Cygnus X - 1 a BNS ?

....................Several thousand light-years away, near the "heart" of Cygnus, the swan, two stars are locked in a gravitational embrace. One star is a blue super giant, known as HDE 226868. It is about 20 times as massive as the Sun and 300,000 times brighter. The other star is 15 times the mass of the Sun, but it's extremely small. The object must be the collapsed core of a star. Its mass is too great to be a white dwarf or a neutron star, though, so it must be a black hole..........

Nice little description about a very interesting X Ray source around 6000 light years away, a great contender for stellar size BH, but can it be Black Neutron Star ? May be yes.

The established facts about this objects are..

1. Mass : Roughly 14 Solar Masses.
2. Spin rate : around 1 ms.
3. Distance : Around 6000+ light years.
4. Binary arrangement, X Ray Source.

Why it cannot be White Dwarf because maximum mass of a white dwarf is around 1.5 Solar Mass, why it cannot be a visible Neutron Star because maximum mass of a visible Neutron Star is around 2-3 Solar Mass, so it must be a BH or may be an exotic matter star. Lot of discussion about presence or absence of Dying Pulse Train around Cygnus X-1 is on to prove the existence of EH, some discussion is also here on this forum in some other thread.

To me Cygnus X - 1 appears to be a perfect candidate for Black Neutron Star (its a part of my second paper which I have finished revising)...how ?

Evidence in favor of Cygnus X - 1 being BNS.......

(Please note that a BNS is a Black Hole without singularity, the object will be invisible, only thing eliminated is that monster called Singularity....in fact in my new paper which has been revised after comments this singularity pathology is completely eradicated.)

1. Its a spinning BH, so Kerr Metric is applicable.
2. In case of Kerr Metric the angular momentum or spin is assigned to Ergosphere, which is a perfectly valid maths and as highlighted by a Prof long ago in one of my threads.
3. But this assigning of spin to Ergosphere is mainly on account of our inability to assign any meaningful physical parameter to singularity. If we could assign this spin to an object we would do rather than assigning it to Ergosphere.
4. In case of Schwarzschilds metric, which is non spinning, the collapse to singularity is mandated, one way to see this is that all the paths lead to r = o once inside EH, the metric is so weird at and inside EH that the time becomes spatial, leaving no option but to go to r = 0.
5. But Kerr Metric for a spinning BH has a very peculiar solution, the spacetime inside the inner Event Horizon behaves normally that is t acts time and r acts position....So one way this gives a possibility of some well defined structure r > 0 and r < M.
6. BNS does not violate causality.....in case of solid it depends on Bulk Modulus/density and in case of liquids it depends on pressure/density. Ideally the situation for causality violation comes very near to a condition when Neutrons are packed very rigidly (density > 10^17), but for a 14 Solar Mass spinning object (Cygnus - X1) this condition will not come at 4/3Rs, this will come only below Rs, somewhere near Rp.
7. The collapse beyond 2-3 core mass is mandated because there is no other known force than NDP, but there are two more aspects, one is for 2-3 Mass core Neutrons have still not become fully relativistic so there is some more strength left in Neutrons to counter more pressure and secondly there is possibility of one more pressure which I will discuss later on.

In brief Cygnus - X1 has all the right parameters to be a BNS....


PS : for new members details about BNS can be found at.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015IJAA....5...11R

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can a black hole exist without a singularity? What's counterbalancing the gravitational force?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Black Hole is one of the most prominent GR babies, and in GR there is nothing like gravitational force.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And yet gravitational force exists.

 

At it again Rajesh? Please make up your mind - you cannot claim both BH and BNS at the same time. Not without confusing everyone and doing violence to the accepted definition of BH. Also, instead of linking to something that leads nowhere useful:

Why not provide an in some sense useful link directly to your latest paper: http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=54492
That your 2nd published article has also evidently passed SCIRP peer review process is 'interesting'. Were there any challenges at all from referees or editor-in-chief?

 

That is because there are no singularity, that will come in my next paper....the last object inside or outside EH will be only NS...(may be some exotic stuff to chip in).

So when I say BH, I mean something inside EH but that something is not singulurity.......But focus of this thread is Cygnus X1 as BNS.

Oh, that is because the earlier link was stored in easy access file........regarding new paper more after publishing.

 

Pl ask some GR expert about this......

 

Wiki Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac_equations

...................The Einstein–Yang–Mills–Dirac Equations provide an alternative approach to a Cyclic Universe which Penrose has recently been advocating. They also imply that the massive compact objects now classified as Black Holes are actually Quark Stars, possibly with event horizons, but without singularities.................


PS : I am not saying this statement is authenticated beyond wiki...

 

You are being silly Rajesh!

You cannot continue to push the idea of a BNS without a supporting theory of gravitation. The comments of all outside experts, even those supporting to possibility of gravstars, reject the idea of your BNS.

This is.., or has for a long time now.., been a subject for alternative theories. You have not been providing any science to supports the fantasy of your imagination.

 

... moved to alternative theories

 

Nice to see this moved to the correct section. Nice try Rajesh.
What you propose is impossible within current accepted GR model and standard accepted cosmology.
GR tells us that once a Schwarzchild radius is reached further collapse is compulsory.
GR though fails to describe to us the Planck/Quantum level, or the limit of its parameters, and as such the classical point Singularity is doubted by most physicists, leaving what we think will be a surface of sorts of the degenerate matter, at between said Planck/quantum level and the predicted classical point Singularity.

The star or mass collapsing to within its Schwarzchild radius, has its matter stripped down totally, gravity overcoming all other forces as collapse approaches the quantum/Planck level.

 

About what? That gravity is real?

 

Thats ok, since as on date Cygnus is taken as possible candidate for BH with singularity.......any other theory should be alternative till accepted...

 

You mean to say those who are disputing are providing the science !!

Let me put it this way.........what we are looking inside an EH ?

The Physicists believe that some kind of Quantum Mechanics force would emerge, which is not known to us as on date, and that would provide some kind of stability and surface to the core which is collapsing under Gravitational Pressure.

So, despite numerous theories of Singularity, ultimately our eyes are set to find some kind of a stable real definable structure inside..........

So, as on date to you and too others the idea of BNS may look as absurd as idea of singularity, but idea of BNS is closer to reality than the idea of Singularity.....

 

.........We have crossed swords many a times.....somewhere down the line you also must show some practical and pragmatic approach..................

See, Planck's level is of the order of 10^-35 meters, some trillionth of times smaller than electrons.....so think again what you mean by some surface of sort of degenerate matter at Planck's level.........again and again such statements by a prolific and eager and seasoned poster like you becomes comic and irritating after some time......

PS : You made a point that solution of Singularity may be found at somewhere near Planck's scale as and when QGT comes. Your stand on this, is clear. But please, do not write these surface of degenerate matter and all at Planck's level.

 

Somewhere down the line, we may see a more sensible and honest approach by yourself, but I won't hold my breath.

I think it more prudent that you start thinking how nonsensical your BNS is.

Most physicists do not believe the classical point singularity exists or will form, leaving what we think will be a surface of sorts of the degenerate matter, at between said Planck/quantum level and the predicted classical point Singularity.

 

That shruggy avatar uses a word 'Hilarious' very often, that fits on you...... who all are 'we' and do you know what is that degenerate matter which can occupy a space as small as Lp ??

 

"WE" of course the general scientific communities and interested folk like myself and other science adherents.
Degenerate matter of course is matter that has been broken down to its most fundamentals, having all forces such as the strong nuclear overcome, and its state determined by quantum mechanical properties

It's getting painfully obvious your 12 months browsing cosmology has not had much success in seeing you develop into anything resembling a scientist, theoretical or otherwise.

 

What a definition, this will put even alternative forum to shame !!

You, preacher, what is that degenerate matter which is of 10^37 Kgs mass (few million Solar BH) and can reside in a volume of 10^-105 (your planck's volume).......you think before you make such extreme stupid statements even after 12-13 years of paid forum residency...

 

The thread has been moved due to your obvious "mistake" of putting it in science.
And of course......

when gravity overcomes the nuclear force - carl sagan