As white hole should act with positive radiation pressure, shouldn't black hole act with negative?

Synchrotron self-absorption (diagram from https://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_astro/lecturenotes/hea/radprocess/sld028.htm ) is not only required by CPT symmetry, but also e.g. for astronomical observations.
Due to lack of emitters usually it is much weaker than synchrotron emission, but if there would be lots of emitters nearby (sure with isotropic radiation), in theory it could exceed the synchrotron emitted power - making electron gain energy instead of losing ... like by applying CPT symmetry: also reversing the emission/absorption imbalance.

1762168338714.png
 
Last edited:
Jarek Duda said:
Thanks for summary of mainstream responses to inconvenient questions.

Such reversed emission-absorption imbalance is used e.g. in "tabletop particle accelerators", image from https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016/02/01/2-stage-laser-plasma-accelerator/ :

View attachment 7137
Click to expand...
Ah yes, “mainstream”. Now, at last, you run up the Jolly Roger as a crank.

Surely you can’t be surprised that you get “mainstream” answers to questions and hypotheses posted in the hard science area of the forum. What did you expect? Crank answers? -_O

Go and try your luck on a physics forum and let me know what reception you get. I would be genuinely interested, as this is not my speciality as a mere chemist. But frankly I would be surprised if it is very different from what you got on the .net forum.

In fact, leaving aside the particular issue of the domain of applicability of CPT symmetry, there is an interesting general point here about how it is that physical laws that are each in principle reversible lead to the irreversibility described by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
 
Last edited:
Jarek Duda said:
Wouldn't white hole emit "from below event horizon" heating around?
Click to expand...
Probably, although since they are an entirely theoretical concept, such speculations mean little.

If so, why black hole couldn't symmetrically cool from below horizon - with photons falling into black hole as allowed?
Click to expand...

Because - in fact - they don't. In fact, one particle remaining below the event horizon is how Hawking radiation happens.

This is basic science. Let's say you have a theory that black objects stay cooler in the sun because physics has a term called "black body radiator" so they must radiate away all their heat. Great, you have a theory. Now you test it. You put a series of black, white, colored, gray etc objects in the sun. And the black objects ALWAYS get hotter.

That means the theory is disproved. You cannot go back and say "but it's a really cool theory supported by this term I heard in physics!" It doesn't matter. You're wrong.
 
exchemist said:
Ah yes, “mainstream”
Click to expand...
I ask concrete questions, like "why circulating charge loses energy, but in CPT view gains energy instead?" ... and notice there were not even attempts to answer it, only some hand weaving ...

billvon said:
Probably, although since they are an entirely theoretical concept, such speculations mean little.
Click to expand...
Black holes also were only "entirely theoretical concepts" for decades before - what was crucial for their later observation.
If we believe e.g. in theories like general relativity, we need to also treat seriously their consequences - both to be able to search for them in some future, but also for falsifiability crucial for serious theories.

If in theory white holes are possible, and they would act "from below horizon" with positive radiation pressure/heating, CPT symmetry says that black holes should symmetrically act with negative radiation pressure/cooling.

Sure it should be tested, maybe showing violation of CPT symmetry, I have mentioned a few directions and plan to pursue them:

- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.10615 : "SMBHs are expected to be surrounded by progressively hotter gas the closer one approaches to the black hole (...) Surprisingly, our closest SMBH, Sagittarius A* (Sgr A∗) residing in the center of the Milky Way galaxy, seems to have no currently active jet or wind"
- faster growth as pulling not only gravitationally, but also EM with negative radiation pressure, e.g. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/chandra/nasas-chandra-finds-black-hole-with-tremendous-growth/
- nearly non-observation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-mass_black_hole - such cooling could help with,

- and the best one: turns out in all these EHT black hole simulations they assume temperature of electrons there is much lower than of ions: their ratio T_i/T_e = R goes up to 160 - white hole heating/black hole cooling would be especially for electrons, exactly as they see, also regarding position:
E.g. from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.08848 : "midplane is brightest at Rhigh ≈ 10. The dominant emission region becomes slightly more diffuse and off-midplane for Rhigh = 40. Near Rhigh = 160, the emitting region shifts significantly toward higher latitudes and toward the jet-disk boundary".
 
Jarek Duda said:
I ask concrete questions, like "why circulating charge loses energy, but in CPT view gains energy instead?" ... and notice there were not even attempts to answer it, only some hand weaving ...


...................[snip]..........................
Click to expand...
On the contrary, that question has been clearly answered, multiple times, with no hand waving, on two different science forums.

You just don't like the answer because, like so many cranks, you have built a house of cards on a misunderstanding of physics (in this case the domain of applicability of CPT symmetry) and so you cannot afford, psychologically, to admit you are wrong as it would make your house of cards collapse.

Take your idea to a specialist physics forum, as I suggested. And then come back here and explain what reaction you got. As I say, I will be really quite interested in what they tell you.
 
If it was answered, you would include half a sentence about such answer ... instead, after a cartoon, you again produce long statement with zero content, only showing my point.
 
Last edited:
Jarek Duda said:
Black holes also were only "entirely theoretical concepts" for decades before - what was crucial for their later observation
Click to expand...
No. Black holes were theorised in the 18th century using Newtonian physics and again with Einstein's GR using known phenomena, stars.
Indirect evidence followed then GW and finally imaging in 2019.

There is NO physical system from which a white hole can emerge.

They are not physical entities in physics, I told you this on the other thread.
 
With Newton you can have very dense objects, but for singularity and horizon stopping light you need general relativity ... and there is still skepticism regarding their exact status - required decades of fight to lead to current "confirmed" status ...

... and GR also requires possibility of its symmetric twin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
From one side, fight for them has already started - there are dozens of papers, including claiming experiential confirmation: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=white+hole
This is just the beginning - requiring to be open to have a chance to observe them in some future, like with black holes decades ago ... or maybe to give up such search in next few decades, but now it is definitely too early for that.
Formation mechanism could be e.g. as primordial white hole from initial fluctuations, or before our Big Crunch being time reversed Big Bang (e.g. https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-predict-when-the-universe-will-end-in-a-reverse-big-bang ) ... and other ways could come.

From the other side, personally I can sum infinite series without having infinite number of objects ... perform symmetry considerations without realizations of all the possibilities, what is at heart of modern physics ... you don't need to posses black/white hole to analyze their behavior - e.g. as consequences of GR+SM believed to describe nearly all physics and CPT symmetric.
 
Jarek Duda said:
... and GR also requires possibility of its symmetric twin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
Click to expand...
From your link:

"White holes appear in the theory of eternal black holes. In addition to a black hole region in the future, such a solution of the Einstein field equations has a white hole region in its past. This region does not exist for black holes that have formed through gravitational collapse, however, nor are there any observed physical processes through which a white hole could be formed."
 
Not having mainstream formation mechanism does not forbid theoretical consideration of their properties assuming known physics - what always was crucial for future observations.
For non-mainstream, e.g. mentioned primordial white hole from initial fluctuations, or before our Big Crunch being time reversed Big Bang ... sure they seem highly unlikely, but it is definitely too early to be certain of their non-existance.

1762286906567.jpeg
 
Thank you for reminding us that sometimes in science, things are theorized before they are confirmed.
And just as often, they are not.

1762289064687.png
 
You think General Relativity will be debunked?
Brave, maybe you are right, especially as it is incompatible with QFT ... but again, instead of ignorance, it also requires good understanding of theoretical consequences, before even observing them ... like black holes and their symmetric twins: white holes.

And ether was just renamed - now at heart of physics as "field", e.g. electromagnetic - also filling everything, just being Lorentz invariant.
 
Last edited:
Jarek Duda said:
Black holes also were only "entirely theoretical concepts" for decades before - what was crucial for their later observation.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Now they're not. Which is why we know that they don't cool space around them.

CPT symmetry says . . .
Click to expand...

Look, I know you want to believe this so badly. It would mean you're smart, you came up with a great theory and it was valid, and you would be the envy of your peers. That would be so great!

But again, it's like you are claiming that black things stay cooler when they are in the sun than white things. Sure, you can say that all you want. You can close your eyes and wish as hard as you can. You can post equations on blackbody radiation. Look here!

Bv(T) = 2hv^3/c^2 x 1/(e^(hv/kT)-1)

See that equation? You can look it up! It's real! And it means that black things must radiate away all their heat
 
Dave, so why discussing theoretical consequences of General Relativity you have used "debunked" graphics?

billivon, CPT symmetry is not my idea, but modern physics relies on it.
And while (theoretically possible but difficult to form) white hole would indeed emit (probably with black hole radiation) heating matter around ... applying CPT symmetry it would be black hole actively cooling matter around.
If experiments will show it doesn't happen, it would mean violation of CPT symmetry - requiring to rebuild the modern physics ... e.g. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.231602 :

⁢⁢CPT Violation Implies Violation of Lorentz Invariance​

 
Last edited:
Jarek Duda said:
while (theoretically possible but difficult to form) white hole would indeed emit (probably with black hole radiation
Click to expand...
No. They are not, just "difficult to form" they are not considered to be a physical possibility in our universe, knowing the underlying fundamental principles of our universe.
There are other mathematical possibilities you can get from GR like time travel but this does not mean these are physical possibilities in our universe.
 
CPT symmetry says that equations governing physics are the same if applying this symmetry - and in its perspective our black holes are white holes ... so they already exist, just need different perspective to see them.
 
Jarek Duda said:
CPT symmetry says that equations governing physics are the same if applying this symmetry - and in its perspective our black holes are white holes ... so they already exist, just need different perspective to see them.
Click to expand...
They are not considered real by the mainstream, they are not even considered a possibility in our universe. Zero observational evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top