Black and white holes

[coldcreation]

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.

 

Pauli's exclusion principle is enough for me. I share Einstein's view: there is no proof that nature alows a singularity. (Meat)

 

Furthermore, if you tell me that Yeti (the hairy snowman) exists because you've seen his footprints, it is not up to me to prove he does not. The burden of proof is yours. I simply remark that no Yeti (unicorn, Nessie, mermaid or black hole) has every been observed. And therefore there is a dam good chance that someone is pulling your leg. (Meat)

 

Don't fight the chill.

 

CC

[Jay-qu]

I wouldnt say its people pulling legs - it is a mathmatical solution to equations that are said to model reality, now it has worked in all tested situations that we can recreate or observer directly, but there is nothing to say that it wont break down at such extreme circumstances. Who knows there could be something that stops collapse past neutron degenerancy pressure :)

[coldcreation]

I wouldnt say its people pulling legs - it is a mathmatical solution to equations that are said to model reality, now it has worked in all tested situations that we can recreate or observer directly, but there is nothing to say that it wont break down at such extreme circumstances. Who knows there could be something that stops collapse past neutron degenerancy pressure :esmoking:

 

Quite possibly Jay-qu,

 

There is most likely a critical mass above which matter can no longer be packed together (and that is surely due to Pauli's exclusion principle).

 

Pauli's exclusion principle says that no more than one spin-1/2 particle (fermions) can occupy the same quantum state, placing significant constraints on the possible quantum conditions within a high-density environment. Spin-1/2 particles make up the matter in the universe, while particles of spin 0, 1, and 2 (bosons) give rise to forces between particles. A point of infinite density, or even a point with two atoms in it, would have to be made of something else besides real particles. (Sounds artificial, or virtual to me). Physicists know that infinite responses are a good sign that the theories or laws used to evaluate hypotheses are well beyond the boundaries of applicability. In fact it is good sign that our suppositions are stricken with a detrimental flaw.

 

Despite this rather drastic conclusion theorists are in search of new hypotheses in which there is no upper limit. At the same time, the hope is that infinite answers will not emerge. The problem is manifest; using a mathematical technique called renormalization infinities can be avoided, but results are still so enormous, regarding temperatures, energies, and densities that the problems under inspection are still far beyond the domain of the most advanced experimental and observational verification. Physicists working with renormalized theories must, evidently, maintain a high index of suspicion and be ready to seek more sound concepts.

 

If black holes are made of bosons or virtual particles then black holes are virtual: It can be endlessly debated as to whether or not real particles are converted through gravitational collapse into virtual particles. It seems likely that a massive explosion would result from such compression, and that once the real particles are dispersed the forces between them relax and adjust to the new dispositions and distances. In other words, the scattering of protons, neutrons and electrons induces also dispersal and dilution of the binding forces between them. The Cold Creation conclusion is that black holes cannot exist. Both Einstein and Eddington wrote papers claiming that stars will not shrink to zero size. Though, Chandrasekhar, a leading authority on BH physics, had shown that beyond a certain mass limit the repulsion associated with the exclusion principle could not prevent the collapse of a massive star (the so-called Chandrasekhar limit). Never, of course, has a star ever been observed to disappear, collapse or evaporate into a single point. All the evidence shows that stars explode, become red giants, white dwarfs, neutron stars, brown dwarfs, etc. Nevertheless the BH polemic continues to this day.

 

Conclusion: the existence, or nonexistence, of BHs seems to be more a question of belief. Either one believes in them or not. I choose, like Einstein and Eddington, not to believe in them, partly because they've never been observed (conveniently, by definition, they can never be observed), and partly because of the exclusion principle. I see no reason why the principle (which has an empirical basis) should be violated.

 

Finally, there are other more natural explanations for rotational curves.

 

CC

[C1ay]

Sorry to disapoint all you science fiction freaks. Black holes, supermassive BHs....exist only in the imagination.

So you are saying it is not possible that there could ever be a mass so large that it's gravity could keep light from escaping it's pull? Not even all the mass of the known universe?

[coldcreation]

So you are saying it is not possible that there could ever be a mass so large that it's gravity could keep light from escaping it's pull? Not even all the mass of the known universe?

 

That is affirmative C1ay,

 

Particles have a tendency to form massive objects such as hydrogen atoms, complex molecules, people, planets...

 

Massive objects have a tendency to form clusters (planetary systems, globular cluster, galaxies, galactic cluster, superclusters...).

 

When pressure is too great things explode (nuclear bombs, pressure cookers, supernovae).

 

I am skeptical of equations (even Einstein's, so was he for that matter, pun non-intended) when they are pushed artificially to infinity. Even under extreme conditions, there are alternative explanations for observed phenomena today interpreted as resulting from BHs or SMBHs.

 

CC

[Jay-qu]

When pressure is too great things explode (nuclear bombs, pressure cookers, supernovae).

 

Not really.. nukes dont explode because of pressure, and explosion is a rapid release of a large amount of energy or gasses because of a chemical or nuclear reaction - this can cause a change in the pressure of the surrounding air.

[Farsight]

five dimensions or more, exist only in the imagination.

Forces such as gravity or electromagnetism don't exist in my imagination. And they aren't some magical action at a distance, or the result of bullety little "messenger particles". Ever read about Flatlanders? They live on the surface of a 2-dimensional sheet of paper, only it's rumpled. They only exist in the imagination of course. But they have no concept of the rumples and certainly can't see them. But when a flatlander climbs a rumple it's hard work, and it's a whole lot easier going down the other side. The distortion in the dimension he can't see translates into a force that he feels. So don't be so cynical.

[C1ay]

When pressure is too great things explode (nuclear bombs, pressure cookers, supernovae).

And you have proof that is always the case, even under as yet unknown conditions in nature?

I am skeptical of equations (even Einstein's, so was he for that matter, pun non-intended) when they are pushed artificially to infinity. Even under extreme conditions, there are alternative explanations for observed phenomena today interpreted as resulting from BHs or SMBHs.

I am skeptical of unproven theories as well but that doesn't mean I claim they are not possible. I am also skeptical of anyone that claims this or that is not possible but can't prove it. I do not necessarily believe in singularities but I can imagine that gravity could be strong enough to keep light from escaping with a large enough accumulation of mass. I certainly wouldn't claim that it's just not possible.

[ronthepon]

I agree.

Singularities are not easily believeable. They are the part of complicated new assumptions and theories.

 

But matter so dense that light can't escape from it (a.k.a. Black Holes) can exist. One can easily find the required density for such things and check that it is not very very distant from some densities already in existence.

 

Further, even if we have'nt seen black holes, we have seen many possible black holes and the fact that we can't see something so heavy out there implicates the black hole possibility.

 

Lastly, neutron stars have been observed, no doubt, and they seem close relatives to BHs.To me, atleast...

[coldcreation]

Not really.. nukes dont explode because of pressure, and explosion is a rapid release of a large amount of energy or gasses because of a chemical or nuclear reaction - this can cause a change in the pressure of the surrounding air.

 

 

We must not be reading the same literature.

 

I will not go into the different processes involved in thermonuclear explosions (of either the fission or fusion types) here.

 

My point is clear. Pauli's exclusion principle forbids black holes. Two real particles cannot occupy the same point in spacetime, let alone trillions, as is supposedly the case under scrutiny.

 

Thus, in my opinion (i.e., I believe) that BHs do not exist.

 

In every case where BHs are thought to lurk there is an alternative explanation (using standard, known physics, not new physics), viz, rapid rotational curves, etc...

 

More interesting in this thread than BHs (there was already a thread about black holes, where I gave all I had in the case against their existence) is the concept of white hole, or white-voids as I call them.

 

White voids (along with the squeamish concept of BHs themselves) have always been irrational, an annoyance to rigorous logic, shrouded in mystery and paradox. It is by way of such queasy, if highly inspired, expurgation that the great-hearted science of Lemaître, Hawking, or Guth, has cooled into the glacial positivism of Coldcreation, the frozen behaviorism of the cosmological constant - and the contemporary worldview it engenders.

 

In search of reason and empirical facts (e.g., Pauli's exclusion principle) we surface in the new world, with a new identity, whatever its practical advantages. Gone are the degenerate remnants of the big bang - another directionless abyss in which there is no familiar landmark. Black holes and White-voids™ like antagonists in a horrendous dream fused into a one-dimensional (point, or singularity) monstrous force of destruction terrorizing all that come near, gone too.

 

CC

[Harry Costas]

hello coldcreation

 

 

you said

 

My point is clear. Pauli's exclusion principle forbids black holes. Two real particles cannot occupy the same point in spacetime, let alone trillions, as is supposedly the case under scrutiny

 

I think you are back in the stone age. Rather than me giving you the information look up the info through the net.

 

Than again he is some info

 

If you want to keep on thinking along those lines so be it.

 

You have taken the Pauli's exclusion principle and limited its application.

 

When the atomic structure degenerates to the basic particals

Atom structure,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,short lived stars

 

compact stars

Neutrons,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,neutron stars long life density 10^15

quarks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,quark stars density 10^18

preons,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, theory,,,,,preon stars 10^20 upto 10^30

black holes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10^30 plus

 

Pauli's principle still applies no two particals occupy the same space.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Pauli Exclusion Principle Applications

 

Fermions are particles which have half-integer spin and therefore are constrained by the Pauli exclusion principle. Particles with integer spin are called bosons. Fermions incude electrons, protons, neutrons. The wavefunction which describes a collection of fermions must be antisymmetric with respect to the exchange of identical particles, while the wavefunction for a collection of bosons is symmetric.

 

The fact that electrons are fermions is foundational to the buildup of the periodic table of the elements since there can be only one electron for each state in an atom (only one electron for each possible set of quantum numbers).

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pauli.html#c2

quote

No two electrons in an atom can have identical quantum numbers. This is an example of a general principle which applies not only to electrons but also to other particles of half-integer spin (fermions). It does not apply to particles of integer spin (bosons).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/whdwar.html#c3

quote

Electron degeneracy is a stellar application of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, as is neutron degeneracy. No two electrons can occupy identical states, even under the pressure of a collapsing star of several solar masses. For stellar masses less than about 1.44 solar masses, the energy from the gravitational collapse is not sufficient to produce the neutrons of a neutron star, so the collapse is halted by electron degeneracy to form white dwarfs. This maximum mass for a white dwarf is called the Chandrasekhar limit. As the star contracts, all the lowest electron energy levels are filled and the electrons are forced into higher and higher energy levels, filling the lowest unoccupied energy levels. This creates an effective pressure which prevents further gravitational collapse.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/pulsar.html#c3

quote

Neutron degeneracy is a stellar application of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, as is electron degeneracy. No two neutrons can occupy identical states, even under the pressure of a collapsing star of several solar masses. For stellar masses less than about 1.44 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit), the energy from the gravitational collapse is not sufficient to produce the neutrons of a neutron star, so the collapse is halted by electron degeneracy to form white dwarfs. Above 1.44 solar masses, enough energy is available from the gravitational collapse to force the combination of electrons and protons to form neutrons. As the star contracts further, all the lowest neutron energy levels are filled and the neutrons are forced into higher and higher energy levels, filling the lowest unoccupied energy levels. This creates an effective pressure which prevents further gravitational collapse, forming a neutron star. However, for masses greater than 2 to 3 solar masses, even neutron degeneracy can't prevent further collapse and it continues toward the black hole state.

 

 

Have a nice day

[coldcreation]

However, for masses greater than 2 to 3 solar masses, even neutron degeneracy can't prevent further collapse and it continues toward the black hole state.

Have a nice day

 

All of the above is pretty clear basic astroparticle physics. The last statement, quoted, on the other hand, is entirely speculative. There is no guarantee that further collapse is possible. It has never been observed anywhere in the universe, and indeed would violate the Pauli Principle if more than two particles were crammed into a singularity (a point in spacetime).

 

By the way, the state of a black hole is not known (e.g., is there a singularity, wormhole, does time stop, is curvature infinite, is time reversed, can you go back in time and meet your great great grandfather; no one knows what happens inside, not even Jodie Foster).

 

What happens at a singularity is based on conjecture or incomplete information. All conclusions or opinions formed on the state of a black hole are not based on fact. Indeed there is plenty of literature on the subject: proof that even if risky in nature (i.e., unscientific is probably more accurate) it is a potentially profitable speculative investment. Stephen Hawking's book are a perfect example.

 

Alas, for those who read Hawking for the thrill of it all, A Brief History…is basically a primer. And at times - many times - it is insipidly run of the mill. The simplicity and looseness of Hawking's doctrine is attractive to some, but it has scientific limitations. His denunciation of other worldviews (e.g., steady state cosmology) is austerely exclusionary. It demands not only that all physicists (and future physicists) heed his call for jihad but also that they refuse or deform reality.

 

His new book is different. It's more expensive. There are a lot of illustrations and he seems to dwell more on theories that deviate from the standard hot picture. His gambling spirit is exposed. He knows he can make a lot of money whether readers are content enough to follow him into a common black hole, or are bold enough to swallow the latest theories.

 

His is the reflection of a doctrine drawn from a specific literalist interpretation of the standard model's texts and traditions: from the explosion to black holes. It is the distillation of a world-ideology - orthodox big bangism - that has its own theorists and propagandists. A huge part of its appeal lies in the gray uncertainty (flanked between black and white) it offers, its severing of believer from unbeliever, the bleak opposition it asserts between an ideal hot event founded of some new physics, or unspecified superforce, and the partial laws familiar to date. It's a magic carpet ride to astonishing new worlds of guesswork and vivid imagination.

 

Much of the text - either based on 17th century philosophical science or new physics - needs waking up. The United Kingdom's Oxbridge academics are well-known for their undesirable feature of resisting change - in any form. Not that it isn't worth reading but it's just not as thrilling as it could be, considering how much provocative astrophysics circulates through official journals every year. Maybe expressions like The Universe in a Nutshell have reached retirement age. Plus, too many nutty ideas are crammed into the shell.

 

------------------------------------

 

Another gifted physicist, mathematics scholar and avid black hole enthusiast by the name of John Taylor wrote about these captivating point-like or worm-like objects: “Black holes violate some of the most sacrosanct laws of the natural world, and represent the ultimate unknowable where time and space end. Black holes are so far beyond anything met in nature that they turn science into science fiction. Black holes are the ultimate doomsday weapon, capable of bringing death within twenty millionths of a second.” (1973, back cover).

 

Einstein's own cold and calculated view on the inadmissibility of singularities, whether they are point particles, black holes, worm holes, or primordial bang events, was so profound that he was driven to publish a paper declaring that the Shwarzschild singularity does not appear in nature 'for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily…because otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.' As for the big bang, Einstein's last words on the subject were …'One may…not assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and matter, and one may not conclude that the “beginning of expansion” must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense' (Pais 1982).

 

As I've emphasized before, it is a question of faith, of conviction, not science, if one is to believe in black holes or not.

 

CC

 

Don't fight the chill

[Farsight]

The whole Universe could be a black hole. A hypersphere, curved round on itself, with no outside.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Response to coldcreation.

 

When matter degenerates into its particals and than compacts, no two particals occupy the same space.

 

When a large star explodes and leaves a neutron star, what do you think that neutron star is made from.

 

I know the information that i have above is general and I usually give it for others to read and understand the processes.

[coldcreation]

Hello All

 

Response to coldcreation.

 

When matter degenerates into its particals and than compacts, no two particals occupy the same space.

 

When a large star explodes and leaves a neutron star, what do you think that neutron star is made from.

 

I know the information that i have above is general and I usually give it for others to read and understand the processes.

 

OK, now, and for everyone, including myself, describe for us the properties, the state, of a black hole, a singularity, one point in spacetime, or a wormhole if you prefer. And please base your comments on observation, i.e., empirical evidence. Please also tell us under which guidlines, e.g., upon which laws of nature, are your assumptions founded.

 

Good luck.

 

CC

[Harry Costas]

Hello coldcreation

 

You use the puali exclusion principle (PEP) to back up your ideas.

 

I say that the PEP applies.

It applies to neutron stars, the varies types of quark stars, the theretical preon stars and the the black holes. Subatomic particals occupy their own space.

When atoms break down to neutrons, the neutrons compact close.

When neutrons break down to quarks again the compaction is closer

When quarks break down to preons again the compaction is closer and the process continues until we have a blackhole.

 

wikipedea states that:

In the physical sciences, a phase is a set of states of a macroscopic physical system that have relatively uniform chemical composition and physical properties (i.e. density, crystal structure, index of refraction, and so forth). The most familiar examples of phases are solids, liquids, and gases. Less familiar phases include: plasmas and quark-gluon plasmas; Bose-Einstein condensates and fermionic condensates; strange matter; liquid crystals; superfluids and supersolids; and the paramagnetic and ferromagnetic phases of magnetic materials.

 

 

Ultra dense Plasma matter

 

http://plasmadictionary.llnl.gov/ter...age=list&ABC=Q

Term: Quark-gluon plasma

Definition:

"A state of matter in which quarks and gluons, the fundamental constituents of matter, are no longer confined within the dimensions of the nucleon, but free to move around over a volume in which a high enough temperature and/or density prevails. This type of plasma has recently, 2/2000, been observed indirectly by the European laboratory for particle physics, CERN. These plasmas result in effective quark masses which are much larger than the actual masses. Calculations for the transition temperature to this new state give values between 140 and 180 MeV. This is more than 10,000 times the nominal fusion plasma temperature of 10keV. 150 MeV is the characteristic energy of a particle in a plasma at roughly 1.5 trillion Kelvin. This corresponds to an energy density in the neighborhood of seven times that of nuclear matter. Temperatures and energy densities above these values existed in the early universe during the first few microseconds after the Big Bang. "

 

 

http://columbia-physics.net/faculty/gyulassy_main.htm

 

Professor: Miklos Gyulassy

 

Research

quote:"I head the nuclear theory group at Columbia. Our work concentrates on the physics of ultra-dense nuclear matter, called the quark-gluon plasma. Current experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider RHIC at BNL require the development of detailed parton/ hadron transport theory in order to interpret the data and to test specific signatures that can reveal the physical properties of this new state of matter. We have developed new techniques to solve ultra-relativistic non-linear Boltzmann equations and relativistic hydrodynamics to study collective flow signatures, such as elliptic transverse flow at RHIC. In addition, these transport models are used to predict pion interferometry correlations that probe the global freeze-out space-time geometry of high energy nuclear reactions. Recently we concentrate on the problem of non-abelian radiative energy loss and its application as a novel tomographic tool to study the density evolution in the expanding gluon plasma on times scales ~10^-23 sec. We predicted that high transverse momentum jets of hadrons produced in nuclear reactions should be strongly quenched by radiative energy loss induced by the high opacity of the produced plasma. This prediction has been recently confirmed by the PHENIX and STAR experiments at RHIC, and we have deduced from the quenching pattern that gluon densities about 100 times greater than in ground state nuclei have been attained in Au+Au reactions at Ecm = 200 AGeV. At such high densities matter is predicted via lattice QCD to be in the deconfined phase. We continue to refine and extend the theory of jet tomography in order to predict the quenching pattern of heavy quarks as well as high pT correlations of monojets. Another area of interest is the dynamics of baryon number transport and hyperonization at RHIC. Preliminary data provide possible evidence of novel topological gluon junction dynamics that we first tested on data at lower SPS/CERN energies."

 

 

Anatomy of a Classical Nova outburst. As qev has stated.

 

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_4a2.htm

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_4a.html

The classical nova outburst arises as follows:

 

A white dwarf consisting of elements heavier than hydrogen, such as carbon and oxygen, accretes hydrogen-rich matter from a close companion star.

 

 

The matter passes through an accretion disk that surrounds the white dwarf, before spiraling down onto the white dwarf.

 

This transfer of matter from the companion star to the white dwarf is a continuous process: Fresh matter arrives at the outer edge of the accretion disk from the companion star, spirals through the disk, and accretes onto the white dwarf.

 

 

When about 1/100,000 of a solar mass of hydrogen-rich matter has been accreted, the temperature and density at the base of the accreted matter become so severe that a nuclear explosion is triggered and the white dwarf's surface layer is ejected at speeds of about 500 miles/second or greater (2 million miles per hour or greater).

 

 

The explosion and ejection are accompanied by an intense brightening. Hence, the name nova, meaning "new" (i.e., the star becomes visible across interstellar distances).

 

 

Maximum brightness lasts only a few days. The brightness then diminishes and, in the course of several months, returns to the pre-outburst level.

 

 

Mass transfer and accretion then resume until another nova outburst occurs.

 

 

 

Dwarf nova

quote:

"A white dwarf accretes hydrogen-rich matter from a close companion star via an accretion disk.

 

 

However, unlike in classical novae, the matter does not spiral continuously through the accretion disk to impact on the white dwarf.

 

For reasons that are not well understood, the matter accumulates in the accretion disk until an instability develops and the entire accretion disk crashes down onto the white dwarf. Large amounts of gravitational energy are released. There is no nuclear explosion.

 

 

The released energy heats the white dwarf surface and temporarily brightens the star, which we observe as a dwarf nova. The term "dwarf" indicates that the brightening is less than that in classical novae."

 

 

 

 

Supernova ejection

 

Supernova (II)

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_3a.html

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_3acont.html

Iron Core Collapse

 

Gravity, which up to now was balanced by the outward force of the pressure, decisively gains the upper hand and the iron core collapses.

 

 

In less than a second, the core collapses from a size of about 5,000 miles to one of about a dozen miles, and an enormous amount of energy is released. This collapse happens so fast that the star's outer layers have no time to react and participate in it.

 

 

The amount of energy that is released during core collapse is truly gigantic -- it is equivalent to the energy produced by 100 stars like the Sun during their entire lifetimes of more than 10 billion years!

 

 

Most of the energy released during the collapse of the iron core is carried off into space by elusive particles called neutrinos. A small fraction of the energy is deposited in the lower layers of the envelope surrounding the core and triggers the supernova explosion.

 

"The result of these events is a compact stellar remnant and a rapidly expanding gaseous shell.

 

The stellar remnant is a neutron star or a black hole.

 

The expanding gaseous shell plows into the surrounding interstellar medium, and pushes, compresses, and intermingles with it. Such regions of the interstellar medium are known as supernova remnants."

 

Supernova (I)

 

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_4c.html

quote:

"The white dwarf is more massive than the Sun, consists predominantly of carbon and oxygen, and accretes matter from its companion relatively rapidly. Any nova outbursts that occur on the white dwarf are relatively weak and eject only little matter. Consequently, the white dwarf grows in mass:

 

When the accretion has raised the white dwarf's mass to the critical mass of about 1.4 solar masses, the density and temperature in the star's center become so severe that carbon starts burning explosively.

 

 

Within roughly one second, the burning front moves all the way to the surface, making the entire white dwarf one huge nuclear fireball.

 

 

The entire star explodes and destroys itself. There is no stellar remnant.

 

 

All of the star's matter -- namely, the products of the nuclear burning (iron, nickel, silicon, magnesium, and other heavy elements) plus unburned carbon and oxygen -- are ejected into space at speeds ranging from about 6,000 to 8,000 miles/second (20 to 30 million miles/hour).

 

 

Unlike supernovae of type II, the matter ejected in type I supernovae consists almost entirely of the heavier elements. There is no, or almost no, hydrogen."

[Harry Costas]

Hello coldcreation

 

A singularity or a point in space or a wormhole do not exist.

 

Degerative matter reagrdless of the subatomic particals cannot occupy the same space.

 

A blackhole is an ultra dense plasma matter that has so much gravity and electromagentic forces that light is unable to escape. The forces that are required to compact matter to 10^30 and more are so great that it holds everything together, it wants to be one unit and in so doing can give a life of a blackhole 10^65 or so. Must check this estimate i read it somewhere.

 

 

 

As for wormhole that is science fiction, although sicience may try to explain a worm hole being the space and time between a blackhole and a white hole.