Question on gravitational waves and redshift in BH coalesce

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, specifically questioning why the end of the gravitational wave signal indicates coalescence. It clarifies that the merging of black holes is a dynamic process, unlike a small object falling into a static black hole, allowing gravitational waves to propagate outward despite the merging event. The conversation also addresses whether gravitational waves experience redshift similar to electromagnetic waves, confirming that they do and that this is accounted for in LIGO's calculations. The participants emphasize the importance of understanding the dynamics of black hole mergers in interpreting gravitational wave signals. Overall, the discussion enhances comprehension of gravitational wave behavior during black hole coalescence.
Javier Zapater
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Dear Sirs

My question relates to the recent observation of gravitational waves by LIGO.
The paper PRL 116 "Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger -B.P Abbott et al"" depicts the chirp signal of the wave detected, where it is seen how both frequency and amplitude increase till coming to an end, where oscillations stop, indicating that both BHs coalesce into single one.

Question: why do we see that end in the gravitational wave signal? in short, why we see the coalesce? I mean, I would have expected (surely wrong) that we, as external observers should have "seen"/detected the two BH, meanwhile approaching both event horizons to the final merge, suffering an increasing redhsift during the collapse that would have prevented us from detecting that one BH crossed the event horizon of the companion, and viceversa. Similar effect as if we, meanwhile remaining in orbit around a BH, see an object falling into the BH. We will see the light emitted by the object gradually and infinitely redshifted meanwhile approaching the event horizon.

Should not the gravitational waves suffer from the same collapse redshift observed as in the electromagnetic waves?

Where is my reasoning wrong?Thanks for your help.

javier
 
Space news on Phys.org
Javier Zapater said:
Where is my reasoning wrong?

You are imagining one BH as a small test object falling into the other BH. That's not correct. This is a highly dynamic situation, and it doesn't work the same as a small test object falling into a static BH.

The "coalescence" of the two BHs is not simply a merging of their horizons. Again, it's a highly dynamic process that produces strong fluctuations in spacetime curvature. Most of those fluctuations are outside the combined horizon of the two BHs, so they propagate outward; they are in fact the gravitational waves that we detect. (Some fluctuations are trapped inside the horizon, but of course we don't detect those.)
 
  • Like
Likes Javier Zapater
Thanks PeterDonis.

One more question. Shall the fluctuations propagating through the space-time be subject to the same redshift expansion as electromagnetic waves?

I mean λ of GW detected= λ of GW emited * (1+z)

Is it correct?

Thanks
javier
 
Javier Zapater said:
Shall the fluctuations propagating through the space-time be subject to the same redshift expansion as electromagnetic waves?

They should be, yes. I believe that is taken into account in the calculations that were done for LIGO.
 
  • Like
Likes Javier Zapater
Thanks a lot.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top