Abstract: If the collision of two black holes had been observed, it should be a big events to physics. New physics could be developed from this collision. At least, it is analogous to that the particle physics was developed from the collision of particles. We could had a new perspective about the fundamental of physics.
Now, it is the black hole at the nucleus of the galaxies that were observed.[1,2] From the Sgr A* we know, there are the features for the black hole: 1) It is with a mass; 2) It is with a volume; 3) A black hole is dark, it is not looked as a flaring fire ball. It implies that light cannot escape from a black hole.
It was known that, the mass density of a black hole is larger than that of a neutron star although further observation is needed.
Therefore, from the features, it was concluded that a black hole is made up of a kind of new element or new particle.[3]
Thus, it is unknown what should be produced after the collision of two black holes. It could be guessed that there are the possibilities: 1) two black holes merge and a new black hole is formed without any emission (or very little emission) for that nothing can escape from a black hole. 2) it is a perfect elastic collision; 3) a new black hole is produced with a very large mass of other particles emitting from the collision.
The observed black hole challenged the current theory of star. It is clear, the observed black hole is not formed after a supermassive star-ike body emitted light and other particles. We have not observed such a supermassive star-like body that is with the mass that is larger than that of Sgr A*.
LIGO claimed that they observed the collision of two black holes.[4] And, they stressed that their observation proved Einstein’s theory of relativity which made their observation very significant.[5] However, there are the questions in LIGO’s claiming. 1) if Einstein’s theory of relativity was proved by a series of previous observations, the additional proof is trivial; if the additional proof is very important, it implies that the previous observations are not true. 2) LIGO think that to prove Einstein’s theory of relativity is more important than to develop new physics, it means that LIGO treat Einstein’s theory of relativity as a cult, rather than a subject of science. 3) it is clear, no LIGO’s argument is based on solid evidence.[6]
Recently, LVK claimed that they observed that a new back hole is formed from two black holes merging with little mass emitting from the merging.[7] It is accordant with the theory of black hole and the observed black holes. As nothing can escape from a alack hole, another black hole also can’t escape. Therefore, only very little mass can escape from the merging of two black holes.
But, LVK claimed that they observed the merging of the two black holes from the gravitational waves. However, now, we haven’t had the theory of gravitational waves that is supported by observation. Observation should show that gravitational field can be trapped or neutralized by a larger ones.[8] And, the black hole with the mass of ~100 Sun has not been well observed.
References
Consider the empirical data (of two blackholes interacting) in light of Pearlman SPIRAL (hyper-dense proto galactic formation..) Cosmology 'Black-Hole illusion Resolution' where one could predict the appearance of 'Black Holes' by galactic centers and that they represent long PAST, not ongoing, hyper-density.
Just like (as both competing cosmology models SPIRAL vs SCM-LCDM agree) the hyper-dense start of the entire universe represents long past, not ongoing, hyper density.
If SPIRAL, all beyond SPIRAL Light Year radius i being 'look-back' to the transition from the hyper-dense start to gravitational bound equilibrium, by 4/365.25(SPIRAL LY radius i) a fraction into history. i years before present. The entire universe approximates the visible universe with a radius of 1B LY rounded.
The much closer distance we see them from, means they were a lot smaller (consider moon 1/400th the distance, and apparent size, of the sun), so they had a lot slower velocity per rotation (one needs a speed 400? times faster to do one lap of the sun, in the same time it takes to do one lap of the moon.
Black-holes are on average far more than a million times closer, so smaller. The more distant the greater the overestimate by consensus. Based on the vastly higher probability science, basic physics and math. As well over half (about 8? times)the volume of the approximate sphere that is the visible universe is beyond the radius midpoint. Assume no extreme imbalance of the distribution of Blackholes over large distances. If SPIRAL light departure distance should pan out at 6k LY rounded, vs SCM-LCDM over 12B LY.
12B radius midpoint is 6BLY. 6B/6k=1M.
Reference and consider on ResearchGate.
Including SPIRAL on the cosmic distance ladder, 'Pearlman vs Hubble', 'MVP' 'GRIP' on galactic rotation, 'GRaB' on past interaction of now distant stellar objects, hypothesis and 'Einstein's Doubt'.
Yin Zhu > "New physics should be developed from the collision of two black holes?"
You got it all wrong; there is no "Black Hole"! One can say this even after the charlatans slowed computer simulated smiling "Happy Face" and so-called "gravitational waves" (GWs) produced from "merging of two black holes" and got Nobel Awards as rewards! It is simply because Albert Einstein, in whose name this fraud is perpetrated; denied the possibility of both "Black Holes" and GWs (even in principle) in published works as shown below:
1. The following is a copy of his conclusion at the end of this mathematically rich and lengthy publication: "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.
This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Albert Einstein. A. Einstein, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dd0/dfafef0c53c428fdc3b58f8099aafcf7d089.pdf
2. “Together with a young collaborator, I arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves do not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation,” he wrote in a letter to his friend Max Born. Einstein submitted his change of heart in a paper to the Physical Review Letters titled “Do gravitational waves exist?” https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/even-einstein-doubted-his-own-gravitational-waves
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing