Slashdot Mirror


Third Gravitational Wave Detected From Black-Hole Merger 3 Billion Light Years Away (bbc.com)

sycodon quotes a report from The New York Times (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source): Astronomers said Thursday that they had felt space-time vibrations known as gravitational waves from the merger of a pair of mammoth black holes resulting in a pit of infinitely deep darkness weighing as much as 49 suns, some 3 billion light-years from here. This is the third black-hole smashup that astronomers have detected since they started keeping watch on the cosmos back in September 2015, with LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. All of them are more massive than the black holes that astronomers had previously identified as the remnants of dead stars. The latest detection was made at 10:11 GMT on January 4, and is described in a paper accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters. "The analysis suggests the two black holes that coalesced had starting masses that were just over 31 times and 19 times that of our Sun," reports BBC. "And when they finally came together, they produced a single object of a little under 49 solar masses. It means the unison radiated a simply colossal quantity of pure energy."

83 comments

  1. So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and a long long time ago.

    1. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      far far away and a long long time ago.

      Pleonasm.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I felt a minuscule disturbance in the gravitational force. I fear something terrible has happened."

    3. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I do wonder what "pure energy" means. There are lots of kinds of energy but they are always tied to something physical (matter, photons,...). So what exactly is "pure energy"? Does that even mean anything?

    4. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Paris agreement?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    5. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by quenda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A collision briefing putting out more power than the rest of the observable universe, wiping out who knows how many intelligent civilisations in an instant. Kind of puts the Trump thing in perspective, I suppose.

    6. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "pure energy" = anything other than the energy due to the rest mass of a particle. So kinetic energy, gravitational field energy, and electromagnetic field energy (including photons) are "pure energy". An electron is not a form of "pure energy". A proton isn't pure energy either (although strictly speaking, most of the mass of a proton is due to the energy in its gluon field, which really is pure energy by the definition I gave. But just ignore that.)

      In the end, pure energy is just to distinguish between matter and everything else. There is no deep meaning behind it. Consider an atomic bomb explosion. The light, heat, and sound produced is pure energy. The fallout is not pure energy.

    7. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A collision briefing putting out more power than the rest of the observable universe, wiping out who knows how many intelligent civilisations in an instant. Kind of puts the Trump thing in perspective, I suppose.

      When nations collide, they wipe out who knows how many innocent lives in an instant.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Energy beings of this universe are such fascist matterists. Just read Fred Pohl...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re: So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the parenthetical name of a rather popular song from 1988 by Information Society.

    10. Re: So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also inaccurate. "A Long Time Ago ...". This _is_ a site for nerds, right?

    11. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by tohoward · · Score: 2

      Ha! I am in no way as rabidly anti-Trump as some of the people around here, but even I have to ask "Which Trump thing?"

    12. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a bad feeling about this.

    13. Re: So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to know what you're thinking...

    14. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I never thought black hole collisions were all rainbows and unicorns, but you've got me convinced.

    15. Re:So, it happened in a galaxy far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would use electronVolts as the unit of energy:

      The proton has a mass of 0.938 GeV/c2. Multiply that by Avogadros number ( 6.022140857(74)×10^23 ) x 1000 (grammes to kilogrammes) and the change in mass between the two black holes before and the new one after (difference = one solar mass = (1.98855±0.00025)×10^30 kg )

      That would give a value 6.022.... x 10^26 x 1.98855 x 10^30 ~= 12 x 10^56 GeV/c2

      That sudden conversion is enough to create a tsunami of energy through space-time itself.

  2. o tempora o mores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now in science you "feel things". How times have changed...

    1. Re:o tempora o mores by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The instrument is called a laser interferometer, you dopey cunt.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:o tempora o mores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel you are an idiot- and I'm no scientist!

    3. Re:o tempora o mores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much highschool, not enough space quest.

  3. Re:MAGA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes Master ORB of COVFEFE. I WILL comply with your coded INSTRUCTIONS. ALL HAIL THE ORB OF COVFEFE. ALL HAIL.

    Who knew joining the pen15 club would lead to this?

  4. Re:total bullshit by Maritz · · Score: 1

    They have credibility. Rigorous scientists. Who the fuck are you? Exactly.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  5. Re:total bullshit by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Informative

    What they "detected" was random noise. Nothing to see here.

    They have two detectors now, one in Washington and the other in Louisiana. If they both trigger at nearly the same time, it's not random noise. This summer they'll add a third station in Pisa, Italy, which should not only help to collaborate the results, but also allow to triangulate the source.

  6. Re:total bullshit by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    How triangulation works for objects 3 bill. lightyears away. Wouldn't any triangle on Earth seem like a single dot for such a distance?

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  7. GW170104 is consistent with general relativity. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    That https://journals.aps.org/prl/a... was one hard read, here's one from LIGO explaining gravity waves and their detection http://ligo.org/science/Public...

    The second LIGO detector is like 20 miles away, so when a gravity wave comes by I know I felt it :)

    1. Re:GW170104 is consistent with general relativity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I will skip all that hard reading and wait till it shows up on TMZ.

    2. Re:GW170104 is consistent with general relativity. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      The second LIGO detector is like 20 miles away, so when a gravity wave comes by I know I felt it :)

      The second LIGO detector is like 20 miles away, so when a gravity wave comes by I know I caused it :)

      "He who felt it . . . dealt it!"

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  8. Re:total bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference in distance to the event that caused the waves on different places on Earth is indeed much smaller than the measurement uncertainty of the distance, but the detectors are receiving the same waves with different delays, so the relative distance can be measured very precisely. In addition, the detectors are not equally sensitive to signals from all directions, so the relative amplitudes measured by different detectors provides some information too.

  9. Re:total bullshit by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Informative

    The waves travel at light speed. The earth is sufficiently big to give noticeable delta in detection times, which allows you to find the place in the sky where the source of the waves is, no matter how far the object.

  10. Wow by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    One solar mass of energy.

    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually two, if you read the paper (but with uncertainty between 1.3 and 2.6)!
      However the first detection in 2015 was about 3 solar masses converted to energy, so it's somewhat weaker (not that I'd like to be close to any of these events).

    2. Re:Wow by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      The important thing though is how many libraries of congress this would represent... or cow farts. Honestly I'm not sure what the proper silly reference measurement would be appropriate here. I mean solar mass should be it, but that is what is actually being used already. I'm so confused.

    3. Re:Wow by crashumbc · · Score: 1

      Swimming pools

      It is always swimming pools...

  11. Re:total bullshit by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1, Informative

    It works because the speed of light delay in the signal changes the phase of the gravity waves, between different detectors.

  12. Not to cause doubt, but... by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 0

    Do you ever wonder if physicists use correlations as causation to turn theories into facts? That's actually what you're not supposed to do. It's kind of like how some psychologists a long time ago tried to say Galvanometers (a lot like the grip measuring arcade machines) could be used to measure intelligence. All the rich people that could afford it are...drum-roll...geniuses! I don't remember the exact name of it or who, but the idea was that the more electrical activity, the better the brain. And in this case, there's a lot of activity between us and 3 billion light years away and I just don't see how an accurate measurement is even possible enough to get beyond any acceptable p-values, if they're even doing that because what would the control group be to have the statistics to create the math in the first place? Gravitational constant? It changes every year and a single digit change at the very last decimal place (even though it's a lot) only insures grants for these projects for next year.

    1. Re:Not to cause doubt, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What makes you think the experiment depends on the gravitational constant being stable? What makes you think the folk at LIGO are waiting for you to explain the correlation/causation fallacy to them? What makes you think that gravitational waves are somehow linked to "electrical activity"? What makes you think that scientific projects with no immediate utility can survive without grants? What makes you think the entire purpose of science is to avoid doubt?

      I have a lot of questions.

    2. Re:Not to cause doubt, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ever wonder if physicists use correlations as causation to turn theories into facts?

      You mean other than all the time?

    3. Re:Not to cause doubt, but... by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      The electrical activity part was alluding to how inventions often utilize zeitgeist as efficacy without much proof. But to answer your out-of-context question, electromagnetic waves can show-up by tugging of massive bodies the same way that gravitational waves are produced. However, gravitational waves are ridiculously weaker than electromagnetism, so it does not surprise me if there are confounding variables between Earth and 3 BILLION LIGHT YEARS away. But, it's okay because I've learned that AC's typically don't know anything and if they did or cared enough to back up what they say, they'd log in. Otherwise, thanks for stopping by to demonstrate your ability to disguise ad hominem in question form.

      By the way, feel free to moderate this anyway you want but until there's an intelligent counter argument, have the decency to hold off for other's to say something. I'd moderate it back up myself, but I have too much integrity and not enough F's to give. People have proven to me a long time ago their inability to think for themselves, and I don't care if I'm right or wrong about anything just as long as there's a platform for insightful discussion.

    4. Re:Not to cause doubt, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electrical activity part was alluding to how inventions often utilize zeitgeist as efficacy without much proof.

      You, you don't know what you're talking about, do you?

      You seem really good at looking up words in a thesaurus, though. Try this one: Context. You might find some smaller, easier words that help you understand why the reply to your post was relevant. It was also only as ad-hominem as your original post was in its condescension of the LIGO team.

      This post *is* ad-hominem though: You're a cunt, and if you want an insightful discussion you might do well to start by respecting the men and women scientists and engineers who have toiled to bring you the results in question. To compare the machines they've built to mere Galvanometers and the quackery associated with them is cuntitude of the highest order.

      What if one of them read your post? These people have feelings, man. You gotta learn to love.

    5. Re:Not to cause doubt, but... by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      No one cares what an AC thinks. For your sake, oh wait you're an AC so you are safe, I hope those scientists, if they even read this, aren't feminists. At least I have a good feeling what "cunt"ry you are from. I'm sorry if my 7.5 years of college education confuses you into thinking I'm using a thesaurus. But assuming this is the same AC from before, it's kind of sad how you're keeping tabs on this and only capable of responding in a way to as to defend yourself rather than the work of a field you clearly have yet to demonstrate any knowledge about. But if you want to blindly accept everything because it has the the word "scientist" attached to it, go ahead. And you are right, scientists are PEOPLE with feelings, emphasis on people, aka human-beings, aka subject to error like anyone else, and pardon me if I'm not buying everything they are selling. I'll say it again, 3 BILLION LIGHT YEARS.

    6. Re:Not to cause doubt, but... by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      Yes they do, but you are not supposed to. "Correlation does not imply causation" is a maxim taught in introductory statistics and without statistics, there's no backbone for the observed patterns that create sound theories. My favorite related quote though: âoeThe complexities of cause and effect defy analysis.â -- Douglas Adams.

    7. Re:Not to cause doubt, but... by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      But like I said before, I am more than happy for anyone to shed light with a counter-argument. I'm still waiting. I hope one of them does read this and explains things because it seems to me that people are terrified at questioning research right now because of current stereotypes associated with those in politics. It's becoming the new "You must be a racist because..." or "If you're not with us, you're against us." If people really cared about science and research like they claim, then they need to stop letting their beliefs dichotomize everything. Independent thinking has become a lost cause.

    8. Re:Not to cause doubt, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there was a counter-argument worth giving you might have received it by now.

      Have you considered that the reason you're not getting any satisfactory counter-arguments is because, in order to have an argument in the first place, there needs to be a baseline of understanding that you yourself may not be rising to? Do you not think you give the impression that you're a conspiracy theorist? The kind of person for who, when facing a problem they don't understand, the lowest common denominator is "everyone else" and not themselves?

      For example, in your original post you demonstrated that you don't really understand how science works. This doesn't mean you're not armed with enough information to make trite and annoying accusations about those involved in it. But it does throw up a wall to anyone who might otherwise be pointing out that you're full of shit. Nobody wants to argue with you because you've demonstrated that you're not open to be educated, since your premise of what education is (in terms of science) is wrong, and it's up on the screen for everyone to see.

      Which is a shame, since the whole scientific endeavour is, ultimately, only varying degrees of "wrong", and doubt is the tool by which we progress from more wrong, to slightly less wrong. You have the tools already to make informed judgements if you'll only stop being a righteous cunt. In this particular experiment, there isn't really enough data to say, categorically, that what is being detected is gravity waves, but the evidence is pointing in that direction, and it's okay to be confident about that in spite of the obvious doubt that goes with it. Until we have ten-thousand LIGO's on a thousand planets all taking measurements, having two (and nearly three) is pretty damned reasonable considering how little we spend doing things like this.

      Having confidence in an established theory is not a mistake. It's an invitation for others to come along and break it if they want. Indeed, we all hope our best theories will one day be shown to be broken and replaced with better ones, but until then what we've got is enough to make progress with. Going along with the establishment this way is completely fine. Challenge it if you want, but understand that any alternative you want to propose has to do a better job of explaining the world than the current theories.

      It's not enough to just poke at them and pat yourself on the back for being an "independent thinker". You're just being an ignorant jerk. Which isn't unfixable, but that's where you sit.

  13. The important question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Was the merger approved by the EU? Because if it's not the case, it's null and void and illegal and high profile arrests must be made. Europe has mastery over all the universe from the beginning to the end of time. Because, Europe.

  14. Re:total bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have credibility. Rigorous scientists. Who the fuck are you? Exactly.

    The Real Slim Shady.

  15. Re:total bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already know the distance, so all they need is to figure out the direction the wave is going, which is what the triangulation helps refine.

  16. Well actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus said it was a moth fart. Sorry for the confusion.

    1. Re:Well actually.... by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      ... to which satan added that it was a hell of a moth.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  17. Question by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    "The analysis suggests the two black holes that coalesced had starting masses that were just over 31 times and 19 times that of our Sun," And when they finally came together, they produced a single object of a little under 49 solar masses

    So, as a non-physicist, I have to ask what happened to the one remaining unit of solar mass since you started off with just over 50 units? I'd appreciate a serious answer, but I'm grabbing popcorn in anticipation of the normal /. replies.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
    1. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Simple - it turned into energy, via E=mc^2, in the form of gravitational waves. Yes, that's a colossal amount of energy, and it's the reason why we were actually able to detect it from here.

    2. Re:Question by pz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The missing mass was radiated away as waves in the gravitational field of the black holes. Think of it this way: when a black hole is static (relative to the total mean gravitational field of the rest of the observable universe) nothing much happens. If, somehow, a black hole were to start vibrating back and forth, it would be tugging at EVERYTHING, and moving EVERYTHING, back and forth. So the movement of the black hole is radiated out into movement of the universe, through dilations in space-time.

      Now, every mass that moves does the same thing, but most masses are small enough that they don't much affect anything beyond a small distance. Black holes are big enough that they do have a measurable effect, even at enormous distances.

      Think of the energy that gets released by an earthquake: it gets turned into shaking of big, massive things. That energy eventually turns into heat, but during the release: low-frequency shaking of things with great mass, mostly through semi-rigid coupling (which, ultimately, mostly means through electric fields). The same is happening with two black holes as they merge: they shed energy in the form of shaking everything else as they spiral inward.

      At least that's as much as my non-physics-PhD head has been able to understand. I hope that someone who actually knows will be able to correct it.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    3. Re:Question by PPH · · Score: 2

      M&A fees charged by Goldman Sachs.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Question by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      +1 sir

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  18. Re:total bullshit by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    It's the phase shift between receivers. You can't tell distance of course (unless you deduce it somehow from the signal itself) but you can tell the direction. The math should actually be slightly easier for an almost-flat wavefront.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  19. We're All Gonna Die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody fasten your seatbelts...

  20. Re:total bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The waves travel at light speed. The earth is sufficiently big to give noticeable delta in detection times, which allows you to find the place in the sky where the source of the waves is, no matter how far the object.

    Using the time delta with only two detectors means the source "location" is defined by a cone.

  21. Re:total bullshit by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    Using the time delta with only two detectors means the source "location" is defined by a cone.

    That's why they're adding a 3rd detector.

  22. Re:total bullshit by dargaud · · Score: 1
    'corroborate'... While they collaborate on the experiments !

    BTW, I have a question: how close would you need to be to actually *feel* this black hole collision. Would you feel something rattling your bones if you were close enough ?

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  23. HILDA-BEAST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jokes aside. I think we all suddenly joined the upgraded universe with more mattrr beong compacted into more matter. It may have happened for them a long time ago far far away but it happened for us NOW. My fellow apes welcome to a universe, whereby a new massive black hole jas just been added to our experience.

  24. Re:total bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, have the Trumpsters found SlashDot now?

  25. ridiculous by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Can someone explain to me how a non-direction, non-distance sensing device determined the direction and distance of a black hole merger that caused the waves because that sounds like absolute nonsense. A more accurate reading from it would be that they sensed gravitational waves but they could have been from absolutely anything anywhere and pinning down the source is impossible.

    1. Re:ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The distance can be derived from the combination of the amplitude and the degree of redshift of the signal. The direction can be extracted (to some extent) from the delay between the arrival times at the two detectors. When the third detector in Italy is added, they will be able to to pinpoint it to a spot on the sky.

    2. Re: ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The device correlates information arriving from two spatially separated sensors, which means it can deduce partial information about the signal's position in the sky. (With two sensors, you'll have some ambiguity; you can find more if you look up Wikipedia under "direction finding"). The signal shape (onset/decay time, oscillations, etc.) can provide further insight regarding the causing event.

    3. Re:ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The direction is determined in the same way that a person can tell the direction and distance to a sound around them. Ears are non-directional, non-distance sensing devices individually, but combined can give you a sense of direction. When combined with your experience they can also give you a sense of distance. By timing the arrival of signals, between two detectors you get a great circle on the sky it could be coming from. Its a bit more complicated than this, because the detectors are somewhat directionally dependent, and combining amplitude information between the two can narrow it down slightly more.

      However, you really want 3 or more detectors to really pinpoint it well.

      The distance is determined because we know what a signal from a black hole-black hole collision should look like, thanks to the theory of general relativity and numerical simulations. Two black holes colliding is a surprisingly simple system (as black holes have very few parameters to describe them), and given initial conditions, the exact waveform can be found. By corollary, given the waveform, you can determine the initial conditions, including the masses. Most importantly, the initial masses sets how the rate of the orbit changes, which is imprinted in the form of the frequency evolution of the gravitational wave signal. In terms of sound waves, it describes how quickly the sound becomes higher pitch. Thats a unique signal, like a sound chirp. Once you have the initial masses, you know how big the signal should be at it its loudest, which when compared to how big the signal is the detector, determines the distance.

      Without the knowledge of general relativity and those simulations, it would be extremely difficult to pin the distance, if not impossible.

    4. Re:ridiculous by As_I_Please · · Score: 0

      <pedantry style="Well, technically, ...">

      Three detectors would allow for narrowing the location to two points in the sky. Imagine three spheres surrounding the detectors with radii equal to the delay in their measurements of the same event: 0 for the first, c*t1 for the second, and c*t2 for the third with c being the speed of light. The line perpendicular to the plane that is tangent to all three spheres indicates the direction of the gravity wave's origin. But, there are two planes that fit the spheres, so you need at least 4 observatories to precisely locate a gravity wave event.

      </pedantry>

    5. Re:ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it was detected at all 3 at the exact same time, (in which case you would indeed need a 4th) One of the detectors will detect it first. So it's off in that direction.
      Okay so 2 of them may detect it at the same time, it's still that direction with respect to the 3rd detector.

  26. Organic Aisle by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not sure, but you will find it on the Organic Aisle and it will cost twice as much as regular energy.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  27. To understand why this is so exciting by Idou · · Score: 1

    Be sure to watch Veritasium's latest video on this.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  28. Re:total bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where have you been for the past 12 months? Those idiots have been here for a while now.

  29. physicists stumped by second marriage by epine · · Score: 1


    Second detection

    Date: December 26, 2015
    Mass of first black hole: 14.2 solar masses
    Mass of second black hole: 7.5 solar masses
    Merged mass: 20.8 solar masses

    Third detection

    Date: January 4, 2017
    Mass of first black hole: 31.2 solar masses
    Mass of second black hole: 19.4 solar masses
    Merged mass: 48.7 solar masses

    LIGO snags another set of gravitational waves

    Astrophysicists don't fully understand how such big black holes could have formed. But now, "it seems that these are not so uncommon, so clearly there's a way to produce these massive black holes," says physicist Clifford Will of the University of Florida in Gainesville.

    If it's such an insane miracle to get hitched in the first place, it couldn't conceivably happen again.

  30. Some 3 billion light-years from here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AHHH! Get it away!

  31. weighing as much as 49 suns by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I can't even get my head around what "weight" actually means in the context of a black hole, but assuming it even has weight, it seems to me that 49 suns must be a massive underestimate for a supermassive black hole given that both black holes that formed it have already been vaccuming up stars, suns and everything else for millions if not billions of years.

    1. Re:weighing as much as 49 suns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't even get my head around what "weight" actually means in the context of a black hole, but assuming it even has weight, it seems to me that 49 suns must be a massive underestimate for a supermassive black hole given that both black holes that formed it have already been vaccuming up stars, suns and everything else for millions if not billions of years.

      The "weight" in this context is its mass, and in turn the gravitational attraction caused by that mass. If the sun were converted into a black hole of the same mass suddenly, the Earth would continue around in its orbit. It wouldn't fall in and it wouldn't fly off. It would continue to orbit quite happily as its pulled toward the black hole at the same rate it is pulled towards the Sun.

      There's an incredible range in the mass of black holes. Some have millions of suns worth of mass, namely the supermassive black holes at the center of many galaxies including our own. However, you can have much smaller black holes, created from the death of a single, very massive star with mass on the order of tens of our own sun's mass. Such black holes have as much gravitational attraction of a normal star the same mass. In fact, there are many stars out there with more mass than many black holes. Our own sun has not collided with hundreds of stars over its billions of years of lifetime, and the same can be true of these smaller, stellar mass black holes.

  32. Hyperbole much? by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

    Astronomers said Thursday that they had felt space-time vibrations known as gravitational waves from the merger of a pair of mammoth black holes resulting in a pit of infinitely deep darkness weighing as much as 49 suns, some 3 billion light-years from here.

    Pit of infinitely deep darkness, huh? There's some serious hyperbole.

    Wrong too But why let facts get in the way of over the top hyperbole.

  33. pit of infinitely deep darkness by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Sounds just like my ex-wife's soul! Ba dump dump spish!

    Anyway just laughing a bit of the creative description... How is it any more of "pit of infinitely deep darkness" than one black hole. Infinity x 2 bitches! Sounds like something you say as a kid to one up your friend who just said shotgun times infinity to get the front seat....

  34. There's No Human Scale For This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no human scale that we can relate to, for an event such as this.

    According to the OP, 1 solar mass was converted into energy. In the first gravity wave detection by LIGO, a black hole merger resulted in a "loss" of 3 solar masses.

    Here's my personal benchmark. Imagine how much energy the sun (our Sol) puts out. It's unimaginably huge, right? Take a look at some of the images from NASA solar satellites, they are awe inspiring.

    Sol will convert something like 0.7% of the sun's mass to energy over it's entire lifetime of about 8-10 billion years. That's 0.7% total, spread over an immense 10 billion years.

    Now imagine the entirety of Sol, converting to energy in something like 1/10th of a second. It's all gone and it converted into gravity waves.

    What would happen to a person, say at 1 A.U., from such an event? Would it be survivable, or would you be torn apart by shear forces?

  35. "The analysis suggests the two black holes that coalesced had starting masses that were just over 31 times and 19 times that of our Sun," reports BBC. "And when they finally came together, they produced a single object of a little under 49 solar masses. It means the unison radiated a simply colossal quantity of pure energy."

    I'm calling bullshit that Superman can hold one of these in his hand.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  36. Re:total bullshit by HuguesT · · Score: 2

    The likelihood of random noise creating a chirp consistent with a BH merger is very close to nil. The fact that two separate stations recorded the same chirp at the same time make this explanation very unlikely indeed.