White Holes

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nailpounder

Guest
From what I understand about WH (white holes) is that GR predicts them along with NS (naked singularities).
However it seems when mass is added the WH is immediately wiped out. I also understand that WH's probably cannot exist in physical reality because of this fact. It seems as if scientists usually associate the location of a WH in or near the vicinity of a BH. My questions are these:

1-Could a WH exist at a NS if NS's exist?
2-Is the fact that a WH is wiped out when mass is added due to the calculations,
or the nature of a WH itself, in that it gives it's mass away? Or both?
3-Did Oppenheimer/Snyder ever do any work on WH's?
4- Where within the BH is a WH located? Do they a share a common event horizon or singularity or
are they separate manifolds, one within another which implies a closed/separate system maybe?
5-Does anyone believe WH's may be found? Or are they just used as a tool to define BH systems?

Number 4 seams really puzzling to me as one contains the set of future events, while the other
contains the past, and uh, I don't get it.......................Al
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
nailpounder":14uid6p0 said:
From what I understand about WH (white holes) is that GR predicts them along with NS (naked singularities).
However it seems when mass is added the WH is immediately wiped out. I also understand that WH's probably cannot exist in physical reality because of this fact. It seems as if scientists usually associate the location of a WH in or near the vicinity of a BH. My questions are these:

1-Could a WH exist at a NS if NS's exist?
2-Is the fact that a WH is wiped out when mass is added due to the calculations,
or the nature of a WH itself, in that it gives it's mass away? Or both?
3-Did Oppenheimer/Snyder ever do any work on WH's?
4- Where within the BH is a WH located? Do they a share a common event horizon or singularity or
are they separate manifolds, one within another which implies a closed/separate system maybe?
5-Does anyone believe WH's may be found? Or are they just used as a tool to define BH systems?

Number 4 seams really puzzling to me as one contains the set of future events, while the other
contains the past, and uh, I don't get it.......................Al

There is not the slightest that whiite holes exist at all. So questions involving their location are moot. They are not a tool for anaything. You can safely ignore them entirely.

White holes are not predicted, they are simply allowed in vacuum solutions of the Eiinstein field equations of general relativity. A vacuum solution is one that applies to a universe that contains no mass. That is not this universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

If you want to research the subject try this tool http://www.google.com/
 
N

nailpounder

Guest
So the WH is a double negative in essence, and therefore becomes a BH?....al
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
nailpounder":36p7c3n3 said:
So the WH is a double negative in essence, and therefore becomes a BH?....al
I am afraid that I don't understand this statement. Can't help you here.
 
N

nailpounder

Guest
DrRocket":us0ou8ho said:
nailpounder":us0ou8ho said:
So the WH is a double negative in essence, and therefore becomes a BH?....al
I am afraid that I don't understand this statement. Can't help you here.
Yeah I could have been clearer on that. In the "wiki" , Hawking argued that a BH in a thermal equilibrium state was also time invariant. Therefore a BH in a time reversed situation (WH) was still just a BH because of the time invariance
associated with objects (BH's) in thermal equilibrium. (okay, not a double negative. I was scared)

I knew Dr Rocket that you were gonna be the hardest sale (as you usually are) on this subject. In your honor, I am
going to eat a basket of California fresh strawberries.................yes they were delicious, and you are quite welcome.

Look, I am just looking for a few answerable questions on a completely hypothetical object, where's the problem? :D

On reading "The Nature of Space and Time" Hawking/Penrose, they touch a few times on the subject, and a lot of math
I don't understand. However on speaking of BH's, Hawking states,"the intrinsic gravitational entropy introduces an
extra level of unpredictability over and above the uncertainty associated with quantum theory"
This statement in itself is not relevant to my cause, however it does express that a lot more needs to be learned. In this
I am refering to the fact that GR breaks down, and QFT breaks down sooner in that it has it's own intrinsic entropy issues.Since we know that BH's are time invariant, we can't rule out a WH (a time reversed BH) exists. Cosmic
censorship allows it and GR predicts it, albeit the same chance you should agree with me (slim or none).

When you think about the study of BH's I think we both agree that 99.9% has been done without any observational data, and I am saying this excluding the pun, and that there had been a ton of theory and math long before one (BH)
had been discovered observationally. In fact it was actually a long awaited "discovery" if you will, perhaps a bit like a pregnacy that lasted, oh, 50 yrs too long. Kinda hard to get real excited about the baby when you've allready bought him a car, paid his tuition and sent him off to school. I say this as astrophysicists had acknowledged their existence, and were wondering what effect they had on the universe long before observational data was acquired.
{DISCLAIMER: no children were harmed or unwanted in the aforementioned hypothetical analogous situation}

So it is because of these issues and others which are related but not directly relevant, such as determinism and
causality that I trivalize in mechanisms that may support it. I know you know the answers, humor me.

Have A Great Day.................Al
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
nailpounder":156ledaw said:
Look, I am just looking for a few answerable questions
Do you want questionable answers? ;)

Why do you say that cosmic censorship does not apply to white holes?
 
N

nailpounder

Guest
In response to:Dr Rocket," there is not the slightest that white holes exist at all....you can safely ignore them"

Furthermore , I have pondered the idea that perhaps in my infantile pursuit of understanding cosmology, that
you can see from your more advantageous perspective of experience and knowledge that I am traveling a path which you allready know leads nowhere. I will thank you in advance for this, as currently I am much too infantile to even understand that your sterness is related ultimately to your nurturing manner.

I liken this to my not having to explain to some 25 yr, old teet suck'in newb on the jobsite that all his wild ideas
on how things should work are moot, and I do not have time or energy to painstakingly explain the 23 things off the top of my head that I can think of for "why not", while 16 of those things would be beyond his level of comprehension anyway, provoking my standard reply," because I've forgotten more than you'll ever know about construction"
{NOTE: no Newbs or teets were harmed in any way during this analogous and hypothetical situation}

With this said, I hope that you understand, that I understand the complexity of the learning process, as related to myself concerning these issues. That my understanding of the cosmos will always be restricted do to several obstacles. I do not understand the math that is associated with GR or cosmology as a whole, (I barely understand Euclidean geometry!) and understand even less with respect to QFT and thermal dynamics. Yet even with all these adverse objects that hinder me, I will continue to dig my hole in the sand, that someday I may understand just enough to be dangerous. So humor me! :D.........Al


"it shows one thing, you college fellas don't know enough to admit when you're wrong"....Quint, Jaws
 
N

nailpounder

Guest
SpeedFreek":xgpb7348 said:
nailpounder":xgpb7348 said:
Look, I am just looking for a few answerable questions
Do you want questionable answers? ;)

Why do you say that cosmic censorship does not apply to white holes?
Okay, I guess I screwed that up. What I should have said was," I believe there are answers to my questions" or ,
"I believe my questions are answerable" that said.... :oops: (I was tired)

In regards to cosmic censorship. I don't believe I said that WH's are immune to cosmic censorship, I said WH's are allowed by it. However, by saying that, I may have implied the wrong thing and that is quite possible (and highly likely)
due to my lack of experience and knowledge. Hence I am here.

I will try to explain myself: I read that scientists don't like the idea of NS's (naked singularities) as it violates cosmic censorship. So in order to deal with them, they establish a timeline. So, if we can agree that singularities occur in two places black holes and the big bang (and possibly WH's), we can begin here. Since the timeline must originate from the singularity at the big bang, (since it is meaningless to discuss events that happened before), they (scientists) take
the timeline and bend it to where the bend intersects the event horizon in BH's giving a path for time to travel in and out.
Now somehow this satisfies the cosmic censorship quandry. It has a specific name (this timeline) but I will have to research it.
Furthermore, I have read nowhere that this curved timeline is one-directional, however......I was wrong once.

So it is from this that I extrapolate that WH's are allowed (albeit because of this timeline mechanism).

Make sense? My brain hurts, I'm a simple man. I'm gonna go get some beer!


There once was a man from Nantucket
who sat alone in the dark
with his photon bucket
He said with chagrin
whilst he spoke to his kin
If the universe were a rose
would you pluck it
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
nailpounder":3k9bixf6 said:
In response to:Dr Rocket," there is not the slightest that white holes exist at all....you can safely ignore them"

Furthermore , I have pondered the idea that perhaps in my infantile pursuit of understanding cosmology, that
you can see from your more advantageous perspective of experience and knowledge that I am traveling a path which you allready know leads nowhere. I will thank you in advance for this, as currently I am much too infantile to even understand that your sterness is related ultimately to your nurturing manner.

I liken this to my not having to explain to some 25 yr, old teet suck'in newb on the jobsite that all his wild ideas
on how things should work are moot, and I do not have time or energy to painstakingly explain the 23 things off the top of my head that I can think of for "why not", while 16 of those things would be beyond his level of comprehension anyway, provoking my standard reply," because I've forgotten more than you'll ever know about construction"
{NOTE: no Newbs or teets were harmed in any way during this analogous and hypothetical situation}

With this said, I hope that you understand, that I understand the complexity of the learning process, as related to myself concerning these issues. That my understanding of the cosmos will always be restricted do to several obstacles. I do not understand the math that is associated with GR or cosmology as a whole, (I barely understand Euclidean geometry!) and understand even less with respect to QFT and thermal dynamics. Yet even with all these adverse objects that hinder me, I will continue to dig my hole in the sand, that someday I may understand just enough to be dangerous. So humor me! :D.........Al


"it shows one thing, you college fellas don't know enough to admit when you're wrong"....Quint, Jaws
Suggestion; Find a copy of Leonard Susskind's The Black Hole War. Read it with a grain of salt. Susskind is a very good physicist and the book is very good. But he seems to take as true some things from string theory that may be true but at this time are only unproven conjectures. But with that caveat, it is a very good and interesting book, and a counterpoint to some of Hawking's views.

I think you will enjoy the book. It's even better than pounding your thumb with a hammer -- it feels so good when you stop.
 
N

nailpounder

Guest
Suggestion; Find a copy of Leonard Susskind's The Black Hole War. Read it with a grain of salt. Susskind is a very good physicist and the book is very good. But he seems to take as true some things from string theory that may be true but at this time are only unproven conjectures. But with that caveat, it is a very good and interesting book, and a counterpoint to some of Hawking's views.

I think you will enjoy the book. It's even better than pounding your thumb with a hammer -- it feels so good when you stop.[/quote]


I thank you for your suggestion. I will certainly read this book. Don't be surprised if I have more questions at that time!
And don't be surprised if I bring up redundant issues, as this is part of the learning process. :D
I am not a "big believer" of string theory, but on those issues I will rescind (wrong word, [keep to myself]) my personal opinions'(*) ("*"plural,possesive;relating to the many opinions I have, regarding to this though it is not relevant to this discussion.) However, I will keep this in mind while trying to understand it. I appreciate your response, and your time, as I know of no other persons whom I may communicate with that has more wisdom than the persons that are available to me in this public forum. ............... Al


PS- Fortunately, I discovered some 15 yrs ago that impacting my thumb was ultimately detrimental, however my
understanding of the universe is significantly behind in my learning curve, go figure!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY