QUOTE(TheMasterSwordsman @ Mar 6 2008, 10:28 PM)
Binary star systems would be nice.
I like this thread.
I'm glad you do.
Binary Star:QUOTE
A binary star is a stellar system consisting of two stars orbiting around their center of mass. For each star, the other is its companion star. Recent research suggests that a large percentage of stars are part of systems with at least two stars. Binary star systems are very important in astrophysics, because observing their mutual orbits allows their mass to be determined. The masses of many single stars can then be determined by extrapolations made from the observation of binaries.
Binary stars are not the same as optical double stars, which appear to be close together as seen from Earth, but may not be bound noticeably by gravity. Binary stars can either be distinguished optically (visual binaries) or by indirect techniques, such as spectroscopy. If binaries happen to orbit in a plane containing our line of sight, they will eclipse each other; these are called eclipsing binaries.
Systems consisting of more than two components, known as multiple stars, are also not uncommon and are generally classified under the same name. The components of binary star systems can exchange mass, bringing their evolution to stages that single stars cannot attain. Examples of binaries are Algol (an eclipsing binary), Sirius, and Cygnus X-1 (of which one member is probably a black hole).
~Excerpt from Wikipedia
There's a whole lot more on these here on Wiki.
Binary star systems are widely used in science fiction. Personally, I can see why. To have more than one star in a system would be a neat sight.
White Hole:
QUOTE
In astrophysics, a white hole is the time reversal of a black hole. While a black hole acts as an absorber for any matter that crosses the event horizon, a white hole acts as a source that ejects matter from its event horizon. The sign of the acceleration is invariant under time reversal, so both black and white holes attract matter. The only potential difference between them is in the behavior at the horizon.
Stephen Hawking has argued that white holes are the same as black holes, once quantum mechanics is taken into account.
Relation to quantum mechanical black holes
Black hole horizons can only absorb matter, while white hole horizons ostensibly recede from any incoming matter at the local speed of light, so that the infalling matter never crosses. The infalling matter is then scattered and reemitted at the death of the white hole, receding to infinity after having come very very close to the final singular point where the white hole is destroyed. The total proper time until an infalling object encounters the singular endpoint is the same as the proper time to be swallowed by a black hole, so the white hole picture does not say what happens to the infalling matter. Ignoring the classically unpredictable emissions of the white hole, the white hole and black hole are indistinguishable for external observers.
In quantum mechanics, the black hole emits Hawking radiation, and so can come to thermal equilibrium with a gas of radiation. Since a thermal equilbrium state is time reversal invariant, Hawking argued that the time reverse of a black hole in thermal equilibrium is again a black hole in thermal equilibrium.[1] This implies that black holes and white holes are the same object. The Hawking radiation from an ordinary black hole is then identified with the white hole emission. Hawking's semi-classical argument is reproduced in a quantum mechanical AdS/CFT treatment[2], where a black hole in anti-de Sitter space is described by a thermal gas in a gauge theory, whose time reversal is the same as itself.
Origin
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 our universe may connect to white holes elsewhere, in reality, this is untrue, 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 [1].
The existence of white holes that are not part of a wormhole is doubtful, as they appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Quasars and active galactic nuclei are observed to spew out jets of matter. This is now believed to be the result of polar jets formed when matter falls into supermassive black holes at the centers of these objects. Prior to this model, white holes emitting matter were one possible explanation proposed.
Recent speculations
A more recently proposed view of black holes might be interpreted as shedding some light on the nature of classical white holes. Some researchers proposed that when a black hole forms, a big bang occurs at the core which creates a new universe that expands into extra dimensions outside of the parent universe[3]. See also Fecund universes.
The initial feeding of matter from the parent universe's black hole and the expansion that follows in the new universe might be thought of as a cosmological type of white hole. Unlike traditional white holes, this type of white hole would not be localized in space in the new universe and its horizon would have to be identified with the cosmological horizon.
~Excerpt from Wikipedia
Apparently white holes are theorized as such Link 75. And the creation of a black hole is the creation of another dimensional universe within our own. With the number of known black holes, thats got to be quite a lot.
Something about the singularity...
