White holes?

[robnissen]

"How is the universe like a white hole? How does it repel the matter? "<br /><br />I would assume he is referring to "dark energy," the unknown energy source that is causing the expansion of the universe to speed up. <br /><br />Back to the original topic of this thread. White holes seem very unlikely to me because if the mass of black holes was being squeezed out to somewhere else in the universe, we should see black holes dissipating as their mass pours out elsewhere. With no offense to Stephen Hawkings (he, of course has a different theory on black hole dissipation), there is NO EVIDENCE of black holes dissapating anywhere in the universe.

 

[neutron_star6]

True, the only thing that is in someway similar is that they just sit there in a way dormant like the one in the center of all galaxies, and ones found throughout the known universe.

 

[wisefool]

According to the formula for gravity, as size of something diminishes, gravity at its surface increases, to where gravity APPROACHES infinity as size approaches zero. AT THE POINT WHERE SIZE BECOMES ZERO gravity is NOT infinite, it is ZERO. Therefore, gravity never equals infinity, and there is no chance that everything would be sucked into that type of black hole's event horizon.

 

[Maddad]

How do you figure the gravity suddenly drops from nearly infinity to zero?

 

[wisefool]

Let's start with an excerpt from a web page explaining gravity: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm <br /><br /><br />"The standard formula for gravity is:<br /><br />Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2)<br /><br />where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects for which you are calculating the force, and d is the distance between the centers of gravity of the two masses.<br /><br />G has the value of 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne * cm2/gm2. That means that if you put two 1-gram objects 1 centimeter apart from one another, they will attract each other with the force of 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne. A dyne is equal to about 0.001 gram weight, meaning that if you have a dyne of force available, it can lift 0.001 grams in Earth's gravitational field. So 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne is a miniscule force. When you deal with massive bodies like the Earth, however, which has a mass of 6E+24 kilograms, it adds up to a rather powerful force."<br /><br />Look closely at the formula itself. Do the math for increasingly smaller distances from the centers of gravity. You will notice that as d DECREASES, all other things being constant, Gravitational Attraction INCREASES. But this only applies as long as d is greater than zero.<br /><br />Now plug in the value of zero for d, i.e., where matter implodes into a dimensionless point, or pure singularity. You will get zero for Gravitational Attraction! The Chinese would call this a classical Yin/Yang transformation.<br /><br />It is exactly at that dimensionless point where the mass/energy in the "universe" before ours switched from implosion to explosion. That was the energy source and origin of our Big Bang.

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow">Look closely at the formula itself. Do the math for increasingly smaller distances from the centers of gravity. You will notice that as d DECREASES, all other things being constant, Gravitational Attraction INCREASES. But this only applies as long as d is greater than zero. <br /><br />Now plug in the value of zero for d, i.e., where matter implodes into a dimensionless point, or pure singularity. You will get zero for Gravitational Attraction! The Chinese would call this a classical Yin/Yang transformation. </font><br /><br />All that proves is that my earlier statement was correct. <br /><br /><i>”One of the most profound truths of mathematics is that mathematics can create situations that cannot occur in real space. “</i><br /><br />Thank you for supplying yet another proof of the validity of that statement.<br /><br />In any case, assuming that hyper-densities do exist, there is no logical reason to believe that matter collapses to a “dimensionless” point. I think that the only thing that allows the mass of thousands of suns to collapse into a dimensionless point is, you guessed it, mathematics. While it is logical to assume that matter can be compacted into far far less volume than it normally occupies, that final step to “dimensionless” begs the question; How can it exert an influence if it does not exist in space?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

Unlike you, I never indicated that it was a fact. I even go so far as to question the existance of hyperdensities (black holes), which would make “hawking radiation” also questionalbe. Therefore, your snide remarks about my thinking are not only irrelevant, but in this case, misplaced.<br /><br />But, I only mentioned hawking radiation as a possible vehicle to vent matter from a hyperdensity, that did not require a “white hole”.<br /><br />BTW, “hyperdensities” is a much more appropriate term than “black holes”. I believe that John Wheeler did us all a disservice when he coined that term. I understand the thinking behind the term, but too often, the very name induces some people to think of it as a doorway to a tunnel. That is why I prefer my term (and you are correct, I created it) to clarify the nature of the phenomenon. (if it exists). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[diogenes]

A couple of quick answers to comments earlier in the thread.<br /><br />I was not refering to dark matter or dark energy if that was directed at something I wrote. The site I linked is using normal matter.<br /><br />If a black hole leads to a white hole, the white hole probably opens on a parallel universe not someplace else in this one.<br /><br />Just for kicks, wormholes or white holes probably require negative matter. Not anti-matter, an as yet undiscovered form of mass.<br /><br />http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/negative_mass.html

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow">If a black hole leads to a white hole, the white hole probably opens on a parallel universe not someplace else in this one.</font><br /><br />You see, that is the problem I was referring to. A hyperdensity (black hole) does not “lead” to anywhere. Remember, hyperdensities, if they exist, are the most dense objects imaginable, not a “hole” in any sense of the word.<br /><br />OK, a little visualization. Imagine an atom. A typical atom is composed of a nucleus and circling electrons. For simplicity's sake, let's imagine the nucleus as the size of a pea, and the electrons circling at about 50 feet. Matter is mostly empty space. OK, a nucleus is made of protons and neutrons, we've all seen the models. So let's make a Neutron Star, where all the electrons are forced into the protons turning them into neurtons, and all of the neutrons are touching. We have gotten rid of 99.9% of the empty space. This is very dense stuff. <br /><br />Now suppose that the neutrons are made of smaller component “particles” we call quarks. (it is currently believed that all hadrons are made of quarks) Let's assume that quarks, like atoms, are small units, with mostly empty space between. So, when we squeeze the the neutrons, we make all the quarks touch, getting rid of 99.9% more of the empty space. This results in some very compact stuff. Now there is not only no room between the components of the atom, there is no room between the components of hadrons.<br /><br />So, what we have is (essentially) matter compressed into a compact mass, with NO empty space between. Now, we aim a spacecraft at this solid mass, and it is supposed to be a “doorway” to somewhere else? “Black hole” is the most deceptive misnomer ever created. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow">After CygnusX1 whose discovery is how old now and known to be a black hole.?</font><br /><br />Known to be a black hole? For someone who clings tennaciously to requisites of hard proof, you seem overly eager to take this one on faith. Have we ever seeen one? No, of course not.<br /><br />As for renaming the <i>apparent</i> phenomena a more accurate name, I have already explained the rationale behind that. Hyperdensity is a much more logical, and much less misleading, term.<br /><br />And yes, to use the “bastàrdized latin” phrase, res ipsa loquitur. IOW, there was nothing inconsistent within my dialog.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[wisefool]

Mental Avenger, I appreciate your moxy. There may be something really good in your rejection of one of science's most revered formulae. On the other hand, you are thereby obligated to substitute an equally elegant explanation to explain how things got started in the Big Bang. Are you up for this challenge?

 

[mental_avenger]

I don't see how that is relevant to questioning the existance of hyperdensities, but...<br /><br />Using a rather classic model, consider that matter is made up of particles we call atoms. These are not really particles, but are made up of empty space and particles we call neutrons and protons. Well, these are not acutally particles, but are made up of particles we call Quarks. Currently we don't know how far down that progression may go, and we don't really know the nature of Quarks. Let's take it down one level and say that Quarks are made of Cefu (Compact electrical field units). These are tightly bound little units of energy. They act like particles because they take up space, but in actuality, they are only small areas of space that are under the influence of the Cefu.<br /><br />Now, we know tha t when we bring two opposite but equal electrical fields together, they cancel. one unit of positive plus one unit of negative equals zero. From there it is only a small step to assume that two equal and opposite electrical field can be created from nothing. To be sure, some scientist believe that there are special cases where such spontaneous creation occurs, like at an event horizon. OK, now the stage is set. For the moment, we will ignore the contention that “space” is created as the universe expands (as opposed to the Universe expanding into space).<br /><br />What if, in an unstable area of an entirely empty Universe, two equal and opposite electrical fields were spontaneous created. If brought back together, they would cancel and again there would be nothing. However, let's say that the violence of their creation has driven them apart. Perhaps the positive Cefu enters one phase of the Universe, and the negative Cefu enters another phase of the Universe.<br /><br />Now, let's assume that this spontaneous creation creates further instability which favors the nearly simultaneous creation of centillions and centillions of Cefu. Due to the nature of the field of <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[wisefool]

Oy vey, so much to comment on! Let me mention a few elements:<br /><br />"Now, we know that when we bring two opposite but equal electrical fields together, they cancel. one unit of positive plus one unit of negative equals zero. From there it is only a small step to assume that two equal and opposite electrical field can be created from nothing."<br /><br />Good physical laws are bi-directional mirrors. In your case one direction is not a mirror of the other. The other direction -- creating something from nothing -- is, as you say, an assumption. <br /><br />"To be sure, some scientist believe that there are special cases where such spontaneous creation occurs, like at an event horizon."<br /><br />The term "spontaneous creation" has poetic value, and little more by itself. You need to develop this concept for clarity and causality.<br /><br />"...we will ignore the contention that “space” is created as the universe expands (as opposed to the Universe expanding into space)."<br /><br />This is deep water. The Newtonian view has space as an absolute; the Einsteinian view has space created by relativity. Where do you stand? <br /><br />"What if, in an unstable area of an entirely empty Universe, two equal and opposite electrical fields were spontaneous created. If brought back together, they would cancel and again there would be nothing. However, let's say that the violence of their creation has driven them apart. Perhaps the positive Cefu enters one phase of the Universe, and the negative Cefu enters another phase of the Universe."<br /><br />What is meant by electrical fields being spontaneously created? Isn't the word "spontaneous" a bit pre-scientific? What do you mean by the concept of "phase of the Universe"?<br /><br /><br />Clear skies and clear minds.<br /><br />

 

[Maddad]

wisefool<br />"<font color="yellow">Now plug in the value of zero for d, i.e., where matter implodes into a dimensionless point, or pure singularity. You will get zero for Gravitational Attraction!</font><br />Uh, no, you get infinity, not zero. <br /><br />If you want to be technical though then you get neither answer because it's a division by zero which our mathematics and physics do not allow. The best way to handle division by zero is to observe what happens to the results as the denominator approaches zero. When you see the value rapidly rising then you know that a further reduction of the denominator will result in an even bigger number. You have no mathematical indication of a sudden reversal of this trend.<br /><br />Mental_Avenger<br />I like your term hyperdensity as a way of avoiding confusion with a black hole. It does indeed escape the implacation of a doorway.<br /><br />steve<br />"<font color="yellow">After CygnusX1 whose discovery is how old now and known to be a black hole.</font><br />There is no evidence!!! Never held one in your hand, have you!!!! Can't prove it exists!!! Never even seen a black hole, have you!!! How can anyone be so stupid as to believe this when we have never examined Cygnus X1 in a laboratory!!!

 

[wisefool]

With reference to the zero, or infinite, power of gravity when a true singularity develops, at least mathematically...<br /><br />If there is ZERO dimension, how can there be anything other than ZERO gravitational force? The formula self-destructs, as even you admit, into absurdity, and so too does gravity. Amazingly, however, all that inward force flips to an outward force, which could be a big bang, or the Big Bang.<br /><br />I too am uncomfortable with the idea of zero dimensions, so I will entertain that the Yin/Yang switch could occur as the dimension approaches zero. Calculus is big on things approaching whatever. Why too not this? According to the law of conservation of energy and matter, which really states their equivalence, the matter of which you speak has long since been destroyed by compaction, and your energy modules take over. Even if your sub-quark entities were to exist, what confidence do you have that they would survive as d approaches zero? Maybe we are discussing yet another dimension of matter/energy which is truly primal.

 

[alokmohan]

A black holeattracts everyting to a point.But when big bang happened matter came out of a single point and started diverging.Is it not opposite of black hole?

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow">Good physical laws are bi-directional mirrors. In your case one direction is not a mirror of the other. The other direction -- creating something from nothing -- is, as you say, an assumption. </font><br /><br />True. But if bringing two equal and opposite charges together causes them to cancel, with no energy left behind, then it would take no energy to create two equal and opposite charges. Yes, it is an assumption, but so are many of the theories and hypotheses that scientists use every day. Consider that Quantum Theory is an information theory, which doesn't tell us what is, but rather what we can know. While one particle cannot actually BE in two places at once, that concept can be a useful tool when working on actual systems. In fact, virtually everything we believe about subatomic particles is assumptions. But since it can be used in practical applications, no one minds.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The term "spontaneous creation" has poetic value, and little more by itself. You need to develop this concept for clarity and causality. </font><br /><br />I did so, above. Hey, I'm not a physicist. However, you did ask for an alternative theory, and I supplied you with an original. If the top physicists on Earth don't have all the answers, I hope you don't expect me to have them.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">This is deep water. The Newtonian view has space as an absolute; the Einsteinian view has space created by relativity. Where do you stand? </font><br /><br />I don't know which is correct, or if there is a third possibility, and it appears that no one really does. I tend to lean towards space as being static, with matter and energy moving within it.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">What is meant by electrical fields being spontaneously created? Isn't the word "spontaneous" a bit pre-scientific? What do you mean by the concept of "phase of the Universe"? <br /></font><br /><br />Spo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[wisefool]

Mental Avenger, you made a good effort to respond to my questions. Thanks. I am reminded of the Medieval monks' attempts to discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. In some ways this is what we are doing when we discuss the point of singularity. Since nobody can see it, or even describe it, then all theorists with COHERENT theories are able to play the game!

 

[mental_avenger]

Well, there can be many theories about the nature of the Universe and the nature of observed (and inferred) phenomena. But there are only two possibilities on the <i>Origin</i> of our current observed Universe. Either space and time are infinite, and there is a distrubance in space which travels through space, or there is a Prime Mover. I don't see any other possibilities.<br /><br />If space was static, then there would be no imputus for even spontaneous actions, such as the simultaneous creation of Cefu pairs, or the expansion of the Singularity at the heart of the Big Bang. Actually, that takes the spontaneity out of spontaneous. But it also solves the problem of “beginning”, regardless of the theory.<br /><br />If there is a Prime Mover, then that also solves the “beginning” problem for the Universe, but poses the question of where the Prime Mover came from.<br /><br />Since the question of Prime Mover/Ripple in Space will not likely be answered, it is necessary to choose one, and build from there, else not build at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Maddad]

wisefool<br />"<font color="yellow">If there is ZERO dimension, how can there be anything other than ZERO gravitational force?</font><br />Plug in some numbers for the very formula that you used as an example. If you do the math then you'll see how.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">According to the law of conservation of energy and matter</font><br />Our math and physics break down at the singularity, so it no longer applies. We have no physics to describe it.<br /><br />steve<br />"<font color="yellow">I don't know how you feel about it, but 'spontaneous creation' sounds very much like a highly forbidden violation of the principles of mass/energy conservation.</font><br />It doesn't apply.

 

[diogenes]

<font color="yellow">"I don't know how you feel about it, but 'spontaneous creation' sounds very much like a highly forbidden violation of the principles of mass/energy conservation." </font><br /><br />Say "Wheeler." Now say "Quantum foam."<br /><br />Say "Something from nothing."<br /><br />Particle pairs appearing spontaneously under vac. pressure. Always pairs.

 

[alokmohan]

You may read Narlikars seven wonders of cosmos .He tells something like this.

 

[alokmohan]

Big bang theory is mystic theory ,it creates something out of nothing and so even black holes are doubtful characters.

 

[wisefool]

The first, and most important, question to answer is IF a problem is solvable, either practical or mathematical. If the answer is yes, then it is worth while to proceed, even if we initially proceed in the dark. If, for example, the mathematical problem is so poorly designed as to self-destruct, then it is both unsolvable and unworthy of effort.<br /><br />(We will for now put aside the implications of Kurt Godel's theorem which proved that all mathematical systems are tautologies.)<br /><br />The Big Bang question may or may not be solvable. We cannot at this time say either way. Yes, more data needs to be acquired. At least it does have in some forms a coherency that is tantalizing. Even the math, which approaches absurdity, still holds together. So it is worth our time and effort to further investigate, not knowing if or when we will have a solution. Even if we fix a very low probability of success on our efforts, the subject is so immense that the payoff justifies going after very elusive data.<br /><br />It has been said that there are more scientists alive today than in all of history. Probably true. The point is that there is an acceleration of learning, both in numbers of scientists and in technical resources, which should compress what would have been a thousand-years effort into a few-decades effort.

 

[Maddad]

steve<br />"<font color="yellow">Quantum foam.<br />Highly speculative.</font><br />Don't worry about it. I'm sure you'll learn how to speculate someday.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">The appearance of virtual particles from an apparent vacuum is not truly real</font><br />They beeome real when and if the two particles separate. That doesn't happen often under usual circumstances, but it does allow for particles from nothing.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">That does NOT give spontaneous creation of matter on ANY large scale</font><br />10⁸⁵ cm³ of room to work with is a pretty large scale.