A particularly compelling aspect of the GW190521 event detected by the LIGO-Virgo collaboration is that it has an extremely short duration, and lacks a clearly identifiable inspiral phase usually observed in the binary black holes (BBHs) coalescence. In this work, we hypothesize that GW190521 might represent a single, isolated gravitational wave (GW) echo pulse from the wormhole, which is the postmerger remnant of BBHs in another universe and connected to our universe through a throat. The ringdown signal after BBHs merged in another universe can pass through the throat of wormhole and be detected in our universe as a short-duration echo pulse. Our analysis results indicate that our model yields a network signal-to-noise ratio comparable to that of the standard BBHs merger model reported by the LIGO-Virgo collaboration. Though the Bayesian factor slightly prefers the standard BBHs merger model, it is not significant enough to rule out the possibility that the echo-for-wormhole model is a viable hypothesis for the GW190521 event.
Is GW190521 a gravitational wave echo of wormhole remnant from another universe?
Submitted 1 day ago by solrize@lemmy.ml to science@mander.xyz
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.07831
DreamAccountant@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Straight to “wormhole remnant from another universe”? Why not just blame it on Harry Potter? lol.
Sure, black holes usually spiral into each other. What if they had non-tangential vectors? No spiraling there, especially if they were moving at half the speed of light towards each other.
But to jump straight to parallell universe wormhole? Come on. Prove it or shut up.
solrize@lemmy.ml 13 hours ago
Oh come on, it looks like an interesting take on standard existing theory. Once you accept the idea of the universe originating from a microscopic singularity 13.7 billion years ago, why should you be so sure that there is only one of them? And what exactly do you want “proved” when the paper itself (p.10) seems to say that under the authors’ model, the wormhole theory has just exp(-2.9)=around 5% chance of being the right explanation vs the more conventional one?
Authors: we calculate that proposition X has 5% chance of being true Internet smartypants: oh yeah? Prove that X is true, hur hur.
Penrose (physics Nobel 2020) and someone had a sort of similar theory that some mysterious circles in CMB data were signals from another universe, and it was taken seriously until the circles turned out to be from some problem with the measurement equipment.
Me, I think this stuff is pretty cool and I wish I understood enough GR to read that paper. Leaving aside the whole topic of science (the study of actual natural reality) and treating it as a problem of pure math (finding equations that match a particular set of criteria without worrying about whether they describe something that actually exists), from what I can tell, it’s still a tough problem. But these kinds of ideas have been around for a long time, and the math works as far as anyone can tell. That’s the best you can hope for given that there’s no way to observe the big bang directly.