Could white holes actually exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 13, 2023
1
0
10
Visit site
"stars don't miraculously appear out of gigantic cosmic explosions" that being said then please explain the big bang theory a little better for me exactly how did everything else come to be from a single gigantic cosmic explosion except stars? Also could a black hole possibly tare a hole in the fabric of the universe and be an entrance to another universe, enter a black hole come out of a white hole? Everything seems to be about balance matter and dark matter, gravity and antigravity and so forth. So why not a black hole being a one way ticket to the universe's counter part exit the white hole on the other side to....... somewhere?
 
Aug 14, 2023
1
0
10
Visit site
Interesting to note that we often make pianos from leftover trees...

But are we saying that order on Earth is offset by choas in the Sun? If so, why isn't order in a White hole just "offset" by a Black hole, or something else?
 
This article seems to be based on some logical inconsistencies.

For example, if you think about "running time backwards" to make a black how a white hole, then, to be consistent, you need to run the other physical laws in reverse, too, including entropy. And, when we try to think about doing that, we need to rethink what we call "order" and "natural laws".
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
Aug 14, 2023
4
0
10
Visit site
"stars don't miraculously appear out of gigantic cosmic explosions" that being said then please explain the big bang theory a little better for me exactly how did everything else come to be from a single gigantic cosmic explosion except stars? Also could a black hole possibly tare a hole in the fabric of the universe and be an entrance to another universe, enter a black hole come out of a white hole? Everything seems to be about balance matter and dark matter, gravity and antigravity and so forth. So why not a black hole being a one way ticket to the universe's counter part exit the white hole on the other side to....... somewhere?
Good question. As whole or complete stars wouldn't appear out of white holes, wouldn't white holes spew out sub-atomic particles to be clumped by gravity to become hydrogen and then stars over time, as black holes do the opposite and dismantle matter to sub-atomic particles over time before being absorbed into a singularity?

Haven't theorists predicted that our entire universe will eventually become one super black hole due to entropy? Where would it go, let alone be? So I like your implication that singularities might at some point spew their "energy" into a different dimension to eventually become a universe filled with stars, i.e., another "big bang". Of course, wouldn't it first take our universe becoming that one super singularity?
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2021
45
6
4,535
Visit site
Firstly, - taking the formation of a black hole and run it in reverse, would create an object streaming radiation and particles. Eventually, it would explode, leaving behind a massive star. This is a white hole, - No it's not a white hole, but a common star or neutron star. You're confusing the two to postulate something that does not exist.
They would still have singularities at their centers, - As stars do, there core, and event horizons at their borders, - The stars corona. They would still be massive, gravitating objects, -Just like the sun is today. But any material that entered a white hole would immediately get ejected at a speed greater than that of light, causing the white glow to shine ferociously, -Just like a neutron star? And faster than the speed of light would be against the laws of General Relativity.
Say you throw a piano into a wood chipper. Out comes a bunch of pulverized debris. Disorder in the system has increased, and the second law of thermodynamics has been satisfied. But if you throw a bunch of random pieces into that same wood chipper, you won't get a fully formed piano out of it, because that would cause disorder to decrease. - What does this have to do with creating a white hole? You can't compare something so simple, as throwing wood into a chipper to something that is highly complex, too many variables are left out. Highly ordered systems, like life, can arise on Earth — but they come at the cost of increased entropy within the sun. So again how does life on Earth come at increased entropy within the sun? Increased entropy on the sun would possibly cause life to not exist. Please stop comparing apples to oranges!
Stars don't miraculously appear out of gigantic cosmic explosions. - They don't?!
The only way to form a white hole would be to have some exotic process operating in the early universe that baked the existence of a white hole into the fabric of space-time itself. That way, the white hole formation process would bypass the trouble with decreasing the entropy — the white hole would simply be there, existing, since the beginning of time. - Now you're getting somewhere!
 
I think the whole premise of making a white hole by "running time backwards" in the current universe that we can observe is very highly flawed in its logic, and is not the only way that something like a white hole might occur in General Relativity.

First, the Big Bang Theory, if it is correct, says that our universe came out of what could be described as a white hole. The energy density and any fundamental particles are postulated to have come from a "singularity" or something very indistinguishable from one. That is the "coming out" from a white hole of what we think ends up as the center of a black hole. And, we know "the rest of the story" about how that material evolved to become our universe. That story involves the creation of the 3 spatial dimensions and the time dimension from what is impossible to distinguish from a point. And, it involves creation of "space" at speeds faster than the speed of light, called "inflation". So, yes, there has been a "white hole" in our universe, at least according to "the leading theory" of how our universe was created.

How that "white hole" is related to the black holes that we see today in our universe is open to even more speculation than the BBT involves. Maybe each black hole we see creates new space inside it in dimensions that we cannot detect? Or, is space so malleable and "relativistic" that whole universes can be created at the centers of black holes in the same 3 dimensions that we can detect, in such a manner that observers inside them perceive them as extremely large, while observers outside them perceive them as infinitesimal?

These type of concepts are definitely mind-bending - because we really are not good at understanding "space-bending" or "time warping", much less space inflation or compression and time reversals.

But, they are not any more "impossible" than the "running time backwards" concept that is used as the basis for this article. So, they would all need to be disproved in order to prove that white holes cannot exist.
 
Aug 14, 2023
2
0
10
Visit site
This article seems to be based on some logical inconsistencies.

For example, if you think about "running time backwards" to make a black how a white hole, then, to be consistent, you need to run the other physical laws in reverse, too, including entropy. And, when we try to think about doing that, we need to rethink what we call "order" and "natural laws".
I don't think you can run time backwards. That would create a paradox and paradox's don't seem to actually exist in nature. I don't even think time exist. We may use time as a reference, but there is no universal constant of time, and there is really no reason the universe at large requires time. The only thing the universe requires is decay, which is handled by entropy, and it happens to any object brought into the universe from the moment it arrives. This works well with Relativity because it helps to explain why gravity can cause an object to decay slower in a gravitational well of immense gravity. And everything decays, even us. So I think any consideration of time in any of this is just a wrong answer unless you are just trying to figure out how fast something is happening or how fast it is going, which are references. After all, time is always referenced to how we measure it here on Earth.
 
Aug 14, 2023
4
0
10
Visit site
I don't think you can run time backwards. That would create a paradox and paradox's don't seem to actually exist in nature. I don't even think time exist. We may use time as a reference, but there is no universal constant of time, and there is really no reason the universe at large requires time. The only thing the universe requires is decay, which is handled by entropy, and it happens to any object brought into the universe from the moment it arrives. This works well with Relativity because it helps to explain why gravity can cause an object to decay slower in a gravitational well of immense gravity. And everything decays, even us. So I think any consideration of time in any of this is just a wrong answer unless you are just trying to figure out how fast something is happening or how fast it is going, which are references. After all, time is always referenced to how we measure it here on Earth.
But what if TIME is a dimension just a fundamental as other dimensions are, with its own fundamental attributes?
 
Time is a fundamental dimension with attrubutes:
- It only goes in the forward direction.
- Any two observers at different locations will be at different times.
- Any two observers moving relative to each other will each see the other's clock tick slower than theirs.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2023
4
0
10
Visit site
Time is a fundamental dimension with attrubutes:
- It only goes in the forward direction.
- Any two observers at different locations will be at different times.
- Any two observers moving relative to each other will each see the other's clock tick slower than theirs.
As far as this novice naviguesser who depended on timing it's all three. However...
 
I hate to do this to you Bill ("Any two observers moving relative to each other will each see the other's clock tick slower than theirs"):

Two observers are rushing toward each other from ten light minutes apart. What can each tell of the other's time on the clock coming from light minutes apart and closing the gap between them fast? Would the clocks show them that they are going away from each other in space and time, speeding away from each other, as they speed toward each other? That the gap between them is increasing in space and time as the gap between them is closing fast in space and time?
 
Aug 14, 2023
2
0
10
Visit site
But what if TIME is a dimension just a fundamental as other dimensions are, with its own fundamental attributes?
Chances are, that's wrong too. M-theory is still just a theory. Theories are still waiting to be disproved by science. You first have to prove that time actually exist before you worry about a dimension of time.
 
If Bill had prefaced his statements with something like "As far as we can tell . . ." I would agree with him.

But, what we have is just a theory that physical processes work in both directions of time passage, and observations that show that what we call disorder always increases in what we can observe from here on Earth, now in the history of our observable universe.

However, we are having a very hard time explaining all of the observations we are currently making in our universe, and mostly have a consensus around a "Big Bang Theory" that relies on undetected and not understood matter and energy that is about 20 times more than what we can detect and understand. We theorize that space expands, and at rates that are astoundingly high compared to the speed of light, and in just the right ways to "explain" the current observations, without any underlying reason that this process was physically caused to behave in exactly that manner.

So, I support the idea that we must continue to think broadly about how things might actually behave very differently than our current theories image they behave. I think it is going to be very important for us to always remember to state what we know from observations to be based on observations, and to state differently what we assume about the applicability of those pieces of knowledge to other places at other times, far from our actual experiences.

All too frequently, I see people make statements on the Internet as if they are absolute facts, when the reality is that they are assumptions of universal applicability of "rules" that are based only on observations of very small bits of space and time. If we do away with the assumptions that everything we know about physics is always applicable everywhere in space and time, it makes too many possibilities for scientists to analyze, and seemingly dooms us to never being able to settle on "the truth" about how things really work - so most scientists are unwilling to consider that until there is irrefutable evidence that something must be different from their current theories. However, clinging to the current theories despite obvious inconsistencies, and filling those theories with "mathematical fitting parameters" that do not have observational verifications and do not even conform to other theories, can lead us down logical rabbit holes that hinder our ability to figure out how things really do work in nature.

Just as one example of a logical problem, the BBT needs to explain how the universe was able to have cause and effect spread uniformly across it early in its theorized evolution (the horizon problem), and so it is assumed that when it was "very small", light could travel completely across it very quickly, after which it "inflated" in size to where, today, light cannot ever completely cross it, and takes billions of years to get across significant fractions of its current size. This "inflation" theory is also necessary to explain how such a dense ball of matter and energy defies the General Relativity Theory prediction that it should immediately collapse into a single point due to gravitational force. But, if we assume that the speed of light as measure in todays units of distance and time is applicable to our universe when it was as small as an atom in today's units of space, that violates our assumption that all observers will always measure the speed of light to be the same value in their own space and time. If that were true, then the "observers" in the infant universe would be measuring the speed of light there in very much smaller distance units, and so the horizon problem could not be solved in the manner the BBT theorizes. Which leads me to suspect that either the speed of light must have been different in terms of local time and distance measurements in the infant universe, or some other essential part of the theory about time or distance measurements, or even the backward extrapolation of the Hubble Expansion of the current universe all of the way to a single point, must not be correctly imagined by our current theories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
Unclear Engineer,
You say "space expands" which has to be wrong physics and terminology since "space" is unobserved and unobservable. The only observable is time. Time can expand away in tree like rings expanding away from every center like the Milky Way, but there is no possible way to tell if space concomitantly expands away the same way. Light deals in light-time histories and histories build and pyramid toward us at the summits, the leading edges, of time, not space which has no leading edges. There is a hell of a lot of space (broad and in depth) out there -- all of it in fact -- we don't, won't, and can't, observe.

There is a heck of a lot of changes out there that have gone on, that are going on, in expansion of change, again expansion of time, an unobserved darkness of time, away from us as well. Intergalactic spacetime is probably loaded down with matters and energies that are more or less primordially distant to us for being farther from us than the farthest observable "at a distance" in the observable universe.

I know it is difficult to picture something you would imagine as being very close being actually farther away than something you picture to be far distant. That is the way it can and does work though in the universe, exampled especially regarding quantum mechanics, for just one ever increasing distance from us, ever increasingly nonlocal, yet at once virtually closed up to us, even to within us, in the universe.
 
Aug 14, 2023
4
0
10
Visit site
I hate to do this to you Bill ("Any two observers moving relative to each other will each see the other's clock tick slower than theirs"):

Two observers are rushing toward each other from ten light minutes apart. What can each tell of the other's time on the clock coming from light minutes apart and closing the gap between them fast? Would the clocks show them that they are going away from each other in space and time, speeding away from each other, as they speed toward each other? That the gap between them is increasing in space and time as the gap between them is closing fast in space and time?
Chances are, that's wrong too. M-theory is still just a theory. Theories are still waiting to be disproved by science. You first have to prove that time actually exist before you worry about a dimension of time.
Tarzan, you could well be right. I agree that M-theory is not fact, it being just that, a theory. However, I believe you have an incorrect concept of theories. You would've been more accurate had you claimed that theories are just waiting to be PROVEN or disproven by science. It must go both ways.

Otherwise, from your perspective, how can you prove that we all even exist or are just the figment of some superior being's imagination? Who's to say that science itself is nothing but a theory waiting to be disproven? After all, science makes certain assumptions you and I take for granted but could in some realms. be false.
 
Aug 20, 2023
15
0
10
Visit site
Good question. As whole or complete stars wouldn't appear out of white holes, wouldn't white holes spew out sub-atomic particles to be clumped by gravity to become hydrogen and then stars over time, as black holes do the opposite and dismantle matter to sub-atomic particles over time before being absorbed into a singularity?

Haven't theorists predicted that our entire universe will eventually become one super black hole due to entropy? Where would it go, let alone be? So I like your implication that singularities might at some point spew their "energy" into a different dimension to eventually become a universe filled with stars, i.e., another "big bang". Of course, wouldn't it first take our universe becoming that one super singularity?
A WHITEHOLE is a SUN
And a BLACKHOLE is NOT A HOLE

Visual onomatopoeia's, don't make it so.





Q. If an object is devoid of color, what color is it?
A.
 
Osbert, Your fractal concept of the universe is not original, but it is not really even a "theory" in the sense that it has quantifiable predictions that can be tested.

It is actually just another example of people posting their theories, hypotheses and even their fantasies as if they are facts, as mentioned in my post #15.
 
Aug 20, 2023
15
0
10
Visit site
Osbert, Your fractal concept of the universe is not original, but it is not really even a "theory" in the sense that it has quantifiable predictions that can be tested.

It is actually just another example of people posting their theories, hypotheses and even their fantasies as if they are facts, as mentioned in my post #15.
Not everything has to be
quantifiable predictions that can be tested
..... for it to exist.

Some things are either too BIG or too small to measure and/or test. You can stay trapped at this scale if you wish. Not gonna bother me. Just don't be to surprised if we humans one day find some "thing" in deep space that curiously looks like a "virus" made-up of many many [billions upon trillions] of galaxy's that are billions and billions of light-years across... etc etc.

The thing about time is, 1 second is always one second, where you are.
Hence, quantifiable predictions that can be currently tested. It used to be a prediction only. And before that, nobody gave a hoot or would even BELIEVE that time was different when comparing one place to another place in motion.

So, there is that.






edit - I never said the concept was my own or originally mine [whatever] but when looking at the "grid" or "matrix" of the VERY LARGE OBJECTS [bands of matter/galaxy's with the very large voids] they look just like the nano/micro tubules, inside of living cells. Hence 3 dimensional fractals inside of fractals inside of fractals... etc etc

Mod Edit - Innappropriate Comment Removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 20, 2023
15
0
10
Visit site
I don't think you can run time backwards. That would create a paradox and paradox's don't seem to actually exist in nature. I don't even think time exist. We may use time as a reference, but there is no universal constant of time, and there is really no reason the universe at large requires time. The only thing the universe requires is decay, which is handled by entropy, and it happens to any object brought into the universe from the moment it arrives. This works well with Relativity because it helps to explain why gravity can cause an object to decay slower in a gravitational well of immense gravity. And everything decays, even us. So I think any consideration of time in any of this is just a wrong answer unless you are just trying to figure out how fast something is happening or how fast it is going, which are references. After all, time is always referenced to how we measure it here on Earth.
Time only moves in ONE DIRECTION.
You can only move forward, you can never go back.
Now matter how much you want too or try too, you can never go back.

1 second will always be one second, where you are.
 
Turn a black hole inside-out you have a white hole. Develop an un-observable primordial photo-negative you have an observable photo-positive. You don't lose the black hole's outside-in by describing its inside-out. You don't lose the primordial photo-negative in development of the photo-positive.

You don't lose the disorderly higher energy state Wild Frontier (the Wilderness Frontier) of the universe with the universe developing lower energy civilized order domesticity. The first is always providing for the second . . . always provides the second . . . and, equally but oppositely, always takes back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ilovespace2024
Aug 20, 2023
15
0
10
Visit site
Turn a black hole inside-out you have a white hole. Develop an un-observable primordial photo-negative you have an observable photo-positive. You don't lose the black hole's outside-in by describing its inside-out. You don't lose the primordial photo-negative in development of the photo-positive.

You don't lose the disorderly higher energy state Wild Frontier (the Wilderness Frontier) of the universe with the universe developing lower energy civilized order domesticity. The first is always providing for the second . . . always provides the second . . . and, equally but oppositely, always takes back.
Taking a picture of an object and inverting the colors? - ugh - lol - really?

You put words together and expect to sound smart ?

lower energy civilized order domesticity
....is not a thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.