Discussion:
Possible remise en cause des trous noirs
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Emphyrio
2018-06-13 06:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Speculative wormhole echoes could revolutionize astrophysics"


"The confirmation of echoes in the LIGO or Virgo signals would be a
practically irrefutable proof that astrophysical black holes don't
exist," Bueno says, adding, "Time will tell if these echoes exist or
not. If the result were positive, it would be one of the greatest
discoveries in the history of physics."


https://phys.org/news/2018-06-speculative-wormhole-echoes-revolutionize-astrophysics.html


M.A
Norbert
2018-06-13 06:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emphyrio
"Speculative wormhole echoes could revolutionize astrophysics"
"The confirmation of echoes in the LIGO or Virgo signals would be a
practically irrefutable proof that astrophysical black holes don't
exist," Bueno says, adding, "Time will tell if these echoes exist or
not. If the result were positive, it would be one of the greatest
discoveries in the history of physics."
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-speculative-wormhole-echoes-revolutionize-astrophysics.html
Je ne comprends rien à cet article : les trous noirs pourraient ne pas
exister, à la place ce serait des trous de ver.
Des trous de ver sans TN, c'est quoi ?
Parce que si l'article parle de cette idée hautement spéculative, il
n'explique pas ce que sont ces objets.
--
à bientôt
==================================
les secrets de l'univers http://nrumiano.free.fr
un atlas de l'univers http://atunivers.free.fr
images du ciel http://images.ciel.free.fr
==================================
robby
2018-06-13 07:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emphyrio
"Speculative wormhole echoes could revolutionize astrophysics"
Speculative + could + revolutionize : crackpot += 50
Post by Emphyrio
"The confirmation of echoes in the LIGO or Virgo signals would be
I don't understand: have these echoes get seen at first, or not ?
Or are they speaking of confirmation even before the first observation ?
Post by Emphyrio
a practically irrefutable proof that astrophysical black holes don't
exist,"
are you kidding ? such a simple basic data blip is sure very interesting
thing, but surely not the "irrefutable proof" of anything high level.
( for a start, many practicalities are surely unknown in the real brutal
formation or collision of BH. Just a reminder than QM aspects are
basically ignored, for now ). This is also ignoring another theory of
"naked singularities" that could sometime happen.
Beside, the article overclaim BH existence mainly sustained by gravity
waves: this is a strawman rethorical argument.
Post by Emphyrio
Bueno says, adding, "Time will tell if these echoes exist or
not. If the result were positive, it would be one of the greatest
discoveries in the history of physics."
why ? what could be is the description + proof of what the new exotic
thing is (especially if wormhole). Not just a negation.
Post by Emphyrio
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-speculative-wormhole-echoes-revolutionize-astrophysics.html
--
Fabrice
Loading...