Gigantic Black Holes vs White Holes: How Can We Know?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter profgemelli
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black holes Holes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of gigantic black holes and the theoretical existence of white holes, particularly in the context of active galactic nuclei and their emission phenomena. Participants explore the evidence for black holes and the implications of white holes within current physical theories.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the formation of black holes from collapsing stars is a well-established theory, while the existence of white holes lacks similar theoretical support.
  • One participant argues that white holes are essentially black holes with a reversed time coordinate and posits that they do not exist due to a lack of observable phenomena supporting their existence.
  • Another participant emphasizes that black holes have a clear physical explanation based on gravity, whereas white holes do not have a corresponding repulsive force or model in known physics.
  • A later reply questions the certainty of the black hole model, asking if there is observational proof linking emissions from active galactic nuclei to supermassive black holes, or if it is based on the principle of elimination.
  • Participants discuss whether white holes could theoretically account for the observed phenomena, despite their unlikely existence, and whether they can be definitively ruled out.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that black holes are the more accepted explanation for the phenomena observed in active galactic nuclei, but there is no consensus on the existence of white holes or their potential role in these emissions. Multiple competing views remain regarding the theoretical implications of white holes.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of observational evidence directly linking emissions to black holes, and the ongoing debate about the theoretical framework surrounding white holes, which remains unresolved.

profgemelli
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Hello friends! Forgive me, I have another question for you physicists. We see those active galactic nucley which show enormous emission phenomena, so:

How can we know that responsible are gigantic black holes and not white holes?

I suppose we guess it, becouse we have some theory on the formation of black holes from a collapsing star while for white holes we have nothing similar, which makes the existence of white holes rather improbable to most people... but we cannot be really sure. Am I wrong?
 
Space news on Phys.org
profgemelli said:
Hello friends! Forgive me, I have another question for you physicists. We see those active galactic nucley which show enormous emission phenomena, so:

How can we know that responsible are gigantic black holes and not white holes?
White holes are black holes with the time coordinate reversed. They don't exist for the exact same reason that we don't see eggs spontaneously jumping out of a frying pan and back into their shells.
 
Is that all??
 
No. White holes don't exist because they comply with no known physics.

Black holes have a mundane physical explanation - gravity. Gravity has no repulsive counterpart, thus no white holes.
 
Perhaps, if I am not abusing of your patience, I must try to be more precise in my question. I already knew that most of the physicists don't believe in white holes, probably I don't too, but some scientists have a different opinion. There are relatively few papers on that subject in the literature, but there are some 20 rather recent papers on arxiv.org, which means there could be a sort of revival going on. So I would not like to discard the thing unless I can understand:

1) do we have any observative proof that emission from active galactic nuclei (x-rays, jets, etc...)are really caused by matter falling into a supermassive black hole? Or is it mainly a matter of "what else could be?"

2) in the unespected case white holes should exist, could they in theory be responsible (as well as black holes) for such phenomena? Or can we clearly exonerate them for some reason (but that the fact that their existence is unlikely)?

Thank you
 
Well,

1] "what else could it be" is a pretty good scientific argument.

Our understanding of gravity and mass and the centre of galaxies leads to a model with black holes. There is no competing theory. There is no repulsive gravity, there is no model for a white hole.

2] It's not simply "we see stuff spewing out, let's assume it's a BH". The stuff that's coming out is consistent with matter being highly compressed as it spirals inward to a strong gravitational source. We do know that's what matter does in that circumstance.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K