Why do scientists believe white holes are impossible?

[Ultrastar 1]

I have multiple reasons why white holes do not exist. But first let’s go over what a white hole is. It is: the same as a black hole, but in reverse. Instead of sucking up matter and light, it spits it out. This spit out matter and light are said to have been from a black hole, transported to the white hole by a wormhole or inter-space bridge. This is not true because: first, it violates thermodynamic law number 2. Second, the wormhole cannot be produced by a black hole because the gravitational sheer that a black hole produces would be too great for a formation of a wormhole, meaning it would be impossible for it to form because of all the gravity produced by the black hole. Third: we know that it takes a significant amount of gravitational energy or force in order to reshape the fabric of space and form wormholes, but is that amount equal or less than the amount generated by black holes? Not even close. As we know, black holes are sort of shaped like funnels. They suck up matter and light and channel it into the core of their singulaty, where it is pretty much destroyed. Well, because a black hole channels all of its energy forward instead of backward or any other direction, no energy is going past the core to make a wormhole, therefore, not transmitting their matter and light to a white hole, thus rendering white holes nonexistent.

 

[jamesabc]

then where does all the material go once it is in the black hole? it has to go somewhere.

also have scientists actually observed material being sucked into a black hole?

 

[Klockan3]

then where does all the material go once it is in the black hole? it has to go somewhere.

Where did all the material the black hole consists of come from? It have to come from somewhere?

 

[HallsofIvy]

It comes from the space around the black hole, of course. That part has been observed. I don't see your point.

 

[Klockan3]

It comes from the space around the black hole, of course. That part has been observed. I don't see your point.

My points was that his question was as dumb as the question I asked him.

The mass is inside the black hole, in what form or shaper we don't know, but it is in there.

 

[Ultrastar 1]

My points was that his question was as dumb as the question I asked him.

The mass is inside the black hole, in what form or shaper we don't know, but it is in there.

Who did you ask the question to?

 

[Ultrastar 1]

then where does all the material go once it is in the black hole? it has to go somewhere.

also have scientists actually observed material being sucked into a black hole?

Ok, here is how it works: Some people (and I am one of them) believe that the matter that is scuked up goes into the core of the black black hole, and is then compressed again and again until there is nothing left. This is because the force that compresses the matter is circulating around the core of the black hole (the core is originally the core of a collapsed neutron star.) This circulation causes the above stated compression cylce.

 

[Archosaur]

They suck up matter and light and channel it into the core of their singulaty, where it is pretty much destroyed.

I like how you used the violation of thermo 2 as evidence that white holes can't exist, but your model of a black hole violates the most basic of all of the laws of physics.

 

[Ultrastar 1]

I like how you used the violation of thermo 2 as evidence that white holes can't exist, but your model of a black hole violates the most basic of all of the laws of physics.

Can you expain the last post a little bit more?

 

[Ultrastar 1]

I like how you used the violation of thermo 2 as evidence that white holes can't exist, but your model of a black hole violates the most basic of all of the laws of physics.

Thanks. Can you expain the last post a little bit more?

 

[Archosaur]

matter... is compressed again and again until there is nothing left.

matter and light... is pretty much destroyed.

google "Conservation of Matter"

 

[Ultrastar 1]

google "Conservation of Matter"

oh ok. Thanks. I'm still not convinced that they exist though, you can't ignore my theory... (:

 

[Archosaur]

oh ok. Thanks. I'm still not convinced that they exist though, you can't ignore my theory... (:

Whoa now. Don't get me wrong. I was only trying to suggest a little rethinking of your model of a black hole. I wasn't trying to defend white holes. Heck no. I'm not convinced either.

 

[Ultrastar 1]

Whoa now. Don't get me wrong. I was only trying to suggest a little rethinking of your model of a black hole. I wasn't trying to defend white holes. Heck no. I'm not convinced either.

Oh ok. I understood you wrong. Thanks, ill try to rethink the theory.

 

[menergyam]

Can anyone describe the entropy increase or decrease for black and white holes?

 

[Ultrastar 1]

Can anyone describe the entropy increase or decrease for black and white holes?

Im still working on that. Entropy is not a subject that I can understand that good. I am close to an answer, but I am still donig research. I will let you know when I have something.

 

[stevebd1]

Can anyone describe the entropy increase or decrease for black and white holes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics#Black_hole_entropy" and black hole thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Black_Hole_entropy" in the context of the holographic principle.

 

[Dmitry67]

What do you think about ring (Kerr) singularities>

 

[Dmitry67]

P.S. From wiki, I don't understand this part:

If black holes carried no entropy, it would be possible to violate the second law of thermodynamics by throwing mass into the black hole. The only way to satisfy the second law is to admit that the black holes have entropy whose increase more than compensates for the decrease of the entropy carried by the object that was swallowed.

I see that point, you can not get rid of entropy by throwing objects in a black hole.

However, the second law is defined for the isolated SYSTEM and implicitly uses the absolute simultanity of the state of that system which is not consistent with SR/GR and for the Black Hole is not applicable 'as is', at least, without giving additional clarifications.

 

[Ultrastar 1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics#Black_hole_entropy" and black hole thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Black_Hole_entropy" in the context of the holographic principle.

Thanks. I think I have a little more understanding on entropy.

 

[Mr. Paradox]

Where did all the material the black hole consists of come from? It have to come from somewhere?

It came from the material left over from a large star collapsing unto itself.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have multiple reasons why white holes do not exist. But first let’s go over what a white hole is. It is: the same as a black hole, but in reverse.

You are offering a solution for which there is no problem. White holes don't exist for the same reason unicorns don't exist.


But as long as you're looking for reasons, here's the big one: gravity is a one-way force. There is no counterpart to it.

 

[Mr. Paradox]

You are offering a solution for which there is no problem. White holes don't exist for the same reason unicorns don't exist.


But as long as you're looking for reasons, here's the big one: gravity is a one-way force. There is no counterpart to it.

What about dark matter?

 

[Archosaur]

No no no no no no no no

 

[DaveC426913]

What about dark matter?

What about it?

 

[mikeasabsa]

It would bo cool to see if they do exist. you are right theoreticaly they do not. but where do the black holes go? maybe a new universe. maybe that is what we call the big bang. new material from another universe.

 

[DaveC426913]

It would bo cool to see if they do exist. you are right theoreticaly they do not. but where do the black holes go? maybe a new universe. maybe that is what we call the big bang. new material from another universe.

(Careful. Overly-speculative.)

One of things that suggests the matter does not go anywhere is that its gravitational effects are still felt just as if it's clumped up in the centre of the BH. Whatever happens to the matter down there, it doesn't seem to have any detrimental effects on the matter's gravity.

 

[deneb09]

The main argument that white holes exist seems to come from the Time part of CPT symmetry. This could be a flawed arguement. Additionally, There is plenty of observational evidence that leads to the conclusion that black holes exist. If white holes did exist they would be much easier to detect than black holes, yet we have no observational evidence for their existence whatsoever.

 

[Chronos]

The lack of obserational evidence for white holes is fairly compelling to me. One could argue for gamma bursters as evidence, but, i find that argument weak.

 

[humanino]

If I read Hawking's original papers, 30 years ago, he wrote there that for all purpose white holes would be indistinguishable from black holes, at least for an outside observer. The rate of matter "evaporation" from a white all is identical to the rate of radiation from a black hole. I stress again, in the original papers of Hawking 30 years ago, I don't know about now. So from this point of view, there is no more or no less observational evidence for white or black holes !

 

[Phrak]

But as long as you're looking for reasons, here's the big one: gravity is a one-way force. There is no counterpart to it.

But you've got it wrong. Gravitional force is time-evolution symmetric. As much as theory admits black holes, it admits white holes. It really does become a question of entropy, where we should ask, how should the observed entropy of the universe find correlation with white holes/blackholes?

 

[Dmitry67]

Schwarzschild is just an idealization for the eternal flat spacetime around an object.
Realistic solution depends on the consmological model (open, closed universes).
So white holes are not compatible with Big Bang consmology.

 

[Phrak]

Schwarzschild is just an idealization for the eternal flat spacetime around an object.
Realistic solution depends on the consmological model (open, closed universes).
So white holes are not compatible with Big Bang consmology.

Then neither are black holes. Replace t with -t in the schwarzschild solution, and you have replaced a black hole with a white hole.

 

[Dmitry67]

The difference is (in the open universe) that we have only 13 billion years of the time BEFORE today but the eternity AFTER. So our position in time is very assymetric. So you can't just change the sign of t

 

[stevebd1]

If I read Hawking's original papers, 30 years ago, he wrote there that for all purpose white holes would be indistinguishable from black holes, at least for an outside observer. The rate of matter "evaporation" from a white all is identical to the rate of radiation from a black hole. I stress again, in the original papers of Hawking 30 years ago, I don't know about now. So from this point of view, there is no more or no less observational evidence for white or black holes !

Hypothetically, an over-extremal rotating 'black' hole would behave like a white hole based on-

\kappa_\pm=\frac{r_+-r_-}{2(r_\pm^2+a^2)}

where \kappa_\pm is the Killing surface gravity at the outer (r₊) and inner (r_-) event horizon where-

r_\pm=M\pm\sqrt{M^2-a^2}

where M=Gm/c² and a=J/mc

The inner and outer event horizons would disappear (the coordinate radii would technically swap places) and \kappa_\pm would become negative if a>M. While there is a mechanism in place for the formation of black holes (where a<M), there isn't one for the over-extremal solution. Either they would have had to have always existed or there is a mechanism as yet unknown (the notion of http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=naked-singularities" seems to have made a recent reappearance). Also, it would be interesting to see how temperature and entropy would fit into such a solution.

 

[Dmitry67]

P.S. Phrak
But of course, I agree with you, in the 'closed' universe for example, the solution is different because the big cranch would affect the black hole. The same is true for the Big Rip.

stevebd1,
Super-extreme black holes! My favourite subject!
I really like closed time-like loops around them!
I don't understand why people are so afraid of such things.
Do you have any interesting links about the naked singularities? I mean, it is hard to believe that you can not convert underextreme black hole into a superextreme one by throwing matter at proper angles inside.

 

[stevebd1]

It's a slightly old paper but it has an interesting proposal that from within the inner event horizon, the Cauchy horizon would have properties similar to that of a white hole (i.e. you may be in time like space but if you were to try and push back through the Cauchy horizon, you would be repelled). It also has an alternative proposal to calculating the entropy of a spinning black hole which would imply S=0 at a/M=1, apparently complying with Nernst theorem.

'Entropy of Kerr-Newman Black Hole Continuously Goes to Zero when the Hole Changes from Nonextreme Case to Extreme Case' by ZHAO Zheng, ZHU Jian-yang and LIU Wen-biao
http://cpl.iphy.ac.cn/qikan/manage/wenzhang/0160698.pdf

Abstract: 'A new formulation of the Bekenstein-Smarr formula of a Kerr-Newman black hole is given. The re-defined black hole entropy continuously goes to zero as the black hole temperature approaches absolute zero, which satisfies the Nernst theorem. Our new result suggests that the Kerr-Newman black hole should be regarded as a composite thermodynamic system composed of two sub-systems, its outer horizon and its inner horizon. There exists a new quantum thermal effect, "Hawking absorption", near the inner horizon of the black hole.'

This paper proposes something similar regarding entropy-

'Black Holes, Entropy and the Third Law' by A. J. Meyer, II
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608080

 

[Dmitry67]

Thank you, will read!

Also, could you tell me if my recipe is right:

1. take two almost extreme BH
2. rotating on the same axis, same direction
3. If you merge them together (when they approach each other from the poles), the result is also an almost-extreme heavier BH
4. But if they approach each other so they are not only rotating, but also rotating around each other, then the additional momentum makes the final BH super-extreme - guaranteed.

 

[stevebd1]

4. But if they approach each other so they are not only rotating, but also rotating around each other, then the additional momentum makes the final BH super-extreme - guaranteed.

Earths orbit reduces the rotation of the sun, the same applies to the moon and Earth. If you had two black holes with high angular momentum encounter each other, their individual spin would reduce while the angular momentum of their combined orbit would increase and they would become tidally locked before combining to create a larger black hole but the sum of the overall angular momentum would remain approx. the same (if anything it would probably reduce marginally).

EDIT:
The difference in the before and after angular momentum would probably be radiated as gravitational waves.

 

[Dmitry67]

Yes, because Sun ratates much faster then Earth around it.

But anyway I was wrong: for a BH to be extreme, angular momentum must be proportional to a square of mass.

So if we take 2 extreme BH (J=M)
Merge them J+J=2J, M+M=2M
the result is an underextreme BH: 2J<4M

 

[Ultrastar 1]

You are offering a solution for which there is no problem. White holes don't exist for the same reason unicorns don't exist.


But as long as you're looking for reasons, here's the big one: gravity is a one-way force. There is no counterpart to it.

You know what? The last time I looked, this is an astrophysics fourm meaning that anything of scientific interest can be dicussed here. If you object my theory, that is fine, but next time give me a valid answer for why white holes do not exist.

 

[Ultrastar 1]

It would bo cool to see if they do exist. you are right theoreticaly they do not. but where do the black holes go? maybe a new universe. maybe that is what we call the big bang. new material from another universe.

No. I can assure you that the big bang was not material form another unviverse. I believe in the multiverse theory, but I don't think that the material came from another unverse. Here is why: the mutiverse theory of quantom physics says that there is a huge number of parallel universes, and that anything that can happen, will happen. Well, what are the odds that an inter-demnsional bridge just came into our universe, and caused the big bang? One in millions. Also, to answer your question, "where do black holes go?" Well, they go pertty much nowhere. The gavitational energy that sucks in matter and light ito the black hole is always circulating around the core of the collapesed star. And I think that this is so because this circulation is responsable for rotating the accrettion disk due to the angular momentom produced. So, the bottom line: black holes go nowhere.

 

[cristo]

You know what? The last time I looked, this is an astrophysics fourm meaning that anything of scientific interest can be dicussed here. If you object my theory, that is fine, but next time give me a valid answer for why white holes do not exist.

First, a warning for you (and others) to read the PF rules pertaining to overly speculative posts. This thread will be kept on a tight leash, but I'll leave it open for now.

Here is why: the mutiverse theory of quantom physics says that there is a huge number of parallel universes, and that anything that can happen, will happen. Well, what are the odds that an inter-demnsional bridge just came into our universe, and caused the big bang? One in millions.

Why are the odds "one in millions"? This is the fundamental flaw with multiverse theory: you cannot say anything about probability when the only universe you can observe is this one. Furthermore, you're not even using your observations, you're just speculating and throwing numbers about. What justification do you have for being able to do this? And how do you know that this "inter-universe bridge" doesn't occur in this and every universe?

 

[Solistics]

Couldn't you consider the big bang as a white hole? where mater just comes spilling out at a single moment.

 

[DaveC426913]

Couldn't you consider the big bang as a white hole? where mater just comes spilling out at a single moment.

No. That is not at all how the Big Bang happened. For starters, there was no matter in the BB. Matter couldn't even condense until well after it had expanded and cooled.

 

[Solistics]

than what came out the bb?

something had to come out of it in order to create the universe.

 

[Chronos]

Pure energy emerged from the 'big event', by science as we know it. The first 'particles' were unable to condense until about 3 minutes thereafter.

 

[Archosaur]

keep in mind that the bb singularity wasn't a point in space. It was space. Nothing came out of it. There was no "out of it". It expanded faster than you can imagine.

 

[Ultrastar 1]

Im not exactly sure what they are but I will try to find out. (Ring or kerr singularities.)

 

[Ultrastar 1]

Ok. Enough with the math. I prefer if you only contributed theories and ideas. No math please. That goes for everyone.