Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A could be explenation for the universe but probably not.

  1. May 28, 2012 #1

    What if the universe did consist of black holes swallowing things and white holes spitting them out? Matter, anti-matter, dark energy, dark matter, etc all going into a black hole only to be separated into the most basic individual particles. Individual particles being spit out of a white hole, emitting mass amounts or radiation " big-bang." only to later on cool down and begin their cycle of bonding and opposing just to be swallowed again by a black hole. I mean we could even say that maybe dark energy is just white holes that are immensely small and undetectable, opening up more in areas that are less dense.

    On the science channels t.v show, Through the wormhole with Morgan Freeman. A physicist was talking about how a particles position is unmeasurable because it will always be here, here, and here (he shows on different parts of a vibrating guitar string.) ; saying their was an equation to prove this although it sounds so absurd nobody believes it.
    This could actually be the case.

    Could we be part of something all happening at once? Time being an illusion, Everything happening so fast that it almost looks still with everything being everywhere, like a ceiling fan on high. The concept of something being solid also an illusion, for we are a mass of particles constantly moving through one another. ( Light moves through transparent objects because theirs enough space for photons to slip through. )
  2. jcsd
  3. May 29, 2012 #2
    Then we should see gravitational lensing from these objects as they pass in front of more distant stars and galaxies.

    We don't


    It actually is because particles have wave like properties but that is something different.

    Define "illusion". Time is what clocks measure. Once you can measure something then you have to explain why the "illusion" works one way and not another.
  4. May 29, 2012 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Er, what white holes? Last time I checked none were known to exist.
  5. May 29, 2012 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Light does not move through objects because there is enough space. It is much more complicated and involves knowing Quantum Electrodynamics. The idea of particles moving through other particles extremely quickly is simply a misunderstanding of the wavelike properties of matter and light. If it were this simple then we wouldn't see interference patterns from electrons in the double slit experiment.
  6. May 29, 2012 #5
    Last time you checked we didn't know, and still don't.
    At one point in time we theorized their to be black holes, but we didn't know for sure.
    Going to make this face for a second -_-.... ok, I am 18 year old high-school dropout. I don't know much nor claim to. Although i am open to the concept of all things.

    Electrodynamics - A photons energy somewhat wrestles with an electron before it continues in the path it was going, light slows down because of this but once it is back in open space it moves at C again? please correct me if i am wrong.

    I know I haven't grasped the full understanding of it, but it seems almost like theirs enough room for the electrons to budge and that's why photons aren't absorbed?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2012
  7. May 29, 2012 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    So? That does not make a white hole plausible. It is merely possible according to the math of GR, which may or may not turn out to be correct. Until we get even a hint that a white hole exists, which as far as I know we haven't, then we can discuss it. Until then most discussion on it will be nothing but unsupported speculation. Your concept of white holes being dark energy doesn't even make any sense when you look at what white holes and dark energy are. The two don't match up in any sense. Nor does a significant amount of matter fall into the black holes of the universe. According to our current knowledge black holes actually emit radiation and shrink, so the mass isn't lost it simply sits there until the black hole itself emits it back out as radiation.

    While a popular way of explaining why the velocity of light is less than c in a medium, I don't believe this is accurate. I'm honestly not certain why light slows down.

    The issue isn't one of space, it is one of energy levels. If a photon doesn't have the right energy to excite an electron or another part of the atom/molecule into one of the quantized energy states, then it cannot interact with it and be absorbed.
  8. May 29, 2012 #7
    It was merely a what if statement, please don't take me to seriously.

    I just like a multiverse theory, and am looking for ways to explain it.

    Your right, maybe i shouldn't talk about white holes. Seeing how we barley even know enough about black holes. Though maybe the big bang was one?

    So how is it the photons energy and not the electrons? Does this mean that light can go though anything if it has enough energy?

    I will stand by my present opinion of our perception on time an illusion. Yes things are happening in chronological order ill admit that. The universe as a whole of particles sliding past and against eachother still doesnt sound all that crazy to me.
  9. May 29, 2012 #8
    You probably haven't studied the Big Bang in much detail, then.

    I'm fairly certain there's a tiny chance photons or electrons could go through anything.
  10. May 29, 2012 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Don't ask questions if you aren't prepared to accept the answers you are given.
    The photon is what is moving and carrying the energy in this example. Moving electrons interact differently with matter than photons do, as electrons are negatively charged. Electrons within a material exist in specific energy levels. They can jump to one of these levels but not in between. If the photon has an energy level that is between energy states then the electron will not absorb it. This is a very watered down version of the quantum theory behind it, in reality it is much more complicated.

    Until you define what you mean by time being an illusion we cannot discuss anything on it. As for particle sliding past each other, I have no idea how it relates to time.
  11. May 29, 2012 #10
    Hi Austin:
    Better to ask questions than make statements here...lots of people get all uppity and annoyed with improper statements because most take great pains to learn the proper explanations....but silly questions are usually tolerated; I should know, I have asked my share!!

    Zapper has a standard answer under FAQ, here:

    Do Photons Move Slower in a Solid Medium?
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511177 [Broken]

    For a one liner, the light delay is due to lattice vibration absorption, 'phonon' modes'.

    "Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once."

    I've probably seen the show but don't remember much. You have to remember such shows are very simple and so easily misconstrued. If you want to learn a bit about white holes check wikipedia for an introduction....A key to thinking about mathematics, which theoretically does allow white holes, does not always describe our universe; in other words, we have a lot more mathematical models than apply to what we observe. On the other hand math can give insights before observations, like math did for black holes before they were found to be likely by observation. The smartest scientists can guess which math might fit and follow.
    Einstein said it more generally:

    In other words, why should our mathematics fit anything???

    Actually I'd guess just about all scientists DO believe it....You can read about it as 'wave particle duality' in wikipedia, and 'wave particle duality of light' and also via deBroglie wavelength.. Try just the first few paragraphs under each to get an idea of these phenomena.

    A related idea you may find interesting is 'Heisenberg uncertainty' which relates. It turns out that as you try to confine an elementary particle, say a photon in an enclosed box, or an electron around a nucleus, their behavior changes as they are 'confined'. They change size and jiggle more and more: You can't get them to sit still to take certain measurements.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  12. May 30, 2012 #11
    Ok your right, I should word what I say better.

    Thank you for the vacuum reference, What would photons look like going through glass in a electron microscope?

    It just doesn't seem too crazy for white holes to be like the big bang. I mean when matter and energy enters a black hole, what happens to it? Infinite density with zero volume, Every thing should be compacted together and torn apart into individual extremely hot primitive particles, and an ungodly amount of radiation.
  13. May 30, 2012 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    You wouldn't be able to see them. Electron microscopes cannot form pictures of light, as only 1 electron could interact with a photon before it gets scattered. In addition electron microscopes cannot look inside solid objects either.

    The singularity is supposedly infinite in density with zero volume. The BH itself has a finite volume and density. In addition, you are ignoring relativistic effects such as time dilation. From an observer outside the event horizon, nothing EVER enters the black hole. Time dilation becomes more and more pronounced the closer the object gets to the EH and the light coming from it becomes more and more redshifted until they could no longer see whatever was falling.
  14. Jun 30, 2012 #13
    Are you suggesting that the universe has a sort of cycle? In which every x amount of years black holes swallow all of the matter in the universe, only to be spit out by white holes, thus creating a "Big Bang" of sorts?
  15. Jul 1, 2012 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Daybreaker, I see that in this thread as well as in another thread you seem to have ignored what was explained in the thread which possibly answers the OP's questions. Please read at least some of the contents of the thread to make sure your reply is still valid.
  16. Jul 1, 2012 #15
    I was worried that I had done exactly that, and I apologize. Thank you for the suggestion and I will try to read most of the posts next time I visit a thread.
  17. Jul 2, 2012 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Thank you! :biggrin:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook