Black Hole, White Hole

What if a whole universe were to collapse - just like a star does - and forms a huge black hole. The black hole would be connected to a white hole (spits matter out). It could explain where the universe came from and whyit expands, but leaves open the question of how the previous universe formed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi guys

The big bang was/is physically distinct from a white hole. A white hole is a time-reversed black hole, and it requires a patch of space-time to sit in. On the other hand the big bang is not a concentration of mass and energy in space-time, it is a concentration of space-time as well. Thus the big bang happened everywhere at once.

Similarly a "big crunch" scenario is quite different from black holes as described by relativity. In a big crunch or collapsing universe scenario, the space-time manifold does the collapsing. In a stellar collapse which results in a black hole, the mass of the star collapses against the manifold background. In a big crunch there is no external space-time to support an event horizon, and with a (superdense) but uniform density there is no gravitational curvature.

Hope this helps!
Chris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I still say the Big bang reminds me of something similar to a brakedisc.

When the brakedisc and what it stops are stationary, this would represent the universe at the time before the big bang. (the whole breakdisc surface being clamped to the wheels surface is the universe. The two surfaces equal the whole.)

Some change occurs that makes the whole universe shift less than a degree from the centre (which is like a wheel moving against that breakdisc because it's locked causes a great amount of friction across the whole of its surface.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

<<...What if,...It could...>>

Not much to go on.

<<...All actions are the result of the first action...>>

You're operating on the presumption that an origin point must exist, yet the concept of infinity -- boundless in all possible directions -- exists.

How can we presume to know and define infinity and still operate as though there is no such thing (no need for fir5st action)?

<<...The zero represents the one................bingo!..>>

Nothing is what I want. A true Zen saying.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Don't you think "the whole universe" has way to much mass to be a black hole. i mean don't they have a limit?. If we are expanding how could we get to a hole.

", but leaves open the question of how the previous universe formed."
yes it does. but so does the big bang theory so...

I don't understand the spiro concept. does the space time curve it self that much?. Do we change from end to begining at one or go back from end to beginig like a ping pomng bal in the process. or... could you explain it to me.

concepts don't exits. I can define zero but it isn't there, it doesn't exists. It's and idea till we find the real one, or the limit, or the begining.


ps.i'm not good in english, sorry for the confusing thoughts.

 

faio,

Don't worry about your English. That you are trying is more important than worrying if we understand.

<<...Don't you think "the whole universe" has way to(o) much mass to be a black hole...>>

That is why many people think the Universe began as an exploded black hole: too much mass -- too much energy to remain something small.

<<...if we are expanding how could we get to a hole...>>

We could get to a hole if there is enough matter in the Universe so that the gravity from all the matter, added together, can slow some matter speeding away from other matter until all matter stops moving away and then begins moving back together.

Recent studies cnclude that there is not enough matter to cause the Universe to return to the form a single object of infinite mass and zero volume.

<<...but leaves open the question of how the previous universe formed...>>

There is no information that can prove the existence of a previous universe.

 

I found this page searching for "black hole" and "white hole"...

In the last post states "There is no information that can prove the existence of a previous universe."

Is there information that <i>dis</i>proves the existance of a previous universe?

 

Who posted that "Chris Avatar" post?

That was mine, ripped off from another forum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No. Our current theory which describes the bulk of the universe's evolution (general relativity) suggests there is a causal discontinuity at the beginning of the universe. This means that if there was a previous (parent) universe which spawned ours, we'd not be able to retrieve information from it.

The problem is that this theory (GR) is a strictly classical theory, and doesn't describe the near neighbourhood (say, from around the first 10^-43 seconds) of the beginning accurately. So there may be a way to thread the discontinuity, or it may not actually exist. Can't tell yet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

whats a white hole?

 

The concept of white holes is interesting, however:

If a black hole is connected to a white hole that spits out mass, then why don't we observe black hole shrink at a fast rate, if all this mass is flushed down the intergalactic toilet?

 

black 'hole' is really a sphere..a coldness of nothing

..where light stops at the edges.. you watch..einsteins theory of light as a constant..is about to get debunked by alot of new physicists challenging the theory. Faster than light stuff... it's all very logical and promising.

 

Vortex

In classical relativity, the Bekenstein formulation of black hole entropy links the surface area of a black hole with the hole's entropy. You may have heard the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which says that in closed systems entropy never decreases. The implication for black holes is that in any black hole process* the total horizon area can't decrease.

Now the horizon area is related directly to the hole's mass, so we might infer that black holes can't lose mass-energy. If the hole is not rotating (called a Schwarzschild hole) and we disregard quantum processes then we would be right. So... even if a black hole is connected to a white hole in another space-time by some stable and traversible bridge, and the black hole is losing matter across the bridge, even then the hole will not shrink.

The reason for this is that the horizon can't "know" what's happening at the singularity. There are no space-time paths which travel back from the centre to the horizon, so any change of mass which magically takes place at the centre won't affect the horizon. And those of us outside the horizon would never know the black hole was losing mass.


Hope this helps!
The Chicken


*excluding quantum processes

 

Hi Asguard

A white hole is the time reversal of a black hole. Take the bulk properties of a black hole, reverse the time coordinate, and you get a white hole's properties:

* The white hole has a one way membrane (horizon) which you can only pass <I>out</I> of, never in to
* The white hole has a central singularity which is always in an observer's <I>past</I> light cone
* The white hole has reverse Bekenstein entropy - its horizon always decreases

 

black holes' shapes

I'm quite confused about the physical appearance of black holes.....
Since a black hole consists of merely a singularity, it is possible that it is just in the form of a dot. But according to one unpopular source, since a black hole is born from a 'super-duperly' massive star (which in common sense made rotation), it is also possible that it takes the form of a disc...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

black hole = white hole ?

According to Einstein's theory on space-time, a black hole, which can be described as a 'possibly bottomless' pit, will pull everything towards itself. But there's also another theory (I don't know who made it) that a black hole is connected to another black hole in another 'dimension', thus forming a 'tunnel'....
I think that everything passing a tunnel must have come from one end and will appear at another end, but in this case, both ends are black holes, so does it make sense that black holes can spit matter/energy just like how white holes theoritically do?

Errr, if you find the content of my comments confusing, I apologize.... I am seldom involved in discussion...

 

there is a white hole? could someone point out the basic diff's between a black hole and a white hole?

 

READ

All of your questions and more are answered in Kip Thorne's book "Black Holes and Time Warps".

I strongly recommend that you read it. Its a 450 page book on exactly the topic of this thread. I have transcribed a few concepts from the book to the forums here, but again, there is another thread dedicated to it.

Its just a suggestion. I think you all would enjoy it very much. Good writer, great history of black hole discovery and excellent facts.

But anyway, I like to think of a black hole as this. Imagine the surface a pool. Just the surface now! Imagine that the surface is space-time as we know it. Ok, its completely still. Now, drop a rock from 3 inches above the water. And at the same time unplug a drain (very shallow pool). Now there are ripples traveling in all directions, and a small vortex forming. The ripples are gravitational waves from the forming of the "black hole" (vortex) that are given off. These are basically the signature of the black hole... the John Hancock, if you will. We use these to detect and learn various things about the black hole.

Remember that we are looking at this "pool" from straight above. So now take a round black circle of construction paper and hold it above the vortex and still look straight down. Thats basically what a black hole is. The singularity is at the center of the black hole. Now place some pepper on the surface of the water and let it swirl into the vortex. The vortex (black hole) is not acting directly on the matter. More or less, its swirling space (water surface) around it and that matter follows space. Just like light. Gravity does not directly effect light, it affects the space light travels on so if it bends space, then it bends light.

Now looking down all you see is pepper flowing into a black circle. And thats it. Nothing comes out. Only in. HOWEVER, black holes do radiate, and eventually evaporate. And you ask how? I thought nothing can escape a black holes grasp? Well, Im here to say that a black hole will radiate anything it can. And its in the form of gravitational waves. It losses alot of energy that way. Such as two coelesing black holes. When the combine, emense amounts of gravitational waves are given off.


Kinda of dicy, choppy and a little unfulfilling. So I suggest you read that book! All the stuff above is just off the top of my head. It really explains alot.

And as far as the "black hole traveling to another universe theory", that was an interesting idea untill proven impossible.


Later,
Tristan

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We have many detectable examples of what we believe a black hole to be. No where do we have a detectable example of what we would believe a white hole to be.

On speculation, this would not only reverse time in the locality but would spew out matter like a lighthouse. This should increase the mass of the galaxy. On the scale of the universe it could feasabily increase the omega factor to make the universe a big crunch ending. So far we don't have anything to support that either.

 

Can you prove you won't ever find evidence for something? I suppose it depends on what you consider proof, but by the currrent standards of mathematics, you cannot prove something will never happen.