49 replies to this topic

[Zero]

I'm just 14, so please don't trash on me. When it comes to physics I can explain most things through logic and math and I've even gotten hold of the Theory of Relativity (both special and general. Now, according to relativity light=mass. Also, it allows for the existence of wormholes and white holes (the exact opposite of a black hole). Now we all know pure matter can be turned into pure energy (through matter anhialation which releases 100% of the energy in both the matter and antimatter). Now, I hypothesyze it can also work backwards, here's how it goes.

A white hole, which is the exact opposite of a black hole, forms. The white hole does as theorized and proceeds to expulse billions, if not trillions of tons of matter and energy. If I'm not mistaken, however, all of the matter that enters a black hole is ripped apart and made into energy, but that doesn't matter for now. Now, because so much matter and energy (mainly light) is being forced through such a relatively small opening, the photons (what make up light) will crash together. The photons will accumulate until it forms a big enough mass which we know as quarks. Because the light crashes together it will cause slight acceleration and as the photon pile together it will form matter. Because of the light forming into matter (which could result in only seconds because of the amount of light that's being expelled) the matter would still be accelerating and essentially it would be the same as the big bang in a way. The matter will continue to move foward at the speed of light (or faster), untouched by the 4 forces. However, over time (anywhere from trillionths of seconds to years) the matter will start to be tugged by the forces and slowed down.

Does this make any sense? What do you think?

[Crobar]

The only thing I can say, is that I wish I was as clever as you

[Dauth]

tskasa1, on 13 May 2008, 22:03, said:

I'm just 14, so please don't trash on me. When it comes to physics I can explain most things through logic and math and I've even gotten hold of the Theory of Relativity (both special and general. Now, according to relativity light=mass. Also, it allows for the existence of wormholes and white holes (the exact opposite of a black hole). Now we all know pure matter can be turned into pure energy (through matter anhialation which releases 100% of the energy in both the matter and antimatter). Now, I hypothesyze it can also work backwards, here's how it goes.

A white hole, which is the exact opposite of a black hole, forms. The white hole does as theorized and proceeds to expulse billions, if not trillions of tons of matter and energy. If I'm not mistaken, however, all of the matter that enters a black hole is ripped apart and made into energy, but that doesn't matter for now. Now, because so much matter and energy (mainly light) is being forced through such a relatively small opening, the photons (what make up light) will crash together. The photons will accumulate until it forms a big enough mass which we know as quarks. Because the light crashes together it will cause slight acceleration and as the photon pile together it will form matter. Because of the light forming into matter (which could result in only seconds because of the amount of light that's being expelled) the matter would still be accelerating and essentially it would be the same as the big bang in a way. The matter will continue to move foward at the speed of light (or faster), untouched by the 4 forces. However, over time (anywhere from trillionths of seconds to years) the matter will start to be tugged by the forces and slowed down.

Does this make any sense? What do you think?

OK time for physics response

Logic does not work with relativity, it's like trying to count weight in metres, it doesn't work.
Wormholes are blocked in GR, space like particles have infinite energy and this is impossible
Radiation produced from a matter antimatter reaction can create the matter back again.

TBH I disagree entirely with the theory of white holes, too much Red Dwarf methinks.

Matter entering a black hole isn't ripped apart it isn't anything because you can't get information out of a black hole other than Hawking Radiation in the X-Ray spectrum. If I'm honest and I generally am, I'd stay away from black hole theory until you have a PhD in cosmological physics because after 4 years of Undergraduate Masters, they still confuse the fuck out of me.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Dauth, on 14 May 2008, 0:37, said:

tskasa1, on 13 May 2008, 22:03, said:

I'm just 14, so please don't trash on me. When it comes to physics I can explain most things through logic and math and I've even gotten hold of the Theory of Relativity (both special and general. Now, according to relativity light=mass. Also, it allows for the existence of wormholes and white holes (the exact opposite of a black hole). Now we all know pure matter can be turned into pure energy (through matter anhialation which releases 100% of the energy in both the matter and antimatter). Now, I hypothesyze it can also work backwards, here's how it goes.

A white hole, which is the exact opposite of a black hole, forms. The white hole does as theorized and proceeds to expulse billions, if not trillions of tons of matter and energy. If I'm not mistaken, however, all of the matter that enters a black hole is ripped apart and made into energy, but that doesn't matter for now. Now, because so much matter and energy (mainly light) is being forced through such a relatively small opening, the photons (what make up light) will crash together. The photons will accumulate until it forms a big enough mass which we know as quarks. Because the light crashes together it will cause slight acceleration and as the photon pile together it will form matter. Because of the light forming into matter (which could result in only seconds because of the amount of light that's being expelled) the matter would still be accelerating and essentially it would be the same as the big bang in a way. The matter will continue to move foward at the speed of light (or faster), untouched by the 4 forces. However, over time (anywhere from trillionths of seconds to years) the matter will start to be tugged by the forces and slowed down.

Does this make any sense? What do you think?

OK time for physics response

Logic does not work with relativity, it's like trying to count weight in metres, it doesn't work.
Wormholes are blocked in GR, space like particles have infinite energy and this is impossible
Radiation produced from a matter antimatter reaction can create the matter back again.

TBH I disagree entirely with the theory of white holes, too much Red Dwarf methinks.

Matter entering a black hole isn't ripped apart it isn't anything because you can't get information out of a black hole other than Hawking Radiation in the X-Ray spectrum. If I'm honest and I generally am, I'd stay away from black hole theory until you have a PhD in cosmological physics because after 4 years of Undergraduate Masters, they still confuse the fuck out of me.

How does Hawking Radiation count as information if its infinitely stretched?

[Dauth]

True, ok that was more generic than it should have been, the only emissions we get from a black hole are:

Gravitational Field (Mass and angular momentum)
Photons carrying electric charge (since they are charged, this I don't know for sure)
Other photons? Possibly from polar emissions/Hwaking Radiation.

[Dr. Strangelove]

@OP: Its spelled "Tachyons".

[Destiny]

What next, a Biologist?

I don't think it'll be in trillionth of seconds, more like millions and billions of years. Tell me, once they're being tugged down...tugged by a black hole so they'll stop? lol!

[Zero]

To defend my hypothesis I post this:

a) Hawking radiation only makes up part of what is pulled in, nobody knows what happens to the rest of it. In theory a black hole could in fact rip apart the atom and reduce it to pure energy. So, as far as what happens in a black hole it is entirely hypothetical and you can't disprove it as much as I can prove it.

b) White holes are entirely possible. First of all, a white hole could exist and the only reason we may not have found them is that a- they would not appear anywhere near the black hole and b- they would shine in the night sky like stars, so the chance of catching one would be very.... slim considering there are a lot more stars than black holes.

c) General relativity is the only way to explain white holes because it states "E=MCsquared." The amount of matter required to make a wormhole would be IMMENSE, even on the Universe's riddiculously large scale (compared to our own). The only feasable way to make a black hole would be to gather a HUGE amount of energy, which would be a LOT easier than collecting the matter, because energy is very easy to store. Secondly, if one were to look at Einstein's notes of GR one would find quite a few references to wormholes, or so I've been told.

d) Most of what is in here is based entirely on hypothetical science, so to disprove it you must first disprove that aspect of science. Also, white holes are supported by Einstein's notes, the one who discovered relativity. Although it cannot consist of a Schwarzschild wormhole, it could be a type of transversable (Lorentzian) wormhole, in which energy would be able through, but matter would not, because the black hole has ripped the matter apart into energy.

Edited by tskasa1, 15 May 2008 - 16:45.

[̀̀̀̀█]

OMG I found myself! Nice thinking kid... It's apparently a rare gift.

1: It's not really logic you are using, it is inductive reasoning. Logic doesn't make sense with higher level physics, but you and I alike can come up with things that have been proven, at least from what I can see from you.


White holes may exist, but there is no way that they would exist for more than a few seconds. Black holes are concentrated mass, so the opposite would be concentrated energy, that you assume is being changed to mass when it leaves. What would make it leave?

If anything (and this is coming straight from my head) Stars are your so called "white holes" as in they absorb energy instead of mass (at least at an extended range, beyond what gravity does) which they then convert to Hydrogen, and fusion then occurs and what not. The star isn't a white hole anymore, but there had to have been a way to gather all that hydrogen, right? What if before mass was even really floating around white holes where scattered here and there, and they absorbed the energy from the big bang, and made energy into matter, in this case Hydrogen. Kinda makes sense for something I just now made up........

The idea of a hole that spits out trillions of tons of mass? To me that is absurd, because where would trillions of tons of mass even go? You would no longer be able to se it as a "star" in the sky as it would be quickly surrounded. I like my white hole better. >.> Well ok, not absurd, but they would only be able to spit out so much, then disappear. Insta planets much?

10 more post's until the march of boxes.

Edited by pyrobob, 15 May 2008 - 17:05.

[Reaper94]

MY GOD YOUR SMART....

i got lost in what you said by line 4, by paragraph number 2 i might as well have been reading it backwards =O

and also we dont "trash" each over here

[̀̀̀̀█]

Gaara, on 15 May 2008, 14:19, said:

MY GOD YOUR SMART....

i got lost in what you said by line 4, by paragraph number 2 i might as well have been reading it backwards =O

and also we dont "trash" each over here

It's you're DAMNIT. I hate that so much >.<
Lol, 9 more to go >.>

[Reaper94]

STOP BEING SO SMART, LET LOOSE, BE FREE SP33K LYKE THEESE

it feels so good

anyway

im out of here before this is considered spammy and closed

[Dauth]

*Cracks knuckles*

tskasa1, on 15 May 2008, 17:44, said:

To defend my hypothesis I post this:

a) Hawking radiation only makes up part of what is pulled in, nobody knows what happens to the rest of it. In theory a black hole could in fact rip apart the atom and reduce it to pure energy. So, as far as what happens in a black hole it is entirely hypothetical and you can't disprove it as much as I can prove it.

Actually the more involved maths of the subject does put certain constraints on what happens, however beyond the event horizon, the black hole is a point like particle of Mass M

Quote

b) White holes are entirely possible. First of all, a white hole could exist and the only reason we may not have found them is that a- they would not appear anywhere near the black hole and b- they would shine in the night sky like stars, so the chance of catching one would be very.... slim considering there are a lot more stars than black holes.

Really? Because as far as I know, an electron is a very small black hole that cannot radiate away energy due to the conservation of charge, and you would have to do very well to disprove this.

Quote

c) General relativity is the only way to explain white holes because it states "E=MCsquared." The amount of matter required to make a wormhole would be IMMENSE, even on the Universe's riddiculously large scale (compared to our own). The only feasable way to make a black hole would be to gather a HUGE amount of energy, which would be a LOT easier than collecting the matter, because energy is very easy to store. Secondly, if one were to look at Einstein's notes of GR one would find quite a few references to wormholes, or so I've been told.

Your formula is Special Relativity, Energy in general relativity is connected to pressure and angular momentum in addition to mass.

Also assuming a uniform density, if you filled the solar system with water that could collapse to form a black hole (well you only need 0.17*mass water for it to happen)

Quote

d) Most of what is in here is based entirely on hypothetical science, so to disprove it you must first disprove that aspect of science. Also, white holes are supported by Einstein's notes, the one who discovered relativity. Although it cannot consist of a Schwarzschild wormhole, it could be a type of transversable (Lorentzian) wormhole, in which energy would be able through, but matter would not, because the black hole has ripped the matter apart into energy.

Matter is not ripped apart into energy it is converted, please don't get confused on this score.

What features do you think a white hole has and a black hole doesn't?

[Zero]

white hole is the polar opposite of a black hole, it's event horizon ejects matter. Also, in case anyone brings it up, the second rule of thermodynamics would NOT make a white hole impossible, because a white hole would allow for equilibrium, as it would reuse the absorbed matter and energy, causing no entropy. As time goes on, however, any matter that isn't sucked into a black hole would simply live out it's half-life. So, a white hole would keep an equilibrium in the universe as far as black holes go, but outside of that, matter would still break down. Also, don't forget that all matter exiting the white hole would be quarks and such, very tiny particles. Some black holes suck up many stars and billions of miles' worth of mass (the supermassive kind) so it could eject trillions of tons but the matter would be so small, that it- I guess you can't weigh it, it would be impossible. Also, about the ripped apart thing, that's what I meant, I meant it is converted, my bad.

About the electron thing I would have to retaliate by saying that a white hole of the same tiny size could exist as all black holes may have white holes. Also, I'm not talking about stars, and even if it only lasted seconds, the amount of energy (light) being pushed through would still be immense and allow for enough volume for the photons to collide (like hydrogen in a new born star, it collides often because there is so much of it.

Finally, about the trillionth of a second, it only took about a trillionth of a second for the universe to apply it's laws to the big bang's matter, slowing it down, in fact, it is accepted that for the 1st trillionth of a second, the universe was actually going beyond light speed and slowed down later. I only say years because we don't know what happened back then and coul've taken a lot longer.

[Dauth]

tskasa1, on 15 May 2008, 20:20, said:

white hole is the polar opposite of a black hole, it's event horizon ejects matter. Also, in case anyone brings it up, the second rule of thermodynamics would NOT make a white hole impossible, because a white hole would allow for equilibrium, as it would reuse the absorbed matter and energy, causing no entropy. As time goes on, however, any matter that isn't sucked into a black hole would simply live out it's half-life. So, a white hole would keep an equilibrium in the universe as far as black holes go, but outside of that, matter would still break down. Also, don't forget that all matter exiting the white hole would be quarks and such, very tiny particles. Some black holes suck up many stars and billions of miles' worth of mass (the supermassive kind) so it could eject trillions of tons but the matter would be so small, that it- I guess you can't weigh it, it would be impossible. Also, about the ripped apart thing, that's what I meant, I meant it is converted, my bad.

Polar opposite of a body with just.
Mass - There is only matter and antimatter, both have positive mass, anything else and you're way away from any physics
Angular Momentum - Black holes rotate, they do it a lot
Charge - They have electric charge, can be +ve or -ve

Quote

About the electron thing I would have to retaliate by saying that a white hole of the same tiny size could exist as all black holes may have white holes. Also, I'm not talking about stars, and even if it only lasted seconds, the amount of energy (light) being pushed through would still be immense and allow for enough volume for the photons to collide (like hydrogen in a new born star, it collides often because there is so much of it.

Finally, about the trillionth of a second, it only took about a trillionth of a second for the universe to apply it's laws to the big bang's matter, slowing it down, in fact, it is accepted that for the 1st trillionth of a second, the universe was actually going beyond light speed and slowed down later. I only say years because we don't know what happened back then and coul've taken a lot longer.

Well thats a matter for PhD study, normal rules apply after 10^16 GeV, but I can't be bothered to get timescale for you, IIRC it is 10^-34 seconds

[Zero]

I'm sorry, I forgot that I shouldn't have used polar oppossites, I was just trying to show that they are complete oppossites, exact oppossites, in fact as one sucks in while out pushes out. So, does anyone think it is possible and if not, why?

Edited by tskasa1, 16 May 2008 - 11:53.

[Dauth]

There is a repulsive force in physics, that the cosmic constant lamba (Einstein) however this is not like the white hole you described.

[Zero]

So then is it possible? Also, something I thought up about white hole+ black hole being a wormhole while posting at another topic:

-Wormholes would allow for travel even if they only lasted a few seconds because wormholes- if they have a singularity, which they probably do as only it has the amount of gravity to bend space-time- actually stop time and as you travel from black hole to white hole time is stopped and you arrive at the destination as soon as you left.

So, even if it only lasted a millisecond, the white hole would eject ALL the matter a black hole would EVER absorb because even though it lasted millions if not billions of years less than a black hole, because time is relatively non-existent inside both singularities', those fractions of seconds would still account for the entire black hole's life span

[Dauth]

Cosmological constant is not the same as the white hole, it's a feature of the universe and why the universe will continue to expand.

[Libains]

Ouch - my head hurts an awful lot after reading all of that. However, I agree with Dauth - mostly because I've seen him proved right lots of times + his 4 years in an Undergraduate Masters program in Physics at, i guess, Manchester University, make him quite qualified to speak on the matter - not that tskasa1 isn't - just more so.

[Flechette?]

Still, good going. The theory of white holes has intrigued me much more than black holes. Even as we find ways to just see black holes what defines a white hole from something completely different is something I would go to a lecture for. If there is one thing, there shouldbe a opposite. Even if it's right under our noses or extremely rare to "balance" what it could do. I understand that black holes can quickly strip down a star but what defines or controls the speed that it does so (i've never been clear on this, excuse my noobishness)? Would the same apply to the opposite, to a white hole? Fine tuning is something that is lacking with cosmological constant and it seems the equilibrium is not all that equal, just a little over the line apparantly lops your head off.

[Zero]

I'm not trying to compare a white hole to the cosmological constant (which I'll refer to as the CC from now on), that would be foolish. What I'm saying is that because white holes expell the energy black holes suck in as matter and other energy still, it keeps the black holes in check, reforming lost matter and so on. If this were true, then universal (when there's not enough matter left to form new stars) entropy would occur a lot less quickly because black holes, a major consumer, are being kept in balance. I think it would also make sense because for every action there is an equal reaction, and it seems that in the universe it seems to happen as well. I know white holes and the CC are different and I'm not trying to compare them. I'm not even saying anything about expansion, just the entropy that comes with it.

Also, please note I'm not trying to say that a white hole is arepulsive force, it's not, it just features a way out for the energy. Also, white holes are most likely to only last a few seconds and as we all know, trying to force so musch matter through such a little opening, in so little time creates a LOT of pressure, and it because of the pressure, and how packed the photons would be, it would create a VERY high chance for collision which would form matter (in the form of quarks and so on).

Edited by tskasa1, 16 May 2008 - 14:32.

[Dauth]

Black holes do not consume energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed, instead they convert it to energy in the forum of angular momentum or mass.

[Zero]

I'm not saying it is created or destroyed and when I say energy I'm talking specifically about light, a form of energy. I'm sorry for not being clear and will be more clear from now on. Also, because even light can't escape a black hole, it would end up getting shot out of the other end, the white hole.

[Dauth]

The energy stays in the black holes, it doesn't escape, in fact the high energy density warps spacetime in really strange ways giving a black hole zero dimensions.