The strange concept of white holes

My theory is that you one get one white hole.
In another universe there was enough matter to stop expansion.
When all the galaxies and black holes finally fell together,
they reach a tipping point.
A white hole was formed.
Our universe was then created out of what we see as a Big Bang.
Which was the opening of the white hole.

We already know things that do this, they're called quasars and they make mass ejections of matter into the universe.

as far as white holes go, i think the best thing to refer to a white hole would be similar to a supernove, except with a black whole. Once it has sucked up enough matter that even its force of gravity is no longer able to contain the other forces such as the strong, weak and electromagnetic- if indeed those are capable of overcoming gravity. (this is based on that if xrays can escape black holes why not something else?) Once a black reaches a critical point at which its massive gravity is finally offset that it goes 'supernova' in that all the mass within is spewed outward. The big bang could be termed a 'white hole' in such a scenario. Doesnt it kinda seem logical that if even tho our universe is expanding that its slowing down and will eventually start to contract as the force of gravity slowly plays a role in brining distant objects together. Eventually you have enough buildup in density at a single point that you have, another big bang

oh yea, i forgot about quasars. steller mass black holes a suppose?

my bad guys, but sorry eric but quasars are just bright concentrations of light. i think you were thinking of gamma ray burst

What we have found in the universe is that for everything there is a balance, for every yin, there is a yang. So the idea of white holes is entirely plausible.

Following the analogy, it seems the black holes and white holes come in pairs?? If that is the case, without knowing how the wormhole stuff works, you are looking at a system that behaves like a jet engine. You have the inlet and the outlet. In such a system or systems, what will be the consequence of conservation of momentum and energy manifested? Space-time being twisted and all around the black hole for one thing and not knowing what the properties of white holes are. . . , are there some sort of transformational terms?

If a black hole sucks in all light, then a white hole must expell all light.

This idea makes little sense. You must first define the universe's shape and archetecture, maybe solving the black hole's mystery first. Personally, I beleive that dark matter and the properties of gravuty will create a big crunch of black hole's. Why? Gravity goes on forever, and the conception of forever makes this happen. Once crushed, a monstroso black holes will form for the same reason a normal one would, gravity overcoming the bounderies of mass. In a black hole, all the matter is theorized to be stored, making a journey into one a vaporation precess. But, once all the matter ion the universe is concentrated to the densuity of infinity, the event horizen will disappear, the black hole crumbling apart. And kids, that is the big bang.
schooled.

To the jayparker 1) "even tho our universe is expanding that its slowing down and will eventually start to contract " The expansion of the universe, according to our data, is NOT slowing down. It is speeding up. 2) "this is based on that if xrays can escape black holes why not something else" X-rays do NOT escape black holes. X-rays come from material that is very close to the black hole but before the event horizon. Magnetic forces can trap some of the infalling gas and focus it into narrow jets that flow away from the core of the galaxy at velocities approaching the speed of light emitting radio and gamma waves.

I enjoy reading comment son people who know nothign more than what these experts have said. All your'e doing is regurgitating what these scientists have been saying.

Dont pretend like you know something. Just read it and enjoy.

Loki, – interesting name – commenting like we know something or have an idea about something is what blogs like this are for.

I hope that black hole – white hole pairs actually exist, but I don't see the white hole side of it. Maybe we don't know it yet or maybe when matter is sucked into a black hole it just stays there, adding to the mass of the whole. BAD pun intended...

The idea that black holes are the precurser to the next big bang is interesting but needs a lot of work.

leave the theories to the people that base it on something, not just the, "I think this so, ..."

Thilo, why would the event horizon disappear if a gigantic black hole accumulated all the matter in the universe? It would simply become infinitely large as gravity increases. Of course even talking about a universe-sized black hole is goofy, since we know the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. I think the possibility of a white hole existing would require a black hole to accumulate matter faster than it's able to spaghettify it, which I'm not sure is possible. I think it would have to build up an accretion disc to the point of supernova, and that supernova would have to initiate fusion of the singularity, and I'm not sure that's possible either, but if the entire Einstein radius is totally filled with matter (like it would be if, say, a high-velocity black hole collided with a blue giant or something), then maybe all that matter would begin nuclear fusion immediately, and such a violent reaction could cause the singularity to do crazy things. But who knows? Everything we know about space, time, and physics literally breaks apart inside the Einstein radius of a black hole, so it's extremely hard to predict what might happen there.

Back to the black hole... In the article about black holes, the professor wrote, ""At the same time as you are pulled apart vertically, you are crushed in the horizontal direction, like a rubber band being pulled. So if you would like to be taller and thinner, then one way to achieve that is to fall into a black hole."

When I think of being crushed horizontally, I see myself getting shorter and fatter, not taller and thinner. Can someone help me out of this confusion, please?

Just a thought outside the box. I know the current theory on star/sun formation where the accumulation of gases triggers an ever-growing mass that eventually becomes a star... what if in fact stars and suns are white holes. Then that would perhaps suggest why some stars at supernova become black holes again. I have no evidence for this, obviously, but again, its just a thought nothing more.

David Lee how can something like that is infinite expand???? Explain! People we are not far evolved from Apes so the idea that ANYONE on this planet can give any type of rational explanation as to the origin, boundaries, laws, progress, chemical makeup, and destiny of space is absolutely absurd. Only the know-it-all types say so, as in they know everything you are always talking about and are always right. We have not landed on anything but the moon and pardon my French but the universe is pretty #$%@ing big. I find space absolutely fascinating and agree with the basics only. The only truth we know on Earth is taxes and ex-spouses that tax you more! We cant even build a decent space shuttle and you mean to tell me that you understand the size and movement of the universe Please LOL

Black holes suck in all light and matter, time itself

once every star has turned into a black hole they will ramp up in gravitational pull, larger black holes consuming smaller ones until they are all sucked into The Ultimate Black Hole ( sounds like a porno, lol )

I think all that mass,all the mass that ever existed to be precise, the pressure must be ridiculous. When this juncture is met, I think we will have another big bang, everthing being spewed out and the process will start again.

Of course, this white hole thing is cool. Maybe they are one way roads between dimensions. Black holes are the entrances, white holes the exits. I feel like if white holes existed, they would be much easier to see then black holes. unless the light and matter spews from them so fast that you can't see the orgin. Like a white out effect.

I found this hilarious! Considering a British comedy show called "Red Dwarf" commented on the existence of white holes in the early 90's

Black holes, dark matter/energy are mathmatical farces designed to prop up a failed, proven to have failed, theory of astrophysics.
Because main stream science refuses to acknowledge the existance, power and evidence of electricity as the force behind the X rays and other forms of "evidence " they recite, they have willingy corrupted science with theoretical mathmatics as proof.
High voltage plasma can produce the same x rays and various effects in a lab that are found throughout our galaxy and in locations given credit to contain black holes.
Look back at the hundreds of times the have changed, adhocked or revamped black hole theory.
True science demands that nonworking theories be thrown out and not revamped to fit new findings or fictious postulations.

If a black hole is forever why wouldn’t eventually all the mater end up in a black hole?

Anastasia Shilling if you are crushed in a horizontal direction then the force is moving in a horizontal direction so it would push you from all sides. if im not mistaken

Black holes have a finite mass. It would be safe to assume that white holes would as well.

The reason we may not see white holes is that all of their mass has been ejected, hence, without a mass density sufficient enough to maintain the "hole", the white hole fizzles out and disappears.

I think it entirely plausible that the universe was created by a white hole.

Minor point here. The basic premise of gravity is that it does not "pull" things in. We are not pulled down by gravity onto the surface of the Earth. The mass of the Earth causes space-time to push us down. A black hole does not pull things into itself. Space-time pushes everything toward the event horizon because the outward push of an object's density against it. The greater the density of an object, the more forcefully space-time pushes into it. So black holes don't "suck" or "pull" or attract anything. They"re more like anti-space.

Dear "Jesus was an astronaut too", With all due respect, the only thing I can tell you is to do some reading, take a course, subscribe to a few well regarded, peer reviewed research publications. I would think that since you "find space absolutely fascinating" taking advantage of the body of knowledge and data available to you would be exciting and worthy of your time. Otherwise, insulting, inflammatory, uneducated rants remain just that and our collective wisdom gains nothing.

Most people don't realize that black does emit particels. Always the black holes exerts always gravitons (gravity) particles. We need put more search to understand gravitons. I think it will help us to understand better, to find a unified theory.

Nathan

'Jesus Astronaut'- The expansionof the universe is a mathematical model proof. If you could mathematically theorize the existance of a mystical being who, for some reason, out of all the countless worlds and solar systems in the universe, counts man as a being created in his image and, for reasons unknown, left every other planet a lifeless mass of gases or rock, then come back. Trying to throw religion into a scientific discussion of this sort it frivolous.

Anyway, as to the suction of the universe into a massive collection of black holes before a white hole explosion (or, big bang) doesn't seem like a feasible end to the universe.

If the expansion theory proves to be correct, and the acceleration of expansion is increasing, we'll have to reach a peak of expansion, then a slowing down of it before any reverse could be done. Before any of this happens, you're looking at a 'big cold.' In essence, the heat-death of the universe as energy gets too spaced out. Gravitational pulls will be too far from any planetary body or such to affect any forces, and a slow ceasing of heat exchanges will occur. The universe will be completely void of energy by the time enough stars could collapse into black holes to create a scenerio like this.

as far as white holes being a sort of wormhole exit from a black hole- the sheer density of the energy and matter would be so intense that mo actual physical matter could possibly survive. It would probably be like putting your thumb on a waterhose. Any energy escaping a black hole through a white hole would probably be so dense that it would escape at a far faster velocity than we observe it at. By the time we'd probably get to measure it... it would probably be spread so far from the point of origin that it would just be background bursts of energy which we would probably attribute to local star systems.

Just a few thoughts.

@Eric and jayparker:
Quasars are one class of active galactic nuclei that are observed. They are actually powered by matter being accelerated to almost the speed of light in the accretion disk of a black hole in younger galaxies.

johnrj08, I may be mistaken but gravity does pull, objects with mass attract towards each other. So you are saying space-time pulls then? I throw the idea of a black hole out the window since it is only a theory and man agrees on gravity, so in this sense gravity does pull. The Earth is pulling us toward its center. This is what you are saying " Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, in which gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of inertial objects." I like it but one word in there sucks and it is theory. A theory is something someone says not accepted as a law, thereore has no valid basis until mankind is in agreeance with it and understands it and proves it. So are you saying we dont fall down but we fall how? Anti-space is also a term for really smart people describing something they dont know how to explain otherwise. Not insulting you but the logical science from which the statement was derived. You cant punch in anti-space into coordinates, and every square inch has a coordintate this is why 99% of astro-physicians/psychologist/nomers have not made it into law. I think I made that up but sounds good! Holes do take up space but nothing more than the NY Mets starting pitching!

Due to expanding universe, things -can- leave our universe. A black hole isn't "forever" in a sense that once it leaves our universe, it no longer exists (for those outside its light cone). It could also evaporate via Hawking radiation, but that will take a while-especially considering that ambient temperature of space is higher than black holes at this point in the universe (black holes aren't evaporating -yet-).

Cpresser – so what you are saying is that our universe is the compressed crap from another universe?

In all seriousness, even some of the theories on multi-universes do not touch that. A current theory on multi-universes is that there are dozens of them and they never cross and it would be impossible to cross. The vastness between them is empty, and nothing exists. It's weird and 150% theory. We can't even leave our solar system let alone our galaxy, so to comprehend multi-verse would be near impossible except in books.

On the theory of Mass Energy or that matter and energy can be transformed from one another...

The article describes black holes as a point in space where normal circumstances are thrown aside. Light is not faster than the area of space which is falling around it, so to speak. It was a neat analogy.

From this one can conclude that a white hole would need to be an opposite, because if there's something we've found in existence, there's always a cause/effect or a yin/yang like the witty professor pointed out earlier. Where could all this matter/stuff being dragged down go?

One of the theories is it's transported. Kind of like a worm hole. It's a neat deal, but what if those exist separately entirely? I mean take worm holes out of the equation.

What if there is a finite amount of everything in the universe, and black holes are simply the recycling system. That would lead me to believe that Stars are the form in which energy is transmitted, or Light as it's known. That's the thought that popped in my head. A universal loop since matter is neither created nor destroyed only transformed yes? It could explain somethings but I'm not creative enough to think beyond that.

Maybe my thinking is a bit off because of the special physics involved in a black hole, but I tend to think there'd be an easy way to test if a white hole could be possible:
If the immense gravity of a black hole is drawing matter into its singularity, that would mean the mass of that singularity would increase. More mass = more gravity. More gravity = a larger event horizon, i.e., the black hole'a area of effect would be growing. If we are somehow able to prove that the event horizon of any given black hole does not increase in area, that would mean the matter attracted did not "stay within the sigularity," thus it would have to be going somewhere. Hence, a white hole or similar effect. If the event horizon grows, we have proved that the increase in mass and effectively that the could not be a yang to its ying.
Another possibility would be that SOME of the matter stays, while the rest of it could be scattered through space-time and into another space. If the singularity only catches some of the matter, the mass would still increase, so its effect on space-time would be varied. Think of this as similar to the way a comet slingshots around the sun, but the "sun" in this case would be increasing in mass and changing the way in which it affects the comet each time the two come into contact.
Just my two cents.

Ryan thats kind of how I see it, the mass would increase I cant understand another way, if it collects matter where does it go, someone earlier posted gamma incineration, but where does the exhaust go? Space-time confuses me

Nicholas: "Black holes suck in all light and matter, time itself"
Time (spacetime) is absolute, just that space starts to collapse around event horizon. As you know even light is affected by this and takes longer to escape, or takes longer for us to receive information on the other end, eventually seeing unchanged information for very long time just before event horizon. It's quite misleading to say even time itself is sucked, it's more like a distortion.

"once every star has turned into a black hole they will ramp up in gravitational pull, larger black holes consuming smaller ones until they are all sucked into The Ultimate Black Hole ( sounds like a porno, lol )"

Not every star is qualified to become a black hole, it requires certain amount of mass.

Here's my BIG IF, going along with current research/observation regarding that the universe is expansion rate is increasing and the other end of black hole (white hole/wormhole) exist, what if it/they are located at the center of universe and spewing out all the energy from the center to outward?

I've read a lot of the comments, but I didn't see anyone mention Hawking radiation.

It's a theoretical radiation that is emitted from black holes. This solves the case where one might assume one black hole could gobble up the entire universe. Hawking has shown that black holes "evaporate" in a sense, so that they lose mass very slowly and eventually disappear. Therefore, black holes are not taking mass in and destroying it, it is simply spewing it out into the universe slowly as radiation.

This radiation is emitted right at the event horizon. It gets around the problem that nothing can exit the boundary through an interesting interaction. A particle inside the event horizon interacts with a particle just outside. This interaction allows a particle to be emitted away from the black hole. This has been dubbed "Hawking radiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Without falling into the super-complication we have made of math and science, how the universe works seems common sense enough. Expanding, contracting, suck in, spew out – constant movement and renewal. I believe in God as the Master Creator of the Universe(s), a kind of grand civil engineer working on a very high plane. The Big Bang Theory holds that all matter was once compact, then a massive explosion with the matter expanding outward in all directions. At some point the matter will stop expanding, hold in stasis for a bit, then start the reverse action to contract back to the core. And I believe that the concept of Eternity is that this massive expansion/contraction has happened not once but perhaps trillions of times. That it will go on as long as time, matter and energy remain. I recognize God as the master mover of all this, that we are alive in just a small bit of time in this particular event – I savor every moment, even the failures, because I know I will not pass this way again. If God is listening,, I'm having a wonderful time – the trip has been a hoot – thank you.

Why y'all gotta be brotha' hatin'? Why can't the Man be chill with an empowered Black Hole without there needin' to be an oppressor White Hole? Quit oppressin' the brotha-man Black Hole.

Ummm, has anyone here read the bible? All of the answers are there.

To Jesus was an Astronaut – look up the definition of the word theory. Just because something is a theory doesn't mean you can't prove its true, the definition simply requires evidence and leaves the theory open to change as the evidence is more complete. To say you don't subscribe to the theory of relativity is like saying you don't accept that magnets are real. You're smart enough to post online, why don't you go look at some facts before spouting BS you think is logical, but to the rest of us is just silly. You irritate me.
As far as a white hole goes, the concept of black holes falling together to create a universe-sized black hole is wrong, the universe will end in heat-death and there will be no black holes left long before that could happen. Stephen Hawking has shown that black holes CAN lose mass through radiative effects, i.e. Hawking radiation. This means that the concept of a white hole spewing the consumed matter out somewhere else can't be true, otherwise there would be no energy loss through the Chandrekesar limit. Also, the matter consumed isn't going anywhere, we wouldn't be observing black holes the size of small galaxies if it did. The matter is clearly accumulating within the black holes.

The world is so full of a number of things,
I’m sure we should all be as happy as kings.

Hawking radiation seems more likely to me than a "white hole." However, the interaction between the two particles would have to be strong enough to overcome the gravitational force exerted on the particles within the Einstein radius. That may not be such a challenge, since it's been shown that gravity is weak enough to allow superclusters to break apart. The bigger problem I see is that with all the light flying around the universe, how can the black hole radiate more particles than it accumulates? That means, if we're talking about a dead area of space populated only by photons, that each photon, on average, needs to interact with more than one photon INSIDE the Einstein radius in order for the result to be a net loss of mass. That's not so trivial.

What happens when two black holes meet?

Here's a thought. The one thing we know is in our universe but we really don't understand and can't explain is the (theoretical) Dark Matter.
It may be that even Black Holes have to obey the conservation of energy and matter in some way, thus-

If we think of the Black Hole having to emit some of it's highly compressed matter somewhere within our universe (because it's the only universe we know exists), what better explanation than this?

Like the waterfall- the water then has to go somewhere! -. matter falls into the black hole, gets super compressed and leaks out into our universe in some kind of symmetrical way as Dark Matter, helping to confuse Astronomers and expand the universe.

We can't see this happen, but it's like the virtual particle paradox- don't know what it is till we try to measure it- then it's counterpart appears light years away instantaneously.

In the same way whatever happens inside the Black Hole- which we can't know, when it reaches a certain point, energy, density, whatever- it emits a Particle of Dark Matter somewhere on the other side of the universe.

OK- that;s my story and I'm sticking to it....

A thousand years ago, we "knew" the earth was flat, 500 years ago we "knew" the earth was the center of the cosmos, 70 years ago we "knew" matter could neither be created nor destroyed, and now we proclaim to "know" these things about black holes, the universe, gravity, physics, etc. In my opinion, all we have is hypothesis...educated guesses and thats it. Who knows what laws of physics and mathematics apply on a cosmological and universal scale? I say we just sit back, enjoy, and hopefully when someday this whole "after-life" thing that everyone has their hypothesis' about happens, we'll get all the answers. Until then, I'll just read 'universe in a nutshell,' a bible, and wonder on my own.

Chris- You bring up a good point. I think that while right now black holes are clearly experiencing a net gain in mass, eventually as stars go out and don't reform, the amount of high energy radiation striking the black hole directly will decrease to the point where a net loss of energy through Hawking radiation will be possible......I'm not a theoretical physicist though, so don't quote me on that one, haha.

ooooh, thanks Drizzt. I asked my Dad the same question and he said and I quote:

"I don’t understand why if you are getting crushed horizontally you would think you are getting shorter. Horizontal forces have no effect in the vertical direction, only in the horizontal direction. Your height wouldn’t change, but our ratio of height to width would become infinite as your horizontal dimension gets reduced to zero."

Yeah, well, in defense of my ignorance, the rubber band analogy confused me. The horizontal force is more like a clamp, true? The rubber band analogy is referring to the stretch of my feet into the black hole before the pull gets to my head.

But, wait a second here because johnrj08 says and I quote:

"Minor point here. The basic premise of gravity is that it does not “pull” things in. We are not pulled down by gravity onto the surface of the Earth. The mass of the Earth causes space-time to push us down. A black hole does not pull things into itself. Space-time pushes everything toward the event horizon because the outward push of an object’s density against it. The greater the density of an object, the more forcefully space-time pushes into it. So black holes don’t “suck” or “pull” or attract anything. They”re more like anti-space."

The thing is that these minor points are major for me as I am learning as fast as I can to catch up to some of you guys.

Thanks.

Dan- A nova explosion. As the accretion disks accelerate and collide, the matter in them will compress to the point of a nuclear fusion flash point before it's pulled onto the black holes. As far as the black holes themselves, they'll just eat each other extremely rapidly.

i always assumed that the matter was just compressed and added to the mass of the original black hole....

Check out the classic British Sci-Fi/Comedy "Red Dwarf", and the "White Hole" show. It's hilarious, but at the same time is might prove correct in it's assumptions.

I think that black holes have exits (white holes) that end in the middle of suns.

First off, I don't know much about this stuff, but I first became interested in finding a couple of old books written in the late 60's. I forget the names but they were pretty easy to understand by people who at least took college physics. In those books (Before any of this new stuff came out) I think black holes were still a theory. Sir Albert Einstein said they most likely existed based on his theory of relativity. What was most interesting, was that he also predicted white holes existed as well. From what I remember of the books, Einstein said that he thought a black hole perhaps was a way to travel back in time, and a white hole would be a way to travel forward in time. These would be by ways of worm holes within the fabric of the universe. I am not sure if he changed his mind, or if other theories came about to prove, or disprove his theory. I just think it's pretty cool, that he predicted that these two powers existed within the universe, and it took so long to actually find a black hole for real.

I suggest if you are at least interested in this stuff, you find some easy to read books. I know they are out there as I had found a few for me....

Asa- Thanks for bringing up the heat-death theory again. I find it much more likely than universal contraction into black holes. Especially since the expansion theory pretty much is pointing into that direction.

As far as everyone bringing up the bible and such- this is a scientific discussion, not a metaphysical one. You have your bible at your table, my coffee table has 'A Brief History of Time' on it.

As for a hypothetical on what happens to all the condensed energy and matter inside a black hole- it would stand to simple reason that the more absorbed (matter and energy sucked in/fallen into, etc, etc) into a black hole, the more mass and consequently the more pull and larger diameter the event would have. The Hawking theory does seem an interesting one with the eventual dissipation of the stored energies, but you would think that the amount of energy a black hole consumes that we would have been able to register these kinds of issues.

I mean, currently we can 'spot' black holes by what? Odd energy behavoirs (I'm at work and the specifics evade me at the moment- apologies) around the event horizon? If this is so, wouldn't we also detect odd levels of background radiation in the area as well if a black hole was 'leaking' energies? The matter, I assume would be broken down into component energies at a basic level, but there would still be some sort of detectable phenomenon to indicate something.

However, if a black hole reaches a critical mass to where its gravitational pull can no longer contain all the energy it stores (I kind look at this as trying to cram too much into one container... eventually it has to break (or leak, etc), wouldn't this been noticable once it finally dies? Depending on the size of the Black Hole, wouldn't this be akin to a supernova event? If so, maybe we are actually seeing some of these events but miscategorizing them?

There is a lot to our universe that we will never understand. It is completely plausible to assume that there are many layers to time and space that we will never understand. There are clear laws of physics that say that matter cannot be created or destroyed, thus, it would be completely logical for the matter sucked into black holes to have an escape point. They will perhaps not necessarily be in the form that they entered the black hole, but they must come out somewhere.

Dear Jesus was an astronaut too,

It is completely preposterous to allow your faith to completely block out what science proved. I am a Christian who is incredibly strong in their faith, and I can tell you that it is silly to ridicule people who have a clear, scientific thought process. Just because a scientist says something does not make it false. Read your Bible and you will find that many times what science finds later has already been written about. Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is blind, religion without science is blind."

A black hole really isn't a hole at all but a very large blob of super-condensed matter – the left-overs from the star it used to be. It's black because it's matter is so great that it causes its local "fabric" of space to converge to it's center. This is why light – which has zero mass – is described as being unable to escape the black hole's gravity. Light itself isn't affected by gravity, but the space in which it propagates is. In a sense, near a black hole all roads really do lead to Rome.

Given this explanation, there's no reason to suppose the existence of a white hole as the literal antithesis of a black hole would require a huge localized concentration of antigravity. There's been no evidence to support such a thing and general cosmology theory neither predicts nor requires it.

Personally, and I think Stephen Hawking agreed, H.J. Simpson's theory of a donut-shaped universe was a lot more compelling.

Have we seen inside of Nebula, the nursery of stars? Do we really have half an idea of the different formations and systems in this most basic part of the universe? Does the present gas and dust properly account for the stars and planets left behind?

Is it not possible that some variation of 'white holes' exist inside of some nebula? Matter is nether created nor destroyed... and something does not add up in the equations. Not all are supernova creations.

There are still many areas here we are only in the infancy of knowledge, a look at the history of the field will re-enforce how much will yet change that we hold to be fact as of now.

Dino in the donut shaped universe what is the boundries described like? I am not too familiar with that one. How do they explain beyond the borders of the universe and if it is donut shaped than it is not infinite correct? And if so what lies beyond the shape? Matter, Space, Multiple Universes?

Well, using more simple physics, despite the gravity created by a black hole, eventually the pressure created by this infinate gravity would compress the matter sucked in (however slowly this occurs in "space") in such a way that eventually the solid item would become so dense that "space" would not have any room to condense the matter further, this would cause heat, friction, and perhaps instability. That could lead to a black hole becoming a white hole as an aftermath situation of a resulting explosion... where now the original core of the star has blown itself apart and due to the magnetic flux field patterns you would end up with a disk shaped debris field that would seem to orbit around an empty center, however, I believe it would really simply be matter on opposite sides of the field keeping each other in orbit around the original blast point and leaving something of a void in the middle.

Einstein's theory is still a theory. Astorphysicists and other experts researching in the field have used his theory and expanded upon it to "explain" events observed as they occur in the universe. No explaination should be considered "fact" but , until a more logical one (based on observation and experimentation) is presented, they should be considered as the "best logical explaination so far". The "expanding universe" and the black hole theories are the "best logical explaination so far". The subject of this discussion, the "white hole" is not a theory based on observations or other evidence and so, as such, cannot be considered as any more than an "idea".

what i am curious on is the stream between a white and black.

hypothetically speaking with the analogy made up in the article as an input/output system, where would its path be?

would this exit funnel be in our universe, another universe, or would these white and black hole be funnels to different universes just continuously sucking each other up, and spitting each other out on constant separate sides to start over.

if the stream was simply in our universe alone, what would happen if something crossed this path? such as a meteor or debris. would it pass through safely, be crushed and smashed with other debris or basically just catch a hyper ride to the end?

on the other side against a white hole. black holes do not just give, they continue to grow and consume. it even horizon will just keep enlarging for the amount of matter is devours. so honestly i don't think it either needs a drain or ever eventually combusts due to over loading; possibly just due to its own instability. they probably are really very fragile.

could someone come up with a hypothesis as to why a black hole might dissolve or explode outside "running out of room"?

Or......it doesn't matter at all because we are all in the Matrix and its all fake.....think about that....

Ray/Asa: the reason we do not register certain aspects of space: with all of the power that one of these reactions would have, it would happen in an extremely brief amount of time. And due to our relative proximity to a "dangerous" black hole, it could literally be 3,000 years until one comes into view. And that would only happen if the closes large event went big bang on us within the last 50 years. So, unless an event within view of our telescopes happened to happen at the right time (say, 10,000 years ago) and the light emitted from that event travelled to us with the last 20 years, we would have no record of it. Our record is of whatever the light's image translated when it left it's origin. Nothing more, nothing less.

For the average reader of these notes, you can test this theory with your personal camera. take the same pictures at different distances and you will find that the quality of the image degrades over small distances with regards to the utility used to collect it. (namely a camera). Imagine what would happen over trillions of miles instead of hundreds of inches. Now, using the same focal point (maybe a speed limit sign) Try taking a picture of a passing car up close, 10, 20 feet. You may get the timing right. Try taking a picture of a passing car from a long distance like say 500 feet. By the time you get your finger down the car may be gone from view, or you may take the picture of the sign before the car is behind it. Either way, recording the state the car is in at that exact point in time that it passes the sign (event) becomes more difficult because it has to happen when you can see it happen.

Jesus was an...

Please don't tell me that you are seriously asking questions on a universe model as proposed by a cartoon?
H.J. Simpson = Homer J. Simpson from the Simpson's TV show.

So much for pop culture references

Perhaps the point is moot as no one will probably ever know in our lifetime but oh to wonder...

Honestly all the thories about black holes, white holes, and anything about the unknown is just that a theory not to be regarded as fact or as a lie its just a general guess that will either be proven fact or false. All these astromoners are highly regarded for their work but its based on theorical basic so from the foundion up its all theory no fact. Albert Einstien came up with the theory of the radius of a black hole which involved complex math equations that neither could be proven right or worng because no one has every measured the a black hole or even been close to one. In my opinion if a black hole engulfs all sources of light then how have we even seen a black hole. Either way i dont doubt these thoeries but i dont relay on them as a soul source of truth.
Till proven i consider theories as ideas or guess that will give scientist ideas to solving whatever matter that are working towards.

To elaborate on the theory of black sends matter to white, versus black eventually dissipating. perhaps a black hole is one sided, maybe it is crushing matter into neutrinos and because of the mass magnetic disturbance, firing those neutrinos in force to the white hole where the opposite magnetic fields coagulate the neutrinos back into dust and similar space debris.

Also, I thought of another analogy to debunk the theory of: if we don't know it didn't happen:

If a tree falls in the forest no ones hears it. Because your ears did not collect the sounds.

But the tree still fell, didn't it.

We assume that this "white thing" is a hole. Why? Just because a black hole concentrates mass at one point that looks like a whole, does not mean a while hole would have to eject it at a single point.

If in fact they are correlated, and if rules of time, and space stop applying normally at their crossover intersection, then Perhaps black holes concentrate at one point, but white holes emit infinessimal specs of matter/light haphazardly/randomly across a spectrum of everywhere and everytime. Hence, difficult to measure since there is no one place or time that they continuously emit at?

Heck...Why not?

You know, amusing for "science" this sounds like a "faith" thing. Cant' See it, but we "know it exists". Cant' really get in it, but we "know" it must be such and such. Sounds like faith to me. The "religion of science".

Since we truly have no freaking clue what is going on here, I think that when we get inside the black whole we will find that they are actually Godlike beings called the "We_All_Suck" in the shape of twisting spinning Hoover vacuum cleaners with eyeballs that look like icecream scoops with a cherry on top and that they simply consume matter and create massless matter out of pure boredom.

One can observe the movement of energy in the universe, but that doesn't tell us why it moves. The mystical question always points to motive. To know the why may be beyond the human domain. Therefore, the proper thing to do is to observe it and be entertained.

Hey for those that are replacing the white hole theory with Hawking radiation, I believe the so-called dormant black holes (or those that are not feeding on surrounding mass) do not emit Hawking radiation. I think if it were possible to locate a current dormant black hole, it would be appropriate to test the flux (or lack thereof) of the Einstein radius. Seems like this would be a valid test for the presence of an "outlet," so to speak.

Tevil-

Regarding something traveling through the 'stream' in the hypothetical wormhole between a black hole and white hole- The theoretical meteor would have to survive crossing the event horizon and into the singularity itself. The gravitational forces involved would destroy pretty much any solid mass attempting to cross the threshhold into the 'wormhole.'

Basically, if we're talking Science Fiction Physics (or technology 'indistinguishable from magic') there would have to be some sort of outside influence to allow something to survive the trip into the blackhole. An 'anti-gravity' field strong enough to buffer/negate the extaordinary gravitational forces at play. Again, this is just talking without any real theories involved, though.

On a related note, if you're interested in wormhole travel theories, an interesting one is the 'Ring Gate.' A superdense structure spun at near light speeds to create an artificial wormhole. It's theorized, though, that the structure would have to be so dense you would have to collect it from a star that started collapsing on itself, etc. A lot of holes in the theory, but it's interesting none the less.

You guys are all quacks...

I don't think we are capable of understanding much of the universe, as I do not believe we have evolved enough, have the proper equip to effectively study it, or have dedicated enough collective time as a species to garner a better understanding than what we have now...

Heh... This is why blogs should not be accepted as legitimate source of meaningful news; also why there should be no comments allowed.

Hmm...alot of smart people here and lots of info and theories. I love space but feel that my brain, as well as all other humans, does not have the right perspective to understand it. I do believe that we cannot as of yet see the whole or even a slight sliver of the picture yet to make ANY theories as to the universe. The fact that we(earthborn humans) are JUST learning the ways to just view the universe means that we are a long ways from actually comming up with anything. It used to be said that black holes only ingest things, now we know that there are things that come out of em too. I wonder...if we could map out the locations of all known black holes..and then went to another universe and mapped those as well..what would we find? Any patterns, a pattern in things leads to discovery.

Why are you guys even arguing about this?

You do realize that humanity is going to be extinguished long before we could ever discover all the truths to our universe, right? You do realize that gaining an omnipotent insight to our universe will still never present any real, applicable advantage to not having omnipotent insight, right? Will you sleep better at night if I tell you that everything is going to be okay and that, to be completely honest, nothing really matters?

Everything is just a micrcosm/macrocosm of something else.

Keep pretending that arguing about black holes and white holes or whatever other anomaly will have some relevant, prolific effect on our lives here on Earth.

I think we have real problems here on Earth that need to be addressed while we still exist here.

Stars are while holes. The pair are internal. Don't look for a companion white hole. A star turns to a black hole and eventually the black hole will compress enough mass to restart the explosion of the star aka white hole. The expultion of mass & light. The earth recycles itself through the tetonic/volcanic cycle, not through some pair object elsewhere in the universe. Same for stars. ** Is a sphere the opposite of a hole? **

I think we are just a speck in some giant's fingernail.

Anybody got some chips? I am SO jones'in for some chips...

I wonder...If there was a white hole spewing out all this matter, wouldn't it all eventually clump back together again because the mass that it's ejecting would pull itself together under its own gravity, similar to the way stars are born in nebulae?

I think it's interesting that this story has generated so much speculation in the non-scientific community. It bodes well for scientists hoping for public support while they investigate increasingly abstruse and just plain weird phenomena. At the same time, though, I would have to say that nearly all of you are off base in your scientific thinking.

On the other hand, the history of science consists of scientists regularly finding out that "Everything you know is wrong." If someone had speculated twenty years ago that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down but was in fact accelerating, they would have been laughed out of the lab.

Cool Dude

One of the common misunderstandings comes from the very name that we use to describe black 'holes'. They are not holes, specificly. A hole would lend the thought that it's a tunnel, or a gateway, a rip, or something else along those lines.

Take something, say... a small car. Crush it down with as much force as we possess and it will make a rather small cube. Crush it again, force the matter to compress down to the point there is no air or gaps or void spaces and you get a surprisingly small lump from the size of your car.

Now compress it again, with all the weight that the earth, or the sun can press on it and you get something the size of a pebble. The spaces between the atoms themselves are removed and you get a very dense little metalic rock. Compress it again, and again, and again and you get a smaller and smaller object with the WEIGHT of an entire car. When it becomes so small that you can't see it, and yet it exerts the density of an entire car, you have yourself an example of a 'black hole'.

Now do the same thing with a rather large star. Compress it over and over again and eventually you get a point that has the entire gravity force of a star behind it, and yet none of the pretty lights, heat, or anything else. Rather then emiting anything, it draws things into itself instead.

A black hole is not a 'hole', it is simply a very very VERY small pinpoint of matter, that contains everything that fell into it's event horizon.

A black hole is a singularity.....supposedly, so if you have a singularity on one hand, what is the opposite of a singularity? A plurality? What the FFF would that be? If you think about it, it would be the vacuum itself, think about it, Singularity=an infinite amount of mass compressed together, so the opposite would be an infinitesimally small amount of mass in the entire universe I suppose.... I think these people are just going to far with the Matter vs. Anti-matter theory, I agree every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but I do not think that every theory has an equal opposing theory.... if you know what I mean.

I find it amusing that so many people who obviously have no concept of how science works, what the currently accepted theories of cosmology (and their supporting evidence) are, what the actual observed behavior of the universe is, or grasp the difference between religion and science nonetheless feel competent to make bold pronouncements about how the universe works...

So.. all matter in a black hole gets condensed into the singularity. So much in fact that it will eventually "fill up". Bang. The matter is so tightly bound together that nuclear fusion takes place... and a star is born. Thus, the star is the white hole.

Probably utter BS, but after reading all the comments and the article, it popped into my head. Likely has holes you could drive a truck through, but there it is... my canadian two cents...

cheers.
dan

I asked Prof Kip Thorn some of these questions and he described a white hole as being identical to a black hole but with time reversed. Einstein's theory of gravity was also a theory of time, so it describes how motion towards the center of the black hole changes with time. If everything, including light, must be drawn into the black hole as time proceeds, then if time was moving backwards, then everything must be forced away from the center of a white hole.

Black holes, white holes, perhaps they exist and there are many spread throughout the universe.

One thing is certain though, there's plenty of A-holes here on Earth.

Its interesting how many believe (or should I say few?) who believe in white holes only consider that the matter would be "moved" via a wormhole to another part of the galaxy. I have my own two theory's on this matter:

Theory A: The matter that gets sucked in, is actually spewed out on the outer edges of the universe, which supports the fact that the universe is "expanding" and getting "bigger" (if that’s the right word..)

Theory B: The matter is sucked into the singular and sent to an alternate dimension due to the enormous gravity in the center, space folds upon it and ejects the matter.

A Paradox to consider…

Now when you step back and consider the composition of a “white whole” the idea is that it is essentially “opposite of a blackhole” meaning, a while hole should be made out of purely anti-matter, but herein lies the paradox.. If the White hole is composed of “anti matter” when the matter (from the black hole) would pass and come through the wormhole, wouldn’t the white hole simply blow up? (matter + anti matter = explosion?)

What’s your take?

A common theory about the whole big bang issue is that it has happened an infinite number of times throughout the history of the universe. When the universe stops expanding and then begins to collapse until it reaches a singularity again, another big bang happens. For all we know, we could be living in the Universe version: infinity.

I believe the book that discusses this theory and many others is A Brief History of the Universe by Stephen Hawking. Even for those of us who aren't astrophysicists it's a fairly easy to understand book.

This is wonderful. Really. I start reading what I think will be an interesting and informative blog on the existence of white holes and half of the entries are people who have one browser window open to "Wikipedia" and the other browser open to this page as they play the nerd version of "dozens". On the other hand, there were some very interesting viewpoints proposed. In any case, the haters and the actual thinkers made for a great read.

And Dude......sweet!

Yeah, what he said....

wow... how much would you NOT want to go on holiday with some of the people who have made comments here...

Anyway, jokes aside, this whole "white hole, black hole, hawking radiation and other universes" thing is very interesting, but some people are taking it too seriously. Do you really think we'll be able to prove all of this in the near future? The moon is the only place man has been outside the earth. Scientists say that the closest black hole is thousands of light years away! How can we come up with cold hard facts about these things?!

Sure, we can make observations and make some educated guesses about them, but in reality, we know next to nothing about the universe.

A White Hole is simply the other end of what you earthlings call a traditional Black Hole but further along in terms of maturity. Depending on mainly the chemical composition and size of the embryo will depend on eventual type of the new galaxy. A Black Hole will expand until the fabric of its outer layer breaks and spills, releasing the pressure inside and thus the contents from within forming a new galaxy. the rate and speed combined with the size of the inital break will determine type of galaxy.

The physics involved are fairly elementary, think of it as one big melting pot.

Cpresser, i completely agree with that theory. What happened when the big bang was in place? Well matter was spewing out everywhere. I believe that they are the start to every Universe. And that they are so spread out there are many other universes around us. The question i want answered is.... what's beyond that? Well that's an age-old question that may never be answered.

After reading over all of your comments I dub Tora the victor! Grats Tora

Actually, it doesn't matter how much you know or don't know. Please feel the freedom to imagine what ever you wish. Do think outside the box and inside too. It seems that whenever anyone thinks they "have it all figured out", something new comes to light. Some of the most brilliant people are young people not tainted by the "this is what's so" people.

I say go for and and enjoy!....

ray

i was not saying "if something entered a black hole" but saying "if something entered in between the white and black hole".

it was just a topic for conversation.

also would there be an in between or would the gravity be so strong that it would literally pull "the two points" back to back erasing all space and time between it?.

So... where is the universe again?
Where are all of this things taking place... our Universe (and Our Galaxy)?
So all galaxies are in "the Universe" ...than what the
hell is the Universe in? A cell?... on the head of a pin?
Under a giants fingernail? I bet there are infinite amounts
of Universes, like layers to an onion. Universes on top of each other...
It boggles the mind to think we are alone in this mess called Life,
surely we are NOT the most intelligent beings in all of this wasted space. Just trying to grasp where the universe "is" can make one want to cling to a "God" of some sort to rationalize what our place is in
this grand experiment called existence.
"This is your brain on science"
now if only I could get my brain on "God" things get simpler enough for me to sleep at night. I can explain everything away and say
"God made it all" But I can not and will not be that gullible any "Drink the kool-aid like the rest of them. ;-P

Now after reading all of that..

What if we are in fact inside a blackhole? What if space its self is in fact a blackhole?

As for the universe expanding yes its possable, but what happens when it stops, or what causes it to stop? If its loss of energy then what is the force that is causing it to collapse.

As for whiteholes.. maybe blackholes are whiteholes when blackholes reach max compaticty. But on the other hand if blackholes just consume time/space/matter ect and constantly compress all of it into some type of super condensed matter what is its breaking point?
Or maybe inside a blackhole a universe is created, thus leading to my theory that we are living inside of a blackhole right now. Which could go further to explane UFO's. Some distant travelers from a different blackhole that found a way to travel threw them.

What do you think about that?

Once upon a time, matter was compressed (divided) into a black hole singularity such that all its constituent particles left the "particle" state and all we could see as a manifestation of the singularity mass was its gravity force. Now, what if you could divide the gravity force into further constituents? Anyone?

And what if we are sorely limited by our capabilites to only observe 3-d space falling through time? Maybe we need multi-dimensional observation skills?

Anyone for tennis?

What goes in must come out, right?

The point is not if this whole thing can be proven or not. The point is coming up with new ideas that could possibly be plausible. Sooner or later someone will get it right. BUT, if you don't "waste your time" postulating, you'll never come up with that idea, thus you'll never understand. The quest for knowledge is its own reward, so just bask in that and don't worry about why you're thinking. Newton, Einstein, Hawking... they were/are thinkers. If one stops thinking, one stops learning. If one stops learning, one stops living.

White holes don't exist. Black holes are massive enough that light can't escape its gravity. The mass stays there until the black hole becomes unstable. That's it. No white holes, no rip in the time space continuum, no going 88 mph in a delornean and going back in time, nothing.

Of course, gravity itself can escape or it couldn't be measured.

and for many many years these same scientists thought black holes were the stuff of fantasy...

And to all you guys that say, "better things to do here on Earth," this "basic, irrelevant Science" you all refer to is the source of many of the most useful and important discoveries ever. Computers, Nuclear Power, DNA sequencing, and truckloads of other technologies and discoveries were and are being made by scientists doing the dirtiest gruntwork of science, called "Basic Research".

It involves making hypotheses, doing experiments Over and Over and Over to get repeatable results and verify them, and writing about these experiments in what most people would consider the most boring journals EVER. And out of that incredibly hard work comes Technology to make our lives easier.

So remember that when someone asks you whether you think we should go to Mars. The discoveries we make along the way may very well be the thing that saves Humankind from its own folly.

how about this idea god made the universe and every planet, black hole, sun, and all that space is his canvas to do what he pleases and our little primate brains will never understand all that universe because we are not the smartest there is some one always smarter we jus havent found them yet but anyway feel free to make me feel stupid for what i belive but ya never kno i could be rite

Imagine a whirlpool down a drain. A 'white hole' is where the water would go if that whirlpool were 4 dimensional and infinitely deep. The infinity, in 4D, is possible because the vortex continues spiraling back outward on the opposite side of its center of gravity (not event horizon).

The shape of the universe is a 4 dimensional sphere. What we observe, however, is only a three dimensional shadow inside of the whole, which is a torus (infinitely small, but not zero, at the center, and expanding in the direction of infinity in volume). Every gravity well exhibits this asymetry, (which is really symetry in 4D), but black holes are observably pronounced.

The 3D shadow of a 4D universe appears to us as only one side of any gravity well, or 'drain'. We can't see the opposite side of this spiral because of the event horizon.

Time doesn't occur without change. As long as there is change, there is time. As we accelerate, even in free fall, time will run slower. Our attractive and repulsive forces will be weaker because they are spread out over time compared to our less accelerated neighbors. If we accept the fact that matter never exceeds the speed of light, we will better understand our universe. Much of what we learned from studying the theories of black holes can be applied to "dark holes" which cannot nor ever will form an "event horizon". Anything "below the event horizon" does not nor ever will exist". So much of what we theorized will happen before we reach the speed of light but we will be reduced to plasma quickly compared to the universe and to our own consciousness.

Sure, coming up with ideas, theories and "educated guesses", like i said before, is great and very interesting, but the reason for my last post was that some people seemed to be making fun of other peoples ideas, while acting as if their own idea is proven fact, which of course... it isn't.

So yes, make theories and come up with explanations, but don't pretend that it's all 100% proven fact and that anyone who thinks differently is stupid and wrong.

Ok, to the people who don't understand what the terms "theory" and "law" mean in a scientific context:

"Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics."

Black holes are stellar objects whose mass has collapsed to a singularity. The event horizon is the region of spacetime where light cannot escape. If the sun in our solar system were to suddenly become a black hole, ignoring electron degeneracy pressure or the Pauli exclusion principle, we would NOT go spiraling in. The mass of the sun is unchanged; you have to approach the black hole very closely before you notice the special effects.

Those who deride the ideas of quantum mechanics and general relativity as just "theories" need to stop using the computers that rely on these faulty "theories". Or stop using medicine or eating food from the grocery store if you think evolution is just a "theory".

Oh, and to the folks who have brought up Hawking radiation:

T = (hc^3)/(8πGMkb)

T = The temperature of the black hole
h = Planck's constant (usually h-bar, but I'm typing on a computer)
c = the speed of light
G = Newton's gravitational constant
M = the mass of the black hole
kb = Boltzmann's constant (usually k with b in subscript)

I am pretty sure white holes were already explained on Red Dwarf

The connecting notions of black/white holes assumes the premise that matter, which is sucked into a black hole, goes somewhere else. There is no evidence or theory to suppose that it does.
Neither is there any evidence for an area of stellar vomitous.

A black hole is pretty much like the Hotel California or your credit card. Once you're sucked in, that's it.

Seems like a lot of people ignored the last three sentences of this little blurb.

"The concept of white holes is totally theoretical and most people don’t give it much credence, McClintock added.

“Thousands of astronomers are just grinding their brains away on black holes,” he said. “You compare that to a white hole, I don’t think you’ll find one astronomer grinding his brain away.”

There we are.

"We already know things that do this, they’re called quasars and they make mass ejections of matter into the universe."

ERIC IS RIGHT.

White holes can't exist because the mass that falls into a black hole doesn't go anywhere else to be "spewed forth", it just stays there, in the black hole, adding to the mass of the black hole, that's why they're so super-massive that they bend space time and light.

Quasars are not "white holes". They are not spewing forth more matter than they have. As far as I know, the current theory is they're just super-massive early universe stars / proto-galaxies. I'd have to go read up on it, but calling them "white holes" just doesn't make sense.

im pnly nine but i love space and stuff like that so i found this article to be quet interesting.

To all of the posters on here that have said the word 'theory,' well, 'theory' is how we made it to the moon; theory is how we made it to space at all. 'Theory' is why we have cell phones and their technology; 'theory' is why television works; 'theory' is the entire reason why MRI machines work; 'theory' is why satellites are so accurate and how we can always know their exact position in space at any given time; 'theory is why GPS works and is the most accurate time keepers known to man; and 'theory' is why the space shuttle works at all, clunky looking as it is. Theory is how we know to invest our money and time into a project, because if somebody has already theorized it, and that somebody has been peer-reviewed and respected, then you can bet their 'theory' will work. So as far as the Hawkin Radiation, you can bet that it is so–or at least as close to the truth as possible. Our entire technological age is based entirely on 'theory.'

Fascinating, and informative (though not always in a positive fashion). I had always thought that a white hole is the area inside the black hole (not the singularity, but the area around it from which light can't escape) that contains the light and other materials that have not collected to the singularity. They can't escape, but they haven't been crushed yet. Most people seem to think of objects directly approaching a singularity/black hole, but they would generally approach at some angle, and then either be drawn into an ever-smaller orbit, or skipped out into space like a flat rock on water (in this instance, Opie = God).
For those who say we should solve our Earth problems before we worry about space–nowhere is it written that our solutions will be found here and not in space; in fact, nowhere is it written that our problems have solutions.
Meanwhile, it is fun to boggle one's own mind.

I enjoy the thought that if you actually fell in a black hole, you wouldn't feel yourself being ripped apart before singularity. As you're being spaghettified (hmm, a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?), the pressure on your body is so intense, that it causes you to go unconsious. So at least pain isn't a major factor in the ways of a black hole....Unless of course, you're not the only thing falling in there. If there're stars and other such things, well...You'd burn up before you even got close in the buildup to fall in.

We've seen the buildup around black holes and the big evidence is the fact that we're here right now. What's holding the galaxy together in a gravitational strong hold? What else lets off GRBs (gamma ray bursts)? As Jason said, theories are anwsers to questions backed by concrete scientific data and hyposthesises, while also supported by scientific laws (Paraphrased quote by Mr. Carpenter, biology/genetics teacher).

But about white holes, we have no evidence of them existing; no streams of broken and deformed or even pure energy being spewed out into our universe which is definately speeding up in expansion so to finally make the universe cold and deprived of most anything (at least interesting). Black holes even let off energy, leaking before being depleted if they're not 'fed'. If black holes interact with each other, they just get bigger (they're not going to suddenly turn white and spit all their mass back out. That just doesn't make sense). So if white holes exist, then they don't exist here. They'd be in a parallel universe if that even existed, where their physics and scientific laws would be opposite to ours, or at least significantly different.

But I suppose it's still fun to think about.

Oh, and Ralph; I love your philosophy on space and our problems.

Another thing (and this bothered me for a while before I found out) black holes aren't actually 2-D holes! They're spheres of black so it doesn't matter what angle you come in at because you're going to end up in the center in the end. But you're right; you wouldn't just go straight in there, you'd swirl about the singularity before becoming part of the black hole's mass or as you said, being thrown back out (but you have to be special to have this happen; such as a binary star system).

Devin: "feel free to make me feel stupid for what i belive but ya never kno i could be rite" – why is it that the faithful lemmings always spell so poorly? Most bloggers, myself included, make the occasional spelling mistake, but what this band of missionaries is spewing all over this blog is a bit unusual.

I believe the faith movement is much more about ego than intelligence, or lack of the same. What I learned in college is that I don't have a great scientific brain at all, as anything beyond the most basic concepts in analytical chemistry and physics were beyond my own ability to comprehend, or required too much time for me to learn – in this respect I may be poorer in that regard than a few of the missionaries who harrass discussion groups such as this one. The difference is that I paid attention to the simplest concept of all, which is called the scientific method – and that precludes absolutely all discussion of any irrational preconceptions, specifically "miracles". You don't need to understand every analytical process which a "scientist" follows in order to know whether he sticks to that basic, underlying formula or not, and I respect those who do. Scientists are the natural nemesis of religious leaders, who fight them by stoking the egos of all the followers who they may win over. They heap praise on them, telling them they are wiser than the scientists – for persisting in the faith which they sell (it certainly does continue to make an easy, comfortable living for themselves). Science and religious faith are the two ultimate, terminally competitive, and therefore completely incompatible products of the human mind – the important differences are that one is based on fact, observation, and continuous hard work, while the other owes it's existence and psychological power to old lies, emotional manipulation, and rhetorical slight of hand.

Forgot to mention that when the religious leaders fail to turn their prospects against science, they add their own twisted version of it to their teachings, with the Scientific Method completely tossed out.

What's the point of posting this? Pure fiction. "Some people say" as an argument has no place on a scientific blog. Some people say werewolves stalk the night during a full moon, too.

Worthless spam.

Meh, it's all theoretical with no definitive truth. Speculation at best, however I think Red Dwarf does it best. Cheers

To Jason above who thinks theory is definitive, I assure you there has probably been thousands of times more theories proven wrong then right.

If at first you dont' succeed try and try again? So you just throw theories out until one proves right and that is simply all our techonology is, theories proven right that are built upon three times as many theories proven wrong.

Einstein stated that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. There fore it would stand to reason that white holes or some component like that would have to be present to balance everything. Possible transport passages!

Not really related to the black hole theory. However people have stated that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate.

It has also been proven that the faster you move the slower time moves.

So, if this universe expansion theory is correct, isn't it safe to say that since the earth is moving through space at a much faster rate than it was 1000 years ago, that time today is moving much more slowly than it was 1000 years ago?

If this is not the case, that would mean that time on earth follows a different set of rules than time in space.

However if it is the case...
Do you think it is possible to measure this change of speed over time, and what implications could this have for the universe? Since the speed of light is a constant, and we're traveling through space at an ever increasing rate, will we eventually reach the speed of light and have time stop? And if that happens will be become immune to aging, and be able to go on with our lives? Or would life on earth just freeze?

Well, how about if the universe didn't end due to being sucked into a black hole or heat death, what about time ceasing to exist because everything is moving at the speed of light? Could that cause an end to the universe as we know it?

I saw a white hole the other day. It was spewing matter into the universe. A moon popped out and made friends with a guy that used to work at Microsoft. "Whats up with Vista" the moon asked the man. "Dude, I have no idea" the Microsoft guy replied. I saw a white hole the other day.

The matter sucked in by Black Holes does not "go away," it makes the Black Hole grow, to 'weigh more.'

The White Hole concept is an artifact that predates our properly understanding this. "If the matter goes in, it has to come out somewhere, right?" No, because it doesn't 'go' anywhere.

This is a response to "Jesus was an astronaut to:"
No one can prove that God is real. No one can prove that Jesus was the son of God. No one can prove that Adam and Eve even existed. No one can prove that my name is Kristina and that this book in front of me is really a book. Everything we consider common knowledge is just what we have come to know everything as, as a child...an infant. This book could have easily been called spoon. The color blue could really be green. Nothing can actually be PROVEN. Nothing is really a FACT. Everything that we come to "know," or rather assume, is based on what we have made of it.

white hole is the next earth

I'm sorry, but after reading the previous article about "what happens inside a black hole", I can't take Anthony Hamilton seriously. I was wary at the Michael Jackson analogy, but they lost any credibility at "Spaghettification".

My theory is that all matter entering all black holes occupy the same space. Over billions and billions of years, when too much matter has accumulated to remain stable... BANG... new Universe.

@Kristina....dont forget that you can't even prove jesus was a real person

I like this blog, but it waivers a bit.
I just started reading because of black/white holes & worm holes. Ever siphen gas out of a car gastank with a rubber hose and watch it keep flowing by itself? Black holes work the same way.
Einstein said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I slam my fist against a wall for example. It doesn't go thru, but every movement, vibration, tremble and distruption of light can be added up equally to the force of the original slam of fist against the wall.

Why not Black holes? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that every molecule would be destroyed into the tiniest particle of matter. Instead, why not one big "push" to another equal force, aka blackhole. Enter, then exit. aka wormhole. Like a magnet, they attract.

But what about not even light escaping a black hole? Irrelivant. The force that pulled something in is obviously the same force that pushes out, both of them being the same gravity that cannot escape light.

But what if that item hits something like a star or planet in the way? Won't happen. In Centrifugal force, an object that rotates around another object expands from it as the speed increases around it. On a large scale (such as our solar system) we do not recognize it (Although the planets are slowing down which explained some bigger push in the past that is no longer there).

Hold a rock on a peice of string. Swing it around. You get the picture.

Anyways, our atoms have electrons spinning around a nucleus. Same thing. In short, gravity at a black-hole level would expand this in less than a blink of an eye and as dense as possible, and would only send you on the trip if something else was going to match it and pull you out the same way. Of course, there would be no heat because there is not light. But that's another story...

Hope that made sense. -HJ

You all arguing about theories don't waist too much of your life trying to figured out this things that are impossible to answer instead spend your time to see if God really exist if you find the answer and you are 100% sure (like I am) you'll find that those theories are just that and God not. He is more real than a white is or black hole he is the creator of those holes, which is even more complex than holes.

The Big Ban cannot be proven, none was there, and you will ask were you there when things were created. The answers is of course no, but science (real science) no evolution (which is another thing based on theories not proven) has never, never, never, disagree with the Bible.

Thant's is the reason why I’m telling you, do your homework, study, do your research and figure things out by yourself instead of believing a PH.D guy that you read in a magazine or TV,

Neo: For using a name that means "new", you are sure using an old argument. God is no more real than the spaghetti monster. Welcome to the information age. Mathematics is my "God".

Now, back to the "holes". My question is why do white holes and black holes have to be linked. They could very well be mutually exclusive phenomena. From my understanding there are 3 important things right now that are theorized but not proven. 1) Dark Matter 2) Dark Energy and 3) The "god particle" or Higgs field.

Dark matter has been theorized to explain why galaxies spin faster than the mass they contain should allow.

Dark Energy has been theorized to explain why the whole universe is expanding faster and faster as time continues rather than contracting upon itself as was first assumed.

The "god particle" is something that happened microseconds after the Big Bang to give mass to anything and everything that has it in the universe. Before then, there was no mass.

I bring these up because they all seem to be related by mass. Mass should make the universe contract but it doesn't. Based on observations galaxies should spin slower, but they don't. And what gave mass to begin with?

A giant white hole in the center of the universe could explain the dark energy. Picture a person putting a hose, opening flat against a nearly frictionless surface (there's no friction in a vaccuum, correct?) and then turning the water on. As long as there is something coming out of that hose, the first water out will continue moving further and further away from the source. If the space the hose is placed in is smaller than the amount of water flowing into it, the first water will move faster and faster and faster. Now, was there space at all before the big bang or was it created by necessity as something approached nothing?

However, one equation of string theory, if used to imagine the universe contracting to a certain size, would show that the universe would act like it is expanding. Basically, bouncing back from being collapsed. Perhaps that does the job of explaining Dark Energy.

the white hole is the other side of the black hole. The Exit

White holes can be used to fuel our Starships during our Milky Way Campaign. But we need to act fast to harvest their power before the Galactic Space Federation does.

the only way that the scientist in this article could make the statement "...it doesn't happen in real black holes" implies that he's experimented with black holes AND in order for that statement to be valid, he would have had to know where the white hole was. it could be anywhere in the universe, this guy has no clue what he's talking about. unless he's buzz lightyear, obviously

I confess I didnt read all the entries I jumped to the end so I could post one. Are there any Star Trek episodes about black holes? Did you know the USS Enterprise is fueled by anti-matter...

thinking about black and white holes. if the white hole is the exit of black hole than there are some sort of explanation. would it be some transportation?

Given the theory that white holes are a giant, inter-cosmic explosion from a black hole, then theoretically, the Big Bang could possibly be proven. However, if a supermassive black hole were to explode, we, as human beings, would not become aware of it. Why? Because we'd all be dead by the time the light of the nova reaches our planet.

If we survive such a astronomical explosion, and if the theory of Big Bang = White Hole is true, then we'd be looking at the formation of another universe.

This is just my summery, I didn't read all of the comments above, just enough to where the Theory of Big Bang = White Hole was mentioned.

White holes are the propulsion or engines that's why black holes have to be so massive and be so powerful as much as they suck in,an equal and opposite push happens,so the universe keeps accelerating,as does anything in space will....

maybe that's why there's always a supermassive black hole at the center of every universe,for energy to come out and propel these universes,since we know nature is perfect and practical and base,always,there must be a simple explanation,matter can't be destroyed,so maybe,balckholes arre massive recycling bins,drawing space in,actually,space collapsing upon itself and recycling the matter into new matter or universes maybe ,no,it would have to be in another dimension,it certainly can't be recycling and spitting all of this stuff into the same place it is cleansing,and into another part of space doesn't make sense it could just do it right there in nthe same galaxy or space since this thing is so intricately balanced that when one thing collapses or goes nova nothing is thrown out of balance,so blackholes are creating new galaxys in different dimension,made of equal and opposite matter,simply converted by the blackhole..since it can't be the same matter to come out the white hole that went into the blackhole,it can't exist on this plane..i.e.,another dimension another universe is formed that is equal and opposite sincce that blackhole is at the center of the universe,day one the blackhole started,tit was sucking in itself and making a anti-universe or dimension existing by or near or with the original at the same time,like a negative from a picture,of course this other universe should be as functional as us and maybe that's why space has to be so big with every galaxy having a negative(if you will)maybe that's why the universe has to keep expanding,to make room for every galaxy and it's double,not twin becase the other galaxy exists on a nother plane ...and like I said,if nothing else nature is efficent,so ,if nature makes,differnt dimensions,there's probably a way to get there,not wormholes but rather actually ,travel into a blackhole might not destroy or kill,might be like the eye of a tornado or hurricane,all this force and destruction,mere inches away but in the center perfectly balenced and controlled because with so much fury on the outside,the center is complteely balanced and preserved.....so you travel down the center of the black hole and you go into another dimension...a double of the other universe...so eventually,every part of our universe will go through the blackhole and come out the otheer side including the planets and start from the beginning all over again,into the black hole and out of the whitehole,i.e.,let there be light and we will start all over again,with a few billion years of universe,then life forms,stays a while and gets eaten up by the blackhole again,whether life is on a planet when it happens or it's between ice ages with no life,who knows,who cares but it will and this is how it happens over and over, ad infinitum......

PHilOsoPhe began a good explanation of some thoughts and ideas I also had surrounding the theory of "white holes" and the phenomena of alternate universes.

I like to consider that not only are white/black holes mutually exclusive singularities, but also motivated by opposite attractors. While we are searching for existence of theoretical dark matter and dark energy, couldn't it be reasonable to suggest that just as there are black holes consuming the matter and energy of our universe, that there might also be "white holes" that continuously expel dark energy and dark matter particles into it like a quantum field-fluctuating astrophysical fountain? If so, then would such things be the "waste" products of another universe (or whatever you want to call it) that receives our black hole material through energy fountains of its own?

If that's the case, it would be apparent to note that such "white holes" have yet to be detected because we have yet to observe verifiable proof of dark matter/energy in our own universe. With one would come the other. Perhaps the discovery and observation of the Higgs boson and evidence of scalar fields in studies of quantum mechanics could answer some of these questions for us.

We must remember white holes are purely theoretical, we have no evidence nor reason to believe they exist aside from the theory that what goes in someplace – the black hole – must come out in the same form in another place – the white hole. I think this is just an unsophisticated, primitive way of looking out things. Maybe black holes simply "tear" an item apart, breaking it down into it's most simple structure – the atom. Also, black holes are not necessarily "worm holes" or "tunnels" but may just be something that's influence covers such and such an area and anything within that area is simply broken down into atoms, and the atoms go wherever they physically fit.

these people are all very smart. i have just barely even scratched the surface of all this in physics 1 and it intreaques me imensely. chemistry dealt with small particles, where i wasnt concerned, yet huge particles like stars are over 1millino times the size of our earth and that is just in our region of space, not or aolar system, but in our galaxy, and to think that there is many galaxies is incredible. i belive that all of this exists, out in many galazies. the conversastion that went n today in class was, there are no religious science teachers. i would lovefor this to change becauz through a very unlegalistic view of religion we can all agree. and i would love to learn way more on this topic and expand my knowlage.

Insults are never appropriate when discussing physics and speculating about the nature of things. Truth is, there's more we do not know and never will know, than what we know and can know. So, we have quasars on the order of billions of stars of mass, condensed into a super massive black hole the size of our solar system, traveling at 98.7 % the speed of light, meaning matter at the equator takes abouy 26 hours to travel a circumferance equivalent to neptunes orbit around our sun. Centrifugal force wants to spew out matter, like a white hole.. but the gasses at the accretion disk create a magnetic field around the black hole. matter spirals in toward the event horizon, and centrifugal force pushes it back out, and magnetic field lines pull the matter up the poles, shooting out enormous jets. Think of DRAGNS, where a pair of ionized gas lobes form at the ends of the poles, millions of light years across, 10 times the diameter of our Milky Way. These lobes are sparking new stars like a hatchery, and may develop into galaxies (?). For a white hole to exist, the centrifugal force would have to be able to overcome gravity and spew the matter out, i.e. a quasar being ripped apart into a spiral galaxy. While this sounds good, the magnetic properties of super massive black holes will always direct the matter up the poles and out as jets. Soooooo that's my take on white holes.

the beds the beds the beds

Primeval Event theory: Krishna Vinjamur’s latest version of the Big Bang model in which all the events in the Universe were originally connected to one compact primeval event. The explosion of the primeval event initiated the universe.
Our Universe is about 10E26m radius, and (13.7x10E9 years. x 31557600 s/yr=) 4.32 10E17 seconds old (long) light cone. It evolved from a primordial white hole cone of 1.61 x 10-35 m radius and 5.37 x 10-44 axial length. Or evolved from a primordial Planck event of 2.24 10-142cm3-sec. The whole universe is nothing but an integral sum of 1.81 10E240 primordial Event light cones (▼).
Evolution of our Universe: Our eventful universe was evolved or tunneled from a primordial black hole to a primordial white hole. It evolved almost at the end of the primordial black hole as a primordial fluctuation of quantum spacetime.Copy Riight: Krishna Vinjamuri

My theory is that white holes are made out of flubber.

Generally I do not read post on blogs, however I would like to say that this write-up very pressured me to try and do so! Your writing style has been amazed me. Thanks, very great post.