Black Holes & White Holes

[Anon_Ghost]

1915 Einstein predicted Black Holes and White Holes in GR theory.

 

1994 Hubble Space Telescope spots Supermassive Black Holes

 

I think it is important that we first make a description for Black Holes and White Holes. A BH is a volume of space with a gravitational pull so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape. A WH is a volume of space expanding with such force that nothing, not even light, can enter.

 

Einstein himself made claims against the possibilities of black holes in 1934 saying that a BH does not fit with reality. The Swarzschild Solution puts a WH at the beginning of time and a BH at the end of time, but this does not fit with observations. White Holes and Black Holes coexist, this seemed apparent to Einstein as well, it is just a matter of figuring out how they fit together.

 

Isn't it fair to say that Black Holes and White holes MUST both exist for the other to exist? If in fact only BH's exist, where would the matter go that gets sucked into them? Can these Black Holes grow infinitely larger, or do they have a matter absorption limit, or a mass limit such as that which determines the result of an exploding star? What would theoretically happen if it reached said limit?

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to me that explaining something so sophisticated with something as general as relativity seems...odd. Trying to explain how you will feel a change in time as gravitational forces shred your body at the atomic level, seems to me as useful as sticking your penis in a bee hive to see if you can drink honey thru your pecker, in the end you're still screwed! There must be a LOGICAL answer for these anomalies that explains their function and use without changing reality.

 

Another question. How do we know that the universe is cooling uniformly all the way across? Is this from observing star temperatures? So far no probes have left our solar system or galaxy as far as I know, which is the only way I understand they could collect such data.

 

 

[Strange]

The Swarzschild Solution puts a WH at the beginning of time and a BH at the end of time

 

I have never heard this before. Can you provide a reference to support/explain this?

 

Isn't it fair to say that Black Holes and White holes MUST both exist for the other to exist?

 

No. There is no reason to think that.

 

If in fact only BH's exist, where would the matter go that gets sucked into them?

 

It stays inside the black hole. In the classical (non-quantum) description all matter is compressed to infinite density at the central singularity, but it is generally agreed that that is not realistic.

 

Can these Black Holes grow infinitely larger, or do they have a matter absorption limit, or a mass limit such as that which determines the result of an exploding star? What would theoretically happen if it reached said limit?

 

As far as is know, there is no such limit.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to me that explaining something so sophisticated with something as general as relativity seems...odd.

 

They are, as you said at the start, a consequence of general relativity. So that seems the ideal thing to describe them. What would you suggest?

 

There must be a LOGICAL answer for these anomalies that explains their function and use without changing reality.

 

The "logical" description is the mathematics of GR. (Unless you are using the popular definition of logic meanining "it must make sense to me".)

 

How do we know that the universe is cooling uniformly all the way across?

 

From measuring the CMB, mainly. And, I suppose, the consistent observation of the distance vs red-shift relationship.

 

Is this from observing star temperatures? So far no probes have left our solar system or galaxy as far as I know, which is the only way I understand they could collect such data.

 

We can observe stars without leaving the solar system, so I don't know why that is relevant.

 

Incidentally, Voyager 1 left the solar system a couple of years ago.

[dimreepr]

 

Incidentally, Voyager 1 left the solar system a couple of years ago.

 

 

Did it? I agree with the rest of your post but isn’t the oort cloud the limit of our solar system?

Edited August 31, 2015 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

Perhaps I'm wrong

 

Your enthusiasm for science is admirable, but it's clear you didn't take full advantage of the STEM course structure in school, and are now trying to piece together data gleaned from popular sources into a cohesive grasp of the science you're talking about.

 

And it ain't workin'. Now you feel like maybe science is the one that's wrong. That could happen, right?

 

If I walked into the dugout of the St Louis Cardinals during a game (a game they're winning by a huge margin) and started talking about how baseballs should be square, and the bats should be lighter and skinnier and made from baobab trees, and did you know that left-handed pitching was invented by Sandy Koufax in 1955, and the uniforms should all be made from breathable cotton because it's logical, how do you think the manager would take it?

 

I don't know why so many people think they can overthrow mainstream science when they don't know it in the first place. It's like imagining you could beat the best time ascending Everest even though you've only read a few magazine articles about mountain climbing.

[timo]

I'll restrict my reply to a single paragraph because it would get out of hand otherwise. Hope it still helps

Isn't it fair to say that Black Holes and White holes MUST both exist for the other to exist? If in fact only BH's exist, where would the matter go that gets sucked into them? Can these Black Holes grow infinitely larger, or do they have a matter absorption limit, or a mass limit such as that which determines the result of an exploding star? What would theoretically happen if it reached said limit?

There is one reason for white holes I am familiar with. That is a certain mathematical extension of the original Schwarzschild solution that indeed features a white hole alongside a black hole (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%E2%80%93Szekeres_coordinates). However, this is just a mathematical extension with no observation supporting it. Also, the physical interpretation of this extension (a negative radius squared) is a bit dubious. So while there are mathematical models in which a white hole is part of the black hole solution the step to the statement that this must (or even MUST ) manifest in physical reality does not seem appropriate to me.

 

Black holes are often assumed to radiate off energy due to quantum effects, thereby losing mass over time. This effect, has not been experimentally verified (to my knowledge). In terms of how likely the average physicist believes this to be the case I think it resides between "black holes exist" and "white holes exist". There is no principal upper limit to the mass of a black hole. In fact, larger ones are supposed to be more stable than smaller ones even before taking into account that they probably suck in more mass.

Edited August 31, 2015 by timo

[Anon_Ghost]

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%E2%80%93Szekeres_coordinates

 

You said they don't both HAVE to exist to support the other. So what is to stop these gigantic black holes from consuming the entire universe? Granted this would take trillions of years but with nothing releasing the matter and no mass limit it would seem that you are suggesting a universe that started large and is becoming smaller.

 

As you said it is not generally accepted that a black hole holds an infinite amount of matter in an infinitely small volume of space. So where does it go?

Steven Hawking and his supporters seem to believe that black holes warp time causing a singularity that can in turn create a wormhole, spewing matter out on the other side(this would match the definition of a White Hole BTW), either at the beginning of time or at the beginning of "another" time. The problem I see with this theory is that it still leaves our universe being constantly drained of matter with no white hole in sight spewing it all back in! This is what led me to believing that black holes must have a limit of matter it can pack in before a explosive-like reaction would occur(white hole) tossing matter back out to be sucked in once again.

 

I do not agree that they are a consequence of GR. I think GR led to the term of "Black Hole" but had an entirely different meaning with a single white hole at the beginning of time and a single black hole at the end of time, which does not match observations today(100 years later). I don't think that black holes have anything to do with time, but the recycling of matter. I think black holes serve a purpose to either the creation or maintaining of our universe.

 

Well yes...it must make sense..period. There is no theory on black holes that DOES make sense at this point. We only found out about their possibility 100 years ago and spotted one for the first time 20 years ago. Although that may seem a long time, simpler questions have taken longer to thoroughly explore in the world of science.

 

I asked about thermal readings because I was putting into question how reliable the information is that the universe is cooling uniformly. If it truly is, then that puts an obstacle in the way of my theory. I asked if this information came from viewing stars because unless we sent probes across the universe how can you tell that it is cooling at a consistent rate across the entire universe?

Phi for all: your a dick. no I didn't go to college, I chose to defend this country when I left high school instead. I still live in poverty but it doesn't stop me from trying my best to understand the world I live in and since people like me provide safety to people like you, maybe you could stop throwing my lack of education in my face and say something fucking helpful!!!

 

timo: If light can't escape the gravity of a BH, how does this energy leave? It would have to be faster than light wouldn't it? or am i missing something here?

I do see what you are saying as far as the scale differences between black holes. Isn't it possible that they also operate on different scales? Perhaps it has something to do with the scale of the reaction that caused the black hole to be created that would define a limit? Or is that WAY off base?

Sorry for the language. People generally become defensive when you try to use your supposed knowledge to discredit their theory without any explanation, then use my favorite baseball team to show how much of a dumb ass I am...gee thanks I'll be sure to recommend this site...

[Phi for All]

It's not personal. It's an observation I'd hoped you could make some useful information out of. NONE of my comments (or anyone else's that I can see) have been meant to disparage you personally. Don't you want to be corrected when you're wrong, or asked for clarification when someone doesn't understand what you've said?

 

Thanks for serving our country, but that's beside the point. What you're doing wrong is embracing your idea so closely that you think your idea is YOU, and it's not. It's causing you to force your idea to fit with what you assume is logic, but nothing says science has to be intuitive. You've been a soldier; if you lay your rifle on a table, and also put a cartridge on the edge of the table, and at the exact same time, you fire the rifle and push the cartridge off the edge of the table, which bullet will hit the ground first? Most people say one or the other; the fact that they both hit the ground at the same time is hardly intuitive, yet it's supported by our theories of gravity.

 

Wrong ideas happen all the time. We don't dismiss them, we point out what's wrong and expect you to reshape your idea, based on correct information. That's how science works, it's not about what makes sense, it's about what we observe in reality. It's like building a bridge you can trust, and getting it inspected by your fellow engineers at every step along the way, to make sure no mistakes are incorporated into the design.

 

The criticisms of your posts have been very constructive. Isn't that why you came here, to discuss science? I'm very sorry you're taking it the wrong way.

[Anon_Ghost]

I understand what you just said, but you are wrong. I am not trying to make my theory fit at all, rather I am trying to figure it out like the rest of you and happened to have a thought, my bad. I'm not coming in tootin my horn like "HEY HEY I FOUND IT!! THE ANSWER ALL YOU DUMBFUKS COULDN'T FIND!!!". All I'm trying to do is see if, and what parts, of my idea are POSSIBLE. So maybe you just misunderstand where I am coming from.

 

Anyways I really don't want to throw yet another thread off rail by discussing the fact that this is an IDEA and not a set in stone theory. Please can we keep this to questions/answers and discussion of black and white holes rather than spending 2 paragraphs explaining how retarded my idea is, if you don't like it stop reading...pretty simple right?

[dimreepr]

Please can we keep this to questions/answers and discussion of black and white holes rather than spending 2 paragraphs explaining how retarded my idea is, if you don't like it stop reading...pretty simple right?

 

 

That's really not how a discussion works.

[timo]

If light can't escape the gravity of a BH, how does this energy leave? It would have to be faster than light wouldn't it? or am i missing something here?

The process of radiating away energy is called "Hawking Radiation". It happens close to but outside of the "point of no return" (called the "event horizon"). Not inside it. You are correct that a process happening strictly within the no-return zone could not radiate off energy unless it had additional weird properties (like FTL).

Edited August 31, 2015 by timo

[pzkpfw]

Anon_Ghost, taking things back a notch; I suspect from reading between the lines of your posts, that you're under one of the common misapprehensions about black holes.

 

They don't act like vacuum cleaners sucking up all matter around. Stuff still has to get "close enough" to be "captured". For example, if an alien with a magic shrinking ray compressed Earth to within its Schwarzschild radius - it would become a black hole, yes. But it's total gravity at that time would still be the same. Our Moon wouldn't suddenly be sucked in to that black hole, it would continue to orbit what was once Earth *1. The same with our Sun - if it were magically turned into a black hole - Earth would just continue to orbit *1.

 

But even so, imagining that black holes did act the way I suspect you think they do - why does that lead you to believe there must be some "white hole" counterpart? If the Universe did happen to be in a state that meant that after uncountable time, all matter was stuck inside countless black holes *2 - what's the problem with that? You seem to want to "believe" that there'd be "white holes" spewing out that matter somewhere, but belief doesn't rule reality.

 

 

 

(*1 those are a simplifications; to look deeper see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter )

(*2 ignoring Hawking radiation.)

 

 

P.S. is this you here? http://www.thescienceforum.com/personal-theories-alternative-ideas/51002-black-holes-white-holes-big-bang.html#post652397

Edited August 31, 2015 by pzkpfw

[Strange]

Did it? I agree with the rest of your post but isn’t the oort cloud the limit of our solar system?

 

I'm not sure there is a single definition but NASA used the heliopause, I think:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130911-voyager-interstellar-solar-system-nasa-science-space/

You said they don't both HAVE to exist to support the other. So what is to stop these gigantic black holes from consuming the entire universe? Granted this would take trillions of years but with nothing releasing the matter and no mass limit it would seem that you are suggesting a universe that started large and is becoming smaller.

 

The thing that will stop a black hole absorbing all the matter in the universe is simply that most of it is too far away (and getting further away because the universe is expanding).

 

I still don;t see why you think there is a connection between black holes and the expanding universe. They have no more effect on that than any other object of the same mass.

 

As you said it is not generally accepted that a black hole holds an infinite amount of matter in an infinitely small volume of space.

 

Well, they certainly don't have an infinite amount of matter. They may have the mass of a few hundred or even million suns. But definitely not infinite.

 

The maths of GR predicts an infinite density at the centre. But that is generally thought to be because GR no longer applies under these extreme conditions. A quantum theory of gravity will probably give a different (better) description.

 

For example, string theory predicts this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_%28string_theory%29

 

So where does it go?

It doesn't go anywhere. The black hole has the mass of all the matter (and energy) it absorbs.

 

Steven Hawking and his supporters seem to believe that black holes warp time causing a singularity that can in turn create a wormhole

 

I don't think many people think wormholes have any physical reality either. They are often talked about in popularizations because they are exciting concepts (even if they don't exist).

 

I do not agree that they are a consequence of GR.

 

"The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass can deform spacetime to form a black hole.^[2][3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

 

I think GR led to the term of "Black Hole" but had an entirely different meaning with a single white hole at the beginning of time and a single black hole at the end of time

 

Again, citation needed. This appears to be purely your interpretation. I have no idea what it is based on.

 

I asked about thermal readings because I was putting into question how reliable the information is that the universe is cooling uniformly. If it truly is, then that puts an obstacle in the way of my theory. I asked if this information came from viewing stars because unless we sent probes across the universe how can you tell that it is cooling at a consistent rate across the entire universe?

 

It is not really clear what you are asking. But the CMB is homogeneous and isotropic, indicating that the universe is the same everywhere and has cooled by the same amount.

 

I don't really know what stars have to do with it. But anyway, we can observe stars and galaxies billions of light years away. We don't need to leave the solar system to do that.

 

timo: If light can't escape the gravity of a BH, how does this energy leave?

 

Hawking radiation is created at (not within) the event horizon and can therefore escape.

[Anon_Ghost]

I understand that our black holes gravitational pull would take another __ Billion/Trillion years to suck in the rest of the Milky Way Galaxy since it's effects on us this far away is minimal. But just as you said, if our sun turned into a black hole we would still orbit it correct? and our orbit will eventually lead us INTO the sun will it not? although this too has been explained in terms of millions/billions of years. So even if what I'm talking will never be seen by human eyes, EVENTUALLY everything would end up in one black hole or another right? Even the stars to far away are never at "rest" so they will always drift twords one thing or another and end up in one as well. So if no matter can leave the black hole...ever, then we are still left with a shrinking universe.

 

I understand the radiation is just outside the event horizon thank you for clearing that up. Has this actually been tested and visualized? or is that too speculation?

 

So what better candidates are there for causing the expansion then?
And maybe I'm confused about the definition of space-time, are they saying that time is some sort of fabric that makes up the universe? If so why can't we see it? What proof is there that time is a THING and not a measurement of ticks? If it is just a measurement of ticks then what does a slowing clock prove other than time appearing to slow?

If it is a thing...please explain.

[Strange]

But just as you said, if our sun turned into a black hole we would still orbit it correct? and our orbit will eventually lead us INTO the sun will it not?

 

I don't think so.

 

 

I understand the radiation is just outside the event horizon thank you for clearing that up. Has this actually been tested and visualized? or is that too speculation?

 

It is purely theoretical, based on an attempt to combine quantum theory and GR.

 

 

So what better candidates are there for causing the expansion then?

 

It is just an inevitable consequence of the curvature of space-time (in a universe with a homogeneous distribution of matter).

 

 

And maybe I'm confused about the definition of space-time, are they saying that time is some sort of fabric that makes up the universe?

 

No, it is just the coordinate used to measure the distance between events in time and space. It is just geometry.

 

 

If it is just a measurement of ticks then what does a slowing clock prove other than time appearing to slow?

 

That is exactly what it shows.

This is a good overview of GR, touching on gravity, black holes and the expanding universe: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

 

It has some math, but I think it is possible to follow without fully understanding the math.

[MigL]

The math and physics of black hole formation is very well understood.

When you have enough mass/energy localized in an extremely small radius, we know of no force that can stop gravitational collapse to a BH and possible singularity; Not electron degeneracy as in white dwarf stars, not neutron degeneracy as in pulsars/neutron stars. This mass/energy of the collapsed star doesn't go anywhere. It is still 'there', shrouded by an event horizon ( that which we call a BH ) and accounts for the gravitational interaction a BH exerts on surrounding masses. If it went 'somewhere else' would it not stop affecting nearby masses?

 

The only way for a BH to evaporate and 'explode' as a highly energetic gamma ray burst, is if it happens to be extremely small, such that its 'temperature' is much higher than its surroundings ( CMB ). It will then evaporate via Hawking radiation, and when its localized mass/energy is low enough, it will 'burst out' of its event horizon as intense radiation.

Large BHs are too big for this to happen ( order of 10^100 years ) as their temperature is too cold. Unfortunately, large BH are the only kind 'out there'. If there were any small primordial BHs ( from the Big Bang ), they would have evaporated already as they would have been microscopic. We don't see any gamma ray signatures for these exploding small BHs either, so there may not have been any.

Now, I haven't included any math, but all these calculations are doable, and not very complicated as most don't even need the differential geometry of GR. A white hole on the other hand, I haven't seen any mathematical model for, nor do I know of a physical reason for one to come about.

 

Perhaps you can tell us or show how a BH is limited to a size, beyond which, it will explode as a 'white hole'

[pzkpfw]

I understand that our black holes gravitational pull would take another __ Billion/Trillion years to suck in the rest of the Milky Way Galaxy since it's effects on us this far away is minimal. But just as you said, if our sun turned into a black hole we would still orbit it correct? and our orbit will eventually lead us INTO the sun will it not? ...

No.

 

That was exactly my point. There's no specific reason why Earth would end up in that formerly-our-Sun black hole. *

 

There's no reason for you to think that eventually everything in every Galaxy will end up in a black hole.

 

(And even if that were the expected eventuality - that in itself is no reason to assume there's some other process that will result (i.e. your wish to have white holes recycling that matter). Your wishes or beliefs don't drive reality).

 

 

 

 

(* in reality (i.e. no magic black hole), we eventually will end up in the Sun, as it starts to die and goes red giant. It will expand as it cools, and our orbit is not far enough out to save us from being eaten.)

Edited September 1, 2015 by pzkpfw

[Anon_Ghost]

There is a video made with steven hawking where the guy explains orbits using the thing you drop a penny in at the mall and the penny circles a million times before falling in, have you seen this? They predicted that our planet will be burned to a crisp by our sun when it becomes a red giant, but it will still orbit for a short while before it falls into the sun. He said this was because we are being pulled into the sun at somewhere around 1mm/year(not sure exactly im to tired to look it up right now).

Is there legitimacy to this claim? although I have found it hard to believe some of his theories, generally speaking i had hoped anything Steven Hawking put his name on would be at least sub truth.

 

I am not trying to "wish" them into existence it just makes sense to me...sorry it doesn't to you.

 

These tiny black holes...was this experiment done in a particle collider? Do you have a link for their experiment?

 

Any links about this "information being stored at the event horizon" talk?

[Mordred]

There's literally hundreds of articles available on the information paradox. The subject is highly controversial,

 

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

 

I would recommend googling the term information paradox BH then add pdf to the end. It will pull up more reliable links.

 

In all honesty there is tons of pop media imagination surrounding Black holes.

 

There has also been dozens of models of trying to create our universe as a result of Black/white holes. The majority of these models died when WMAP and Planck datasets confirmed just how homogeneous and isotropic our universe really is.

 

Still tends to be a common model most people who don't truly understand the related mathematics and current models attempt.

 

Any model of a universe developing from a BH/WH have one major hurdle.

 

This is the Cosmological Principle. The universe expansion is homogeneous ( no preferred location) and isotropic ( no preferred direction). Combining the two means at large scales 100 Mpc the universe is essentially uniform in mass distribution.

 

A universe developing from a BH/WH has a preferred location and direction. This includes those models where our universe resides inside the EH of some massive BH/WH.

 

The other problem is Black holes tend to rotate. This would lead to a rotating universe. A rotating universe is inherently inhomogeneous and anisotropic.

 

Then comes the problem, Bh's feed on matter as it becomes available. This rate of infalling material is inconsistent.

 

This would lead to inconsistent rates of expansion. Which would be detectable via the thermodynamic changes as we look into our expansion history.

 

Given all the above, any of the dozens of BH/WH universe creation models I have encountered in the past 30+ years of personal study fail to match up to current observation evidence.

 

I don't know how much math skills you have but two of my favorite articles on BH is

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&rct=j&q=Black%20hole%20pdf&ved=0CBsQFjAAahUKEwiJkP2879THAhURKYgKHaQMAAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phys.uu.nl%2F~thooft%2Flectures%2Fblackholes%2FBH_lecturenotes.pdf&usg=AFQjCNERag-FH9DCbw66GsxObohS8wEq9A&sig2=bVDJuyqlgvpDHNNZPF7jjQ

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself.

 

This particular article covers an infalling observer.

 

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/local--files/main/touching_ghosts.pdf

 

Rather interesting article. These three articles cover several of the various coordinate systems of a BH's space time curvature. The lecture notes on GR covers extensively various "coordinate artifacts" that different coordinate systems can cause and shows alternative coordinate system solutions to solve those artifacts.

 

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

 

it's roughly 998 pages long, but it's an excellent coverage of GR, and also covers the metrics involved in describing our universe. In particular it covers how the Einstein field equations is converted to the FLRW metric.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

There is a video made with steven hawking where the guy explains orbits using the thing you drop a penny in at the mall and the penny circles a million times before falling in, have you seen this? They predicted that our planet will be burned to a crisp by our sun when it becomes a red giant, but it will still orbit for a short while before it falls into the sun. He said this was because we are being pulled into the sun at somewhere around 1mm/year(not sure exactly im to tired to look it up right now).

Is there legitimacy to this claim? although I have found it hard to believe some of his theories, generally speaking i had hoped anything Steven Hawking put his name on would be at least sub truth.

I would question the part about being pulled closer to the sun by 1mm/year. We're always being pulled towards the sun, but we're traveling sideways to it, too fast to be sucked in.

 

I've heard two possibilities about the rest. When the sun starts the helium burning process, it will expand as a red giant with its equator out past Mars.

 

If this happens quickly enough, all the inner planets would be ash. They wouldn't fall in their orbits into the sun, the sun would engulf them as it grows.

 

If this happens more slowly, the sun will be losing a great deal of mass to solar winds, so less pull from gravity, and the planets will have a chance to move outwards in their orbits. It will still mean any inner planets would be very crispy, but they might survive in this scenario.

[Strange]

Also, the solar system is not a very good model for the dynamics of a galaxy. The Sun has 90-something percent of the mass of the solar system and so everything orbits it.

 

The central black hole in the galaxy (there are others) has a fraction of a percent of the mass of the galaxy and only a few nearby stars orbit it. The paths of all the other stuff is determined by the mass of the rest of the stuff in the galaxy, not by the black hole.

[ajb]

Einstein himself made claims against the possibilities of black holes in 1934 saying that a BH does not fit with reality.

Indeed, he thought that the solutions required so much symmetry that nature could never realise them. So this spurred on research into singularity theorems. There are several versions, of differing generality, but the most celebrated are the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems.

 

Basically, and with no details here, Hawking and Penrose showed that under some reasonable physical assumptions a singularity will always form when matter collapses. Hawking then 'played the theorems backwards' to show that classically there is always a singularity at the origin of the big bang. (Note this is all classical)

 

The Swarzschild Solution puts a WH at the beginning of time and a BH at the end of time, but this does not fit with observations.

This is the maximally extended Swarzschild Solution. You are right that no white hole have been seen.

 

White Holes and Black Holes coexist, this seemed apparent to Einstein as well, it is just a matter of figuring out how they fit together.

By looking at the maximally extended version!

 

Isn't it fair to say that Black Holes and White holes MUST both exist for the other to exist?

No. The existence of black holes does not imply white holes.

 

I am sure I explained this to you before. White holes are a feature of the maximally extended black hole solution. The problem is that such solutions are unstable. As soon as anything were to pass through the white hole the Einstein-Rosen bridge collapses. Thus, even if white holes were created in the very early Universe they would have collapsed by now.

 

Also, we do not know of any mechanism for there formation. White holes are not the products of collapse as black holes are. Thus, they would need to be formed in the Early Universe by some other means, and then they would be short lived things.

 

So, in short, we think such white holes are not realised in nature.

 

If in fact only BH's exist, where would the matter go that gets sucked into them?

Good question. Once something falls in, in finite proper time it will reach the singularity. Now, no one expects the singularity to be realised, quantum gravity will come into play and should regulate the classical singularity. This is physics that we do not understand at all well. So the short answer is no one knows exactly what happens.

 

Can these Black Holes grow infinitely larger, or do they have a matter absorption limit, or a mass limit such as that which determines the result of an exploding star? What would theoretically happen if it reached said limit?

In general relativity there is no fundamental limit to the mass of a black hole. The problem is in the formation and 'feeding' of heavy black holes. As I said in another thread, there is a theoretical limit (you should look the numbers up yourself) to the growth of a black hole via matter fall into it. Basically, when the energy from the x-rays from the accretion disc equals the mass gained by in falling stuff then the black hole cannot grow any larger.

 

Black holes larger than this limit have been found. This means either there is some physics of these discs we don't really understand or they were formed in other ways. For example, maybe black hole mergers.

 

There must be a LOGICAL answer for these anomalies that explains their function and use without changing reality.

What anomalies?

 

 

You said they don't both HAVE to exist to support the other.

This is correct and for some mathematical reasons.

 

So what is to stop these gigantic black holes from consuming the entire universe?

The laws of gravity. Black holes are not giant vacuum cleaners that suck in everything. There are stable orbits, for example, around black holes.

 

As you said it is not generally accepted that a black hole holds an infinite amount of matter in an infinitely small volume of space.

Black holes have finite mass.

 

So where does it go?

We do not really know. You should again, look up the information paradox.

 

Well yes...it must make sense..period. There is no theory on black holes that DOES make sense at this point. We only found out about their possibility 100 years ago and spotted one for the first time 20 years ago. Although that may seem a long time, simpler questions have taken longer to thoroughly explore in the world of science.

I am not sure how qualified you are to say that no theory on black holes makes sense. There are some interesting open problems and things that are not well understood. That is the nature of science at the edge.

 

 

Phi for all: your a dick. no I didn't go to college, I chose to defend this country when I left high school instead. I still live in poverty but it doesn't stop me from trying my best to understand the world I live in and since people like me provide safety to people like you, maybe you could stop throwing my lack of education in my face and say something fucking helpful!!!

Please keep calm and try not to resort to insults.

 

I can give you some references to textbooks in general relativity if you like. However, I am not sure how much you would get out of them. They require some prerequisites in linear algebra and calculus.

 

timo: If light can't escape the gravity of a BH, how does this energy leave? It would have to be faster than light wouldn't it? or am i missing something here?

If you mean Hawking radiation, then it is understood as coming from just outside the event horizon and so can escape.

 

 

Sorry for the language. People generally become defensive when you try to use your supposed knowledge to discredit their theory without any explanation, then use my favorite baseball team to show how much of a dumb ass I am...gee thanks I'll be sure to recommend this site...

Well, the problem is that you did not come here to ask about black hole physics, but rather try to propagate your own 'pet theory', which is not even a theory. The best thing you can do is now keep on asking questions and take on board the answers.

[Anon_Ghost]

thanks i'm trying. I'm going to study this information paradox and get back to this

I think i am getting a clearer picture though

[Strange]

Steven Hawking and his supporters seem to believe ...

 

Just as an aside, you seem to be very keen on statements like this regarding Hawking, Einstein and others. But it is important to note that science does not accept these ideas "because Hawking says so". And the words "supporters" and "believe" are completely inappropriate.

 

Einstein, Hawking, Penrose, Minkowski, Hilbert, Lorentz, Poincare, Reimann, Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson, Walker, Kerr, Schwarzschild and many, many others have developed the mathematical underpinnings of relativity and cosmology. These ideas have then been tested and confirmed against observation and experiment.

 

That is why they are accepted as theories. Because they have been shown to work. Not because some particular person proposed it. And, if you have a new idea, that is what you need to do: show that it works. And, sadly, that requires mastering the necessary mathematics.