Neutron star merger confirms decades of predictions

November 2, 2017 by Liz Fuller-Wright, Princeton University
This snapshot of the first milliseconds in the violent merger of two neutron stars, calculated and rendered by associate research scholar David Radice and collaborators, reveals the stars’ gravitational tidal effects on each other. In the next 10 milliseconds, they will merge into one rapidly rotating massive neutron star, then collapse into a black hole surrounded by a transient disk of material. Credit: Princeton University

On Aug. 17, the Laser Interferometry Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detected the fifth fingerprint of a massive disturbance in spacetime since LIGO began operations in September 2015. Unlike the first four sets of ripples, which reflected collisions between two black holes, the shape of these spacetime distortions suggested a collision between two neutron stars.

While black hole collisions produce almost no signature other than gravitational waves, the collision of can be—and was—observed up and down the electromagnetic spectrum. "When neutron stars collide, all hell breaks loose," said Frans Pretorius, a Princeton physics professor. "They start producing a tremendous amount of visible light, and also gamma rays, X-rays, radio waves…."

Princeton researchers have been studying neutron stars and their astronomical signatures for decades.

Neutron stars and gamma rays: Bohdan Paczynski and Jeremy Goodman

The gravitational waves were the first evidence of the neutron star merger to arrive at Earth, followed by a gamma-ray burst that arrived 1.7 seconds later.

The connection between neutron stars and gamma-ray bursts was first identified by Princeton astrophysicists in 1986, said James Stone, the Lyman Spitzer Jr., Professor of Theoretical Astrophysics and chair of the Department of Astrophysical Sciences. "Many of the discoveries announced [Oct. 16] confirm the basic predictions made 30 years ago here in Princeton."

He was referring to a set of back-to-back papers by Bohdan Paczynski, the late Lyman Spitzer Jr. Professor of Theoretical Astrophysics, and Jeremy Goodman, a 1983 Ph.D. graduate who studied under Paczynski and is now a professor in the department. In their articles, Paczynski and Goodman argued that colliding neutron stars could be the sources of gamma-ray bursts, a mysterious, short-lived energy source first identified by satellites in the late 1960s.

"We both referred to that possibility. Who first floated that idea? I don't know, because we were in constant conversation," Goodman said. "We knew that [neutron stars] must occasionally collide—we knew that because of [Princeton physicist and Nobel laureate] Joe Taylor's work."

In addition, Paczynski had realized that most gamma-ray bursts were coming from distances far enough that the expansion of the universe was affecting their apparent distribution.

"Bohdan Paczynski was absolutely right," said Goodman. However, his ideas were not immediately embraced by the field. "I remember going to a conference in Taos, New Mexico. … Bohdan gave a short talk on his idea that are coming from cosmological distances. I remember these other astrophysicists … they were respectfully quiet when he spoke, but regarded him as a bit of a lunatic."

He added, "Bohdan Paczynski was a very bold thinker."

Neutron stars collide: Joseph Taylor, Russell Hulse and Joel Weisberg

The possibility of colliding neutron stars that had prompted Paczynski and Goodman's discussion first surfaced in a 1981 paper by Joseph Taylor, now the James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Physics, Emeritus. His 1974 discovery of binary neutron stars with his then-graduate student Russell Hulse, who later worked at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, was awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics. They showed that the two neutron stars they had spotted were separated by about half a million miles and orbiting each other every 7.75 hours.

In 1981, shortly after coming to Princeton, Taylor and then-Assistant Professor Joel Weisberg announced that with precise measurements taken over several years, they had confirmed that the distance and period are changing with time, with an orbital decay that matches Albert Einstein's prediction for energy loss due to gravitational wave emission. The orbit is slowing so infinitesimally that it will take roughly 300 million years for the neutron stars in the Hulse-Taylor binary to collide and merge.

"Once the Hulse-Taylor neutron star binary was understood, with subsequent timing experiments showing consistency with general relativity, it was clear that collisions would happen," said Steven Gubser, a professor of physics. "So as we celebrate the first gravitational wave detection of colliding neutron stars, let's also credit Joe Taylor and Russell Hulse for their original discovery of binary pulsars, and for the demonstration that they are in fact neutron stars orbiting each other, just waiting to collide."

How stars merge: Steven Gubser and Frans Pretorius

Picture a quarter spinning on a tabletop. As friction bleeds energy from the system, the quarter starts to wobble around its outer edge, making a "whop…whop…whop…whop" sound that speeds up (whop-whop-whop-whop) and speeds up (whopwhopwhopwhop) until it's just a blur of sound that rises in pitch into a final "whoooop" as the quarter flattens on the table.

That's the demonstration that Gubser and Pretorius provided as they described how black holes (or neutron stars) collide—an astronomical marvel that LIGO has now detected five times. At a recent talk for their book, "The Little Book of Black Holes," published by Princeton University Press, Gubser and Pretorius used a disk about three inches across instead of a quarter, so their audience could more easily see and hear the disk's slow but steady increase of speed.

"You'd ordinarily think of losing energy as corresponding to slowing down, not speeding up, but you saw with the disk that in fact it can go the other way," said Gubser afterward. "As the disk loses energy to friction, its point of contact moves faster and faster around, and produces that characteristic rising frequency."

Whether the colliding objects are neutron stars or —or one of each—the whirling motion and its sound follows the same pattern. As the gravitational wave energy bleeds away, the two objects will orbit each other faster and faster, heading to their inevitable demise.

In the case of the collision that LIGO detected on Aug. 17, the two stars—each the size of Manhattan and with almost twice the mass of the sun—were ultimately whirling around each other hundreds of times per second, moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light before they collided.

"Taylor and Weisberg's timing experiment showed the beginnings of this pattern, arising from a slow in-spiral," said Gubser. "The frequency increases very slowly, and that's why it was such an impressive measurement."

By contrast, he said, "in the final phase of the in-spiral, the frequency increases rapidly, and you get the kind of 'whoop' or 'chirp' waveform that LIGO saw."

What stars create: Adam Burrows and David Radice

When stars smash into each other at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, the collision fuses atoms together and creates the elements that fill the bottom rows of the periodic table.

"These elements—platinum, gold, many other less valuable ones that are high up on the periodic table—they have more neutrons than protons in their nuclei," Goodman said. "You can't get to those nuclei in the same way that we understand elements up to iron being produced, by effectively adding one neutron at a time. The problem is that you have to add a lot of neutrons very quickly." This rapid process is known to physicists as the r-process.

For a long time, scientists thought that r-process elements were created in supernovae, but the numbers didn't add up, Goodman said. "But neutron stars are mostly neutrons, and if you smash two of them together, it's reasonable to expect that some of the neutrons will splash out."

"The products of this merger could be gold, uranium, europium—some of the heaviest elements in nature," said Adam Burrows, a professor of astrophysical sciences and the director of the Program in Planets and Life.

Burrows and David Radice, an associate research scholar, recently won funding from the U.S. Department of Energy to investigate merging neutron stars and supernovae, which Burrows collectively describes as "some of the most explosive phenomena, some of the most violent, that occur on a regular basis in the universe."

Spectroscopic observations from the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope (VLT) in the wake of the LIGO detection confirmed that heavy metals like platinum, lead and gold were created in the collision of the two neutron .

The VLT data used to identify these elements, the visible and near-visible wavelengths of light, were gathered in the hours and days following LIGO's detection of the gravitational waves. Once word had begun to spread of LIGO's discovery, the worldwide astronomical community trained their telescopes and other instruments on the patch of sky that the gravitational waves had come from, in what former Princeton postdoctoral researcher Brian Metzger called the "most ambitious and emotionally charged electromagnetic campaign in history, probably, for any transient [short-lived event]."

Metzger, an assistant physics professor at Columbia University, was one of the almost 4,000 co-authors on the paper describing the follow-up observations of X-rays, , visible light waves, radio waves and more. "This was a really amazing panchromatic discovery of gravitational waves, at basically every single wavelength," he said.

The impact on the astronomical community compares to only one other event in his lifetime, said Goodman: the 1987 supernova. Observations of that stellar explosion had provided concrete resolution to countless astronomical questions and theories. "People had been building up this model for supernovae, [a] towering theoretical edifice, and the observational foundations were a little shaky," Goodman said. "Nobody could think of a better model for these things, but then to see it … I don't know how to describe it, it's like getting a telegram from God, saying exactly what these events were."

The reams of data gathered from the "electromagnetic fireworks" produced by the star merger have had a similar effect, Goodman said. "We had all sorts of speculation … but now we have these . It's exactly as we expected for two compact masses!"

"This is the future of , which is a new astronomy that has been opened," said Burrows. "It's a new window on the universe that has been anticipated for decades, and it's an amazing coming-to-fruition of the ambitions of thousands of scientists, technologists, that actually accomplished what many people thought they could not."

Explore further: What are neutron stars?

More information: B. P. Abbott et al. Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger, The Astrophysical Journal (2017). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

Related Stories

What are neutron stars?

October 16, 2017

Thrilled physicists and astronomers announced Monday the first-ever observation of the merger of two neutron stars, one of the most spectacularly violent phenomena in the Universe.

Seeing the light of neutron star collisions

October 16, 2017

When two neutron stars collided on Aug. 17, a widespread search for electromagnetic radiation from the event led to observations of light from the afterglow of the explosion, finally connecting a gravitational-wave-producing ...

Recommended for you

Japan space robots start asteroid survey

September 22, 2018

A pair of robot rovers have landed on an asteroid and begun a survey, Japan's space agency said Saturday, as it conducts a mission aiming to shed light on the origins of the solar system.

First to red planet will become Martians: Canada astronaut

September 22, 2018

Astronauts traveling through space on the long trip to Mars will not have the usual backup from mission control on Earth and will need to think of themselves as Martians to survive, Canada's most famous spaceman half-jokingly ...

Three NASA missions return first-light data

September 21, 2018

NASA's continued quest to explore our solar system and beyond received a boost of new information this week with three key missions proving not only that they are up and running, but that their science potential is exceptional. ...

Dwarf companion to EPIC 206011496 detected by astronomers

September 20, 2018

Using ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT), European astronomers have uncovered the presence of an M-dwarf around the star EPIC 206011496. The newly found object is more than 60 percent less massive than our sun and is bounded ...

89 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

wduckss
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2017
It is very important that LIGO remains in the sphere of hypothetical and unjustifiable. Science and evidence LIGO some, leave it, scientists.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
Clicking on the DOI reference above takes you to the article on ApJ. Which is free access.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2017
were separated by about half a million miles and orbiting each other every 7.75 hours.

Damn...that's some serious g's these stars are pulling.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2017
were separated by about half a million miles and orbiting each other every 7.75 hours.

Damn...that's some serious g's these stars are pulling.

An impressive centrifuge...
tblakely1357
5 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2017
I wonder how close you could be to safely observe one of those mergers?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2017
I wonder how close you could be to safely observe one of those mergers?


Depends on what you mean by 'safe'
Here's a weird one along a similar line (from the xkcd "what if" pages) :
"How close would you have to be to a supernova to get a lethal dose of *neutrino* radiation?"

Think about that for a second and it gets ever weirder.
Answer can be found here
https://what-if.xkcd.com/73/

As for your question:
There could be a range where the gravitational wave would rip you apart (but it would be rather close)...however a neutron star merger puts out all kinds of radiation so the lethal distance is a lot further (though you can shield against radiation - but not against a gravitational wave...which makes your question rather interesting again. You could possibly have a planet of lead between you and the merger and that might make the gravitational wave - or the neutrinos - more lethal than the gamma rays.)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2017
...though come to think of it...you wouldn't be able to 'observe' the merger that way. Reason being: you'd have a planet of lead in the way :-p
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2017
The original paper announcing the detection of the latest GW had 4,000 co-authors? Wow! This gives one some idea of how important this was!

And they're not even kidding. Here's the link: http://iopscience...3/aa91c9

Click on the Show Full Author List and count them for yourself.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2017
The original paper announcing the detection of the latest GW had 4,000 co-authors? Wow! This gives one some idea of how important this was!

And they're not even kidding. Here's the link: http://iopscience...3/aa91c9

Click on the Show Full Author List and count them for yourself.


And representing > 950 institutions! Of course they are all horribly wrong, and it's probably just some sort of ill defined electrical woo :)
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2017
^^^^^^^None of which alters the fact that "Neutron star merger confirms decades of predictions." Try reading it.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2017
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is REPRODUCIBLE results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

- Michael Crichton, The Caltech Michelin Lecture, 17 January 2003


And........you obviously didn't read the article, particularly as it pertains to Paczynski. End of the first section. That paper now has 1378 citations.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2017
Amidst all this noise about "gravitational waves", I'm still left to wondering if all these LIGO people think SPACETIME CURVATURE is also a WAVE.

Maybe we could take a survey, how many above think this is what it means?

If you can't answer the question with a YES or a NO, does that mean you didn't understand the question? Or does it mean you don't know?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2017
@ Reeve,
Hey hard-of-thinking, how about actually addressing the evidence? They predicted neutron stars, we observed neutron stars; they predicted what would be seen in a collision, and they were shown to be right. What part of that are you not understanding? Yes, I realise that it is science, something with which you are not familiar, but do at least try. What is there to be skeptical about? Please show me the alternative hypothesis that explains away their correct predictions, as observed.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2017
What do you even say to someone who doesn't get that this is data, not theory, and that the data were collected by 4000 scientists over a span of a few days, using the most powerful and advanced facilities that exist? And that it all fits together?

Here come the EUdiots again, denying data and confusing it with theory.

The truth will out, and it just did. Get over it, EUdiots.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2017
The first sentence of the abstract tells you all you need to know about the validity of this abomination of science;
Over 80 years ago Baade & Zwicky (1934) proposed the idea
of neutron stars,

LOL! So a couple of plasma ignoramuses proposed this idea of a physically impossible object prior to the space age. Back before a huge number of hypothetical beliefs were shown to be completely erroneous by the very first spacecraft with limited data collection abilities orbited Earth. Before radio waves or EM spectrum other than visible were accepted to be emitted in the Cosmos. Recall cosmic radio waves were thought to be a hoax by these very same people. This was when nothing could traverse the "vacuum of space" other than visible light, regardless of the moronic idiocy of said belief. It's completely safe to say the entire edifice of this fanciful fictional nonsense is nothing more than cosmic comic relief. Calling it pseudoscience is even applying more respect than it deserves.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2017
^^^^^^Lol. Says the bloke who believes Earth used to orbit Saturn, and that Venus erupted from Jupiter!
Perhaps you can go one better than Reeve and point us to the alternative hypothesis which also successfully predicted this phenomenon? Nope, thought not.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2017
What do you even say to someone who doesn't get that this is data, not theory, and that the data were collected by 4000 scientists over a span of a few days, using the most powerful and advanced facilities that exist? And that it all fits together?

4000 morons in a giant LIGO circle jerk, patting each other on the back proud to exclaim to all future generations how delusional they have become. And there lie all the acolytes within their circle ready to swallow all they have to offer. It's quite amusing!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2017
What do you even say to someone who doesn't get that this is data, not theory, and that the data were collected by 4000 scientists over a span of a few days, using the most powerful and advanced facilities that exist? And that it all fits together?

4000 morons in a giant LIGO circle jerk, patting each other on the back proud to exclaim to all future generations how delusional they have become. And there lie all the acolytes within their circle ready to swallow all they have to offer. It's quite amusing!


So come on, tell us what they detected. Shouldn't be difficult. Ask the idiot Thornhill. The one who believes Velikovski's woo. What predictions has he made?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2017
So come on, tell us what they detected. Shouldn't be difficult.
.......nope it isn't, they detected a change of intensity of the established background field of EM & Gravity, nothing that makes spacetime curvature (gravity) a WAVE.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2017
So come on, tell us what they detected. Shouldn't be difficult.
.......nope it isn't, they detected a change of intensity of the established background field of EM & Gravity, nothing that makes spacetime curvature (gravity) a WAVE.


Really? Where can I read more about that? Or did you just make it up?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2017
Really? Where can I read more about that? Or did you just make it up?

Not unlike Zwicky and his fanciful pontifications of matter we know by any number of metrics cannot exist, immersed in a medium we know from direct measurements which does not exist except in a mathematicians equation.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
Well, seeing as the EU cranks refuse to tell you, I'll have to fill you in on where their objections to these extremely robust findings come from. And yes, you guessed it, it all comes back to the world class moron Velikovsky:
Cosmos without gravitation (1946)
http://www.varchi...smos.htm

Then the equally moronic Thornhill, a great admirer of his fellow moron, took up the challenge, armed only with a BSc, and multiple misunderstandings of basic science. He posted it as a youtube video (lol). There was a discussion of this utter garbage here:
http://www.intern...hornhill

So now you know why they won't elucidate their objections. They are too embarrassed!
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2017
Really? Where can I read more about that? Or did you just make it up?

Not unlike Zwicky and his fanciful pontifications of matter we know by any number of metrics cannot exist, immersed in a medium we know from direct measurements which does not exist except in a mathematicians equation.


Except that neutron stars have been detected. And the predictions about their nature confirmed. So that's all a bit irrelevant. Eh?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2017
For anybody that wants a good laugh, here is Thornhill's take on gravity:
http://www.holosc...niverse/
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2017
Except that neutron stars have been detected. And the predictions about their nature confirmed. So that's all a bit irrelevant. Eh?

You're right, you and the study of these abominations of science are irrelevant. It's comical the level of tripe some people will believe.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
For anybody that wants a good laugh, here is Thornhill's take on gravity:
http://www.holosc...niverse/

Fancy that, a proposal which actually gives a physical explanation for gravity. You know, physics. Something which Newton refused to propose and that which Einstein explained with pseudoscientific concepts such as marble depressing spacetime.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
wduckss
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
First, only two (hypothetical) black holes can produce (fictional) gravity waves. Now these are (hypothetical) neutron stars, soon there will be two asteroids.
In the article, I have already predicted this development path (http://www.svemir...candal). Advertising, technology, is miles away from science.

@Chris_Reeve
Your observations are good (and some other skeptical members). Convert them into articles and post them. It will be interesting to keep track of your development.
434a
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2017

LOL! So a couple of plasma ignoramuses proposed this idea of a physically impossible object prior to the space age.


http://hubblesite...on-stars

About this image
This is the first direct look, in visible light, at a lone neutron star, as seen by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble results show the star is very hot (1.2 million degrees Fahrenheit at the surface), and can be no larger than 16.8 miles (28 kilometers) across. These results prove that the object must be a neutron star, because no other known type of object can be this hot, small, and dim (below 25th magnitude).

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
Re: "Over 80 years ago Baade & Zwicky (1934) proposed the idea of neutron stars"

Thomas Gold, J. of Sci. Exploration, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp 103-112, 1989

"New ideas in science are not always right just because they are new. Nor are the old ideas always wrong just because they are old. A critical attitude is clearly required of every scientist. But what is required is to be equally critical to the old ideas as to the new. Whenever the established ideas are accepted uncritically, but conflicting new evidence is brushed aside and not reported because it does not fit, then that particular science is in deep trouble -- and it has happened quite often in the ........"


Rotating Neutron Stars as the Origin of the Pulsating Radio Sources
Gold, T.
http://adsabs.har...18..731G (1968)

Way to go Reeve! Thanks.
Jayarava
2 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
Predictions can be shown to be accurate to a certain margin combining precision and error. They cannot be "confirmed".

The observations here match the predictions to some margin. What you are saying is that the margin is small. Which is great. Well done. But no prediction is ever simply "confirmed" in science. To say it is, is just bad science.

Very often it is the almost vanishingly small variation from prediction, that becomes apparent at higher levels of precision, that heralds a paradigm change. For example, the tiny variation in the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit heralded the emergence of relativity.

So let's not get carried away by the current lack of precision in our instruments.

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
Except that neutron stars have been detected. And the predictions about their nature confirmed. So that's all a bit irrelevant. Eh?

You're right, you and the study of these abominations of science are irrelevant. It's comical the level of tripe some people will believe.


Errrr, Velikovsky anybody? Irony much?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
For anybody that wants a good laugh, here is Thornhill's take on gravity:
http://www.holosc...niverse/

Fancy that, a proposal which actually gives a physical explanation for gravity. You know, physics. Something which Newton refused to propose and that which Einstein explained with pseudoscientific concepts such as marble depressing spacetime.


It gives an idiotic and impossible description of gravity, which is easily ruled out. Which is of no use at all. Change the charge on one orbiting body (i.e. a spacecraft) and what should happen according to the loon Thornhill? Guess what doesn't happen? It's rubbish. And all so that Wal can carry on believing in Velikovskian woo, with Venus doing handbrake turns around the solar system in the recent past. Pure woo.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017

LOL! So a couple of plasma ignoramuses proposed this idea of a physically impossible object prior to the space age.


http://hubblesite...on-stars

About this image
This is the first direct look, in visible light, at a lone neutron star, as seen by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble results show the star is very hot (1.2 million degrees Fahrenheit at the surface), and can be no larger than 16.8 miles (28 kilometers) across. These results prove that the object must be a neutron star, because no other known type of object can be this hot, small, and dim (below 25th magnitude).



Free access paper re this image:
TOWARDS A MASS AND RADIUS DETERMINATION OF THE NEARBY ISOLATED NEUTRON STAR RX J185635-3754
https://arxiv.org...7404.pdf
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
LOL! So a couple of plasma ignoramuses proposed this idea of a physically impossible object prior to the space age.


Who says they are physically impossible? First I've heard of it. References please.

434a
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2017


Free access paper re this image:
TOWARDS A MASS AND RADIUS DETERMINATION OF THE NEARBY ISOLATED NEUTRON STAR RX J185635-3754
https://arxiv.org...7404.pdf


Very interesting, thanks for the link.

It looks like the Chandra measurements they were hoping for, along with Hubble, were able to confirm this as a neutron star rather than a potential quark star in the end.

https://en.wikipe...6.5-3754

Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2017
So come on, tell us what they detected. Shouldn't be difficult
.nope it isn't, they detected a change of intensity of the established background field of EM & Gravity, nothing that makes spacetime curvature (gravity) a WAVE.


Really? Where can I read more about that? Or did you just make it up?


...because the so-called wave wasn't CONTINUOUS, it was a mere blip that disappeared as quickly as it appeared & returned to background. If gravity were a WAVE it should have locked the detector to
permanently so as to remain above BACKGROUND, it didn't.

Why don't you just do some simplified reading that even you could understand about how INTERFEROMETERS work to detect changes in background.

Because you do not have an Electrical Engineering education, it is unlikely you will comprehend the detection process involving how changes above background, of a field being measured, is caused by a changing INTENSITY that occurs within the interferometer.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 03, 2017
^^^^^^Like I said - who is claiming this, and where can I read about it? Because a shed load of very well qualified people have written about it, and say that you are wrong. So, evidence please. By the way - assertions without evidence on a comments section of a place like this ain't worth squat.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2017
Because you do not have an Electrical Engineering education, it is unlikely you will comprehend the detection process involving how changes above background, of a field being measured, is caused by a changing INTENSITY that occurs within the interferometer.


Hey, jonsesy babe........when us Nuclear/Electrical Engineers fabricate these kinds of equipments to create precise measurement systems, we don't take into consideration how cretinologists like you mis-interpret the results, we use Interferometers in our lab, I know more than just the basics what the LIGO measurements are about.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2017
Because you do not have an Electrical Engineering education, it is unlikely you will comprehend the detection process involving how changes above background, of a field being measured, is caused by a changing INTENSITY that occurs within the interferometer.


Hey, jonsesy babe........when us Nuclear/Electrical Engineers fabricate these kinds of equipments to create precise measurement systems, we don't take into consideration how cretinologists like you mis-interpret the results, we use Interferometers in our lab, I know more than just the basics what the LIGO measurements are about.


Right, so I was correct in thinking that you just made it up. Thanks.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
Hey, jonsesy babe........when us Nuclear/Electrical Engineers fabricate these kinds of equipments to create precise measurement systems, we don't take into consideration how cretinologists like you mis-interpret the results, we use Interferometers in our lab, I know more than just the basics what the LIGO measurements are about.


Right, so I was correct in thinking that you just made it up. Thanks.
........No, us Nuclear/Electrical Engineers do things much differently than those of you working in the field of Cretinology.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2017
The ***unambiguous*** joint detection of GW and EM radiation from the same event confirms that BNS mergers are progenitors of (at least some) SGRBs.


Gravitational Waves and Gamma-Rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A
http://iopscience...20c/meta

So I guess Benni is going to write to > 1000 co-authors from almost 200 institutions and explain why they have got it wrong. Errr, no. He'll just keep posting crap on here.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
because the so-called wave wasn't CONTINUOUS, it was a mere blip that disappeared as quickly as it appeared & returned to background. If gravity were a WAVE it should have locked the detector to
permanently so as to remain above BACKGROUND, it didn't.


Errr, no. Have a look at Fig. 2 in the paper. Particularly the lower panel. That is not a 'blip'. It rises exponentially as the stars spiral inward. Then it peaks as they collide. After that there are no more waves, nor would they be expected. A 'blip' would be a sharp spike arising from the background noise. This is not.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
Compact Binary Inspiral Gravitational waves are characteristically short in duration (several seconds to less than a second long) and increase in frequency as the stars orbit ever-faster. The expected gravitational wave signals from merger of neutron stars and black holes have been modeled into audible signals based on the frequencies of the gravitational waves as they would arrive at LIGO's detectors.


https://www.ligo....-sources

So I think they know what they are doing, but I'm sure Benni's feedback would be welcomed, should he wish to avail them of his knowledge in this area.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2017
Predictions can be shown to be accurate to a certain margin combining precision and error. They cannot be "confirmed".

The observations here match the predictions to some margin. What you are saying is that the margin is small. Which is great. Well done. But no prediction is ever simply "confirmed" in science. To say it is, is just bad science.
When you take a picture through a telescope, that's pretty definitive, I'd say.

When 4000 astrophysicists take pictures through telescopes, it's pretty much beyond doubt.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
So I guess Benni is going to write to > 1000 co-authors from almost 200 institutions and explain why they have got it wrong. Errr, no. He'll just keep posting crap on here.


Hey, Mr Cretinologist, I've met a couple of those 1000 + signatories, we get their resumes from time to time & once in awhile Human Resources sees what they think may be a viable candidate for a technical position,.

From my experience running into some of these guys during an interview process, I can tell you none of these guys could take apart an Interferometer & put it back together again......hell's bells man, many of them barely comprehend how a transistor works, so how about YOU? Yeah, same problem, so you're forever stuck in the field of Cretinology, anyway, for you it's a better fit.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2017
Predictions can be shown to be accurate to a certain margin combining precision and error. They cannot be "confirmed".

The observations here match the predictions to some margin. What you are saying is that the margin is small. Which is great. Well done. But no prediction is ever simply "confirmed" in science. To say it is, is just bad science.
When you take a picture through a telescope, that's pretty definitive, I'd say.


And when that data matches previous predictions based on what should happen, then it is even more definitive. Oh to see such predictions and confirmations from the crank science we are subjected to on here!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
So I guess Benni is going to write to > 1000 co-authors from almost 200 institutions and explain why they have got it wrong. Errr, no. He'll just keep posting crap on here.


Hey, Mr Cretinologist, I've met a couple of those 1000 + signatories, we get their resumes from time to time & once in awhile Human Resources sees what they think may be a viable candidate for a technical position,.

From my experience running into some of these guys during an interview process, I can tell you none of these guys could take apart an Interferometer & put it back together again......hell's bells man, many of them barely comprehend how a transistor works, so how about YOU? Yeah, same problem, so you're forever stuck in the field of Cretinology, anyway, for you it's a better fit.


Told you, he'd just keep posting crap. Can't deal with the science, so attack the scientists. How predictable from #physicscranks.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2017
ey, Mr Cretinologist, I've met a couple of those 1000 + signatories, we get their resumes from time to time & once in awhile Human Resources sees what they think may be a viable candidate for a technical position,.


Most likely a lie. Names, or it didn't happen. Why would an astrophysicist apply for a technical position in (allegedly) nuclear engineering? Lol. Fantasy, methinks.

Chris_Reeve
Nov 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
Well, here's a couple of chaps who feature on the author list for that paper:
L. Pinard & B. Sassolas.
They seem to know what they're doing:
Toward a new generation of low-loss mirrors for the advanced gravitational waves interferometers
https://www.osapu...6-8-1407

However, they live in France, so very much doubt that they've applied for jobs at Benni's workplace!
Chris_Reeve
Nov 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
^^^^^Rubbish. It's just an old man, unqualified to do the task, trying to reconcile his idiotic Velikovskian beliefs with reality. Can't be done. He's a loon. Nobody takes him seriously.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 03, 2017
^^^^^^^^^^^Aaaaaaaaaaaand off we go on another gish gallop. Boring. And pointless.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
There's a very high chance that these articles will feature snapshotted comments by jonesdave, DaSchneib and the Captain.

Looky there jonesdumb, you're about to be published! And da schnied too, well on his way for that magnetic monopole Nobel. Gotta start somewhere...
rrwillsj
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2017
After trudging through this mire of Velkostupid/EU lunacy, I'm going to go relax in my Orgone Box. The only working machine that ever came out of all that crackedpotty claque of quacking charlatans.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
It would be nice for someone to display a single working machine as a result of GR. Just one.
On the other hand, the same electrical engineering concepts in use by the EU are responsible for basically the entirety of our modern electronic society as we know it. And there are the concepts developed by Hannes Alfven and his plasma discoveries.
http://scholar.go...scholarr
But who cares about fact when one can spew forth lies like the acolytes of all things dark.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
Why would an astrophysicist apply for a technical position in (allegedly) nuclear engineering?
.....only as Technical Writers. You wouldn't what that is.
barakn
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 03, 2017
It would be nice for someone to display a single working machine as a result of GR. Just one.
-canthink85

There are dozens of them, actually. GPS satellites.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
Just one, you say there are dozens. Should be easy enough. GPS is false.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2017
There are dozens of them, actually. GPS satellites.

More generally: Everyhere where high precision timing is an issue the depth of the clock in the gravitational well must be taken into account. (i.e. everyhere where atomic clocks are used - of which GPS is only one example)
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2017
On the other hand, the same electrical engineering concepts in use by the EU.........


Yep, like Venus hurtling around the solar system. Comets being rock blasted off of planets. Giant electrical woo creating craters. And invisible currents powering the Sun. I'm sure Alfven would have wanted nothing to do with all that Velikovskian nonsense. And neither does anybody else. I've said before, whatever EU is, it isn't science.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 03, 2017
Important relativistic effects on GPS satellite clocks include gravitational frequency shifts and time
dilation. These effects are so large that if not accounted for, the system would not be effective for navigation.


An actual scientific paper, rather than a boobtube video.

Relativistic Effects in the Global Positioning System
http://aapt.org/d...icle.pdf

His work was the basis of general relativistic correction being properly included in the Global Positioning System.


So, the guy who helped build it says it is included.

https://en.wikipe...il_Ashby
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
Ron Hatch:

In his 1992 book, Escape From Einstein, Hatch presents data contradicting the special theory of relativity, and promotes a Lorentzian alternative described as an ether gauge theory.


So, another aether nut.

http://einsteinwr...n-hatch/
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2017
Somehow a them John Deere tractors using GPS do just fine without resorting to the "depth of the gravity well" pseudoscience...
You know, application and all.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2017
@jonesdumb...

"An actual scientific paper..."

Then posts a wiki.

Can you say two-faced.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2017
The Sagnac effect appears to be predicated upon ignorance of the equivalence principle. A rotating frame is subject to acceleration and this invokes GRT. When calculations are performed using GRT in the accelerated frame of a Sagnac interferometer, the interference detected is what GRT predicts. Claims that the Sagnac interferometer "violates GRT" are based on incorrect understanding of acceleration particularly in rotating frames.

That is all.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
@jonesdumb...

"An actual scientific paper..."

Then posts a wiki.

Can you say two-faced.


The link below that was to a scientific paper! The wiki at the bottom of the post was merely to show who the author of that paper was. Try to keep up.
This was the link, again: http://aapt.org/d...icle.pdf
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2017
Where is the peer-reviewed paper that proves this guy exists? If it's not in the scientific literature it is clear he is only conjecture on your part.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2017
Re: "There are dozens of them, actually. GPS satellites."

GPS obviously cannot vindicate Relativity for a couple of reasons -- the most blatant of course being that what is debated with Relativity is not the mathematics, but rather the physical explanation.

It does not appear to matter how many times this is explained; people will continue to argue that GPS somehow validates Relativity.

To be clear, the equations for Relativity were known before it was proposed, and they come from aether theories.


Total crap. Besides, you only need to carry a clock up a mountain to confirm GR:

http://www.leapse...eat2005/
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2017
Dewey B. Larson:

https://rationalw...l_Theory

Crank.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2017
.....blah blah blah.....alternative explanations.


So, what are they? 3 different GW detectors see a GW signal. This allows them to triangulate to the place in the sky where it happened. So they look at it in various EM wavelengths. And they see precisely what is predicted from a neutron star merger. QED. Let's hear this impossible alternative woo. Which will never be written up.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2017
^^^^And WTF has that got to do with the price of fish? Science, Reeve. Let's hear it , instead of endless, pointless word salad, and irrelevant copypasta.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2017
It tells us a lot that you want us to think that because we can plainly see that you are becoming emotional.

It's like watching a movie sometimes;
https://youtu.be/5LN23qErZDM
"You can get a good look at the dark guesses if you stick your head up an astrophysicist's ass... No wait."
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2017
It tells us a lot that you want us to think that because we can plainly see that you are becoming emotional.


Science. Reeve. Where is it? I'm not getting emotional, I'm just asking a Velikoskian woo merchant to do some science, instead of posting irrelevant crap, post after post. No amount of philosophical BS is going to explain anything. Still waiting.
rrwillsj
4 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2017
Those who claim that 'General Relativity has reached a dead end'? Are just unconsciously acknowledging that they, the critics of GR theory, are themselves incapable of understanding empirical evidence. And incompetent to achieve understanding of continuous research that validates GR theory and predictions.

That poster of Dr. Einstein sticking his tongue out? Is the great theorist giving you all a royal razzberry!

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.