[HN Gopher] Gravitational Machines ___________________________________________________________________ Gravitational Machines Author : sohkamyung Score : 182 points Date : 2023-06-09 13:06 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arxiv.org) (TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org) | munchler wrote: | I think this idea is essentially an example of a "gravitational | slingshot". | | I found it interesting that such a system could be used to | "accelerate delicate and fragile objects to a velocity of 2000 | km/sec at an acceleration of 10,000 g, without doing any damage | to the objects. ... So a large space ship with human passengers | and normal mechanical construction could easily survive the | 10,000 g acceleration." This seems counterintuitive, but since | the object is in freefall the entire time, I guess it makes | sense. | Qem wrote: | The 10,000g would be approximately uniform through the entire | volume of the ship, so no damage. In a regular rocket, the | acceleration would have to be transmitted to passengers and | cargo through the normal force, and that would crush you. | mrkstu wrote: | Makes sense, though if you'd asked me before your | explanation, I'd have thought the idea of accelerating at | high speed without leaving free fall impossible. | z3t4 wrote: | A gravitational assist/slingshot is just a transfer, think of | cogs in a machine - by using axles and cogs you can change the | speed and direction of the forces. source: KSP player | [deleted] | [deleted] | abecedarius wrote: | Does anyone have an idea what sort of design could achieve the | proposal near the end: | | > Clearly the immense loss of energy by gravitational radiation | is an obstacle to the efficient use of neutron stars as | gravitational machines. It may be that this sets a natural limit | of about 108 cm/sec to the velocities that can be handled | conveniently in a gravitational technology. However, it would be | surprising if a technologically advanced species could not find a | way to design a nonradiating gravitational machine, and so to | exploit the much higher velocities which neutron stars in | principle make possible. | | From my dim memory of Kip Thorne's popular book, a spinning black | hole could be used in this way, which would mean there's at least | one solution. | howexactly wrote: | how exactly is energy extracted from such a system? | bluepoint wrote: | When a (perfect) ball is thrown at a (perfect) car, it will | bounce off with the same velocity, v, but with its direction | reversed. If the car is moving with some velocity -V, when the | ball bounces off it will have a velocity -v - 2V, gaining an | extra -2V. (This is easier to understand from the car's | passenger's point of view, who will see the ball arriving with | a relative velocity v + V and bouncing with -v - V, or -v - 2V | relative to the ground). | | In the ball-car collision the electromagnetic forces are the | ones responsible for changing the direction of the ball. But in | the binary system, it is gravity. In particular as the shuttle | enters orbit around the "incoming" star, the star's gravity | will pull it forward mostly when it completed half orbit. | | I hope I make sense. | | Overall, such a joy to read this paper. With basic physics it | makes you dream of sci-fi... | | EDIT: typos | aruggirello wrote: | Your ball morphed into another car at the second sentence. | Surely an effect of quantum entanglement :) | [deleted] | Robotbeat wrote: | A large mass is dropped on the right trajectory between the | two, the gravitational forces slingshot it back at higher | velocity, which can be captured with some sort of | electromagnetic regenerative braking mechanism. Just a toy idea | for how energy can be extracted. | oopsemist wrote: | Opposite is true also: it's possible to add energy into three | body system and increase distance between them | (antigraviation). In principle, spherical gradient of | gravitation creates possibility to increase orbit using only | energy and interaction between masses even in two body system | (if smaller body can change it shape and distibution of mass | to simulate three body system). I had idea of such aparatus | when I was student 30 years ago, but then I forgot the | details. | PaulHoule wrote: | It's an established technology | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist | | there is nothing speculative about it | mr_mitm wrote: | Figure 1 shows one possible mechanism. It's basically a | gravitational slingshot using a binary star system. A test mass | comes out with more kinetic energy than before and the binary | star system's radius decreases, releasing gravity waves at the | same time. | howmayiannoyyou wrote: | Can't say exactly, but kinetic energy can slightly alter mass. | For example, increasing the speed of an object increases its | mass. | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | Of course there are also more mundane ways of utilizing gravity | such as Tidal and Hydroelectric power, or just walking | (controlled falling) for that matter. | amelius wrote: | But tidal energy will make the Moon lose altitude. Better to | experiment outside the solar system. | aldousd666 wrote: | This talks about two bodies, but would the Halo Drive | (https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.03423) also be one such thing? I | mean, I guess the photons are the other bodies? | mr_mitm wrote: | I always wondered how you might be able to extract energy from | the expansion of space. It's particularly interesting because | conservation of energy does not hold on such large scales. | oopsemist wrote: | > It's particularly interesting because conservation of energy | does not hold on such large scales. | | IMHO, conservation of energy still applies, so Big Bang model | is just wrong. Use Occam's razor when in doubt. | mr_mitm wrote: | I'm not in doubt on this question. Please refer to https://ww | w.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-... for a | digestible piece on this topic. | raattgift wrote: | Think about harpooning a galaxy at, say, 100 megaparsecs, | with a long rope attached to the harpoon. In the Milky Way, | loop the rope around the rotor of an electric generator. In | the distant galaxy, have the harpoon-end of the rope fall | into its central supermassive black hole. Ignoring proper | motions (the black hole and the electric generator are | likely to move within their host galaxies, and their host | galaxies within their galaxy cluster), this gives one about | 72 kilometres per second per megaparsec of linear speed on | the rope as the space between us and the distant galaxy | increases. | | Of course, you need a lot of rope, for the rope to be | indestructible (and ideally of low mass), for lucky aim | when harpooning, and for the harpoon to be able to carry | rope all the way to the target, and for the target and far | end of the rope to be impossible to separate. | | The more local model for this is to erect a scaffolding | well above an object in hydrostatic equilibrium (so | anything from a round planet to a supermassive black hole) | and fix electric generators to the scaffolding, driven by | ropes dropping onto the scaffold-surrounded object. There | are a lot of physics questions that can be explored using | that model; it's a good exercise in all of them. (Some | coursework uses this setting to explore the dominant energy | condition of general relativity, since that imposes a | maximum tensile strength on non-exotic matter rope or wire | or filament: there is a speed limit on the operation of | intermolecular/interatomic binding forces; c.f. Bell's | rope-spaceship "paradox" in special relativity.) | | > energy is not conserved | | Carroll's point is that there is a generalization of | conservation of energy in curved Lorentzian spacetimes, | where changes in the motion of matter and changes in the | spacetime geometry are exactly related. That applies in the | harpoon-a-distant-galaxy model as well. The rope (and | stresses within it) and power produced by the electric | generator are all forms of moving matter, creating a | geometrical change which (depending on the properties of | the rope) may become non-negligible. A rope that is strong | enough (and implicitly having much more mass per cm^3 than | empty space) to connect two megaparsec+-separated galaxies | (driving a generator at one end for appreciable time and | feeding a black hole at the other for appreciable time) | forces one into some calculating to answer the question: | does the rope slow the metric expansion along its length? | | Next, how do you get the generator to turn rather than be | carried out of our galaxy? (We can sharpen this somewhat by | dispensing with a generator, and throwing each end of our | megaparsecs-long rope into a megaparsecs-separated galactic | centre black hole. What happens if there is a large mass- | ratio (heavy:light) between the black holes, or their | surrounding galaxies? Does the lighter black hole get | pulled out of its galaxy by the heavier? What happens as | the mass ratio goes to 1? | | Carroll's link above, showing \Nabla_{\mu}T^{\mu\nu} = 0 | says that as long as we don't introduce further degrees of | freedom we can calculate the equations of motion in the | systems above. That is, it's fine for an expanding space | with nonzero vacuum energy, and for that plus | noninteracting (except by gravity) dusts. However, our very | long rope cannot be non-interacting (it must be at least | self-interacting) and its extra degrees of freedom are | liable to become important under extreme tension (e.g., it | might get hot and radiate a ~blackbody spectrum), so a | somewhat different covariant equation would apply. | comboy wrote: | Said rope is part of the expanding Universe i.e. it also | expands, just the right amount, doesn't it? | abbusfoflouotne wrote: | Reminds me a lot of the Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu. Lot of | space travel concepts explored there similar to this. | | https://www.amazon.com/Three-Body-Problem-Remembrance-Earths... | sgt wrote: | [flagged] | forgetfreeman wrote: | No, no it is not. | lb1lf wrote: | In a similar vein, John Kraus (Of Antennas... textbook fame) | described a gravitational transmitting and receiving system as a | fun (?) diversion near the end of the book. | | It has been a few years, but I seem to recall that the | transmitter was a 500T steel bar spun at very close to the | maximum RPM the tensile strength of steel allowed; the radiated | energy was something like a fraction of an attowatt. (An attowatt | = 1*10^-18W) | | There are more efficient transmitting schemes out there. | agmm wrote: | I became curious about this and went to the book to learn more. | The system proposed in the book is capable of radiating around | 2.2 x 10^-29 W by rotating a bar weighing 500 tonnes about 270 | times per minute. | | [1] Source: Kraus, J. D. (1988). Antennas (2nd ed., p. 769). | Retrieved from | https://ia802907.us.archive.org/8/items/KrausAntennas19882ed... | bee_rider wrote: | It is kind of wild that we stumbled upon transmitting | information via electromagnetic waves so early on. They seem to | be hard to beat. | jjk166 wrote: | It makes sense that the easiest to implement would also be | the easiest to learn. It's more shocking just how much harder | every other option is. | comboy wrote: | What other options are there apart from mentioned gravity? | I mean there are waves in materials like sound but that | seem to be easier than EM. | alach11 wrote: | Neutrinos, perhaps. | dekhn wrote: | it doesn't seem surprising to me. people were in the lab | playing with DC and AC and clearly heard "clicks" from remote | instruments that correlated with them turning switches on and | off. | thx-2718 wrote: | Fortunately for us we can see them. | | Gravity waves are much harder to observe. | BurningFrog wrote: | You can also argue that we can see them _because_ they are | stronger and are evolutionary important. | mrkstu wrote: | Well, I'd call the inner ear an evolutionary response to | gravity... | db48x wrote: | Not unexpected; electromagnetism is 40 orders of magnitude | stronger than gravity! | valyagolev wrote: | It's an article from 1962: | | "After the detection of the gravitational wave GW170817, Jason T. | Wright (Physics Today, 72, 5, 12, 2019) reminded the community | that many of its features had been predicted by Dyson more than | half a century earlier. Dyson's article was published only once, | in Cameron's long out of print collection, though a scan may be | found at the web site of the Gravity Research Foundation | (https://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org). Dyson thought it had | been reprinted (in his Selected Papers, AMS Press, 1996, forward | by Elliot H. Lieb) but it was not. Hoping to make the article | easier to find, I wrote Dyson for his permission to post it at | the arXiv" | | It's about using two big bodies, A and B, to accelerate objects: | "The energy source of the machine is the gravitational potential | between the stars A and B. As the machine continues to operate, | the stars A and B will gradually be drawn closer together, their | negative potential energy will increase and their orbital | velocity V will also increase." | samstave wrote: | Would Google happen to have a scan of this in their whatever- | its-called-book-scanning-archive? | ur-whale wrote: | Nice idea. | | I wonder if one could calculate an upper bound of the available | potential gravitational energy available in the entire universe | by estimating how far every massive point (baryon) is from all | the others. | floobertoober wrote: | If space is expanding, does that also mean that gravitational | potential energy is always increasing, too? I'd never thought | of that before | cyberax wrote: | It's not. Moreover, the total energy is actually being | lost, as particles "lose" kinetic energy due to expansion | (and the light is red-shifted). | | If this seems to violate the law of energy conservation, | you're spot on. It is indeed being violated. | | This is not fundamentally problematic by itself, because | the law of conservation of energy depends on time | invariance. Which doesn't hold in the case of an expanding | universe. But it is an unsatisfying copout, and we hope | that it can be resolved by the quantum gravity. | titzer wrote: | Space in our universe has a vacuum energy and our | expanding (actually, accelerating) universe is in fact | gaining "dark" energy. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy | cyberax wrote: | There is no known mechanism by which the lost energy can | drive the expansion. | | Moreover, expansion without dark energy would still cause | the kinetic energy loss. | | There are attempts to define the total energy of the | universe in GR in such a way that it is preserved, but so | far none are really successful. | oopsemist wrote: | Yes, it should increase on paper, but no source of energy | to power that expansion is found yet. Big Shrink can power | itself, so I'm voting in favor of | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley_Attractor | pdonis wrote: | No, it doesn't, because the concept of "gravitational | potential energy" is not meaningful for an expanding | universe considered as a whole. It's only meaningful for | isolated systems within the universe. | thx-2718 wrote: | Wouldn't there be meaning in saying it would take this | much energy to push all the matter in the universe to one | place? | | Which that amount should be increasing as space-time | expands. | | Thought experiment, if you could place a mass of an | arbitrary amount at any one point in space, how much mass | would you need such that all the mass of the universe is | now falling towards it. | | Or could you bend space-time to a point that all mass | falls into it. | pdonis wrote: | _> Wouldn 't there be meaning in saying it would take | this much energy to push all the matter in the universe | to one place?_ | | No. The universe is not an isolated system that we can | operate on from the outside. You can't treat it as though | it is. So your thought experiments aren't meaningful. | thx-2718 wrote: | Obviously the thought experiment requires energy that | doesn't 'exist' or doesn't have meaning in the sense that | it could happen literally. It's a what-if and that does | have a number and that does have meaning. | | So there is meaning to the previous persons question | which is what the thought experiments were meant to show | but obviously that's something you can't imagine. | pdonis wrote: | _> Obviously the thought experiment requires energy that | doesn 't 'exist'_ | | No, it requires energy to be _added_ to the system from | _outside_ the system. Which is precisely what you | _cannot_ do with the universe as a whole. That 's what | makes such thought experiments meaningless for the | universe as a whole. | faangsticle wrote: | Now take off your nitpick hat and ignore that detail. Its | what makes it a thought experiment. | pdonis wrote: | You can't ignore it because it's not a "detail"--it's a | crucial feature of the thought experiment that doesn't | work for the universe as a whole. What you're suggesting | is like saying, in my thought experiment I assume that 2 | + 2 = 5, just ignore the fact that 2 + 2 is actually 4. | faangsticle wrote: | Yes, that's what a thought experiment is. A cat can't be | alive and death at the same time, either. | thx-2718 wrote: | > it requires energy to be added to the system from | outside the system. | | Yes that is exactly what energy that doesn't 'exist' | means. | wyager wrote: | How is your objection not a useless and unfalsifiable | catch-all that applies to calculating any quantity over a | volume? | pdonis wrote: | Um, what? I can operate on an ordinary volume (say a | beaker in my lab or a planet that I am in a distant orbit | around) from the outside. I can't operate on the universe | as a whole from the outside. How is this not an obvious | difference? | wyager wrote: | Why is it not meaningful? "Isolated systems" seems | meaningless - there is no objective cutoff where a | gravitational system becomes "isolated", except perhaps | in the sense of "non-intersecting light cones". | pdonis wrote: | See my response to thx-2718 downthread, about having to | add energy from outside the system. | [deleted] | westurner wrote: | The gravitational energy available without critical impulse | at non-Lagrangian points; the gravitational potential energy | where gravitational forces are not balanced? Are | gravitational wave convolutions ever sufficient to cause a | massful thing _at rest_ at a _Lagrangian point_ in the | gravitational wave fluid field to move out of their inertia? | | I'll ask [Bard,] first: | | P: _What are the formulas for threshold force and critical | impulse as sympy code,_ | | > _The threshold force and critical impulse can be used to | calculate the minimum amount of force that must be applied to | an object to start it moving and the total momentum that must | be imparted to the object, respectively._ | | But "coefficient_of_friction" might instead be a fluid | viscosity and/or curl term? When is fluid density zero? | | P: _What are the formulas for threshold force and critical | impulse as sympy code, and then again with fluid viscosity | instead of coefficient of friction?_ | | > _As you can see, the threshold force and critical impulse | are both proportional to the fluid viscosity. This makes | sense, because a more viscous fluid will create more drag, | which will make it more difficult to start an object moving._ | | > _It is important to note that the formulas above are only | valid for laminar flow. In turbulent flow, the threshold | force and critical impulse will be much greater._ | | > _Whether or not it makes sense to use fluid viscosity | instead of coefficient of friction depends on the specific | situation. If the object is moving through a fluid, then it | is important to consider the fluid viscosity. However, if the | object is not moving through a fluid, then the coefficient of | friction is the more relevant parameter._ | | P: _how does viscosity apply to superfluid quantum gravity | with bernoulli 's?_ | | > _[rotation of galaxies, rotation of planets,] The expansion | of the universe: The expansion of the universe: The expansion | of the universe is thought to be driven by dark energy. Dark | energy is a mysterious force that is causing the universe to | expand at an accelerating rate. One possible explanation for | dark energy is that it is a type of superfluid with negative | viscosity. This would mean that the pressure in the | superfluid would increase as the volume of the universe | increases, which would cause the universe to expand even | faster._ | | P: _How do we model 3 body gravity problems where it is | possible to move bodies 1 and 2? Do we model such n-body | gravity problems differently with superfluid quantum | gravity?_ | | > _In classical physics, 3-body gravity problems are | typically solved using numerical methods. These methods | involve integrating the equations of motion for each body in | the system, taking into account the gravitational forces | exerted by the other bodies._ | | > _In superfluid quantum gravity, 3-body gravity problems can | be modeled using a different approach. In this approach, the | universe is modeled as a superfluid, and the bodies in the | system are modeled as vortices in the superfluid. The | gravitational force between two bodies is then modeled as the | interaction between two vortices._ | | > _[...]_ Here are some additional details about how 3-body | gravity problems are modeled in superfluid quantum gravity:* | | > _- The equations of motion for the vortices are derived | from the Navier-Stokes equations for a superfluid._ | | > _- The gravitational force between two vortices is | calculated using the Biot-Savart law._ | | > _- The system is typically simulated using a numerical | method called the finite element method._ | | > _- The simulations can be used to study a variety of | phenomena, such as the formation of binary stars and the | evolution of planetary systems. [...]_ | westurner wrote: | What is the issue with this comment? | cwillu wrote: | https://chat.openai.com/share/39580cd0-b5b2-4bec-89d4-092 | 97c... | | "[...] 5. Perceived Irrelevance or Lack of Relevance: | Depending on the context of the Hacker News post, copy- | pasting AI-generated content might be seen as irrelevant | or not contributing to the topic at hand. This can be | frustrating for users who are looking for meaningful and | relevant insights from other community members." | throwway120385 wrote: | If I wanted to know what Bard or ChatGPT had to say about | this, I would ask them. | westurner wrote: | But you don't know to ask: that's the problem; They're | all trying new QG and dark energy correction factors. | | One can't solve 3-body problems without Superfluid | Quantum Gravity, thus this that I took the time to add is | very relevant. | | Not worth helping then. | westurner wrote: | Given such an anti- AI-with-citation policy, researchers | preparing comment content with citations for the platform | have a counterproductive incentive to parallel construct | after using e.g. search engines that use AI (Google, | Bing,), and also an incentive to not cite their sources? | [deleted] | westurner wrote: | > _One can 't solve 3-body problems without Superfluid | Quantum Gravity_ | | The article (from 1962) does not predict 3-body | accelerations of large masses or particles using current | methods (probably because they had not yet been developed | at the time). | | (Ironically, in context to the rejection of AI methods to | summarize superfluid Quantum Gravity for the thread's | benefit (and not my own),) | | N-body gravity problems are probably best solved by AI | methods; it is well understood that there are no known | closed-form solutions for n-body gravity problems. | | Three body problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three- | body_problem | thumbuddy wrote: | I'd love to see a chatbot try lol. That's all I'll say | about that... | bookofjoe wrote: | Dyson was like George Gamow, protean in intellectual power and | scope and imagination yet forever just outside the Nobel | sphere. | heywhatupboys wrote: | I think you are being a bit Anglo-centered. | bookofjoe wrote: | Georgiy Antonovich Gamov (Ukrainian: Georgii Antonovich | Gamov, Russian: Georgii Antonovich Gamov) was born on March | 4, 1904 in Odessa, Russian Empire (now Ukraine). | | His father taught Russian language and literature in high | school, and his mother taught geography and history at a | school for girls. In addition to Russian, Gamow learned to | speak some French from his mother and German from a tutor. | Gamow learned English in his college years and became | fluent. Most of his early publications were in German or | Russian, but he later used English for both technical | papers and for the lay audience. | | He was educated at the Institute of Physics and Mathematics | in Odessa[2] (1922-23) and at the University of Leningrad | (1923-1929). Gamow studied under Alexander Friedmann in | Leningrad, until Friedmann's early death in 1925, which | required him to change dissertation advisors. At the | university, Gamow made friends with three other students of | theoretical physics, Lev Landau, Dmitri Ivanenko, and | Matvey Bronshtein. The four formed a group they called the | Three Musketeers, which met to discuss and analyze the | ground-breaking papers on quantum mechanics published | during those years. He later used the same phrase to | describe the Alpher, Herman, and Gamow group. | | Upon graduation, he worked on quantum theory in Gottingen, | where his research into the atomic nucleus provided the | basis for his doctorate. He then worked at the Theoretical | Physics Institute of the University of Copenhagen from 1928 | to 1931, with a break to work with Ernest Rutherford at the | Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge. He continued to study | the atomic nucleus (proposing the "liquid drop" model), but | also worked on stellar physics with Robert Atkinson and | Fritz Houtermans. | | In 1931, Gamow was elected a corresponding member of the | Academy of Sciences of the USSR at age 28 - one of the | youngest in its history. During the period 1931-1933, Gamow | worked in the Physical Department of the Radium Institute | (Leningrad) headed by Vitaly Khlopin [ru]. Europe's first | cyclotron was designed under the guidance and direct | participation of Igor Kurchatov, Lev Mysovskii and Gamow. | In 1932, Gamow and Mysovskii submitted a draft design for | consideration by the Academic Council of the Radium | Institute, which approved it. The cyclotron was not | completed until 1937. | | Defection | | Gamow worked at a number of Soviet establishments before | deciding to flee the Soviet Union because of increased | oppression. In 1931, he was officially denied permission to | attend a scientific conference in Italy. Also in 1931, he | married Lyubov Vokhmintseva (Russian: Liubov' | Vokhmintseva), another physicist in Soviet Union, whom he | nicknamed "Rho" after the Greek letter. Gamow and his new | wife spent much of the next two years trying to leave the | Soviet Union, with or without official permission. Niels | Bohr and other friends invited Gamow to visit during this | period, but Gamow could not get permission to leave. | | Gamow later said that his first two attempts to defect with | his wife were in 1932 and involved trying to kayak: first a | planned 250-kilometer paddle over the Black Sea to Turkey, | and another attempt from Murmansk to Norway. Poor weather | foiled both attempts, but they had not been noticed by the | authorities. | | In 1933, Gamow was suddenly granted permission to attend | the 7th Solvay Conference on physics, in Brussels. He | insisted on having his wife accompany him, even saying that | he would not go alone. Eventually the Soviet authorities | relented and issued passports for the couple. The two | attended and arranged to extend their stay, with the help | of Marie Curie and other physicists. Over the next year, | Gamow obtained temporary work at the Curie Institute, | University of London, and the University of Michigan. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamow | throwway120385 wrote: | Mr. Tompkins in Paperback is an excellent read if you're | curious about the practical effects of relativistic time | dilation. | [deleted] | robertlagrant wrote: | Is that why he invented the Dyson Sphere? | samstave wrote: | Seems like a well rounded fellow. | swader999 wrote: | Circular logic. | mayormcmatt wrote: | No, spherical logic. | TeMPOraL wrote: | No, distributed swarm logic, as apparently he later | admitted that what he _thought_ about was what we now | call a _Dyson swarm_ , and it's just the public that took | the "sphere" bit literally and run with it. | [deleted] | 0xAltCunningham wrote: | [dead] | photochemsyn wrote: | Dyson was quite the visionary. LIGO / Virgo gravitational wave | detectors have confirmed all this (with much more development | from people like Caltech's Kip Thorne and many others): | | > "The energy source of the machine is the gravitational | potential between the stars A and B. As the machine continues to | operate, the stars A and B will gradually be drawn closer | together, their negative potential energy will increase and their | orbital velocity V will also increase... the loss of energy by | gravitational radiation will bring the two stars closer with | ever-increasing speed, until in the last second of their lives | they plunge together and release a gravitational flash at a | frequency of about 200 cycles and of unimaginable intensity." | | The Ligo Lab's youtube channel has lots of great videos on the | topic, from the sounds made by a pair of colliding black holes to | long talks about how certain elements are mostly made by | colliding neutron stars: | | https://www.youtube.com/@LIGOLabCaltechMIT/playlists ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-09 23:00 UTC)