<p>Unlikely.</p>
<p>The Neutron star merger GW170817 had an optical counterpart (SSS 17a) The optical <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817#/media/File:Eso1733f.svg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">magnitude peaked at about +18</a>, this is beyond the abilities of most amateur set ups.</p>
<p>Black hole mergers may be intrinsically more energetic, but less bright in the electromagnetic spectrum, as the black holes don't have a surface to interact electromagnetically.</p>
<p>However each gravitational wave detection is examined to see if there is a corresponding gamma ray burst, or optical transient.  Combining results of gravitational, neutrino and optical observations has been called &quot;m<a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhDT.......110B/abstract" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ulti messenger astronomy&quot;</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-29T19:10:28.843Z
Also not with exposure times of 3 minutes or (much) more for example? I don't know enough of how long exposures can make higher magnitude better visible. With which kind of telescopes is it then observed?
PrincepsMaximus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-29T18:46:30.713Z
2020-06-29T18:58:37.900Z
2020-06-29T18:58:37.900Z
James K
<p>As follow-up question for my <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/36704/does-a-merging-massive-binary-black-hole-emits-more-than-one-gravitational-wav">previous question</a> I'm thinking about the search for the electromagnetic (EM) counterpart of a gravitational wave (GW). Is it possible to search for those events with 'normal' telescope, the ones (professional) amateur astronomers have? What I mean with a (professional) amateur astronomer is: a telescope with an aperture of 10&quot; or more (remote) and the ability to do long exposures.</p>
<p>Is that equipment capable of detecting the EM counterpart of a gravitational wave (in theory)? Thanks in advance!</p>
<p><strong>EDIT:</strong> I'm not sure if there is an EM counterpart in the visible light at all. Is this the case? Can such an event, that triggers a detectable GW, been seen in the visible light (by extension: with 'amateur' telescopes as stated above)?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-29T14:59:27.893Z
Can you define what this "EM counterpart" is theorized to be?
Carl Witthoft
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-29T16:38:14.307Z
Wikipedia has a [list of GW observations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations). None have been in our galaxy. The closest on that list, GW170817, is at 40 Mpc.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-29T18:08:38.493Z
@CarlWitthoft When an explosive event happens that causes a detectable GW, there is an energy release in the EM too. Gamma radiation, visible light, everything in the spectrum. This is what I mean by "EM counterpart". The release in energy in the EM of the source.
PrincepsMaximus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-29T18:10:37.327Z
@PM2Ring That doesn't help. Stars are likely not to be seen in such distances, but the EM counterpart of such explosive events is rather energetic, thus of a very magnitude. However, I'm not sure if there is a(n) (big) energy release in the visible light, so I'll change my question a little bit! Thanks anyways.
PrincepsMaximus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-29T22:13:27.847Z
It seems that neutron star collisions emit quite a lot of EM radiation, as do black hole collisions taking place in an area rich in dust and gas (like the accretion disk of a much bigger black hole) but black hole collisions in empty space emit almost none.
Steve Linton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-30T05:38:40.977Z
Personally (and I'm going very much swimming against the Astronomy Stack Exchange orthodoxy here), I still don't believe gravitational waves are real.
White Prime
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-30T07:12:35.347Z
@SteveLinton Thanks!
PrincepsMaximus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-30T07:13:14.773Z
@WhitePrime How do you explain the things measured by LIGO and VIRGO then? Very interested in how you see it!
PrincepsMaximus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-30T07:31:14.273Z
@PrincepsMaximus Consider this: The alleged gravitational waves they're recording are 10,000 times smaller than a proton. 10,000 times smaller than the nucleus of an atom. They could quite, quite literally be anything. Anything. And that's not even mentioning the fact that they're using templates that they themselves made to identify/match the signal patterns.
White Prime
<telescope><cosmology><general-relativity><gravitational-waves>
Can the electromagnetic counterpart of a gravitational be seen by 'small' telescopes?
PrincepsMaximus
# Can the electromagnetic counterpart of a gravitational be seen by 'small' telescopes?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-06-29)

As follow-up question for my [previous question](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/36704/does-a-merging-massive-binary-black-hole-emits-more-than-one-gravitational-wav) I'm thinking about the search for the electromagnetic (EM) counterpart of a gravitational wave (GW). Is it possible to search for those events with 'normal' telescope, the ones (professional) amateur astronomers have? What I mean with a (professional) amateur astronomer is: a telescope with an aperture of 10" or more (remote) and the ability to do long exposures.

Is that equipment capable of detecting the EM counterpart of a gravitational wave (in theory)? Thanks in advance!

**EDIT:** I'm not sure if there is an EM counterpart in the visible light at all. Is this the case? Can such an event, that triggers a detectable GW, been seen in the visible light (by extension: with 'amateur' telescopes as stated above)?

**Tags:** telescope, cosmology, general-relativity, gravitational-waves

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Can you define what this "EM counterpart" is theorized to be?  
> **username_2**: Wikipedia has a [list of GW observations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations). None have been in our galaxy. The closest on that list, GW170817, is at 40 Mpc.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 When an explosive event happens that causes a detectable GW, there is an energy release in the EM too. Gamma radiation, visible light, everything in the spectrum. This is what I mean by "EM counterpart". The release in energy in the EM of the source.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 That doesn't help. Stars are likely not to be seen in such distances, but the EM counterpart of such explosive events is rather energetic, thus of a very magnitude. However, I'm not sure if there is a(n) (big) energy release in the visible light, so I'll change my question a little bit! Thanks anyways.  
> **username_3**: It seems that neutron star collisions emit quite a lot of EM radiation, as do black hole collisions taking place in an area rich in dust and gas (like the accretion disk of a much bigger black hole) but black hole collisions in empty space emit almost none.  
> **username_4**: Personally (and I'm going very much swimming against the Astronomy Stack Exchange orthodoxy here), I still don't believe gravitational waves are real.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 Thanks!  
> **username_0**: @username_4 How do you explain the things measured by LIGO and VIRGO then? Very interested in how you see it!  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Consider this: The alleged gravitational waves they're recording are 10,000 times smaller than a proton. 10,000 times smaller than the nucleus of an atom. They could quite, quite literally be anything. Anything. And that's not even mentioning the fact that they're using templates that they themselves made to identify/match the signal patterns.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2020-06-29. Score: 3

Unlikely.

The Neutron star merger GW170817 had an optical counterpart (SSS 17a) The optical [magnitude peaked at about +18](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817#/media/File:Eso1733f.svg), this is beyond the abilities of most amateur set ups.

Black hole mergers may be intrinsically more energetic, but less bright in the electromagnetic spectrum, as the black holes don't have a surface to interact electromagnetically.

However each gravitational wave detection is examined to see if there is a corresponding gamma ray burst, or optical transient. Combining results of gravitational, neutrino and optical observations has been called "m[ulti messenger astronomy"](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhDT.......110B/abstract).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Also not with exposure times of 3 minutes or (much) more for example? I don't know enough of how long exposures can make higher magnitude better visible. With which kind of telescopes is it then observed?  

---

