When two neutron stars (opens in new tab) slammed together far off in space, they created a powerful shaking in the universe — gravitational waves that scientists detected on Earth (opens in new tab) in 2017. Now, sifting through those gravitational wave recordings, a pair of physicists think they've found evidence of a black hole that would violate the neat model drawn from Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity.
In general relativity, black holes are simple objects: infinitely compressed singularities, or points of matter, surrounded by smooth event horizons through which no light, energy or matter can escape. Until now, every bit of data we've gleaned from black holes has supported this model.
But in the 1970s, Stephen Hawking wrote a series of papers suggesting that the borders of black holes aren't quite so smooth. Instead, they blur thanks to a series of effects linked to quantum mechanics (opens in new tab) that allow "Hawking radiation" to escape. In the years since, a number of alternative black hole models have emerged, where those smooth, perfect event horizons would be replaced with flimsier, fuzzier membranes. More recently, physicists have predicted that this fuzz would be particularly intense around newly formed black holes — substantial enough to reflect gravitational waves, producing an echo in the signal of a black hole's formation. Now, in the aftermath of the neutron star collision, two physicists think they've found that type of echo. They argue that a black hole that formed when the neutron stars merged is ringing like an echoing bell and shattering simple black hole physics.
If the echo is real, then it must be from the fuzz of a quantum black hole, said study co-author Niayesh Afshordi, a physicist at the University of Waterloo in Canada.
Related: The 18 Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Physics
"In Einstein's theory of relativity, matter can orbit around black holes at large distances but should fall into the black hole close to the event horizon," Afshordi told Live Science.
So, close to the black hole, there shouldn't be any loose material to echo gravitational waves. Even black holes (opens in new tab) that surround themselves with disks of material should have an empty zone right around their event horizons, he said.
"The time delay we expect (and observe) for our echoes ... can only be explained if some quantum structure sits just outside their event horizons," Afshordi said.
That's a break from usually unshakable predictions of general relativity.
That said, data from existing gravitational wave detectors is noisy, difficult to properly interpret and prone to false positives. A gravitational wave echoing off some quantum fuzz around a black hole would be an entirely new sort of detection. But Afshordi said that in the immediate aftermath of the merger, that fuzz should have been intense enough to reflect gravitational waves (opens in new tab) so sharply that existing detectors could see it.
Joey Neilsen, an astrophysicist at Villanova University in Pennsylvania who wasn't involved in this paper, said that the result is compelling — particularly because the echoes turned up in more than one gravitational wave detector.
"That's more convincing than combing through data looking for a specific kind of signal and saying, 'aha!' when you find it," Neilsen told Live Science.
Still, he said, he'd need to see more information before he was absolutely convinced that the echoes were real. The paper doesn't account for other gravitational wave detections gathered within about 30 seconds of the reported echoes, Neilsen said.
"Because significance calculations are so sensitive to how you pick and choose your data, I would want to understand all those features more fully before I drew any firm conclusions," he said.
Maximiliano Isi, an astrophysicist at MIT, was skeptical.
"It is not the first claim of this nature coming from this group," he told Live Science.
"Unfortunately, other groups have been unable to reproduce their results, and not for lack of trying."
Isi pointed to a series of papers that failed to find echoes in the same data, one of which, published in June, he described as a "a more sophisticated, statistically robust analysis."
Afshordi said that this new paper of his has the advantage of being far more sensitive than previous work, with more robust models to detect fainter echoes., adding, "the finding that we reported... is the most statistically significant out of the dozen searches [I discussed], as it had the false alarm chance of roughly 2 out of 100,000."
Even if the echo is real, scientists still don't know precisely what sort of exotic astrophysical object produced the phenomenon, Neilsen added.
"What's so interesting about this case is that we don't have any idea what was left after the original merger: Did a black hole form right away, or was there some exotic, short-lived intermediate object?" Neilsen said. "The results here are easiest to make sense of if the remnant is a hypermassive [neutron star] that collapses within a second or so, but the echo presented here isn't convincing to me that that scenario is what actually happened."
It is possible there are echoes in the data, Isi said, which would be enormously significant. He's just not convinced yet.
Regardless of how all the data shakes out, Neilson said, it's clear the result here is pointing at something worth exploring further.
"Astrophysically, we're in uncharted territory, and that's really exciting." he said. The paper was published Nov. 13, 2019, in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics.
- 9 Ideas About Black Holes That Will Blow Your Mind
- The 12 Strangest Objects in the Universe
- 8 Ways You Can See Einstein's Theory of Relativity in Real Life
Originally published on Live Science.(opens in new tab)
PS dont report me to a physictrist I've already been through that but without someone like me we'd have no universal theorizations or anything some of us have to think up this stuff while the others live their say normal lives and don't think for a second about it in their lifetime. You can't have evens with out odds and vice versa
Their own analysis mention the modern black firewall hypothesis among others, which is more appetizing than Hawking's analysis of "fuzz".
The generic ring down mechanism is located outside the event horizon AFAIK, but seems hard to model - event horizons are global properties (but yeah, so is the coupling near field to free wave of antennas, so YMMV). To get a gravity wave source you need a quadrupole mass energy distribution, but you get that from the merging fields (or potentials, if you want to use those).
Classically an event horizon is spherical if static, but I assume you are looking for something like this https://phys.org/news/2019-11-numerical-evidence-merger-motss-binary.html ]:
"In their study, published in Physical Review Letters, they collected observations that could offer exciting new insight into the merger of marginally outer trapped surfaces (MOTSs) in a binary black hole (BBH), a system consisting of two black holes in close orbit around each other.
"It is an underappreciated fact that event horizons are not really very useful for studying astrophysical properties of black hole mergers," the researchers told Phys.org via email. "What is much more useful are surfaces which go under the boring name of marginally outer trapped surfaces (marginal surfaces or MOTS in short). This uninteresting name hides their importance in understanding black holes.""
The MOTS is roughly the same as the inner horizon of real (rotating and/or charged) black holes, I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapped_surface , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner–Nordström_metric ]. You can handle them analytically if the black hole was collapsing spherically, which AFAIK is the odd case of gravity systems despite the inner heating - Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh-Taylor_instabilities ] are overcome.
There is a video (and it tentatively justifies my MOTS = inner horizon identification).
That is not how science works. Sure, anything can inspire peer review published theory, but web comments are observably unlikely to do so.
Better leave science development to the scientists. You take care of yourself.
In reference to thinking different or questioning really not partially myself or comment. New to this and I don't want to have much content not relavent to an article but if you'd like to chat I'm ok with that. I have some interesting stuff I wrote including my own universe theorizations some stuff on center masses, solarplexis and metamorphosis amongst other theorizations, mathematical calculations,formulizations, and equations. Ancient writings scrolls, symbolism and calligraphy I'm into a lot as well.4 drawer cabinet full of stuff I'm into it all aspects from neuroplasticity neurologly micro organism and their world as well as obviously space and the universe.
Thanks btw for what it's seems is a concern for my health in your closing statement. I thought at first it was meant as an insult until I remembered my therapist mentioning sentence it was a bad attempt at a joke😂 but seriously it's not a joke and yes I admit I have overindulged in studies expiraments, papers and stuff and it effected my family life and earthly needs ,matters and affairs.