boson going to be affected? Would there be unexpected consequences on the deformation of space-time due to those changes? Specifically such that the results deviates from the predictions that come from the geometry of special relativity?

As far as I can tell the Standard Model assumes fundamental interactions are going to operate as they do in experiments we've conducted on earth, which does not incorporate the possibility that fundamental interactions may be affected by extreme and unusual conditions (where singularities and infinites manifest).

Thoughts?

@ST: I am pretty sure these are all great questions. For the most part the Standard Model is just theory. We have backed up those theories with quantum predictions, such as the W&Z bosons, but we really don't know what would happen in the extreme conditions of a black hole.

Most of the work done at this level is guess work, using some enormous pile of assumptions as a starting point. There is a mountain of evidence to support most of the assumptions, but in the end any one of them could be dead wrong resulting in pieces of our model falling apart.

At the risk of being repetitive, hopefully this work will lead to developing a test to support our theories of gravity. But how do you measure if spacetime is warped if you are too? (nod to uba)

Pyle,
That's exactly why I don't like people announcing it like it is the truth, when this is just a model based on our current understanding that is admittedly EXTREMELY limited.

Given that our understanding of what happens inside of a black hole is inferred from the geometry of space-time through special relativity. Is it possible that the description is incomplete causing our interpretation to inaccurately reflect reality?

I made a comment on this story, with that same exact argument. Too many things are being assumed, and you know what they say about that.

Okay, I'll say it: These look remarkably like the spiral arms of many galaxies. As those generally have giant black holes at their centre, you must wonder if such a large black hole swallowing a smaller contributed to the creation of the spiral arms' density waves...

Would an observer on the surface of the Black Hole feel an associated acceleration as the Black Hole recoils, or is this, somehow, an example of reaction-less, or inertial-less, propulsion?

Well, assuming we ignore the fact that the effects on you from sitting at the event horizon will most likely deter your attention away from the other forces, you should not feel any acceleration. You may feel tidal forces ripping you apart though. The acceleration you "feel", like in an accelerating car or a plane taking off, is a result of you, being an object at rest in an inertial frame, being pushed by the accelerating object (the back of your chair) as the vehicle pushes against the "stationary" inertial frame. If the inertial frame itself is being distorted (as is the case with gravity), you are part of that inertial frame and you move freely with it.
(continued...)

(continued...)
In the gravitational recoil, in essence, the definition of "where you are" changes from outside observers. Inside the distortion, you notice nothing particularly different, except that the universe outside of your local area seems to recoil around you. You "feel" as if you're stationary, just as you "feel" you're stationary inside a closed box that's in free fall, experiencing only small tidal forces, but no "acceleration".

Of course, near the vicinity of a black hole, tidal forces are enormous as you'd be compressed, stretched, and twisted. These are the results of different parts of your body experiencing different amounts of spacetime distortions. In /that/ sense, you could call it "experiencing acceleration", but not quite like you meant in your question.

Hope that helps.

Is it known at what rate gravitational waves propagate? Is the limit of a gravitational wave's velocity also equal to the speed of light?

Just curious,

To the best of our knowledge, gravity (and distortions due to gravity) propagate at c.

Gravity waves propagate at C, but space itself can propagate at an arbitrary speed AFAIK. I don't know about distortions in space, I would assume the same applies...

Gravity waves propagate at C, but space itself can propagate at an arbitrary speed AFAIK. I don't know about distortions in space, I would assume the same applies...

Distortions of spacetime are gravity, so ya, they travel at c. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that "space propagating" is an undefined term... that the phrase has no meaning.

So are the singularities at the heart of the black holes moving or is the space time AROUND them moving and the singularities are anchored/immobile?

CSharpner, I believe by "space propagation" he means inflation.

CSharpner, I believe by "space propagation" he means inflation.

That would make sense then.

So are the singularities at the heart of the black holes moving or is the space time AROUND them moving and the singularities are anchored/immobile?

Movement is a relative term. From the point of view of any object floating freely in space, the object "believes" it is stationary. To overly simplify it; "Movement" can only be determined if two objects are approaching or receding. Each object, itself, may believe /it/ is stationary and the /other/ object is "moving". They're both right.

There is no "anchoring" of objects to spacetime as that would require absolute space, which doesn't exist.

For a more in-depth understanding, here's a GREAT book by Einstein himself explaining, in layman's terms, these very concepts:

http://www.amazon...p;sr=1-2

Sub: Comprehension- Universe- Three Tier Cosmic Pot-Space Time
I do not understand why Scientific Community take too long to comprehend Milkyway Galactic frame and understand Universe Concepts.
1. Universal Plasma energy Model-IEEE-ICOPS-1991
Provides-Plasma occupies the shape of the body and much more
It implies Space-Time-Enegy-Plasma-Regulated Electromagnetic Universe-see book-1995 by me
2. My articles on new concepts- see Cosmologyreview [dot] com -website-Dec 1999
3. Cosmic Pot Energy Universe-STSCI-Astrophysical Lab Symposium-May 2003
Warped space time concepts need to search further- Fields,Flows,Source and Reflector concepts introduced in my books and Research papers
Astronomy to Cosmology studies need to go a longway

Articles like this are precisely why I read physorg.com! Much awesomeness.

You "feel" as if you're stationary, just as you "feel" you're stationary inside a closed box that's in free fall, experiencing only small tidal forces, but no "acceleration".

I thought that way at first too, but I re-read the article and found it describes a different conclusion.

Ignoring the extreme forces of the black hole, this article essentially states it undergoes a burst of proper, energetic acceleration ("like a rifle firing a bullet."). Therefore, the acceleration effects should be "felt" by the black hole.

It essentially depends on whether the black hole is accelerating by falling, or is forcefully accelerated. As gravitational waves carry momentum/kinetic energy, the latter certainly seems plausible.

The model described in the paper clearly states the gravitational waves are taking momentum away in the -z direction, so the black hole is kicked in the +z direction.

So it looks like it's forceful acceleration, rather than free-fall acceleration.

Ignoring the extreme forces of the black hole ... the acceleration effects should be "felt" by the black hole.
...
So it looks like it's forceful acceleration, rather than free-fall acceleration.

"looks like"? What causes inertia?

I'd like to throw something out there, again. Go hit wikipedia for "inertia" and look at "Source of Inertia".

Anyway, I am just not sure you can ignore the extreme forces of the black hole to determine whether you would "feel" the kick caused by the directed gravitational forces. Especially since the extreme forces and kicker are the same thing.

Anybody aware of observations supporting that merging black holes actually do this? Or are these just predictions from a simulation? (Smells like broken limits of relativity to me.)

((@Justsayin, I wish I could rate you a 10!!!))

I can appreciate this material, because I swear if I see one more bowling ball on a trampoline, Im quitting science.

Im actually headed up to LIGO next weekend on a field trip. Hope to get someone to explain this to us a little better.

Is it known at what rate gravitational waves propagate? Is the limit of a gravitational wave's velocity also equal to the speed of light?

Just curious,

As soon as you see one, do let us know.

"looks like"? What causes inertia?

I'd like to throw something out there, again. Go hit wikipedia for "inertia" and look at "Source of Inertia".

Are you suggesting black holes have no inertia?

Anyway, I am just not sure you can ignore the extreme forces of the black hole to determine whether you would "feel" the kick caused by the directed gravitational forces. Especially since the extreme forces and kicker are the same thing.

Technically, I wouldn't feel anything on a black hole (as I would be dead). That's why I defined it between proper and free-fall acceleration. It's essentially accelerating like a rocket.

Anybody aware of observations supporting that merging black holes actually do this? Or are these just predictions from a simulation? (Smells like broken limits of relativity to me.)

Here's a reference:

http://news.disco...axy.html

((@Justsayin, I wish I could rate you a 10!!!))

Ditto that.

I can appreciate this material, because I swear if I see one more bowling ball on a trampoline, Im quitting science.

LOL!

Im actually headed up to LIGO next weekend on a field trip. Hope to get someone to explain this to us a little better.

Please, let us know how it goes.

If you suddenly stop accelerating while traveling straight up, you feel it regardless of the gravitational frame of reference. Likewize, if the blackhole suddenly accelerates in a particular direction, there would be a measurable change to the inertial frame of reference, technically felt by every atom in the blackhole(or at least outside it).

Would you "feel" it? No, you would be dead. But inertia still applies, and it would be measurable assuming sturdy enough measuring devices.

Are you suggesting black holes have no inertia?

I'm not sure. What I will suggest is that until we understand the source of inertia it would be difficult to predict what would happen in this situation. There are several competing theories about the origin of inertia including, but not limited to, that it arises because of gravitational effects, energy resulting from information loss relating to a particle's light cone, or interaction with the EM zero point field. If black holes truly are singularities, any of these theories would have a hard time to predict or even define whether or not the proposed acceleration would be "inertia-less".

Nice link. I do remember this. Just forgot. Thanks.

@Decimatus:

technically felt by every atom in the blackhole(or at least outside it)

I think a very important distinction.

But inertia still applies

Again, don't be too sure about that when discussing singularities.

I'm not sure.

Well, I think it's pretty well settled that mass is tied the the energy content (E=mc^2), and it's readily observed that inertial and gravitational mass are proportional. So, I would suggest that a decoupling of inertia and gravity in black holes would be readily observable in binary systems. AFAIK, no such observation has been reported.

Well, I think it's pretty well settled that mass is tied the the energy content (E=mc^2)

Ok. But hinting to our gravity = energy war, a photon has inertial and gravitational mass but no rest mass.

and it's readily observed that inertial and gravitational mass are proportional

Not so fast. Quantum gravity is still out there. Death to the equivalence principle!

But yeah, I am just trying to broaden the conversation.

If you suddenly stop accelerating while traveling straight up, you feel it regardless of the gravitational frame of reference.

Assuming your acceleration is due to gravity, and not a rocket strapped to your back, this is incorrect. By definition, you're local spacetime is "stationary" as are you in it. Your local spacetime may change relative to more distant spacetime, as measured by an outside observer, but you would not and could not "feel" it because by all local measurements, nothing special is happening, other than tidal forces.

There's not enough space here to describe why, so I wrote a blog post on it here:

http://csharpner....eel.html

Hope that helps.

("like a rifle firing a bullet."). Therefore, the acceleration effects should be "felt" by the black hole.

The rifle analogy wasn't meant to be a 100% analog of the effect. A bullet would "feel" it as the explosion pushes against the bullet's mass. Acceleration due to gravity doesn't have that effect and they didn't intend the rifle analogy to be taken quite that literally.

waves from the spiraling vortexes add together with the waves from the spiraling tendexes. On the other side, the [...] waves cancel each other out. The result is a burst of waves in one direction, causing the merged hole to recoil.

The "kick" is gravitationally caused, meaning there's no mass pushing against other mass (which is what would cause it to be "felt"). It's simply spacetime itself being warped in the vacinity of the black holes, and they remain in their local spacetime, but that local spacetime is moving relative to "outside" spacetime. Any "movement" caused by gravity can't be "felt".

@uba, Pyle

"Anybody aware of observations supporting that merging black holes actually do this? Or are these just predictions from a simulation? (Smells like broken limits of relativity to me.)

Here's a reference:

http://news.disco...axy.html "

The object discovered by Jonker et al is only a *candidate* recoiling SMBH (The discovery papers' title says it all: A bright off-nuclear X-ray source: a type IIn supernova, a bright ULX or a recoiling super-massive black hole in CXO J122518.6+144545): http://arxiv.org/...79v1.pdf

AFAIK there are no unequivocal observations of a recoiling SMBH, though several other candidates are mentioned in the paper(pg 2).

The rifle analogy wasn't meant to be a 100% analog of the effect. A bullet would "feel" it as the explosion pushes against the bullet's mass. Acceleration due to gravity doesn't have that effect and they didn't intend the rifle analogy to be taken quite that literally.

Sure, it's an (unusual) effect of gravity, but the accelerated black hole is not following a geodesic. According to the paper, there's a change in momentum caused by the gravity waves taking away momentum (not gravity) in one direction. Ergo, it's proper acceleration and not free-fall acceleration. The equivalence principal does not apply.

According to the paper, there's a change in momentum caused by the gravity waves taking away momentum (not gravity) in one direction. Ergo, it's proper acceleration and not free-fall acceleration. The equivalence principal does not apply.

Interesting. I'll have to look at the paper. This article talks only of gravity, but the articles on this site frequently have their meaning summarized out.

This model is based on the assumption, the gravitational waves are propagating with speed of light, which is problematic in dense aether model of space-time. In water surface model of space-time the transverse waves are serving like analogy of waves of light and the gravitational waves are behaving like sound waves.

Despite the mainstream propaganda, even Einstein didn't believe in gravitational waves originaly. As Eddington - the close friend of Einstein - pointed out already before many years, gravitational waves do not have a unique speed of propagation. The speed of the alleged waves is coordinate dependent. A different set of coordinates yields a different speed of propagation and such waves would propagate like noise. In 1944 Hermann Weyl proved in explicit way, that linearisation of the field equations implies the existence of a Einstein's pseudo-tensor that, except for the trivial case of being precisely zero, does not otherwise exist.

http://www.jstor..../2371768

jigga/beelize54/seneca/hodzaa/sirinx (did I miss any?),

I was wondering when you'd pop in with your impossible to read odd grammar and your "dense aether theory".

jigga/beelize54/seneca/hodzaa/sirinx (did I miss any?)

Alizee, BrianH, Citinex, gravityPhD, MustaI, NisaJ, sckavassalis, Slotin, Tahoma, taka, TDK, Telekinetic, VestaR, VK1, wiki11, Xaero ...

CSharpner, I believe by "space propagation" he means inflation.

Yes indeed, should have mad that clear.

As for distortions in space time being "gravity" well that's true and not true. AFAIK that's Einsteins concept, but quantum mechanics would argue that gravitons or some other force carrier is involved. Do you know for sure which is the correct view?

I'm talking about things like frame dragging and more extreme distortions of space-time than the simple and common thing that keeps us rooted to Earth or the moon in motion around us. If you distort space and change distances then you monkey with speeds (including that of light) by the very nature of the concept.

This model is based on the assumption, the gravitational waves are propagating with speed of light, which is problematic [for] dense aether model of space-time.

I corrected your misstatement.

CSharpner, I believe by "space propagation" he means inflation.

Yes indeed, should have mad that clear.

Gotcha! Thanks.

If you distort space and change distances then you monkey with speeds (including that of light) by the very nature of the concept.

eh, uh, hmmmm. Yes and no, depending on how you mean. I won't get into that at the moment though. Frame dragging, et al shouldn't have any impact on "feeling" acceleration. It's still distortions of spacetime and if you're in it, you don't feel it. Your inertial frame is being distorted and you may feel twists and such, but if your inertial frame is changing position relative to an external inertial frame, outsiders would view you as "accelerating", but you don't. You "feel" stationary (and you are). From your point of view, the universe is being displaced while you sit still and it is THEY who are accelerating. You're both right and neither of you "feel" it.

If you distort space and change distances then you monkey with speeds (including that of light) by the very nature of the concept.

Not true on account of time dilation.

The rifle analogy wasn't meant to be a 100% analog of the effect. A bullet would "feel" it as the explosion pushes against the bullet's mass. Acceleration due to gravity doesn't have that effect and they didn't intend the rifle analogy to be taken quite that literally.

waves from the spiraling vortexes add together with the waves from the spiraling tendexes. On the other side, the [...] waves cancel each other out. The result is a burst of waves in one direction, causing the merged hole to recoil.

The "kick" is gravitationally caused, meaning there's no mass pushing against other mass (which is what would cause it to be "felt"). It's simply spacetime itself being warped in the vacinity of the black holes, and they remain in their local spacetime, but that local spacetime is moving relative to "outside" spacetime. Any "movement" caused by gravity can't be felt.

This is what prompted my question, though there is no way I could articulate it as well. Thanks.

If you distort space and change distances then you monkey with speeds (including that of light) by the very nature of the concept.

Not true on account of time dilation.

Think more wormhole and less vessel approaching the speed of light...

But yes you're correct on the latter.

Space itself is changing and moving, not mass moving through space.

At least that's closer to the concept I was attempting to convey, I still could be wrong...

Using this techniqe, if several or many spinning blackholes were merged int he correct way, perhaps it would be possible to do some beamforming or tendex/vortex and cause some interaction with matter at a distance. At least for the blackhole given a kick it should apparently be repelling matter in the other direction in the radiation gravitational field.

Using this techniqe, if several or many spinning blackholes were merged int he correct way, perhaps it would be possible to do some beamforming or tendex/vortex and cause some interaction with matter at a distance. At least for the blackhole given a kick it should apparently be repelling matter in the other direction in the radiation gravitational field.

At the very least black holes would be good "machines" to get a spacecraft accelerated to near light speeds which in itself is VERY useful...

Maybe this will get us closer to defying gravity and being able to levitate. Who needs engines if you can manipulate gravity.