PDA

View Full Version : White Holes... Fact Or Fiction?



TimeTraveler
2003-Dec-23, 09:43 PM
I am a new member, I don't know if you guys already discussed this but ill ask anyway. Do you guys belive in White Holes? If you don't know what a white hole is i'll explain. It is the "negative" of a black hole. A white hole is supposed it be on the back of a black hole. The black hole and the white together are supposed to make a wormhole. Here is the problem with the white hole, if it exists then there are parellel universes and negative masses. So please reply.

Littlemews
2003-Dec-23, 11:43 PM
Yes White Hole do exist.. as we know this : black hole sucking energy, but white hole give out energy...Wormhole is in between BH and WH...if u using Einstein's equation, u will know if u pass the wormhole, then u are in different universe..but however is so rare to find one.

Matthew
2003-Dec-24, 12:47 AM
Ah, there is no proof to say there are white holes. There is nothing that holds them tpogether, exept for maybe the gravity of the black hole counterpart.

Littlemews
2003-Dec-24, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by matthew@Dec 24 2003, 12:47 AM
Ah, there is no proof to say there are white holes. There is nothing that holds them tpogether, exept for maybe the gravity of the black hole counterpart.
:lol: :lol: Who knows, the universe is too big, maybe there is one exist... :lol: :lol:

damienpaul
2003-Dec-24, 03:35 AM
the universe is indeed vast, and not to mention complex - as Littlemews said it is hard to conclusively say what does or does not exist. It seems logical that as black holes take then white holes give - the whole give and take that appears o much in physics

Matthew
2003-Dec-24, 04:25 AM
the universe is indeed vast, and not to mention complex - as Littlemews said it is hard to conclusively say what does or does not exist. It seems logical that as black holes take then white holes give - the whole give and take that appears o much in physics

It is hard to conclusively say what DOES exist as well.

Fraser
2003-Dec-24, 05:33 AM
Just because the math predicts that a wormhole could exist, doesn't mean they actually do. The math helps give astronomers some places to look, and some phenomena to watch out for, but other than that, it's still all theoretical.

But then, that's what people were saying about black holes, and now the evidence is quite compelling that they exist.

Littlemews
2003-Dec-24, 07:18 AM
oh now u remind me, I do hear alot of people talking about BH, but never hear anybody talk about WH, WormHole, and Empty Hole.... ;)

damienpaul
2003-Dec-25, 02:55 AM
what is an empty hole?

Littlemews
2003-Dec-25, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Dec 25 2003, 02:55 AM
what is an empty hole?
Empty Hole, an area that has less particles in the universe...

damienpaul
2003-Dec-25, 04:05 AM
ah thank you for that.....i was thinking of a council trench with no workers in it...:lol:

fortyseven
2003-Dec-31, 02:56 AM
for me a wormhole has an entrance and an exit and they aren;t black and white holes.

A whitehole would have 0 mass and 0 gravity within its event horizon as blackholes have infinite mass and gravity inside their event horizons. Time would pass at infinite speed inisde the whitehole's event horizon just as time is stopped inside a blackhole's event horizon.

A whitehole would be an energy fountain spewing vast amounts of energy.

maybe quasars are whiteholes

lazserus
2004-Jan-01, 04:40 AM
maybe quasars are whiteholes
There's still the problem of exotic matter with negative energy density. This is needed to keep a white hole open. We can detect the energy from quasars, thus we technically should be able to detect our negative energy density particles.

I'm pretty skeptical about the existence of white holes. It doesn't fit with the theory of singularities, thus it wouldn't make much sense to be on the other end of a black hole. And how come black holes are quite frequent, but there's absolutely no evidence supporting white holes? Are they just coincidentally out of our range of the observable universe?

Littlemews
2004-Jan-01, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by lazserus@Jan 1 2004, 04:40 AM

maybe quasars are whiteholes
There's still the problem of exotic matter with negative energy density. This is needed to keep a white hole open. We can detect the energy from quasars, thus we technically should be able to detect our negative energy density particles.

I'm pretty skeptical about the existence of white holes. It doesn't fit with the theory of singularities, thus it wouldn't make much sense to be on the other end of a black hole. And how come black holes are quite frequent, but there's absolutely no evidence supporting white holes? Are they just coincidentally out of our range of the observable universe?
[QUOTE]I'm pretty skeptical about the existence of white holes. It doesn't fit with the theory of singularities, thus it wouldn't make much sense to be on the other end of a black hole. And how come black holes are quite frequent, but there's absolutely no evidence supporting white holes? Are they just coincidentally out of our range of the observable universe?[/Quote[

Hmm very intereseting...but let me ask u one question. I assume that the Black Hole is a human being, and BH eat foods for energy, but does the food stay in its body forever?

Black Hole as the Mouth
Worm Hole as the Stomach
White Hole as the :P u know what I mean

Balck Hole take away energy, but white hole release energy.

lazserus
2004-Jan-01, 05:12 AM
You're concerned with the conservation of energy? A black hole doesn't just swallow things. Normally a black hole is a partner in a binary system and it slowly feeds off of the partner star. With this in mind, you can't ignore Hawking radiation (which is an output of energy from the black hole) or the streaming jets of charged particles that every black hole emits. These are both forms of returning the energy they've stolen. With known conservation laws, nothing can be taken, only borrowed - but using that logic, we don't necessarily have to give what we borrow back to the one we took it from.

Littlemews
2004-Jan-01, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by lazserus@Jan 1 2004, 05:12 AM
You're concerned with the conservation of energy? A black hole doesn't just swallow things. Normally a black hole is a partner in a binary system and it slowly feeds off of the partner star. With this in mind, you can't ignore Hawking radiation (which is an output of energy from the black hole) or the streaming jets of charged particles that every black hole emits. These are both forms of returning the energy they've stolen. With known conservation laws, nothing can be taken, only borrowed - but using that logic, we don't necessarily have to give what we borrow back to the one we took it from.
<_< <_< then that means there is no WH exist in the universe

lazserus
2004-Jan-01, 10:23 PM
then that means there is no WH exist in the universe
That&#39;s what I&#39;m implying. Of course we can&#39;t prove that, but we also can&#39;t prove there&#39;s not an invisible purple elephant sitting under your kitchen table.

Sp1ke
2004-Jan-02, 11:47 PM
There is a problem with linking a black hole to a white hole (as two ends of a wormhole) since you&#39;d be infinitely compressed on entering the black hole, as well as taking an infinite time to cross the event horizon. But IIRC a rotating black hole allows you to pass through without invoking infinity. I wonder where would you get to if you passed through the centre of a rotating black hole?

lazserus
2004-Jan-03, 01:29 AM
I wonder where would you get to if you passed through the centre of a rotating black hole?
No where. You&#39;d be torn to shreads from the tidal forces within 8 minutes of passing the event horizon.

Sp1ke
2004-Jan-05, 11:00 AM
Would you be torn to pieces regardless of how fast the hole was rotating and how small "you" were?

damienpaul
2004-Jan-05, 11:41 AM
i&#39;d imagine so, but who knows what is possible, maybe there is a threshhold that we do not know about...maybe that there are properties of that invisible purple elephants that we do not know about.

Planetwatcher
2004-Jan-05, 04:00 PM
QUOTE

I think you would be ripped up in a lot less then 8 minutes. More like 8 nanoseconds. But time and space reverse roles in black holes, so the agonizing pain might seem like 8 minutes before your lights go out for good. ;)

lazserus
2004-Jan-05, 07:12 PM
Would you be torn to pieces regardless of how fast the hole was rotating and how small "you" were?
Rotating or not, you&#39;d be annihilated. In theory, even particles are torn apart by tidal forces as the reach the singularity.

I think you would be ripped up in a lot less then 8 minutes.
Not according to Hawking. The 8 is a little more arbitrary a number, but it&#39;s all somewhere between 6-10 minutes. I think closer to 9.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-05, 11:37 PM
8 minutes of agony...hmmmmm, annhilation....hmmmmm so there is no invisible purple elephant?

hagg3rty
2004-Jan-06, 09:36 PM
White holes dont exisit

and yes we can prove there is no elehpant

damienpaul
2004-Jan-06, 11:18 PM
okay give the proof....

Littlemews
2004-Jan-07, 03:30 AM
I have a question, which is what I am studying now...How does Black Hole release its energy (Teacher&#39;s example.....Bad Energy and Good Energy) in the universe...
Balck Hole keep its good energy as food, and bad energy is some kinda disease, which can cost the Black Hole to stop eating food...so how does black hole release its bad energy...? :(

damienpaul
2004-Jan-07, 03:32 AM
gamma ray bursts??? i have the faintest idea, except for perhaps the jets that fire off from black holes (and i cannot remember what they&#39;re called)

Matthew
2004-Jan-07, 03:38 AM
Black holes emit radiation as &#39;Hawking Radiation&#39; (because Stephan Hawking discovered it), if you search the forum for Hawking Radiation you should find some information.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-07, 03:44 AM
thats the one i was trying to remember&#33;&#33;&#33; thank you matthew

Kethryn
2004-Jan-10, 12:30 AM
I read somewhere that black holes emitted xrays because that&#39;s what the atoms emit as they are ripped to pieces. I&#39;m not sure if that is the matter converting or if that&#39;s just a byproduct of the atoms tearing apart.

If the emission of radiation isn&#39;t the atoms converting to energy, then you DO have to wonder where the mass goes. White holes could be an answer. I read a book by Michael Crichton called Sphere that dealt with black holes and getting through them (sort of) that does make white holes at least feasible.

Kethryn

Powerman 5000
2004-Feb-05, 12:16 AM
[FONT=Geneva][SIZE=7][COLOR=green]

black holes have not even been fully understood until we understand black holes can we further understand the process of white holes and worm hole theories to understand these would be only trivial until we know the secerts of what we already know which is the fact stars collapse and create a mass with unbelieveable gravitational pull ;)

dogstar_black
2004-Mar-09, 03:24 PM
White Holes and Wormholes are a vacuum solution to Einstein&#39;s field equations. While they may be mathematically possible, they are derived from picking certain factors and ignoring others - such as the surface of the object (usually a star)that is collapsing or has collapsed to form the singularity.

Should we run into that, which is inevitable, we have a problem.

Tom2Mars
2004-Mar-12, 07:07 AM
I have edited myself.

Anden
2004-Mar-20, 09:08 PM
The universe follows a basic rule where if too much energy is contained in a certain point that energy has to be removed and let out again somewhere else. Because their is so much mass (and so energy) crammed into the point of a black hole, the energy is transferred to another form, shot away and released in a pretty much random location.

It looks like a tear suddenly appears in the blackness, from which an immense explosion of energy suddenly erupts.

This is probably a &#39;white hole&#39;.

Anden.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-20, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Anden@Mar 20 2004, 09:08 PM
The universe follows a basic rule where if too much energy is contained in a certain point that energy has to be removed and let out again somewhere else.
I thought I was pretty up to date on physics and cosmology, but this is new to me. Does this rule have a name. Can you point to a paper about it? If demonstrated, this would be a revolutionary principle&#33;

NasaBoy
2004-Mar-21, 07:43 AM
Take this for what its worth, we only know what we have learned.

Weaselbunny
2004-Mar-29, 02:18 PM
Does a BH get larger the more it sucks stuff in? If so, then how would it grow if it was getting rid through a WH?

I like the idea of WH&#39;s. But when I boil it down as simply as possible, in my own head, the above statement makes sense... for now&#33;

Perhaps if we could measure the growth rate of a black hole related to what its gravity sucks in, we would be able to determine whther all the matter is kept, or if some is released somewhere else... or something :blink:

Sp1ke
2004-Mar-30, 08:54 AM
I don&#39;t think a black hole can get bigger because it has already compressed its mass down to an infinitely small size. I think the only change to a hole over time is the Hawking radiation that eventually causes it to dissipate.

But... since its gravitational effect is still there, absorbing mass will increase its gravity. So I guess its mass does increase even if it doesn&#39;t get bigger in a physical sense. ...but if the gravity increases, its event horizon will expand so, in that sense, it will get bigger.

So I&#39;ve just contradicted the first statement - it will get bigger but I can&#39;t get my head round where the mass actually is since it doesn&#39;t take up any space in our universe. That&#39;s why I like the idea of white holes elsewhere, but I don&#39;t know anything about the physics behind the idea.

Mettalica1
2004-Mar-31, 08:05 PM
I do not beleive in white holes although I do beleive in blackholes :huh:

Weaselbunny
2004-Apr-01, 08:52 PM
I&#39;m not going into a religion dialogue, but its funny how science is like a religion, people talk about belief and have faith in theories, I do too sometimes.

Finished now, was just sharing a thought

Sp1ke
2004-Apr-02, 09:49 AM
I totally agree, Weaselbunny. Some ideas are accepted as fact once there is sufficient proof. But for things like white holes, it&#39;s going to be difficult to get proof of their existence so, until then, you have to take the idea on faith.

But IMO the difference between this and a religious conviction is that I don&#39;t actually *believe* in white holes. I just think that 1) it sounds plausible, 2) it appeals emotionally in a sense of balance vs black holes, 3) it helps to explain why the universe is the way it is by allowing for multiples universes (which is another idea that I like). So it&#39;s a much less rigorous process (I would hope) than when committing to a religion.

I&#39;ll <believe> in white holes until I hear an idea that I like better.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Apr-02, 02:35 PM
If white holes are posited as outlets for our black holes, it seems equally likely that we should expect white holes to be observable in our section of the universe as outlets for the black holes elsewhere. I&#39;m not aware of any reports of such observations. Perhaps there is an unexpected and unpredictable time delay as well as destination for the outlet.

I choose to believe that black holes do not proceed to singularities (a comfort thing) although they do proceed to very high density states which elevate the potential energy manifested in space-time geometry deformation from that of its zero energy level. I&#39;m still working on a wild guess as to how space-time releases this energy. I&#39;m leaning toward gamma ray and "above" level frequencies of electromagnetic radiation and subsequent pair formation and black hole magnetic polar acceleration of infalling stuff. I&#39;m ambivalent about Hawkin radiation.

Occam would advise against white holes and I will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to their acceptance.

Sp1ke
2004-Apr-02, 03:06 PM
Good point, Gourdhead. I&#39;d vaguely assumed white holes could be quasars or something strange and remote like that. But then if every decent-sized galaxy has a black hole at its core, wouldn&#39;t we expect white holes to be distributed as widely as galaxies? So there should be some around here that are observable.

Then again, time stops at the event horizon of a black hole so maybe all the white holes are created at the start of time in another universe i.e. at the big bang and so they&#39;re at the limit of our visibility - taking us back to quasars again...

Weaselbunny
2004-Apr-02, 04:26 PM
Then again, time stops at the event horizon of a black hole so maybe all the white holes are created at the start of time in another universe i.e. at the big bang and so they&#39;re at the limit of our visibility - taking us back to quasars again...

That&#39;s an angle I hadn&#39;t considered, the time thing.

Or what if there are layers between universes... I&#39;m not sure if any of this relates even remotely to any theories, it&#39;s probably just wild conjecture... but if there are multiple/parallel universes, then maybe there&#39;s a layer between them that white holes could appear in, gradually the new matter/energy released in the layer starts to build up and starts a big bang and thus another universe, or maybe eventually everything gets sucked out of the extant universes into these layers that are filling up and the in between layers become the universes and the universe become the layers... ok, now I&#39;m just talking poo&#33;

Sp1ke
2004-Apr-02, 04:42 PM
One thing that always puzzles me is that the universe appears to be finely tuned to suit out sort of life. For things like physical constants, the amount of mass in the universe, the mass of particles etc., it is said that if these were just slightly different, we (and our universe) could not exist. Obviously if we&#39;re here talking about it, the values must all be right but it seems like the odds are really against it happening.

The only way I can rationalise this is if there is an infinite number of universes, most of which have the wrong constants, or the wrong mass, or the wrong whatever else. Then even if there are loads of universes that don&#39;t support life, there will be a finite number that do. So here we are.

A related idea that I think comes from M-theory is that gravity is weak compared with the other forces because it is the only one that crosses the extra dimensions into other universes. Thus we only get a portion of the effect whereas the other forces are operating a full effect.

Hmmm...

Weaselbunny
2004-Apr-02, 05:57 PM
Hmmmm indeed.


For things like physical constants, the amount of mass in the universe, the mass of particles etc., it is said that if these were just slightly different, we (and our universe) could not exist.
I tend to think that if things were different, then some different kind of life would srping up. But are we saying that atoms wouldn&#39;t hold together. Is it possible for you to elaborate at all on why it wouldn&#39;t work so I could understand better? :rolleyes:

Sp1ke
2004-Apr-03, 12:50 AM
The way I understand it, if things like the weight of an atomic particle or the strength of the nuclear forces were slightly different, stars wouldn&#39;t shine or would burn out quickly. Or if gravity was slightly different, either planets wouldn&#39;t form if it was weaker or stars would burn out too quickly for life to develop if it was stronger.

If some of these attributes were slightly different, the universe would either not exist long enough for stars, solar systems and life to form or it would spread out as a sterile, cold place with no seeds for life - just a mist of hydrogen and helium. Without stars that survive a reasonable time but then explode to distribute the heavy elements around the galaxy, there are no building blocks for any recognizable form of life.

It sounds like a depressing image but I don&#39;t think it is. We are here and life in this universe *has* developed. And we have the ability to question all of it. The alternative is to say that it&#39;s either coincidence that everything works perfectly for us or there is some design behind it, neither of which I&#39;m convinced by.

Weaselbunny
2004-Apr-03, 09:09 AM
Now I get it... kinda, I&#39;m not a big brain&#33;

I was thinking about an episode of voyager where species 8472 (or something like that) came from beyond our &#39;space&#39; from what they termed fluidic space. If you&#39;ve any idea what I&#39;m on about, would that have different constants or the same ones?

Does anyone have any ideas on what &#39;Fluidic&#39; space would actually be, or is it pure flight of fancy with no basis in science? :huh:

damienpaul
2004-Apr-03, 11:45 AM
a tin of peaces in natural juice?

Weaselbunny
2004-Apr-03, 04:57 PM
a tin of peaces in natural juice? :lol: Narf :lol:

Sp1ke
2004-Apr-05, 09:01 AM
I like Voyager but I reckon the universe is far weirder than anything we can imagine. (Doesn&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t try, though.)

If there is another universe with different laws of physics, I doubt we could interact directly with them. But there were some good ideas in Voyager and Enterprise (can&#39;t remember which episodes) where they had indirect contact with other dimensions. Like if we could move along a fourth dimension, there could be an infinite number of other universes all sitting alongside ours. Just a slight "phase shift" would make them accessible.

What about time though? Maybe the passage of time (our fourth dimension) is only an illusion due to our own limited perception. We can move freely through space but are carried along in one direction through time. Would other universes follow this model too? Or maybe they view time the same as our space dimensions and they can move to and fro at will. That would make it tricky to communicate with them.

Spacemad
2004-Apr-05, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Sp1ke@Apr 2 2004, 04:42 PM
One thing that always puzzles me is that the universe appears to be finely tuned to suit out sort of life. For things like physical constants, the amount of mass in the universe, the mass of particles etc., it is said that if these were just slightly different, we (and our universe) could not exist. Obviously if we&#39;re here talking about it, the values must all be right but it seems like the odds are really against it happening.


Your comments on "the Universe being finely tuned to our kind of life" made me remember an article I read some years ago where this effect was discussed. I think it is called "The Anthropomorphic Principle", where we consider all things from our point of view, where we project ourselves onto things or animals, etc.

Take animals, for instance, we project ourselves upon them - we say they are "intelligent", they "understand" us, or, conversely, they are cruel, when, for example, a lion kills the young of a male it has vanquished.

Or that the Universe if were just slightly different we wouldn´t be here. It is just right for us to observe - a little more of this or a little less of that & we wouldn´t be here to witness it.

Spacemad
2004-Apr-05, 01:14 PM
One thing that always puzzles me is that the universe appears to be finely tuned to suit out sort of life. For things like physical constants, the amount of mass in the universe, the mass of particles etc., it is said that if these were just slightly different, we (and our universe) could not exist. Obviously if we&#39;re here talking about it, the values must all be right but it seems like the odds are really against it happening.

Your comments, Sp1ke, about the Universe being finely tuned to suit our kind of life made me remember how I read an article about this some years ago & they call it "The Antromorphic Principle" (or something similar). It means that we project "ourselves" into, in this case, the Universe & because we are here then it has just the "right" characteristics for us.

(A similar case is where we project ourselves into animals & see their behaviour from our point of view & we say they are "intelligent" , "almost human", they "understand us", etc. or they are "cruel", when a lion, for instance, kills a baby antelope or worse still, from our point of view, when a male lion kills all the young of another male he has vanquished in a fight&#33;)

ebbixx
2004-Apr-08, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by TimeTraveler@Dec 23 2003, 09:43 PM
I am a new member, I don&#39;t know if you guys already discussed this but ill ask anyway. Do you guys belive in White Holes? If you don&#39;t know what a white hole is i&#39;ll explain. It is the "negative" of a black hole. A white hole is supposed it be on the back of a black hole. The black hole and the white together are supposed to make a wormhole. Here is the problem with the white hole, if it exists then there are parellel universes and negative masses. So please reply.
I may have missed someone stating this already, so if I did, I apologize in advance. I read recently in New Scientist that some believe that the Big Bang could have been what was on the other side of an exceptionally massive black hole. I believe this hypothesis is dependent upon whether one accepts the premises of Loop Quantum Gravity (I think I have that right ... I&#39;ll try to remember to edit this if I look back to find I have the term wrong.)

So I don&#39;t know if this means there is agreement or not about "white holes" per se, but many of the properties one would ascribe to one are rather similar to our present description of the Big Bang.

ebbixx
2004-Apr-08, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Planetwatcher@Jan 5 2004, 04:00 PM

QUOTE*

I think you would be ripped up in a lot less then 8 minutes. More like 8 nanoseconds. But time and space reverse roles in black holes, so the agonizing pain might seem like 8 minutes before your lights go out for good. ;)
More like an eternity to you, the suckee.

Weaselbunny
2004-Apr-09, 08:05 AM
but many of the properties one would ascribe to one are rather similar to our present description of the Big Bang.
At this stage, is it possible that we could get a list together of hypothesised properties of a white hole. I know what a white hole is thought to be, but only in loose and none too technical ways, I would presume the properties to be opposite to a black hole, but then what is the opposite of infinate gravity etc, Because if it is zero gravity, zero density, then it (as someone pointed out in another thread) would just be an unoccupied point in the vacuum, so do we need to consider negative gravity, is that theortically possible? Could you guys educate me?


More like an eternity to you, the suckeeOuch :(

Sp1ke
2004-Apr-10, 01:16 AM
The only attribute a black hole has is mass. It does radiate energy a little so it has a temperature but that is wholly dependent on its mass.

So if a black hole has zero size but finite mass, I&#39;d guess a white hole must have infinite size but the same mass. So if a black hole was, say, 10 solar masses then a corresponding white hole would have infinite size but still only weigh 10 solar masses.

Maybe it would absorb energy at the same rate as the black hole radiated it. Although if it was of infinite size, it couldn&#39;t really exist in our universe so where would it absorb energy from?

More questions than answers, I&#39;m afraid.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Apr-10, 11:55 AM
If gravity is geometry and mass is manifested by its effect on geometry, how shall there be white holes?

Weaselbunny
2004-Apr-10, 01:57 PM
If gravity is geometry and mass is manifested by its effect on geometry, how shall there be white holes?

Hey Gourhead :) . Please elaborate in terms my tiny weasel brain will understand :huh:

Sp1ke
2004-Apr-13, 08:52 AM
Gourdhead, Do you mean that gravity is just the effects of warping space-time and so can only be an attractive force, never repulsive? And that a white hole implies some repulsion?

If so, I agree. But this might be modified by the current thinking about dark energy that is driving the galaxies apart.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Apr-13, 01:31 PM
Gourdhead, Do you mean that gravity is just the effects of warping space-time and so can only be an attractive force, never repulsive? And that a white hole implies some repulsion?

Sort of&#33;&#33; If gravity is a manifestation of space warping due to the presence of mass, a non-zero energy state for geometry (space-time) is implied. Stuff seeks to be in its zero energy state i.e., geometry seeks to be unwarped. Unwarping is tantamount to cosmological expansion. Remember you heard it here first&#33;

Occam has me rejecting white holes for lack of evidence. I&#39;m not basically against repulsion; it could be due to some electric or magnetic effects...or even quantum unwarping .

Oh&#33; by the way, charge is a modulation of warping on a much smaller scale. Let&#39;s call it krinkling of spacetime. Alas, Occam I have fell victim to the epicycles. Forgive me. They&#39;re just so-o-o-o-o- tempting.

Weaselbunny
2004-Apr-13, 02:25 PM
quantum unwarping That&#39;s kinda fascinating, never thought about that before.

Just thinking, if a black hole (huge mass) causes a warping, maybe a theoretical White Hole could cause an opposite warping. To explain, imagine a straight vertical line representing space-time in it&#39;s zero state, say a black hole warps it so that it bulges to the left, and a white hole to the right. Again raising the question &#39;What would be the equal opposite of gravity?&#39;

ebbixx
2004-Apr-24, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Weaselbunny@Apr 9 2004, 08:05 AM
... I would presume the properties to be opposite to a black hole, but then what is the opposite of infinate gravity etc, Because if it is zero gravity, zero density, then it (as someone pointed out in another thread) would just be an unoccupied point in the vacuum, so do we need to consider negative gravity, is that theortically possible? Could you guys educate me?


Just a guess, but I would think that the opposite of gravity would be some force of repulsion, where every particle exerts a force pushing others away from it. This seems like it should also be consistent with the recent hypotheses regarding string theory and what might be on the other side of the Big Bang.

Weaselbunny
2004-Apr-26, 03:55 PM
If only they could isolate a graviton, then we might be closer to working out what the opposite would be&#33; Or maybe they already know, anti-gravity experiments, conspiracies and men in black suits&#33; B) B) B)

spedmen
2004-May-06, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by ebbixx@Apr 24 2004, 07:52 PM

Just a guess, but I would think that the opposite of gravity would be some force of repulsion, where every particle exerts a force pushing others away from it. This seems like it should also be consistent with the recent hypotheses regarding string theory and what might be on the other side of the Big Bang. [/quote]



Correct me if i am wrong but how can matter, universe and just simple planets exist in a state of "anti-gravity" wont it just be a big mess?

Sp1ke
2004-May-06, 12:51 PM
I think the idea is that gravity and antigravity co-exist, in the same way as attraction and repulsion of electromagnetism. So in some situations, attraction takes precedence. And in others, repulsion wins.

Maybe if there&#39;s a concentrated amount of mass, normal gravitation overwhelms any other forces. But if the mass is spread out across a large area, antigravity starts to take over.