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 2
Pyridium

OMG! 2 neutron stars = 1 black hole

15 posts in this topic

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/05/kilonova

As I have mentioned before, I believe that a neutron star is just a baby black hole where the event horizon is just beneath the surface. As a neutron star gains more mass, eventually the event horizon extends beyond the surface and it goes black. Now in this article we have scientists saying that when 2 neutron stars collide, it could result in a black hole....well golly geesh. Stars sometimes merge with a graceful dance and become one with no chaos. Some neutron stars actually collide where both stars are ripped in half and the contents, the core material like gamma rays, spill out in a violent explosion. The 2 stars will merge but there was a lot of neutrons released to open space. I hope we get a view of that collision in the article when the neutrons, free from gravity, release an electron and like popcorn becomes a hydrogen atom. The pressure from just the birth of this hydrogen cloud could be one hell of a big inflation into a nebulae.

Does every neutron become a hydrogen atom? No, only about 6% are stable enough to create the electromagnetic field and hold it. The other 94% of the neutrons are not able to produce a stable electron shell. This is what we call dark matter...neutral with no electron thus no field hence no atom. It takes 3 quarks to make a neutron. Quarks come in millions of sizes and can only bond with a perfect mate. I came here today to discuss what goes on inside the core of a neutron star and how mass and energy are fused to create strings of quarks, but found this article.

Of course, these are just my opinions and beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with a neutron star there would be no event horizon beneath the surface as gravity beneath the surface would be less than at the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omg!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The event horizon is just a line where all light photons, gamma, xray, etc., is pulled toward the center of the star. Atom interactions outside the event horizon allow photons to escape the star at light speed. That is why we can see a neutron star. Neutron stars are always about 10-20 miles wide while some super massive black holes are thousands of miles wide, if not millions. There is no limit how large black holes can get. I believe that all black holes have the same composition as neutron stars. I also believe that one day we will witness a neutron star turn black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The event horizon is just a line where all light photons, gamma, xray, etc., is pulled toward the center of the star. Atom interactions outside the event horizon allow photons to escape the star at light speed. That is why we can see a neutron star. Neutron stars are always about 10-20 miles wide while some super massive black holes are thousands of miles wide, if not millions. There is no limit how large black holes can get. I believe that all black holes have the same composition as neutron stars. I also believe that one day we will witness a neutron star turn black.

Witnessing a neutron star turn black won't prove it hasn't shrunk to 0 volume. Neutron stars are visible because their gravity isn't great enough to bend space in upon itself to prevent light from escaping
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does every neutron become a hydrogen atom? No, only about 6% are stable enough to create the electromagnetic field and hold it. The other 94% of the neutrons are not able to produce a stable electron shell. This is what we call dark matter...neutral with no electron thus no field hence no atom.

An unbound neutron has a half life of about 15 minutes, so every unbound neutron will eventually decay.

Of course depending on the circumstances of that decay, hydrogen atoms may not be created - the decay may be energetic enough to separate the resulting electron and protons.

Neutrons are definitely, 100%, not a major component of dark matter.

It takes 3 quarks to make a neutron. Quarks come in millions of sizes and can only bond with a perfect mate. I came here today to discuss what goes on inside the core of a neutron star and how mass and energy are fused to create strings of quarks, but found this article.

Of course, these are just my opinions and beliefs.

There are 6 known species of quarks. A quark can bond with any other quark... there is not really any need for a ``perfect mate''. However only the two lightest quarks (called ''up'' and ''down'' quarks) are stable, so only they will form stable atoms. All other quarks will decay sooner or later (and often sooner - the half-lives of the bottom and top quarks are incredibly short).

Witnessing a neutron star turn black won't prove it hasn't shrunk to 0 volume. Neutron stars are visible because their gravity isn't great enough to bend space in upon itself to prevent light from escaping

True, but as soon as the event horizon passes the physical extent of an object it is - for all intents and purposes - a black hole.

In fact, assuming that the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit is correct (and there are no other ``hidden'' quantum limits on matter degeneracy), then as soon as the event horizon passes the physical extent of an object, that object will eventually collapse into a true 0-volume singularity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, assuming that the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit is correct (and there are no other ``hidden'' quantum limits on matter degeneracy), then as soon as the event horizon passes the physical extent of an object, that object will eventually collapse into a true 0-volume singularity.

I suspect you might have this the wrong way 'round, sepulchrave.

No object can manifest an event horizon unless it has already collapsed (or begun to collapse) into a zero-volume state. The nature of what an event horizon is precludes it's existence except around a body whose mass/volume ratio exceeds certain limits, and once those limits are exceeded the collapse of the object must occur (or have occurred).

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect you might have this the wrong way 'round, sepulchrave.

No object can manifest an event horizon unless it has already collapsed (or begun to collapse) into a zero-volume state. The nature of what an event horizon is precludes it's existence except around a body whose mass/volume ratio exceeds certain limits, and once those limits are exceeded the collapse of the object must occur (or have occurred).

Oops! Yes, you are quite correct.

I probably should have said ``Schwarzschild Radius'' instead of ``event horizon''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops! Yes, you are quite correct.

I probably should have said ``Schwarzschild Radius'' instead of ``event horizon''.

:tu:

And this puts another nail in the coffin of the OP's claim "I believe that a neutron star is just a baby black hole where the event horizon is just beneath the surface".

No object can have an event horizon below it's 'surface', by the nature of what an event horizon is.

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this puts another nail in the coffin of the OP's claim "I believe that a neutron star is just a baby black hole where the event horizon is just beneath the surface".

The problem with Pyridium's approach is that he is trying to put the horse before the cart. He has a personal dislike of black holes and wants to disprove them, fair enough, but is trying to force the facts to fit his belief rather than modifying his belief to fit the facts.

Greater minds than ours have fallen into this trap, Einstein spending years attempting to disprove quantum theory comes to mind.

It seems to me that the problem is that science is infallible, scientists aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Pyridium's approach is that he is trying to put the horse before the cart. He has a personal dislike of black holes and wants to disprove them, fair enough, but is trying to force the facts to fit his belief rather than modifying his belief to fit the facts.

Greater minds than ours have fallen into this trap, Einstein spending years attempting to disprove quantum theory comes to mind.

It seems to me that the problem is that science is infallible, scientists aren't.

I don't take issue with people for challenging the status-quo, and I have some sympathy for those who have "issues" with black holes. Perhaps those issues might partly stem from the term "black hole" being quite a poor name for what these objects are?

Afetr all, they aren't holes, they are surfaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't take issue with people for challenging the status-quo, and I have some sympathy for those who have "issues" with black holes. Perhaps those issues might partly stem from the term "black hole" being quite a poor name for what these objects are?

Afetr all, they aren't holes, they are surfaces.

True enough.

But in Pyridium's defence, it is easy to understand what is meant by a phrase like ``the event horizon is below the surface of the neutron star''.

Yes, the term ``event horizon'' is not scientifically accurate in this sense, but the meaning is clear.

I have a bit of personal experience with this, I got in an argument with one of the examiners for my Ph. D. thesis about what the exact meaning of the term ``Fermi level'' was. (Even though neither of us had any argument about the physical reality of the particular situation.)

I think I had the correct definition, my opinion is supported by most of the respected textbooks in the field, especially the classic text by Ashcroft and Mermin, but on the other hand wikipedia has a different opinion.

Anyway, the moral of my story is that it isn't too bad to be a bit loose with technical definitions as long as the meaning is clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The event horizon is just a point where the gravity is strong enough to rip away all electrons from any atom. The electrons just head towards the center core while the "individual" neutrons just fall to the surface like a snow storm. The neutrons are slammed at incredible speeds against the surface and many are fragmented where the released energy just feeds towards the center core. The center core, which is at least 100 trillion degrees, is where new quarks are created.

As my OP suggests, 2 neutron stars combine into 1 black hole. I agree with that. The new star is the same mass as the 2 combined and yet there is now a black hole. It just means when a neutron star, which we have never seen one more than 20 miles wide, gets to a certain mass, the event horizon just increases to engulf the entire surface, hence a black hole is just a large neutron star. The same physics that occurred in each neutron star also occur in the new star that has enough gravity to expand the event horizon larger.

Black holes can grow in size to infinity, that is what Einstien meant, not that all matter and mass becomes ( 0 VOLUME ), but that a black hole can grow to any size, like an event horizon that is 1 light year wide. This is what 1 + 1 = 2 looks like.

For those of you that believe that where there is an event horizon there must be 0 volume, well, that has been proven to be pure fantasy, or at least never proven yet. To believe that 1 + 1 = 0 is to believe in singularities are fact and all mass in the universe can be condensed down to a point smaller than an electron.....that is pure bunk to me.

For those of you that study neutrons stars and how they function will see how easily a black hole can be formed and sustained once a mass has enough gravity to trap light. I predict this mass could be as small as 1 mile in a neutron star that is 2 miles wide.

It is said that no information is lost when mass enters a black hole. This is true if there is an object inside the event horizon. If you believe that inside an event horizon is 0 volume then you say that all information is lost once it passes into the black hole. Which way do you really believe? If information lost or is it retained? This is the heart of this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The event horizon is just a point where the gravity is strong enough to rip away all electrons from any atom. The electrons just head towards the center core while the "individual" neutrons just fall to the surface like a snow storm. The neutrons are slammed at incredible speeds against the surface and many are fragmented where the released energy just feeds towards the center core. The center core, which is at least 100 trillion degrees, is where new quarks are created.

As my OP suggests, 2 neutron stars combine into 1 black hole. I agree with that. The new star is the same mass as the 2 combined and yet there is now a black hole. It just means when a neutron star, which we have never seen one more than 20 miles wide, gets to a certain mass, the event horizon just increases to engulf the entire surface, hence a black hole is just a large neutron star. The same physics that occurred in each neutron star also occur in the new star that has enough gravity to expand the event horizon larger.

Black holes can grow in size to infinity, that is what Einstien meant, not that all matter and mass becomes ( 0 VOLUME ), but that a black hole can grow to any size, like an event horizon that is 1 light year wide. This is what 1 + 1 = 2 looks like.

For those of you that believe that where there is an event horizon there must be 0 volume, well, that has been proven to be pure fantasy, or at least never proven yet. To believe that 1 + 1 = 0 is to believe in singularities are fact and all mass in the universe can be condensed down to a point smaller than an electron.....that is pure bunk to me.

For those of you that study neutrons stars and how they function will see how easily a black hole can be formed and sustained once a mass has enough gravity to trap light. I predict this mass could be as small as 1 mile in a neutron star that is 2 miles wide.

It is said that no information is lost when mass enters a black hole. This is true if there is an object inside the event horizon. If you believe that inside an event horizon is 0 volume then you say that all information is lost once it passes into the black hole. Which way do you really believe? If information lost or is it retained? This is the heart of this discussion.

Is it not true that no information is lost because it is smeared across the surface of the event horizon due to time dilation?Leonard Susskind's thought experiment with the two astronauts, one watching the other fall into a black hole would seem to suggest that. I still think beneath the surface of a neutron star the gravity would be less than at the surface because part of the mass would be above you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The event horizon is just a point where the gravity is strong enough to rip away all electrons from any atom. The electrons just head towards the center core while the "individual" neutrons just fall to the surface like a snow storm. The neutrons are slammed at incredible speeds against the surface and many are fragmented where the released energy just feeds towards the center core. The center core, which is at least 100 trillion degrees, is where new quarks are created.

As my OP suggests, 2 neutron stars combine into 1 black hole. I agree with that. The new star is the same mass as the 2 combined and yet there is now a black hole. It just means when a neutron star, which we have never seen one more than 20 miles wide, gets to a certain mass, the event horizon just increases to engulf the entire surface, hence a black hole is just a large neutron star. The same physics that occurred in each neutron star also occur in the new star that has enough gravity to expand the event horizon larger.

This is incorrect.

The event horizon is a space-time phenomenon resulting from an object exceeding a certain mass/volume ratio limit - and exists on the boundary representing this limit. Unless that limit is reached/exceeded, the event horizon does not manifest - so it cannot exist 'within' an object and cannot 'travel' to a surface as mass increases.

A black hole is not "just a large neutron star", it is a completely different type of stellar phenomenon in the same way a neutron star is a completely different type of stellar phenomenon to a white-dwarf star.

Edited by Leonardo

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.