Problem of gravitons and black holes

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Ultron, Sep 28, 2016.

1. UltronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
187
In theoretical physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

So lets imagine, that we have two big black holes merging. As they merge, it creates huge gravitational waves, which can detected by aLIGO in distances more than billion light years. Gravitational waves are ripples in spacetime, which are mediated via massless gravitons.

But here comes the catch. The hypothetical graviton is massless spin -2 boson, but all bosons, like for example photon should have curved trajectories around objects with mass and generally cant escape black hole. How is it possible that boson like graviton can escape black hole? Seems to be in direct conflict with General relativity.

danshawen likes this.

3. mathmanValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,565
My guess: waves are ripples outside the black holes.

Messages:
21,803
In GR gravity is the curvature of spacetime and the curvature of spacetime from a BH, is a "fossil" field from the star/stellar object from whence it formed. Gravity/spacetime is also nonlinear...that is gravity makes more gravity.
We have no quantum theory of gravity as yet and gravitons do not exist under the umbrella of GR.

7. UltronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
187
Sure, there is no working quantum theory of gravity, but what Im saying is, that this expectation that graviton have to be massless spin -2 boson is conceptually flawed.

danshawen likes this.
8. PhysBangValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
It may very well be, but not for any reason that you have brought up so far. This question of "how can gravity escape" is something that does not require quantum gravity of any sort. There are answers out there.

9. UltronRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
187
It is obvious that "gravity can escape" black holes, but it is also obvious, that apart from some special quantum mechanics cases, bosons can not escape black holes.

danshawen likes this.
10. The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
There is no such thing called as graviton.

danshawen likes this.
11. PhysBangValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
Regardless of whether or not you find it obvious, there is actually physics that you can read about.

12. danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
So then, if a pair of smaller black holes merged inside of a much larger black hole, no one on the outside of the EH of the larger black hole would ever see a gravity wave from the event? That is a bold prediction, especially in these parts.

Easily explained with time dilation arguments. The hypothetical event would be occurring on a scale so slow relative to the universe outside of the event horizon that for all intents and purposes, the event never happens. This argument effectively removes any questions of quantum entanglement, because quantum entanglement itself, not the speed of light, is the basis of time/"space". See how easy that was?

Despite Minkowski, two events CAN be simultaneous (in the frame which is that of the event "now" in zero quantum spin) with entanglement, and without which, Einstein himself described as an incomplete description of nature. That quantum spin based on faster than light entanglement is literally what allows matter to hold itself together for long enough for an EH of a collapsing BH to form. Why does not one else seem to understand this? The math that might otherwise explain it is full of some very large incomplete gaps, that's why.

So, now explain why the first gravity wave ever detected from just such an event happened in our real time in the space of about 200 milliseconds? That's right. Because the entanglement energy that went into producing the gravity wave we saw came from the very core (1 solar mass) of the event, where very, very briefly, the time dilation effect was much, much less. Now it all makes perfect sense. And we understand a few other things. Elaborate, please.

Last edited: Oct 12, 2016

Messages:
21,803
Gravity need not "escape" a BH: The gravity is simply a fossil field of the star from whence it collapsed: Also gravity/spacetime is nonlinear, and of course a BH is simply critically curved spacetime, with of course a mass at its core.

14. The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
See this bloomer, its misinformation and incorrect and useless parroting.

What do you mean by ...mass at its core? As if BH has a core?

danshawen likes this.

Messages:
21,803
No, again its fact, not withstanding your usual childish obfuscation and playing dumb.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_gravity.html
Purely in terms of general relativity, there is no problem here. The gravity doesn't have to get out of the black hole. General relativity is a local theory, which means that the field at a certain point in spacetime is determined entirely by things going on at places that can communicate with it at speeds less than or equal to c. If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole. Just as the light registering late stages in my fall takes longer and longer to get out to you at a large distance, the gravitational consequences of events late in the star's collapse take longer and longer to ripple out to the world at large. In this sense the black hole is a kind of "frozen star": the gravitational field is a fossil field. The same is true of the electromagnetic field that a black hole may possess.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity
One reason why the physics of general relativity is much more difficult than that of Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of electrodynamicsis a property called non-linearity. In short, gravity can beget further gravity - where gravitational systems are concerned, the whole is not the sum of its parts

Last edited: Oct 13, 2016
16. The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546

Remain uneducable or learn that there is no concept of massed core for a BH.

Messages:
21,803
And the childish obfuscation continues!

core
kɔː/
noun
1. 1.
the tough central part of various fruits, containing the seeds.
"a pineapple core"
2. 2.
the part of something that is central to its existence or character

18. The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
Oh, resorting yo dictionary.

But Paddoboy, a BH does not have any tough central part, neither it has any central core for its existence. It is defined as critically curved spacetime.

Messages:
21,803
A BH has what could be termed a core, my friend, despite your continuing childish obfuscation.

as per [2]
the part of something that is central to its existence or character

Messages:
21,803
Here's something else for you to feed on my friend.....
https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.211301

Synopsis: At the Heart of a Black Hole
May 23, 2013
A quantum gravity theory suggests that the cores of black holes may be a region of highly curved spacetime, rather than a singularity point with zero volume and infinite density.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Game, set and match: Again!

21. The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
So, backing out from your original claim?

"Mass at its core" was your original claim, now it has become curved spacetime at its core. Thats some learning in few posts itself. Good, I like that.

Messages:
21,803
Not at all....

What do you think causes the curved spacetime?

Obfuscation just make you look, well you know...