White Hole Theory

[Arran]

I came along this article on Nature, and to fully understand it, i had to read it a couple of times and still i might to reread certain alineas of it still, but i found it pretty intreging since i allways had one thing nagging about them.

But if this theory is actually true, it might be just that what i thought was missing..

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-bounce-could-make-black-holes-explode-1.15573

Whats on the other end of the blackhole, the wormhole theory somehow allways found far fetched, and i just coudnt let go where all the matter go, except adding to the mass of the blackhole, making it stronger and more infinite.

With this in mind it give an whole new persective dont you think..

[K^2]

The only thing of sufficient magnitude and short enough in duration to match this prediction are Lorimer bursts. They are extremely uniform, so I tend towards the blitzar hypothesis. After all, blitzars should happen, and their output is definitely consistent with Lorimer bursts, but some of these could be exploding black holes. You'd need a pretty good sample to differentiate the two types of events, which we don't really have.

Edited July 23, 2014 by K^2

[Tommygun]

It does almost sounds like mini Big Bangs going on.

[78stonewobble]

The only thing of sufficient magnitude and short enough in duration to match this prediction are Lorimer bursts. They are extremely uniform, so I tend towards the blitzar hypothesis. After all, blitzars should happen, and their output is definitely consistent with Lorimer bursts, but some of these could be exploding black holes. You'd need a pretty good sample to differentiate the two types of events, which we don't really have.

So, why don't we have a good sample?

We sample x-ray and gamma ray phenomena from all over the sky. Are our radio telescopes too narrow in focus to do all sky surveys (beyond aerecibo, which can't really be aimed much)?

Or are these just too short in duration to aim even a quick response telescope their way?

[Arran]

So, why don't we have a good sample?

We sample x-ray and gamma ray phenomena from all over the sky. Are our radio telescopes too narrow in focus to do all sky surveys (beyond aerecibo, which can't really be aimed much)?

Or are these just too short in duration to aim even a quick response telescope their way?

I'm not going to say that i understand the article completly, some there are some parts of it, i barely can comprehent, but as far i can, we can detect the outcome of such white hole phenomena, but due the distortion of space time, as the acticle say, the transformation of an black-hole to an white hole takes milliseconds, but the distortion of the space/time make the event for the outside observer look like its there for trillion of years.

Can it so then be possible while we can mesure the radiaton of such an event, but we cannot observe it due the distorion, not even detect it, due to the extreme streching of time in these events, an milisecond event strechted over trillion of years, is something i doubt can make any mesurements on with our current technoligy.

Most intreaging part of it, was the collapsing of the universe part, as i said in a other topic, with the ever extending universe in trillions of years if it doesnt stop expansing in an keep accellerating, everything is so distant it eventurally all dies off, and leaving an empty void with just only back holes in it.

So with this in mind, i allready am thinking, what IF that is the moment that the white hole event is triggered, spewing all the matter out, this yeah creating the big bang.

With that again in mind, i start to believe that with knowing that black holes are numberous in the universe, in time all expanding into void, the big bang(the white hole thus) spewing its matter out of nothing,creates thus an reborn universe with all the other events, what again with explain how the Big Bang could expand so fast it had to exceed lightspeed to expand that fast, because there where at that particulair moment in time it all was triggered at once.

There are prolly flaws in what i think as huge as an black hole, but the whole article made me rethink on alot of questions on creation.

[K^2]

So, why don't we have a good sample?

We sample x-ray and gamma ray phenomena from all over the sky. Are our radio telescopes too narrow in focus to do all sky surveys (beyond aerecibo, which can't really be aimed much)?

Or are these just too short in duration to aim even a quick response telescope their way?

Combination of factors. First, yes, they are very short events. So you have to happen to look in the right direction. Second, most of the energy output is in gamma, which you can't see with radio telescope. Or conventional telescope. Or even X-Ray telescope. In fact, one can't build a gamma ray telescope, because there are no optics that work in the right range. We have equipment to detect gamma bursts, but usually just the general direction.

The fact that these events have only recently been detected, and some of the facts have only been established this decade, should tell you how challenging it is.

I'm not going to say that i understand the article completly, some there are some parts of it, i barely can comprehent, but as far i can, we can detect the outcome of such white hole phenomena, but due the distortion of space time, as the acticle say, the transformation of an black-hole to an white hole takes milliseconds, but the distortion of the space/time make the event for the outside observer look like its there for trillion of years.

You've misunderstood some of the key points. The distortion, essentially, works to create the delay. It's the reason the white hole explosion doesn't happen immediately following the collapse. But the energetic part of the event will take as long as the collapse. That puts it on the same time frame as blitzars. And that's the same time frame as we see with Lorimer bursts. The duration will be just a few milliseconds, spilling all of the black hole's energy.

[Godot]

Actually I remember reading about shrinking primordial black holes who might then "die" already in Stephen Hawking (maybe even in "A brief history of time") ... 2 decades ago.

Although, AFAIK he didn´t write anything about what becomes of the BHs materia ... this may be the thing that is new (by these 2 scientists)