It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wormholes= 1 Black hole connecting to a white hole?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Since black holes are pure gravity and thus sucks in everything that has mass (proving that light has mass and therefore mass=energy mass just vibrates slower) theoretically scientists say that a white hole would be the thing that would spew out everything that the black hole takes in (provided they are connected) now if they are in 2 different places in the universe would the passageway between the two be considered a space-time wormhole?




posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
In theory, yes. The prevalent consensus is that neither stable worm holes, nor white holes, can form in our physical universe. I personally believe nothing is impossible, but that's what the experts will tell you.

I myself am not convinced that light has mass simply because gravity acts upon it. The conclusion that light has mass, if based on this, is predicated on the assumption that mass is the prerequisite for a particle or wave being influenced by the curvature of space-time.

I believe it's possible that mass, energy, velocity, dimensional "circumference" (for lack of a better term), and space-time curvature may change independently of one another, and in ways we don't yet have an understanding of in the case of extremely low-mass (or zero-mass) particles.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by shyataroo
Since black holes are pure gravity and thus sucks in everything that has mass (proving that light has mass and therefore mass=energy mass just vibrates slower) theoretically scientists say that a white hole would be the thing that would spew out everything that the black hole takes in


So would that be like a black hole in the yin universe and a supernova in the yang one?

For lack of a better...



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Stephen Hawking recently announced that Black Holes do in fact release INFORMATION - losing a bet in the process - in the form of Hawking Radiation.

At first it was thought that Hawking Radiation may release mass from the Black Hole, but was fine with standard laws because it didn't release any information about what's inside the black hole (ie, the stuff inside doesn't effect the stuff "leaving"). However, he's now said that the radiation just carries miniscule amounts of information.

The big importance of this is that it means everything that goes in will, eventually, go out in the form of the radiation. Which, in turn, means that Black Holes don't lead to alternate universes, wormholes, or white holes.

He didn't really want to admit it (let us not forget the bet), but he has because it's the truth of what he's found and calculated.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium
Stephen Hawking recently announced that Black Holes do in fact release INFORMATION - losing a bet in the process - in the form of Hawking Radiation.

At first it was thought that Hawking Radiation may release mass from the Black Hole, but was fine with standard laws because it didn't release any information about what's inside the black hole (ie, the stuff inside doesn't effect the stuff "leaving"). However, he's now said that the radiation just carries miniscule amounts of information.

The big importance of this is that it means everything that goes in will, eventually, go out in the form of the radiation. Which, in turn, means that Black Holes don't lead to alternate universes, wormholes, or white holes.

He didn't really want to admit it (let us not forget the bet), but he has because it's the truth of what he's found and calculated.


So is it like when your making brownies and your mixing, is it the speed that determs how much comes out?



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Acutally, strangley enough the einstien-rosenbauhm (or something) bridge describes just this situation. (a black-hole combining with a white hole)

Also, photons DO have mass for the following reasons:

1. They are affected by gravity
2. they have a volume (hence why they are particles and wavelengths of energy)
3. They can accelerate and de-cellerate (scientists proved that a few months ago)
4. They are described as particles.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Not for science, but for Fun


Part One

Part Two

Part Three




All the best

Neon Haze,



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Well if the Big Bang theory is true, the whole universe was initialy concentrated in a tiny point... so, some kind of "ultimate blackhole"... which released all it's content by exploding, and creating the current universe... in this view, it seems that the blackholes will grow up until it contains a critical mass to maybe explode again... or not.

Personaly, I prefer to think that the universe has always been there (no begining --> no end... since the time does not exist as we feel it!)... or better, that the multi-universe has always been there, and that they exchange the matter and energy through wormholes, whiteholes... or wathever.

Anyway, even if the whitehole exists (like the far quasar, rejecting matter at near speed light, seems to proove)... I'm not sure that they can last so long: I mean, if the blackhole reach the critical mass that may open a path to another universe, will it open a tiny hole that stay open?... or will the whole matter crash into the hole in a few secondes, days, or month?



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join