Starship Asterisk*

Ann wrote:Is there a way to state in light years more or less how far the merging black holes were from the Milky Way when they actually merged, and how far away the resulting black hole is from the Milky Way "now"?

DavidLeodis wrote:
I was amused that the gravitational waves generated "cause the visible image to ripple and slosh". Slosh is not a word that I would have associated in astrophysics! .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea,_Lake,_and_Overland_Surge_from_Hurricanes wrote:
<<Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) is a computerized model developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the National Weather Service (NWS), to estimate storm surge depths resulting from historical, hypothetical, or predicted hurricanes. The model functions by taking into account a storm's pressure, size, forward speed, forecast track, wind speeds, and topographical data.>>

DavidLeodis wrote:
As the gravitational waves are presumably expanding out I wonder what happens when they meet an object. Are they at least partially deflected back?

DavidLeodis wrote:As the gravitational waves are presumably expanding out I wonder what happens when they meet an object. Are they at least partially deflected back?

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ann wrote:Is there a way to state in light years more or less how far the merging black holes were from the Milky Way when they actually merged, and how far away the resulting black hole is from the Milky Way "now"?

In cosmology we're usually concerned with two measures of distance: light travel time and comoving distance. The meaning of the first is pretty obvious; the second describes the current distance to the point where the light was emitted, considering the expansion of space during that time. The two are the same for a redshift (z) of zero, and deviate as the redshift increases. At the maximum redshift of z = ~1100 (the surface of the cosmic microwave background), the light travel time is nearly the age of the universe, 13.7 Ga, and the comoving distance is the radius of the observable universe, 45.5 Gly.

I don't know whether the distance to the black hole merger is being given as light travel time or comoving distance, but at "only" 1.3 Gly, or around z = 0.1, the difference between the two is less than 5%, which is much smaller than the measurement error itself.

z.gif

Ann wrote:Thanks, Chris, that's an interesting illustration. Do I take it that at z ~ 9, objects in the cosmos are ~ 30 billion light years away?

Chris Peterson wrote: ... I don't know whether the distance to the black hole merger is being given as light travel time or comoving distance, but at "only" 1.3 Gly, or around z = 0.1, the difference between the two is less than 5%, which is much smaller than the measurement error itself.

Chris Peterson wrote: In cosmology we're usually concerned with two measures of distance: light travel time and comoving distance. The meaning of the first is pretty obvious; the second describes the current distance to the point where the light was emitted, considering the expansion of space during that time. The two are the same for a redshift (z) of zero, and deviate as the redshift increases. At the maximum redshift of z = ~1100 (the surface of the cosmic microwave background), the light travel time is nearly the age of the universe, 13.7 Ga, and the comoving distance is the radius of the observable universe, 45.5 Gly.

I don't know whether the distance to the black hole merger is being given as light travel time or comoving distance, but at "only" 1.3 Gly, or around z = 0.1, the difference between the two is less than 5%, which is much smaller than the measurement error itself.

z.gif

bls0326 wrote:So Chris, if your chart was extended to Z=1100, the LTT line would stay flat at 13.7 Ga and the CMD line endpoint would continue upwards to 45.5 Gly. Correct?

Chris Peterson wrote:

DavidLeodis wrote:
As the gravitational waves are presumably expanding out I wonder what happens when they meet an object. Are they at least partially deflected back?

Gravitational waves should be subject to diffraction, like other types of waves. So they should be reflected and deflected by interactions with massive objects.

In addition, gravitational waves should be subject to gravitational lensing, which would be a case where the earlier mentioned imaging capabilities provided by having several LIGO type instruments could reveal something other than a point source.

http://blogs.futura-sciences.com/e-luminet/2015/01/20/black-hole-illuminations-13-back-basics/ wrote:

---

Cinema, Sciences
Black Hole Imaging: Back to the basics
January 20, 2015 Jean-Pierre LUMINET

The black hole in glory

<<A variant on the preceding experiment consists of illuminating a black hole and observing the light reflected back in the same direction. The result is shown here.

The image of the actual black hole is magnified to 3√3/2 ≈ 2.6 times its real diameter. This is because a large part of the incident beam is captured by the black hole: not just the radiation which directly strikes the event horizon but also that which passes within 5.2M of the centre (the true radius of the black hole being equal to 2M). The black disk appears to be surrounded by a series of concentric light rings. The external ring, at radius 5.34 M, is produced by light rays deviated by 180°, the inner rings by light rays deviated by additional turns. The final result is like the glory effect, well-known in traditional optics: when sunlight is scattered by innumerable water droplets in mist, it is sometimes possible to see in reflection the shadow of one’s own head surrounded by brilliant rings of light centred on the line of sight.>>

the gravitational waves detected by LIGO are consistent with the merger of 36 and 29 solar mass black holes at a distance of 1.3 billion light-years

RocketRon wrote:

the gravitational waves detected by LIGO are consistent with the merger of 36 and 29 solar mass black holes at a distance of 1.3 billion light-years

Are there any other events or happenings that would also be "consistent" with this measurement ?

It might take that third detector and more sensitivity to locate and observe ahead of time the pending closure before the final event, and get some nice astrovideography to accompany the gravity waves.

Are there any other events or happenings that would also be "consistent" with this measurement ?

Not really.

RocketRon wrote:

It might take that third detector and more sensitivity to locate and observe ahead of time the pending closure before the final event, and get some nice astrovideography to accompany the gravity waves.

How much advance notice are we likely to get of these events. ?
There is no indication that gravity waves preceded that brief flicker on the graph.
Its not like there is a continous stream of them, even at low intensity ??

RocketRon wrote:

Are there any other events or happenings that would also be "consistent" with this measurement ?

Not really.

Is this likely to be be limited by a lack of imagination or critical questioning though. ?

daddyo wrote:

RocketRon wrote:How much advance notice are we likely to get of these events. ?
There is no indication that gravity waves preceded that brief flicker on the graph.
Its not like there is a continous stream of them, even at low intensity ??

The thought was observing the close orbits of two massive objects via gravity waves well ahead of the merger.

It is perfectly possible to observe the gravitational waves long before the actual collision,

It is perfectly THEORETICALLY possible to observe the gravitational waves long before the actual collision,

RocketRon wrote:

It is perfectly possible to observe the gravitational waves long before the actual collision,

Presumably this should have been expressed as

It is perfectly THEORETICALLY possible to observe the gravitational waves long before the actual collision,

since it hasn't been done yet, only modelled .... ?

Ann wrote:
The detected signal in this case came from two merging stellar-mass black holes. What if the black holes had been as massive as typical central supermassive black holes of galaxies? Imagine two central supermassive black holes merging, each containing as much mass as a million Suns.

What kind of gravitational wave signal would we see?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna wrote:

---

<<The Evolved Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (eLISA), previously called the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), is a proposed European Space Agency mission designed to detect and accurately measure gravitational waves produced by compact binary systems and mergers of supermassive black holes. Each of the LISA spacecraft contains two telescopes, two lasers and two test masses, arranged in two optical assemblies pointed at the other two spacecraft. This forms Michelson-like interferometers, each centred on one of the spacecraft, with a the platinum-gold test masses defining the ends of the arms. The entire arrangement, which is ten times larger than the orbit of the Moon, will be placed in solar orbit at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, but trailing the Earth by 20 degrees, and with the orbital planes of the three sciencecraft inclined relative to the ecliptic by about 0.33 degree, which results in the plane of the triangular sciencecraft formation being tilted 60 degrees from the plane of the ecliptic. The mean linear distance between the constellation and the Earth will be 50 million kilometers.

To eliminate non-gravitational forces such as light pressure and solar wind on the test masses, each spacecraft is constructed as a zero-drag satellite, and effectively floats around the masses, using capacitive sensing to determine their position relative to the spacecraft, and very precise thrusters to keep itself centered around them.>>

Ann wrote:
Thanks, Art. Would you care to comment on the figure? Is it easier or harder to detect supermassive merging black hole compared with stellar mass black holes? It should be easier, right?

Ann wrote:
And what is the "characteristic strain"?