Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Pyridium

Can a Neutron star become black hole?

10 posts in this topic

I propose a new hypothesis on Neutron stars and Black stars. During my intense research, Black holes come from the fantasy of the human brain. It is the point where Einstien's math fails. The answer he got was "infinity". To make the math work, there must be a "singularity" of infinite mass. Just a figment of fantasy again. If you still believe in Santa Clause, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy, then you will believe in Black holes.

Black stars are created from a "super nova" explosion. After the nuclear fusion stops, the star collapses. There is a region in the star where hydrogen and oxygen gets compacted and finally bursts. This explosion blasts the outer mass away and the inner mass is compacted into a neutron star. A neutron star does not have the sufficient mass to generate enough gravity to capture and hold even photons. A neutron star that has enough mass to capture light is called a Black star.

If the super nova is not big enough to make a black star, the result is a neutron star. The questions is; If a neutron star accretes matter, eventually it will have enough mass to capture light and turn black as in a black star?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have done such "intense research" why not share it with us.

By the way a singularity does not have infinite mass, it has infinite density. Not the same thing at all. If your intensive research has not even lead you to understand something as fundamental as this, may I suggest that it was not intensive enough.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His post does cause me to mention something I have thought about that I might get opinion about if I could. We know neutron stars would go on and collapse to become singularities if the nuclear force (I know a white dwarf is held up by electron pressure but I'm not sure the name of the force with neutron stars) did not hold it up.

To prevent singularities, could there be some other force close to plank-size for the collapsing star that holds it up, and how would we know the difference, since it would still appear to us as a black hole/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You do realize that the scientific community generally accepts that black holes are a real thing, right? It's ridiculous to compare belief in black holes to belief in Santa Claus.

Edited by tedthebug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone got anything more than theoretical science on this ?????

Nope didn't think so.......at least Santa leaves me presents every year......well if I am good he does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the super nova is not big enough to make a black star, the result is a neutron star. The questions is; If a neutron star accretes matter, eventually it will have enough mass to capture light and turn black as in a black star?

Nonetheless, I this is a legitimate question. 5% of neutron stars are binaries with companion stars, other neutron stars or black holes.

Neutron stars in binary systems often emit X-rays which is caused by the heating of material (gas) accreted from the companion star. Material from the outer layers of a (bloated) companion star is sucked towards the neutron star as a result of its very strong gravitational field. As a result of this process binary neutron stars may also coalesce into black holes if the accretion of mass takes place under extreme conditions.

http://en.wikipedia....y_neutron_stars

Edit: almost everything you wanted to know about neutron stars:

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html#accretion

Edited by StarMountainKid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Waspie, how about eating your own words. here is a clip from Wiki,

Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity

At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[54] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity lying in the plane of rotation.[55] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[56] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.

Waspie, please notice that the density is made up of stuff....it is called mass. You think you are so smart, I really wish you would do some research from time to time. Everything ever written about black holes are just a "theory". I understand why people believe that a singularity is indeed fact. They are what I like to call....just wrong. Every black star has enough gravity to prevent light from escaping. A neutron star has almost enough gravity, but not quite to capture light, therefore we already know what a black star would look like even though we can not see it. I simply reject the notion that a BlackHole has a Singularity. A black star will accrete more and more mass and grow larger and larger and will still look like a neutron star inside. If the singularity is a pure fabricated fantasy, then what would be the next best explanation for what we miss call a Black Hole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His post does cause me to mention something I have thought about that I might get opinion about if I could. We know neutron stars would go on and collapse to become singularities if the nuclear force (I know a white dwarf is held up by electron pressure but I'm not sure the name of the force with neutron stars) did not hold it up.

I think the most formal name for this is ``quantum degeneracy pressure'', but of course that applies to white dwarfs as well... perhaps ``neutron degeneracy pressure'' is more specific.

To prevent singularities, could there be some other force close to plank-size for the collapsing star that holds it up, and how would we know the difference, since it would still appear to us as a black hole.

We probably wouldn't know the difference. If the black hole had a huge electrical charge and/or was rotating ridiculously fast, the event horizon deforms and it is possible to see the singularity - so in that case we could presumably see whether the centre was one of the other ``degeneracies'' (like a quark degeneracy) or a true singularity.

But I doubt that a real black hole with sufficient charge or spin actually exists, so I think in principle we wouldn't know unless we jumped into it.

Waspie, please notice that the density is made up of stuff....it is called mass.

Your quote has just proved that Waspie was correct.

Singularities do not have infinite mass. They have zero volume.

You think you are so smart, I really wish you would do some research from time to time. Everything ever written about black holes are just a "theory". I understand why people believe that a singularity is indeed fact. They are what I like to call....just wrong.

A lot of people don't believe that true singularities actually exist, including myself.

But the point is entirely theoretical since any object with a sufficient density (i.e. has all of its mass within its own Schwarzschild radius) will act the same way as a true singularity from the perspective of any outside observer. (This is what Frank was getting at in his post.)

Every black star has enough gravity to prevent light from escaping. A neutron star has almost enough gravity, but not quite to capture light, therefore we already know what a black star would look like even though we can not see it. I simply reject the notion that a BlackHole has a Singularity. A black star will accrete more and more mass and grow larger and larger and will still look like a neutron star inside.

It probably can't. A neutron star is not dense enough to be contained within its own Schwarzschild radius.

Whatever makes up a black hole has to be an even lower form of degenerate matter than neutrons.

If the singularity is a pure fabricated fantasy, then what would be the next best explanation for what we miss call a Black Hole?

Probably ``degenerate quark matter'', unless that is also not dense enough...

The behaviour of black hole formation is classically defined by the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation. But since a quantum theory of gravity still eludes us we don't really know whether gravitational force can overpower the Pauli exclusion principle at all length scales.

But as I mentioned above, the actual composition of the core of a black hole isn't really that important outside of purely theoretical exercise; a black hole will behave the same way regardless of what is inside the event horizon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone got anything more than theoretical science on this ?????

Nope didn't think so.......at least Santa leaves me presents every year......well if I am good he does

How about this?

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bh_obsv.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your quote has just proved that Waspie was correct.

Singularities do not have infinite mass. They have zero volume.

Thank you sepulchrave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.