Is There Evidence of an Opposite to Black Holes in the Universe?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mkbh_10
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black hole Hole
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether there exists an entity that is opposite to black holes in the universe, often referred to as a "white hole." Participants explore theoretical ideas, symmetry in nature, and the nature of black holes themselves, with a focus on both conceptual and speculative reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that nature prefers symmetry, suggesting that an opposite to black holes must exist, potentially emitting energy in contrast to black holes' gravitational pull.
  • Others argue that the concept of symmetry in nature is not universally applicable, citing examples of broken symmetry in physical phenomena.
  • A participant mentions that the theoretical counterpart to a black hole is a white hole, though they note that white holes are considered purely mathematical constructs.
  • One viewpoint suggests that physical matter itself could be seen as the opposite of a black hole, emphasizing that black holes represent an absence of matter due to their extreme gravitational forces.
  • Another participant counters the idea that black holes are the absence of matter, explaining that they contain a significant amount of mass compacted into a small volume, and that they can be observed indirectly through their effects on surrounding light.
  • Concerns are raised about the limitations of human perception and the potential for future advancements in sensing phenomena beyond current capabilities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the existence and nature of entities opposite to black holes, with no consensus reached on the validity of the symmetry argument or the nature of black holes themselves.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about symmetry in nature and the definitions of black holes and white holes. The discussion includes unresolved questions about the nature of perception and the limits of current observational technology.

mkbh_10
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Nature prefers symmetry so there must exist which is opposite of a black hole & emits the energy , like being connected to a black hole in opposite direction emitting everything that gets sucked in by a black hole ( like a two cones attached together at apex) , is there an evidence of such a thing ?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
i think the physical matter of this universe is the opposite of a black hole. black holes are actually the absence of matter. the gravitational force of a black hole is so strong, it collapses the atoms structure. but then again, its all theory, we have never even seen a black hole. i think its because these sensors we call eyes can't read the massive amount of energy a black hole emits. our eyes only sense a small wavelength scale. I'm thinking once we are more evolved we might be able to actually see more, or maybe it won't even be seeing. maybe it'll be beyond sensing light. maybe we'll be able to sense gravity, or some other force/energy we can't even comprehend yet
 
Last edited:
mkbh_10 said:
Nature prefers symmetry so there must exist which is opposite of a black hole & emits the energy , like being connected to a black hole in opposite direction emitting everything that gets sucked in by a black hole ( like a two cones attached together at apex) , is there an evidence of such a thing ?

Your starting premise here is not accurate. Where does it say that "nature prefers symmetry"? I could point a crystal lattice and shows you that the translational symmetry is immediately broken there. Superconductivity has a broken time-reversal symmetry. Kaon decays have CP-violating events, etc... etc. In fact all of the interesting processes have some form of broken symmetry.

Zz.
 
The time reversal of a black hole is a white hole. However, to the best of my knowledge, these are purely mathematical 'objects'.
 
"Nature prefers symmetry" Not entirely.

Take a look at time. Time goes forwards, not backwards. Imagine symmetry in time :rolleyes:
 
iedoc said:
i think the physical matter of this universe is the opposite of a black hole. black holes are actually the absence of matter. the gravitational force of a black hole is so strong, it collapses the atoms structure. but then again, its all theory, we have never even seen a black hole. i think its because these sensors we call eyes can't read the massive amount of energy a black hole emits. our eyes only sense a small wavelength scale. I'm thinking once we are more evolved we might be able to actually see more, or maybe it won't even be seeing. maybe it'll be beyond sensing light. maybe we'll be able to sense gravity, or some other force/energy we can't even comprehend yet

You need to be very careful here. For one, black holes are black with the exception of hawking radiation. They do not emit "massive amounts of energy" aside from x-rays produced by infalling matter. That said, just because our human eyes cannot see something does not in any way mean that it is less likely to exist. Black holes exist, and almost every physicist will agree with that. They may have been theoretical constructs back in the 1930s, but now there is tons of evidence (Cygnus X-1?) to support their existence. Because we get the readouts in terms of x-rays and not visible light means nothing. After all, no serious astronomy is done by people with there eyes up to the eyepiece anymore. Everything is electronic.
 
iedoc said:
i think the physical matter of this universe is the opposite of a black hole. black holes are actually the absence of matter. the gravitational force of a black hole is so strong, it collapses the atoms structure. but then again, its all theory, we have never even seen a black hole. i think its because these sensors we call eyes can't read the massive amount of energy a black hole emits. our eyes only sense a small wavelength scale. I'm thinking once we are more evolved we might be able to actually see more, or maybe it won't even be seeing. maybe it'll be beyond sensing light. maybe we'll be able to sense gravity, or some other force/energy we can't even comprehend yet

A black hole is NOT the absence of matter. A black hole is so massive that the gravitational strength behind it is so strong nothing can escape it, not even light. Black holes have a massive amount of matter compacted into a relatively tiny space. A recently discovered black hole was only 15 square miles but had the mass 4 times that of our sun. And yes you are right; we have never directly seen a black hole. We can’t directly see them because light can not escape them. We can however see how the black hole affects light around it. The black hole bends light around it and we can see this to know where one is. This is called gravitational lensing.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K