Black holes, White Holes and Baby Universes:

OK, my first post here, so treat me gently!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

WH's although unlikely to exist, along with wormholes have been the subject of much speculation in mainstream science.

Let's speculate that the Big Bang is actually the outpourings of a WH, emerging via a wormhole and Einstein Rosen Bridge from a BH in another Universe.
Now on the old forum I once participated in, a GR expert in whom I had plenty of respect for, said that this was impossible and from memory raised the second law of thermodynamics to support that view.

Let's also speculate that BHs in our space/time do exactly the same thing and via the ERB and wormhole, create an outpouring WH into another baby Universe.
We all know that GR and all our laws of physics do break down at the quantum level of the BB and BHs and we call these regions Singularities.


My question assuming the possibility of the above scenario is as follows....
If BHs in our Universe do create baby Universes [as described] what happens to that BH once the mass that made it a BH, passes into the baby Universe?
I have two scenarios.....
[1] Once the BH has lost that mass, the BH will cease to exist...finito!
[2] Or will the BH continue to hold its shape even with the mass gone, due to the fact that all communication within the event horizon, is always one way towards the Singularity, so the EH of the BH can never know that the mass is gone. This along with the property on non-linearity of gravity, assures that the BH will hold its shape and be an Eternal BH...that is a massless BH held together by gravitational non-linearity.
see.......
Eric Weisstein's
Science world Wolfram under Eternal Black Hole

where it says....
Eternal Black Hole:
A massless black hole which is a stable topological structure held together by the nonlinearity of its gravitational field.


What are your views on this scenario?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmmmm, no one having a shot at this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The cause of the new universe is state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If, and I repeat, if, we let stand your speculation - and said Black Hole/White Hole led to creation of a "baby Universe", through whatever means. That "baby Universe" would seemingly exist in another "reality" or another "plane of existence", only accessible via a theoretical "wormhole and Einstein Rosen Bridge". Does this follow your speculation/assumption?
If so, then to me, by trying to wrap my head around your "idea", I would have to say that if the Black Hole/White Hole that birthed the "baby Universe" was to cease to exist or "evaporated" then that "baby Universe" would probably no longer be accessible through ANY "wormhole" and/or "Einstein Rosen Bridge" from ANY other "universe" or "reality" or "plane of existence", possibly.
You mentioned a possible impossibility raised by the second law of thermodynamics - would this possible impossibility be a factor if this "baby Universe" was only "birthed" by the cessation of existence or evaporation of the "parenting" Black Hole/White Hole?
Maybe there is a kind of caterpillar/butterfly thing going on - like the death of one/birth of another.
I cannot possibly be sure though, it is, after all, your speculation/scenario and I am the dumbest man on earth, so.........

p.s. Maybe Mr. Fork will drop back by with more insightful enlightenment.

 

Actually the main query I have from my speculation, is the definition of an Eternal BH as follows.....

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EternalBlackHole.html
where it says........
A massless black hole which is a stable topological structure held together by the nonlinearity of its gravitational field."

I actually learnt that definition through a reputable GR expert, but now we seem to have another definition which states it is a BH which always was and always will be.
Is either or both logically theoretically possible?
If we could remove the mass from a BH [by any speculative means] would the property of non-linearity of gravity, plus the fact that once inside the BH, no communication can ever head away from where the singularity/mass is, mean that the BH could still hold its shape?

 

Sorry. Not sure about "always was/always will be"
Hope you find your answers!

 

I havn't as yet.........
Let me ask a couple of questions stemming from my original speculative assumption.

[1] Is it accepted in mainstream cosmology that the BB cannot possibly be a WH?

[2] Is it accepted in mainstream cosmology, that BHs cannot possibly lead to or create other Universes?
What would happen if we passed directly through the middle of a ring Singularity for instance?

[3] Can a BH maintain its shape as per the definition http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EternalBlackHole.html due to the property of non-linearity of gravity and the one way communication that exists inside a BH due to the critical curvature of space/time.
Or would the BH collapse in our Universe?

 

paddoboy, let me start off by stating that I am no expert in Cosmology or Quantum Mechanics. I will however attempt to answer the best I can.

1. - Mainstream cosmology seems to have accepted the BB (though I have not!) - As far as I know the WH part has not even been given it's honest "day in court", let alone be accepted. Also it is not commonly accepted that the BB started from anything other than "nothing" - so would not require any "other" or "previous" state of "existence".

2. - I do not believe either the possibility or impossibility is broadly accepted. Although I have heard of ideas/views/theories along both of those lines being posited.
I am not sure what you mean by "we", but I would prefer not to pass through the middle of a "Ring Singularity", seems to me, to be akin to crossing "the Event Horizon" of a BH - as far as known reality/existence you can only do it once, and there is no "re do" or "take back" or "hey, wait, I've changed my mind" - so I decline that journey.

3. - No answer. Again, I choose to leave that for the "always/never" - "was/will be" folks. I lean more toward "ever/always" - "was/will be" type.

I realize I have not helped much, if at all.
Again, I hope you find you answers.

 

Mainstream cosmology has accepted the Lambda-CDM model because of both its agreement with experiment and its predictive power.

No, it isn't. The standard model of cosmology doesn't speculate on physics before or at the moment of the big bang. It is a model describing the expansion of the universe from a hot, dense initial state using general relativity as its mathematical basis, along with observational data taken from experiments such as COBE, WMAP, etc.

 

I think I would be correct in saying that the "nothing" that is often expressed as to what the BB/space/time arose from, would be more correctly termed "nothing that we can understand at this time"...Would you agree MarkM125?

 

I wouldn't go that far - descriptions of quantum gravity (on which there is not yet a consensus) do offer cosmologies describing physics before the big bang. For example, Loop Quantum Cosmology describes a "bounce" scenario, in which a contracting universe reaches a certain point where it begins to expand again, due to the nature of gravity over very short distances in LQG. However, these are not part of the current Standard Model of Cosmology (Lambda-CDM), which doesn't speculate on those issues. So, it isn't accurate to claim that "the big bang theory says that everything came from nothing", as you'll often hear, as it doesn't comment on the issue. What actually happened is described, as mentioned, by candidate theories of quantum gravity that have yet to be accepted.

 

The point I'm trying to make is our model of the Universe and its evolution, is curtailed somewhat by the paramaters of the BB at one end, and BHs at the other...
I'll rephrase the meaning of the "nothing" that the BB arose from.......being beyond the capacity and paramaters of our current models. [some of which we may or may not completely understand]

 

No one other then "the dumbest man on earth" has commented on the definition or theoretical possibility, of the definition of an Eternal BH as given by.......

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EternalBlackHole.html
which says....

A massless black hole which is a stable topological structure held together by the nonlinearity of its gravitational field.


Which by my way of thinking, is supported by the fact that no signal or communication can move towards the EH once inside that parameter. So if the fundamental remnants that have gone to make up the BH, did pass into another Universe, would the BH in our Universe maintain its shape?

 

It's a theoretical possibility based on evaluating the spacetime using GR. Esoteric. Untestable [I think, LOL]. Fun.

Eternal black holes in Anti-de-Sitter Juan Maldecena
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0106112.pdf

 

I'm only a layman at this stuff, but your quite Interesting link appears to be describing an Eternal BH as one which does not evaporate via Hawking radiation.
Is that correct?

 

I didn't read it all the way thru but Professor Maldecena evaluated spacetime inside the Schwarzschild black hole using the adS Schwarzschild metric and string theory. Two good discussions on this metric:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter–Schwarzschild_metric. I think the answer to your question is in the section entitled 'horizon properties'. The next section is about extending the manifold in a useful way for doing science.

Sean Carroll
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2008-6&page=articlese9.html. The beginning paragraph Professor Carroll discusses the 'Motivation' for using the adS/CFT spacetimes.

Something like that. LOL.

 

Yes.

 

Wish Poster elistxs08, and elistxs08's Post was on the other side of any Event Horizon!?!?!

 

Could you elaborate on that answer for a poor layman?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Because, Langan argues, UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it, and this means that what can exist, does exist. However, the requirements for existence are, asserts Langan, more stringent than is normally supposed. Because UBT is unstructured, the only possibilities which can actualize from it are those with sufficient internal structure to create and configure themselves. So in the CTMU, reality, rather than being uncaused or externally caused, is self-caused, and constrained by the structure it needs to create and configure itself, that of SCSPL.

http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe