What Makes Black Holes Black and White Holes White?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter petrushkagoogol
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Holes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the characteristics that define black holes and white holes, exploring their theoretical foundations, implications, and the current understanding of their existence within the framework of general relativity. Participants engage with concepts related to gravity, event horizons, and the nature of singularities, as well as the speculative nature of white holes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Theoretical speculation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that black holes are termed "black" because they absorb all radiation and matter within their event horizon, making them non-emitters.
  • Others argue that white holes are theorized to emit radiation and matter, which is why they are referred to as "white," although their existence is debated.
  • A participant mentions that white holes would require negative energy density, suggesting they may be physically impossible and merely a mathematical curiosity.
  • There is a claim that while black holes have solid observational evidence, white holes lack empirical support.
  • One participant discusses the conservation of energy, suggesting that energy entering a black hole should emerge from a white hole, which acts with a repulsive force.
  • Another participant challenges the relationship between black holes and white holes, asserting that energy entering a black hole becomes trapped and is eventually radiated away as Hawking radiation.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the implications of singularities at the center of black holes, with some participants noting that the mathematics involved leads to nonsensical results and that the physical reality remains unknown.
  • Speculation arises about whether the creation of a black hole could be akin to the 'big bang' of a new universe, but this is characterized as a speculative idea without evidence.
  • Questions are posed about the finiteness of black holes, with some participants asserting that black holes are finite while others express uncertainty about the nature of singularities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the existence of white holes or the implications of black hole singularities. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nature of these entities and their theoretical underpinnings.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the speculative nature of white holes, the dependence on theoretical constructs such as negative energy density, and the unresolved mathematical aspects of singularities within black holes.

  • #31
Technically Cygnus X-1, one of the strongest black hole candidates, is a mere 6000 light years distant - re: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/cygnusx1.html. It would still be a protracted journey with current technology - about 130 million years. Talk about those annoying 'are we there yet's.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Chronos said:
Yet we observe phenomena in various parts of the universe that cannot be accounted for by any known physics aside from black holes. The same cannot be said for white holes.

I was reading this https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/new-einstein-equation-wormholes-quantum-gravity and was wondering what the difference between white holes and worm holes would be? Maybe we do see evidence for white holes, but don't realize it- of course, I am most likely wrong.
 
  • #33
The short answer is nothing exits a black hole and nothing enters a white hole.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hsdrop
  • #34
Chronos said:
You can't enclose anything infinite inside a finite volume.

Well, the 'depth' of a point is infinite.

Fervent Freyja said:
The nearest black holes are thousands of light years away...

phinds said:
What good would sending a camera in do? It can't come out again, nor can any information from it so what would be the point?

Also, the nearest known BH is tens of thousands of light years away so would take us hundreds thousands of thousands of years to get there.

There are other problems.

I don't think your camera idea works out too well.

Party poopers with no sense of humor.

Chronos said:
The short answer is nothing exits a black hole and nothing enters a white hole.

That depends. Are we talking about spacetime holes or humanoid holes?

I never heard of a 'white hole' beyond the biological realm before.
 
  • #35
rollete said:
Party poopers with no sense of humor.
No, party poopers who poop on crackpot science
I never heard of a 'white hole' beyond the biological realm before.
I take it you know little about cosmology. It's an extraordinarily common term (in cosmology). Just for grins, I just Googled it. ALL of the two pages were referring to cosmological white holes and I'd be surprised if the next 10 were not as well. I think your sense that it is a biological term is a significantly minority view.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
rollete said:
Well, the 'depth' of a point is infinite.
No, the depth of a point is zero.
 
  • #37
The spatial precision of a point can be infinitely augmented (Planck length be damned). In other words, no limits to how small space can be parsed. That's 'depth' in a way, but one need not restrict the understanding of 'depth' to conventional tridimensional space.

Never argue with a layman!
 
  • #38
rollete said:
The spatial precision of a point can be infinitely augmented (Planck length be damned). In other words, no limits to how small space can be parsed. That's 'depth' in a way, but one need not restrict the understanding of 'depth' to conventional tridimensional space.

Never argue with a layman!
One needs to restrict the usage of terms here at PF to the standard convention used in science and engineering, otherwise you cannot have a meaningful discussion without pages and pages of back and forth arguing over what some term means. That's not helpful when people are trying to learn mainstream science.

In standard science and math a single point has no dimension and cannot have 'depth'. Furthermore, the division of space into smaller and smaller sections has absolutely nothing to do with depth unless you shoehorn some abstract meaning into it. Please don't do that.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
  • #39
There are good reasons to believe there is a limit to how small something can be and stiill be something - e.g., HUP.
 
  • #40
rollete said:
Party poopers with no sense of humor.

Get to it, then! Send a camera into a black hole for me. I will throw a party in your honor and gift you with whatever you wish.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hsdrop
  • #41
A white hole is a time-reversed black hole. In classical kinematics and relativity, you can take any solution and time-reverse it and get another solution. But once you include thermodynamics, you see that most time-reversed solutions are not allowed. So, there's no reason to believe white holes exist.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hsdrop
  • #42
ok that makes a lot more sense to me once you explain how the math and the numbers for it worked I didn't start the thread but thank you :bugeye:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
872