Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B White Hole as an explanation for the big bang and inflation

  1. Feb 13, 2017 #1
    Was the concept of a White Hole ever intended to as a POSSIBLE explanation for the Big Bang, inflation and dark energy expansion of the Universe? Or is it considered crack pottery by the cosmology community?

    I presume the observable Universe would need to be as small as say a single atom in comparison to perhaps the size of a spinning Catherine Wheel firework to explain flatness and homogeneity of the observable Universe in every direction. Presumably white holes would last almost forever like black holes, so many, many observable universes away from here, new parts of the Universe might be continually being created?

    According to the last paragraph on this wiki page the above appears to have been proposed. Does the Cosmology community accept it as a possible description for the creation and perhaps also ongoing creation of our Universe, or just crack pottery?

    And please don't chew me up for asking this question, as too often happens here. I despise that attitude. I also listed it as a high school question to try to avoid that pitfall. In my opinion we should encourage questions at least that's what they taught me when I went to school.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 13, 2017 #2


    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    What does that mean? You cannot mix random words and expect to get something useful.

    There are some very exotic approaches that describe the Big Bang with something that could be called "white hole". This is just a name, however, the relevant part is the mathematical description of the process. It has nothing to do with the hypothetical idea of white holes as objects floating around in space.
  4. Feb 13, 2017 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Here is a discussion of the possibility that the Big Bang is a black or white hole:

  5. Feb 13, 2017 #4
    Thanks stevendaryL.

    I have no idea what mfb doesn't get in that sentence. Perhaps if I changed "intended to" to proposed?
    Goodness knows - here we go again I suppose.. I guess they don't want people participating here much..
  6. Feb 13, 2017 #5


    Staff: Mentor

    It might have been better to just link to the Wikipedia page and ask if a model like that has been considered as a possible way to describe our universe. In other words, the first paragraph of your OP (with maybe a little wordsmithing), the link in the third paragraph, and nothing else. The second paragraph and the first part of the third paragraph of your OP are speculative and don't even properly describe what a white hole model of our universe would look like; that makes it harder to tell that you're asking a legitimate question. But you don't even need to make such speculations to ask the question (particularly at the "B" level).

    Remember that (a) we get a lot of threads here and many of them are not well-posed questions, and we have to weed those out somehow to maintain the quality of PF, and (b) we moderators don't get paid for this and can't do it as a full time job. So the best way to avoid pushback is to distinguish yourself from the large crop of ill-posed questions as clearly as possible. (The suggestions I made above would have helped with that for this particular thread.) Yes, that requires additional thought and effort on your part and probably seems like a burden when you just want a short answer to a short question. But you are just one poster; we have to consider the entirety of PF. The easier you make it for us to classify your post as "a legitimate question", the easier it is for everybody.
  7. Feb 13, 2017 #6
    Peter I wanted to find out what the Cosmology community thinks about the concept of WHs in general, and if I am interpreting the concept correctly albeit in a simplisitic way. I suspect Wiki could not tell me this.
    I shall leave now. cosmology is dead to me, nice job. thank you.
  8. Feb 13, 2017 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    That's unfortunate. Whatever problem you may have with someone, I wouldn't let it interfere with your interest in any part of science.
  9. Feb 13, 2017 #8
    Drak, agreed. Oh I will prob be back next year or something :) I get this every time I ask a question so I only come here when I can bare it.

    And Peter you went to all that trouble writing all those condescending words, and you didn't even explain how my understanding of a WH is different (or speculation) compared to everyone elses. The simplistic picture I have in my head is similar to that of a galaxy with a supermassive black hole in the center, but everything say 10^30 times larger and of course time and motion reversed with a white hole at the center instead of a black hole. Our entire observable universe being the size of say the solar system in comparison to the whole of the rest of the galaxy. So I can accept that my understanding is total bs, but that's how I was interpreting the little bits of info I have picked up over many many years as an interested reader. Now please correct me without the attitude because I am sincerely interested in learning about this.

    Maybe if I had put one paragraph in front of the other and put the link... give me a break. what the heck is wrong with you guys, seriously.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
  10. Feb 13, 2017 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We SA's don't get paid either, but, there are a lot more of us than mentors and some of us have little more productive use for our time than hang out here watching for low hanging fruit. This idea has, unsurprisingly, come up here before - https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/was-the-big-bang-a-white-hole.3392/c [Broken] - you may find that thread useful.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2017
  11. Feb 13, 2017 #10
  12. Feb 13, 2017 #11


    Staff: Mentor

    If you find them condescending, then I think you need to take a step back and consider whether you might be reading things into other people's posts that aren't there. I was trying to give you insight into how we moderators are trying to moderate, in order to help you frame your posts in such a way as to make it clearer to us that you are asking a legitimate question. Notice that I did not say you were not asking a legitimate question, because that isn't the case: your underlying question is legitimate. It's just not easy to tell that from your OP, and you could have made it a lot easier if you had framed your OP in a different way.

    In other words, you want us to take your question seriously, but you're unwilling to do any work yourself to make it easier for us to do that amidst all the other things we have to do.

    Nope, sorry, I don't have the time if you're not going to try to meet anyone halfway. But I'll give you a hint:

    What do you mean by "time and motion reversed"? Also, in the black hole model, some large conglomeration of matter collapsed to form the supermassive black hole; to simplify things, suppose it was a huge cloud of matter of uniform density. What would that look like if you "reversed time and motion" to make it a white hole model? And where would we on Earth be in the spacetime described by that model?

    Then, once you've answered the above, think about how, or whether, that model is described by these statements in your OP:

  13. Feb 13, 2017 #12
    On a past science forum I once belonged to, that is now defunct, I once speculated about the possibility of the BB being the back end, or out-pouring of a BH in another universe, ie a White Hole.
    I was informed by a young GR theorist, that White Holes were impossible but have actually forgotten his reasoning.
    Is that so? Could someone explain why that is?

    I do understand that when we speak of the evolution of the Universe, we are in actual fact speaking of the evolution of spacetime in the first instant, and that all our laws of physics and GR cease to make any sense at t+10-43 seconds.
  14. Feb 13, 2017 #13
    Actually I rewrote my original question about 5 times to try to avoid exactly this silliness.

    "Time and motion reversed", means literally everything happening in reverse to how we understand a galaxy works.
  15. Feb 13, 2017 #14


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  16. Feb 13, 2017 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Tanelorn, I'm sorry your experiences here at PF have not been up to your expectations. If you'd like to discuss these issues further, please contact myself or another mentor. In the meantime, it seems clear that this thread is unlikely to get back on topic without arguments from both sides cropping up.

    Thread locked.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook