Black and white holes

[jorge_jmt]

I read about the Schwarzschild wormhole, which is supposedly composed of a black hole, that absorbs matter, and a white hole, that EMMITES mater absorbed by the black one, even though in a schwarzschild wormhole it is theorically impossible because they´re really unstable and separate when they form, this is just a theory, not a law, so it might as well be possible.

[ronthepon]

Wormholes are fiction. Black holes mean 'in' and so something that is 'out' would be called 'white hole'.

 

However, even our conventional laws say that such things cannot exist. Take the

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

, my least favorite law of physics (because of the impossibility to prove it and the fact that it proves other theories impossible)

 

Now lets assume that the 2nd law of thrmodynmics was not right, a wormhole did exist and was to be stablised. To stablise a wormhole you need something even more wierd. Negative mass matter with positive surface pressure. (Why must all the bizzare assumptions of physics supplement each other?)

[Jay-qu]

That law can be broken - you just have to run time backwards, and thats exactly what a white hole is, the time reversal of a black hole.

[Racoon]

That law can be broken - you just have to run time backwards, and thats exactly what a white hole is, the time reversal of a black hole.

 

I know thats true, because I have done it!

 

:)

[ronthepon]

I know thats true, because I have done it!

 

:naughty:

 

Huh?

 

Thats a joke, right? Or is it... (I'm so naive)

[Racoon]

Huh?

 

I've folded space and travelled through Black Holes.

You probabaly diddn't know that yet...

 

White Holes are cool because of Time implications.

 

I want your Brains ronthepon; so gimme! :naughty:

[ronthepon]

I knew it!!! Racoon's current avtar is indeed based on one of his pursuits... (or is he quoting me...) any way, HELP!

[InfiniteNow]

Wormholes are fiction.

Oh really? No math to back up the concept, eh? You sure?

[Little Bang]

When someone comes up with a new idea, there is usually some data or phenomena that makes them think of the idea. I may be wrong but I am unaware of any data or phenomena that implies the possibility of a white hole.

[coldcreation]

When someone comes up with a new idea, there is usually some data or phenomena that makes them think of the idea. I may be wrong but I am unaware of any data or phenomena that implies the possibility of a white hole.

 

Sorry to disapoint all you science fiction freaks. Black holes, supermassive BHs, wormholes, SMWHs and white holes, along with magnetic monopoles, string-like defects, strings, superstrings, god, branes, false vacuums, negative pressure, negative mass, negative energy, antigravity, dark energy, nonbaryonic dark matter, five dimensions or more, exist only in the imagination.

 

And the better your imagination, the more real these defects and aberations become.

 

None of the above have ever been observed with a telescope, with the naked eye, with a microscope or with a particle accelerator.

 

It is much more difficult to understand nature than to imagine the impossible.

 

CC

[InfiniteNow]

Sorry to disapoint all you science fiction freaks. Black holes, supermassive BHs... None of the above have ever been observed with a telescope, with the naked eye, with a microscope or with a particle accelerator.

Hmmm... really?

 

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/category/blackholes.html

[Little Bang]

Coldc, for the rest of us dummies could you tell us what piece of information you have that clearly proves the non-existance black holes? If it's like the rest of your proofs, you will fill up a couple of pages with rhetoric and no meat.

[jorge_jmt]

Oh, im not sure, by negative matter would you mean antimatter?, which actually is proven to exist and even created? and of course black holes exist, there are thousands of pictures and studies of these, their energy radiations; "White holes appear as part of the vacuum solution to the Einstein field equations" Wikipedia. If you still think that Einstein's theories are incorrect, then look at his other theories, in which he made other scientists see their errors, all this with investigation and, hear this, CREATIVITY.

[ronthepon]

Look, im not trying to be irritating. But

 

Oh really? No math to back up the concept, eh? You sure?

 

Please hear me out.

Maths and all need not actually say what is true. They predict and some predict incorrectly. Take my least favorite law,

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Its a law not yet proved. But show an observation against it and voila! you got a refuted law!

 

Well i'm not very sure about this topic, but there are other examples that show how some predictions of science do not fit observations.

 

And finally lets face it---> We have never observed negative mass, never seen a sure shot white-hole, never seen a wormhole, never seen anything of that matter for sure. And the way of science is 'dont believe it for sure until you see it'.

 

So we should not get ultra-debative or believing about such a topic.

 

PS: Please forgive me if I have been offensive in any manner

[ronthepon]

Oh, im not sure, by negative matter would you mean antimatter?, which actually is proven to exist and even created?

 

Just wanted to add: antimatter has positive mass so it still is not negative matter.

[InfiniteNow]

Thank you for ensuring your stance, and for your caution against encitement. You are welcome to your opinions, however, if you say something that seems incorrect I will attempt to illustrate why. I would want anyone to do the same for me. :doh:

 

Take my least favorite law [The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics], Its a law not yet proved. But show an observation against it and voila! you got a refuted law!

This is about entropy. How many times have you seen a shattered coffee cup on the floor fly back up onto the table and reassemble itself with no applied force? If you have a box full of atoms, is it not more likely that they will equally distribute themselves across the entire space, instead of grouping into a single corner of the box? Why do we age? Why do we experience that time seems to have direction?

 

You're correct that a theory can be disproven if experiment shows contradictory results to it's predictions, however, I don't see this as entirely too likely with the 2nd "Law" (one of my least favorite words) of Thermodyamics.

 

 

Well i'm not very sure about this topic, but there are other examples that show how some predictions of science do not fit observations.

Like what? Give me a "for instance" here. Do we really keep using that prediction after it's been proven wrong?

 

 

And finally lets face it---> We have

never

observed negative mass, never seen a sure shot white-hole, never seen a wormhole, never seen anything of that matter for sure. And the way of science is 'dont believe it for sure until you see it'.

Not quite. The tao of science is more to use your best approximation of reality until a better model comes along to replace it... continually adjust and refine our outlook as new information is obtained and understood.

 

We've never seen gravity. We've never seen gamma rays. We've never seen a person who was alive 10 million years ago walking around. We've never seen lots of stuff that's out there, or was out there. This doesn't negate it's existence or possibility. However, when a prediction is based on a theory which has proven useful and been repeatedly verified, I put some stock into it... like itty bitty wormholes in quantum foam.

 

I always admit that I might be wrong, and I like to think that I'll adjust my opinions if this has adequately been demonstrated to me by someone or something. If the above is mistaken, show me how. ;)

 

 

Cheers. :evil:

[ronthepon]

Like what? Give me a "for instance" here. Do we really keep using that prediction after it's been proven wrong?

Well, by this I was reffering to flawed laws. Take the theoretical description of planet Mercury's orbit with Newton's law of gravitation. Although there is a very slight discrepancy between the prediction and observation(a mere 20 or so seconds of arc), it was enough to tell us that a more detailed and complex theory was needed.

 

Something you posted yourself shows my feelings:

 

 

use your best approximation of reality until a better model comes along to replace it... continually adjust and refine our outlook as new information is obtained and understood

 

Same with the 2nd law thermodynamics. I feel that a negative statement like that can have no proof. Thus we cant say for absolute sure if it holds fully or not. Suppose that a process is somehow carried out in which entropy reduces. Or say we happen to find some matter at 0 Kelvin. The law will be upgraded.

 

We've never seen gravity. We've never seen gamma rays.

But we have observed them (or atleast felt their effects to say for sure that they exist for sure, and not in our minds and papers.

We've never seen a person who was alive 10 million years ago walking around. We've never seen lots of stuff that's out there, or was out there.

Here, we can not be 100% sure, even if we are 99.9-% sure. The proof is by word and not pure and visible observation. Thus we can not say that it will and will be so. Doing so becomes religion believing style. We should be ready to accept the other possibility readily when such a situation comes.

 

Well. I do admit that you win in the debate over the probability of possible existence of wormholes.

 

It's just that the probability of observing such phenomenon is not as less in theory as is in observation. We all will believe it 100% when we see it.