New support for converging black holes in Virgo constellation

September 16, 2015
Columbia researchers predict that a pair of converging supermassive black holes in the Virgo constellation will collide sooner than expected. Above, an artist's conception of a merger. Credit: P. Marenfeld/NOAO/AURA/NSF

Earlier this year, astronomers discovered what appeared to be a pair of supermassive black holes circling toward a collision so powerful it would send a burst of gravitational waves surging through the fabric of space-time itself.

Now, in a study in the journal Nature, astronomers at Columbia University provide additional evidence that a pair of closely orbiting is causing the rhythmic flashes of light coming from quasar PG 1302-102.

Based on calculations of the pair's mass—together, and relative to each other—the researchers go on to predict a smashup 100,000 years from now, an impossibly long time to humans but the blink of an eye to a star or black hole. Spiraling together 3.5 billion light-years away, deep in the Virgo constellation, the pair is separated by a mere light-week. By contrast, the closest previously confirmed black hole pair is separated by 20 light-years.

"This is the closest we've come to observing two black holes on their way to a massive collision," said the study's senior author, Zoltan Haiman, an astronomer at Columbia. "Watching this process reach its culmination can tell us whether black holes and galaxies grow at the same rate, and ultimately test a fundamental property of space-time: its ability to carry vibrations called gravitational waves, produced in the last, most violent, stage of the merger."

At the center of most giant galaxies, including our own Milky Way, lies a supermassive black hole so dense that not even light can escape. Over time, black holes grow bigger—millions to billions times more massive than the sun—by gobbling up stars, galaxies and even other black holes.

A about to cannibalize its own can be detected by the mysterious flickering of a quasar—the beacon of light produced by black holes as they burn through gas and dust swirling around them. Normally, quasars brighten and dim randomly, but when two black holes are on the verge of uniting, the quasar appears to flicker at regular intervals, like a light bulb on timer.

A black hole merger is expected to release the gravitational waves predicted by Einstein, but not yet detected. Above, an artist's conception of waves rippling through space-time. Credit: NASA

Recently, a team led by Matthew Graham, a computational astronomer at the California Institute of Technology, designed an algorithm to pick out repeating light signals from 247,000 quasars monitored by telescopes in Arizona and Australia. Of the 20 pairs of black hole candidates discovered, they focused on the most compelling bright quasar— PG 1302-102. In a January study in Nature, they showed that PG 1302-102 appeared to brighten by 14 percent every five years, indicating the pair was less than a tenth of a light-year apart.

Intrigued, Haiman and his colleagues wondered if they could build a theoretical model to explain the repeating signal. If the black holes were as close as predicted, one had to be circling a much larger counterpart at nearly a tenth of the speed of light, they hypothesized. At that speed, the smaller black hole would appear to brighten as it approached Earth's line of sight under the relativistic Doppler beaming effect.

If correct, they predicted they would find a five-year cycle in the quasar's ultraviolet emissions—only two-and-a-half times more variable in its intensity. Analyzing UV observations collected by NASA's Hubble and GALEX space telescopes they found exactly that.

Previous explanations for the repeating signal include a warp in the debris disks orbiting the black holes, a wobble in the axis of one black hole and a lopsided debris disk formed as one black hole draws material off the other—all creating the impression of a periodic flicker from Earth.

The new study also offers a new technique for investigating other converging black holes, the researchers said. By estimating the combined and relative mass of PG 1302-102's black holes, they narrow down the pair's predicted crash time to between 20,000 and 350,000 years from now with a best estimate of 100,000 years. (The predicted crash time by Graham's team was 10,000 to several million years from now with a best estimate of 250,000 years).

This simulation helps explain an odd light signal thought to be coming from a close-knit pair of merging black holes, PG 1302-102, located 3.5 billion light-years away. The close-up view at right shows that the smaller of the two black holes gives off more light (left side of picture). While the black holes themselves don't emit light, they accumulate and heat up surrounding gas, which then radiates light. The reason the smaller black hole gives off more light is that it is orbiting farther from the center of mass and closer to the surrounding gas disk, allowing it to gather up most of the gas as it orbits. The result is that the more massive central black hole is starved of gas and doesn't glow as brightly. As these black holes orbit around each other, they are thought to send out a varying light signal. The signal was detected by astronomers using telescopes on the ground and in space. Credit: Zoltan Haiman, Columbia University

"We can start to put numbers on the rates that black holes come together and build up into larger black holes, and use what we're learning to search for more black holes pairs," said study coauthor David Schiminovich, an astronomer at Columbia.

An uptick in the number of black hole binary discoveries has made astronomers hopeful that a collision could be detected in the next decade. This summer, Graham and his colleagues reported another 90 candidates, while astronomers at Columbia expect to soon unveil discoveries of their own from data collected at California's Palomar Observatory.

With more black holes to watch, the chance of witnessing a crash and the gravitational waves predicted, but not yet detected, by Einstein's general theory of relativity, grows.

"The detection of lets us probe the secrets of gravity and test Einstein's theory in the most extreme environment in our universe—black holes," said the study's lead author, Daniel D'Orazio, a graduate student at Columbia. "Getting there is a holy grail of our field."

Explore further: Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

More information: Relativistic boost as the cause of periodicity in a massive black-hole binary candidate, DOI: 10.1038/nature15262

Related Stories

Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

August 12, 2015

Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the 6.5-meter Clay Telescope in Chile have identified the smallest supermassive black hole ever detected in the center of a galaxy, as described in our latest press release. ...

How massive can black holes get?

August 11, 2015

Without the light pressure from nuclear fusion to hold back the mass of the star, the outer layers compress inward in an instant. The star dies, exploding violently as a supernova.

Pulsing light may indicate supermassive black hole merger

April 20, 2015

As two galaxies enter the final stages of merging, scientists have theorized that the galaxies' supermassive black holes will form a "binary," or two black holes in such close orbit they are gravitationally bound to one another. ...

Recommended for you

New dwarf satellite galaxy of Messier 83 found

December 5, 2016

(Phys.org)—Astronomers have found a new dwarf satellite of Messier 83 (M83, also known as the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy) located some 85,000 light years from its host. This satellite galaxy was designated dw1335-29 and could ...

Colliding galaxy clusters

December 5, 2016

Galaxy clusters contain a few to thousands of galaxies and are the largest bound structures in the universe. Most galaxies are members of a cluster. Our Milky Way, for example, is a member of the "Local Group," a set of about ...

ALMA measures size of seeds of planets

December 5, 2016

Researchers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), have for the first time, achieved a precise size measurement of small dust particles around a young star through radio-wave polarization. ALMA's high ...

Bethlehem star may not be a star after all

December 2, 2016

It is the nature of astronomers and astrophysicists to look up at the stars with wonder, searching for answers to the still-unsolved mysteries of the universe. The Star of Bethlehem, and its origin, has been one of those ...

Swiss firm acquires Mars One private project

December 2, 2016

A British-Dutch project aiming to send an unmanned mission to Mars by 2018 announced Friday that the shareholders of a Swiss financial services company have agreed a takeover bid.

61 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shavera
4.6 / 5 (18) Sep 16, 2015
Oh look at that. Researchers have a hypothesis, propose a test of their hypothesis, perform experiment, experiment matches hypothesis. It's literally textbook science.

And guaranteed to follow will be a bevy of comments telling you that physicists don't know about , and don't actually do science. They'll say that black holes don't exist, that gravity doesn't exist, that does exist. And they won't propose a test that could uniquely support their hypothesis. They'll cherry pick a few existing results that they'll take out of context as "support" for their theory. It is the very definition of pseudo-science.
shavera
4.7 / 5 (15) Sep 16, 2015
Oh and if you're confused about the specific detail: the variability in *visible* light was 14%. Then, they hypothesize that if it is relativistic motion and there is associated beaming, that in the *UV* spectrum, there would be beaming, but 2.5 times greater than the visible spectrum beaming.
TopCat22
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 16, 2015
Over time, black holes grow bigger—millions to billions times more massive than the sun—by gobbling up stars, galaxies and even other black holes.


The above statement is nonsense. Since the big bang to date there has not been even one black hole grown larger by swallowing up anything. Since time is slowed to a standstill at the event horizon nothing has actually ever crossed that threshold in our entire timeline starting from the big-bang till now. Everything that was ever falling in is still just outside of the event horizon and has not yet fallen in. It will fall in just after the end of time of our timeline.
kyle_barr
3.5 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2015
So if we are going to see them collide in 100,000 years and they are 3.5 billion light years away from us, why are we talking about the collision in the future tense. It happened ~3.5 billion years ago.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Sep 16, 2015
If the universe is expanding, expansion must dominate gravity. But if expansion dominate gravity there will be no even one pair of objects in the whole universe which are moving against one another. Black holes are mathematical objects, but their properties cantradict the reality, so these have no real scientific value.

Ya just couldn't help yourself, could ya.....
docile
Sep 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2015
This is what the negative result is called.

This paper is not about the detection of gravitational waves.
docile
Sep 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
medusa_milena
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2015
They will never detect gravitation waves because they effect space-time, not just distance. If a wave compresses space-time between 2 satellites it doesn't change the position of them, 1 meter stays 1 meter even when compressed by a wave, instead it will also change the rate of time (speed of light doesn't change). The result is that even a very sensitive laser would not see a wave when it rides it. (if those waves even exist at all)
Bloodyorphan
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2015
Hence the mirrors medusa
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2015
Black holes can't merge in a finite interval as measured by, for instance, an observer on Earth. They can come close enough to share an accretion disc but beyond that an infinite interval will pass before any further merger occurs.

Black Holes are, relative to us, frozen. No time passes at the event horizon.

This is the way things are...there is no escaping it. This is what General Relativity predicts, that is, according to Einstein's General relativity the event horizon is frozen in time relative to an observer outside the event horizon.

Gravitational Time Dilation is apparent here on Earth in the adjustment required to navigation satellites clocks, they run quicker. Using the same math, Event horizon of a black hole is frozen. Only the accretion disc can gain mass.
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2015
I see that TopCat22's and my comments have been marked down to 1/5 by a pathetic few who, rather than challenging the established GR math, now a century old, hide behind anonymous scoring not because our position is incorrect but because they simply don't like it.

Like it or not, the reality is that Black Holes are frozen. Yes, an infalling observer will fall through the event horizon in a finite interval. But as they do so, an infinite interval passes for the space based observer. This is not a trick of the light. Yes, a pulse train sent from a point above the event horizon will be slowed and so less frequent as measured by a distant observer but so to are the pulses sent by the space observer more rapid as measured by the observer close to the event horizon.

Only actual relative clock rate differences can explain the difference. Stretched light fails in reverse according the General Relativity. The Newtonian's position fails...
Bloodyorphan
3 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2015
Time never stops RKS, atomic structures may stop reacting (i.e go into stasis), but your understanding of time around a black hole is completely falacious
katesisco
not rated yet Sep 17, 2015
Extreme Cosmos by an Australian astronomer says the evidence says black holes ....P 126..have very similar masses to the black holes we see today. This conundrum he says can be solved by assuming the eating/growth of black holes was done in the 10% of the universe we still cannot look back and see.
Hmmmmm.
bschott
1 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2015
Oh look at that. Researchers have a hypothesis, propose a test of their hypothesis, perform experiment, experiment matches hypothesis. It's literally textbook science.


"the beacon of light produced by black holes as they burn through gas and dust swirling around them. Normally, quasars brighten and dim randomly, but when two black holes are on the verge of uniting, the quasar appears to flicker at regular intervals, like a light bulb on timer."

Yeah....textbook. The objects that swallow light can be detected by the light they "produce" as they "burn"....Look! here's a simulation! Now it's real.
shavera
5 / 5 (10) Sep 17, 2015
The objects that swallow light can be detected by the light they "produce" as they "burn"


Demonstrates that there is a significant difference between the objects scientists are discussing, and the image you may have in your head of these objects. A black hole is not a magic vacuum cleaner, sucking down everything it can. It's just a gravitating body like all other gravitating bodies. At some distance away from it, there is a known escape velocity for that distance. Hence, matter that is outside of the boundary where the escape velocity is c can, in fact, emit light that is not "sucked up" by the black hole.

We know from other observations that when hot objects (like the matter around a black hole) are moving, that they have a property of "beaming;" That light emitted in the direction of motion is both more energetic (blue shifted) and more intense. The "simulation" you mock is really just a calculation of this effect. And the observation matches it.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2015
The funy paradox is that the theory of General ralativity bacomes absolut for professional shamans speculators from the post scientific communities.
Ultron
not rated yet Sep 17, 2015
Seems like strange theory. Relativistic beaming is normally created by accreting matter or relativistic jets which are reaching relativistic speed, but I havent read until now, that black holes can directly create relativistic beam. It seems to me, that there is simple explanation of this phenomena by one wobbling black hole, and this wobbling is causing 5 year cycle in which is this relativistic beam directed to Earth. I wonder if somebody here can explain why is this explained by two black holes.
bschott
1 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2015
Demonstrates that there is a significant difference between the objects scientists are discussing, and the image you may have in your head of these objects.


You are absolutely correct.

The "object" the scientists are discussing is theoretical, the observation they are discussing is a cyclical photonic emission. The simulation is a demonstration of what "could" cause this form of cyclical observation if the theoretical objects exist as per mainstream theory. Given that every stellar object we observe has cycles of increasing and decreasing emission, this could be ANYTHING. I'll go with that it is something other than 2 physically impossible objects unifying into one.
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 17, 2015
The funy paradox is that the theory of General ralativity bacomes absolut for professional shamans speculators from the post scientific communities.

You are foaming at the mouth now, right ?
mytwocts
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2015
a cyclical photonic emission.

So you do admit that it is light
Given that every stellar object we observe has cycles of increasing and decreasing emission,

That is not a given at all.
this could be ANYTHING.

The caps are well chosen. Anything REALLY REALLY BIG.
Hence a two small but very heavy objects, surrounded by dust, orbiting each other.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2015
all of the supermassive blackholes in the centers of galaxies were created by the big bang and in fact should be considered part of the preexisting void that the big bang blew up in... a way of thinking about it is that the big bang gushed out energy from the singularity and the energy-mater and space-time was created, it pushed out unevenly and frothily so that bubbles of the preexisting void were encircled by rings of high density matter falling into enormous event horizons (were time freezes) which we now call supermassive black holes. They did not accumulate mass and grow larger. The smaller stellar mass BH are highly compressed spheres of mass frozen at their even horizons from collapsed stars and are a different animal... nothing extends down to a singularity as yet in any case. The falling past any event horizon will happen just after the end of time.
bschott
1 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2015
The caps are well chosen. Anything REALLY REALLY BIG.
Hence a two small but very heavy objects, surrounded by dust, orbiting each other.


You are a special kind of special.

Did you say "REALLY REALLY BIG"...then draw the conclusion that meant two small objects after the 10 hits of acid?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
Couple of niggles regarding the article
At the center of most giant galaxies, including our own Milky Way, lies a supermassive black hole so dense that not even light can escape.

Density is an iffy property when it comes to black holes (as using current methods all black holes have the same - infinite - density). Similarly the "no light can escape" property goes for all black holes - not just supermassive ones.

Over time, black holes grow bigger—millions to billions times more massive than the sun—by gobbling up stars, galaxies and even other black holes.

This is only a given if a black hole has material in its environment. If our sun were replaced with a black hole of the same mass. That black hole would sit there forever without noticeably gaining in mass (nor would any planets be sucked into it or somesuch).

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
If the universe is expanding, expansion must dominate gravity.

Expansion dominates globally. Gravity dominates locally. It's not hard to understand (and can be seen when comparing all other forces - each has a range where they dominate over others)

If a wave compresses space-time between 2 satellites it doesn't change the position of them,

if the wave passes over the satellites (i.e. first hitting one and then travelling towards the other) The that will change the amount of time a ray of light will need to pass between the satellites (i.e. the distance - since the only constant ruler we have is the constant speed of light)

a way of thinking about it is that the big bang gushed out energy from the singularity
It did not 'gush out' There is no one point where the BB happened. Space expanded - it wasn't an explosion.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2015

a way of thinking about it is that the big bang gushed out energy from the singularity
It did not 'gush out' There is no one point where the BB happened. Space expanded - it wasn't an explosion.


does not change my way of looking at it... it expanded unevenly and frothily so that areas of the original void were encircled by event horizons freezing the time around them. We call them supermassive black holes but all we can experience is the event horizons freezing in time and nothing can ever fall past until our timeline ends.
bschott
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
if the wave passes over the satellites (i.e. first hitting one and then travelling towards the other) The that will change the amount of time a ray of light will need to pass between the satellites (i.e. the distance - since the only constant ruler we have is the constant speed of light)


The ray of light is "in" the expanding space, not isolated from it, and would expand as "space-time" does. Medusa is correct.

Why can't you guys understand that absolutely nothing can be exempt from this effect if it is "in" the space-time which is expanding/contracting?

A better way of asking is on what basis does the theory exempt a light ray from this effect?

Space expanded - it wasn't an explosion.


So "how" did space expand? How is the rate of expansion variable? Is there a definitive mechanism, a reason it happened? What was the "braking" mechanism?

So many issues remain unresolved considering how sure you are about what happened.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2015
@mytwocts

A am just curious to observe human careerism (idiocy) to what heights can go. It is very sad thing. But when you will say something on the subject? Not so emotional. Here we are not to discussing latino american soap opera, although the official cosmology too much reminded me of this genre.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2015
@TopCat22

Who created or what caused the Big Bang? How do we understand that black holes are black holes but not other objects? How do we understand that gravity and other physical laws acts in the same way in different zones of the universe?
TopCat22
1 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2015
viko_mx ... I see the space-time sheet-membrane like a pieces of paper with holes burnt into it. Those holes are the black holes the edge of the hole is the event horizon. The gravity and mass of the black hole is bunched up and curled up at the edge of the event horizon waiting to fall in... Frozen in time... waiting for the next clock tick to click to fall in ... that tick is the first one just after the end of our timeline. Inside the event horizon there is no mass, no time, no gravity, no space, no nothing or something just like what was there before the big bang which cannot ever be known.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2015
Inside the event horizon there is nothing according to you but why to exist such useless object at all in this highly ordered universe?
I have great respect to checked and confirmed facts by independent groups of professional scientists and more important by amateurs who love to investigate nature. Our ability to explore the universe is fundamentally limited and speculative spirit of modern science confirms this fact. When it excludes by axiom the most rational explanation for the creation the universe by intelligent being with the idea and purpose, for it remains only to offer irrational speculation.
We can invent many different theories but if these do not rely on facts and are not confirmed in reality, we can not name such approach scientific but pure speculative.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2015
viko_mx ... it is nothing. no object. just a hole in space time like the hole in a donut. Mass gravity et all are properties of space-time. there cannot be anything inside the event horizon because it is a hole in space-time. If you have no space and no time there can be no thing. Things and objects and energy are properties of our space-time. in the hole there is none of these. That is why the math shows nonsense inside the event horizon.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
@mytwocts

human careerism (idiocy)


WHAT are you talking about. As opposed to animal "careerism" (whatever that is) ?
And, yes, your rant on shamanism (or whatever) was very emotionally perturbed.
Your tu quoque does not change that fact.
Stay on topic and edit out the blatant nonsense before you press "submit".
mytwocts
5 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2015
The caps are well chosen. Anything REALLY REALLY BIG.
Hence a two small but very heavy objects, surrounded by dust, orbiting each other.


You are a special kind of special.

Did you say "REALLY REALLY BIG"...then draw the conclusion that meant two small objects after the 10 hits of acid?

Small compared to a galaxy, big compared to a star (in mass and dimension). Use your brain, don't hold others responsible if you don't. Grow up.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2015
I also think that as you get closer to the event horizon you find that the viscosity of the space-time becomes thicker and denser. Nothing actually leaves the space-time membrane. the mater and energy bunching up at the event horizon goes to another state which is the state of becoming a thicker more viscos version of space-time that slows and then freezes like water freezing to change its state form liquid to solid. Space-time gets more solid or thicker as it gets closer to an event horizon. Light too gets frozen and transformed to become not visible. So in closing all of the mater and energy ever created is still outside of the event horizon only transformed into another state (which is not known yet) but could be nothing more than the fabric of space-time itself
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2015
@mytwocts
It seems to me that you are experiencing existential crisis. Your nervousness is obvious, but psychologists are useless to heal it? In contrast, the word of God heal wounded souls of people and is given to as with love.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2015
@TopCat22

It is good that you are looking for a solution to the black hole, but I think that your efforts and talents are targeting at the wrong direction. You are accepted the idea that black holes exist. You have probably invested a lot of time and effort on this subject. But in reality there is no reason for the black holes existence. There are physical objects and zones in space with specific properties (programming) that maintain the integrity and the movement of cosmic structures for certain time. GR have to many logical and factual contradictions and rely on too many bold unchecked assumtions that it is useless people to trying to describe anything with it.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2015
@mytwocts
It seems to me that you are experiencing existential crisis. Your nervousness is obvious, but psychologists are useless to heal it? In contrast, the word of God heal wounded souls of people and is given to as with love.

You are self deluding again. Take your pills and stop reading the bible.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2015
@viko_mx
GR ... is useless ... to describe anything with it.

You don't mind being completely wrong, do you?
You know absolutely nothing about science, in particular physics.
You are just here because your imaginary god tells you to brainwash people.
Even at that you are not very efficient.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2015
there cannot be anything inside the event horizon because it is a hole in space-time. If you have no space and no time there can be no thing. Things and objects and energy are properties of our space-time. in the hole there is none of these. That is why the math shows nonsense inside the event horizon.

I am interested to know how you came to this point of view.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2015
Stuff that travels towards a balack hole experiences time just fine (if an astronaut could stay alive while crossing the event horizon does not feel time slow down for him/her). The only relevant measure of whether time exists at a certain place is in that certain place.
Whether a distant observer sees it passing there or not (as in the case of a distant observer seeing the astronaut's last few photons before he crosses over being stretched into infinity) is completely irrelevant and says nothing about the actual existence of time at the event horizon.
TopCat22
not rated yet Sep 19, 2015
Using your imagination... Imagine the nothing before the big bang... for all intents and purposes it was truly nothing. No time. No Energy. No a single thing of mater, energy or passage of time. Absolute Zero was the temperature because there was absolutely nothing.

Then something came to be. That something was just one thing. Pure Energy at Infinite Temperature. Lets call it PEIT to distinguish it from what condensed out of it as the temperature comes down. At the temperature of infinity there was no space and no time yet. The first thing that condensed out of the primordial energy was space-time and in doing so it starts the dropping of the universal temperature simply by expanding the space-time. Today we measure the temperature as the microwave background radiation after 13.5 Billion Years from inside the universe. All things have condensed out of the one thing the original PEIT.

All of the PEIT that ever came out of the big bang is still here in our space-time.
TopCat22
not rated yet Sep 19, 2015
Just like E=MC(squared)

Space-time also = Energy

It takes energy to make space-time

At the event horizon matter-energy is transformed into more space-time than farther away from it ... hence the high gravity and slower time relative to an observer.

Anti... There are only "observers". There are no "distant observers". You are either frozen in time yourself or you are watching someone else become frozen in time. No person or thing ever actually falls past the even horizon until after the end of time.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2015
...Then something came to be

That line of reasoning doesn't work for me because it contradicts itself. The state of being (i.e. that something exists) requires time and space. So while it sounds pleasing that "something came from nothing" it makes no sense - because
1) Nothingness cannot exist (because it is the very opposite of existence)
2) If a 'prior' (better an 'other') state was in place without time/space then it existed for not one millisecond (since it had no time)..i.e. it was over instantly.

Conclusion: That the something exists isn't miraculous. There's just no alternative to it. (Now, in what form stuff exists - like our universe or something entirely different - that is a different issue entirely)

No person or thing ever actually falls past the even horizon until after the end of time.

The person actually falling in would disagree. They have no problem passing the event horizon (why would they? It's not special in any way for them.)
TopCat22
1 / 5 (1) Sep 19, 2015
No person or thing ever actually falls past the even horizon until after the end of time.
The person actually falling in would disagree. They have no problem passing the event horizon (why would they? It's not special in any way for them.)


Disagree since .. The instant they pass the event horizon they also vanish from space and time. Since there is no space or time past the event horizon nothing can exist there based on your own logic. Time freezes at the event horizon and the space is infinitely dense up to that cliff. Past the event horizon there can be no time or space for things to fall to.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2015
@mytwocts

Dy you realize that without absolutes nothing can be defined in nature? The order is impassible without absolutes. But the universe is highly ordered. Therefore there is no relativism in nature. Relativism in nature is a human invention. In fact it exist only in the human mind. It is a consequence of a natural human ability to compare different concepts and objects. But does not exist in physical reality in which we are living. Why we use standard units in our daily lives? Think about it with a glass of vitamins in hand.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2015
Only the professional visionaries speculators who have found commercial niche in academic environment and who do not bear the true spirit of discovery see benefit from GR. Who see his diploma as a ticket for social and economic benefits will never contribute to true progress in science and bring benefits to other members of society. Never will be true inventor.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2015
TC
You think that nothing exists within the Schwarzschild radius, especially not space and time.
I also think that that is the case.
How do you reach this conclusion?
mytwocts
5 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2015
Only the professional visionaries speculators who have found commercial niche in academic environment and who do not bear the true spirit of discovery see benefit from GR. Who see his diploma as a ticket for social and economic benefits will never contribute to true progress in science and bring benefits to other members of society. Never will be true inventor.

So according to you Albert Einstein saw "his diploma as a ticket for social and economic benefits"
and never contributed to true progress in science.
I think you lost it.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2015
Albert Einstein may have had a strong desire to give something valuable to the science, but he was going in the wrong direction probably under the influence of other colleagues. It is known that in the end of his career was not satisfied with the results because of internal doubts and tried to revise it. His doubts are caused by the reason that this theory is not built on the obtained scientific facts that were available at that time. But is a mental speculation recorded in the language of mathematics with some logical errors.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2015
The instant they pass the event horizon they also vanish from space and time.

Erm...why? There's nothing special about the event horizon in any of the math. It's just the point where the final few geodesic that lead out are no longer available. All geodesics from that point on lead to the singularity. But even before crossing the event horizon the overwhelming majority of them did. There's no break/no discontinuity that would indicate a change in state.

The gravity gradient accross the event horizon is also fairly mild for big black holes (so mild that a human might not even notice it. There's no reason to postulate 'superdense' space there. That is something one might postulate much further in (but even that is unsupported by anything we know of)
TopCat22
1 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2015
anti ... we know that the speed of light in a vacuum is c on this side of the event horizon. Once past it would have to be C+. That is not possible and you cannot say there is no break or discontinuity. there is a hole in the space-time matrix expressed as this impossibility. The math is wrong or inappropriate for analysing this condition because it is failing to account for the impossibility of the C+ speed.... The C+ speed is not infinity so it might appear to be quantifiable by the math applied however it is just as impossible as infinity for mathematical purposes and it is the fault of the math to express space-time with a constant greater than c.

When speed is concerned the math would need to treat c as infinity instead of the finite number it is being considered in your calculations. A new math is required that will have different infinity values. For C is needs to be the speed of light (also needs to be flexible for other than a vaccum)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2015
Once past it would have to be C+

Erm...no? What leads you to the belief that c would alter beyond the event horizon? I can see nothing in the equations that would indicate such a change.

We only know that you would have to travel at speeds greater than c to escape a black hole once you fall past the event horizon. Since nothing can there's no way out. Hence the word "black" in "black hole".
TopCat22
1 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2015
what we know is that time is dilated as it approaches the event horizon. At the event horizon itself time is frozen and that last instant does not ever pass until the end of time. So we can agree that nothing travels faster than c and since nothing has ever passed the threshold of an event horizon since the big bang the question is moot about what happens inside of the event horizon. Nothing has ever gone that far in space and never will during our timeline. There is a disconnect between what is past an event horizon.
RobertKarlStonjek
not rated yet Sep 22, 2015
Bloodyorpha
Time never stops RKS, atomic structures may stop reacting (i.e go into stasis), but your understanding of time around a black hole is completely falacious


That's partly right, time does not stop, or slow or speed up *in an observer's own inertial frame* but the rate of time at one point in space can be very different to that at another point. These relativistic changes occur due to relative speed differences or relative spacetime curvature (between two points).

Gravitational time dilation has been measured, Pound did it in 1960 and navigation satellites' clocks are slowed to match the gravitational time dilation effecting Earth bound clocks.

Extrapolate the math which correctly predicts the clock rate difference here on Earth & the math goes to infinity and zero for the Black Hole event horizon.

This has nothing to do with understanding,it is straight forward relativity math, no tricks. The math has passed all tests. I'm sorry that you don't like GR.
Bloodyorphan
not rated yet Sep 22, 2015
But what you are saying is that spacial time stops RKS.

This is definitely not the case otherwise Black Holes wouldn't exhibit gravity nor would they exhibit X rays and hawking radiation would be impossible.

An atomic clock may go into stasis, but time itself keeps on ticking.
Bloodyorphan
not rated yet Sep 22, 2015
The other problem with Black Hole theories is a the force can never exceed C, space wont allow it.

Therefore any other matter surrounding the black hole will decrease it's force below C, therefore black holes can never actually exist in our Universe. they might get upto .999999999 C but never reach C.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2015
Black Holes wouldn't exhibit gravity nor would they exhibit X rays and hawking radiation would be impossible.

While time keeps on ticking these aren't arguments for that.

The xrays aren't emitted from the black hole (neither is hawking radiation) but from an area outside the event horizon.
For the xrays it's the heating of the accretion disc and accelerated particles near the magnetic poles smashing into surrounding dust (or each other).
For Hawking radiation (which has yet to be observed) the mechanism posits quantum fluctuations/virtual particle pairs outside the event horizon. One of which falls in while the other may be bossted and escape. But that one technically never was inside the event horizon. It only looks like it's emitted (though it still carries away mass from the BH).
[cont.]
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2015
Gravity is a tricky one because it may not be mediated via a particle - so it may technically not fall under the 'gotta be as fast as or slower than light' restriction...although Relativity suggests that it should travel at c and there are several experiment under way to check on that.
In any case gravity doesn't seem to interfere with itself but works in superposition (you can't shield gravity) so the bent geodesics inside an event horizon probably don't apply to it in any case.
To gravity the universe is flat....unless there is some further force beyond gravity that warps spacetime with respect to gravity. But so far we haven't seen any indication of this.
Bloodyorphan
not rated yet Sep 22, 2015
Well fair enough, but nothing you've said implies spacial time is affected in any way.

We have to accept the mass itself is still residing in space, the mass may be in stasis but space can not be, otherwise gravity wouldn't have any effect at all.

There may even be other reasons for gravitational lensing, dark matter is a candidate.

The fact that the Gravitational Constant experiments return such variable results indicates it's not as cut and dry as people would like to think.

Furthermore, the fact we have never witnessed any candidates for wormholes implies that Gravity has limits, limits which are likely in the structure of space itself.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2015
Well fair enough, but nothing you've said implies spacial time is affected in any way.

Yes, I totally agree that there is no special time at the event horizon. None of the math I'm aware of posits that (neither stasis nor any faster than c travel or somesuch).

There may even be other reasons for gravitational lensing, dark matter is a candidate.

Normal matter also causes lensing. We can be pretty confident of that as it has been observed and is in line with mass estimates of the relevant objects (e.g. our sun distorts the entire sky - which has been validated by the Hipparcos probe. if the lensing were due to dark matter only then there would have to be almost the quivalent mass of the sun as dark matter inside it - which would be a pretty high coincidence)

implies that Gravity has limits

Maybe, maybe not. At this point there's no indication to argue either way.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.