Black Holes :- Are They Really What We Have Found Out

[Aman pandey]

Are blackholes really what we have found out from our study? Can't it really be that the black holes are something else?

So I thought to myself that the black Holes may just be an entrance towards diffrent universe.IMPOSSIBLE NO? But I have my own reasons for this consideration. It is that If we place a yellow ball infront of a yellow ball infront of a same coloured wall, we will find out that we cant notice the ball from some distance but if we look it from binoculars, we could see its shade. But on the same place if you make it see to a innocent child, you would find out that he would say what is it? And here we also visualise the black holes in the same way. It could be a enterance to a diffrent universe that has same colour as our universe's. So we cannot see the back hole. But the restriction that comes before us for preventing us from accepting this thing is that our mind wants reasons for everything. But the thing which we have accepted without a reason is god so why we cannot accept this?

[coldcreation]

Are blackholes really what we have found out from our study? Can't it really be that the black holes are something else?

[...] But the restriction that comes before us for preventing us from accepting this thing is that our mind wants reasons for everything. But the thing which we have accepted without a reason is god so why we cannot accept this?

 

It is not quite clear from your post. Do you wich to discuss this: Wormholes or this: God?

 

 

 

CC

[alexander]

Can't it really be that the black holes are something else?

 

like that thing around the kick area of this emoticon... :rolleyes:

 

All jokes aside now, as cold says, you most likely mean wormwholes, not black wholes. Black whole is a supermassive, super dense, theoretical object, so massive infact, that light fails to escape it's gravitational field. Since the object theoretically exists, we have no clue as to what their dimensions are, not what their structure is like. Assuming that a black whole collapses to a cingularity point doesn't prove that cingularity leads to other universes, nor that wormwholes exist, nor that the black wholes are the gateways into them.

 

Theoretically a wormwhole is a geodesic in the curved spacetime, it kind of doesn't connect 2 universes.

 

oh and that wall/ball experiment, you might see shadow, depending on how the light is set up, you might not however see any shadow at all :evil:

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

Worm holes are nothing more than the jets ejected from black hole.

 

In actual fact the black holes that we have been observing are white holes.

[sanctus]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

Worm holes are nothing more than the jets ejected from black hole.

 

In actual fact the black holes that we have been observing are white holes.

Wow, can you prove this?

Anyway from my understanding, a black hole sending out jets doesn't make it a white hole. See any text on GR where they talk about the Kruskal continuation for example, there you see that a white hole has a bit another definition.

[modest]

and things wouldn't orbit around a white hole as we've observed things doing.

 

I think Pluto refers to this:

 

Quasars and active galactic nuclei are observed to spew out jets of matter. This is now believed to be the result of polar jets formed when matter falls into supermassive black holes at the centers of these objects. Prior to this model, white holes emitting matter were one possible solution.

 

White hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

and he extrapolates this old idea to "black holes that we have been observing" which is completely unsupportable.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

 

Jets are jets and are quite similar regardless of their origin.

 

Yes some compact matter nucelons are more active than others.

 

The similarity are bipolar jets.

 

The black holes that we see in the movies as a vortex going into a black hole is only theoretical.

 

Modest which black holes have you been observing?

 

I'm quite awear of the formation of compact matter and the types of jets formed.

[modest]

Modest which black holes have you been observing?

 

There are examples on wikipedia's black hole page. The one in the middle of the Milky Way is a good example.

# A star called S2 (star) follows an elliptical orbit with a period of 15.2 years and a pericenter (closest) distance of 17 light hours from the central object.

# The first estimates indicated that the central object contains 2.6M (2.6 million) solar masses and has a radius of less than 17 light hours. Only a black hole can contain such a vast mass in such a small volume.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

 

 

I must be reading you out of contex.

 

Please explain your point.

 

I'm awear of the info in

 

wikipedia's black hole page

Black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It is very limited in it's information.

 

============================================

 

Look at the definition of black holes and white holes.

 

Than you may even go to the extreme and define the known universe as a result of a white hole if the BBT is correct.

 

Black holes have an inward vector force.

White holes have an outward vector force,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,similar to a jet stream.

 

So have we been observing whites? Since we cannot observe black holes.

 

 

Either way, I do not think that black holes or white holes exist in their true definition. I'd rather think of the objects as ultra compact matter and the formation of jets.

 

One sec maybe I'm wrong, maybe what I know is limited and so I will read more.

 

Just incase I'm going to read some more papers:

 

[0803.2671] Non-isolated dynamic black holes and white holes

Non-isolated dynamic black holes and white holes

 

 

[0705.2223] The bang of a white hole in the early universe from a 6D vacuum state: Origin of astrophysical spectrum

The bang of a white hole in the early universe from a 6D vacuum state: Origin of astrophysical spectrum

 

 

[physics/0612007] Is the Universe a White-Hole?

Is the Universe a White-Hole?

 

[gr-qc/9803014] A White Hole Model of the Big Bang

A White Hole Model of the Big Bang

 

[math/0108201] White Hole, Black Whole, and The Book

White Hole, Black Whole, and The Book

 

[gr-qc/0405087] The quantum gravitational black hole is neither black nor white

 

The quantum gravitational black hole is neither black nor white

 

Authors: T. P. Singh, Cenalo Vaz

(Submitted on 17 May 2004)

 

Abstract: Understanding the end state of black hole evaporation, the microscopic origin of black hole entropy, the information loss paradox, and the nature of the singularity arising in gravitational collapse - these are outstanding challenges for any candidate quantum theory of gravity. Recently, a midisuperspace model of quantum gravitational collapse has been solved using a lattice regularization scheme. It is shown that the mass of an eternal black hole follows the Bekenstein spectrum, and a related argument provides a fairly accurate estimate of the entropy. The solution also describes a quantized mass-energy distribution around a central black hole, which in the WKB approximation, is precisely Hawking radiation. The leading quantum gravitational correction makes the spectrum non-thermal, thus providing a plausible resolution of the information loss problem.

[modest]

I must be reading you out of contex.

 

Please explain your point.

 

Things can't orbit a white hole. Astronomers observe things orbiting black holes... ergo, observed black holes are not white holes... so my point is that you're wrong about black holes being white holes.

 

I make 2 assertions and draw one conclusion. Which part don't you get?

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day modest

 

I did not say that white holes are black holes.

 

You read it out of context.

 

Please define in your words what a black hole and white is?

 

For further reading

 

[astro-ph/0210105] Shock-Wave Cosmology Inside a Black Hole

Shock-Wave Cosmology Inside a Black Hole

 

Authors: Joel Smoller, Blake Temple

(Submitted on 4 Oct 2002 (v1), last revised 6 Nov 2002 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: We construct a class of global exact solutions of the Einstein equations that extend the Oppeheimer-Snyder (OS) model to the case of non-zero pressure, {em inside the Black Hole}, by incorporating a shock wave at the leading edge of the expansion of the galaxies, arbitrarily far beyond the Hubble length in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetime. Here the expanding FRW universe emerges behind a subluminous blast wave that explodes outward from the FRW center at the instant of the Big Bang. The total mass behind the shock decreases as the shock wave expands, and the entropy condition implies that the shock wave must weaken to the point where it settles down to an OS interface, (bounding a {em finite} total mass), that eventually emerges from the White Hole event horizon of an ambient Schwarzschild spacetime. The entropy condition breaks the time symmetry of the Einstein equations, selecting the explosion over the implosion. These shock wave solutions indicate a new cosmological model in which the Big Bang arises from a localized explosion occurring inside the Black Hole of a Schwarzschild spacetime.

[modest]

G'day modest

 

I did not say that white holes are black holes.

 

You read it out of context.

 

That's fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

Please define in your words what a black hole and white is?

 

A white hole is the same as a black hole except time is reversed. Both are solutions to Einstein's field equations which really don't specify which 'direction' time flows. Does effect come before cause? For the sake of some particular solution of GR you can assume it does and you get a white hole solution. But it's a bit silly to actually propose such a thing. Not only because it wouldn't follow the rules of thermodynamics, but - how would such a thing form? If matter that crosses the event horizon is ejected with no future path back in the horizon then it wouldn't gain mass. As soon as one formed - it would immediately unform itself.

 

Nevertheless, it is an interesting topic and there's no cause for me to try and shut you down on the idea, so - by all means...

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

Modest said

 

A white hole is the same as a black hole except time is reversed. Both are solutions to Einstein's field equations which really don't specify which 'direction' time flows. Does effect come before cause? For the sake of some particular solution of GR you can assume it does and you get a white hole solution. But it's a bit silly to actually propose such a thing. Not only because it wouldn't follow the rules of thermodynamics, but - how would such a thing form? If matter that crosses the event horizon is ejected with no future path back in the horizon then it wouldn't gain mass. As soon as one formed - it would immediately unform itself.

 

Time is not an item that can be changed.

 

Its only the relative time in communication.

 

Main stream states that nothing can escape a black hole.

 

A black hole without a singularity acts like in other compact body and therfore fuctions and produces jets similar to any other compact body.

If this is correct than jets find their origin and make up driven by the compact body in a joint venture with the infalling matter. This part I have to get my head around. At this moment I'm reading through papers on quark matter, hadron, neutron matter and so on to understand the mechansim in the production of the jets via convection and in combination with Z-pinch. Most of the paper talk around this mechanism. The new experimaents with Hadron may give us some insight. This will take years of reading. Maybe I'm a slow learner.

 

The actual definition of a white hole does not fit a jet stream mechanism although the similarity is there. Yes we have some form of black holes and to some extent an unknown, but the formation of jets is an unexplained mechanism.

 

If I seem inside out and upside down with my thoughts,,,,,,,,,maybe because I'm from down under.

 

I should have taken up tennis.

[modest]

A black hole without a singularity acts like in other compact body and therfore fuctions and produces jets similar to any other compact body.

 

Indeed. Are you suggesting that a singularity would prohibit a jet? I'm not sure I followed your reasoning to that conclusion.

 

The actual definition of a white hole does not fit a jet stream mechanism although the similarity is there.

 

I agree.

 

Yes we have some form of black holes and to some extent an unknown, but the formation of jets is an unexplained mechanism.

 

Again, I agree. There's been good science done with recent observations (linked below), but, to say it is completely explained would certainly be overreaching.

 

SPACE.com -- Powerful Black Hole Jet Explained

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day modest

 

I have read the link before.

 

Powerful Black Hole Jet Explained

SPACE.com -- Powerful Black Hole Jet Explained

 

 

These data support the suggestion that twisted magnetic field lines are creating the jet plumes. Material in the center of the galaxy, such as nearby stars and gas, gets pulled in by the black hole's overwhelming gravity and forms a disk orbiting around the core (the material's inertia keeps it spiraling in a disk rather than falling straight into the black hole). The distorted magnetic field lines seem to pull charged particles off the disk and cause them to gush outward at nearly the speed of light.

 

"We knew that material was falling in to these regions, and we knew that there were outbursts coming out," said University of Michigan astronomer Hugh Aller, who worked on the new study. "What's really been a mystery was that we could see there were these really high-energy particles, but we didn't know how they were created, how they were accelerated. It turns out that the model matches the data. We can actually see the particles gaining velocity as they are accelerated along this magnetic field."

 

The astronomers also observed evidence of another phenomenon predicted by the leading hypothesis — that a flare would be produced when material spewing out in the jets hit a shock wave beyond the core of the black hole.

 

It does not go far enough to explain the formation of the magnetic field lines and the production of the shock wave. The above link is in limbo land.

 

You maybe interested in this link

 

Query Results

 

Particularly the links to astrophysical jets.

 

By the time I read all the papers in reference to jets and compact matter, I think I will not wait for the cows to come home. For get the midnight candle, I need a power generator.

 

also the following papers are quite interesting on the possible formation of the jets, the compaction and the properties that allows them to travel extreme long distance with little influence by the BH (Ultra compact matter)

 

 

Electron magnetohydrodynamics

Electron magnetohydrodynamics

 

 

 

Laboratory investigation of bow shocks in radiatively cooled plasmas

Laboratory investigation of bow shocks in radiatively cooled plasmas

 

 

 

Investigation of flute and lower hybrid drift instabilities in application to laboratory astrophysics and Z-pinch experiments

Investigation of flute and lower hybrid drift instabilities in application to la

 

 

 

Sheared Flow as a Stabilizing Mechanism in Astrophysical Jets

Sheared Flow as a Stabilizing Mechanism in Astrophysical Jets

 

 

 

Plasma Jet Studies via the Flow Z-Pinch

Plasma Jet Studies via the Flow Z-Pinch

 

 

 

Production of radiatively cooled hypersonic plasma jets and links to astrophysical jets

Production of radiatively cooled hypersonic plasma jets and links to astrophysic

 

 

The Magnetic Field Configuration of Accretion Disks around Black Holes

The Magnetic Field Configuration of Accretion Disks around Black Holes

[juggernot]

I'm going to add my two cents, even though I know I know less about the topic then either of you. Pluto, when you said the blackholes we have been observing could be whiteholes because we can't observe blackholes, what exactly did you mean? Obviously we can't see black holes because they don't allow light to escape. However, we can still detect them by their gravitational influence, just like dark matter except less subtle. I must be missing some point in your argument, because from what I have seen and heard about the 'black holes' we have been observing, they are in fact theoretical objects with an inward pull. I know there are other super dense celestial bodies that have jets, but in those cases if there is a black hole in the object, could it be just a small part of the super dense object? I apologize if I slow the conversation with my ignorance.

[Pluto]

Hello juugernot

 

You are right, black holes (theoretical) just like any other compact matter acts like a gravity sink and pulls matter towards it.

 

We cannot see inside a so called black hole. But! we can observe the ejected matter via jets. This is the closest thing to a white hole. So in my opinion we have been observing something like a black hole.

 

The true definition of black hole and white in my opinion do not exist.

 

When you look at jets, you may think of white holes that eject matter out

A "Tornado" in Space

 

or the jet from M87

APOD: March 5, 1996 - A Black Hole in M87's Center?

This jet is a monster that goes for thousands of light years and its width is in light years.