"Observation" of Black Hole Merger

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the observational implications of black hole mergers, particularly in relation to the Schwarzschild radius and the nature of observation in the context of general relativity. Participants explore the theoretical limits of observation and measurement concerning black holes, including the implications of LIGO's detections of gravitational waves from black hole mergers.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant posits that from Earth's frame of reference, an object falling into a black hole can never be observed crossing the Schwarzschild radius, as it appears to take an infinite amount of time to do so.
  • Another participant challenges this premise, arguing that the dynamics of a black hole merger are not static and that the signals detected by LIGO originate from the inspiral phase leading to the merger.
  • A different participant suggests that if Hawking Radiation is valid, the eventual evaporation of black holes could allow for the observation of objects falling in, contradicting the initial premise about perpetual observation limitations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the premises, particularly the first premise about the nature of observation related to black holes. There is no consensus on whether the conclusions drawn from the premises are correct or if the premises themselves are flawed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion relies on assumptions about static versus dynamic spacetime and the implications of Hawking Radiation, which remain unresolved within the thread.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the theoretical aspects of black holes, gravitational wave detection, and the philosophical implications of observation in physics.

ObjectivelyRational
Messages
150
Reaction score
9
Premise 1: From the frame of reference of the earth, observing a thing falling into a black hole (crossing the Schwarzschild radius) is impossible -> the thing is observed falling toward but never reaching the radius, i.e. the process takes an infinite amount of time.

Premise 2: Observation includes any manner of measurement and/or signal detection etc.

Premise 3: Another black hole qualifies as "a thing" which can fall toward the black hole

Conclusion: Actual black hole merger can never be observed, only a process leading toward it but taking an infinite amount of time.

Question1: If the conclusion is correct, observation of black hole merger is impossible, then WHAT was observed by LIGO, and why is not still occurring (granted the signals may be weakening... but I assume that in our frame of reference the black holes are still merging.. and will continue to do so "forever") i.e. Did LIGO detect an actual merger or only an approach towards merger?

Question 2: If the conclusion is incorrect which of the premises is false or how do the set of premises not logically necessitate the Conclusion?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Premise 1 is based on a static space-time with the "thing" not really perturbing the static Schwarzschild solution. This is definitely not the case for a black hole merger. The merger is very very far from being a static solution.

Apart from that, the signal is generated in the inspiral phase and then settles down as the black holes merge into a single rotating black hole.
 
Thank you!
 
@Orodruin, I have a question. My belief is that Premise 1 is false and I'd like to know why you seem to think that's not the case. My argument is that assuming Hawking Radiation is real then in the far far future the black hole will evaporate down to nothing. As it finishes evaporating, the view seen by the observer (clearly not on Earth since that will have long vanished) will change and the photons showing the in-falling object actually falling in will be released.

Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K