NavajoEverclear Posted June 2, 2003 Posted June 2, 2003 OK this question isn't given very much thought, but I hope it will bring out some good conversation. Here goes: If there are black Holes sucking up mass, are there white holes spewing it out? If not how does anything escape from black holes? Its kind of depressing to me. Will our universe ever become all sucked into a black hole, and then if it does does it bang out again? Again I apologize for intelligence I lack in this, please don't insult me for it, just answer the question.
BPHgravity Posted June 2, 2003 Posted June 2, 2003 A Black Hole must emit particles or they would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics? I dont believe the particles are actually coming from within the black hole, but from the space aboutt he event horizon. When the M31 galaxy runs into us in a few billion years, there is a possibilty that we will get caught up in its massive black hole or thrown into our own in the center of our galaxy. Chances are, humans wont be around to find out! Black Holes dont last forever and wont outlast the universe either. They "evaporate" just like anything else that goes without a source of energy for awhile. It may be the end of our galaxy, but not the end of the universe by any means.
NavajoEverclear Posted June 3, 2003 Author Posted June 3, 2003 how do they evaporate? Maybe they do, just wondering because you didn't really explain how. So is my white hole idea viable in anyway?
Radical Edward Posted June 3, 2003 Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by NavajoEverclear So is my white hole idea viable in anyway? I haven't seen any theory suggesting that they do exist. Black holes don't merely "suck" up matter, they get heavier too, and bigger, and "suck" in more. as has been mentioned, they also evaporate, though the exact mechanism for this is as far as I know unknown, though there are various hypotheses, the most prominent being the creation of virtual particles near the event horizon.
atinymonkey Posted June 3, 2003 Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by NavajoEverclear So is my white hole idea viable in anyway? Isn't that white hole your talking about a Sun? That would be the opposite of a black hole.
JaKiri Posted June 3, 2003 Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by atinymonkey Isn't that white hole your talking about a Sun? That would be the opposite of a black hole. Not really, that's not a 'hole' as such, it's just a big ball of hydrogen and company*. *There's a sitcom in that.
NavajoEverclear Posted June 3, 2003 Author Posted June 3, 2003 ok then whatever, thanks for the posts. I hadn't really given any thought to HOW it would work, just wondering if anyone else had
Sayonara Posted June 4, 2003 Posted June 4, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Not really, that's not a 'hole' as such, it's just a big ball of hydrogen and company What is the opposite of a hole?
BPHgravity Posted June 4, 2003 Posted June 4, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ What is the opposite of a hole? An Antihole, of course! :lame:
greg1917 Posted June 4, 2003 Posted June 4, 2003 that would mean when an antihole met a hole they would annihilate each other leaving only........flatness..........
Sayonara Posted June 4, 2003 Posted June 4, 2003 Isn't it...like... some stuff which - if placed in the hole - would, like...... fill it up?
Radical Edward Posted June 4, 2003 Posted June 4, 2003 a white hole would dissipate instantaneously if it had the opposite characteristics of a black hole.
Sayonara Posted June 4, 2003 Posted June 4, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward a white hole would dissipate instantaneously if it had the opposite characteristics of a black hole. Yes, but the thing he's imagining is a star rather than the literal opposite of a black hole, surely...?
Radical Edward Posted June 6, 2003 Posted June 6, 2003 well the two phenomenon are entirely different, and not really comparable. besides, if he is describing a star, it would be just as easy to call it "a star"
KHinfcube22 Posted June 6, 2003 Posted June 6, 2003 Ok, haven't read all the posts because they all seemed boring and dullwitted. So heres my thoughts. A black hole is cnstantly emitting molecules and stuff, and sucking in stuff. That is why there isn't very many black holes, for most spew more than they suck, and thus they are unstable and fall apart. A stable but neutralblack hole,(ones that inactive,) is spewing as much as its sucking, so it does not grow, and the growing ones are spewing les then they suck and therefore they grow. So you see, there would be no need for white holes. Plus, white holes are physical impossible. For if something were to reflect absolutley everything that came near it, it would explode or emplode.
Radical Edward Posted June 6, 2003 Posted June 6, 2003 Originally posted by KHinfcube22 Ok, haven't read all the posts because they all seemed boring and dullwitted. this is not the best way to elicit a response from people, especially when your own contribution is not outstanding.
JaKiri Posted June 6, 2003 Posted June 6, 2003 If we're talking about reflecting that which comes near it, see Excession by Iain M Banks.
Sayonara Posted June 6, 2003 Posted June 6, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward well the two phenomenon are entirely different, and not really comparable. besides, if he is describing a star, it would be just as easy to call it "a star" That's kind of my point. Stop trying to think like an astrophysicist for 5 seconds and appreciate the humour of the thread to date. IT'S GREAT!
Radical Edward Posted June 6, 2003 Posted June 6, 2003 okies... well imo I wish that no-one had ever mentioned white holes. the only good thing ever to come from a white hole was an episode of Red Dwarf.
Sayonara Posted June 6, 2003 Posted June 6, 2003 It's just funny, there's no other way around the fact that a big white black hole that shoots out stuff is a star. Even if it's not. And so on and so forth. I don't think that saying a star is not the opposite of a black hole because a star is not a hole is a valid contrast, because a black hole is not a hole either. It's a star of sorts. Squished up and freaky-weird, but still a star. Well bits of it anyway.
greg1917 Posted June 6, 2003 Posted June 6, 2003 So heres my thoughts. A black hole is cnstantly emitting molecules and stuff Nope That is why there isn't very many black holes, for most spew more than they suck, and thus they are unstable and fall apart There arent very many black holes because it takes a) special equipment and b) astrophysicists who eat data for breakfast to properly map and chart them. Plus they require a star of a certain size to collapse which themselves arent thin on the ground. For if something were to reflect absolutley everything that came near it, it would explode or emplode Consider antigravity. why would it implode? Aside: on the topic of annihilation, i was in a bar last night and noticed that when a large spotty ugly female went up to an extremely attractive and gorgeous woman, they seemd to repel each other, refusing to talk. I kept on watching the situation (well, kept on watching the little fox that was wearing a skirt that could have doubled as a belt:D ) and as the two finally came together a cat fight instantly developed. the ensuing fracas destroyed beer bottles and a table until the bouncer came over. Im thinking antiugly meets ugly. any thoughts?
Radical Edward Posted June 6, 2003 Posted June 6, 2003 well strictly the hole itself doesn't since nothing can escape once it has passed over the EH. If you take the virtual particle argument (because I don't know any other) then they are created in the vincinity of the hole just outside the EH, and some escape the hole's pull.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now