451–460 of 502 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Excellent catch. That's damn suspicious.
I may have suffered permanent eye damage from the rolling.
This made me wonder how far we are from being able to create and detect gravitons. The Wikipedia page on gravitons [0] addresses this question: Unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector. The reason is the extremely low cross section for the interaction of gravitons with matter. For example, a detector with the mas…
"Gravity is a weak force, in the sense that the gravitational force between two protons is about 10^33 times weaker than the electric force between them. And I'm using protons rather than electrons here to make the gravity stronger - with electrons gravity would be almost 10^40 times weaker.
This has various consequences, but one is that gravitational waves are absorbed by matter much less than electromagnetic waves. It would be fun to estimate the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth as this particular gravitational wave came through, but it would be absurdly small. Gravitational waves make neutrinos look like rampaging gorillas."
Rephrasing, and assuming waving commutes with rampaging, gravitons make neutrinos look like WAVES of rampaging gorillas. I'm no physicist but to answer the original question I'd hazard a guess: quite far!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photons are massless particles that have energy. All massless particles travel at the speed of light.
Protons are said to be massless, but a proton may have mass that is so small that we cannot measure it easily. We can't currently say with 100% certainty that it is massless- only that it is at most very, very small: < 1×10−18 eV/c2
Because if so, and assuming you have some reason for believing this i.e. you can prove it, I would urge you to forward these findings to a physics journal of your choice posthaste, as this basically represents a total refutation of much of physics of the last century or so. You will easily win a Nobel Prize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well then prepare to stand corrected. Inside a charged black hole there is a second horizon. Beyond this point the black hole is gravitationally repulsive. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/rn.html
So it's not explicitly ruled out by relativity. However, that link says: > The Universe at large appears to be electrically neutral, or close to it. Thus real black holes are unlikely to be charged. If a black hole did somehow become charged, it would quickly neutralize itself by accreting charge of the opposite sign. > It is not clear how a gravitationally repulsive, negative-mass singularity could form. So it falls…
I vaguely recall other weird edge cases where gravity is repulsive, but I can't find any links right now.
> And then the ringing stopped as the two holes coalesced into a single black hole, a trapdoor in space with the equivalent mass of 62 suns. All in a fifth of a second, Earth time. Am I reading this correctly, that shortly after the detector came online we just happened to observe the exact moment a billion years ago that two black holes collided? Was that extremely coincidental? Or do these events happen all the tim…
The predictions for the LIGO detection rate are very poor. They're based on a sample of just a handful of binary pulsars observed in our Galaxy, which would produce NS-NS mergers. The BH-BH merger rate is almost totally unconstrained, although it is generally thought to be less than the NS-NS merger rate. So the fact that a BH-BH merger was the first detection, and the fact that it was detected so soon after the sens…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's not explicitly ruled out by relativity. However, that link says: > The Universe at large appears to be electrically neutral, or close to it. Thus real black holes are unlikely to be charged. If a black hole did somehow become charged, it would quickly neutralize itself by accreting charge of the opposite sign. > It is not clear how a gravitationally repulsive, negative-mass singularity could form. So it falls…
I wasn't ever arguing that it occurs in nature, or even that we will one day engineer it. I was just answering your question that GR does indeed allow for such a thing. I vaguely recall other weird edge cases where gravity is repulsive, but I can't find any links right now.
If they build a third observatory, can they triangulate where in the universe the events are occurring?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, what does that ratio imply?
I'm assuming that the same rules apply as do in straight RF detection. A signal becomes a decent signal at 6db above noise and gets exponentially better every 6db above that. Something 20db above noise is rock solid reliable.
But what happens to them? Is there any way to turn them back into matter? If not, then at some point, will all matter in the universe end up as gravitons?
Also, if an object moving through space creates gravitational waves, doesn't that violate the law that states that a non-accelerating object will not lose/gain any energy? Because if you have to emit gravitons as you move in space, and emitting them requires energy or matter expenditure, then an object moving through space will slowly lose all it's mass?