First Discovery of Quadrupole Gravity Waves Still Does Not Prove Existence of Black Holes

Signal from LIGO's Washington observatory (red) shifted in time by 0.007 seconds makes a good match to the signal from LIGO's Louisiana observatory (blue)

Signal from LIGO's Washington observatory (red) shifted in time by 0.007 seconds makes a good match to the signal from LIGO's Louisiana observatory (blue).

Posted by P. LaViolette, February 12, 2016
Updated February 18, 2016 (see end of posting)
Thanks to George Papado and Patricia Lagrange for notifying me of the initial news releases and to Pál Szabolcs for informing about the associated gamma ray burst.

After sitting on their discovery for 5 months, scientists affiliated with the LIGO observatories finally announced that they had for the first time unequivocally detected a gravity wave.  This culminated a four decade search for gravity waves.  First, one may note that if our own Galactic center were ever to launch a killer gravity wave heralding a coming superwave, don't expect to hear about it from LIGO.  They will likely sit on the data for months and then you would never hear about it because all global communication systems would be down two days later after the gamma ray/cosmic ray pulse arrived.

This gravity wave was seen on September 14, 2015 in LIGO's raw signal data as a 35 Hertz oscillation which sped up to 250 Hertz.  The scientific community in their highly elated state leapt onto the bandwagon to proclaim that they had just observed the fusion of two black holes, having masses of 36 and 29 solar masses respectively; see stories available at:


But how much of what they say is really true? As Max Wallis has pointed out to the editor:

"Interpretation of G-wave signatures is not unique. The merging Black Holes idea is problematic, if only because point BHs don't get 'close' spatially. The models assume the merging objects are of the size of the Schwartzschild radius. The same type of signals would come from merging two megamasses. The two cannot be neutron stars, assert the modellists, but they retain the outdated claim that neutron stars cannot exceed twice the sun's mass. Einstein himself did not believe in Black Holes; physicists should at least accord him respect in allowing that this discovery of gravitational waves implies asymmetric rebalancing of large condensed masses - his quadrapole formula - and opens up a way to investigate their structure, instead of the unphysical assumption of structureless point singularities."

I entirely agree with Mr. Wallis.  Theoretically, a black hole has all its mass concentrated at one point.  So it seems that two black holes orbiting one another would have great difficulty merging.  They would simply continue orbiting one another.  Megamasses, or what I have called "Mother stars" would be entirely a different situation.  Take for example Mother stars having masses of 29 Msolar and 36 Msolar.  Given that a 2 solar mass neutron star is calculated to have a radius of 11 km, scaling this up, we may conclude that these more massive stars would have radii of about 27 km and 29 km respectively.  Here we assume they have densities similar to a 2 solar mass neutron star.  If they were to have greater densities similar to those theorized for quark stars, then their radii would be somewhat smaller, perhaps as small as 20 - 25 km.  Since I don't believe in the existence of quarks, 35 years ago I referred to these as hyperon stars, meaning that they would be composed of "hyperons", neutral particles more massive than neutrons which had become stable within the depths of the hyperon star's gravity well; see discussion in Subquantum Kinetics (SQK).

As SQK predicts, stars of mass greater than the conventional 3 solar mass cut off would be unable to collapse into a black hole because of their enormous unlimited production of genic energy which would support their interior from collapse and which increases as stellar radius decreases thereby overpowering the inward pull of gravity.  Besides, it has also been experimentally demonstrated that the electric potential at the center of a neutron plateaus, and the same would be true of the neutron's gravity field by virtue of electrogravitic coupling.  So as two neutrons are compressed increasingly close together, their mutual gravitational attraction should approach zero.  Hence black holes should not be able to form.  Moreover, as mentioned above, Einstein would have been in complete agreement on this point.

But two orbiting masses having tangible radial dimensions of the order of 28 km would be far more likely to converge inward towards one another due to tidal dissipation effects.  That is, tidal forces would deform these objects as they orbited one another and convert their orbital kinetic energy into heat, resulting in a progressive spiraling of one in towards the other.  Actually, the simulation shown in the above video is a good representation of what might take place, provided one realizes that these spheres are Mother stars (or "Megamasses") and not black holes.

Once the stars merged, the resulting mass would radially oscillate, changing alternately between a prolate and oblate spheroid and appearing somewhat like this bouncing water droplet:

This quadruple oscillation would likely initiate the corresponding formation of quadrupole gravity waves, thus explaining the oscillations that LIGO detected.  However, not all gravity waves would necessarily be quadrupolar.  Just as it is possible to produce non polarized longitudinal electric wave pulses, also known as Tesla waves, it should also be possible for natural sources to produce longitudinal gravity wave pulses, gravity waves that initiate movement forward and backward in their direction of travel much like sound waves do.  In fact, most of the gravity waves that are likely to be produced in Nature are likely to be of this sort which explains why LIGO has had such a hard time detecting them, their equipment being designed to instead detect quadrupole waves.  For example, supernova explosions and galactic core outbursts would tend to produce longitudinal gravity waves since their initial energy outburst would move radially away from the exploding celestial source.

February 18th update:

Once the LIGO team finally made their results public after a 5 month period of secrecy, other groups of astronomers began to check for the possibility whether the gravity wave was associated with a gamma ray burst.  In fact, they found it was, and this finding proved to be very embarrassing to the LIGO team who had attempted to explain their outburst as being due to the coalescence of two low mass black holes; see story in New Scientist:  It turns out that NASA's Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope detected a 1 second long gamma ray burst which began just 0.4 seconds after the arrival of LIGO's gravity wave.  The Fermi team calculated the probability of this being just a coincidence as just 0.0022, or one chance in 455; see paper posted at  So, logic tells us that the two signals were related.  They found that the gamma ray burst was determined to come from a region of the sky consistent with the general direction determined by LIGO.

Figuring that the gravity wave source lay 1.3 billion light years away, as suggested by the LIGO team, then this 0.4 second delay would amount to an almost negligible speed difference, one part in 1017.  It is significant that the gamma ray burst arrived after the gravity wave signal.  This could have been due to two possibilities: a) the energy outburst immediately followed the mass oscillation event that generated the gravity wave pulse, or b) the EM signal of the gamma ray burst travelled slightly slower through space due to the slowing effect due to scattering by the interstellar medium.  Most of this scattering likely would have occurred in the gas surrounding our Galaxy.  But since this burst came from a high galactic latitude direction, it would have passed through a minimal amount of disc gas and hence had a minimal signal delay.  This contrasts with the 2004 earthquake and gamma ray burst in which the burst was delayed by two days as compared with the time of the Malaysian earthquake/tidal wave.  In this case, the burst originated from within our Galaxy and traveled outward through the galactic disc through regions having the greatest concentration of interstellar gas, hence resulting in far greater scattering for that event.

But the discovery that a gamma ray burst was associated with this gravity wave turns out to be very embarrassing for the LIGO team which had proposed that the wave was produced by the coalescence of two low mass black holes.  The reason is that astrophysicists generally agree that coalescing black holes should not produce any burst of EM radiation.  The Fermi team estimates that the energy fluence of the gamma ray burst calculated to be in the range of 0.8 to 3 X 1049 erg/second in the 1 key - 10 Mev X-ray band.  This amounts to about 7 X 1015 solar luminosities.  This is more in line with the energy burst from the onset of a quasar-level galactic core explosion similar to that observed to come from quasar PDS 456:  PDS 456 was observed to have an initial X-ray luminosity of 0.5 X 1049 erg/second, hence in the same range as that estimated for the above gamma ray burst.

One member of the Fermi team acknowledged that what they saw could not be explained by coalescing black holes.  Valerie Connaughton of the Fermi team, said: “Everything smells like a short gamma-ray burst in our signal, and that’s a real problem in a way – you don’t expect this signal from merging black holes.” (See New Scientist posting).  In an attempt to find a way out of this dilemma, Avi Loeb of Harvard University suggested that a gamma ray burst could have resulted if the two orbiting black holes were enveloped in the belly of a very massive star, a few hundred times the mass of the Sun.  He suggested that the merging of the black holes could then have triggered the collapse of the star which produced the gamma ray outburst.  But then one might ask, even if black holes existed, which we already know they can't for reasons stated above, what are the chances of two black holes forming inside of such a massive star.  I think the answer is very unlikely.  But, the nature of the dilemma drives the astrophysical community to propose such theories.

The far more simple alternative is that the gravity wave was produced by the orbiting of  two low mass mother stars, as I had suggested above, or the collision of a low mass mother star with a higher mass galactic core, where the low mass mother star orbited the core briefly before coalescing and triggering the outburst.

So where does the energy come from?  The answer is very simple -- the exponential increase of genic energy which would occur at the time of coalescence.  Subquantum kinetics states that genic energy output of a celestial body is directly proportional to the depth of its G-well and also proportional to the thermal energy of the body.  At the time when the two bodies coalesced, their combined G-well  would have been much deeper than the G-wells that existed prior to coalescence.  Also the kinetic energy released at the time of coalescence would have caused the energy content of the combined mother stars to sky rocket.  The sudden rise of photon energy causes a sudden rise in the rate of genic energy production, which in turn causes the energy density within the star to increase exponentially.  This vicious circle leads to an explosive outburst of genic energy in cases where the generated energy cannot leave the core of the mother star sufficiently quickly.  This energy essentially comes into being spontaneously, and is perfectly plausible in subquantum kinetics, since subquantum kinetics postulates that the universe we live in functions as an open system in which energy may be continuously be created due to underlying primal ether flux that energizes and sustains our universe.  So there you have it, the gamma ray burst was no mystery at all, but was entirely expected.

30 Responses to First Discovery of Quadrupole Gravity Waves Still Does Not Prove Existence of Black Holes

Leave a Reply to David Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.