Jump to content


White holes?


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*

Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:42 PM

Black holes are all well and good but what about “white holes”, which are assumed as a nuclious of or in a black hole?

http://en.wikipedia....iki/White_hole

“White holes are predicted as part of a solution to the Einstein field equations known as the maximally extended version of the Schwarzschild metric describing an eternal black hole with no charge and no rotation. Here, "maximally extended" refers to the idea that the spacetime should not have any "edges": for any possible trajectory of a free-falling particle (following a geodesic) in the spacetime, it should be possible to continue this path arbitrarily far into the particle's future, unless the trajectory hits a gravitational singularity like the one at the center of the black hole's interior. In order to satisfy this requirement, it turns out that in addition to the black hole interior region which particles enter when they fall through the event horizon from the outside, there must be a separate white hole interior region which allows us to extrapolate the trajectories of particles which an outside observer sees rising up away from the event horizon. For an observer outside using Schwarzschild coordinates, infalling particles take an infinite time to reach the black hole horizon infinitely far in the future, while outgoing particles which pass the observer have been traveling outward for an infinite time since crossing the white hole horizon infinitely far in the past (however, the particles or other objects experience only a finite proper time between crossing the horizon and passing the outside observer). The black hole/white hole appears "eternal" from the perspective of an outside observer, in the sense that particles traveling outward from the white hole interior region can pass the observer at any time, and particles traveling inward which will eventually reach the black hole interior region can also pass the observer at any time.
Just as there are two separate interior regions of the maximally extended spacetime, there are also two separate exterior regions, sometimes called two different "universes", with the second universe allowing us to extrapolate some possible particle trajectories in the two interior regions. This means that the interior black-hole region can contain a mix of particles that fell in from either universe (and thus an observer who fell in from one universe might be able to see light that fell in from the other one), and likewise particles from the interior white-hole region can escape into either universe. All four regions can be seen in a spacetime diagram which uses Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates. see figure. [4]
In this spacetime, it is possible to come up with coordinate systems such that if you pick a hypersurface of constant time (a set of points that all have the same time coordinate, such that every point on the surface has a space-like separation, giving what is called a 'space-like surface') and draw an "embedding diagram" depicting the curvature of space at that time, the embedding diagram will look like a tube connecting the two exterior regions, known as an "Einstein-Rosen bridge" or Schwarzschild wormhole. Depending on where the space-like hypersurface is chosen, the Einstein-Rosen bridge can either connect two black hole event horizons in each universe (with points in the interior of the bridge being part of the black hole region of the spacetime), or two white hole event horizons in each universe (with points in the interior of the bridge being part of the white hole region). It is impossible to use the bridge to cross from one universe to the other, however, because it is impossible to enter a white hole event horizon from the outside, and anyone entering a black hole horizon from either universe will inevitably hit the black hole singularity.”



#2 Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*

Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:15 PM

Also consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/White_hole

Recent speculations
A more recently proposed view of black holes might be interpreted as shedding some light on the nature of classical white holes. Some researchers have proposed that when a black hole forms, a big bang occurs at the core, which creates a new universe that expands outside of the parent universe. See also Fecund universes.

The Einstein–Cartan–Sciama–Kibble theory of gravity extends general relativity by removing a constraint of the symmetry of the affine connection and regarding its antisymmetric part, the torsion tensor, as a dynamical variable. Torsion naturally accounts for the quantum-mechanical, intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of matter. According to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a singular black hole. In the Einstein–Cartan theory, however, the minimal coupling between torsion and Dirac spinors generates a repulsive spin–spin interaction which is significant in fermionic matter at extremely high densities. Such an interaction prevents the formation of a gravitational singularity. Instead, the collapsing matter on the other side of the event horizon reaches an enormous but finite density and rebounds, forming a regular Einstein–Rosen bridge. The other side of the bridge becomes a new, growing baby universe. For observers in the baby universe, the parent universe appears as the only white hole. Accordingly, the observable universe is the Einstein–Rosen interior of a black hole existing as one of possibly many inside a larger universe. The Big Bang was a nonsingular Big Bounce at which the observable universe had a finite, minimum scale factor.

A recent paper argues that the Big Bang itself is a white hole. It further suggests that the emergence of a white hole, which was named a 'Small Bang', is spontaneous - all the matter is ejected at a single pulse. Thus, unlike black holes, white holes cannot be continuously observed rather their effect can only be detected around the event itself. The paper even proposed identifying a new group of γ-ray bursts with white holes.


http://en.wikipedia....cund_universes

Fecund universes
The fecund universes hypothesis of cosmology advanced by Lee Smolin, also called cosmological natural selection theory, suggests that a process analogous to biological natural selection applies at the grandest scales. Smolin summarized the idea in a book aimed at a lay audience called The Life of the Cosmos.

The theory surmises that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes. Thus the theory contains the evolutionary ideas of "reproduction" and "mutation" of universes, but has no direct analogue of natural selection. However, given any universe that can produce black holes that successfully spawn new universes, it is possible that some number of those universes will reach heat death with unsuccessful parameters. So, in a sense, fecundity cosmological natural selection is one where universes could die off before successfully reproducing, just as any biological being can die without having offspring.



#3 Louis aka loucol

Louis aka loucol

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Science Philosophy and Religion as they relate to The Urantia Book

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:38 PM

For a contrary point of view you may find this interesting.

The following is a paper quoted from the blog of Miles Mathis.



The Black Hole Math is False
a press release for Stephen Crothers
First posted December 5, 2012
Stephen Crothers was working on his PhD in physics in Australia when he discovered big problems with the historical math for black holes. I have already related many problems with the black hole math and theory, but Steve has combed the more dense and extensive tensor equations, showing the fudges they contain. He published these two papers in response to black hole claims in Nova Scorpii and Quasar 3C 279:
http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0081 http://viXra.org/abs/1208.0228
More recently, he has been interviewed by the Thunderbolts on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsWKlNfQwJU
The transcript to the interview can be found here:
http://viXra.org/abs/1212.0010 You can also visit his personal website for a history of his discoveries and the original papers dealing
with them.
I recommend Crothers' analysis as basically analogous to my own critiques of the math and theory, since we both point out the same logical fallacies in the historical progression. But Crothers' analysis is even more pointed in some ways, since he has been able to isolate Hilbert's mathematical push in rewriting the tensor equations to predict black holes. In this way he has focused both the blame and the argument. I have previously shown many problems with Hilbert, and Crothers' tracks this problem back to Hilbert's fudging of Schwarzschild's and Droste's field equations—which did not contain the black hole. He also proves my point—made many times—that the mainstream likes to hide behind the tensors. The tensor calculus has been used as a cover since the beginning. Crothers shows precisely how and where the hidden fudge exists in this tensor math.
That said, Crothers implies in the interview that Relativity may not be salvageable. I have shown that it is. Both SR and GR can be corrected to make them more consistent and more amenable to real data. As regards GR, the field equations have to be rewritten in terms of force rather than mass. This causes a 4% general change in the field of the Sun, solving many known anomalies. As regards SR, gamma has to be rewritten. As regards black holes, he is closer to correct, in that most of current theory has to be simply jettisoned. The decades of wild speculation by Hawking, Penrose, and others will have to be trashed. The theory and math of dark stars will have to be rewritten from the ground up. This is what I have begun to do. The charge field must be included in the new unified field equations, and these are the equations that must be applied to the black hole problem, and indeed to all astronomical problems.

Taken from a publication of Miles Mathis.

Edited by LouisM, 04 January 2013 - 07:43 PM.

His Will Be Done

#4 Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*

Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:03 PM

LouiseM: Thanks for your contribution to this subject and, it took me some time to view the article presented. I must agree with Stephen Crothers in that the math is not there to prove the existence of “Black holes” however, I must add that the division by “zero” leads to an empty universe but does propose a variable that cannot be ignored. What it does seem to prove IMO, that in-order to mathematically prove the existence of “black holes” we must assume that the universe is empty or visually does not exist. Therefore, I have presented other theorem below which may extrapolate that, from inside the box there is no visible universe but from outside of the box (or from the UB celestial point of view) our understanding of the universe may be different.

My purpose of introducing “white holes”, previously presented in a “black hole” topic, was not to disprove “black holes” but to possibly indicate that the term “black hole” is not exactly as described by current theories of astrophysics but might be better perceived as something different, which does not involve a destructive outlook as includes a singularity — where a “white hole” may be the equivalent of a singularity. Also, that the term “black hole” as assumed by science might need to be redefined or updated.

It is interesting that the UB does not use “black hole” in its text but, I assume that it is because what they present is not or should not be compared to a “black hole” based on today’s understand and theory. It does use “dark gravity bodies” which seems is being interpreted as “black holes”, and those attempting to align the UB with “black holes” and to justify their existence in the visible universe using the UB text as a proofer. The UB also uses “antigravity” and based on the current “black hole” theories would not include any interaction thereof and that “gravity pressure” (as listed below) is not implied as the gravity of a black hole but does imply a link with “the antigravity behavior of the ultimatonic energies”, which might be more in line with “Black star (semiclassical gravity)” — listed below.

(473.8) 42:4.10 Throughout all of this never-ending metamorphosis of energy and matter we must reckon with the influence of gravity pressure and with the antigravity behavior of the ultimatonic energies under certain conditions of temperature, velocity, and revolution. Temperature, energy currents, distance, and the presence of the living force organizers and the power directors also have a bearing on all transmutation phenomena of energy and matter.

It would make no sense that the UB celestial’s would present such information if we did not have the understanding to correlate this info with today’s science and/or theory.


Dark Star (Newtonian mechanics)
http://en.wikipedia....ian_mechanics)

. . . .
A dark star is a theoretical object compatible with Newtonian mechanics that, due to its large mass, has a surface escape velocity that equals or exceeds the speed of light. How light is affected by gravity under Newtonian mechanics is questionable but if it were accelerated the same way as projectiles, any light emitted at the surface of a dark star would be trapped by the star’s gravity, rendering it dark, hence the name.

Unlike a modern black hole, the object behind the horizon is assumed to be stable against collapse.

Dark star history

John Michell and dark stars

During 1783 geologist John Michell wrote a long letter to Henry Cavendish outlining the expected properties of dark stars, published by The Royal Society in their 1784 volume. Michell calculated that when the escape velocity at the surface of a star was equal to or greater than lightspeed, the generated light would be gravitationally trapped, so that the star would not be visible to a distant astronomer.

“If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity. This assumes that light is influenced by gravity in the same way as massive objects.”

Michell’s idea for calculating the number of such "invisible" stars anticipated 20th century astronomers' work: he suggested that since a certain proportion of double-star systems might be expected to contain at least one "dark" star, we could search for and catalogue as many double-star systems as possible, and identify cases where only a single circling star was visible. This would then provide some sort of statistical baseline for calculating the amount of other unseen stellar matter that might exist in addition to the visible stars.

Dark stars and gravitational shifts

Michell also suggested that future astronomers might be able to identify the surface gravity of a distant star by seeing how far the star’s light was shifted to the weaker end of the spectrum, a precursor of Einstein’s 1911 gravity-shift argument. However, Michell cited Newton as saying that blue light was less energetic than red (Newton thought that more massive particles were associated with bigger wavelengths), so Michell’s predicted spectral shifts were in the wrong direction. It is difficult to tell whether Michell’s careful citing of Newton’s position on this may have reflected a lack of conviction on Michell’s part over whether Newton was correct, or whether it was just academic thoroughness.

Laplace and dark stars

In 1796, the mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace promoted the same idea in the first and second editions of his book Exposition du système du Monde, apparently independently of Michell. It may have been removed from later editions because of the development of the wave theory of light; light was then thought to be a massless wave, and therefore not influenced by gravity.

Indirect radiation

Dark stars and black holes both have a surface escape velocity equal or greater than lightspeed, and a critical radius of r ≤ 2M.

However, the dark star is capable of emitting indirect radiation – outward-aimed light and matter can leave the r = 2M surface briefly before being recaptured, and whilst outside the critical surface, can interact with other matter, or be accelerated free from the star by a chance encounter with other matter. A dark star therefore has a rarefied atmosphere of “visiting particles”, and this ghostly halo of matter and light can radiate, albeit weakly.

Comparisons with black holes

Radiation effects
A dark star may emit indirect radiation as described above. Black holes as described by current theories about quantum mechanics emit radiation through a different process, Hawking radiation, first postulated in 1975. The radiation emitted by a dark star depends on its composition and structure; Hawking radiation, by the no-hair theorem is generally thought of as depending only on the black hole's mass, charge, and angular momentum, although the black hole information paradox makes this controversial.

Light-bending effects
Although "historical" Newtonian arguments may lead to the gravitational deflection of light (Newton, Cavendish, Soldner), general relativity predicts twice as much deflection in a lightbeam skimming the Sun. This difference can be explained by the additional contribution of the curvature of space under modern theory: while Newtonian gravitation is analogous to the space-time components of general relativity's Riemann curvature tensor, the curvature tensor also contains purely spatial components, and both forms of curvature contribute to the total deflection.


Dark star (dark matter)
http://en.wikipedia...._(dark_matter)

. . . .
A dark star is a type of star that may have existed early in the universe before conventional stars were able to form. The stars would be composed mostly of normal matter, like modern stars, but a high concentration of neutralino dark matter within them would generate heat via annihilation reactions between the dark-matter particles. This heat would prevent such stars from collapsing into the relatively compact sizes of modern stars and therefore prevent nuclear fusion among the normal matter atoms from being initiated.

Under this model, a dark star is predicted to be an enormous cloud of hydrogen and helium ranging between 4 and 2000 astronomical units in diameter and with a surface temperature low enough that the emitted radiation would be invisible to the naked eye.

In the unlikely event that dark stars have endured to the modern era, they could be detectable by their emissions of gamma rays, neutrinos, and antimatter and would be associated with clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas that normally wouldn’t harbor such energetic particles.


Dark-energy star
http://en.wikipedia....rk-energy_star

A dark-energy star is a hypothetical compact astrophysical object, which a minority of physicists feel might constitute an alternative explanation for observations of astronomical black hole candidates.

The concept was proposed by physicist George Chapline. The theory states that infalling matter is converted into vacuum energy or dark energy, as the matter falls through the event horizon. The space within the event horizon would end up with a large value for the cosmological constant and have negative pressure to exert against gravity. There would be no information-destroying singularity.

Theory

In March 2005, physicist George Chapline claimed that quantum mechanics makes it a "near certainty" that black holes do not exist and are instead dark-energy stars. The dark-energy star is a different concept than that of a gravastar.

Dark-energy stars were first proposed because in quantum physics, absolute time is required; however, in general relativity, an object falling towards a black hole would to an outside observer seem to have time pass infinitely slowly at the event horizon. The object itself would feel as if time flowed normally.

In order to reconcile quantum mechanics with black holes, Chapline theorized that a phase transition in the phase of space occurs at the event horizon. He based his ideas on the physics of superfluids. As a column of superfluid grows taller, at some point, density increases, slowing down the speed of sound, so that it approaches zero. However, at that point, quantum physics makes sound waves dissipate their energy into the superfluid, so that the zero sound speed condition is never encountered.

In the dark-energy star hypothesis, infalling matter approaching the event horizon decay into successively lighter particles. Nearing the event horizon, environmental effects accelerate proton decay. This may account for high energy cosmic ray sources and positron sources in the sky. When the matter falls through the event horizon, the energy equivalent of some or all of that matter is converted into dark energy. This negative pressure counteracts the mass the star gains, avoiding a singularity. The negative pressure also gives a very high number for the cosmological constant.

Furthermore, 'primordial' dark-energy stars could form by fluctuations of space-time itself, which is analogous to "blobs of liquid condensing spontaneously out of a cooling gas." This not only alters the understanding of black holes, but has the potential to explain the dark energy and dark matter, that are indirectly observed.


Black star (semiclassical gravity)
http://en.wikipedia....sical_gravity)

. . . .
A black star is a gravitational object composed of matter. It is a theoretical alternative to the black hole concept from general relativity. The theoretical construct was created through the use of semiclassical gravity theory. A similar structure should also exist for the Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac equations system which is the (super)classical limit of quantum electrodynamics and for the Einstein-Yang-Mills-Dirac system which is the (super)classical limit of the standard model.

A black star need not have an event horizon, and may or may not be a transitional phase between a collapsing star and a singularity. A black star is created when matter compresses at a rate significantly less than the freefall velocity of a hypothetical particle falling to the center of its star, because quantum processes create vacuum polarization, which creates a form of degeneracy pressure, preventing spacetime (and the particles held within it) from occupying the same space at the same time. This energy is theoretically unlimited, and if built up quickly enough, will stop gravitational collapse from creating a singularity. This may entail an ever-decreasing rate of collapse, leading to an infinite collapse time, or asymptotically approaching a radius less than zero.

A black star with a radius slightly greater than the predicted event horizon for an equivalent mass black hole will appear very dark, because almost all light produced will be drawn back to the star, and any escaping light will be severely gravitationally redshifted. It will appear almost exactly like a black hole. It will feature Hawking radiation, as virtual particles created in its vicinity may still be split, with one particle escaping and the other being trapped. Additionally, it will create thermal Planckian radiation that will closely resemble the expected Hawking radiation of an equivalent black hole.

The predicted interior of a black star will be composed of this strange state of spacetime, with each length in depth heading inward appearing the same as a black star of equivalent mass and radius with the overlayment stripped off. Temperatures increase with depth towards the centre.


With the presentation of the theorem above, it would be an interesting task to present corresponding UB text or passages which may support or better define what may be prevalent to what the text in the UB is attempting to reflect.

I have my own understanding of how there are similarities but would prefer to have some logical interaction before I present any lay prospectus on these in relation to the UB or vise versa.

Edited by EEB aka AASB-AWSW, 04 January 2013 - 04:30 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users