Neutron Star Found Where a Black Hole was Expected

[Jay-qu]

A star 40 times the mass of the Sun collapsed to form a neutron star instead of a black hole, researchers said today.

 

When a massive star burns out, its outer layers crash down on the star’s core, creating a dense ball of matter from which nothing could escape. Scientists previously thought that when a massive star died and collapsed on itself, it had no choice but to create a black hole.

 

Now, new data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory suggests that massive stars have a little wiggle room, and sometime produces a neutron star instead.

 

Read More at Space.com

[infamous]

A star 40 times the mass of the Sun collapsed to form a neutron star instead of a black hole, researchers said today.

 

 

 

Read More at Space.com

Very interesting article Jay-qu, this finding will no doubt shake up a few theorists. As I understand present theory, this result should be completely unexpected.

[Jay-qu]

yeah thats what I thought... it was predicted that a sun of that mass would have to collapse to a black hole when its fuel exhausted... obviously we are missing something about the formation of black holes - that is if the really exsist!

[coldcreation]

Very interesting article Jay-qu, this finding will no doubt shake up a few theorists. As I understand present theory, this result should be completely unexpected.

 

Hmmm, do you two remember me writing something like this in a thread called black holes (I think that was started by JQ). For some reason I'm not surprised by these findings (if indeed they are confirmed). I've suspected for some time now (since the mid-1990s) that BHs do not exist in nature, and that neutron stars are the ultimate limit of packed matter.

 

I'm working now on a quantitative prediction for future observations of a similar kind (kind of).

 

More soon bros.

 

Good article JQ. Where can I find the full paper?

 

CC

[C1ay]

I've suspected for some time now (since the mid-1990s) that BHs do not exist in nature, and that neutron stars are the ultimate limit of packed matter.

Wouldn't a corollary to that be that neutron stars cannot be so massive that their gravity reaches a limit that prevents even photons from escaping?

[infamous]

Wouldn't a corollary to that be that neutron stars cannot be so massive that their gravity reaches a limit that prevents even photons from escaping?

Excellent point C1ay, there are also theories about massive bodies called quark stars. Possibly as Coldcreation is suggesting, these bodies do not completely disappear from our universe. Even if a neutron or quark star became so massive that light couldn't escape, it would just appear to be a Black Hole when in fact the truth would be, that it is still composed of a neutron or quark soup and remains just out of our visual detection.

[HydrogenBond]

Another way to interpret the data is that collapsing stars are less due to instant burnout as diminishing fusion. The result could be a slower or gentler collapse. The energy of the collapse may also be particlaly absorbed into endothermic fission into smaller and smaller atoms until neutron density is reached.

[C1ay]

Even if a neutron or quark star became so massive that light couldn't escape, it would just appear to be a Black Hole when in fact the truth would be, that it is still composed of a neutron or quark soup and remains just out of our visual detection.

It has always been my opinion that black holes are only those entities massive enough to prevent light from escaping because of their enormous gravity. I don't particularly subscribe to any idea that they are not of our universe or that they collapse into some infinitesimal singularity. I wonder, how much gravity would a neutron star the size of our solar system have? Could light escape it's grasp?

[Jay-qu]

good article JQ. Where can I find the full paper?

 

sorry the link to space.com is all I have - thats where I found it

 

I wonder, how much gravity would a neutron star the size of our solar system have? Could light escape it's grasp?

 

when talking about bodies this large - although hypothetical - how much effect would the gravity of the innermost particle or the opposite side be on at the edge of the object? My bet is not much... Newtonian gravitation laws treat bodies as point particles and only takes into account mass, does general relativity take into account density also?

[HydrogenBond]

Black holes, in the classical sense may be an example of a mathematical abstraction being assumed as reality. There are cases where finite versions of something that behave like a black holes have been discovered so there it is likely that nonideal blackholes do exist, while this new data may redefine what they are composed of. The mathematical limiting idea of a black hole needs to be taken with a grain of salt. This may demonstrate that science needs to lead math instead of the other way around.

[Tormod]

Good article JQ. Where can I find the full paper?

 

CC

 

CC, I found the original story at the Chandra site:

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_110205.html