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

Blackhole and wormhole

  1. Jun 7, 2009 #1
    what is the difference between black hole and worm hole
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 7, 2009 #2
    Black hole sucks things in, converts everything to it's subatomic particles, and pulls it closer and closer towards a singularity while doing so.

    Worm hole sucks things in, converts everything to it's subatomic particles, pulls it closer to a singularity and then spews everything out in to an alternate/baby universe.

    Realistically, we know BHs exist. Wormholes are still Sci Fi
     
  4. Jun 7, 2009 #3
    I agree with protonchain. Worm holes may actually exist, but the real reason that we can't be sure is nothing has ever gone into a black hole and then been ..'recovered' afterwards. because of the fact that different solar systems are essentially neighbors in a galactic sense, it is feasible to think that when a star implodes and becomes a black hole, it may serve as a 'rip' in the lining of a singular galaxy that may allow matter to seep into another adjacent universe, which is one of the theories on how our universe received the planets that we have today. worm holes are defiantly sci fi how they are currently presented however, as being portals to another dimension. they may merely be a name for a black hole which allows matter to slingshot into a nearby galaxy.
     
  5. Jun 7, 2009 #4

    Nabeshin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    One important thing to note from protonchain's description is that to an outside observer, the black hole and worm hole appear exactly the same. Any differences are contained within the event horizon (point of no return), so the question of what the difference between them is almost loses all meaning. To all of us who are not trapped within the event horizon, there is no difference.
     
  6. Jun 7, 2009 #5
    how can we prove that blackholes exist?
     
  7. Jun 7, 2009 #6
    Are you sure? From an extreme n00b point of view, it would seem like space would be warped slightly differently depending on whether it is a singularity or a wormhole. The picture I have in my mind is the difference between a cone and a hyperboloid of one sheet.
     
  8. Jun 7, 2009 #7
    I know the wormhole is formed from a combination of a black hole and a white hole. The white hole is some distance away. The black hole connects to the white hole to form a very unstable wormhole (it will last something along the lines of the planck time before the bond breaks). Meanwhile, from the observer's reference frame, nothing happens.

    There are other means in which negative mass is proposed to hold the wormhole open. This would form a more 'tunnel' like gape in space-time, and would be held open by what is called the 'throat'. This would also, however, be unstable as intense radiation would immediately be emitted. I believe that as one holds the hole open, one essentially gets rid of the singularities, causing radiation to shoot out both ends. I think we would see a bright burst of radiation. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
     
  9. Jun 7, 2009 #8
    Of course. We observe them indirectly all the time. It's obvious you have a black hole when surrounding stars appear to bend into almost unrecognizable shapes. However, that is extreme. We usually see either stars in places they shouldn't be (the light has bent to make them appear in different positions) or we see the jets that they shoot off. The latter is far less likely to observe.
     
  10. Jun 8, 2009 #9

    Nabeshin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I share your concern that there might be a slight difference and the equality of geometries may only be an approximation. However, I think that for a distant observer a BH and star curve spacetime exactly the same, which leads me to the conclusion that a BH and wormhole would as well. Someone better versed in GR could perhaps provide insight into whether this is true or merely an approximation, though.
     
  11. Jun 9, 2009 #10

    ideasrule

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    "how can we prove that blackholes exist?"

    When astronomers see a star orbiting around something they can't see, chances are, it's orbiting a black hole. The first black hole, Cygnus X-1, was discovered this way.
     
  12. Jun 9, 2009 #11
    are white holes the worm holes that were mentioned in the topic?
     
  13. Jun 9, 2009 #12

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The most compelling evidence for black holes resides in the center of our milky way. It is a whopper. We have discovered even more gigantic black holes in the center of other galaxies - some with masses of many billions of stars. White holes and worm holes are still science fiction.
     
  14. Jun 9, 2009 #13
    Check out the new estimate for the mass of M87. :surprised
     
  15. Jun 10, 2009 #14
    has a photo of a black hole ever been clicked or has anyone seen a black hole{i know that is impossible)
     
  16. Jun 10, 2009 #15
    all the things u r talking about is hypothetical
     
  17. Jun 10, 2009 #16
    Black holes are not hypothetical. We know they are there.
     
  18. Jun 10, 2009 #17

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is compelling evidence black holes power quasars, and exist at the centers of most galaxies. There is no compelling evidence [in fact no evidence] supporting the existence of white holes. You obviously cant photograph a black hole, but you can photograph matter being ripped apart as it is 'eaten' by a black hole.
     
  19. Jun 10, 2009 #18

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    While true, the actual centre of the BH is not visible, this is no show-stopper to detection. BHs are actually very bright X-ray objects due to the disk of infalling gas and dust.

    Cygus X-1 is probably the most well-known but there are many others.
     
  20. Jun 28, 2009 #19
    is it true that not every BH has a singularity?
     
  21. Jun 28, 2009 #20

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The singularity theorems of Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking use classical general relativity to prove that all black holes contain singularities. Many physicists, however, think that quantum gravity is relevant for such extreme situations, but currently there is no quantum theory of gravity that can be used to make reliable, accepted, useful calculations.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Blackhole and wormhole
  1. Are blackholes (Replies: 7)

  2. Are Blackholes? (Replies: 2)

  3. Wormhole generator? (Replies: 3)

Loading...