Black Holes, White Holes?

I read that book long ago, and I'm sure it's on one of my bookshelves. I might have to go locate it. (Hopefully, it hasn't disappeared into a black hole.)

Nobody knows what happens when matter falls into a black hole, AFAIK. Before it's volume becomes infinite, relativity equations are no longer applicable and quantum theory must take over. Nature may abhor a vacuum, but it absolutely detests infinities.

The way I've seen it explained, virtual particles are a consequence of the Quantum theory Uncertainty Principle. Just as momentum and position of a particle cannot both be known with high precision at the same time, the same relationship connects time and energy (or mass, m=E/c²). The result is that for a very short interval of time, the energy can fluctuate, and if the time interval is short enough, this energy is sufficient to create a particle/antiparticle pair. Thus a virtual pair can come into existence for a very short interval of time. This is not just theory, there are physical consequences that follow from the existence of these virtual particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

It sounds like you're wandering into the realm that Hawking radiation revolutionized. This is very heady and heavy (pun intended) material. A layman's text published in 1979 would be right on the cusp of uncertainty if it would acknowledge, ignore or attempt to refute Hawking's seminal work. Very little information on black holes have been actually proven or observed to exist, most of it is theoretical speculation. This is why many different perspectives exist about these elusive monsters. AFAIK We have yet to directly detect a black hole. But we have indirectly observed many events (LIGO, stellar jets, gravitational lensing, etc.) that imply a black hole existence. In 1979, I believe astrophysicists were not even speculating that a black hole would sit at the center of our galaxy.

To the contrary,the author speaks of black hole radiation due to one half of a virtual pair going down the hole,primordial black holes that are microscopic and emit cosmic rays,and other interesting effects of black holes.

If you are interested,I have included a link to his book which you can probably find at any good library.

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Warped-Spacetime-William-Kaufmann/dp/0553205390

I did give three uncertain options. One of those options was "acknowledge".

What you are describing is called "Hawking Radiation". Without any anything falling in, a black hole would eventually lose mass in this way, evaporate and disappear.

"A black hole of one solar mass (M_☉) has a temperature of only 60 nanokelvins (60 billionths of a kelvin); in fact, such a black hole would absorb far more cosmic microwave background radiation than it emits. A black hole of 4.5×10²² kg (about the mass of the Moon, or about 133 μm across) would be in equilibrium at 2.7 K, absorbing as much radiation as it emits. Yet smaller primordial black holes would emit more than they absorb and thereby lose mass.^[9] "

The process is extremely slow, many times the age of the universe (1.3 x 10¹⁰ yrs)

"If black holes evaporate under Hawking radiation, a solar mass black hole will evaporate over 10⁶⁴ years^[18]. A supermassive black hole with a mass of 10¹¹ (100 billion) M_☉ will evaporate in around 2×10¹⁰⁰ years.^[19] Some monster black holes in the universe are predicted to continue to grow up to perhaps 10¹⁴ M_☉ during the collapse of superclusters of galaxies. Even these would evaporate over a timescale of up to 10¹⁰⁶ years^{[20] "}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Hawking Radiation? Where have I heard that phrase before?

Yeah, sometimes I reply to something without going back to reread everything. Sorry about that.

I was not sure if Hawking had released his radiation decay theory at the time of this book,so I did not call it as such,but it is a description of the same effect.

The primordial black holes would be sustained by the ingestion of virtual particles,which at such a small scale would have such a small sharp event horizon that it would capture more virtual particles than a larger hole with a large horizon.

It my vague understanding that virtual particles are smaller than a
Planck length,which are immeasurable in any meaningful way.

As my link shows, Hawking mathematically demonstrated his eponymous radiation in 1974.

I don't think Mr Kaufman was a layman.

Here is a link to his obit and his work:

https://aas.org/obituaries/william-j-kaufmann-iii-1942-1994

He wasn't a layman but I was assuming the book was written for laymen, as a populist would.

Using an electronics analogy, it's be white POLES and black HOLES.

I may be misunderstanding all these things you are talking about but to my knowledge there is no such thing as a black HOLE, it is merely an expression for an area in space from where no light is being emitted. So calling it a hole with no bottom makes no sense at all. When a body gets to be so big that the gravity it generates is bigger than the escape velocity of light from that body it is called a black hole. The more material that 'falls into this hole' is not going anywhere as this is in the normal way nature works a sphere of material and not a shaft or pit or tunnel. There is no way that material can escape from it as not even light can escape. What happens with the material inside it can only be guessed at as the gravity would be enormous so that atoms will probably be compressed into some matter that we cannot imagine. Maybe the atoms will be crushed to such an extent that the electrons move into the core and combines with the protons to become nothing but energy and all the mass disappear something like the reverse of the BIG BANG when energy was converted into matter.

Basic stupid question perhaps, but since a photon has zero mass and the law of gravitation is based on both bodies in a system of two having mass in order to generate gravitational force, then is the reason that light cannot escape a black hole based on the curvature of space time? With gravitational lensinge, it is demonstrated that light effectively refracts as it goes past a gravity well. Is the light effect of a black hole simply that the curvature of space time is so great that the light refracts back into a closed curve?

Other questions include, wouldn't matter falling into a black hole and approaching the speed of light will relativistically appear to slow down and almost stop while growing to nearly infinite mass, requiring an almost infinite amount of time to reach the bottom?

Finally, if you are going to grow space/time, you can add energy or mass. Can you add potential energy to a system, as in making the distance between two masses larger, and wouldn't it count towards the total effective mass equivalent of the total system? I'm framing this question based on the assumption that potential energy has a mass equivalent, kinetic energy has a mass equivalent, thermal energy has a mass equivalent and radiated energy has a mass equivalent and the entire universe could be collapsed into a single block matter at absolute zero temperature.

"... since a photon has zero mass ..."

It does seem odd that a massless photon cannot escape a black hole, yet gravity itself is not impeded.

Gravitational waves travel at the same speed as EM waves/photons, and both carry energy.

Are gravitational waves lensed as EM waves are?

I would suspect that "Gravity waves" are not waves, but rather warped length, contracted by the presence of mass. That way a straight line in a region of space is pulled into a curve and finally closes into a circle at the event horizon of a black hole. That way a photon could lens when passing a mass and would not be able to leave the event horizon while still travelling in a straight line from the photon's point of view.

So perhaps gravitational waves are not lensed.

Would be interesting how the math works out and whether the warp could be measured in an experiment. With relativistic effects measurable in the orbit of Mercury, I wonder if an experiment could be devised to measure the length contraction. Perhaps it's already been done and I just haven't heard about it or understood it.

Been there, done that. Here, not on Pluto.

Let me Google that for you.

I was aware of LIGO and knew that the thrust of the project was to capture evidence of gravity waves. I did not know whether the math was framed to capture the alternative that rather than detecting a wave in a constant distance model, it would calculate waves of length contraction or directional warp, rather than gravity waves.

As I understand it, they measure the change in distance between a set of fixed points at three different locations in the US. It uses laser interferometry to measure that distance so I believe it would be fairly insensitive to lateral displacement. For this reason, each site consisted of two sets of points at right angles to each other. By having three sites geographically separated, they eliminated false readings from earthquakes, trains, trucks, and researchers dropping their cell phones.

Still doesn't answer the basic question. If gravity warps and stretches space/time then the relativity question remains since the laser beam thinks that the warped curve it is following is a straight line and it takes an outside observer to notice the deflection or lensing of the photon path. You would be looking for lateral drift of the beam or potential wavelength changes associated with the stretching of path length.

With the two beams at right angles, this would likely be compensated for unless the warp was perpendicular along the third axis to both beams. Other sites would compensate for that as they are on a different longitude.

Outside observers can't see the beam path for at least a couple of different reasons. There is no one in the beam chamber when it's operating, the beam is invisible unless it enters the observers eye or hits an object and reflects to his eye, I would also expect that the chamber is a sealed, light tight vacuum chamber, as well.

Two observations:

If black holes increase in mass, which they do and which we can measure by the orbit of nearby objects, then at least not all of the mass is being spewed into space elswhere.

To be the complete opposite of a black hole, a white hole would have to be all space-time, making it only one and the whole of the universe (a black hole is devoid of all space time as you mentioned about it being infinitely deep).

This is just an unresearched speculation on my part but I have an idea.

One of Stephen Hawkings proposed answers to the Hawking Paradox is the idea that the lost information from matter being swallowed into a black hole resided now in one or many of the other universes in the multiverse theory. What if some of that lost information transferred was some of the mass that came from our universe into this black hole. Now, what if the matter from the other universes were doing the same to our universe but this matter could not be detected by anything else but the gravitational effect it also brought. Dark matter, maybe?