Using velocity-induced acoustic oscillations as a standard ruler at cosmic dawn

Using velocity-induced acoustic oscillations as a standard ruler at cosmic dawn
Image showing a slice of the simulated 21-cm map during cosmic dawn, where the blue and red patches (which denote 21-cm absorption and emission) are preferentially separated by 150 Mpc, the length of our standard ruler. Credit: Julian B. Muñoz.

Our current understanding of physics suggests that there are two main types of matter in the universe known as dark and baryonic matter. Dark matter is made up of material that scientists cannot directly observe, as it does not emit light or energy. On the other hand, baryonic matter is made up of normal atomic matter, including protons, neutrons and electrons.

In contrast with , baryonic matter can interact with photons, giving rise to what is known as baryon (BAOs), which are essentially fluctuations in density caused by acoustic waves. While producing BAOs, the same interactions also generate supersonic relative velocities between dark matter and baryons.

These generated velocities are known to impede the formation of the first stars at cosmic dawn, the era after the Big Bang when the first stars and galaxies burst into existence, modulating the expected signal from this specific era. In a fascinating two-part study, a researcher at Harvard University has recently showed that this signal modulation takes the form of robust velocity-induced acoustic oscillations (VAOs), which could in turn provide valuable insight about the cosmic dawn era.

"The idea that dark matter and baryons have a large relative velocity has been around since 2010," Julian B. Muñoz, the researcher who carried out the study, told Phys.org. "In fact, that same year, other researchers realized that this relative velocity would have a large impact on the formation of the first stars. While we cannot directly see these stars, as they are very far away and dim, they can be indirectly detected using the 21-cm line of hydrogen."

When Muñoz started working on his project, he initially wanted to implement the effects of relative velocity using a public simulation code known as 21cmFAST, which is the standard tool used by cosmologists to understand the cosmic 21-cm signal. He then presented the results of these simulations in a paper published in Physical Review D.

"While conducting my simulations, I realized that adding the velocities produces robust velocity-induced acoustic oscillations (VAOs) in the 21-cm signal, which have the same origin as the baryon acoustic oscillations (BAOs) that we are used to, but are produced by relative velocities, and not over/under-densities," Muñoz said. "These VAOs imprint the baryon acoustic scale of 150 Mpc onto the 21-cm maps, which can then be used as a standard ruler."

In a new paper published in Physical Review Letters, Muñoz then introduced the idea that the VAOs ultimately arising from the coupling of and photons result in the 21-cm signal (typically used to detect stars) spatially oscillating, with a known period of 150 Mpc (about 450 million lightyears). He then suggests that as the shape and characteristics of these oscillations is known, they can be used as a standard ruler to measure the size of the universe during cosmic dawn (i.e., a quarter-billion years after the Big Bang).

The idea introduced by Muñoz is fascinating to say the least, as astrophysicists currently have no other way of accessing this specific cosmic era. In other words, this measurement or 'standard ruler' would be the first of its kind, opening up new exciting possibilities for studies related to the 21-cm signal, such as the hydrogen epoch of reionization array (HERA) project.

The HERA project is a collaboration between astrophysicists and researchers at U.S., South African and British institutions aimed at building a telescope that can robustly detect the epoch of reionization (EOR) red-shifted hydrogen power spectrum signature. A further goal of this project will be the collection of data that could broaden the current understanding of the cosmic dawn era.

"One of the goals of my project was to include the relative velocities onto the public 21-cm code 21cmFAST, since they change all the predictions during cosmic dawn," Muñoz said. "This is necessary to understand the 21-cm signal that will hopefully be detected in the next few years, for instance, by the HERA collaboration."

As Muñoz goes on to explain, the modulation induced by the VAOs is an interesting phenomenon in itself, as the acoustic physics of the baryons become imprinted onto the distribution of the first stars and thus onto 21-cm maps. Precisely because the acoustic physics of the baryons is known, these velocities could provide a robust standard ruler during cosmic dawn.

"Measuring the size of the universe during cosmic dawn would be exciting, since this era is halfway between the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the local universe, which are in disagreement on measurements of the size of the universe (the famous H0 tension between supernovae and CMB data)," Muñoz said.

The HERA collaboration will soon start collecting data related to the 21-cm power signal emitted at cosmic dawn. Once this data becomes available, it could be used to measure the expansion rate of the universe during , an era that has so far remained a mystery due to a lack of tools to investigate it. When this happens, the ideas introduced by Muñoz could prove to be extremely valuable, as they highlight the possible use of VAOs as a standard ruler during this previously unprobed epoch.

While the theory introduced in this project could be of great value, some aspects of VAOs are still poorly understood. In his future work, Muñoz plans to continue investigating VAOs, for instance trying to better understand how they modulate the feedback on the first stellar formation, which is currently unclear.

"I also intend to refine the forecasts including more complex foreground and noise models, which mimic those of the HERA instrument, as HERA is very likely to observe these VAOs in the next decade," Muñoz said.


Explore further

Scientists start mapping the hidden web that scaffolds the universe

More information: Julian B. Muñoz. Standard Ruler at Cosmic Dawn, Physical Review Letters (2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.131301

Relative velocity of dark matter and baryonic fluids and the formation of the first structures. arXiv:1005.2416 [astro-ph.CO]. arxiv.org/abs/1005.2416

Large-scale BAO signatures of the smallest galaxies. arXiv:1009.4704 [astro-ph.CO]. arxiv.org/abs/1009.4704

Julian B. Muñoz. Robust velocity-induced acoustic oscillations at cosmic dawn, Physical Review D (2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063538

21cmFAST: A fast, semi-numerical simulation of the high-redshift 21-cm signal. arXiv:1003.3878 [astro-ph.CO]. arxiv.org/abs/1003.3878.

© 2019 Science X Network

Citation: Using velocity-induced acoustic oscillations as a standard ruler at cosmic dawn (2019, October 7) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-10-velocity-induced-acoustic-oscillations-standard-ruler.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
357 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 07, 2019
So this will help us understand gauge variance and the hyperinflationary period? Excellent!

Oct 07, 2019
And now we'll get a look into the end of the dark ages, when we couldn't see anything before. A stellar (pun intended) discovery by Julian B. Muñoz!

Oct 07, 2019
I don't think that dark matter or dark energy exist. Please watch this video explaining a modified gravity hypothesis that explains all these effects without the need of either dark matter or dark energy. This hypothesis also explains the odd acceleration of Oumuamua, the interstellar asteroid that recently passed through our solar system:

https://youtu.be/6ijyYWKqwiI

Oct 08, 2019
Joe1963, you've had the many, many, many flaws with your idea pointed out over at Ars Technica. Do you really think that the people on this site will be any less able?

Oct 08, 2019
I think that with the help of the people at Ars Technica, I was able to re-think my first proposal. My second proposal, as explained in this video, thus far withstands scrutiny. Some very interesting questions have been raised, such as how this idea would play out in stellar structure and especially the structure of black holes. But these are things to be explored, not "flaws."

The important thing is this. The idea provides a means of falsification. We can look closely at the moment to moment acceleration of asteroids, comets, and probes to see if the pattern emerges. No one has yet explained why this would be a bad idea.

Oct 08, 2019
And you still got it wrong, Joe. Just as they pointed out to you, time and again.

They even pointed out the things that directly falsify your idea. So why do you keep posting it?

Oct 08, 2019
You still have it wrong. If there is something falsifying it, you would use less words by stating the falsification. So why do you keep lying?

Oct 08, 2019
@Joe1963
thus far withstands scrutiny
not really

a youtube video is not equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal study, otherwise, you would be teaching about flat earth and [insert deity] constant adjustment for planetary orbits
If there is something falsifying it, you would use less words by stating the falsification
yet you can't produce evidence other than your belief of your new MOND in a video?

where is the abstract? journal publication? means and methods? data? observations? falsification?

how does one check your argument with an objective, detailed analysis that doesn't require a subjective interpretation of your statements in a video?

the only thing required for a refute, therefore, is a statement of disbelief
You still have it wrong
no, Anon doesn't
https://arstechni...p;q=MOND

Oct 08, 2019
No Captain stumpy: Whether you believe it or not, human beings can discuss hypotheticals. They can discuss hypothesis before they make it to the stage of a formal theory.

I carefully explain the rudimentary beginnings of a hypothesis in the video. I also state what would obviously falsify it. One does not have to have a full fledged theory published in a peer reviewed journal .... before having the temerity to put forward an idea.

If you wish to discount it or disbelieve it, that is your prerogative. If however you are claiming to have disproved it, that is false. If you don't want to discuss the actual idea, that's fine.

No problem.

Oct 08, 2019
No Captain stumpy: Whether you believe it or not, human beings can discuss hypotheticals. They can discuss hypothesis before they make it to the stage of a formal theory.

I carefully explain the rudimentary beginnings of a hypothesis in the video. I also state what would obviously falsify it. One does not have to have a full fledged theory published in a peer reviewed journal .... before having the temerity to put forward an idea.

If you wish to discount it or disbelieve it, that is your prerogative. If however you are claiming to have disproved it, that is false. If you don't want to discuss the actual idea, that's fine.

No problem.


Only a crank would put such a thing on youtube before publishing it! It is what cranks do!

Oct 08, 2019
@Castro: :-) OK then.

Look guys, not really interested in a lengthy argument about me, or who I am, or my motivations .... I've put my idea up; you've made a case I'm a crank, which is fine. If you don't want to discuss my idea, that is also fine. Anyone who's interested, feel free to take a look. Here is the link again:

https://youtu.be/6ijyYWKqwiI

Oct 08, 2019
@Joe
human beings can discuss hypotheticals
this is true, however, as Anon noted
They even pointed out the things that directly falsify your idea. So why do you keep posting it?
so... there is that, eh?
If however you are claiming to have disproved it...
I'm not claiming anything other than what has been explicitly stated above
If you don't want to discuss
but you're not discussing anything

you posted a video and in order to "discuss" this with you, we have to wade through a 35 minute and 47-second "lecture" about your beliefs

there are considerable degreed professionals here on this site, including astrophysicists, that actually know WTF they're talking about, so why not present something tangible in the language of science rather than in a high-school drivers-ed styled monotone video?

something else to consider:
we have a *lot* of pseudoscience posters here. A LOT!
http://www.math.u...pot.html

Oct 08, 2019
Again, those who say it was falsified are lying; in point of fact no analysis was made on the central idea.

If you would prefer a summary with an abstract that you can skim quickly, please try:

https://redd.it/ao8vfo

There is also a link to download a pdf version that is very easily and quickly readable.

Again, if you would rather simply dismiss it as quackery, that is your prerogative. When people falsely claim it has been "disproven", I disagree. There is data that could falsify the idea, but to my knowledge no one has attempted to wade through that data yet.

Oct 08, 2019
There is data that could falsify the idea, but to my knowledge no one has attempted to wade through that data yet.


Why would they? Scientists are busy enough, without having to take time out to debunk something that isn't even within the scientific literature. You'll find that they also waste little time on astrology and phrenology. For much the same reason.

Oct 09, 2019
Again, those who say it was falsified are lying; in point of fact no analysis was made on the central idea.


Oh, what a comprehensive, factual rebuttal: "They are lying".

No, there aren't. They pointed out that the geometry you use is not only wrong but impossible. As a result, your hypothesis, which depends on that geometry, cannot hold.

Oct 09, 2019
My geometry is not wrong; theirs is.

Oct 09, 2019
But in any case, Anon: That is what I mean. The Geometry is NOT the central, most important aspect of what I am saying. I would like to summarize the most important, central thing:

That if we look closely at the moment-to-moment acceleration of comets, asteroids, and our probes, we may find evidence that repulsive gravity is actually happening.

I did share a lot of other speculative stuff -- that I suspect is right -- like geometry and so forth -- BUT these speculative things are not the central thesis of what I am trying to say. And my central thesis does not stand or fall by these speculative aspects.

Oct 09, 2019
My geometry is not wrong; theirs is.


Given that your geometry leads to an incorrect value for pi, it isn't theirs that has the problem.

Oct 09, 2019
But in any case, Anon: That is what I mean. The Geometry is NOT the central, most important aspect of what I am saying. I would like to summarize the most important, central thing:

That if we look closely at the moment-to-moment acceleration of comets, asteroids, and our probes, we may find evidence that repulsive gravity is actually happening


We HAVE studied the "moment-to-moment acceleration of comets, asteroids, and our probes" and found no evidence whatsoever for "repulsive gravity".


I did share a lot of other speculative stuff -- that I suspect is right -- like geometry and so forth -- BUT these speculative things are not the central thesis of what I am trying to say. And my central thesis does not stand or fall by these speculative aspects.


Here's a pro tip for you: Don't clutter what you think is the central thesis with a lot of garbage.

And, yes, you ideas on geometry are garbage.

Oct 09, 2019
Anom: Might you point me in the direction of such a study? I.e. , The original telemetry data for a long distance probe -- that is not summarized or averaged or adjusted in any way? Data that shows the probe's position at each moment of its voyage and is unadjusted by any algorithm?

And Oumuamua's trajectory does definitely show evidence for repulsive gravity .... so ....

I think that you're just flat lying again?

Oct 09, 2019

And Oumuamua's trajectory does definitely show evidence for repulsive gravity .... so ....



No it does not. And nobody has ever claimed such a thing. Not in the scientific literature, anyway.

Oct 09, 2019
Castro: Let us not be silly. What exactly would suggest repulsive gravity? I.e., what would be the "evidence" for it? Please be reasonable: Wouldn't the only "evidence" for repulsive gravity be an unexplained acceleration AWAY from a large mass like the sun? Isn't that what we would be looking for?

I am sorry it's not explained thus in the "literature." But I am appealing to the actual data rather than the literature. When Anom says that there is no evidence for repulsive gravity, he lies.

Oct 09, 2019
No, Oumaumau's trajectory does not suggest "repulsive gravity". Here, read the literature where Oumaumau's path was carefully analyzed and explained:
https://www.natur...-0254-4/
https://iopscienc...bb5/meta

And you aren't appealing to the data; you are making things up. If you weren't, you could point to actual data (not Youtube videos of lunatics) that show evidence for "repulsive gravity".

Oct 09, 2019
No. You are misstating the case. Each of the papers that you cite propose other explanations for Oumuamua's anomalous acceleration.

The explanations are reasonable. But to come up with a reasonable explanation is NOT the same thing as proving what happened.

I am sure you understand this. What we all agree on was that there was an acceleration away from the sun. Ever since, various scientists have come up with their own various explanations as to why this happened. Even so far as attributing it to artificial means.

The articles that you cited started with a pre-determined assumption: I.e. that gravity behaves precisely as G.R. describes. Then they proceeded from this assumption to come up with a reasonable explanation for what happened.

Repulsive gravity is another option to be considered; that is all.

IN any of these explanations, the "actual data" is Oumuamua's anomalous acceleration. Each of the proposals give alternative explanations of the data.

Oct 09, 2019
Joe1963, you need to look up "Occam's Razor" and learn how to use it.

Given a choice between known, established, and measurable phenomena (such as the ones in those papers) and unknown, unproven, and non-measurable phenomena (such as "repulsive gravity"), Occam's Razor says to go with the known phenomena unless you can come up with a convincing reason not to do so.

"This might also explain it" is not a convincing reason. It isn't even a reason; it is special pleading.

Oct 09, 2019
@Joe
When Anom says that there is no evidence for repulsive gravity, he lies
this is your opinion because you've provided no links and references as proof he is lying
there really is *NO* evidence for it that I've seen other than special pleading
Repulsive gravity is another option to be considered; that is all
except there is no evidence to suggest it's existence other than special pleading
Occam's razor and all
Well crap, ANON beat me to the point

Oct 09, 2019
@Anonym869597

Thank you for the attempt and for some clarification to @Joe1963 who has been on this, "My idea is correct", thing for quite some time. Again thanks.



Oct 09, 2019
Cool! And I get the DM/BM interaction now!

Repulsive gravity is another option to be considered; that is all.


No. Gravity is a unipolar charge, so it cannot "repulse". What is acting as a negative pressure in a general relativity (gravity) cosmology is vacuum energy, i.e. the inner state of the universe, and not gravity from masses (such as "comets, asteroids, and our probes").

General relativity is the basic physics of the well tested standard inflationary cosmology of today. All competing models from the experts have foundered, and the crackpots arm waving (oratory) ideas are not worthy consideration. Such oratory as yours is, as they say, "not even wrong". But we can easily see that if you tried to put your specific idea into testable math, it would be falsified at the outset, as it can't be done for gravity.

So "not even wrong", or if you put elbow grease where your mouth is, wrong. Take your pick. And take it elsewhere, this site is for discussions of science.

Oct 09, 2019
Ah .... no. GR is obviously wrong, because from observation we note galactic rotation rates and cosmological expansion .....

Now you expend a lot of mathematical energy to justify the ideas of "dark matter" and "dark energy" .... but in simple layman's terms, this is what you are doing:

When visible masses do not behave in the way your theory predicts, THEN you make up invisible, undetectable, masses and energies, and conveniently locate them wherever you need to locate them in order to make your faulty theory work.

Now at this point I will grant you that I do not have the math or conclusive evidence to PROVE what I am saying. I am throwing out a hypothetical -- and basically saying: "Hey, maybe we should take a look at this possibility and explore it?"

And you are responding to this informal initial position by positing a basic lie, i.e. that nothing is worth even considering or talking about or exploring until it reaches the level of a proven and complete theory ....

Oct 09, 2019
Ah .... no. GR is obviously wrong, because from observation we note galactic rotation rates and cosmological expansion .....


Which do not contradict GR.


When visible masses do not behave in the way your theory predicts, THEN you make up invisible, undetectable, masses and energies, and conveniently locate them wherever you need to locate them in order to make your faulty theory work.


That's not what dark matter and dark energy mean.


Now at this point I will grant you that I do not have the math or conclusive evidence to PROVE what I am saying. I am throwing out a hypothetical -- and basically saying: "Hey, maybe we should take a look at this possibility and explore it?"


The idea that gravity can change its effect at large distances has been proven false. (e.g., https://iopscienc.../008/pdf ) So why should we pay any attention to someone who claims that it hasn't and his Youtube video proves it?


Oct 09, 2019
They do contradict GR, UNLESS you introduce invisible, undetectable, unconfirmable masses and energies conveniently located, as I said.

I also add that if it is considered valid science to add these things whenever and wherever you need them, then whatever theory you're propounding is by definition not falsifiable -- and this is the only reason that GR is still considered valid.

The last article you posted is beyond my abilities to understand at this point. You are claiming that it proves that gravity can never be repulsive; I suspect that this is not true, but I must admit I am not able to prove what I am saying. I will try to work my way through it in order to give a more convincing response.

As for my video, you're employing a straw man. I did not say my video PROVES anything -- I am claiming that it presents something worth taking a closer look at.

Oct 09, 2019
They do contradict GR, UNLESS you introduce invisible, undetectable, unconfirmable masses and energies conveniently located, as I said.


You keep making that claim. Obviously you don't know enough about GR to make it, or you wouldn't.

The last article you posted is beyond my abilities to understand at this point.


That may be the only honest thing you've written.

Come back when you DO understand it. It will explain WHY your claims are false.


As for my video, you're employing a straw man. I did not say my video PROVES anything -- I am claiming that it presents something worth taking a closer look at.


Your video doesn't present anything worth taking a look at.

Oct 09, 2019
Apparently @Joe doesn't get that in fact, you can as easily use Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation and you still get the same answer: there has to be more mass in galaxies than we can see, and there has to be accelerating expansion. It isn't necessary to use GRT for it. You still have to have DM and DE to explain what we see.

Oct 09, 2019
Basically, @Anonym869597, and @Joe, the paper @Anonym869597 has linked shows that if you try to claim that there is no dark energy and substitute some long-range field effect that duplicates its action, you wind up having to use a new field. In other words, if you try to eliminate dark energy, you get... dark energy.

in the models that can explain the acceleration of the Universe without recourse to Dark Energy there is still an extra scalar field in the spectrum besides the massless spin two graviton.
In other words, no dark energy implies dark dark energy: the scalar field.

Bah. Stop squirming, @Joe.

Oct 09, 2019
They do contradict GR, UNLESS you introduce invisible, undetectable, unconfirmable masses and energies conveniently located, as I said.

I also add that if it is considered valid science to add these things whenever and wherever you need them, then whatever theory you're propounding is by definition not falsifiable -- and this is the only reason that GR is still considered valid.

The last article you posted is beyond my abilities to understand at this point. You are claiming that it proves that gravity can never be repulsive; I suspect that this is not true, but I must admit I am not able to prove what I am saying. I will try to work my way through it in order to give a more convincing response.
says Joe1963

There is no such thing as "Repulsive Gravity". The very word, 'gravity' implies an "Attractive Force". The Force of Gravity can ONLY ATTRACT physical matter to each other, which is the reason that planets are formed from surrounding materials.
-contd-

Oct 09, 2019
-contd-
@Joe1963

I suggest that you revise your terminology, because "repulsive gravity" cannot exist. Perhaps you are thinking of the +Positive and -Negative ends of magnets, where if you take 2 long magnets, you will find that one end is + and the other end is - and that if you place the 2 ends together that have the same charge, like + and + or - and - you will get them to repel each other.
But that is NOT "repulsive gravity". Gravity is a whole other thing and can ONLY ATTRACT mass to mass. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and recommend that you check up on other nomenclature that will best describe what it is you really meant.

Oct 09, 2019
@anom and Da Schneib:

Both GR and Newton require more mass than is seen under their assumptions as regards galactic rotation. Unless you can corroborate the existence of said mass, the default should be that those assumptions are false.

Same goes for Cosmological expansion. Under the assumptions of GR and Newton, this requires the existence of energy that we cannot corroborate in any other way. Unless you can corroborate the existence of said energy, the default should be that the assumptions are false.

@Surveillance: we are not arguing semantics or etymology. The hypothetical that I am proposing is in its infancy; as I've tried to explain before -- it is the rudimentary beginnings of a hypothesis, not a polished and finished theory; the only thought I've given to planetary formation is that probably it would mean that stable planets can only form in certain set sizes. There would be other sizes that would be unstable.

Oct 09, 2019
Although that does raise an interesting point. The same would go for stars. Certain set sizes would be allowed. Other sizes would be inherently unstable. This might explain parts of solar system formation; i.e. most of the time the mass splits in two and we have a binary system. Other times if there is only a little mass left over we end up with that little mass spit out and we end up with a system like ours?

Oct 09, 2019
Saturn and Jupiter look pretty stable to me, Joe. And there are many other even bigger planets that have been found by astronomers. I'm not absolutely certain but I think that no matter how large or small a planet is, it will only be unstable if it's in an erratic zigzagging orbit around its Star.

Oct 09, 2019
But in any case, you are indicating that your 'hypothesis' is still in its embyonic stage and may need a lot of tweaking before it makes sense to those who will have any legitimate say over it.
So keep up your good work and remember that Rome wasn't built in a day. Good luck to you.

Oct 09, 2019
Thanks Surveillance; I appreciate your statements. One thing though: When I said "certain set sizes" I was not implying any maximum size. I was implying something more subtle than that. I am saying that certain combinations of density/mass/radius would be stable, while other combinations would not be. I was NOT saying that a planet must be under a certain size.

Oct 10, 2019
Thanks Surveillance; I appreciate your statements. One thing though: When I said "certain set sizes" I was not implying any maximum size. I was implying something more subtle than that. I am saying that certain combinations of density/mass/radius would be stable, while other combinations would not be. I was NOT saying that a planet must be under a certain size.


In other words, you are saying that your hypothesis only works for anything that doesn't have enough data for it to be understood using the current laws of physics. Once we get that data, suddenly your hypothesis no longer applies.

Or, to put it more succinctly "Here Be Dragons - Joe"

Oct 10, 2019
Well, no? Surveillance was misunderstanding what I was saying, and I tried to clarify? Why would you consider that as if it is unusual or suspect? If gravity does behave like a wave function in the manner I am describing, a logical consequence of this is that there would be certain combinations of size/density/radius that would be unstable; i.e. where the surface of a planet or a star happens to coincide with a radius where gravity is strongly repulsive. If/when this happens, that radius for that particular body would make it unstable.

Look, anonym -- there really is no need to mix condescension, ridicule, and personal attacks into this while we're discussing it. Naturally, when you do this, I will respond in kind, as I have before.

Oct 10, 2019
Another interesting aspect of this is black holes. I intend to make another video this Saturday wherein I speculate on this. Consider: If I am correct and space does not warp, or compress, or deform, then a singularity cannot be at the heart of a black hole.

Under current theory, a neutron star would not have the density to produce an event horizon such that light is trapped -- though it gets fairly close, bending light so much that we may be able to see the back side of a neutron star.

With what I am saying however, there are specific distances from the surface of a neutron star of sufficient size, where the gravitational force would be orders of magnitude larger than current theory allows -- in such a situation, the heart of a black hole might very well be an appropriately sized neutron star.

Oct 10, 2019
Another interesting aspect of this is black holes. I intend to make another video this Saturday wherein I speculate on this. Consider: If I am correct and space does not warp, or compress, or deform, then a singularity cannot be at the heart of a black hole.


You're not correct. In the terminology of science, you're not even wrong. (I.e., your idea is so ludicrous that it has no more basis in fact than the Wizard of Oz. Unfortunately, your idea isn't nearly as entertaining.)

Oct 11, 2019
Thanks Surveillance; I appreciate your statements

Sock puppets unite!!!!!!!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more