Could there be anti-black holes?

Question

We can assume spacetime as being a flexible multi-layered trampoline,or a volume of some fluid,is'nt it?If this is true,then there is a CERTAIN amount of spacetime(in the universe)at a FIXED time,although this amount is tremendously large,which is why we SAY it to be limitless of infinite,as we will never be able to determine this CERTAIN amount.(I use the word FIXED as Hubble's Law says, universe is ever-increasing.)If this were true,we could say that spacetime is conserved at a PARTICULAR INSTANT OF TIME.So,my 1st question is that,could there be A LAW OF CONSERVATION OF SPACETIME?

If such a law could could be framed,then what it would suggest is that when a black hole is being formed,there should be a simultaneous formation of an 'anti-black hole' in order to keep spacetime conserved in all the infinitesimal time intervals during its formation.So,my 2nd question,which is a direct consequence of the 1st question,is that could there be anti-black holes, which we have not detected?

Nobody seems to be interested in my 1st question. I'd request the other answerers to please read the whole question carefully, because the 2nd question is a direct consequence of the 1st one.

Answer 1

The rest of the universe is the "anti-black hole". Here's how it goes. First of all, while it's true that we have anti-matter, anti-matter still have positive mass, so that anti-matter stars can collapse into a normal black hole. Relativistic spacetime around massive bodies like black holes have negative local curvature, it does not matter if matter or anti-matter formed it. The geometry of negative curvature manifolds is very different from positive curvature manifolds, it's not as simple as a change in sign. Lobachevskian geometries are characterized by negative local curvature, while Riemanian geometries are characterized by positive local curvature, and one notable difference is that singularities form readily with negative curvature geometries, but not with positive. The universe, as a whole, actually has a postive curvature, which is why it's expanding, even though the massive gravitational bodies in it, like stars and galaxies, are regions of negative curvatures. In theory, the total stress-energy between both the positive and negative curvatures is supposed to balance out, or close to it. So, the universe at the large scale is the "anti-black hole".

Kinda makes you wonder if there are universes inside of black holes, doesn't it? Inversion of spacetimes?

Addendum: "Could there be a Law of Conservation of Spacetime?" General Relativity is based on the famous equation G = 8π T, where G is the Einsteinian spacetime curvature tensor, and T is the stress-energy tensor. It directly relates the stress-energy in a spacetime volume with the curvature in it. So, to suggest a "Law of Conservation of Spacetime" IS suggesting a generalized form of law of conservation of stress-energy. Can it make sense? Yes, it can, it's not unreasonable to suggest that there ought to be "anti-black holes", given that black holes exist. However, the GEOMETRY of anti-black holes may be quite different from black holes, as Riemanian geometry is quite different from Lobachevskian. If I get a sheet of metal, and I poke a dent in it, it does not matter which side I poked it, it's still a local dent in it, there is no "anti-dent" here being formed. The "anti-dent" is what has happened to the REST of the metal when a dent has been poked.

To help illustrate, a ball is Riemanian with positive curvature, a trumpet is Lobachevskian with negative curvature. Very different geometries.

Answer 2

Hey! Your 1st question was pretty interesting and remember Cute snowball.....Best answer.....It's me and I've changed my profile.
God knows. But one thing should be kept in mind. I think they can't be. Black holes trap light but through space, light can travel. So according to the analysis, the entire space is an anti black hole.
And no redass can say that universe is ever expanding. Did hubble or bubble or whatever have a proof for this?...this proves the statement, "Geniuses have the least common sense right". Universe is not expanding and the bottom line is that "UNIVERSE IS INFINITE."and if this is correct then there is no Laws of conservation of spacetime.
But your second question may be right and anti - black hole may exist. But remember my analysis. There's a doubt.

Answer 3

White holes appear as part of the vacuum solution to the Einstein field equations describing a Schwarzschild wormhole. One end of this type of wormhole is a black hole, drawing in matter, and the other is a white hole, emitting matter. While this gives the impression that black holes in this universe may connect to white holes elsewhere, this turns out not to be the case for two reasons. First, Schwarzschild wormholes are unstable, disconnecting as soon as they form. Second, Schwarzschild wormholes are only a solution to the Einstein field equations in vacuum (when no matter interacts with the hole). Real black holes are formed by the collapse of stars. When the infalling stellar matter is added to a diagram of a black hole's history, it removes the part of the diagram corresponding to the white hole. The existence of white holes that are not part of a wormhole is doubtful, as they appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Answer 4

Prashant: now cute snowball/faithful soul .....
{he always gets 100/100 in physics his best Best Answer - Chosen by Asker where C = 300,000 metres per second or 186,000 miles per second. He did not change the unit of speed for so many days, but still got the best answer score}

..... has again challenged you on this black hole (matter) vs anti-black hole (anti-matter) tunnel in the universe.

Why is it so that many askers are plunging into websites to pick HALF-BAKED theories and pose questions on subjects (which someone rightly said "least common sense of geniouses).

What is that new idea of "space-time conservation"?

Universe is infinite, there is no way to ascertain its being finite. It is expanding, but an expanding infinity can also be understood in terms of expansion of matter (we can perceptibly visualise) and contraction of anti-matter (motion down the tunnel having sinularity at some point).

Your New idea of "space-time conservation"? : - you can also call the one below that: but not true:

Let us consider flow of river Ganges from Himalayas into the Bay of Bangal. You just visualize the enormous "catchment area-A1" amongst glaciers at its "origin". Then it tapers to flow downstream (catchment area - A2). Finally it merges into the Bay with again enormous catchment area (A3).

Now, it is said that "Every river flows to keep its Catchment Area same throughout its course" then A1 = A2 =A3 (is it true?). Is it now a new unlisted conservation law?

Now consider that during the flow of Ganges, at point P, a new canal was joined. It means additional catchment area was pumped at that point. What will happen to the law of conservation of catchment of river now in FUTURE? It is not a space-time conservation?

What happens to Area - i will tell you later, if someone shows interest?????? happy hunting the websites

Answer 5

It isn't really 'still matter'. It's...stuff, with mass, but the black hole doesn't really differentiate between what we call 'matter' and 'energy'. At any rate, by the time some antimatter got far enough into the black hole to react with anything inside, it would already be far enough in that nothing produced by the reaction could escape and be visible to us.

Answer 6

This would be white hole? It would repel matter and light, instead of sucking it in? Perhaps such an object is the origin of the big bang.

Answer 7

black holes r formed when there is an inward collision of stars ..the gravitation pull is inwards ...therefore there cant possiblly be a antiblack hole ....if there is an outward explosion of stars like the supernova it cause a tremindious explosion .....therefore there is no cause to result in an antiblack hole !!!

Answer 8

mayb