black holes collision-Abell 400 galaxy-gravitational waves

[AF>France>TDM>Centre]Jeannot Le Tazon
[AF>France&g...
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 6
Credit: 1,038,552
RAC: 0
Topic 191047
Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,024
Credit: 104,240,872
RAC: 80,969

black holes collision-Abell 400 galaxy-gravitational waves


Oh wow!! What a stunning image.....

( The black holes are each in the centre of the two bright spots in the middle of the 'smoke trails'. )
I wouldn't want to be nearby when those crackers go off!!! ;0)

Good find, Jeannot. ;-)

Cheers, Mike.

(edit) Ooopss...... the image is from X-ray data so the near space of this duo is really getting a hosing down. I wouldn't want to be nearby now!

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

Stunning image indeed!

Stunning image indeed! Thanks for pointing out the article, Jeannot.

The black holes in the image that Mike posted are still about 28,000 light years apart. I followed the link mentioned in the article regarding the pair of black holes that are only 3000 light years apart (in the galaxy NGC 6240) to see if there was any imagery, and sure enough: :)

(Click the pic to go to the article “Black holes are double trouble for galaxy� from 20 Nov '02)

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0
Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,024
Credit: 104,240,872
RAC: 80,969

RE: Here's one: 2

Message 27623 in response to message 27622

Imprassive, but I wash the modia were mere pricese weth there luggage:

Quote:
Scientists think that when black holes collide, they generate enormous amounts of energy — more than all the stars in the universe combined according to one recent model — and send out gravitational waves rippling through space-time in every direction.

'amounts of power' would be probably what they meant. Time rate of change of energy ......

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Scientists think

Message 27624 in response to message 27623

Quote:
Quote:
Scientists think that when black holes collide, they generate enormous amounts of energy — more than all the stars in the universe combined according to one recent model — and send out gravitational waves rippling through space-time in every direction.

'amounts of power' would be probably what they meant. Time rate of change of energy ......


How true; a light bulb is the simplest analogy I can think of, and we rate them in Watts, a measure of power, the product of Voltage times Current. But the amount of light generated is what kind of units? I've confused myself; is this a bad analogy? What would be the astrophysical analogs of voltage and current? The wattage would be analogous to the total mass, right?

ghstwolf
ghstwolf
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 24
Credit: 59,103
RAC: 0

RE: How true; a light

Message 27625 in response to message 27624

Quote:
How true; a light bulb is the simplest analogy I can think of, and we rate them in Watts, a measure of power, the product of Voltage times Current. But the amount of light generated is what kind of units? I've confused myself; is this a bad analogy? What would be the astrophysical analogs of voltage and current? The wattage would be analogous to the total mass, right?

The output is Lumens. For the analogy, I don't see it yet, so I'm not sure if it is good or bad.

Mike Hewson- Look at the source, even if it is wrong in a technical sense, it is appropiate for the audience. Power by and large to that audience is what comes from that socket on the wall, energy is everything else. I'll withold any social commentary about this, and just say it probably was the best choice of words.


MarkF
MarkF
Joined: 12 Apr 05
Posts: 393
Credit: 1,516,715
RAC: 0

I am with Mike on the issue

I am with Mike on the issue of proper terminology. If the popular media will not take the time to get right then the general public will never understand. On the other hand the use of proper terminology will help at least some.

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,024
Credit: 104,240,872
RAC: 80,969

RE: Mike Hewson- Look at

Message 27627 in response to message 27625

Quote:
Mike Hewson- Look at the source, even if it is wrong in a technical sense, it is appropiate for the audience. Power by and large to that audience is what comes from that socket on the wall, energy is everything else. I'll withold any social commentary about this, and just say it probably was the best choice of words.


I know what you mean. :-)
My worry was if it's combined with 'more than all the stars in the universe combined', then you've created a paradox. So now there's the hidden question/assumption as to whether a black hole is defined to be a star or not.... sigh.

Chipper, power is defined as the first time derivative of energy. You can apply this anywhere that energy changes. Since total energy is conserved, you're rating the 'conversion speed' between different forms. I think the idea originally goes back to steam engines and 19th century thermodynamics - you burn a pile of wood quicker and the train goes down the track faster, but you run out of wood earlier. A re-entering piece of space junk will spend it's kinetic and gravitational potential energy say by disassembling itself, heating the atmosphere and radiating light for you to appreciate it by, and no doubt sound waves to be heard if you're close enough. The time rate of this is power. Your internal chemistry, as we speak, can be rated accordingly - 'metabolic rate' - in this case handballing energy to different molecular configurations and random thermal motion ( to name a few ). Go for a jog and up goes your power, have a nap and down it goes.....
If two black holes collide they, relatively briefly, spray vast amounts of energy away, and almost exclusively in non-electromagnetic modes actually. After ringdown they're comparatively off the radar....
Cheers, Mike.

(edit) Power is not purely used to describe conversion processes alone. Transport of energy say. Define a surface in space, see energy moving across that surface in some mode ( say gravity waves ), then you have power per unit of area etc....

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

Thanks. I guess I

Thanks. I guess I misunderstood what the author was trying to convey; I thought it was that (for the moments during merger) the event will outshine everything else, like it's briefly the brightest bulb in the sky...

I wholeheartedly agree on applying terminology properly, in any event. :)

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,024
Credit: 104,240,872
RAC: 80,969

RE: Thanks. I guess I

Message 27629 in response to message 27628

Quote:
Thanks. I guess I misunderstood what the author was trying to convey; I thought it was that (for the moments during merger) the event will outshine everything else, like it's briefly the brightest bulb in the sky...


It will 'outshine' but not electromagnetically. If we were all born with gravity wave detectors, and that was a major mode of our sensations then it would be very 'bright' for us! So the author's comparison was ( rate of emission of ) gravitational radiation of the merger of two black holes vs. ( rate of emission of ) electromagnetic radiation of the rest of creation.
I know ........ I'm a pedant..... :-(
Cheers, Mike.

PS. Wouldn't it be cool to slip on a pair of gravity detector goggles - like night vision ones! Most of the Earth and solar system would be transparent and very dark and dull!

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.