Black holes and dimensions

[Hyd]

A small query:

 

If black holes lead to other dimensions or baby universes, then these other dimensions should have their own black holes like ours that lead to our universe, no? Thus, if another end to a black hole exists from these universes, shouldn't we see a end in our universe which one would deem a "white hole"? I don't know if they have observed a "white hole" or not, hence where my query originated from. This could be considered mindless ranting as well.

 

Hyd

[timo]

"White Holes" are a construct that comes from a mathematical expansion of the Schwarzschild solution (the spacetime of Black Holes). They are in agreement with the Einstein equations. However, no such entity has been observed so far. However, atm I am not sure if the "travelling to a parallel universe" (which has it´s origin in the same mathematical construct) implies that if you enter a Black Hole, you´ll come out of a White Hole on the other end.

"Kruskal Coordinates" would be one of the keywords if you want to google for more information (the Kruskal Coordinates are the extension I spoke of).

[mmalluck]

Could the 'Big bang' be seen as the formation of a white hole?

 

What if the unexplainable accleration seen in our universe is due to matter falling into blackholes in a parallel universe (IE, the more matter a black hole in a parellel universe is feed, the faster the white hole, which is our entire universe, expands)?

 

Yes, just unfounded speculation, but fun ideas never the less.

[Spyman]

Could the 'Big bang' be seen as the formation of a white hole?

One of my thoughts also.

 

If a Black Hole can create a 'baby' Universe, which have Black Holes, which creates 'baby' Universes...

 

Then why would we be in the 'mother of all' Universe ?

 

And if we are not in the 'mother' then the Big Bang could be considered a White Hole.

[timo]

Could the 'Big bang' be seen as the formation of a white hole?

I don´t think so. The mathematical background is a different one. In the Black Hole (Black Hole + White Hole, if you prefer) scenario you have an infiinite spacetime and a high concentration of mass in one area of it. In the Big Bang scenario you have spacetime shrinking towards a single point with time in the sense that distances between points (events at a given, equal time) approach zero.

[Spyman]

I don´t think so. The mathematical background is a different one. In the Black Hole (Black Hole + White Hole, if you prefer) scenario you have an infiinite spacetime and a high concentration of mass in one area of it. In the Big Bang scenario you have spacetime shrinking towards a single point with time in the sense that distances between points (events at a given, equal time) approach zero.

So what You are saying is that 'baby' Universes in BH and BH+WH are totally different theories ?

 

Good valid point, anyhow.

 

(BB scenario backwards in time i guess, confused me at first. )

[lethalfang]

A small query:

 

If black holes lead to other dimensions or baby universes' date=' then these other dimensions should have their own black holes like ours that lead to our universe, no? Thus, if another end to a black hole exists from these universes, shouldn't we see a end in our universe which one would deem a "white hole"? I don't know if they have observed a "white hole" or not, hence where my query originated from. This could be considered mindless ranting as well.

 

Hyd[/quote']

That was Stephen Hawking's early hypothesis.

The fact that plenty of black holes are discovered and no white hold yet discovered, suggests to me that there is no such thing as "white hole."

[timo]

So what You are saying is that 'baby' Universes in BH and BH+WH are totally different theories ?

Not totally different theories, of course. It´s both relativity. But totally different approaches with totally different solutions. In the Black Hole case you have all mass concentrated in a single point in space (perhaps saying "a single trajectory in spacetime" would be better, here). The spacetime solution you get is in fact only valid outside the mass distribution.

In consmology you assume the mass to be spread out equally over space (here, the distinction between space and time is valid as cosmology assumes a global time coordinate). This is a completely different approach as you are evaluating the spacetime structure inside the mass distribution, now. Also, you have a time-developement of spacetime (which you can extrapolate to a point where all space-distances approach zero) while in the Black Hole case the spacetime is constant with the time coordinate (at least in Schwarzschild coordinates and outside the event horizont).

 

(BB scenario backwards in time i guess, confused me at first. )

Yes. for some unkknown stupid reason I am not allowed to edit my posts after a certain time has passed. So even though I also recognized that the crucial word "backwards" was missing I couldn´t edit it anymore. And I didn´t want to make a new post just to correct one missing word.

[Daecon]

Perhaps black holes only lead into Universes that are currently forming - each one becomes a Big Bang to start another Universe - that would explain why there are no White Holes here, because we've already had out Big Bang.

[Martin]

Perhaps black holes only lead into Universes that are currently forming - each one becomes a Big Bang to start another Universe - that would explain why there are no White Holes here, because we've already had our Big Bang.

 

that picture can also be used to explain other things and to make testable predictions

 

it was developed by Lee Smolin in some papers starting around 1992 into a theory called cosmological natural selection (CNS) and later presented in a popular-style book called The Life of the Cosmos.

 

there are some interesting recent papers about CNS, from 2002 - 2004.

especially interesting to me is that in Smolin's version the idea is testable experimentally and/or by astronomical observation.

 

I'll see if I can find some links. Yeah, here is a critical discussion by R. Vaas. It is fairly balanced and thorough and looks at the pros and cons and reports comment by other scientists besides just the main person proposing the idea

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205119

Is there a Darwinian Evolution of the Cosmos? - Some Comments on Lee Smolin's Theory of the Origin of Universes by Means of Natural Selection

Rüdiger Vaas

20 pages

 

this webpage has a PDF version you can click on if you decide you want to look at the whole 20-page article

[Martin]

Perhaps black holes only lead into Universes that are currently forming - each one becomes a Big Bang to start another Universe - that would explain why there are no White Holes here, because we've already had our Big Bang.

 

BTW these questions do have something to do with Quantum Mechanics.

There are some theories of Quantum Gravity in the works and in some versions of QG they get the following kind of result

 

1. there is no big bang singularity where time begins---the big bang was preceded by a contraction phase, so it appears (in these versions of QG) to be a kind of "bounce" where extreme contraction cannot go any farther because of quantum principles (like uncertainty principle) and turns inside out into an expansion. in this QG version, inflation is explained as well.

 

2. there is no black hole singularity where infinite density is reached---instead there is a "bounce" and spacetime continues

So you COULD draw a connection and say that what it continues into is the big bang of another universe. the inflation mechanism can account for the creation of all or nearly all of the matter in the new universe (it does not have to come from the black hole).

However this part 2. is more controversial and not as much has been written.

 

Most of the QG work on removing singularities has been in part 1., the cosmological singularity, understanding the big bang in quantum gravity.

QG study of what may extend beyond the pit of a black hole is still very preliminary. Say if you want links to the relevant research papers.

 

Here is a popular article that deals with the first part:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0407071

The Inverted Big-Bang

R. Vaas

[Royston]

Stephen Hawkings latest findings predict that black holes can hold information. Instead of forming a singularity, information becomes an entanglement and later spewed out.

 

Maybe this could create multiverses. If the entanglement is so great maybe it could create universes that abide by completely different laws of physics to our own.