GW150914 and GW150914-GBM revisited

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Chronos
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the association between the LIGO detection of the black hole merger event GW150914 and the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) detection of a short gamma-ray burst (GRB). The paper referenced, arXiv:1602.07352, argues that the magnetic field strength and plasma conditions in a binary black hole system make the GRB detection unlikely. Despite impressive statistics suggesting an association, the lack of a credible astrophysical mechanism and non-detection by other instruments like Swift, INTEGRAL, IceCube, and ANTARES raises doubts. The author suggests that the GRB may not be related to the gravitational waves, but also acknowledges the need for alternative explanations regarding the nature of the detected objects.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational wave detection, specifically LIGO's capabilities.
  • Familiarity with gamma-ray bursts and the role of Fermi GBM in their detection.
  • Knowledge of general relativity (GR) and its implications for black hole theory.
  • Awareness of astrophysical instruments such as Swift, INTEGRAL, IceCube, and ANTARES.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of magnetic fields in astrophysical phenomena, particularly in relation to quasars.
  • Explore alternative theories to black hole formation and their observational evidence.
  • Examine the statistical methods used in associating GRBs with gravitational wave events.
  • Investigate ongoing experimental efforts to detect electromagnetic signals from gravitational wave events.
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, and researchers interested in gravitational wave astronomy, gamma-ray bursts, and the theoretical underpinnings of black hole physics will benefit from this discussion.

Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
11,420
Reaction score
750
The association between the LIGO detection of a black hole merger event and Fwemi detection of a short GRB appears to be unsettled based on this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.07352, Fermi GBM signal contemporaneous with GW150914 - an unlikely association. The author points out the magnetic field strength required and unlikelihood of sufficient plasma in a binary black hole system to account for an EM signal of the power measured. While statistics claiming an association between the GRB and GW signal are impressive, the lack of a credible astrophysical mechanism to account for the GRB signal is not. The non-detection by other capable instruments [e.g., Swift, INTEGRAL, IceCube & ANTARES] is also unassuring.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
As with previous discussions on this subject, it seems clear that there is no obvious explanation for the GRB if GR is assumed to be correct right up to the level of black holes.

However, the author's conclusion that the GRB detection was therefore unrelated to the GW seems very one-sided.

I'm not aware of any direct evidence that GR is correct up to that level, so I would consider an alternative explanation to be that the objects were not black holes, although they were of comparable density, so the theory needs tweaking. Note that it has been previously suggested that polarization measurements suggest extremely strong magnetic field close to some quasars, which isn't easy to reconcile with black hole theory, and that's on a far larger scale than the assumed black holes in the GW case.

I can't think of any objective way of assessing the a-priori strength of the theory in this extreme case, and I must admit I've always had doubts about it myself, so in the absence of further information at presence the primary parameter in any discussions on this subject seems to be the author's level of confidence in standard GR black hole theory. I eagerly await further experimental results which may help to resolve this situation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K