| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/12/2009 9:44:12 PM | | Could this be a possibility? Why haven't physicists thought of this? Could there be multiple black holes / white holes which lead to various universes? For instance, think of the universe like a balloon. When you blow air into the balloon, it expands. If a hole is poked in the balloon, it will contract. Could this be how our universe started? Where a black hole would crush matter up into finite particles and spit them out on the other side, then rearranging them based on NATURAL laws? Is this a possibility? | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/12/2009 9:49:48 PM | | i think physicists have thought of this for a long time. Its called a multiverse. Your not really crushing matter into finite particles though...at that heat and density the matter is all converted into energy....its only after some expansion that particles such as hydrogen and helium and deuterium are formed. The rest of the elements get formed later inside stars.(oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, etc...). Thats why you always hear people say we are made of stardust. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/13/2009 6:31:31 AM | Hypothesis like M-brane are essentially working at broaching a unified field theory and are still at the very complicated stage, where classical physics and quantum mechanics are more like a series of correlated precepts forming falsifiable conclusions.
Where classical physics has a tendency to produce singularities for every unsolved equation, M-brane adds another dimension instead to keep working at the problem.
The multiple dimensions aren't meant to be taken literally as alternate timelines or alternate universes, though many do including some physicists and virtually all scientific journalists. They're meant to be eventually reduced to the four dimensions we have, at which time the UFT is won and singularities are explained.
Many others contend the answer lay in classical physics.
Working with demonstrable theorum, the current model can't reverse engineer as far back as the big bang itself, so it is not established one ever happened. The model essentially starts at Inflation and correlates very well with observation, down to distribution of the CMBR. Beyond that nobody really knows, but it seems fairly unlikely the mass-energy content of the universe could be provided by the inverse collection of all the black holes there are in ours.
But the point is muted by the nature of gravity. The entire universe would have to be one big white hole, and so an equivalent mass black hole would have to exist somewhere else to feed it, and a another white hole universe to feed that and so on...but we're theorising a perpetual motion machine and a circular argument. The sum of the equation is zero and no initial universe could form in the first place to start it all off, furthermore if all these white hole/black hole universes existed in direct proportion to each other they would instantly cancel each other out as a non-entity.
The creation of a physical universe is necessarily an imbalance of order, not a balance. A balance would be absolute nothing; straight math. The equation would already be solved, have solved itself at onset. There has to be a precipitation to keep two sides of the equation apart. An imbalance. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/13/2009 6:33:39 AM | | I'm just going to clearly state that we have no evidence of what did or did not happen during the initial stages of or before the big bang--in fact, there wasn't a 'before' as that's when our space/time started. Perhaps anything is possible. Sadly, no evidence at this point. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/13/2009 8:10:58 AM | | I think there is much less evidence, theoretical or observed, that supports white holes even exist than there is to support the big bang. The one thing I have a hard time with when people mention white holes is their proposed link to a black hole. As I understand physics in order to have gravity you must first have mass. A black hole works because the singularity at it's core has gained enough mass to exert massive amounts of gravity over objects within it's range. If there was a white hole linked up with a black hole that would remove mass, the black hole would not be capable of extending it's area of effective gravity. Like many other things people accept as established science, it sounds good in science fiction, but has a lot of really basic holes. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/13/2009 12:07:47 PM | I'm just going to clearly state that we have no evidence of what did or did not happen during the initial stages of or before the big bang--in fact, there wasn't a 'before' as that's when our space/time started.
i agree, except that by stating "there wasnt a before", indicates that you do think you know something about what happened during or before the big bang.
If we take the current rates of acceleration of the galaxies away from us, and extrapolate back, we know that at one time the universe was extremely small...on par with the size of an atom. However, around this time, it reaches a critical density where Einstein's relativity breaks down. So we can not apply those laws to "see" what happened before this time (when it was smaller than an atom...such as a singularity) I think the critical density is around 10^38 grams per cubic centimeter, but i'm too lazy to google it for sure.
So, a number of things are possible once we reach this critical density. It may have started as a singularity (classic big bang theory). But then we have the problem of first cause. What caused it to explode? And what caused what caused it to explode?
Second, it could be that a previouly contracting universe got down to the size of a proton (close to a singularity) and then the expelling forces overcame gravity and it reversed the contraction and starting it growing again. This could be a never ending process, a universe that keeps growing and shrinking forever. First cause is still an issue. We can ask, what was before our universe? Another universe. What was before that? Another universe! Keep asking, its turtles all the way down!!!
There are many other theories. but you are right...who knows? | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/13/2009 1:54:37 PM |
Could this be a possibility? Why haven't physicists thought of this?
Everyone, especially us enthusiastic amateurs, all want to be first past the post...sadly, yes, this has been thought of and the problems with the idea that have been pointed out have already been stated. In fact, I remember reading a sci-fi story with this concept in the 70s.
However, as I understand it, there is a theorist (forget his name) who had this very idea and applied evolutionary theory to the concept of why our universe seems so conducive to life...specifically, that such universes are born (somehow, not sure the mechanism) from collapsing black holes in parent universes and likely "selected" to be the most abundant because they are the best, most stable ones there are. Everything just so that they don't expand too quickly, or crunch back on themselves too quickly.
Again, HIGHLY speculative. but an interesting concept nonetheless. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/27/2009 12:53:04 PM | I no im probably completly
wrong about this but it
fascinates me...could
everythin have come from
1 super black hole..if in
the end of everythin as
we no it all matter,gas,
light and everythin else
out there was engulfed in
a black hole could it
become so dense that it
explodes??i mean we no
that black holes grow so
eventually wouldn there
gravity pull everything in...
i think its true that when
black holes collide that
they engulf each other
and grow so is this
possible?? | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/27/2009 1:17:04 PM | I'm.....more......interested.......in........why.........some..........people...........type............their.............messages
..............in...............strange...............forms.
Is
it
just
to
be
different
?
Just________________________________________________curious. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/27/2009 2:16:09 PM | Silly question alert... Please dont giggle.
Are black holes 'rips' in our universe or are they just 'fierce', singularity shaped stars?.. If they are 'ultimate' stars then wouldn't they have a shelf-life and run the same course a mortal star does......exploding with a dimension shaking bang after their energy expenditure reached old age? | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/29/2009 3:08:32 AM | BrightSpark, Black holes are singularities, which aren;t exactly IN our universe, they warp time and space, the fabric of both. they have no shelf life because they are PURELY powered by an emence amount of gravity, stars are powered (fueled) by energy and gravity, a cycle that breaks down of years of constant use, gravity is i suppose infinite in that it never breaks down, or travels from it's matter, i suppose enery is infinity too, in the sense it only changes forms, never disapears, but a star is constantly ejecting energy, when it uses too much, it can no longer fuel the cycle that keeps it a star, and if it's big enough, it will collaps on itself, where the biggest factor in the area will be gravity, which will suck anything in.....
Black holes ARE only a theory.... never forget that people, there's no direct proof, only circumstancial evidence. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/29/2009 4:04:53 AM | 'crumblepie'..//But a star is constantly ejecting energy, when it uses too much, it can no longer fuel the cycle that keeps it a star, and if it's big enough, it will collapse on itself, where the biggest factor in the area will be gravity, which will suck anything in.//
Thankyou 'crumblepie''. I may be wrong but a white dwarf (the last cycle stage of our star) looks like something that is a step closer to a black hole (the mass of a star crammed together under an even stronger than before gravitational force results in the white dwarf being a fraction of the stars original size).
Stephen Hawking predicts that black holes emit radiation. This type of 'VERY' slow release of energy (radiation/heat) is known as 'Hawking radiation'.
If a black hole does actually throw off radiation and heat (constantly ejecting energy). Might it not be reasonable to assume that one day it will eventually run out of energy and no longer be able to fuel the cycle that keeps it a black hole? | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/29/2009 5:11:56 AM | If black holes emit radiation, why could it not be possible for the last stage of a black holes life to be its own explosion? Similar to the explosions of the stars that we observe through our most powerful telescopes.
'If' it was part of a black holes 'cycle' to explode.....and 'if' the big crunch ever takes place in a google years (give or take a year or two) then all the matter in the universe being focused into one singularity would (for lack of a better word) 'simmer' until it radiated enough energy allowing it to explode and scatter whatever lay within the singularity...the big bang? | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/29/2009 5:21:17 AM | | Bright - I'm pretty sure black holes will eventually implode. They might explode, but I couldn't fathom how a black hole will explode.. Imploding makes more sense. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/29/2009 5:27:55 AM | 'Verzen'..//Bright- I'm pretty sure black holes will eventually implode.//
Coming from you Verzen, 'pretty sure' is good enough for me :)...back to my primary sized drawingboard. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/29/2009 8:54:40 AM |
I'm pretty sure black holes will eventually implode. They might explode, but I couldn't fathom how a black hole will explode.. Imploding makes more sense.
Actually, implosion doesn't really make more sense because a black hole is already the ultimate "implosion."
However, "explosion" doesn't make any more sense. In fact, I don't think it could be called that entirely. In essence, there is a release of radiation that gets progressively and more pronounced. From theorists I've heard from, the final second or two of the black hole's existence would release enough Hawking radiation to blow apart the moon. Now, is that an "explosion" in the classic sense? Not so sure.
Kinda the same way the "big bang" might actually be inaccurately described as an "explosion." Or the Challenger which, according to those in the know, didn't "blow up" as much as suffered an "uncontrolled burn." | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/29/2009 4:41:53 PM | Well, the reason I said implosion, is that it would eventually close in on itself. Black holes are weird though, since it creates a rift that isn't directly understood. However, black holes will dissipate.
An explosion isn't accurate since an explosion from a point of immense implosion is theoretically impossible.
And black holes do eventually close.
The energy wave that a blackhole would create would be able to dissipate any matter surrounding it when it closes however. But is this do to an explosion or simply a result of extreme energy being forced from the black hole, similar to the pressure that could result from, as an example, placing a floating object in water and forcing it down as far as you can. The object will get more difficult to push down the further it goes. But the pressure build up will eventually send it off to a point of equalibrium where the energy dissipation will result in a point of a constant pressure. For instance, it isn't an explosion that results from a black hole closing, but the black hole itself is a highly pressured point in space that, upon so much pressure occuring, will result in going back to point zero, where it was before the star had came to be.
If we were to talk about an explosion, we would refer to a positive point of dispersion. Which a black hole does not do. If we were to talk about a black hole, we would think of a negative point of dispersion where instead of everything going outwards, everything instead is sucked to a central point. However, the result of a black hole closing would result in not a postive dispersion *explosion* but it would not result in a negative dispersion either. *implosion* How it would work is the exact opposite of an implosion, without hitting the line of an explosion.. resulting in an equalibrium within the system.
Does that make sense?
I'm not sure what word to use for it.. but I tried my best in explaining it. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/29/2009 4:47:07 PM | Actually the possibility that white holes could be used for time travel and lead you to another universe/time.
The way I understand it (and this was a few years ago and I stopped reading into it so it could be outdated and irrelevant) was there were 2 types of holes.
Holes that were shaped like a waffle cone (basically a black hole), in which the top part was the entrance and as you went further in got smaller and smaller. This type of hole would crush you.
The other type of hole (basically a white hole), while the actual shape of it I don't remember, didn't go down to a point like a black hole did and therefore it was possible that you could enter through it.
To what? No idea. A new universe or time/ | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/29/2009 4:51:22 PM |
Actually the possibility that white holes could be used for time travel and lead you to another universe/time.
Time travel isn't actually possible. To believe in time travel, one must believe that we are within a closed system with a back up hard drive..
We can see into the past though... That is something we CAN do. If we manage to create a satellite and send it 800 light years away. (Assuming we can send it 800 light years away immediantly... warp 9?) Than we could look at Earth and we would be able to see ancient battles, such as the crusades, taking place by using a very powerful telescope similar to the hubble. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/31/2009 6:25:02 PM | I thought white holes where more along the lines on science fiction, since the matter ejected from the white hole would accumulate in the vicinity of the hole, and then collapse upon itself, forming a black hole.
As for black holes taking you to another universe, thats doubtful considering that if you survive the spaghettification, being crushed into a singularity would probably be something you would not survive. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/31/2009 6:44:11 PM | Could I get some definitions please?
I understand that Dr. Michio Kaku, Dr. Stephen Hawking and others suggest that M-branes exist and that an anomolous event where two M-branes have an arc-reaction, like two pieces of cellophane that are usually separated, touch each other, and the contact induces the creation of all the resultant forces.
It's like two surfaces, like water surfaces, suddenly meet and the point at which they meet is the creation of a very (understatement) large event.
A definition for this purpose: gravity is a measurement of the distance between two objects that have what we call 'mass.' The only reason we observe gravity is that to our observation it takes what we call a certain amount of 'time' for bosons or anything else to bridge the distance we call a 'gap.' The universe doesn't care that we see the bosons take time to bridge this gap. If we were not observers relegated to seeing things in our four dimensions we would not see it as time; we would see it as a bridge of space, and that's why (to put it in terms I've understood so far, having read the two Drs) time and space are the same thing.
When two M-branes arc (like lightning connecting two poles between sky and ground?) that act creates all the dimensions we limited human minds can perceive. Distance, gravity, light's dual properties of wave and particle, bosons, photons, and time are all created. I get that we can't define what happened before that, but isn't it possible that all our perceptions are created at the same instant as are the dimensions themselves?
Finally, I understand what a black hole is. Not to toot my own horn, but to give a reference point for your answers, I graduated from Mount Royal College in Calgary, among other institutions, in astronomy 101. What is a white hole? | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/31/2009 7:29:45 PM | | A White hole is supposed to be the theoretical mathmatical reversal of a black hole. You can look it up on wiki to find out more. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/31/2009 8:08:43 PM | mmm. I figured that would pop up eventually.
I have a fire breathing dragon that lives in my room. Only, the thing is she's invisible and the fire she emits is heatless. Also, she floats in the air so she doesn't leave any footprints and the surface of her body is incorporeal so she cannot be masked with chalk or paint. She is a mindful and polite creature, so she doesn't knock down any of my stuff and she only makes her dragon noise when nobody is around. I have no clue what she does with her excrements, though, that might explain why my cereal tastes funny in the morning.
Also, last week, I think she killed my neighbor's invisible unicorn and visible house cat....
For $60 USD, I'll send anyone a picture of the dragon(An artist's conception)
For and extra $5 I'll include some of the cereal
So tell me, what exact effect does this being called "god" have on this universe? Its been a long time since somebody defied reality by calling a colum of fire from the sky, was born of a virgin(at least she stuck to her story), knocked down a wall by blowing horns, made the sun stand still, raised from the dead, ect. Why would such a powerful and wise being be so active way back in the past, then suddenly vanish?
I think that the idea that we have a privleged position in the universe is a delusion. We could be wiped out in an instant and the rest of the universe will keep on trucking. It was here long before us, it'll be here long after. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 8/31/2009 8:55:56 PM | This has been discussed, but I think it seems too much based on our thinking backwards and using what can explain to explain what is as of yet unexplained. Obviously, I can't rule it out as a theory presently, but it certainly isn't high on my possibility list.
I think the key is in discovering the source of mass, and completing the puzzle of quarks, bosons and leptons. | |
|
| Start of the Universe via white hole?
Posted: 9/1/2009 9:54:44 AM |
I think it seems too much based on our thinking backwards
I think it has more to do with us not being qualified to make such a decision. Anyone here an astrophysist?
Its still fun to talk about, though. | |
|
Home
login 
