Did Astronomers Just Discover Black Holes from the Big Bang?

Gravitational waves attributed to the collision of two neutron stars could have been produced by something much stranger

By Nola Taylor Redd on January 13, 2020

In the nearly five years since their first direct detection, gravitational waves have become one of the hottest topics in astronomy. With facilities such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), researchers have mostly used these ripples in spacetime to study the inner workings of merging black holes, but LIGO has also detected gravitational waves from other sorts of celestial crashes, such as the collisions of ultradense stellar remnants called neutron stars. Sometimes, however, LIGO serves up gravitational waves that leave astronomers scratching their heads—as was the case for GW190425, an event detected last April that was recently attributed to a neutron star merger.

Snapshot from the central region of a numerical simulation of two merging neutron stars. It shows the stars stretched out by tidal forces just before their collision. Credit: CoRe/Jena FSU

The trouble is that LIGO’s data suggest this neutron star pair was substantially overweight—collectively, some 3.4 times the mass of the sun, which is half a solar mass heavier than the most massive neutron star binaries ever seen. “It is the heaviest known by a pretty wide margin,” says Chad Hanna, an astrophysicist at Pennsylvania State University who hunts gravitational waves.

That extra weight has some theorists suspecting that GW190425 did not arise from colliding neutron stars at all but rather something much more exotic: A merger of two primordial black holes (PBHs), never before seen objects that are considered a dark horse candidate for dark matter—the invisible, unidentified something that makes up most of the matter in the universe. Theorized to have formed from density fluctuations in the very early universe, these ancient black holes could still exist today and could explain the mass discrepancy identified in the recent LIGO observations.

Almost a half-century ago, cosmologist Stephen Hawking proposed that PBHs could have sprung fully formed from regions of the infant universe that were especially dense with matter. Since then, the idea’s popularity among astrophysicists and cosmologists has wildly waxed and waned. Today, in the absence of direct evidence for their existence, PBHs are seen by many researchers as a hypothesis of last resort, only to be considered when no other scenario readily fits observations. The possibility that PBHs are real and widespread throughout the universe cannot yet be dismissed, however—especially as searches for other dark matter candidates come up empty.

PBHs make an appealing candidate for dark matter for several reasons, but the most important one is that, being black holes, they are quite dark yet still pack a hefty gravitational pull. Despite that fact, Hanna says that if PBHs were abundant enough to account for all of the universe’s dark matter, astronomical surveys that hunted for them should not have come up empty. Consequently, he adds, PBHs can only make up a small fraction of dark matter—if they exist at all.

Not everyone agrees. “Primordial black holes can comprise the whole of dark matter,” says Juan García-Bellido, a theoretical cosmologist at the Autonomous University of Madrid. The trick, he adds, is for the ancient objects to exhibit an array of masses rather than a single definitive size. If PBHs run the gamut from a thousand times less massive than the sun to a billion times larger, they could make up all of the universe’s dark matter. “All published constraints that claim to rule out primordial black holes as dark matter assume they exist in a monochromatic, or single-mass, spectrum and are uniformly distributed in space,” García-Bellido says. For such large mass ranges to manifest, the PBHs would have to cluster in compact groups in which they could occasionally collide, merge and grow larger.

Because PBHs would have been created shortly after the big bang, they initially could have easily connected with one another. The early universe was a much smaller place than it is today after dramatically expanding for nearly 14 billion years, making it easier for the objects to find other PBHs and pair up with them. As the universe continued to expand, and the first stars and galaxies emerged, however, those connections would have become increasingly rare. So while it is possible that LIGO has observed merging PBHs, it is unlikely, according to astronomer Katerina Chatziioannou, a LIGO team member at the Flatiron Institute in New York City and co-author of a study set to appear in the Astrophysical Journal Letters that pegs GW190425 as the product of colliding neutron stars.

Last April, alerted to LIGO’s detection of GW190425, telescopes around the world hunted for a corresponding electromagnetic signal that would typically be expected from the explosive collision of two neutron stars. But the skies remained dark, as they would if a pair of primordial black holes had slammed together. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article


Einstein's theory of General Relativity is strictly speaking wrong because it cannot handle quantum fluctuations of space-time. It must be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. In this week's video I talk about the best options to test quantum gravity.(Sabine Hossenfelder, Physicist,Twitter January 17,2020)

MERGING BLACK HOLE DON'T BURST: JUST THE RESULT THEY WANTED TO GET

Second Gravitational Wave Makes It Official: Merging Black Holes Don't Burst!

Yesterday, the LIGO collaboration announced the detection of a pair of merging black holes, a 14 solar mass black hole inspiraling and coalescing with an 8 solar mass black hole, only the second gravitational wave event ever seen. While some controversial evidence existed that the first black hole-black hole merger produced a gamma-ray burst, those results were hotly disputed, with advocates on both sides eagerly awaiting the results from the second merger. With the announcement yesterday, it became official: neither gamma-rays nor X-rays were seen, tipping the scales towards the long-awaited conclusion, merging black holes do not produce bursts of radiation.

(FORBES.COM)


NASA detected GRB

NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope detected the very weak and brief burst of high-energy X-rays, consistent with a short gamma-ray burst (or GRB), less than half a second after LIGO registered GW150914. This is surprising — it was assumed that when black holes collide, they do so “cleanly,” according to a NASA news release, not producing any kind of electromagnetic trace. So are the two signals related to the same event? The timing makes it highly likely; there’s only a 0.2 percent chance that they occurred in the same patch of sky at the same time but belonged to two different high-energy phenomena.

“This is a tantalizing discovery with a low chance of being a false alarm, but before we can start rewriting the textbooks we’ll need to see more bursts associated with gravitational waves from black hole mergers,” said Valerie Connaughton, member of the Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) team at the National Space, Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala.

The majority of GRBs are believed to be created when massive stars implode after running out of fuel and then explode, forming black holes in their wake. These are known as “long GRBs.” The intense radiation — detected as a flash of gamma-rays and high-energy X-rays — originates from dying stars’ poles at the time of explosion. There is, however, a more mysterious type of GRB that is short period (less than 2 seconds) and possibly linked with black hole and neutron star mergers.

“With just one joint event, gamma rays and gravitational waves together will tell us exactly what causes a short GRB,” said Lindy Blackburn, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., and a member of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration. “There is an incredible synergy between the two observations, with gamma rays revealing details about the source’s energetics and local environment and gravitational waves providing a unique probe of the dynamics leading up to the event.”

The gravitational wave signal was generated by the rapid spiraling and collision of two black holes, an event that created the now-famous black hole “chirp.” But if indeed this Fermi detection is also of the same event, astrophysicists will have to figure out how this is possible. Black hole mergers aren’t supposed to generate significant quantities of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum unless there’s a quantity of gas close to the merging region. But it is thought that the vast majority of any gases surrounding the black hole binary would have disappeared long ago.

NASA Space Telescope Spies Gamma-ray Burst

Sorry!

Now we know, no doubt: general relativity has been wrong since the beginning, so:

LIGO's merging black holes don't burst, sorry, just experiment is made based on belief. It is seem nothing more than a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, and in accordance with LIGO's expert that said before - in Feruary 2016 : " I am certain, Einstein has always been right."

Einstein never predicts black hole, moreover, gravitational wave come from black holes merger. He didn’t believe in black hole. Einstein is The Reluctant Father of Black Hole.

In Einstein’s manuscript 1916 :”Two celestial bodies in orbit will generate ripples in spacetime”.LIGO’s gravitational waves nothing to do with Einstein. 

Two celestial bodies in orbit will generate ripples in space time yet to be proven. 

LIGO's merging black holes don't burst doesn’t confirm Albert Einstein’s general relativity.

What's wrong with general relativity?

Stop experiments based on belief and saying Einstein was right again. It was very embarrassing!

No doubt, general relativity has been wrong since the beginning.

Misled by Einstein's General Relativity For More Than 100 years!

Einstein's theory of general relativity contains a null hypothesis

LIGO's SECOND BLACK HOLE MERGER: MISLED BY GENERAL RELATIVITY

Einstein never predicts gravitational wave come from two black holes merger. He didn’t believe in black hole. Einstein is The Reluctant Father of Black Hole. In Einstein’s manuscript 1916 :”Two celestial bodies in orbit will generate ripples in spacetime”.LIGO’s gravitational waves nothing to do with Einstein.Two celestial bodies in orbit will generate ripples in space time yet to be proven. LIGO doesn’t confirm Albert Einstein’s general relativity.

Einstein’s manuscript 1916 :”Two celestial bodies in orbit will generate ripples in spacetime”

For only the second time in human history, gravitational waves have been directly detected. This time, the merger of two lower mass black holes, of 14 and 8 solar masses, inspiraling and coalescing together, left a signal of 27 orbits spanning more than a second in both twin LIGO detectors, a second unambiguous signal in less than four months’ time.

On September 14, 2015, less than 72 hours after beginning operations, the Advanced LIGO detectors in Washington and Louisiana shocked the world by detecting two large black holes — 36 and 29 solar masses — merging together. The ripples propagating through space were so intense that even from over a billion light years away, the tiny mirrors in the LIGO apparatus shifted by thousandths of the width of a proton, vibrating back and forth ever so slightly over the span of perhaps 200 milliseconds. After months of checking their results, they made the indisputable claim: they had detected gravitational waves for the first time. 101 years after Einstein’s general theory of relativity was proposed, it passed with flying colors its most delicate, intricate test.

(FORBES.COM)

The experiment of LIGO has not verified the Einstein’s theory of gravity.

Where Was the Source of Gravitational Waves? According to normal pressures of experiments, we should determine or observe the event of binary black hole merger which really happened in space by some methods at first. For example, the experiment observed optical after glow caused by the material around black holes in merger process. Suppose the speed of gravitational wave is the same as that of light. When the light reached the earth, gravitational waves also arrived and caused stripe changes in interferometers.

The problem was, did LIGO really observe binary black hole merger? The authors read the PRL paper of LIGO but find no word to say they had observed astronomical phenomena about binary black hole merger. They used the method of backward to deduce the event. Based on the signs detected in laser interferometers and the Einstein’s theory of gravity, by fitting them with computer, LIGO declared that the event happened in a distance galaxy 1.3 billion years ago.

Therefore, so-called binary black hole merger is only the result of computer simulation, rather than a really observed event in astronomy and physics. By using so-called matching filter method, LIGO declared to find gravitational waves and binary black hole merger from their waveform library which had been established in advance, rather than find them from sky.

According to the interpretation of LIGO, the experiments verified the gravitational wave theory of Einstein. However, what they observed were only two signs in laser interferometers, without really observing binary black hole merger and 3 solar mass being transformed into gravitational waves, how could they say that the gravitational wave theory of Einstein was verified?(http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016062014272089.pdf)

More than 100 years physicists around the world being misled by general relatity !

More than 100 years being misled by general relatity and just live in the world of experiments. Until now we still use Newton’s law of gravity, so far. Black holes and gravitatinal waves do not exist. Einstein’s gravity is nothing about force, it means nothing about energy …..

The problems of general relativity arise when you look at the Universe at very small or at very large scales. So, what’s wrong with general relativity?

In fact, first, general relativity is made based on thought experiment, not the real experiment. Secondly, Einstein’s thought experiments are incomprehensive, illogical, and misleading. Third, Einstein never proved general relativity. Fourth, Einstein ignored the refraction of light and the existing of celestial sphere, that’s why Einstein proposed the test for his hypothesis deflection of light by the Sun isn’t scientific and deeply wrong. Einstein’s proving method need to be examined more thoroughly and need to be taken seriously.

Every hypothesis should first be able to explain the experimental results in order to be taken seriously. But, what if the proving method of a hypothesis is not scientific but not to be taken seriously, althought the first experimental results was error? That is occur in the case of Einstein’s provng method for ‘ The Deflection of Light by the Sun ‘.

Reliable source:

“Einstein proposed therefore, that photographs be taken of the stars immediately bordering the darkened face of the sun during an eclipse and compared with photographs of those same stars made at another time.” (LincolnBarnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, London, June 1949, Preface by Albert Einstein Himself, page 78).

The celestial sphere is only applicable at a certain time and at a certain place on which such observation is performed. In scientific exposure of astronomy, the instant observation applies. It means, ‘that photographs be taken of the stars immediately bordering the darkened face of the sun during an eclipse and compared with photographs of those same stars made at another time ‘ isn’t scientific and deeply wrong.

General relativity has been wrong since the beginning. Deflection of light caused by refraction: i.e.astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction, not gravity.

Actually error in the famous eclipse experiment of 1919, but F.W.Dyson writes: “It seems clear that the effect found must be attributed to the Sun’s gravitational field and not, for example, to the refraction by coronal matter” (F.W.Dyson, F.R.S, A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun’s Gravitational Field, from Observations made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919).

Nobel Committe in 1921 know about this error, that’s why Einstein never received Nobel Prize for relativity.

The new finding about Einstein’s proving method that isn’t scientific and ignored refraction of light, in accordance  with— by coincidence — the invention of Professor R. C. Gupta, India, on his paper ‘Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift: Alternative Explanation Based on Refraction of Light.'

TWO BLACK HOLES COLLIDE ?

TWO BLACK HOLES COLLIDE-IS  MADE BASED ON BELIEF?




LIGO expert : "But I am certain, Einstein has always been right"

Has Einstein always been right about Black Holes ?

courtesy google image

Black Holes kenyataannya tidak ada, dan memang tidak bisa dilihat secara langsung oleh teleskop Hubble. Dianggap ada berdasarkan analisis karakternya yang bisa dideteksi. Hanya teori, dan teori dikembangkan berdasarkan persamaan medannya Albert Einstein.