White holes?!?

[zero_cool]

We have heard the term "white hole" as some kind of opposite entity to a black hole. Is this part of accepted theory<br />or is it simply speculation? Could you describe what it is?<br />

 

[zero_cool]

i just found this out....Theoretically, if 2 black holes were to collide, a runaway effect<br />could develop, that results in a rapid and enormous release of energy.<br />Followed by the complete evaporation of the now single black hole to a<br />zero mass. Eventually, stopping its spin. In its final stages, it would<br />appear to be a white hole in which energy is pouring out.<br />

 

[jatslo]

Same as black hole, except a white hole repels matter as spew; the type of matter that is catalyst to gravity, that is.

 

[harmonicaman]

Some unproven mathematical theories, which are trying to understand and describe how black holes operate, have postulated that a Black Hole may create a Worm Hole and expel matter out through a corresponding "White Hole". This material would be ejected out into another part of the universe (or into another universe all together).<br /><br /><b>No candidate "White Holes" have been observed and they likely do not exist in our universe!</b><br /><br />Link to a "White Hole" page: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html<br /><br />BTW - If two BHs were to collide, they would just form (after a bit of celestial fireworks) a bigger BH!<br />

 

[jatslo]

Solve for Gravity (G) and -(G), for it is relative young Einstein.

 

[siriusmre]

"Some unproven mathematical theories"<br />"No candidate...have been observed and they likely do not exist in our universe!"<br /><br />I might say the same thing about so-called "black holes." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

<b>Sirius -</b><br /><br />We have strong evidence that Black Holes exist. Observations of the gigantic Sgr A ^(1.), the mysterious behemoth near the center of our Milky Way, show that it is most likely a super-massive BH. <br /><br />Sgr A is probably the obect around which our galaxy formed and is part of the unseen mass (dark matter) responsible for holding us together as a cohesive revolving unit.<br /><br />All galaxies seem to have a super-massive object (BH) at their core!<br /><br />Einstein's General Theory of Relativity ^(2.) predicts the existence of Black Holes. We've verified Einstein's theory in many ways, which gives us confidence in its predictions. Consequently, we think such objects exist in the real world ^(3.). <br /><br />His theory also gives us indirect ways to detect Black Hole candidates - by observing the actions of mass and light in their vicinity. <br /><br />Futher more; we are gathering more evidence every day that galaxies are populated with lots of stellar sized Black Holes ^4., a smaller cousin of the super-massive giants which reside in galactic cores.<br /><br />Black Holes are very real, IMHO, and come in many different sizes and types ^(5.).<br /><br /><br />(1.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051102/sc_nm/space_blackhole_dc<br /><br />(2.) http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html<br /><br />(3.) http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/teacher/sciencebackground.html#2<br /><br />(4.) http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/blackholes_stellar.html<br /><br />(5.) <a></a>

 

[zero_cool]

well....instead of saying its a black hole that is holding the galaxy together, why isnt it the stars themselves that are at the center of the galaxy holding it all together, its like if you have a bunch of magnets it pulls more than just one magnet obviously, so the force is multiplied, but what im getting ready to say may or may not make sense, ok..here goes, how does this sound, instead of a black hole at the center of every galaxy, why not think about a white hole at the center instead of a blackhole, like a black hole in someother part of the universe sucks in matter, and transfers it via wormhole to the white hole, and because im assuming the white hole spins like a black hole does, the matter comming out kinda spins, and that can explain why galaxies spin, and it also explains where and how all this matter gets grouped together, but one sec, im not finished, let me add one more thing, as youre probably guessing, "if all this matter is just spewing out how it it staying together?", well its kinda what i said before, the group of stars that first form, form a large gravitational "area" so everything still stays together, and the more stuff that comes out, gets added to the "soup"

 

[jatslo]

Very good; you are the second person, that I know of, who suggested this idea in these forums. I am of course the first. Don't look now, but here comes Kmar to set the record staight, but fear not, for the mighty Jatslo is here to do battle with the SDC minions of Gravity. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

Well, the main problems would be:<br /><br />1) If there is no black hole but instead simply a tremendously large number of stars, why do stars near the black hole move as though they are orbiting a single super-dense object? It is true that a large number of stars could produce the same gravitational effect as a single supermassive black hole, but the reality of the situation should become clear the closer one looks to the common center of mass.<br /><br />2) Where is the jet the hypothetical white hole would produce?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

<font color="yellow">I might say the same thing about so-called "black holes." </font><br /><br />how about Cygnus X-1?<br /><br />( binary star system ) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

What about it? Who's to say that the observations are being interpreted Truthfully? What if the relatively tiny effect of gravity is not the major driving force in the universe? <br /><br />It is only because gravity is such a relatively minor force that huge amounts of mass are MATHEMATICALLY necessary to support theories which postulate things such as "neutron stars" and "black holes."<br /><br />There are other, more unified models that account for all of the phenomena, and are scalable to earth-bound labs so that these things can actually be seen and studied first hand. Has anyone EVER successfully created a "black hole" in a lab? It amazes me that given the volume of "strange," "anomolous," and "surprising" observations that have been pouring in through our vast array of telescopes that "see" the entire EM spectrum that more astronomers are not asking "What else could it be?" For example, what's the easiest way to create x-rays? How do we do it here on earth? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Has anyone EVER successfully created a "black hole" in a lab?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, however they evaporate very rapidly via Hawking radiation and are very very small. (Black holes are not immortal.)<br /><br />Gravity does have an observable effect, and we know celestial mechanics works. It's been refined for centuries. So to deny a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy, you need to explain why the stars very near Sag A* (the radio source at the galactic center, believed to be emissions from the accretion disk of a supermassive black hole) are moving so fast in what appear to be quite stable orbits. (It is possible to observe entire revolutions of these stars.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

Celestial mechanics do largely work, you're right. Many impressive feats have been accomplished using those equations. But, that does not mean that the gravity model actually represents the Truth. What if gravity is on the low end of a continuum of universal forces? What if gravity is only a PALE REMNANT of a system in electrical equilibrium?<br /><br />Maybe, instead of a "supermassive black hole" at the galactic center, there is an electric motor there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

The stars packed in tight quarters is an illusion; that section of the galaxy really looks quite similar to our view from their perspective.<br /><br />[1] How many X-ray producing events relative to Earth time multiplied by 1-billion quantifies or explains the increased xray activities observed from our position in relation to the center of our galaxy. Our galaxy should be linked to the big bang some how/where. Our galaxy is a doorway into the universe.

 

[zero_cool]

why do you think that jatslo? why else would the center of the galaxy look brighter? there has to be large quanaties of stars at the center otherwise it would look the same at the center of the galaxy and at the very edge

 

[jatslo]

Velocity, Temperature, and Gravity Affects: Time, Mass, and Length; therefore, the universe only looks the way that it does relative to us, as in (The Known Universe + The Unknown Universe = The Infinite Universe) Average Velocity, Average Temperature, and Average Temperature should increase as you approach the source, and visa versa, when leaving the source.<br /><br /><span method="POST" action="/dopoll.php"></span>

 

[jatslo]

Could <---- Means possible folks

 

[brellis]

This is an interesting discussion! I've got some skeptical questions: <br /><br />What I couldn't get from the White Hole-worm hole idea was how our end here in the Milky Way could be the white hole end. The radio readings make the most sense as an accretion disk of a black hole. The possibility of stars getting squished through a worm hole is tantalizing, but you'd have to take a leap of faith and say there's some reason why there isn't a single galaxy where the radio readings are the opposite.<br /><br />Regarding the possibility of no black hole existing in Sgr-A*, I have what is probably a rudimentary question about gravity: Is there a method of calculating the mass of the gravitational center? For example, if there are 100 billion stars revolving around the center of our galaxy, is there a mathematical relationship between the sum total of their weight and the weight necessary for either a black hole or a central cluster of stars to keep the spiral intact? Likewise, is there a relationship between the total mass of the planets and asteroids orbiting our Sun versus the weight of the Sun itself? If that is the case, one could extrapolate in reverse how much overall planetary matter one could expect to find orbiting other stars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

(F = ma) = Gravity is a force; for instance, (m = F/a). However, I believe that equation is flawed, because it does not account for density, or composition in terms of vescosity. Also, I never stated that the center of the Milky Way Galaxy is squeezing stars through a worm hole, I said, "The stars appear to be closer to one another, but they are not. It is an illusion brought about by the velocity and/or speed Affects: Mass, Length, and Time.<br /><br />(m = E/c ²) and (m = 1 - v ²/c ²) are other equations that I found related to mass; however, mass does not require weight or charge, as in electron-less matter, which is absent a photon. Hell, there are huge amounts of equations out there, but that don't mean that they are right. I think the universe is a white hole, and that time dilation prevents the system from closing.<br /><br />Kmar has a boat load of equations; try asking her.

 

[brellis]

thanks for 'splaining, you've got a cool way of viewing this little sandbox <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />i posted my questions at the wrong tier of this thread, so i am duly apologetic for dumping all my Q's in your direction. <br /><br />I continue to find this topic really fascinating. I've been reading Jillian's Black Hole List referred to by harmonicaman. Debates about cosmic theory are all pretty over my head in terms of nitty gritty number crunching; that's why I feel lucky as a layman to be a fly on the wall observing discussions such as this thread.<br /><br />That said, I'm gonna peep down and re-read the posts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[darrylgalasso]

I have a kind of far fetched theory. Let me know what you think. I believe that the whole universe is just a repetitive chain of events. Big bang........ multiple galaxies seemingly ever expanding all with a bh at the center. BH's are the center of the galaxies for one other often overlooked reason, they consume... like a monstrous toilet, only this one takes billions of years to flush as it covers such great expanses. After this bh absorbs all the matter in it's host universe it travels through space as a smbh (super massive black hole) on its current heading until it encounters another galaxy where it gravitationally, is attracted to the new galaxy's bh and they (after some spectacular fireworks) merge and form an even greater smbh. This process continues until as they said in the movie "Highlander" "There can be only one" and at the instant the last bit of matter in the universe is absorbed into the last smbh, it acts just like a ballon that has just exceeded it's maximum capacity..............BANG!, it all starts over.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I have what is probably a rudimentary question about gravity: Is there a method of calculating the mass of the gravitational center?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes. You can calculate the mass of an object by observing how it deflects objects passing by. The simplest equations are for two-body systems where one object is orbited by another. Astronomers observe stars very near the galactic center to work out the mass of the thing they're orbiting.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>For example, if there are 100 billion stars revolving around the center of our galaxy, is there a mathematical relationship between the sum total of their weight and the weight necessary for either a black hole or a central cluster of stars to keep the spiral intact?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Replace the word "weight" with "mass". <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Weight refers to the force exerted by an object being pulled down by a force (usually gravity). It's variable; if you weigh 120 pounds on Earth, you'll weigh 20 pounds on the Moon (IIRC). But if your mass will be the same, so even though you only exert 20 pounds of force on a scale placed on the Moon, if you round a corner you still have to deal with your full 120 pounds worth of mass. I imagine that once lunar tourism becomes a reality, there will be a lot of tourists falling down. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />There is ongoing research into the question of whether there is a fundamental relationship between the mass of a supermassive black hole and the mass of its surrounding galaxy. There are indications that there is indeed a relationship, and that it has to do with the rate of star formation in the galactic center early in the galaxy's lifetime. However, this assumes nothing weird happens to the galaxy, like it collides with another galaxy. That would presumably alter the circumstances pretty dramaticall <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[scull]

A white hole can also be described as an object expanding OUT of a singularity.... (this is the reversal of Einsteins equations)......<br /><br />the reversal of a black hole......<br /><br />black hole = ultimate collapse <br />white hole = expansion<br /><br /><br /><br />s-- <br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

<span method="POST" action="/dopoll.php"></span><br /><br />If you have the time, answer why you chose the way you chose, if you chose, please.