What is the Truth about Black Holes and Light Holes?

[Zoomie]

You know, I'm probably not smart enough to be in here, but I have a burning question. I've often thought aboout this but I have never looked for an answer until now.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Blackholes are theories...right? Theories are truths that haven't been disproven. So...if black holes are the vacuums of the entire entirety, where does all teh stuff go? I've read that possibly there may be light holes...exactly the opposite of the black holes. Is this a theory or a belief??

Can anyone break it down in laymen terms??

 

[franznietzsche]

You know, I'm probably not smart enough to be in here, but I have a burning question. I've often thought aboout this but I have never looked for an answer until now.

This is a place for asking questions, so its all good.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Blackholes are theories...right?

In the strictest sense, no. Black holes are a consequence of a theory, not a theory in their own right. That said, the theory on which they're based has proven spectacularly right in every major experiment designed to test it.

Theories are truths that haven't been disproven.

Its more complicated than that. A theory is an explanation of phenomenon that makes further predictions that can be tested and either verified or falsified. For examples. "God created the universe". That is a theory. Its an explanation of a phenomenon (existence). But its not a good scientific theory because its not testable, not falsifiable.

So...if black holes are the vacuums of the entire entirety, where does all teh stuff go?

That depends on specific conditions involved. If the matter falls into a nonrotating black hole, which has a point singularity it will be crushed into the singularity. If it falls into a rotating black hole, which has a ring singularity...well it gets more complicated, and General Relativity is not my field per se, so I couldn't say.

I've read that possibly there may be light holes...exactly the opposite of the black holes. Is this a theory or a belief??

Again, its a consequence of a theory. The idea is called an Einstein-Rosen bridge, a space time tunnel connecting a black hole and a white hole. However, in order to maintain this tunnel, the wormhole, some very bizarre things are required to happen (matter with negative density and such IIRC) that make it very unlikely to occur in nature, at least based on our experience of nature.

 

[Zoomie]

Thanks for the help. I love reading in here.

 

[DaveC426913]

I heard that the Hubble scope has observed BHs, banishing any lingering doubts about their existence.

 

[franznietzsche]

I heard that the Hubble scope has observed BHs, banishing any lingering doubts about their existence.

I don't know about Hubble, but we've had X-ray data on binary systems like cygnus X-1 for decades that strongly indicates they exist. There is no real debate on whether they exist, the only debate is in the details of their nature, none of which is clear because both GR and QM predict some very strange things that we don't entirely know how to interpret.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I heard that the Hubble scope has observed BHs, banishing any lingering doubts about their existence.

If you remember, I'd be curious to know the context of this. My impression is that very few astro and physics professionals doubt the existence of black holes, but short of one passing through the solar system, it would be near impossible to obtain proof of their existence. Most of the arguments so far (that I know of) are indirect:

1) We infer masses by measuring the velocities of objects in the vicinity of the suspected black hole. If we measure a large mass in a small space, such that no other known object can be the culprit, we argue that it must be a black hole.
2) In the case of massive stars, we argue that no known physical mechanism can support them above a certain mass threshold (once nuclear fuel is exhausted). Thus, compact objects with masses measured to be above ~3 solar masses are assumed to be black holes.
3) We can argue that the energetics of system (such as the hardness of the spectrum or total luminosity) are too extreme to be generated by any other object. This is sometimes done for quasars.

None of this involves direct detection of an event horizon. A detection of Hawking radiation would be much stronger support, but unfortunately, such radiation is extremely weak for all but the smallest black holes.

 

[Intuitive]

It's more than likely that Black holes are huge old dead Stars that had enormous Neutron cores that collapsed into a singularity, some had fast spins and some had slow spins.

There should be lots of old dead stars floating around the Universe black as can be..

 

[pervect]

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107387

advances another indirect argument for the existence of event horizons.

We discuss new observations of X-ray novae which provide strong evidence that black holes have event horizons. Optical observations of 13 X-ray novae indicate that these binary stars contain collapsed objects too heavy to be stable neutron stars. The objects have been identified as black hole candidates. X-ray observations of several of these X-ray novae in quiescence with the Chandra X-ray Observatory show that the systems are approximately 100 times fainter than nearly identical X-ray novae containing neutron stars. The advection-dominated accretion flow model provides a natural explanation for the difference. In this model, the accreting gas reaches the accretor at the center with a large amount of thermal energy. If the accretor is a black hole, the thermal energy will disappear through the event horizon, and the object will be very dim. If the accretor is a neutron star or any other object with a surface, the energy will be radiated from the surface, and the object will be bright. We discuss alternate interpretations of the data that eliminate the need for advection-dominated accretion. Most of these alternatives still require an event horizon to explain the unusually low X-ray luminosities of the black hole candidates. Some of the alternatives are also inconsistent with observations.

 

[Intuitive]

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107387

advances another indirect argument for the existence of event horizons.

Hey, How about Top Quark Core Stars, Neutron Singularities collapsed into a Top Quark core? Would there be enough energy in the event for Top Quarks to be present even for a few moments between production of Top Quarks in the reaction of the singularity?

 

[pervect]

Sorry, I don't know much about quark stars, except that some people think they may have found some strange quark stars.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020414.html

for instance

 

[Danger]

I'd never even heard of quark stars until the thread about singularities popped up. Fascinating. Thanks for the link.