"Testing the black-hole area law with GW150914" • Physics Forums

Click For Summary

The discussion highlights the observational confirmation of Hawking's black-hole area theorem using data from the gravitational wave event GW150914. Researchers achieved a 97% probability agreement with the theorem when including overtones in their model of the ringdown phase. A new time-domain analysis of pre- and post-merger data was employed to reach these conclusions. Additionally, the inspiral and ringdown phases of the signal were found to be consistent with the same remnant mass and spin, supporting general relativity. This research represents a significant advancement in understanding black hole physics.

Jul 1, 2021

#1

robphy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Insights Author

Gold Member

(I haven't been actively following this line of research... but I think it is possibly interesting reading.
It's been in the science news today.)

"Black Hole Area Law Tested" (synopsis)
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/s87

"Testing the Black-Hole Area Law with GW150914"
Maximiliano Isi, Will M. Farr, Matthew Giesler, Mark A. Scheel, and Saul A. Teukolsky
Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 011103 – Published 1 July 2021
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.011103 (preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.04486 )

We present observational confirmation of Hawking’s black-hole area theorem based on data from GW150914, finding agreement with the prediction with 97% (95%) probability when we model the ringdown including (excluding) overtones of the quadrupolar mode. We obtain this result from a new time-domain analysis of the pre- and postmerger data. We also confirm that the inspiral and ringdown portions of the signal are consistent with the same remnant mass and spin, in agreement with general relativity.

Thread 'Is using r as a coordinate in Birkhoff's theorem a limitation?'

In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

View full post »