Jump to content


Photo

Are Globular Clusters White Holes?

  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 NorthWolf

NorthWolf

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 07 January 2013 - 05:50 PM

Are Some/All Globular Clusters White Holes?

Have globular clusters been proven to have an end? And even if they do end somewhere, is it possible that we can't see the black hole/white hole because the view is blocked by all the stars that have spewed out of the black hole?

Are we looking at the backside of a black hole? Can this be considered as a wormhole as well? Can only mega black holes create the big globular cluster formations? Are there millions of types of globular clusters, big and small, just like there are different sized black holes?

There are some links here that have talked about white holes and wormholes, but not many concerning a possible globular cluster connection.

Are the black holes recently found in the center of some globular clusters actually white holes?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KNrYvLlhA4g

Interesting Links:

http://www.universet...09/white-holes/

http://casa.colorado...ajsh/schww.html

Interesting thread:

http://cosmoquest.or...s-amp-White-...

I have no degree in Astronomy or Astrophysics, but these globular clusters sure are mysterious. For now.

#2 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10712
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 07 January 2013 - 08:01 PM

Globular clusters are merely a class of object lying on a continuum ranging from binary stars on up to galaxies. Any black hole lurking at the center is only the result of the evolution of one or more stars at some earlier epoch after the cluster's formation.

And current understanding of physics does not have stars "spewing" out of a black hole, or white hole. Anything falling into a black hole is rendered to its constituent bits, certainly not remaining intact as a recognizable body.

#3 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 22395
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 07 January 2013 - 08:11 PM

And gravitationally, black holes don't seem to be required to hold a globular cluster together, at least for short to medium timescales, although a certain percentage seem to have detectable signs of them. In fact a number of globular clusters appear to have partly "evaporated" over the eons, raising some doubt about whether there's any massive "anchor object" contained within them at all.

#4 Ira

Ira

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2625
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Mitzpe Ramon, Israel

Posted 07 January 2013 - 09:05 PM

What's a white hole?

/Ira

#5 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 22395
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 07 January 2013 - 09:21 PM

If a black hole sucks everything in, a white hole would spew everything out.

It's more like a nozzle, I guess.

#6 NorthWolf

NorthWolf

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 07 January 2013 - 11:36 PM

Any black hole lurking at the center is only the result of the evolution of one or more stars at some earlier epoch after the cluster's formation.


That's what I was thinking.

And current understanding of physics does not have stars "spewing" out of a black hole, or white hole. Anything falling into a black hole is rendered to its constituent bits, certainly not remaining intact as a recognizable body.

Well, all those stars getting sucked in must show up somewhere, they can't just vanish?

#7 Carl Coker

Carl Coker

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Ohio

Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:01 PM

Yes they can. They get shredded before they even enter stellar-mass or intermediate-mass black holes. Even for very large supermassive black holes (above about 10^8 solar masses, as I recall), where a star isn't disrupted before it disappears behind the event horizon, it will still be shredded by tides long before it hits the singularity. Any stars swallowed by a black hole become part of it and add to its mass.

And even if white holes existed, which is doubtful at best, they'd be spewing random gas, particles, and light out, not whole recognaizable objects. The tides from the singularity are just too strong in almost all cases.

#8 Qwickdraw

Qwickdraw

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1726
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Ann Arbor, MI

Posted 08 January 2013 - 05:00 PM

White hole theory is logically flawed.
if a universe is created from a white hole then the obvious question is where did the parent universe come from? Another white hole? you can ask where the parent universe came from ad infinitum but at some point you are stuck with having to explain where the alpha universe came from. If you can explain the process where the alpha universe came from you can also use that process to explain where any universe came from which totally nullifies the need for white hole theory all together.

#9 FirstSight

FirstSight

    Duke of Deneb

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9858
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC

Posted 08 January 2013 - 08:45 PM

White hole theory is logically flawed.
if a universe is created from a white hole then the obvious question is where did the parent universe come from? Another white hole? you can ask where the parent universe came from ad infinitum but at some point you are stuck with having to explain where the alpha universe came from...


The paradox you cite does not at all negate the theoretical existence of "white holes" in some form, any more than the birth of children is negated by the inability to specify exactly who and when the "alpha" humans were before whom there weren't any at all. It does, however mean that whatever is at the ultimate bottom of the chain of existence (if such there be) it cannot be a white hole (or a black hole either) and that white and black holes are something that arose as a consequence of the original conditions of being rather than a cause unto themselves. The "alpha" problem boils down to our inability to logically or emperically explain the thermodynamics of something springing out of nothing at all, whereas the "white hole" hypothesis presumes that whatever is being spit out is derived from something preexisting somewhere else. The other related problem with the "white hole" hypothesis is our inability to come up with a thermodynamically sound explanation of how they operate, if indeed they exist at all. OTOH, similarly there's no ultimate sound thermodynamic explanation for how or why existence came to be infinitely concentrated in the singularity that was the origin of the "big bang". What the "big bang" has going for it that the "white hole" concept doesn't (unless we consider the big bang to be the only example so far we know of a "white hole") is that we have empirical evidence of the big bang (microwave background radiation, red shift with distance of objects) whereas we have absolutely none of any other potential white hole candidate.

All we've established in this thread is that globular clusters are very unlikely candidates to be an examples of white holes, and also that if white holes exist, they are not necessarily the paired output function of a black hole any more than "dark" matter is necessarily a complementary paired structure with "regular" matter.

#10 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10712
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 January 2013 - 09:34 PM

The evaporation of globulars is not a source of doubt about the possible existence if a black hole within. The evaporation is a dynamical process which will occur, BH or not. Stars, which through sufficiently close encounters (mostly involving binaries) are accelelerated to escape velocity, will ecsame the system. And tidal stripping induced by the parent galaxy will strip away stars whose orbital energy carries them near to the tidal radius.

These processes, intrinsic and extrinsic, are always in operation from the moment of formation of the cluster. The later formation of a black hole does not change the system as a whole, as the object is merely the aggregation of mass of some small number of stars already within the system from the start. If anything, the settling toward the center of this massive object, as equipartition of energy tends to do, will somewhat increase the efficiency of evaporation as gravitational 'slingshotting' pumps up the energy of close passing stars. But I feel that even so, hard binaries are still a more efficient source of energy for the ejection of stars, due to the large angular momentum resulting from the close separation, some of which can be imparted to an interloper or a loosely bound tertiary in a hierarchical triple system.

I recommend the classic text on the subject, Galactic Dynamics.

#11 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2872
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:34 PM

White hole theory is logically flawed.
if a universe is created from a white hole then the obvious question is where did the parent universe come from? Another white hole? you can ask where the parent universe came from ad infinitum but at some point you are stuck with having to explain where the alpha universe came from. If you can explain the process where the alpha universe came from you can also use that process to explain where any universe came from which totally nullifies the need for white hole theory all together.


Pesse (Sounds like a white-washed first cause argument) Mist :grin:

#12 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2872
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:48 PM

As I understand the latest conjecture of 'White Holes' is the idea is that our universe started when a Black Hole formed in another Universe. Thus, in simple terms, the Big Bang was the solitary White hole in our Universe from which our own time & space poured out.

If true, that means every time a Black Hole forms in OUR universe the same thing happens: A new Universe is formed as a White Hole forms into a new space/time expansion.

Hawking also had something to say in that he felt that the Hawking radiation he hypothesizes coming from Black Holes is essentially the radiation one would expect and predict from a White Hole. Confusingly, this makes a Black Hole & a White Hole one in the same.

Pesse (The issue is Black & White) Mist

#13 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 22395
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:11 AM

I don't think we can even posit a meaningful hypothesis of where the universe came "from". That would require some prior thing, yet the very concept of "prior" requires a time measure that exists independently of the universe. However, relativity tells us that space and time are intertwined and are both creations of our universe. We cannot go back in time past the Big Bang, because that's where time both begins and ends.

So no concept of "before" the universe, or causation of it, can actually be meaningful.

#14 ggiles

ggiles

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Trenton Ontario Canada

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:10 AM

I can't say I buy the white hole thing one bit, it sounds like a lot of hooey and Vulcan mind melding to me. Creating a universe on the other side? Come on ... there isn't enough material in the general vicinity and what goes in gets destroyed before it gets anywhere near the center. Isn't "Hawkins Radiation" the result of anything that goes in?
Maybe I have a narrow close minded view but it just seems common sense to me.

#15 scopethis

scopethis

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8407
  • Joined: 30 May 2008
  • Loc: Kingman, Ks

Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:10 PM

what causes globular clusters to rotate?

#16 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2872
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:26 PM

I can't say I buy the white hole thing one bit, it sounds like a lot of hooey and Vulcan mind melding to me. Creating a universe on the other side? Come on ... there isn't enough material in the general vicinity and what goes in gets destroyed before it gets anywhere near the center. Isn't "Hawkins Radiation" the result of anything that goes in?
Maybe I have a narrow close minded view but it just seems common sense to me.


Hawking radiation, if it in fact exists, is not resulting from anything 'falling in'.

Hawking theorizes that virtual particles may 'pop' into existence near an event horizon. Normally virtual particles consist of a particle and its anti-particle and they annihilate each other almost instantly.

They can arise in empty space that contains zero net energy.

However, if the pair are close enough to an event horizon one of the pair may be captured before they annihilate and the other may escape off into the universe with a now 'real' existence (as opposed to virtual).

The energy to create this real particle is siphoned off from the black hole and, thus, hawking theorizes that over time black holes will evaporate.

The existence of these virtual pairs agrees with quantum theory and has been verified experimentally. Look up Casimir effect for more info.

Pesse (So keep any Black Holes in an air tight Tupperware container) Mist

#17 Carl Coker

Carl Coker

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Ohio

Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:43 PM

what causes globular clusters to rotate?

They don't. They are self-gravitating clusters of stars, all of which orbit a common center. The distribution of those orbits and the different directions the stars orbit in are fairly random.

If they did rotate, it would be for the same reason galaxies and planetary systems rotate: conservation of angular momentum left over from their formation.

#18 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10712
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:58 PM

Indeed, for the most part the net rotation of globular clusters is essentially zero, due to the randomness of the orbits of the member stars. But some globulars do project as slightly non-spherical, which implies some degree of net rotation. This is more likely than attributing the oblateness to a temporary 'squashing' after a galactic disk plane passage or passing through perigalacticon or elongation due to tidal stripping, etc.

#19 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • -----
  • Posts: 6879
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:32 PM

Answer - no - globular clusters show anomalous radial velocity profiles that are exactly analogous to the anomalous rotation profiles in spiral galaxies, and explainable in exactly the same way - effect of non-linearity of general relativity.

-drl

#20 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10712
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:29 AM

The radial velocity profiles of globulars are, as far as I understand, fully consistent with and explainable by Newtonian mechanics. To be sure, there is no velocity component resolved to remotely near the extent required to discern (or invoke) relativistic effects. The velocity dispersion of the system is in line with the luminosity, the derived mass-to-light ratio (considering the contribution of white dwarfs) and the observed King radius (roughly equal to the tidal radius.)

No dark matter nor 'non linearity' of general relativity need be invoked for a virtually complete description. The situation is not at all like that for galaxies.

#21 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • -----
  • Posts: 6879
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:14 AM

Did I just say this to hear myself talking??

"If you could return to the 50s and tell someone - what's the most amazing thing about modern life - what would it be?"

"I have a device in my pocket that can reach most of human knowledge. I use it to look at cat pictures and get into arguments with strangers."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2459

Now where's my cat picture site?

-drl

#22 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 22395
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 13 January 2013 - 10:14 AM

Where do they get the assertion that globular clusters don't contain dark matter?

#23 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10712
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:28 PM

I don't know... That paper appears in the ESO Messenger; is that a peer review Journal? Nonetheless, that globulars for the most part exist *within* the larger potential of the Galaxy and hence are subject to tidal stripping, can we confidently ascribe an apparent flattening of the velocity profile to some departure of gravitation in the weak acceleration regime?

If only we could study a system in at least near to isolation, and not well enveloped in the potential of a system having a mass many orders of magnitude larger.

#24 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • -----
  • Posts: 6879
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:12 AM

Where do they get the assertion that globular clusters don't contain dark matter?


They are not gravitationally bound (e.g. Palomar 5 tidal stripping).

-drl

#25 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10712
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 14 January 2013 - 01:52 PM

Tidal stripping is not indicative of a stellar system being not gravitationally bound. These two states are not incompatible. Such clusters have existed for 10+ Gyr, which is a great many crossing times for a star residing in the system. If not gravitationally bound, they would have dispersed quite thoroughly after less than 10% of their current age.

Tidal stripping is an ongoing process, commencing immediately upon cluster formation. Individual stars, which through encounters with others have their orbits 'pumped up' with sufficient energy, can have their orbit apocenter pushed out to and beyond the tidal radius, leading to the star being 'stolen away' by the Galaxy.

Many if not most globulars must be shadows of their earlier selves, having lost a considerable fraction of their member stars to the Galactic halo. Yet what remains today is still well bound gravitationally, including the least concentrated and less populous examples.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics