Whiteholes = Bigbang?

[OrbitalConfusion]

http://www.space.com/8293-universe-born-black-hole-theory.html




I randomly thought about this a few weeks ago while outside with my telescope looking at the stars. Tonight I decided to ignore the ones saying this is complete conspiracy theory material and gave it a lookup. It seems... So... Perfect. Size of a universe is subjective. Perhaps our "parent" universe was much bigger only "donating" it stars mass plus local matter that the blackhole could ingest. It even ties in nicely with the multiverse theories. I know in the end these are all theories and if you venture to far off into the night that well... You kinda end up like that crazy guy at the end of the street wearing tinfoil hats.

Anyways...
Wormholes, singularities, the math... It all kinda gels. Granted, I am not some super mathematician but I am capable of crunching numbers and to the extent I was able to, this all made sense.


Opinions?

 

[Urwumpe]

There is just one problem with white holes: They don't exist - black holes are, with the hypothesis of Hawking-Radiation being correct, their own white holes.

But of course, there is another valid question: Is there a maximum size for a black hole?

 

[Gumok]

There is just one problem with white holes: They don't exist

Why not? If the matter in black hole will spread out to new space (our universe), than the universe is that matter and white hole could immediately collapse because the "source black hole" on the other side will lose it's matter.

But I have another question. How can a black hole make a "hole" in space? I heard that in it's center is infinitely strong gravity (that could explain it) but is it really true? If you would have infinitely strong gravity, the black hole should be infinitely large or not? They are not infinitely large.

 

[Urwumpe]

Why not? If the matter in black hole will spread out to new space (our universe), than the universe is that matter and white hole could immediately collapse because the "source black hole" on the other side will lose it's matter.

Can you name just one observation in our universe of an existing white hole?

Does our universe gain energy?

Do black holes loose mass faster than by hawking radiation?

 

[Izack]

But I have another question. How can a black hole make a "hole" in space? I heard that in it's center is infinitely strong gravity (that could explain it) but is it really true? If you would have infinitely strong gravity, the black hole should be infinitely large or not? They are not infinitely large.

The "hole" in "black hole" is a misnomer. For some purposes, it is a clever analogy (a hole from which fallen matter and light cannot escape, etc.), but it fails to describe it physically. It is more accurately described as a 'gravitational singularity', or at least the phenomenon surrounding one.

Black holes do not have infinite size, mass, or gravity. In fact, they have exactly the mass and gravitational field of the material that went into producing them (remnants of old stars, usually). It is possible to orbit one from a distance as you could any other star or planet. Things only become strange as you approach the Schwarzschild radius.

I suggest browsing [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole"]this article[/ame].

 

[Ghostrider]

Is there a maximum size for a black hole?

I think I have seen an XXL at H&M, but when I tried it on it felt like an M.

 

[Linguofreak]

http://www.space.com/8293-universe-born-black-hole-theory.html




I randomly thought about this a few weeks ago while outside with my telescope looking at the stars. Tonight I decided to ignore the ones saying this is complete conspiracy theory material and gave it a lookup. It seems... So... Perfect. Size of a universe is subjective. Perhaps our "parent" universe was much bigger only "donating" it stars mass plus local matter that the blackhole could ingest. It even ties in nicely with the multiverse theories. I know in the end these are all theories and if you venture to far off into the night that well... You kinda end up like that crazy guy at the end of the street wearing tinfoil hats.

Anyways...
Wormholes, singularities, the math... It all kinda gels. Granted, I am not some super mathematician but I am capable of crunching numbers and to the extent I was able to, this all made sense.


Opinions?

White holes are an artifact of the mathematical models we use to describe black holes that form under absolutely ideal conditions and almost certainly do not exist.

That said, there are some similarities between white holes and the big bang, in that both are in some sense a "beginning of time" (please don't read too much into that, though, there are some fairly significant differences, such as that a white hole is only the beginning of time for things that come out of it, whereas the big bang is the beginning of time for the whole universe).

 

[Loru]

Can you name just one observation in our universe of an existing white hole?

Does our universe gain energy?

Do black holes loose mass faster than by hawking radiation?

Speculation: Isn't time virtually stops near singularity? If so, all matter can be spewed out in an instant in other, "child" universe

 

[Gumok]

Can you name just one observation in our universe of an existing white hole?

It could be that Big Bang.

Does our universe gain energy?

It can no longer gain energy because connection between white hole and black hole collapses immediately.

Do black holes loose mass faster than by hawking radiation?

And here's the trick. I think too, that there is no observation of loosing mass faster. So I am against the "Black Bang" idea too.

The "hole" in "black hole" is a misnomer. For some purposes, it is a clever analogy (a hole from which fallen matter and light cannot escape, etc.), but it fails to describe it physically. It is more accurately described as a 'gravitational singularity', or at least the phenomenon surrounding one.

But you still need a some kind of "hole in space" to create the Einstein-Rosen bridge mentioned in the article...

 

[Linguofreak]

But you still need a some kind of "hole in space" to create the Einstein-Rosen bridge mentioned in the article...

Not really, no.

And in any case, Einstein-Rosen bridges almost certainly do not exist. They are, as I said of white holes, an artifact of the mathematical models we use.

 

[Urwumpe]

The problem is: Nothing leaves the observable universe, it never reaches the event horizon at all in our view. In its own view, it does - but reaches the speed of light in the process.

Still the energy of the particles that had been inside the Schwarzschild radius is never lost - the energy is in the black hole anomaly and can radiate away as Hawking-Radiation. Only if the black hole evaporation would alone not explain the loss of mass of the black hole, we could claim something is really leaving the universe.

 

[OrbitalConfusion]

I literally turned on my phone to check this thread, dropped my cigarette and ran in to read.


Whiteholes, Why have we not seen them? Perhaps because it was the big bang. We would have big bangs happening everywhere. Perhaps the conditions needed for the wormhole to deliver the mass can only be created under very special circumstances. Some how the elusive, exotic matter. "Natures" way of controlling things.


A blackhole is not a super small neutron star at the end of a long "fall". It is a singularity. Perhaps not all blackholes are capable of producing new universes. Gravity infinite. All calculations break down just before reaching it. This is could be where That point happens. Either a wormhole opens creating or...


I dont know, nor will any of us I guess in our lifetimes. However, when you remove the blindfolds and take a fresh look there are alot of mystery questions and hypothetical scenarios that become possible. If someone could point me in a clear direction that shuts this idea down, please do.

This quest for understanding is driving me up a frick'n wall. Ive Used ten years now of my free time looking up, reading and trying to "make my own way" given with what we know via science. I guess in the end, I just need to obtain an answer that satisfies my Questions enough that I can put them down, accept, and move on.

Anyways, This theory just seems too cool. Im glad there are others who feel the same. I do think it needs a closer look.. Not a forceful look, but needs to be discussed.

 

[fsci123]

My 2 cents:
The reason why white holes cant exist is because there is nothing to prevent them from blowing to bits upon creation. And any attempt to produce a near infinitesimally small point of energy radiating negative mass will probably result in the creation of a black hole. If you really think about it, a black hole is more like a repository of matter and energy kept stable by the inflow of more matter and energy. Once that inflow stops or becomes insufficient it starts to decay via hawking radiation. A black hole does go bang during the final phase of its life.


Question:
What is the black hole radiating? Is it gamma rays, visible light, leptons, hardrons, pions?
I cant seem to find a paper on that.

 

[Andy44]

According to math, there's no reason a magnetic monopole shouldn't exist. But I don't think anyone's ever found one.

Math isn't reality; it's a means of modeling reality. If you confuse the two you can find yourself being led down various garden paths, chasing mathematical Sasquatches through the woods of reality.

 

[Urwumpe]

Math isn't reality; it's a means of modeling reality. If you confuse the two you can find yourself being led down various garden paths, chasing mathematical Sasquatches through the woods of reality.

Thats the typical problem with modern theoretical physics. They are already discussing if the Sasquatches have brown or black fur, before even the existence of Sasquatches has been established, and don't care much that their brown and black models are getting identical to already experimentally proven bears.

 

[Michkov]

Question:
What is the black hole radiating? Is it gamma rays, visible light, leptons, hardrons, pions?
I cant seem to find a paper on that.

Very long wavelength EM radiation due to particle antiparticles being separated at the event horizon. If I remember correctly

 

[OrbitalConfusion]

Thats the typical problem with modern theoretical physics. They are already discussing if the Sasquatches have brown or black fur, before even the existence of Sasquatches has been established, and don't care much that their brown and black models are getting identical to already experimentally proven bears.

Both of you point to very valid and very real things. One is the math portion, Yeah I played with that monkey and ended up kinda loosing myself for a few months. I had to back off. With math, It seems to me atleast, as soon as you solve one question using it ten more take its place.


With making assumptions for things we have not seen is also something I hope "we" as a species do not let cloud our vision to eventually finding the true answers. It seems (in my opinion) that with some physicist that that cross a line forget that what they are discussing is just that, a THEORY. Then everything must be the way this theory says it should be.

Problem is we are human. Like the written word, religion and so fourth we can alter the meanings to fit any square we desire. I think alot of confusion within the search comes from this fundamental problem. Interpretation.

 

[Urwumpe]

Both of you point to very valid and very real things. One is the math portion, Yeah I played with that monkey and ended up kinda loosing myself for a few months. I had to back off. With math, It seems to me atleast, as soon as you solve one question using it ten more take its place.

Thats the everyday problem with mathematics - you always have three automatic questions:

- Is the model of the problem right?
- Are the tools of the proof right?
- Is there a better way to solve this?

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

- Is the model of the problem right?

I would argue that that is the most significant, but just my 2 cents.

 

[Urwumpe]

I would argue that that is the most significant, but just my 2 cents.

Sure, but also the question, that many people, including mathematicians ignore most often.