/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13569566

28KiB, 766x735, stringspace-e1417811256405.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Black holes & white holes

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 20:53:51 2021 No.13569566 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13569818 >>13569834 >>13570477 >>13571000 >>13571136

>energy cannot be created or destroyed
>other than Hawking radiation, nothing escapes the event horizon of a black hole

Could a black hole in our universe become a white hole (Big Bang) in another? Considering the sheer number of black holes in our universe, could a multiverse of knotted, entangled universes plausibly exist?

Educate me as to why, or why not, this is plausible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 21:58:21 No.13569818 Report

Quoted By: >>13569883 >>13571136

>>13569566
Conservation of energy doesn't work with general relativity.
>plausible
Not really because wouldn't our universe be 50% white holes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:02:19 No.13569834 Report

Quoted By:

>>13569566
it's all so tiresome. i just want to move stuff and do calculus, all of this talk about black holes, space time, uncertainty, superposition, high energy physics, condensed matter, 64 dimension string, etc is just so tiresome

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:14:12 No.13569883 Report

Quoted By: >>13571136 >>13573806

>>13569818
>Not really because wouldn't our universe be 50% white holes?

I see what you're saying. I wasn't as clear with my idea as I should have been. My thought is that each universe is created by a single white hole, but can spawn multiple black holes, creating an exponentially growing number of iterative sub-universes, each with the total energy of whatever entered the black hole from the "upstream" universe. But there is no loopback in the system; each universe that spawns is "downstream" from the one that spawned it. Expansion of each downstream universe is maintained by the influx of additional energy into the black hole over the course of its lifespan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 01:22:41 No.13570477 Report

Quoted By:

>>13569566
Black ones destroy stuff
White ones create stuff
Just like humans

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 04:32:05 No.13570919 Report

Quoted By: >>13570974

Hawking radiation does not originate inside the event horizon
It is emitted from the empty space outside of it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 04:45:51 No.13570974 Report

Quoted By: >>13575062

>>13570919
I believe I addressed that, as a possible counter argument as to why my "theory" could be full of shit (does Hawking Radiation invalidate the whole proposal?)

It's just an amateur thought experiment. I'm looking for someone to poke a hole in it and tell me why it's not possible. Someone with more education on the matter than myself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 04:58:26 No.13571000 Report

Quoted By:

>>13569566
It's been all Kabalistic mysticism at this point.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1621218169659.gif, 15KiB, 650x450

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 06:11:44 No.13571136 Report

Quoted By:

>>13569566
>>13569818
>>13569883
"white holes" are just the same thing as "black holes", this was argued by Hawking in 1978 (maybe 76, I forgot the date), as a corollary to his radiation result. The argument is that a white hole is the time-reverse of a black hole, and since a black hole in equilibrium with radiation is a thermal equilibrium state, the time reverse is the same as itself, and so the black hole and white hole are the same object. This argument survives verbatim today within AdS/CFT, so it is well established physics by now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 22:40:38 No.13573806 Report

Quoted By: >>13575225

>>13569883
You would have to explain how the first universe would come about considering that an infinite regress of black holes isn't possible. If we assume that a white hole is necessary as a generative event then we have to assume that there is a primordial generation which is not contingent on some prior universe's black hole. At that point we just come full circle in terms of any sort of theory of cosmogenesis since white hole - big bang simply cannot explain the primal universe which any that follows must be contingent on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 03:27:24 No.13574995 Report

Quoted By:

Is it called a black hole because it steals light and gravity? Is it a racist term?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 03:51:36 No.13575062 Report

Quoted By: >>13575078 >>13575225

>>13570974
I think its already a theory, i remember that it talked about if this was true, the universes would undergo a kind of cosmic natural selection with universes where the formation of black holes is easier would be more likely to sire more new universes. I believe it also was theorized that these offspring universes would retain similarities with the parent universe, but would slightly vary.
I am almost suspicious that you read about it and are trying flex by lmao totally coming up with a smart guy theory by accident. Probably not though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 03:57:49 No.13575078 Report

Quoted By:

>>13575062
Here it is. Cosmological natural selection.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO scianon.png, 235KiB, 512x512

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 03:59:22 No.13575085 Report

Quoted By: >>13575113 >>13575225

what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 04:08:24 No.13575113 Report

Quoted By:

>>13575085
>fucking plebs its just a giant gravitational vortex consuming everything including light, bending time orbited by entire galaxies whats so interesting about them

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 04:51:54 No.13575225 Report

Quoted By:

>>13575085
Oh I dunno, I can think of a few reasons:

>Black hole formations begin as supernovae, which create all the heavy elements that make up the planets, and organic life

>Because they are mechanically antithetical to the that which created the universe, the Big Bang. Matter and energy condensing (back) into a singularity

>Black holes are also the source of the most powerful energy emissions ever observed (other than when I nutted in your mom): gamma ray bursts

>>13575062
Not flexing, but I have read quite a bit about astrophysics, but I readily admit that I understand little of the actual physics/mechanics, other than broad concepts. When I first read about the idea of a white hole, it got me thinking.

>>13573806
I don't like this reasoning. I don't think explaining the "first universe" is necessary at this point in the discussion, since we can't truly, fully explain how our own came about, nor if anything preceded it. We could be but one universe of a nested, knotted mess of universes spawning each other by dumping matter and energy into singularities, which trigger new Big Bang events.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches