The Orion's Arm Universe Project Forums

Breaking Black Holes.
There seems to be a nonlinearity in that the larger the black holes merging, the greater the percentage of their mass released as energy.

Or, if I'm reading correctly - the greater the combined mass, the greater the *maximum* loss ratio, subject to a bound of preserving the area of event horizon. But in any given collision, depending on spins and angles, some smaller proportion is actually lost. So we had detected plenty of mergers in which up to 5% of the mass/energy was radiated away, but in the biggest event we've ever detected, 9/156 or almost 6% was radiated away - a proportion impossible for smaller crashes. But a given collision of identical-size masses might radiate away a little more, or far less.

The idea of gravitational energy as energy which, in and of itself, has gravitational mass, is a new one, and a bit of a mind-bender for me. The mass of a given stretch of "empty" space, aside from the stray hydrogen atoms, dust, etc, must include the mass of the energy traversing that space. Which we can't even see or detect in any other way, until that energy hits something and causes work to be done. So we can look out there at some random region in the Bootes void, or whatever, that completely lacks conventional matter - but if for whatever reason an enormous amount of energy expressed in gravity waves (or photons) completely invisible to us is traversing it, then any mass nearby will be affected as though that region has mass.

And when that happens, the energy it takes to move that gravitationally-attracted mass is somehow subtracted from the radiation that's traversing the region?

At the risk of heresy, doesn't that cause red shift? If light, as energy, causes gravitational effects as though it were mass - and that gravity affects things near its path, however small the effect in total as it zips by at light speed, doesn't the energy exerting a force on those affected things get deducted from the energy of the light? And wouldn't that reduction in energy take the form of redshift? And wouldn't it, in the mean and on very large scales, be proportional to the distance traveled by that light?

So red shift isn't just the doppler effect of relative movement plus the 'stretching' effect of the expansion of spacetime, but also the energy the radiation has lost by gravitationally interacting with, well, everything, as it traverses the universe?

Has that been accounted for in the conflict concerning the hubble constant and the age of the universe? Because if the hubble constant includes a term for energy loss due to gravitational interaction, then finding a conflict when it's interpreted solely as the rate of expansion of the universe is not a huge anomaly. It's the expected result.

Messages In This Thread
Breaking Black Holes. - by Bear - 10-02-2020, 08:36 AM
RE: Breaking Black Holes. - by stevebowers - 10-02-2020, 10:35 PM
RE: Breaking Black Holes. - by Bear - 10-03-2020, 02:12 AM
RE: Breaking Black Holes. - by stevebowers - 10-03-2020, 06:50 PM
RE: Breaking Black Holes. - by Bear - 10-03-2020, 08:42 PM
RE: Breaking Black Holes. - by Drashner1 - 10-03-2020, 11:58 PM
RE: Breaking Black Holes. - by stevebowers - 10-03-2020, 10:01 PM
RE: Breaking Black Holes. - by Bear - 10-04-2020, 04:57 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)