NorthWolf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/23/09
Loc: Montreal Suburb, Canada
|
Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
#5610628 - 01/07/13 05:50 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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.com/watch?v=KNrYvLlhA4g
Interesting Links:
http://www.universetoday.com/76909/white-holes/
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html
Interesting thread:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/18256-Globular-clusters-amp-White-...
I have no degree in Astronomy or Astrophysics, but these globular clusters sure are mysterious. For now.
|
GlennLeDrew
Postmaster
Reged: 06/18/08
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: NorthWolf]
#5610827 - 01/07/13 08:01 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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.
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: GlennLeDrew]
#5610839 - 01/07/13 08:11 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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.
|
Ira
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/22/10
Loc: Mitzpe Ramon, Israel
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: llanitedave]
#5610907 - 01/07/13 09:05 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
What's a white hole?
/Ira
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: Ira]
#5610926 - 01/07/13 09:21 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
If a black hole sucks everything in, a white hole would spew everything out.
It's more like a nozzle, I guess.
|
NorthWolf
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/23/09
Loc: Montreal Suburb, Canada
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: GlennLeDrew]
#5611170 - 01/07/13 11:36 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
|
Carl Coker
member
Reged: 07/30/12
Loc: Ohio
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: NorthWolf]
#5612224 - 01/08/13 04:01 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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.
|
Qwickdraw
sage
Reged: 03/03/12
Loc: Ann Arbor, Mi
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: Carl Coker]
#5612318 - 01/08/13 05:00 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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.
|
FirstSight
Postmaster
Reged: 12/26/05
Loc: Raleigh, NC
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: Qwickdraw]
#5612677 - 01/08/13 08:45 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
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.
Edited by FirstSight (01/09/13 02:49 AM)
|
GlennLeDrew
Postmaster
Reged: 06/18/08
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: FirstSight]
#5612761 - 01/08/13 09:34 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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.
|
Pess
(Title)
Reged: 09/12/07
Loc: Toledo, Ohio
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: Qwickdraw]
#5614241 - 01/09/13 06:34 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
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 
|
Pess
(Title)
Reged: 09/12/07
Loc: Toledo, Ohio
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: Pess]
#5614276 - 01/09/13 06:48 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: Pess]
#5614869 - 01/10/13 03:11 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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.
|
ggiles
member
Reged: 09/07/10
Loc: Trenton Ontario Canada
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: llanitedave]
#5615018 - 01/10/13 08:10 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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.
|
scopethis
Postmaster
Reged: 05/30/08
Loc: Kingman, Ks
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: ggiles]
#5615707 - 01/10/13 03:10 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
what causes globular clusters to rotate?
|
Pess
(Title)
Reged: 09/12/07
Loc: Toledo, Ohio
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: ggiles]
#5615731 - 01/10/13 03:26 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
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
|
Carl Coker
member
Reged: 07/30/12
Loc: Ohio
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: scopethis]
#5615755 - 01/10/13 03:43 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
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.
|
GlennLeDrew
Postmaster
Reged: 06/18/08
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: Carl Coker]
#5615785 - 01/10/13 03:58 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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.
|
deSitter
Still in Old School
Reged: 12/09/04
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: GlennLeDrew]
#5618059 - 01/11/13 09:32 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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
|
GlennLeDrew
Postmaster
Reged: 06/18/08
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Are Globular Clusters White Holes?
[Re: deSitter]
#5618864 - 01/12/13 11:29 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
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.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
