******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
On 2017-06-15 14:27, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/14/extragalactic-black-hole-collision-deletes-two-suns-worth-of-mass-from-the-universe/
This 3rd detection of gravitational waves with high confidence is a significant and newsworthy event. However the article in Salon that Louis points us too is of rather poor quality, not written by a physicist; below are some better articles I found. [I would generally advise against choosing an article with the most intriguing headline. More accurate information will usually avoid sensational headlines, better reflecting the slow, methodical, and careful pace of serious scientific experimentation.]
In particular, the article's saying that the black hole merger 3 billion years ago "deletes two suns’ worth of mass from the universe" is misleading, essentially wrong. It is only true in the sense that all energy has an equivalence in mass (Einstein's famous E=mc^2), and that the energy created in gravitational waves by this merger of two black holes has a mass equivalence of two suns, an immensely huge energy.
Because that energy radiated away, the resulting mass of the merged black hole was two solar masses less than the combined masses of the original black holes. No physicist would call that "deleting mass." It was not even similar to the annihilation of a positron and an electron, in which those two particles' mass is converted into energy in the form of gamma rays. Rather, consider that you have a rock heated to a high temperature, and you put it on a scale. As the rock cools, losing its heat energy, the mass of the rock will actually decrease by a tiny amount (no, you couldn't possibly detect that with any balance!) even though every single atom in the original rock is still there. The lost mass m would satisfy E=mc^2 where E is the thermal energy lost from the rock as it cooled.
The source of the huge energy generated in this case was not direct annihilation of massive particles, but conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy, "gravitational collapse." That's essentially no different than if you have a boulder at the top of a building and drop it out of the window: as it hits the ground it will have a large kinetic energy equal to the loss of potential energy (its height above the ground times its weight). If you then put the boulder in an elevator and bring it back upstairs, the elevator will supply the same amount of energy back to the boulder, not changing the boulder itself but only its position in the earth's gravitational field which we call potential energy, gravitational energy in this case. The huge masses of the black holes falling into each other likewise liberates a huge kinetic energy, of which mc^2 was radiated away as gravitational waves, with m being twice the mass of our sun. That is what the author should have written.
For better articles on this gravitational wave detection, see: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-gravitational-insight-black-holes.html https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20170601 - Jeff _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
