One of my friends gave a theory about the formation of black holes. He said that:

Black holes are formed when an extremely massive star collapses in its own gravity to produce a particle of infinite (or undefined) density. To contain itself within space and time, it starts releasing antimatter. This antimatter collides with the surrounding matter and destroys it to produce energy, some of which re-enters the black hole. This ensures that a black hole is never destroyed. Similarly, a white hole is produced when an extremely large amount of antimatter collapses and forms an infinitely dense particle that releases matter.

This sounded pretty weird, but I'm not a physicist or anything; so I didn't refute it. Then he went on to state the following:

The Big Bang Theory actually is the releasing of matter by a white hole. Since it was white, only matter was produced and space and time of the universe were allowed to expand. Eventually, far into the future, the universe will start losing energy and gaining matter, thereby becoming inactive. When enough mass exists, the entire universe and the space with it will start collapsing and shrinking. This will also slow down time. This will happen till a single black hole is formed, which in turn will produce an antimatter universe. The same would happen again; our universe has gone through and will go through many such black-hole white-hole cycles.

I don't know, but is there any scientific evidence behind this, or is it just a baseless theory? Can it be completely proven wrong?


closed as off-topic by Danu, jinawee, John Rennie, JamalS, Jim Jan 8 '15 at 17:13

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Danu, jinawee, John Rennie, JamalS, Jim
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Just a baseless theory. $\endgroup$ – Danu Jan 8 '15 at 13:48
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ "To contain itself within space and time, it starts releasing antimatter" What does this even mean? $\endgroup$ – Danu Jan 8 '15 at 13:50
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos: if you can find a valid interpretation within mainstream physics for To contain itself within space and time, it starts releasing antimatter you are a better physicist than I. Or maybe you just have access to better drugs :-) $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Jan 8 '15 at 15:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JohnRennie The OP's friend definitely has access to some drugs :) $\endgroup$ – JamalS Jan 8 '15 at 17:11
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos That is something you can do with any question that presents an unpublished personal theory $\endgroup$ – Jim Jan 8 '15 at 17:13

QFT states, that e.g. $e^+ e^-$ pairs are produced and annihilated all the time. Now is is possible, that such a pair is created at the event horizon (EH) of a black hole (BH) and one particle crosses the EH. Since the two cannot annihilate, the particle on our side of the EH lives on and gets away from the BH as Hawking radiation. However, through this process, i.e. antimatter, that is drawn into the BH, the BH loses mass and this leads eventually to its evaporation.

A white hole (WH) is just the "other" solution, i.e. singularity in Kruskal coordinates.

The cycling universe your friend is talking about is a theory, where not only a big bang, i.e. the beginning, but also a big crunch exists. This growing and shrinking of the universe can then be repeated infinitely. However elegant (or not) this theory sounds, it raises more questions than it answers (or rather answers none of the important ones), since at the point of the big bang/big crunch not only space, but also time is destroyed.

Therefore, to answer your questions, it can not be proven wrong since there is no causal link between two such universes. And the big crunch theory is not baseless, it is just the solution when "dark energy" slows down the expansion of the universe, thus at one point gravity will exceed the expansion and the universe will shrink again. This is, however, not considered as realistic, given that the 2011 Nobel prize in physics was given to the three guys who discovered, that the expansion of the universe is accelerated.

  • $\begingroup$ You're trying really hard to read something sensible in this question, which may be overly generous. To me, it just sounds like a confused mess of semi-scientific words. Nevertheless, it's good that you tried to answer in a serious manner. $\endgroup$ – Danu Jan 8 '15 at 13:50
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, I though so too. But I guessed that was just ignorance and not something he really meant the way it is written ;) $\endgroup$ – Clever Jan 8 '15 at 13:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.