Conclusions from 1000 scientist at LIGO is that mass was converted to energy 2 or 3 times about 1 to 2 billion years ago without antimatter to annihilate the lost mass. References were made to theoretical predictions of recent years based on gravity changes and Einstein writings.
X-Rays were thought to possibly follow quickly after the first event GW150914. Is there a theory to link the X-Rays to Gravity interactions?
Would particle pairs not be produced in abundance during extreme gravity events?
The question is considering LIGO observations of black hole mergers GW150914 and GW151226 converting mass to kinetic energy at high speed, is there a reverse process at high speed by which kinetic energy in gravity fields can create mass without antimatter?
I would not say that "mass converts into energy" or vice versa. The argument is trivial: if mass and energy are the same thing, the statement that a thing converts into itself does not make much sense. If mass and energy are not the same thing, their conversion would obviously violate conservation of energy. Commonly used Interpretation of
E=mc^2 (1)
as "mass-energy conversion" is totally misleading. The right description would be to say that, e.g., in the electron-positron (e-p) annihilation
e+p--->2gamma (2)
the mass of the (e-p) becomes mass of the 2gamma, and their energy-momentum become energy-momentum of 2gamma. All conservation laws are satisfied. The meaning of E=mc^2 is that E and m of a system are intimately and rigidly correlated. The E and m of the initial system (e, p) satisfy (1) and the same is true for the final system of 2gamma. In addition,
m(initial) = m(final) and E(initial) =E(final) (3)
In the black hole formation, the mass and energy of the falling matter become mass and energy of the formed black hole. The inverse process exists (black hole evaporation) but it lasts much longer. Then the mass and energy of the initial black hole become mass and energy of the evaporated stuff. A black hole merger produces gravitational waves thus converting a certain fraction of the initial mass and energy of the black hole pair into additional mass and energy of its gravitational field. As George noted quite correctly in his example with extracting energy from gravitational field of two approaching masses, both - gravitational energy and the corresponding total mass of the pair decrease synchronously by amounts connected by (1). It only remains to note that both - energy and mass of the connected generator will increase by the same amounts. With dissipation included, the mass-energy increase of the generator will be smaller, the missing parts will add to the mass-energy increase of the environment.
General Relativity says mass and energy are interchangeable in gravity fields, but provides no mechanism for the exchange to be accomplished, and no explanation of why mass and energy do not spontaneously convert.
LIGO reports seem to say that mass converts to energy spontaneously in extreme gravity dynamics, and much of the kinetic energy radiates away as gravity waves of stress energy, apparently making the process not reversible in natural events. There might be some way to reverse the process on a smaller scale by artificial means.
Symmetry breaking at high energy sounds to me as a possible explanation that might be developed further into a theory, and one that finds similarities with other theories. A symmetry might explain how mass and energy convert, and why it doesn't routinely occur at low energy.
The baryon number is the symmetry in question, but the presence of a black hole may alter the requirement of that symmetry. The question relates to how entropy is remembered or lost in a black hole and on the event horizon.
Polarizable Vacuum theory in the attached graph has been rejected as an alternative to GR, but finds application in next steps of engineering designs for high speed transport in deep space. PV attempts to answer questions about how the strength of construction materials might be decreased in extreme curved space, and how biological systems or mental processes might be hindered by extreme velocity.
The graph compares LIGO mass loss and speed to prediction from a PV theory that has been modified several different ways for adding velocity terms. Agreement is not great, but good enough the study may be continued. All the modifications to PV predict that locally measured mass converts to kinetic energy and momentum as the consequence of prolonged or extreme acceleration measured as high speed.
My question relates to how a deep space transport vehicle might be decelerating after a prolonged acceleration in which considerable mass was lost to kinetic energy. PV says the mass is recovered by deceleration, but this is just a nice exercise of mathematics. In the black holes the lost mass is apparently not recovered.
Jerry, the energy released is the same amount as the gravitational binding energy in the merged product which has a negative value. If you hold two 1kg masses say 2m apart in deep space and let them slowly move together under the influence of their own gravity until they are 1m apart, you can extract a very small amount of energy E by tying them to a generator. The total mass of the pair (measured from far away) will be less than the original total by E/c2.
When the Earth formed, numerous lumps of rock fell onto it from space and the result was that the surface became molten. The source of the energy is the same.
Material falling into the accretion disc of a black hole is the most efficient known way to convert mass to energy, up to 40% IIRC, far better than nuclear fusion for example.
The situation with the two black holes is extreme but the principle is the same. The power output is in the form of the gravitational waves, not particles.
As for reversing the process, in my first example, use the generators in reverse as motors to pull the rocks apart and the total mass increases.
I would not say that "mass converts into energy" or vice versa. The argument is trivial: if mass and energy are the same thing, the statement that a thing converts into itself does not make much sense. If mass and energy are not the same thing, their conversion would obviously violate conservation of energy. Commonly used Interpretation of
E=mc^2 (1)
as "mass-energy conversion" is totally misleading. The right description would be to say that, e.g., in the electron-positron (e-p) annihilation
e+p--->2gamma (2)
the mass of the (e-p) becomes mass of the 2gamma, and their energy-momentum become energy-momentum of 2gamma. All conservation laws are satisfied. The meaning of E=mc^2 is that E and m of a system are intimately and rigidly correlated. The E and m of the initial system (e, p) satisfy (1) and the same is true for the final system of 2gamma. In addition,
m(initial) = m(final) and E(initial) =E(final) (3)
In the black hole formation, the mass and energy of the falling matter become mass and energy of the formed black hole. The inverse process exists (black hole evaporation) but it lasts much longer. Then the mass and energy of the initial black hole become mass and energy of the evaporated stuff. A black hole merger produces gravitational waves thus converting a certain fraction of the initial mass and energy of the black hole pair into additional mass and energy of its gravitational field. As George noted quite correctly in his example with extracting energy from gravitational field of two approaching masses, both - gravitational energy and the corresponding total mass of the pair decrease synchronously by amounts connected by (1). It only remains to note that both - energy and mass of the connected generator will increase by the same amounts. With dissipation included, the mass-energy increase of the generator will be smaller, the missing parts will add to the mass-energy increase of the environment.
Thanks for replies George and Moses.
Baryon number is probably not conserved in a black hole. So the symmetry of matter and antimatter has probably been broken by the extreme pressure that crushes baryons.
Mass of a black hole can be regarded as all gravity stress energy, maybe as quanta assembled, but not as conventional particles., such that if mass converts to energy it has already happened.
In black hole merger the rotation spin of each component might be slowing down as black holes bulge in the direction of each other, and the orbit period gains control of the spin momentum. Change of spin energy is possibly one source of energy that can be lost.
In GR the orbit energy and angular momentum radiate away causing the merger as George pointed out. LIGO parameter estimation in published document
GW150914_parameter_estimation_v13
gives total energy before merger ignoring spin energy
E ≈ (m1 + m2)c2 - Gm1m2/(2r)
in which the gravity term was said to account for about half of the mass loss. The other half was said to occur during merger, which not stated might be a change of spin energy, or maybe just a departure of gravitational stress energy radiated away by the accelerating dynamics of the merging pair.
My main interest is in high speed systems of prolonged acceleration where kinetic energy density approaches the intensity of a black hole. Such a system might be created in 2 to 4 years of continual acceleration equal to earth gravity. Chemical rockets will not achieve it, but magnetic fields permeate all of space and could be coupled to a field effect engine with no leap of faith, and fairly well known technology. So the question is relevant to what might be happening in a decade or two.
At extreme high speed does the local curvature of space crush baryons out of existence like a black hole does? Accelerator testing results seem to say it doesn't happen at least on the scale of a beam of ions. A lot of calculations are done for larger scale in deep space with systems that are not ionized, and many of them predict disaster for the accelerated system. Other calculations predict ways to prevent disaster. Physical test is a high cost proposition. So theoretical work is important, and all opinions are welcome.
JD: At extreme high speed does the local curvature of space crush baryons out of existence like a black hole does?
No, nothing happens at all. This is the problem that arises with people who try to use "relativistic mass" when learning SR. Kinetic energy is only measured by a remote observer. In the frame of the accelerating object, its mass is unchanged, and so is its gravitational effect as far as a local observer is concerned. If we could accelerate the earth to 99.999% of the speed of light relative to the Sun overnight, our bathroom scales would still show our weight as the same as it is now if we were drifting along inertially in the morning.
Dear Jerry,
For the transformation of kinetic energy into mass you can go back to Einstein's argument in his annus mirabilis (Sept. 1905). Just replace the impinging radiation in his thought experiment by the kinetic energy of particles. (My recent short article: "On Einstein's Annus Mirabilis" may help you.)
Norbert, I read through your arXiv article in German language because I had no success trying to get your article from Research Gate. Also read Einstein's paper in the English translation published by Stephen Hawking.
The intent seems to be the inertial mass of a body depends on its energy content. Einstein gives the examples of radioactive decay losing mass from radiation. He doesn't give an example of the reverse process which was not known in 1905.. These examples of radioactive decay are depending on the weak nuclear force for which some conservations occur during CPT and others do not. Einstein has inferred a general law and reversible process but he did not provide a mechanism for the reverse.
Particle accelerators seem to give a better answer. There in collisions the kinetic energy definitely does become mass, if only briefly, but the baryon number is conserved by things called charm and strangeness, unstable quantities that dissipate energy quickly.
My question relates to the possibility that baryon number is not conserved in symmetry breaking at some extreme energy level. Thanks for reply.
Having mass is having the capability to deform the field in which all massive objects live. A moving massive object has an increased capability to deform this field. (De)-acceleration establishes this effect. It is part of special relativity. Gravitation stands for the interaction between the field and the massive objects. The field describes the location density of the massive objects. As a consequence the objects influence the field. The one cannot exist without the other. Gravitation formulates the details of the interaction.
Think about how the locations influence the location density distribution. If that distribution is a continuous function, then it can be considered as a field. A Green's function describes the influence of a single location.
All elementary particles are point-like objects. At every progression instant they have a precise location. (See the link below).
The messengers that transport information travel over the considered field. The deformed field is their carrier.
http://vixra.org/abs/1606.0028
Dear Jerry,
I attach the short Invited contribution at the Joint EPS-APS Historic site 'Einstein Haus' Bern, September 14, 2015.
Mathematics indicates that Einstein took an unhappy decision by following Maxwell in taking coordinate time rather than proper time as the fourth dimension. By taking that decision he inherited us with a space-time structure that has a Minkowski signature. Hilbert spaces cannot directly cope with such structures. These structures must be dismantled into real numbers in order to be handled by Hilbert spaces. That is why students are learned that observables are represented by Hermitian operators. However, Hilbert spaces can directly handle quaternions. Quaternions implement an Euclidean space-progression structure. In a quaternionic Hilbert space normal operators feature quaternionic eigenvalues. In quaternion space the equivalent of coordinate time is quaternionic distance. Proper time is implemented as the real part of the quaternion. A pure mathematical model can be constructed that uses a quaternionic Hilbert space and that shows many, if not all features that we know from observing physical reality. However, that model is an Euclidean model and not a model with a Minkowski signature.
http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0021
Particle-antiparticle annihilation is really a great example of how matter converts into energy and vice versa.The 2 mechanisms of annihilation and creation are mathematically and physically well explained in the QED scattering theory.
I have serious objections about what exactly LIGO has done, see my works.
But the question can stand alone without any LIGO involvement.
Data A detailed critical review of reported event GW150914 that L...
Data Big data analysis of Livingston and Hanford logfiles for LIG...
Apparently neither x-rays nor gamma rays followed quickly behind the second confirmed LIGO event.
None are expected. The Fermi detection shortly after the first detection was probably a coincidence.
That isn't the case for mergers of neutron stars but the lower masses means such an event needs to be closer to be detectable. We should see that as a Type 1a supernova.
George gave the right answer. One can really not expect a measurable X- or \gamma-ray signal from these distant events, because first it is unlikely that there is a lot of dense matter in the immediate neighbourhood of two coalescing black holes. From talking to people somewhat outside the field (even professors for theoretical physics), I learned that they did not always realise that for gravitational wave signals we are measuring the amplitudes, which decrease only linearly with distance, while the intensity of X- and gamma-radiation decreases quadratically.
Once the detection of gravitational wave signals of closer neutron star binaries will become a matter of routine, one will also record almost simultaneous electromagnetic radiation. Most probably, this will soon happen when the improvement programs of the detectors are completed. Then we will learn a lot of the physics of these violent events.
In my quantum gravity theory universe begins with about 10^62 particles called Savitons which are associated with the electro-nuclear force just after gravity separates at planck time. These bosonic particles are massless moving at velocity of light and represent pure kinetic energy of the order of planck energy. As the velocity of these particles drop due to collision, their kinetic energy get converted into mass. Higgs boson also acquire mass in the same way. I am able to generate masses of all the standard model particles from a single formula which is the outcome of this quantum gravity theory. This process is reversible because my equations are reversible.
Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology
Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111101 (2006); https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511048
.
These papers are based on numerical calculations in general relativity theory. The first paper numerically estimates that about 5% of the rest mass of the binary black hole system will be emitted as gravitational waves during the final orbit and ring down. Also please look at the reference list of these two papers if there is something interesting.
JD: Apparently neither x-rays nor gamma rays followed quickly behind the second confirmed LIGO event.
GD: None are expected. The Fermi detection shortly after the first detection was probably a coincidence.
AK: George, please, explain.
EM radiation would have to come from hot matter outside the black holes. For such large masses, the current studies on their formation suggest they would be "kicked" from their original locations so they are not likely to be embedded in a gas-rich region and consequently unlikely to have accretion discs or orbiting companions,
The formation process is still a subject of study of course, we have no observations to go on and LIGO results may well produce surprises but currently an absence of EM emissions is not unexpected.
The referenced article is suggesting mass loss continues during merger and ring down.
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507014
Then the LIGO data on my graph should be shifted further to the right, giving better agreement with the several proposed modifications of PV.
Also the arXiv article is claiming loss of rest mass, not just orbital energy or dynamic apparent mass.
The graph above with my question has been changed to reflect the arXiv article for mass loss continuing during ring down. It gives better agreement with my predictions of modified PV.
Reply to GD message of 2 weeks ago.
"JD: At extreme high speed does the local curvature of space crush baryons out of existence like a black hole does?" ... GD: "No, nothing happens at all."
"Nothing happens" is the prevailing majority opinion, and one I disagree with. Frame dragging at high speed follows from GR and also from PV when it is correctly configured for high speed. Frame dragging is a special type of curved space close to and caused by a moving object. Vacuum stress energy which is another word for curvature accompanies a high speed object because of frame dragging, and that curvature increases as the object accelerates toward light speed. This topic doesn't come from SR studies.
There are 2 and only 2 possible outcomes in GR from prolonged acceleration and high speed frame dragging curvature. Either the curvature is positive like gravity and eventually makes a closed surface similar to an event horizon, departing from our field of view with the same energy as an event horizon of a black hole, or the curvature is negative like fields of static electricity and magnetic poles, and eventually makes a worm hole from dragged frames becoming parallel to the velocity vector, also with the same energy density as an event horizon. Either way there is a critical speed associated with kinetic energy and frame dragging, at which "Nothing happens" no longer applies. Space either opens or closes at the energy density of an event horizon.
I realize these are not popular opinions, but they are in agreement with widely accepted laws of energy and momentum derived from accelerator research. Also these are opinions that can be tested and eventually lead to new discoveries.
Is it positive or negative curvature attached to high speed? My research is suggesting negative curvature, but this is also something that can be tested.
In more familiar words, the high speed object creates a warp field around it which might also be intensified by other field effect generators. Warp is curved space either attracted to or repelled by gravity fields. As acceleration continues the warp field deforms, eventually becoming a worm hole or a black hole.
Frame dragging has been confirmed by others and published in peer reviewed articles. Take your choice a worm hole or a black hole at the end of "Nothing happens."
Speed doesn't create curvature, but by assuming that it is a mass with an associated gravitational effect which is moving, there is already curvature present. Someone moving with the mass only sees the usual field appropriate for that mass, for example the Schwarzschild metric while someone who sees the mass moving will see frame dragging effects but no horizons are involved (unless it's a black hole in the rest frame of course).
Prolonged acceleration is a different question, that will produce a horizon. If an object accelerates away from us there is a level of acceleration beyond which light from us will never catch it, we would be behind a horizon as far as the object is concerned. That's just standard SR though.
GD Thanks for reply.
I realize your posting represents the prevailing opinion in science. Now I'm suggestion a finite limitation of space to contain kinetic energy as a new idea. Science has accepted an old idea that space has a finite limit to contain gravity potential. Kinetic energy limitation is just another finite property of space to explore. SR allows infinities to occur, so at some point it must be set aside. At some fantastic energy density the laws must change or the constants become variables. This is just another version of symmetry breaking at high energy, but with kinetic energy instead of temperature. Much of science has accepted symmetry breaking from high temperature. Symmetry breaking with kinetic energy is not such a difficult next step.
JD: Kinetic energy limitation is just another finite property of space to explore
Currently, kinetic energy is not seen as a property of space but a coordinate-dependent property of the objects. You would need to reformulate that in some way before you could make a start.
A black hole can be considered as a region where no fields exist. Since normal matter consists of point-like artifacts that disturb the continuity of the field that acts as our living space, will black holes consist of complete regions that act as such an artifact. Photons are constituted of strings of equidistant one-dimensional operating artifacts. Each of these artifacts carry a bit of energy. Massive elementary particles do not form linear strings. Instead they form hopping paths and the landing points form a coherent location swarm. Both the hopping path and the location swarm represent the elementary particle. The swarm can be described by a location density distribution and via a Greens' function that location density distribution conforms to a field. A smoothed version of this field forms a potential. Thus photons and elementary particles are both constituted of sequences of point-like artifacts. In photons these artifacts form linear strings. In massive elementary particles these artifacts form hopping paths. At annihilation or creation events it becomes clear that the constituting artifacts belong to the same kind of objects. At conversion events the mechanisms that generate these objects just turn into a different operating mode.
GD: "Currently, kinetic energy is not seen as a property of space but a coordinate-dependent property of the objects."
This is the prevailing view in science, but one I would like to explore a bit further. Since inertial mass is identical to gravitational mass, at least in low energy situations, it is reasonable to suggest that they both communicate with local curvature. We seem to agree on how acceleration operates on observations. I would like to go a step further and explore the underlying mechanism that supports inertia and the related energy that accumulates from acceleration.
Mention of coordinate dependency for kinetic energy is suggesting that objects communicate continually with local space in which the coordinates are constructed. I'm suggesting the intensity of communication Is related to the speed of the object, also the kinetic energy of the object resides in local space as a co-moving stress energy, rather than in some physical modification of the object.
If this is not true, then some other physical property of an object should be expressed as translational energy and change as the speed changes. As you pointed out the kinetic energy is not expressed by an object except in its relation to a region of space. My suggestion makes a path forward for testing and new discoveries while the prevailing view does not.
Maybe a better example can be made with QM where momentum becomes an operator and works on a collection of wave functions. The functions extend out into space and change as the momentum changes. Wave functions generally represent probabilities of physical potentials being realized in a measured quantity. It would be hard for me to argue that local space is not stressed at all by differences in physical potentials. Just as hard to argue would be a concept of many small discrete stresses adding always to exactly zero net continual stress.
The QM example first occurred to me as a way of bringing velocity terms into PV theory, without which it lacked some essential features of GR, but otherwise offered useful tools for advanced engineering. The effort seems to have succeeded in rescuing PV for use in deep space transport at high speed, but with a prediction of kinetic energy residing in local space and reaching a saturation limit at high speed, something that can be tested, and a way of preventing infinities in SR.
JD: Mention of coordinate dependency for kinetic energy is suggesting that objects communicate continually with local space in which the coordinates are constructed.
No, it means that the value depends on your choice of a coordinate system to overlay on top of the physical world, it isn't an intrinsic property of the objects being described.
JD: As you pointed out the kinetic energy is not expressed by an object except in its relation to a region of space.
That's not what I meant, sorry if I was unclear. Kinetic energy is not defined in relation to space, it is only defined in relation to other objects.
GD Thanks for your opinions. Other scientists have also disagreed with me in different forums, but all were helpful in clearly defining concepts and refining opinions. At this point I would like to make citations from a few references that describe the concept of Vacuum Viscosity in accelerating systems.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234504153_Vacuum_viscosity_and_entropy_generation_in_quantum_gravitational_processes_in_the_early_universe
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278390348_Bulk_Viscous_Anisotropic_Cosmological_Models_with_Generalized_Chaplygin_Gas_with_Time_Varying_Gravitational_and_Cosmological_Constants
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225157729_Bulk_viscosity_driving_the_acceleration_of_the_Universe
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1737496_Hydrodynamics_of_spacetime_and_vacuum_viscosity
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234943153_Vacuum_Viscosity_and_Quantum_Noise_From_Atoms_to_Galaxies
The topic of quantum gravity research has produced a number of articles showing Vacuum Viscosity and Fluid Mechanics to be equivalent to GR and Thermodynamics in description of accelerating systems. The same concepts of Vacuum Viscosity do not appear in descriptions of constant high speed.
An implication is that the acceleration energy of an object is often represented as changes in the stress energy of local space. I came to the same conclusion by different means. Kinetic energy Is just the accumulation of acceleration energy. So the concept of kinetic energy in the stress energy of space is not unreasonable, although it is new and is expressed a little differently than other writers.
Article Vacuum viscosity and entropy generation in quantum gravitati...
Article Bulk Viscous Anisotropic Cosmological Models with Generalize...
Article Bulk viscosity driving the acceleration of the Universe
Article Hydrodynamics of spacetime and vacuum viscosity
Article Vacuum Viscosity and Quantum Noise: From Atoms to Galaxies
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics