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."

46 of 83 comments (clear)

  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 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?"

  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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 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!
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Wow by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    One solar mass of energy.

    1. 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.

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

      Swimming pools

      It is always swimming pools...

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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!
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.

  16. 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 ?
  17. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. 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!
  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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....

  24. "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.
  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.