LIGO researchers suggest background noise due to gravity waves may be much greater than thought

LIGO
An aerial view of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detector in Livingston, Louisiana. LIGO has two detectors: one in Livingston and the other in Hanaford, Washington. LIGO is funded by NSF; Caltech and MIT conceived, built and operate the laboratories. Credit: LIGO Laboratory

(Phys.org)—The research team working with the LIGO project has proposed that the data gleaned from the discovery of gravity waves last year allows for calculating the likely level of cosmic background noise due to gravitational waves, and that it is much greater than previous models have suggested. In their paper published in Physical Review Letters, researchers with the LIGO Scientific Collaboration along with a companion group from the Virgo Collaboration, describe their reasoning behind their estimates and why they believe they will be able to offer more support for their theory within just a few years.

Prior to the landmark experiments that led to the detection of , researchers believed that there was likely a very nearly constant stream of background gravitational moving through the cosmos, generated by black holes and neutron stars merging, but had lacked any physical data that might allow them to estimate how much background noise might exist. With the detection of the gravitational waves that resulted from the merger of two , the researchers suddenly found themselves with actual concrete data, which they have now used as a basis for calculating the likely amount of gravitational wave noise constantly bombarding our planet.

To make predictions based on data from just one event, the team started with the assumption that the event that was measured was not one that was out of the ordinary—that allowed for making energy density estimates for all possible black hole binaries, based on the energy density of the black holes involved in the merger that was observed—and that in turn allowed for calculating estimates of the amount of gravitational radiation that would occur due to black holes merging. Next, they used the masses of the black holes that were observed to merge to calculate the likely true distribution regarding the number of black hole binaries in existence—this was possible because they placed the observed merger in the middle of a bell curve. Doing so, the team reports, indicated that there are likely 20 times as many black hole binaries out there as has been estimated, which suggests that there is likely 10 times as much gravitational noise than has been suspected.

The team acknowledges that because their results are based on a data from just one event, their conclusions could be wrong, but, if they are right, they note, they should be able to detect them within just the next five years or so as the LIGO and Virgo detectors grow to full strength.


Explore further

Continuing the search for gravitational waves

More information: B. P. Abbott et al. GW150914: Implications for the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background from Binary Black Holes, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.131102 , On Arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03847

Abstract
The LIGO detection of the gravitational wave transient GW150914, from the inspiral and merger of two black holes with masses ≳30M⊙, suggests a population of binary black holes with relatively high mass. This observation implies that the stochastic gravitational-wave background from binary black holes, created from the incoherent superposition of all the merging binaries in the Universe, could be higher than previously expected. Using the properties of GW150914, we estimate the energy density of such a background from binary black holes. In the most sensitive part of the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo band for stochastic backgrounds (near 25 Hz), we predict ΩGW(f=25  Hz)=1.1+2.7−0.9×10−9 with 90% confidence. This prediction is robustly demonstrated for a variety of formation scenarios with different parameters. The differences between models are small compared to the statistical uncertainty arising from the currently poorly constrained local coalescence rate. We conclude that this background is potentially measurable by the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo detectors operating at their projected final sensitivity.

Journal information: arXiv , Physical Review Letters

© 2016 Phys.org

Citation: LIGO researchers suggest background noise due to gravity waves may be much greater than thought (2016, April 7) retrieved 24 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-04-ligo-background-noise-due-gravity.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2173 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 07, 2016
If they await more black holes binaries, there should be alse be more LIGO detections.

Why is there still only one detection? And this one detection was during test run in september 2015 immediately after enabling Advanced LIGO. Sound like strange coincidence that they got what now seems a rare event immediately after switching it on.

Apr 07, 2016
now this is a long shot - and no, I'm not a crackpot - just a pondering bloke with a question.

If we are constantly being bombarded by gravitational waves, which are minute ripples in time, can it cause the measurement uncertainty of quantum particles?

Another thing that boggles my head's interior is that apparently gravitational waves are created by the energy of supermassive events (the Ligo measured that 2 SMBH's with a total mass of 65 suns lost 3 sunmasses in creating the waves). This means energy goes into spacetime and spacetime is not matter or energy in our universe itself. How would that work with the conservation of energy and aren't we losing mass in our universe because of this?


Apr 07, 2016
Why is there still only one detection?

We likely don't know if there's only one detection. Nor was it "immediately" after enabling it. It was pretty quickly there after, but not so immediate that you could blame it on instrumentation issues at start up. Generally, these results take time to process and analyze. Patience.

Apr 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 07, 2016
One detection? Because they detected two separate events but set a temporal aperature so narrow it required a year to conflate the separate events as one, as gravity waves are superluminal

Apr 07, 2016
as gravity waves are superluminal

The detected signal says otherwise.

Why is there still only one detection?

There's still a lot of data to analyze. And when they find another probable then they'll have to be as careful as with the first one before they publish. Note that it took quite some time (5 months) between finding the signal and making it public.This is not a fully automated process.


Apr 07, 2016
"Research papers" written based upon a event of confirmation bias and a list of assumptions. This is such a perfect display of modern cosmology there must be a Nobel in the offing.

Apr 07, 2016
I'll take modern cosmology where experimental data matches predictions made by theories over some half-baked, widely discredited belief from the 60s any day. You're of course free to believe in whatever you'd like, but please don't pretend that yours is a scientific one.

Apr 07, 2016
Experiments with flawed assumptions are worse than useless

Apr 07, 2016
[deleted]

Apr 07, 2016
Experiments with flawed assumptions are worse than useless
If some experiment produces data, and the same experiment performed by others elsewhere produces the same data, then that's very useful irrespective of any assumptions beforehand or interpretations afterward – these have no effect on the physics and can easily change when different repeatable experiments produce new data that can only be reconciled with the old data in a way that fits a new interpretation which discounts or supersedes any prior contentious interpretations. The number of known elements has changed a lot since earth, air, fire, and water – but the physics hasn't changed a bit.

Apr 07, 2016
but the physics hasn't changed a bit.
Exactly. New data or old data are irrelevant. The only thing that changes are the degrees of ignorance, also knows as implicit assumptions. Moreover the empiricist is very much in danger of finding what he wants to see. Of course even these efforts are infinitely better than blind belief which is nothing more than pure assumption

Apr 07, 2016
Probably only an error in calibration. That is, we have no reference where these fantasy waves do not exist to calibrate equipment. A shield? Really? I prefer using the tide to measure gravity waves from the moon. Which makes this B U L L S H I T! Pragmatism!

Apr 07, 2016
I'll take modern cosmology where experimental data matches predictions made by theories over some half-baked, widely discredited belief from the 60s any day. You're of course free to believe in(...)
- shavera
CD85 mentioned "confirmation bias" which is in line with what kind of data is entered INTO the super computer and what that computer spits out.
Predictions are fine if the boys had already done the experiment(s) a hundred times or so. But it is NOT fine when the experiment has only been done once, or even twice. The outcome from just one time is only a "slam dunk" if the data was severely hobbled in favor of whichever outcome was hoped for and predicted. But that is not an honest outcome when the input was only geared to extract ONE set of possibilities, rather than at least two or more.
They are already resting on their laurels, so to speak, prematurely.

Apr 07, 2016
Experiments with flawed assumptions are worse than useless
Experiments don't have assumptions.

Experiments are empirical data. Hypotheses and theories have assumptions, not experiments.

Massive logic fail.

Apr 07, 2016
If we are constantly being bombarded by gravitational waves, which are minute ripples in time, can it cause the measurement uncertainty of quantum particles?
No, they're not energetic enough. Gravity is the weakest force by far; IIRC it's about 10^-41 of the strength of electromagnetism.

Another thing that boggles my head's interior is that apparently gravitational waves are created by the energy of supermassive events (the Ligo measured that 2 SMBH's with a total mass of 65 suns lost 3 sunmasses in creating the waves).
Just a note, you shouldn't call 65 solar masses "supermassive." That's reserved for black holes of at least hundreds of thousands of solar masses.

[contd]

Apr 07, 2016
Predictions are fine if the boys had already done the experiment(s) a hundred times or so. But it is NOT fine when the experiment has only been done once, or even twice. ...They are already resting on their laurels, so to speak, prematurely. -obamarocks
Construction started in 1994 and first light was in 2002. Your suggestion that the experiment has only been done once or twice when they've been collecting data for 14 years is pure idiocy, and the idea that they are prematurely resting on their laurels after working on this project for 22 years is downright insulting, especially because they are not resting - the experimentation is ongoing.

Apr 07, 2016
[contd]
This means energy goes into spacetime and spacetime is not matter or energy in our universe itself. How would that work with the conservation of energy and aren't we losing mass in our universe because of this?
The mass isn't lost by radiation, it's converted into radiation, just like the mass lost in a nuclear interaction is converted into radiation and the momentum of ejected particles.

It's immaterial whether spacetime is matter or energy; the energy isn't in spacetime, it's in distortion of spacetime.

You also should keep in mind that spacetime is an actual thing; you can prove that by looking at Newton's Bucket and considering the implications of performing Newton's Bucket in an empty universe. If rotation itself is capable of creating momentum, then rotation is a real thing, and since unreal things cannot create real things, spacetime (which defines rotation) must also be a real thing.

Good questions! 5 from me.

Apr 08, 2016
I don't believe any theory until that person flies by me in an anti gravity car.

Apr 08, 2016
Still, it is a paradox how these 3 solar masses could escape the event horizon.

Why is this a paradox? Gravity is not affected by the curvature of space (it superposes).

Apr 08, 2016
Predictions are fine if the boys had already done the experiment(s) a hundred times or so. But it is NOT fine when the experiment has only been done once, or even twice. ...They are already resting on their laurels, so to speak, prematurely. -obamarocks
Construction started in 1994 and first light was in 2002. Your suggestion that the experiment has only been done once or twice when they've been collecting data for 14 years is pure idiocy, and the idea that they are prematurely resting on their laurels after working on this project for 22 years is downright insulting, especially because they are not resting - the experimentation is ongoing.

Warner Brothers aired Animaniacs in '93

Apr 08, 2016
I don't believe any theory until that person flies by me in an anti gravity car.

This could happen, once we realize the above is BULL. Gravity is a multipolar response caused by the vast amount of charge. Simply shield against either the negative field or the positive field and use the remaining field. Be careful, you might zoom off into infinity or flatten self against the planet. Think Isaac Asimov wrote a short story where anti-gravity was used as a murder weapon in a pool game. But that was Science Fiction, more believable than this bovinae discharge above.

Apr 08, 2016
Still, it is a paradox how these 3 solar masses could escape the event horizon.

Actually, it's not a paradox at all. Gravity already gets out just fine. Gluons and weak bosons and light and matter can't escape, but gravitons don't seem to have that problem; otherwise, black holes wouldn't suck!

Apr 09, 2016
Pretty much, but it's more a matter of getting a sensitive enough device without overwhelming it with static. Signal to noise, you see.

Apr 09, 2016
Would an advanced civilization using warp drives to travel faster than light generate gravity wave background noise?

Apr 09, 2016
Since we don't have any warp drives to test whether they generate gravity wave noise, there is no way to answer your question.

If an Alcubierre drive is possible, the disturbance caused by it would have to be minimal or the warp used in it would be constantly subject to loss of energy, and this would most likely involve loss of some of the negative energy this drive concept relies on. So, if one posits Alcubierre drive, most likely it would not contribute significantly to the gravity wave background.

Apr 09, 2016
Would an advanced civilization using warp drives to travel faster than light generate gravity wave background noise?

Think! Dr. E is wrong! How fast does a wavelet of length Lambda emitted pass a point? Space and time does not change! The initial wavelength does not change.

It passes in 1/ nu observed. Simple physics, not a complicated tensor. i.e. the speed of light is not a constant, in fact no one seems to measure it correctly. Go figure. It's c*Lambda_emitted/Lamda_observed, a value from 0 to infinity! There is no speed limit in empty space unless we place it there! You would have to be in denial to refute such a simple point.

Look at d(m*r)/dt, you get momentum as a function of displacement. This is not sound physics. Is everyone in some sort of "dull" space?

Apr 09, 2016
So continue with stupidity, space musta changed cause it passed by slower than it was initially. Or faster than it was initially. Stupid, you moved past it at some speed you ignored or it moved past you at a speed you ignored, you also ignored the initial wave length. Either way, your motion is out of sync with the source. You bunch of dumb asses! "Oh I git Lambda_observed*Nu_Observed = C, duh, no speed change." Idiot, its a propagation constant and is constant, it not how fast the wavelet moves relative to you idiot! "duh , I can't see dat. What'cha talking 'bout. Duh, you must be wrong, Einstein is a genius. Why I don't need the original wave length it changes 'cause of space-time ... " Not!

No he isn't, he's plays with equations, does no experiments. He's an idiot.

Apr 12, 2016
Gravity is the weakest force by far


This is the second time I came across this statement. When I tried to read more about this the best article I have found so far is this: http://www.huffin...233.html

Can't say if it is a credible source.

Apr 12, 2016
Would an advanced civilization using warp drives to travel faster than light generate gravity wave background noise?

Gravitational waves are created by accelerated objects. If we posit an Alcubierre style warp drive then the 'motion' of the spaceship would not produce such noise - since the ship itself remains locally stationary.

Changing the strength of such a warp drive or starting it up/shutting it down would probably also not produce any noise since it requires positive energy at the front and negative energy at the back (i.e. any effects might cancle out)

Warp drives should be detectable via lensing, though (if one were able to look close enough, as the effect would be minute...and only if the ship isn't travelling roughly towards you).

Apr 12, 2016
sub: Cosmos Quest
To mislead and escape from the issues is to promote dishonesty
BehindU Spinal Column defies Gravitational wave concept-Search cosmology vedas interlinks-Van-AllenBelts-sun-direction-Not anarchy or chaos
Neither Sun nor Milkyway need Gravitational ignorance.

Apr 12, 2016
So continue with stupidity, space musta changed cause it passed by slower than it was initially. Or faster than it was initially. Stupid, you moved past it at some speed you ignored or it moved past you at a speed you ignored, you also ignored the initial wave length. Either way, your motion is out of sync with the source. You bunch of dumb asses! "Oh I git Lambda_observed*Nu_Observed = C, duh, no speed change." Idiot, its a propagation constant and is constant, it not how fast the wavelet moves relative to you idiot! "duh , I can't see dat. What'cha talking 'bout. Duh, you must be wrong, Einstein is a genius. Why I don't need the original wave length it changes 'cause of space-time ... " Not!

No he isn't, he's plays with equations, does no experiments. He's an idiot.

I apologize for this. The wording is totally unnecessary. This is not the way I was raised. But to defend gravity waves from Dr. E's tensor space is worse.

Apr 12, 2016
Predictions are fine if the boys had already done the experiment(s) a hundred times or so. But it is NOT fine when the experiment has only been done once, or even twice. ...They are already resting on their laurels, so to speak, prematurely. -obamarocks
Construction started in 1994 and first light was in 2002. Your suggestion that the experiment has only been done once or twice when they've been collecting data for 14 years is pure idiocy,
- barakn

"The research team working with the LIGO project has proposed that the data gleaned from the discovery of gravity waves last year allows for calculating the likely level of cosmic background noise due to gravitational waves, and that it is much greater than previous models have suggested."

Construction time is irrelevant. Data collected for 14 years only led up to the actual event when the "discovery of gravity waves" actually occurred in real time - ONLY ONCE. It's not been duplicated since that one time.

Apr 12, 2016
So continue with stupidity, space musta changed cause it passed by slower than it was initially. Or faster than it was initially. Stupid, you moved past it at some speed you ignored or it moved past you at a speed you ignored, you also ignored the initial wave length. Either way, your motion is out of sync with the source. You bunch of dumb asses! "Oh I git Lambda_observed*Nu_Observed = C, duh, no speed change." Idiot, its a propagation constant and is constant, it not how fast the wavelet moves relative to you idiot! "duh , I can't see dat. What'cha talking 'bout. Duh, you must be wrong, Einstein is a genius. Why I don't need the original wave length it changes 'cause of space-time ... " Not!

I apologize for this. The wording is totally unnecessary. This is not the way I was raised. But to defend gravity waves from Dr. E's tensor space is worse.

No need to apologize. This is Phys.org - not "Ladies Home Journal".

Apr 13, 2016
Gravitational waves are waves of particle energy emanating outward from a source , gravitational radiation particles are produced in much the same manner as a dynamo produces an electromagnetic field.
Gravitational Radiation particles are to gravity what photons are to the electromagnetic field. The distortion of space-time is a result of waves of energy traveling at light speed that distort the local spacetime continuum as they pass by.

Apr 13, 2016
Gravity is the weakest force by far


This is the second time I came across this statement. When I tried to read more about this the best article I have found so far is this:

Can't say if it is a credible source.


Watch a good popular science documentary about gravity, I can recommend the ones from BBC.

From the 4 forces we know (Electro magnetism, Nuclear weak force (that causes radiation), the nuclear strong force (that binds atoms) and gravity) it is indeed the weakest.

It is not very apparent, since it keeps earth evolving around the sun and keeps you on the ground. So you might think it's very strong, but that's because a lot of mass is involved to generate a relatively small force.

An often used example is a magnet (EM force) and a paper clip. If you drop the paperclip, gravity will pull it to the ground, but it only takes a tiny magnet to defy the whole earth's gravity and pick up the paperclip.

Apr 13, 2016
Gravitational waves are waves of particle energy emanating outward from a source , gravitational radiation particles are produced in much the same manner as a dynamo produces an electromagnetic field.
Gravitational Radiation particles are to gravity what photons are to the electromagnetic field. The distortion of space-time is a result of waves of energy traveling at light speed that distort the local spacetime continuum as they pass by.

Atomically, there are really only two particles, one positive and one negative. When they move in circles, ellispe, or oscillate after collision, etc., the emanating field moves with the particle thus we see the difference in magnitude and timing. The distance between any two points in time and space of the field is always p1->p2 == L ===> L/t: t= time from p1 to p2 is always c. Thus a propagation constant. If you are moving you can change t but not the propagation constant. git it! If your speed is infinite, t=0. There is no magic

Apr 13, 2016
Since, a point on a sphere about every particle is felt every where and since these particles are never created or destroyed we have gravity. Poor description of where the point and particle are, but you can't be that stupid as not to get it. it is 3e/(4pi*r^2), add it up, O.I.C. said the blind man to his deaf wife as he picked up his hammer and saw! Gravity! The attraction bigger than repulsion because the particles always comply. Unlike charges are closer than like charges. Atomic structure follows a proximity rule ... near field has priority. So the defining magic is simply distance and time and q.

Apr 13, 2016
Since, a point on a sphere about every particle is felt every where and since these particles are never created or destroyed we have gravity. Poor description of where the point and particle are, but you can't be that stupid as not to get it. it is 3e/(4pi*r^2), add it up, O.I.C. said the blind man to his deaf wife as he picked up his hammer and saw! Gravity! The attraction bigger than repulsion because the particles always comply. Unlike charges are closer than like charges. Atomic structure follows a proximity rule ... near field has priority. So the defining magic is simply distance and time and q.

By the way, our universal constants are questionable and gravity is Not a separate force of nature. We are blowing smoke up ...

Apr 13, 2016
Since, a point on a sphere about every particle is felt every where and since these particles are never created or destroyed we have gravity. Poor description of where the point and particle are, but you can't be that stupid as not to get it. it is 3e/(4pi*r^2), add it up, O.I.C. said the blind man to his deaf wife as he picked up his hammer and saw! Gravity! The attraction bigger than repulsion because the particles always comply. Unlike charges are closer than like charges. Atomic structure follows a proximity rule ... near field has priority. So the defining magic is simply distance and time and q.

By the way, our universal constants are questionable and gravity is Not a separate force of nature. We are blowing smoke up ...

Ahhh... Commenting on your own comments. Must be the correct way to get the answers only you want...

Apr 14, 2016
Gravitational waves are waves of anti gravity particles, consisting of graviphotons produced by the excitation of the metric tensor during the two blackholes merger. They exist in the fifth dimension of the space time continuum. By all rights they should be called antigravity waves.

Apr 14, 2016
An often used example is a magnet (EM force) and a paper clip. If you drop the paperclip, gravity will pull it to the ground, but it only takes a tiny magnet to defy the whole earth's gravity and pick up the paperclip.

Locality...

Apr 14, 2016
An often used example is a magnet (EM force) and a paper clip. If you drop the paperclip, gravity will pull it to the ground, but it only takes a tiny magnet to defy the whole earth's gravity and pick up the paperclip.


Interesting analogy, and of course my first intuition is to agree since I can see with my own eyes that the EM field cancels out the gravity. However how far do you have to remove the magnet from the paperclip until it does not pick it up anymore? In other words, could this not be a focus effect? Or perhaps the fact that gravity interacts differently with the paperclip than the EM field in a similar fashion as a black hole can affect light but a magnet does not seem to do so? I will definitely watch the BBC show you recommend :D

Apr 14, 2016
An often used example is a magnet (EM force) and a paper clip. If you drop the paperclip, gravity will pull it to the ground, but it only takes a tiny magnet to defy the whole earth's gravity and pick up the paperclip.

Yeah, but... if you let go of the magnet, both it AND the paperclip drop to the ground...:-)

Apr 14, 2016
An often used example is a magnet (EM force) and a paper clip. If you drop the paperclip, gravity will pull it to the ground, but it only takes a tiny magnet to defy the whole earth's gravity and pick up the paperclip.

Yeah, but... if you let go of the magnet, both it AND the paperclip drop to the ground...:-)

gravity, still a 1/r^2 law, but has two players + and -., remove one and shield the same, expectations, simple thought experiment. Get real, you can't deny the omnipresence of ... so gravity is what if not? It's simpler than what you imagine. A magnet is also not a separate force, only due to motion of the + or - with a zero divergence so ...

Apr 14, 2016
Since, a point on a sphere about every particle is felt every where and since these particles are never created or destroyed we have gravity. Poor description of where the point and particle are, but you can't be that stupid as not to get it. it is 3e/(4pi*r^2), add it up, O.I.C. said the blind man to his deaf wife as he picked up his hammer and saw! Gravity! The attraction bigger than repulsion because the particles always comply. Unlike charges are closer than like charges. Atomic structure follows a proximity rule ... near field has priority. So the defining magic is simply distance and time and q.

By the way, our universal constants are questionable and gravity is Not a separate force of nature. We are blowing smoke up ...

Ahhh... Commenting on your own comments. Must be the correct way to get the answers only you want...

What? Only one answer so simple it makes us all look like fools! The earth is no flat! We have just begun

Apr 14, 2016
Hence, magnetism is derivative

Apr 14, 2016
Gravity is the weakest force by far


This is the second time I came across this statement. When I tried to read more about this the best article I have found so far is this: http://www.huffin...233.html

Can't say if it is a credible source.
He misses a very strong point: if the Sun were made of protons and the Earth of electrons, the force of electromagnetism between them would be enormously greater (10^39, that's a 1 followed by 39 zeros) than the force of gravity between them. That's why they say that.

As for whether the article is credible, it's accurate, as far as it goes, but the title is hyperbole and so is the thesis, and in order to prove it the author had to ignore positrons. Oops.

Apr 14, 2016
Gravity is the weakest force by far


This is the second time I came across this statement. When I tried to read more about this the best article I have found so far is this: http://www.huffin...233.html

Can't say if it is a credible source.
He misses a very strong point: if the Sun were made of protons and the Earth of electrons, the force of electromagnetism between them would be enormously greater (10^39, that's a 1 followed by 39 zeros) than the force of gravity between them. That's why they say that.

As for whether the article is credible, it's accurate, as far as it goes, but the title is hyperbole and so is the thesis, and in order to prove it the author had to ignore positrons. Oops.

No, the electric, dynamic or static always exist, the superimposed fields are gravity, and ... so juz +&- please


Apr 15, 2016
He misses a very strong point: if the Sun were made of protons and the Earth of electrons, the force of electromagnetism between them would be enormously greater (10^39, that's a 1 followed by 39 zeros) than the force of gravity between them. That's why they say that.

As for whether the article is credible, it's accurate, as far as it goes, but the title is hyperbole and so is the thesis, and in order to prove it the author had to ignore positrons. Oops.


Funny you mentioned this, this was actually handled in an XKCD issue of "What if" https://what-if.xkcd.com/140/

It turns out that if he is correct, the gravity of the individual electrons on each other would be stronger than the repulsive force they'd have on each other resulting in a black hole of epic proportions. I'd say that would be the ultimate proof that gravity is the "stronger" force but I doubt that this is conclusive. I really like this discussion though!

Apr 15, 2016
https://drive.goo...4dWFJSDA

Modern Physics: Correction

Apr 15, 2016
He misses a very strong point: if the Sun were made of protons and the Earth of electrons, the force of electromagnetism between them would be enormously greater (10^39, that's a 1 followed by 39 zeros) than the force of gravity between them. That's why they say that.

As for whether the article is credible, it's accurate, as far as it goes, but the title is hyperbole and so is the thesis, and in order to prove it the author had to ignore positrons. Oops.


Funny you mentioned this, this was actually handled in an XKCD issue of "What if" https://what-if.xkcd.com/140/

It turns out that if he is correct, the gravity of the individual electrons on each other would be stronger than the repulsive force they'd have on each other resulting in a black hole of epic proportions. I'd say that would be the ultimate proof that gravity is the "stronger" force but I doubt that this is conclusive. I really like this discussion though!

This is stupid

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