Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Astronomy and Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
GW150914 and GW150914-GBM revisited
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Jonathan Scott, post: 5488040, member: 54889"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Astronomy and Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
GW150914 and GW150914-GBM revisited
Back
Top