Black and White Holes

[MrBlob]

Is it possible that energy that goes into black holes exits out of a white hole but on a parrel axis of where the black hole is located, like underneath spacetime. I'm hoping someone could answer this so i could research it further.

[Vmedvil]

4 hours ago, MrBlob said:

Is it possible that energy that goes into black holes exits out of a white hole but on a parrel axis of where the black hole is located, like underneath spacetime. I'm hoping someone could answer this so i could research it further.

I don't think there is such a thing as white holes, all the energy and matter of the blackhole just gets crushed inside the blackhole according to common theories about them.

"When matter falls into a black hole, it is believed to be compressed into an infinitely small point called a singularity at the center of the black hole, where the density and gravity are so extreme that nothing, not even light, can escape; essentially, the matter becomes part of the black hole's mass and is no longer accessible to outside observers as we currently understand physics."

Link = https://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2001Aug.cfm#

Edited November 6 by Vmedvil

[MrBlob]

Correct me if I'm wrong but infinity shouldn't be possible.

[engcat]

Sure, why not? We do not know anything about black holes, so yes it is possible. The possibility can never be tested because we can never know anything about black holes. I presume a white hole would be a visible object as opposed to a black hole object which is invisible. I do not think it is possible that such visible object "white hole" is not in spacetime. Everything is in space and time so that object would have to be to, but it would be visible in some other frame of refence of space and time.

As far as the axis, who knows? We do not know anything about black holes and cannot know anything. We just know that there is an object there, but it is located in curved space and time and light does not reach us so we can never see it and do not and cannot know anything about it.

[Vmedvil]

On 11/6/2024 at 9:01 PM, MrBlob said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but infinity shouldn't be possible.

At the singularity the distance between the points of space is zero due to length contraction by the effects of general and special relativity thus the density is infinite and mass at the singularity infinite, infinities are certainly possible with black holes.

 

"A singularity is the center of a black hole, where all of its mass is concentrated in an infinitely small point. It's a point of infinite gravity and density, where no object, not even light, can escape. 

 

 

Here are some facts about singularities:

• Physics

  At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them, and the laws of physics cannot be applied.

   

• Definition

  The term "singularity" was popularized by Albert Einstein's 1915 Theory of General Relativity. 

   
• Type of singularity

  In a non-rotating black hole, the singularity is a single point, called a "point singularity". In a rotating black hole, the singularity is a ring, called a "ring singularity". "

   

  Link = https://www.britannica.com/science/singularity-astronomy

Edited Thursday at 04:07 AM by Vmedvil
Added Citation

[OceanBreeze]

On 11/7/2024 at 9:01 AM, MrBlob said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but infinity shouldn't be possible.

In general, I agree with you, if we are talking about real phenomena.

If we are talking about mathematical infinity, that is another matter. In mathematics, any result is possible, including an infinite result.

However, when I see a mathematically derived infinite result concerning real phenomena, I assume a mathematical error has been made.

[OceanBreeze]

11 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

At the singularity the distance between the points of space is zero due to length contraction by the effects of general and special relativity thus the density is infinite and mass at the singularity infinite, infinities are certainly possible with black holes.

 

 

I disagree with infinite mass. In fact, we know how much mass many BHs have, by calculating the gravitational pull they have on other objects.

I can go along with infinite density, but all that means is whatever mass the BH has is compressed into a singularity. Since the singularity does not technically exist in our Universe, but is shielded from us by the Event Horizon, we can speculate on infinite density.

Even a BH with a mass of 30 times the mass of our sun, may have a singularity of infinite density, but it still has only 30 times the mass of our sun; not infinite.

What does infinite mass mean? More mass than in the entire Universe  or more mass than in an infinite number of Universes?

That is absurd.

Infinite density is acceptable; infinite mass is not.

[Vmedvil]

5 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

 

What does infinite mass mean? More mass than in the entire Universe  or more mass than in an infinite number of Universes?

That is absurd.

Infinite density is acceptable; infinite mass is not.

It is possible with length contraction all the mass is compressed to a point of zero size at singularity, space infinitely small at singularity. This can be found by plugging a value of C into length contraction equation that the space is indeed zero, space does not exist at singularity point... thus mass infinite at singularity point because all the mass is compressed to a point of zero size.

 

Edited November 21 by Vmedvil

[OceanBreeze]

In the military we have a saying, if you put 20 lbs of sh1t into a 10 lb bag, you still have 20 lbs of sh1t.

You can increase the density all you want, all the way up to infinity, but the mass is whatever you started with.

[Halc]

I don't mean to pick on one person, but there seem to be plenty of mistakes. I also realize this topic is a month old.

As for 'real infinities', I'm fine with them.  The universe is supposedly infinite in size, which doesn't seem to contradict anything. Given that, the universe has infinite mass, but I agree that only finite mass can be contained by any finite volume.

 

On 11/6/2024 at 6:40 PM, Vmedvil said:

"When matter falls into a black hole, it is believed to be compressed into an infinitely small point called a singularity at the center of the black hole, where the density and gravity are so extreme that nothing, not even light, can escape; essentially, the matter becomes part of the black hole's mass and is no longer accessible to outside observers as we currently understand physics."

Link = https://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2001Aug.cfm#

I know it is a university site, but the whole page there seems not peer reviewed and flat out wrong. It propagates the popular notion of there being a compressed point in space at the center of a black hole, which is anything but the case.  Compression does not go on. Tidal forces tend to pull things apart not compress them.  The center of a black hole is singular, which does not mean it's a point, it just means that physics does not describe what goes on there.

A coordinate system that isn't signular at the event horizon (Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates, or a Penrose diagram) show the black hole to terminate at a space-like line at the end of time, not a place where all the mass ends up, and all of this is a description of a simple Schwarzschild black hole which by definition is eternal and has nothing falling into it.  OK, the Penrose diagram doesn't necessarily show a Schwarzschild solution, but the other does.

 

On 11/21/2024 at 7:19 AM, Vmedvil said:

"A singularity is the center of a black hole, where all of its mass is concentrated in an infinitely small point. It's a point of infinite gravity and density, where no object, not even light, can escape.

Here are some facts about singularities:

• Physics

  At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them, and the laws of physics cannot be applied.

   

• Definition

  The term "singularity" was popularized by Albert Einstein's 1915 Theory of General Relativity. 

   
• Type of singularity

  In a non-rotating black hole, the singularity is a single point, called a "point singularity". In a rotating black hole, the singularity is a ring, called a "ring singularity". "

[Citation needed]

Not sure what is being quoted here, but it seems to contain the same mistakes, presuming a sort of Newtonian vision where mass just gets crunched into a point in space.  The bit about light (or anything) not escaping is already true at the event horizon (by definition) and is not a property specific to the 'central' singularity. 

The bit about the ring singularity is correct, but it's a 2D surface, not a 1D circle. It's just hard to draw all four dimensions in a 2D picture.

The list doesn't mention a charged black hole, which results in a sort of fuzzy singularity that lacks a neat geometric description.

 

On 11/21/2024 at 7:19 AM, Vmedvil said:

At the singularity the distance between the points of space is zero due to length contraction by the effects of general and special relativity thus the density is infinite and mass at the singularity infinite, infinities are certainly possible with black holes.

On 11/21/2024 at 6:50 PM, Vmedvil said:

It is possible with length contraction all the mass is compressed to a point of zero size at singularity

Length contraction is a coordinate effect, not physical compression with proper 'pressure' and all that. I kind of do agree that matter undergoes a sort of coordinate compression as it falls to the end of a black hole. It actually gets pulled apart, but also contracted. At the end of time, it kind of just doesn't exist anymore, but that statement is an assertion of physics at a place where physical law doesn't apply, so nothing officially says that.

Coordinate compression cannot contract a the dimensions of a mass down to zero. Such a frame is not a valid one.

 

On 11/21/2024 at 6:50 PM, Vmedvil said:

space does not exist at singularity point

That's right, which means density (a function of space among other things) is not defined at said singularity.

Edited Wednesday at 11:13 PM by Halc

[Vmedvil]

"density, mass of a unit volume of a material substance. The formula for density is d = M/V, where d is density, M is mass, and V is volume."

Link = https://www.britannica.com/science/density

 

I want you to see the problem I am faced which Density is defined as Density = Mass/Volume,  Density = ∞.

Let's say you guys are correct then Density = ∞ and  Mass = 3☉, then Volume = 0, which is what special relativity says it is which is Einstein's Equation for size of space as dx' = 0 when Velocity = Speed Of Light, which Δx' *Δy' * Δz'  is V' which is still 0, as 0 * 0 * 0 = 0

Wolfram Alpha Analysis Link 1 = https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%3Dx(1-(V^2%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

Wolfram Alpha Analysis Link 2 = https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%3Dx(1-(C^2%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

Wolfram Alpha Analysis Link 3 = https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=V+%3D+x+(1-(v^2%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)+*+y+(1-(v^2%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)+*+z+(1-(v^2%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

Wolfram Alpha Analysis Link 4 = https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=V+%3D+x+(1-(C^2%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)+*+y+(1-(C^2%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)+*+z+(1-(C^2%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

So, the equation for density reads for finite mass of 3 solar masses.

∞ = 3☉/ 0.

Wolfram Alpha Analysis = https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=∞+%3D+(5.967*10^30)%2F+0

Sorry, I don't understand that result maybe you could clarify, WTF that means? That's with a finite value of Mass which is the size of most normal black holes which is 3 solar masses or higher.

 

Now, with the equation for density as infinite mass at the singularity, I get for Density = Mass/Volume

∞  = ∞ / 0 

Wolfram Alpha Analysis = https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=∞+%3D+∞+%2F+0

I'll be honest I don't really know WTF that means either but maybe you guys can tell me?

So, maybe you can understand my confusion with this black hole singularity math thing my dear readers of the science forums.

I think it makes more sense with Mass being infinite at the singularity point and ∞ = ∞ / 0, but I could be wrong...

 

but actually as Halc says all this stuff is actually undefined and I agree with that assessment but was trying to make a educated guess on what it could be. The math actually starts to break down with singularities and black holes which I agree means it cannot be defined by physics and the result that I get is Infinity = Complex Infinity for both situations from wolfram alpha which is a well known computational engine for math stuff.

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 06:40 AM by Vmedvil

[OceanBreeze]

6 hours ago, Halc said:

I don't mean to pick on one person, but there seem to be plenty of mistakes. I also realize this topic is a month old.

As for 'real infinities', I'm fine with them.  The universe is supposedly infinite in size, which doesn't seem to contradict anything. Given that, the universe has infinite mass

 

if the universe is infinite in size, there is no possible way for us to know such a thing. It make no sense at all to speak of "real" infinities.

Infinity works for us as a usable concept only.

 

6 hours ago, Halc said:

I agree that only finite mass can be contained by any finite volume.

 

This I agree with.

[Vmedvil]

2 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

if the universe is infinite in size, there is no possible way for us to know such a thing. It make no sense at all to speak of "real" infinities.

Infinity works for us as a usable concept only.

We can try a old calculus trick and do an analysis as Volume approaches 0 in the density equation.

we will do it for .1, .01,.001, and  .0001 values for Volume.

So, for D = M/V from the positive direction

V = .1, M = 5.967*10^30 then D = 5.967*10^31,

if V = .01, M = 5.967*10^30 then D = 5.967*10^32, 

if V = .001, M = 5.967*10^30, then D = 5.967*10^33,

if  V = .0001, M = 5.967*10^30, then D = 5.967*10^34,

If  V -> 0, M = 5.967*10^30, then D -> ∞+, 

 

Now let's come at it from the  negative direction.

which will be -.1,-.01,-.001, -.0001 values for volume.

V -.1, M =  5.967*10^30 then D = - 5.967 * 10^-31

V -.01, M =  5.967*10^30 then D = - 5.967 * 10^-32

V -.001, M =  5.967*10^30 then D = - 5.967 * 10^-33

V -.001, M =  5.967*10^30 then D = - 5.967 * 10^-34

If  V -> 0, M = 5.967*10^30, then D -> ∞-,

Wolfram Alpha Link = https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=what+is+the+limit++of++D+%3D+M%2FV+as+V+goes+to+zero

"If one side of a function approaches positive infinity while the other side approaches negative infinity, it means that as you get closer to a certain point on the graph from the left, the function values become increasingly large positive numbers, while approaching from the right results in increasingly large negative numbers; this indicates that the limit at that point does not exist because the function is not approaching the same value from both sides."

Link = https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/23649/limit-approaches-infinity-on-one-side-and-negative-infinity-on-other-side

That's how we can define this using calculus analysis techniques.

"Is it continuous if limit does not exist?

In other words, if the limit does not exist at a certain point, the function is not continuous at that point. Thus, the answer to the question is no: a function is not continuous if the limit does not exist."

 

Link = https://homework.study.com/explanation/is-the-function-continuous-if-the-limit-does-not-exist.html#:~:text=In other words%2C if the,the limit does not exist.

Link 2 = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)

 

This further proves how math just breaks down at the singularity point of a black hole as the equations for basic properties aren't continuous at them.

Edited Thursday at 08:10 AM by Vmedvil

[Halc]

 

7 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

if the universe is infinite in size, there is no possible way for us to know such a thing. It make no sense at all to speak of "real" infinities.

I disagree with the 'possible' part, but I will add that we also do not know that it isn't actually infinite, so by the same logic, it makes no sense to say that "a real infinity shouldn't be possible".

 

On 11/21/2024 at 6:36 PM, OceanBreeze said:

In general, I agree with you, if we are talking about real phenomena.

If we are talking about mathematical infinity, that is another matter. In mathematics, any result is possible, including an infinite result.

I'm actually not talking about phenomena at all. I'm taking about the real universe, not our perception of it, but it seems that your definition of 'real' seems to depend on knowledge, a sort of idealistic stance. But if we take this stance, there is little difference between the abstraction that is mathematics and the abstraction that is the universe.

 

Is time infinite? It's not like the expansion is going to stop and turn around and crunch. So we get to heat death. That happens at some finite time, after which there really isn't time anymore. No visible universe to have a volume. No observation. Not even radiation remains. I have a hard time arguing for infinite time.

 

On 11/21/2024 at 6:36 PM, OceanBreeze said:

However, when I see a mathematically derived infinite result concerning real phenomena, I assume a mathematical error has been made.

So it's not that the universe cannot have infinities, it is that you presume an error has been made if one is demonstrated, a sort of denial of evidence. Seems to be a strange stance to take.

[OceanBreeze]

I am stating as a fact, IF the universe is infinite, there is NO possible way for us to know that.

We would have to be able to observe infinity, which is impossible by definition.

We can say, and some do say, if the universe is flat everywhere, it must be infinite.

Tell me how could we know the universe is flat everywhere?

Again, we would need to confirm this by observing an infinity; an impossibility.

I have no problem at all with mathematical infinities, but if the calculation is about something real, an infinite result is nonsense!

Nothing real can be ever shown to be infinite.

A calculation for infinite energy, (which I have seen made) is one such example. The calculation was made by two mathematicians with advanced degrees and they insisted it was correct. I found the error and showed them how ridiculous their calculation was. Infinite energy! More energy than in an infinite amount of universes in an infinite time and they believed it because of a math mistake!

[Halc]

6 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I am stating as a fact, IF the universe is infinite, there is NO possible way for us to know that.

Only because it is impossible to know anything at all, like say that the apple is indeed there before you. Such knowledge is a product of induction, not deduction.  Similarly, if the universe is finite, there is NO possible way for us to know that either, so your conclusion that mathematics showing the former to be more probable is an indication of a mathematical error, is an unfounded conclusion.

There can very much be evidence of infinity, but it isn't a proof, and your comment seems to only deny such a proof, something with which I agree.

Is space discreet, where there are two adjacent locations halfway between which there isn't another location?  If so, all sorts of funny conclusions can be drawn, perhaps like a preferred reference frame (invalidating all of relativity). If not, there's an infinity for you.

Is that infinity observed?  I don't think that counts, so no.  Is it real? Not if being real is defined as being directly observed by a human.

 

The universe might have an edge a mere 6 GLR away. No light that reaches any human has ever been more than that proper distance away. Clearly the concept of 'visible universe' uses a different notion of what is visible than that 6 GLY limit.  For instance, a perfect simulation of everything we see need only process that 6 GLY radius.  Anything that happens outside it cannot affect what any human can measure.

 

6 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

We would have to be able to observe infinity, which is impossible by definition.

This line of thinking goes down the rabbit hole of direct vs indirect observation. One concludes the apple is there via induction, not by directly observing the apple, which hasn't a clear way to do.

 

I would have liked to have seen that infinite energy error. I love finding errors in papers making outlandish claims like the one you mention seems to.  For entertainment, go to conspiracyoflight.com and find all the proofs that relativity is wrong. Find the flaw in each one. Doesn't take long, but nobody on the site every corrects any of them. Not the purpose of the site, similar to truth being the purpose of any site with the characters 'truth' being part of the website name. George Orwell saw it coming with his ministry of truth.

 

6 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

We can say, and some do say, if the universe is flat everywhere, it must be infinite.

We can say it, but it is trivially falsified. A torrid universe is flat everywhere, and yet has finite volume. One of the oldest examples is the universe of the Asteroids video game (only two dimensions of space, not three).

 

We seem to be digressing. I mostly came into this to point out all the pop-science notions being asserted in this topic, and none of those seem to come from you.

Edited Thursday at 08:22 PM by Halc

[OceanBreeze]

15 hours ago, Halc said:

I would have liked to have seen that infinite energy error. I love finding errors in papers making outlandish claims like the one you mention seems to.  For entertainment, go to conspiracyoflight.com and find all the proofs that relativity is wrong. Find the flaw in each one. Doesn't take long, but nobody on the site every corrects any of them. Not the purpose of the site, similar to truth being the purpose of any site with the characters 'truth' being part of the website name. George Orwell saw it coming with his ministry of truth.

 

If I can find it, or recreate it again, I will post it. If I remember correctly, it was a silly divide-by-zero error, as many infinite results are. What made it interesting was all the calculus involved; both their original calculation and my rebuttal. I am a bit rusty now so it might be a good refresher to review it.

Thanks for the info on that other site; sounds like a visit is in order.

 

15 hours ago, Halc said:

We seem to be digressing. I mostly came into this to point out all the pop-science notions being asserted in this topic, and none of those seem to come from you.

I'm always glad to see you spending time here and helping to keep us on the straight and narrow.