What is the Truth about Black Holes and Light Holes?

  • Thread starter Zoomie
  • Start date
In summary, Black holes are the vacuums of the entire entirety, where does all the stuff go? They are theories, not facts, and there is still debate about their nature.
  • #1
Zoomie
2
0
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??:smile:
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Zoomie said:
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.
 
  • #3
Thanks for the help. I love reading in here.
 
  • #4
I heard that the Hubble scope has observed BHs, banishing any lingering doubts about their existence.
 
  • #5
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #6
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #7
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..
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
pervect said:
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?
 
  • #11
I'd never even heard of quark stars until the thread about singularities popped up. Fascinating. Thanks for the link.
 

1. What exactly is a black hole and how does it form?

A black hole is an area in space with such intense gravitational pull that nothing, including light, can escape from it. It is formed when a massive star dies and its core collapses under its own gravity, becoming infinitely dense and creating a black hole.

2. How does a black hole affect the surrounding space and objects?

The gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong that it can distort the fabric of space and time. This can cause other objects, such as stars and planets, to orbit around the black hole or even get pulled into it. The closer an object gets to a black hole, the stronger the gravitational pull and the more it is affected.

3. What is the difference between a black hole and a white hole?

A black hole is a region in space where nothing, including light, can escape from it. A white hole, on the other hand, is a hypothetical region in space where nothing can enter. It is the opposite of a black hole in that matter and energy can only leave a white hole and never enter it.

4. Can anything escape from a black hole?

No, once something enters a black hole's event horizon (the point of no return), it cannot escape. This includes light, which cannot escape the immense gravitational pull of a black hole. However, some theories suggest that information may be able to escape from a black hole in the form of Hawking radiation.

5. Can we see a black hole?

No, we cannot see a black hole directly as it does not emit any light. However, we can observe the effects of a black hole's gravity on its surroundings, such as the distortion of light from stars and gas that is being pulled into the black hole. Scientists also use special instruments, such as telescopes and X-ray detectors, to study black holes indirectly.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
708
Back
Top