Graduate "Observation" of Black Hole Merger

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the observation of black hole mergers, positing that from Earth's perspective, an object falling into a black hole never actually crosses the Schwarzschild radius, making direct observation impossible. It questions the nature of signals detected by LIGO, suggesting these may only represent an approach to merger rather than an actual event. The validity of the premises is debated, particularly Premise 1, which assumes a static space-time scenario that does not account for the dynamic nature of black hole mergers. The conversation also introduces the concept of Hawking Radiation, proposing that in the distant future, an observer could witness the final moments of a black hole's evaporation. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexities of measuring black hole phenomena and the implications for our understanding of time and observation in astrophysics.
ObjectivelyRational
Messages
150
Reaction score
9
Premise 1: From the frame of reference of the earth, observing a thing falling into a black hole (crossing the Schwarzschild radius) is impossible -> the thing is observed falling toward but never reaching the radius, i.e. the process takes an infinite amount of time.

Premise 2: Observation includes any manner of measurement and/or signal detection etc.

Premise 3: Another black hole qualifies as "a thing" which can fall toward the black hole

Conclusion: Actual black hole merger can never be observed, only a process leading toward it but taking an infinite amount of time.

Question1: If the conclusion is correct, observation of black hole merger is impossible, then WHAT was observed by LIGO, and why is not still occurring (granted the signals may be weakening... but I assume that in our frame of reference the black holes are still merging.. and will continue to do so "forever") i.e. Did LIGO detect an actual merger or only an approach towards merger?

Question 2: If the conclusion is incorrect which of the premises is false or how do the set of premises not logically necessitate the Conclusion?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Premise 1 is based on a static space-time with the "thing" not really perturbing the static Schwarzschild solution. This is definitely not the case for a black hole merger. The merger is very very far from being a static solution.

Apart from that, the signal is generated in the inspiral phase and then settles down as the black holes merge into a single rotating black hole.
 
Thank you!
 
@Orodruin, I have a question. My belief is that Premise 1 is false and I'd like to know why you seem to think that's not the case. My argument is that assuming Hawking Radiation is real then in the far far future the black hole will evaporate down to nothing. As it finishes evaporating, the view seen by the observer (clearly not on Earth since that will have long vanished) will change and the photons showing the in-falling object actually falling in will be released.

Thanks
 
UC Berkely, December 16, 2025 https://news.berkeley.edu/2025/12/16/whats-powering-these-mysterious-bright-blue-cosmic-flashes-astronomers-find-a-clue/ AT 2024wpp, a luminous fast blue optical transient, or LFBOT, is the bright blue spot at the upper right edge of its host galaxy, which is 1.1 billion light-years from Earth in (or near) a galaxy far, far away. Such objects are very bright (obiously) and very energetic. The article indicates that AT 2024wpp had a peak luminosity of 2-4 x...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
3K