Black Hole/White Hole Cycle Theory

[Anon_Ghost]

I believe we can find an understanding for black holes. If we are to believe, in scientific terms, that you cannot get something for nothing, then we must conclude that black holes are nothing mystical or magical only compressed matter with a gravitational force strong enough to hold light within it's atmosphere. I believe neutron stars and black holes are very similar with the differences being stability and gravitational strength. The next question is whether or not these black holes have a mass limit. The answer seems to me to be an obvious yes and if we assume it to be true we can come up with some (third)eye opening theories! If a black hole reached a maximum mass limit before it's own gravity caused it to collapse, then the result is a White Hole! A white hole is the opposite of the black hole, scattering matter across space in a short length of time(in comparison to the time it takes to fall into a black hole).

Previously thought to be a one time event(big bang), I believe these white holes are quite frequent, in terms relative to the universe, and act as a kind of piston for the creation and expansion of the universe! As evidence I present GRB 060614 detected by NASA's Swift Satellite on June 14th 2006, A supernova that left a black hole(not a neutron star) in its spot, the event lasted 102 seconds! I also present Steven Hawking's discovery of Hawking Radiation. This radiation, caused by particles falling into the black hole, can be used to explain how a black hole can reach it's maximum without pulling all the matter it ejected back within itself. Thus letting stars drift far away from the black hole to someday create their own black hole, ever expanding the universe.

This is not plagiarized material! These are original thoughts and conclusions drawn from the theories of the great minds before me. I owe credit to Steven Hawking(Hawking Radiation), and NASA(satellite documentation). This theory is my own and may be quoted for discussion or school use. I ask that any such quote or any future findings based on the "Weninger Universe Model" to give me credit for my discovery. The White Hole/Black Hole Cycle Theory is only one component of the Weninger Universe Model, used in terms of explaining creation and expansion through black hole/white hole's piston-like behavior, and their ability to reproduce. -James Weninger

WH Explained 3.bmp

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to Speculations.

 

Do not open threads based on your own notions in the main fora.

 

Report this post if you feel this in unfair.

 

 

 

White holes are purely hypothetical at present, no currently feasible method for their creation tallies with our other well-proven cosmological theories, and some argue that they would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Our current theory is that large black holes are just that - large black holes; they are the only sort of black holes we have evidence for as they reside at the centre of galaxies and are massive enough to affect the orbits of nearby stars.

 

Hawking radiation is also only predicted / hypothesized at present as we cannot even imagine how to get close enough to a black hole to actually measure it; but the idea has pretty widescale acceptance. However Hawking radiation causes black hole to lose mass, and is such low temperature that all black holes observed or even envisaged will be net absorbers of radiation from the Cosmic microwave background rather than net radiators.

[Klaynos]

A theory in physics is a mathematical body of work that makes accurate, specific, numerical predictions. Where are your specific, numeric predictions?

[ajb]

If a black hole reached a maximum mass limit before it's own gravity caused it to collapse, then the result is a White Hole! on).

So, what is this maximum mass? How did you predict this? How does this sit with the mass range of black holes observed today?

 

Anyway, the maximum mass of a black hole is an interesting question. However, I think this is really a question of black hole formation and growth rather than some deep fundamental limit in general relativity. It is expected that at some point the x-rays emitted by accretion disk balances any mass gain. The black hole cannot grow any heavier. However, there seems to be black holes more massive than one at first expects. This means we do not properly understand the accretion disk.

 

We know of black holes that are ultra heavy ten and forty billion solar masses. The formation of these real heavy weights, as I have said, is not well understood.

 

This theory is my own and may be quoted for discussion or school use. I ask that any such quote or any future findings based on the "Weninger Universe Model" to give me credit for my discovery.

Just as a matter of clarification, you cannot patent or claim copyright to physical theories or pieces of mathematics. The actual writing may be copyrighted, so a book or paper itself has some protection but its message is not protected. You can only hope that once published people will give proper credit.

 

Moreover, so far it does not look like you have a 'theory' as Klaynos has pointed out.

 

P.S. Naming something after yourself is not the done thing. It is common practice for quacks, but professional scientists hope other will name something after them. Alas, there is a metatheorem that say 'named results were never first derived by the named person'!

Edited August 29, 2015 by ajb

[Anon_Ghost]

I realized my theory is in the making but it's aggravating for everyone to keep saying "that doesn't have mathematics so it can't be a theory". you are incorrect although it can't be a finished theory! all a theory is is a prediction based on my interpretation of observations. I am making the prediction that if you look at a black hole long enough it will explode much like a supernova. My observation was the supernova at GRB 060614 that left behind a black hole. Get it? Got it? Good! I'll be back on in a bit with any new findings!

[Strange]

I realized my theory is in the making but it's aggravating for everyone to keep saying "that doesn't have mathematics so it can't be a theory".

 

It definitely can't be a scientific theory. That needs to make testable (i.e. quantitative) predictions and therefore requires mathematics. In fact, to be a theory, those predictions have to have been tested, multiple times, and not shown to be wrong.

 

I am making the prediction that if you look at a black hole long enough it will explode much like a supernova.

 

There is no evidence of that happening.

 

My observation was the supernova at GRB 060614 that left behind a black hole.

 

That is the usual way that black holes are formed. It has nothing to do with black holes exploding, not with white holes.

[Anon_Ghost]

Okay so you are in agreement that black holes are naturally made(reproduction), yet you are in disagreement that they create white holes? That seems like an oxymoron to me, you can't believe both those statements simultaneously unless you are suggesting that the universe is shrinking due to all the matter being endlessly sucked into these black holes with no way to ever get back out. If this is true why is the universe expanding? My suggestion, that black holes not only "reproduce", in the sense of supernovas creating black holes, but they also operate in a piston-like manner producing matter for the universes expansion, seems to make a lot more sense but perhaps that is relative haha!

Many may forget that the "Big Bang" WAS a white hole, at least in my description of white holes. The only difference is that I DO NOT suggest all matter in the universe came from this singular event but rather multiple eruptions! "You cannot get something for nothing" this is the science that works against me as I am proposing that 1+1<=2. 1+1 can equal 3, My Wife + Me = Wife,Me,Child. This is reproduction. We tend to think of reproduction as a trait of lifeforms, but whose limitation is that? If 2 humans can create 2 Billion humans over the course of a few 10's of thousands of years, why is it so hard to believe the universe may also be reproducing, at a much much slower rate? such as 1 galaxy may turn into 1000 over the coarse of Billions of years.

[Strange]

Okay so you are in agreement that black holes are naturally made(reproduction), yet you are in disagreement that they create white holes?

 

Yes.

 

That seems like an oxymoron to me, you can't believe both those statements simultaneously unless you are suggesting that the universe is shrinking due to all the matter being endlessly sucked into these black holes with no way to ever get back out.

 

The amount of matter in (and being absorbed by) black holes is minute on galactic scales, and insignificant on the scale of the universe.

 

If this is true why is the universe expanding?

 

I don't see any connection. The universe is expanding because that is a natural consequence of the FLRW metric (which describes the universe). The rate of expansion is affected by the mass of the universe, but that is not changed by the presence or number of black holes.

 

My suggestion, that black holes not only "reproduce", in the sense of supernovas creating black holes, but they also operate in a piston-like manner producing matter for the universes expansion

 

You will need to demonstrate that General Relativity is wrong, for one thing.

 

There is also no need for matter to be created for the universe to expand. And the continuous cooling of the universe (as seen in the CMB, for example) shows that the amount of matter in the universe is constant.

 

In fact, the continuous creation of matter was a last gasp attempt to rescue the steady state model - by providing a mechanism whereby galaxies could recede from one another, but there would always be new galaxies to replace them. This has been shown not to work (in various ways).

 

Many may forget that the "Big Bang" WAS a white hole, at least in my description of white holes.

 

No, it wasn't. It has nothing in common with a white hole. For one thing, a white hole is an objects that exists in space. The big bang was the expansion of space.

[Bignose]

I realized my theory is in the making but it's aggravating for everyone to keep saying "that doesn't have mathematics so it can't be a theory". you are incorrect although it can't be a finished theory! all a theory is is a prediction based on my interpretation of observations.

A scientific idea is one where specific testable predictions are made and compared to objective, statistically significant measurements. You are correct in that the mathematics is not absolutely positively required, but it sure helps.

 

Compare the following example "When Billy hits the ball hard, it goes far." to "When Billy hits the ball with 17500 N of force at t=0, the ball lands 107.3 m away 9.6 seconds later."

 

One of these is much more useful scientifically, because we can actually directly compare it to measurements.

 

So, to a lot of people math is 'hard'. I get that, we all have different abilities and some people have a much greater mathematical aptitude than others. However, trying to do physics without math is 'hard'. Because of the lack of specific testable predictions to be able to compare. I mean, look at some of the words you've chosen to use: 'piston-like', 'producing', 'expansion', 'shrinking', 'sucked' and so on. Each of these cry out for a quantification, not just an adjective. How much production? How much expansion? How much shrinking?

 

You probably didn't realize, but this IS the level general relativity it at. Please see http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377which is a very nice review paper in which the predictions from general relativity are compared directly with the measurements. For example, that article contains a plot in which the period of the orbits of a binary start system change. GR's prediction isn't simply "the period will get faster over time", but a very specific prediction as to the rate of the increase. See the equations as presented there that lead up to Figure 7 which shows the curve at the prediction from GR and the oval points as what was actually observed in different years here on earth.

 

This is what people are asking for. This is how mature GR is today. It makes incredibly accurate predictions in its domain of validity. So, to the main thesis point: sure you don't need math, but unless you can show us specific testable predictions, I'm not sure how you think you can do better than GR. Because GR's specific predictions using math are pretty fantastically accurate.

 

Ultimately, this is how science works. If you can show us something that makes even better predictions, then the old method will be abandoned. Science is all about making the most accurate predictions possible. Conceptually, this is an easy hurdle to jump. Science is very simple in that the model that makes the best predictions wins. Period. Nothing more to it. In actuality, GR is a pretty excellent idea that makes very accurate predictions, see link above again for many, many examples.

 

This isn't to say that it can't be done. Because we know GR isn't complete. It is good for very massive things, but doesn't do well for very little mass objects. So, we're hoping there is some idea that can do even better. I have complete confidence that it will be a mathematical idea, because mathematics is the tool to enable specific testable predictions to be compared to objective statistically significant measurements. Eschewing that tool puts anyone at a tremendous disadvantage.

[Anon_Ghost]

Okay let me remind you that philosophy came before science, we wondered and came up with ideas that scientists conducted experiments to prove/disprove those theories years later.

Anyways I think this is getting off topic. You guys are attacking my theory instead of presenting evidence that makes my theory wrong.

 

The Big Bang Theory says that all matter was in a tiny little speck of the universe. Then it erupted and "flung" matter across space-time. This EXACT image is what I am proposing WHITE HOLES ARE. So yes, in my theory the big bang WAS a white hole.

 

If White Holes did exist they would possibly create small amounts of "extra" matter forming stars distant from their home galaxy. This matter being subtracted from the equation creates a black hole unable to return to it's "Mass Limit", this is made up for by particles falling into the black hole over billions of years, the time it takes for it's gravity to consume it's galaxy again. These extra stars could then, possibly, collide causing a new black hole forming a new Galaxy?

 

There are still bugs to be fixed but I'd appreciate help with my "speculative theory" rather than speculating that I'm wrong...

[Mordred]

No the universe didn't originate from a tiny speck, only our Observable portion did. We don't know the size of the entire universe. It could be infinite. If it's infinite now, it's infinite in the past.

 

You should really read actual textbooks with the math. Instead of relying on pop media descriptions.

 

Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions)

 

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion

http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966"why the prejudice against a constant"

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052"In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdfIs it possible to see the infinite future of the Universe when falling into a black hole?

 

Training (textbook Style Articles)

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf:"Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

 

http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/

 

In this list is several textbooks, or close in style and length. I recommend reading the misconceptions section first.

 

 

You want help with your model, you need to first understand the current models and relevant math

[Phi for All]

There are still bugs to be fixed but I'd appreciate help with my "speculative theory" rather than speculating that I'm wrong...

 

!

Moderator Note

You're getting help, but half of it is aimed at the things you're asserting (look this up, please) to be True. Please stop phrasing everything like you're trying to teach a class, because you make too many mistakes to be a teacher (the matter in the universe at the time of the BB wasn't a tiny speck in the universe, it was the whole universe in an extremely hot, dense state - no explosion into existing space, but rather an expansion of space-time that's still happening).

 

Members are commenting on the "parts" of your idea (NOT theory) that they either know to be wrong (not the whole thing, just those parts), or that they'd like you to support with some evidence. You're making the mistake of thinking that criticism of your idea is criticism of you. Nobody is "speculating that [you're] wrong", they're saying parts of your idea are demonstrably wrong. There is a difference in science, and it's important.

[Strange]

You guys are attacking my theory instead of presenting evidence that makes my theory wrong.

 

You have been given several reasons why it makes no sense.

 

For example...

The Big Bang Theory says that all matter was in a tiny little speck of the universe. Then it erupted and "flung" matter across space-time.

 

It doesn't say anything like that. Which is why it can't be compared to a white hole. The universe is, and always has been, completely full of matter distributed quite homogeneously.

 

There are still bugs to be fixed but I'd appreciate help with my "speculative theory" rather than speculating that I'm wrong..

 

As almost everything you say is wrong and you provide no math or evidence to support it, I can't see things changing.

[Bignose]

You guys are attacking my theory instead of presenting evidence that makes my theory wrong.

The problem is that you are demonstrating an ignorance of rather commonly known verified results in physics. We shouldn't be having to do this work for you. We've been providing you links; it your responsibility to go read them. When you post something that is as odds with known verified results, then it's going to get called out.

 

As an aside, this is why most graduate work is a matter of years. It takes time to get caught up in the area you are studying. You have demonstrated that you haven't been willing to put in the time to get caught up -- otherwise the above 'attacks' wouldn't even be necessary.

[ajb]

I realized my theory is in the making but it's aggravating for everyone to keep saying "that doesn't have mathematics so it can't be a theory". you are incorrect although it can't be a finished theory!

Okay, at best you have some ideas that could develop into a theory. The question is how well founded are the starting ideas?

 

all a theory is is a prediction based on my interpretation of observations.

A physical theory is a mathematical model that allows you to make calculations of things that you can in principal measure and so test your theory against nature.

 

I am making the prediction that if you look at a black hole long enough it will explode much like a supernova.

So what is your numerical prediction for how long we have to wait? I guess this should be a function of the mass?

 

My observation was the supernova at GRB 060614 that left behind a black hole. Get it? Got it? Good! I'll be back on in a bit with any new findings!

How does this match with the numerical predictions? (Assuming you have some)

Okay so you are in agreement that black holes are naturally made(reproduction), yet you are in disagreement that they create white holes? That seems like an oxymoron to me, you can't believe both those statements simultaneously unless you are suggesting that the universe is shrinking due to all the matter being endlessly sucked into these black holes with no way to ever get back out.

You have to look at the mathematics. White holes are a feature of the maximally extended Schwarzschild black hole solution. It is also known that such things are unstable and so do not seem likely to be realised in nature.

 

As far as we know, nothing can escape a black hole once past the event horizon. The only possible way is via Hawking radiation, but this is thermal and so does not depend on what the black hole has 'eaten'. This is the famous information paradox. What happens to the information about what was 'eaten'? What happens at the final stage of this evaporation?

 

You should also be aware of the no-hair theorem, which says black holes are only characterised by their mass, angular momentum and electric charge. No other information about what has been 'eaten' can be seen externally.

 

 

If this is true why is the universe expanding?

This is a global statement, the local black holes will have no peculiar effect on the expansion of the Universe.

 

My suggestion, that black holes not only "reproduce", in the sense of supernovas creating black holes, but they also operate in a piston-like manner producing matter for the universes expansion, seems to make a lot more sense but perhaps that is relative haha!

Mathematics please. You have to show this is a possible scenario.

 

You guys are attacking my theory instead of presenting evidence that makes my theory wrong.

It is hard to point out clear errors in something that is just words strung together. You do not make any calculations that one can look at for errors and do not make numerical predictions that we can ponder. For example, what is the maximum mass you 'predicted'? Without some real predictions I am not sure what you want us to say.

 

 

The Big Bang Theory says that all matter was in a tiny little speck of the universe. Then it erupted and "flung" matter across space-time.

Not quite. First we really do not understand the true nature of the classical singularity, so we have to fast forward slightly. What the generic big bang model says is that space is expanding. There was no explosion as such, which is just a poor analogy.

 

 

This EXACT image is what I am proposing WHITE HOLES ARE. So yes, in my theory the big bang WAS a white hole.

Your idea is that the Universe is not expanding and that a white hole 'spat' all the matter we see across the Universe?

 

If so, you need to account for the observations we have and the good empirical fit with the lambda CDM model. Specifically, can you explain the details of the CMBR?

 

If White Holes did exist they would possibly create small amounts of "extra" matter forming stars distant from their home galaxy.

I imagine we would indeed see local violation of energy conservation. It would be very interesting to find such things, if they are realised.

 

There are still bugs to be fixed but I'd appreciate help with my "speculative theory" rather than speculating that I'm wrong...

You do not have a theory, just a collection of speculative ideas that do not seem well founded.

[Anon_Ghost]

Okay I will work on the mathematics I promise

 

First a question, and an odd one at that, can 1+1=3? Me+Wife=Me,Wife,Baby?

 

Secondly, if the universe was expanding without adding new matter to the equation, wouldn't the universe eventually become so spread out that no life would be possible? yet black holes are sucking matter in, so does this create some balance on a galactic scale where only galaxies are being spread out thus letting life thrive?

 

I still don't understand how energy can leave a black hole when light can't can anyone explain?

[Phi for All]

First a question, and an odd one at that, can 1+1=3? Me+Wife=Me,Wife,Baby?

I believe that's mixing numbers with semantics. It can cause problems when trying to model reality.

 

I still don't understand how energy can leave a black hole when light can't can anyone explain?

Energy isn't a thing, it's a property of a thing. There's no such thing as pure energy.

 

Are you referring to the Penrose process? Hawking energy derived from the rotation is in the ergosphere, outside the event horizon.

[Strange]

Secondly, if the universe was expanding without adding new matter to the equation, wouldn't the universe eventually become so spread out that no life would be possible?

 

Yes. If expansion continues, the universe will continue to get cooler and less dense. Eventually it will be impossible for more stars to form and that will be Game Over.

 

I still don't understand how energy can leave a black hole when light can't can anyone explain?

 

Hawking radiation is created (just) outside the event horizon and hence it can escape.

[ajb]

Secondly, if the universe was expanding without adding new matter to the equation, wouldn't the universe eventually become so spread out that no life would be possible?

This is something towards the 'heat death scenario'. Before that there may be a point where the accelerating expansion of the Universe beats the local gravity and then starts to distribute 'stuff' a bit more evenly. Eventually the expansion could beat the electromagnetic forces keeping atoms together...

 

Anyway, any such situations are a lot way off. Right now and for some time to come, the local gravity beats the global expansion and we have a 'lumpy' Universe at the scale of galaxies.

 

 

yet black holes are sucking matter in,

You should think of matter as falling into black holes. Sucking makes them sound like giant vacuum cleaners. As long as you are not at the horizon, gravitationally there is nothing special about a black hole. For example, if the Sun was replaced with a black hole the Earth would orbit just as it always has done.

 

so does this create some balance on a galactic scale where only galaxies are being spread out thus letting life thrive?

I do not follow. The reason galaxies are not torn apart by the expansion is because the local gravity is much stronger. The expansion of the Universe is really seen at the scales of clusters of galaxies. The models we use take clusters of galaxies to be particle of a fluid.

 

I still don't understand how energy can leave a black hole when light can't can anyone explain?

I do not follow your question. What energy are you asking about?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Sovex

Your speculative post was moved to its own thread. In future do not answer other members questions with your own speculation; ie just one speculative idea per thread please

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91030-universe-as-a-brain/