PDA

View Full Version : Stellar White Holes



Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Sep-11, 04:38 AM
One of the arguments against the concept of 'white holes' is that they should be visible everywhere in the Universe.

What if some stars themselves are in fact white holes?

A star has a lot of white hole-like properties. They emit copious amounts of EM radiation and the stellar wind carries away a lot of star material. If the white hole event horizon is covered by matter that is still gravitationally attracted to the white hole but can't move backwards across the event horizon, it would accumulate around it and cover it over. If the gravitational attraction to the white hole was strong enough, the matter could even fuse into higher elements.

How would one tell the difference between a star and a white hole?

Feel free to attack this, I'd just like to know if there's a simple way one would know the difference.

(Perhaps it would have been better asked in q&a, but it's an ATCM (against the current mainstream) idea, so I figured it belonged here.)

Strange
2010-Sep-11, 10:29 AM
A couple of points.

There is no evidence that white holes exist, or even can exist. There is no requirement for every possible solution to the equations to represent something real. The mechanism for the creation of black holes was identified long before the math describing them was formulated. There is no know mechanism for the creation of white holes.

If they did exist, I was under the impression that they have sufficient properties in common with black holes, in particular mass, that they would appear very similar So should we expect to see an accretion disk, for example.

I just checked the Wikipaedia page and noticed it said that one possible explanation for the existence of white holes as a solution is that they are time-reversed black holes with Hawking radiation. That is an interesting idea.


Perhaps it would have been better asked in q&a

Perhaps it would...

Tensor
2010-Sep-11, 12:18 PM
One of the arguments against the concept of 'white holes' is that they should be visible everywhere in the Universe.

Actually, the biggest is that white hole are not stable. They are also vacuum solutions to the GR equations, if there is any matter involved near the white hole solution, it closes down and vanishes.


What if some stars themselves are in fact white holes? A star has a lot of white hole-like properties. They emit copious amounts of EM radiation and the stellar wind carries away a lot of star material. If the white hole event horizon is covered by matter that is still gravitationally attracted to the white hole but can't move backwards across the event horizon, it would accumulate around it and cover it over. If the gravitational attraction to the white hole was strong enough, the matter could even fuse into higher elements.

How would one tell the difference between a star and a white hole?

The spectrum. It would be extremely blueshifted, in a white hole, due to the expelling of the material. Material near a white hole doesn't accumulate near it, the expelled material is moving so rapidly, that it leaves the vicinity of the white hole very quickly.


Feel free to attack this, I'd just like to know if there's a simple way one would know the difference.

Hope this helped

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Sep-11, 01:52 PM
The spectrum. It would be extremely blueshifted, in a white hole, due to the expelling of the material. Material near a white hole doesn't accumulate near it, the expelled material is moving so rapidly, that it leaves the vicinity of the white hole very quickly.


There are blue stars...

If a white hole is gravitationally attracting matter that is boiling out of its event horizon, what mechanism would be expelling the material rapidly?

Nereid
2010-Sep-11, 03:17 PM
There are blue stars...

N1: What is the expected SED (spectral energy distribution) of the white hole-stars idea (per the OP)?



If a white hole is gravitationally attracting matter that is boiling out of its event horizon, what mechanism would be expelling the material rapidly?
This is your ATM idea, isn't it SKAL?

N2: At what rate is matter being expelled from the white hole at the centre of the 'star', in this ATM idea (per the OP)?

korjik
2010-Sep-11, 03:40 PM
There are blue stars...

If a white hole is gravitationally attracting matter that is boiling out of its event horizon, what mechanism would be expelling the material rapidly?

The same one that causes stars to expel matter. It is really really hot.

Tensor
2010-Sep-12, 01:41 AM
There are blue stars...

If a white hole is gravitationally attracting matter that is boiling out of its event horizon, what mechanism would be expelling the material rapidly?

blue color and blue shift are two different things. The blue color is due to the temperature. The blue shift is due to the velocity of the particles. A white hole is the opposite of a black hole. It would not be attracting anything, it would be pushing stuff away as fast as a black hole attracts material

Jim
2010-Sep-13, 01:18 AM
... What if some stars themselves are in fact white holes? ... How would one tell the difference between a star and a white hole?

... I'd just like to know if there's a simple way one would know the difference.

(Perhaps it would have been better asked in q&a, but it's an ATCM (against the current mainstream) idea, so I figured it belonged here.)

Are you presenting an ATM concept you are willing to defend, or are you simply asking questions?

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Sep-13, 09:36 PM
Are you presenting an ATM concept you are willing to defend, or are you simply asking questions?

I'm asking questions, mostly, but in regards to something that is currently discounted by the mainstream. If I'm slow reponding its because I have a job and am quite busy. I can't be on here daily.


N1: What is the expected SED (spectral energy distribution) of the white hole-stars idea (per the OP)?

The same as low metallicity stars, I'd imagine. Beyond that, no idea.


N2: At what rate is matter being expelled from the white hole at the centre of the 'star', in this ATM idea (per the OP)?

Again, no real idea. The inverse of the rate at which a black hole of equivalent mass would be absorbing matter across the event horizon is the best I can say.


Actually, the biggest is that white hole are not stable. They are also vacuum solutions to the GR equations, if there is any matter involved near the white hole solution, it closes down and vanishes.

Is this matter instability considered to occur around the white hole itself (ie: singularity or pseudosingularity)? Or the event horizon for the white hole? As far as I know, white hole are not predicted to have any sort of antigravity effect, but would still have mass, so they should have some sort of event horizon covered by shells of degenerate matter.

Strange
2010-Sep-13, 09:45 PM
I'm asking questions, mostly, but in regards to something that is currently discounted by the mainstream.

There is no reason you couldn't ask questions about this in Q&A - including "why is this discounted by the mainstream"

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Sep-13, 09:50 PM
There is no reason you couldn't ask questions about this in Q&A - including "why is this discounted by the mainstream"

I see. Well, I'd only placed it here out of respect for the rules pertaining to ATM ideas.

If it should be moved to q&a, I've got no problem. I'd just like to know why the theory has been discounted.

Nereid
2010-Sep-13, 10:10 PM
I see. Well, I'd only placed it here out of respect for the rules pertaining to ATM ideas.

If it should be moved to q&a, I've got no problem. I'd just like to know why the theory has been discounted.
I'd just like to know why the theory has been discounted.

What theory?

Tensor
2010-Sep-13, 11:14 PM
Is this matter instability considered to occur around the white hole itself (ie: singularity or pseudosingularity)? Or the event horizon for the white hole?

A White hole does not exist by itself. It is the the extension of the Schwartzchild metric through what's popularly known as an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. The mathematics of General Relativity allow this bridge to form (note that it is not required to form) in the absence of any other matter required by the forming black hole. If there is any other matter near the black hole (the definition of near depends on the size of the matter, the size of the hole, etc), if the bridge had formed, it will collapse, unless some very specific and exotic conditions happen to be in place. The instability has nothing to do with the white hole itself and everything to do with the black hole.


As far as I know, white hole are not predicted to have any sort of antigravity effect, but would still have mass, so they should have some sort of event horizon covered by shells of degenerate matter.

There are two ways mathematically you can look at it and demonstrate, mathematically, otherwise. One, white holes are the time reversal of black hole. Any matter that falls into a black hole, with those exotic conditions in place, would end up being ejected, at the same speed it fell into the black hole, out of a white hole. Also, being a time reversal, gravitational attraction becomes gravitational repulsion. And, no, it's not some magical anti-gravitational effect.

Second. You can look at the white hole part as the negative roots of the Schwartzchild metric. What exactly this means is sort of like the negative square root solution of the Energy equation. No one knows, but feel free to explain it to us.

Be aware that my statements above are simple analogies to try to get the flavor of the problems with white holes across. If you are serious about tackling this, by all means, check out this (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981MNRAS.194..161B) paper from 1980. It's uses the Reisner-Nordstrom solution for charged black holes, but it should give you some idea. Just make sure you fill up with Red or silver pickled herrings. :whistle:;)

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Sep-14, 02:12 AM
There are two ways mathematically you can look at it and demonstrate, mathematically, otherwise. One, white holes are the time reversal of black hole. Any matter that falls into a black hole, with those exotic conditions in place, would end up being ejected, at the same speed it fell into the black hole, out of a white hole. Also, being a time reversal, gravitational attraction becomes gravitational repulsion. And, no, it's not some magical anti-gravitational effect.

Behind the event horizon. What happens after the event horizon? For that matter, what is time in reference to a singularity?


Second. You can look at the white hole part as the negative roots of the Schwartzchild metric. What exactly this means is sort of like the negative square root solution of the Energy equation. No one knows, but feel free to explain it to us.

Dirac did a pretty good job.

Tensor
2010-Sep-14, 03:40 AM
Behind the event horizon. What happens after the event horizon? For that matter, what is time in reference to a singularity?

I told you to check the paper. It describes the Reisner-Nordstrom metric with the ring singularity. The bridge is doesn't travel within the coordinates of the ring, hence it avoids the singularity.


Dirac did a pretty good job.

Actually, you better check again. He was describing the negative roots in terms of quantum systems. There is no meaning for the negative roots in classical or semi-classical (which what relativity is) theories.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Sep-14, 05:03 PM
I told you to check the paper. It describes the Reisner-Nordstrom metric with the ring singularity. The bridge is doesn't travel within the coordinates of the ring, hence it avoids the singularity.

Reading it now. Didn't see the link.


Actually, you better check again. He was describing the negative roots in terms of quantum systems. There is no meaning for the negative roots in classical or semi-classical (which what relativity is) theories.

He was describing quantum systems using a semi-classical understanding derived from relativity though. You can't really seperate the two like that, can you? A white hole at its heart must be governed by quantum laws that relativity describes on a larger scale.

Nereid
2010-Sep-14, 06:23 PM
I'd just like to know why the theory has been discounted.

What theory?
Bump.

When may we expect an answer to my question, SKAL?

Tensor
2010-Sep-14, 09:08 PM
He was describing quantum systems using a semi-classical understanding derived from relativity though.

Like I was saying, there is no coherent description for those negative roots classically or semi classically.


You can't really seperate the two like that, can you?

Yes you can. One is a quantum description, one is not.


A white hole at its heart must be governed by quantum laws that relativity describes on a larger scale.

Well, while they may, at the heart be governed by quantum laws and at some point we may find those laws, there is no current theory that describes white holes using any kind of quantum equations.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Sep-15, 05:36 AM
Bump.

When may we expect an answer to my question, SKAL?

That white holes would exist. Period.


Like I was saying, there is no coherent description for those negative roots classically or semi classically.

I think it all comes down to angular momentum in a medium, personally.


Yes you can. One is a quantum description, one is not.

We *know* quantum mechanics to be a valid, if incomplete theory. In a battle to the death, a complete quantum theory would surplant relativity, not the other way around.


Well, while they may, at the heart be governed by quantum laws and at some point we may find those laws, there is no current theory that describes white holes using any kind of quantum equations.

Especially in that paper you provided.


A white hole can only have three distinguishing features: mass, angular momentum and electric charge. We assume that the white hole remains spherically symmetric throughout so that the angular momentum is automatically excluded. We shall concentrate our attention on a charged sphere of fluid.... etc.

Ignoring the angular momentum of a white hole seems trivial at first, but I don't think its that simple.

Nereid
2010-Sep-15, 06:51 AM
That white holes would exist. Period.

[...]

How we got here:

SKAL: I'd just like to know why the theory has been discounted.
N: What theory?
SKAL: That white holes would exist. Period.

It would seem that you and I (and, perhaps, others) are using some key words to mean quite different things.

For example, "That white holes would exist. Period." is not a theory, in the sense that I use this word in the science-based sections of BAUT.

Just to be clear then, the ATM idea you are presenting in this thread - and which you are prepared to address challenges to - is that:
a) white holes exist, and
b) some stars contain (or are?) white holes.

N4. Could you please clarify?

Tensor
2010-Sep-15, 06:04 PM
We *know* quantum mechanics to be a valid, if incomplete theory.

True. But, the equations that Dirac uses are not relativistic only equations, there are quantum parts to those equations. The energy equations, without quantum considerations, have no physical meaning for the negative roots.


In a battle to the death, a complete quantum theory would surplant relativity, not the other way around.

You have proof for this statement, right? LIke an actual quantum gravity theory that make accurate predictions for current observations. You do know that there are current theories out there that supplant quantum mechanical theories and stay with General Relativistic type theories? Look up Roger Penrose's theories for spinors and twistor's.


Especially in that paper you provided.

Ahhhhh, the only actual theory that predict white holes are General Relativity (or other metric theories of gravity). Which is why that paper is applicable and why I provided it. You don't happen to have any other papers showing quantum equations that have actual white hole solutions, do you?


Ignoring the angular momentum of a white hole seems trivial at first, but I don't think its that simple.

What you think may be applicable. But what really is important is what you can show. Can you show, mathematically, that ignoring the angular momentum isn't valid?

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Sep-16, 03:16 AM
How we got here:

SKAL: I'd just like to know why the theory has been discounted.
N: What theory?
SKAL: That white holes would exist. Period.

It would seem that you and I (and, perhaps, others) are using some key words to mean quite different things.

For example, "That white holes would exist. Period." is not a theory, in the sense that I use this word in the science-based sections of BAUT.

Just to be clear then, the ATM idea you are presenting in this thread - and which you are prepared to address challenges to - is that:
a) white holes exist, and
b) some stars contain (or are?) white holes.

N4. Could you please clarify?

Yes, I believe they must exist. That would be the 'theory'. That they balance out variations in the vacuum created by black holes.


True. But, the equations that Dirac uses are not relativistic only equations, there are quantum parts to those equations. The energy equations, without quantum considerations, have no physical meaning for the negative roots.


Don't the quantum parts just describe the mechanics of the system though? It's just a waveform with 4 components plus a direction of travel for the relativistic electron.


You have proof for this statement, right? LIke an actual quantum gravity theory that make accurate predictions for current observations. You do know that there are current theories out there that supplant quantum mechanical theories and stay with General Relativistic type theories? Look up Roger Penrose's theories for spinors and twistor's.

Isn't that really just an extension of Dirac's spinors? They're still quantum artifacts.


Ahhhhh, the only actual theory that predict white holes are General Relativity (or other metric theories of gravity). Which is why that paper is applicable and why I provided it. You don't happen to have any other papers showing quantum equations that have actual white hole solutions, do you?

Shu's no big bang universe.


What you think may be applicable. But what really is important is what you can show. Can you show, mathematically, that ignoring the angular momentum isn't valid?

In Shu's universe, it would be applicable. Mass would be irrelevant behind the event horizon, and only angular momentum and charge should be considered.

Tensor
2010-Sep-16, 04:15 AM
Isn't that really just an extension of Dirac's spinors? They're still quantum artifacts.

It's how they're applied. In this case, gravity would not be treated as a force as with other quantum theories. It would still be geometry, although not a smooth manifold as in GR.


Shu's no big bang universe.

No, no, and No. I suggest you look at his paper again. He specifically talks about spacetime, a FLW universe, and how his idea fit with General Relativity. The entire first section of the Appendix is devoted to the Ricci Tensor and the Christoffel symbols, both important parts of General Relativity, not Quantum Gravity. Here (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf) is Shu's paper. Care to point out exactly where it uses quantum gravitational equations. Once you do that, care to show how those equations predict white hole, quantum gravitationally.


In Shu's universe, it would be applicable. Mass would be irrelevant behind the event horizon, and only angular momentum and charge should be considered.

Really? Apart from the fact that Shu's papper has nothing to do with quantum gravity, do you realize exactly how gravitation would would work with a Quantum field theory force carrier?

Nereid
2010-Sep-16, 04:42 AM
Yes, I believe they must exist. That would be the 'theory'.

Thanks for this.

However, I am now thoroughly confused.

As you have presented the 'white hole theory', so far in this thread, the 'theory' is GR; specifically, white holes are solutions to particular equations in the theory of General Relativity (or, perhaps, some straight-forward extension of it, or straight-forward applications of it); IOW, you have not, yet, presented any 'white hole theory'.

N5. What, in the ATM idea you are presenting in this thread, is a 'white hole'? Please be as specific as you can, and please present some detail.

N6. How does your ATM idea concerning white holes depart from GR? Please be as specific as you can, and please present some detail.


That they balance out variations in the vacuum created by black holes.
N7. What does "balance out variations in the vacuum created by black holes" mean?

N8. Specifically, to what extent does this statement require a departure from GR?

N9. Even more specifically, what do you mean by "the vacuum"? Is this a GR vacuum? a QFT vacuum? a SKAL vacuum? a string theory vacuum?

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Sep-16, 05:15 AM
Thanks for this.

However, I am now thoroughly confused.

As you have presented the 'white hole theory', so far in this thread, the 'theory' is GR; specifically, white holes are solutions to particular equations in the theory of General Relativity (or, perhaps, some straight-forward extension of it, or straight-forward applications of it); IOW, you have not, yet, presented any 'white hole theory'.

N5. What, in the ATM idea you are presenting in this thread, is a 'white hole'? Please be as specific as you can, and please present some detail.

N6. How does your ATM idea concerning white holes depart from GR? Please be as specific as you can, and please present some detail.


N7. What does "balance out variations in the vacuum created by black holes" mean?

N8. Specifically, to what extent does this statement require a departure from GR?

N9. Even more specifically, what do you mean by "the vacuum"? Is this a GR vacuum? a QFT vacuum? a SKAL vacuum? a string theory vacuum?

N5. An area of space that exhibits properties that mirror the action of a in time black hole, but only from the event horizon to singularity.

N6. If you're referring to Einstein's original GR, where the cosmological constant was originally introduced to describe a static and eternal universe, I don't think it differs.

N7. It depends on whether or not you think of gravity as acting through space or on space.

N8. None, as far as I know.

N9. QFT vacuum.


It's how they're applied. In this case, gravity would not be treated as a force as with other quantum theories. It would still be geometry, although not a smooth manifold as in GR.


Which is similar in character to how Maxwell's equations were superseded. Still standing on the shoulders of giants.


No, no, and No. I suggest you look at his paper again. He specifically talks about spacetime, a FLW universe, and how his idea fit with General Relativity. The entire first section of the Appendix is devoted to the Ricci Tensor and the Christoffel symbols, both important parts of General Relativity, not Quantum Gravity. Here is Shu's paper. Care to point out exactly where it uses quantum gravitational equations. Once you do that, care to show how those equations predict white hole, quantum gravitationally.

Sorry, I shouldn't have implied quantum equations available from Shu's paper. I meant to point it out as an example of GR in the original Einstein eternal steady state that could offer white hole solutions.


Really? Apart from the fact that Shu's papper has nothing to do with quantum gravity, do you realize exactly how gravitation would would work with a Quantum field theory force carrier?

I have vague illusions of knowledge, but the only thing I really know is that I know nothing.

Nereid
2010-Sep-16, 09:09 PM
Thanks for this.

However, I am now thoroughly confused.

As you have presented the 'white hole theory', so far in this thread, the 'theory' is GR; specifically, white holes are solutions to particular equations in the theory of General Relativity (or, perhaps, some straight-forward extension of it, or straight-forward applications of it); IOW, you have not, yet, presented any 'white hole theory'.

N5. What, in the ATM idea you are presenting in this thread, is a 'white hole'? Please be as specific as you can, and please present some detail.

N6. How does your ATM idea concerning white holes depart from GR? Please be as specific as you can, and please present some detail.


N7. What does "balance out variations in the vacuum created by black holes" mean?

N8. Specifically, to what extent does this statement require a departure from GR?

N9. Even more specifically, what do you mean by "the vacuum"? Is this a GR vacuum? a QFT vacuum? a SKAL vacuum? a string theory vacuum?N5. An area of space that exhibits properties that mirror the action of a in time black hole, but only from the event horizon to singularity.

N6. If you're referring to Einstein's original GR, where the cosmological constant was originally introduced to describe a static and eternal universe, I don't think it differs.

N7. It depends on whether or not you think of gravity as acting through space or on space.

N8. None, as far as I know.

N9. QFT vacuum.

[...]

Again, thanks for these answers.

If the vacuum you're considering is a QFT one, and if your 'theory of white holes' is, to all intents and purposes, GR, don't you need to develop, or use, a theory of quantum gravity (or a quantum theory of gravity) in order to examine this ATM idea?

I mean, you have two theories in play, which are known to be mutually incompatible at a very fundamental level; and one of the domains in which the incompatibilities is evident is black holes and vacua.

Given that, how can there be any challenges to the ATM idea, as presented?

forrest noble
2010-Sep-29, 08:58 PM
Sir Knots


Stellar White Holes Do they exist? They do exist! (paraphrased)

I always like to see a definition, such as how do you envision "your" white holes, and how could it be distinguished from a star. Since a stellar white hole, such as you propose, seems to differ from other white hole theory in general that I could find, why do you think they might exist and what problems might they solve if they did exist in a stellar guise? The question is, why do you think this might be a good proposal to investigate or search for?