It could be argued that from the point of view of the observer a white hole would indeed look and behave like a/the entire universe. I quite like that idea as it goes some way to explaining (for me) the big bang concept, which while quite likely to be correct does bring up more questions than it solves. Not wanting to give fuel to the theist view of things, I think it is fair to ask what created the big bang, surely a big load of absolutely nothing couldn't suddenly change into one hell of a lot of stuff and dimensions etc. I don't pretend to answer anything at all btw, just confusing myself out loud!

@Salo Just to add fuel to the fire, fields and particles pop in and out of nowhere all the time on a quantum level. The two opposite particles (like matter/antimatter but other more exotic things too) annihilate each other before they can be detected. We know this happens from multiple experiments and it is why some things happen that are hard to explain, like antimatter showing up during high atmosphere conditions caused by lightning and cosmic radiation.

This popping in and out of existence is one way of explaining the big bang but on a super tiny scale. If you add in quantum uncertainty (related to this theory) and realize that any level of quantum field is possible, there is a reasonable start to the hypothesis that the two are related though wildly different scales.

The real world is way more interesting than the fantasy world, in cool and unexpected ways. Right now we have this understanding of the universe and we will likely refine our understanding or make huge unexpected leaps that will boggle your mind. The jump from classic physics to quantum physics was just such a leap. Pun intended.

White holes would probably be a form of wormhole, if found to exist. Wormholes could still be an entirely different thing that has nothing to do with black holes or white holes. The idea is that space can be bent or linked to connect one part of space with another far away. There might be several ways for that to happen.

I think it is now known that Quasars ARE black holes. Well, indirectly. When a Black Hole consumes large amounts of material, that material becomes hot and gives off light. Matter doesn't fall directly into the black hole, it spirals down into it, like water into a drain. Not all of it goes in, some of it is flung out. This matter is glowing bright as it is being consumed, and that is what we see as a Quasar. It's a Black Hole actively consuming other matter.

Sure, we'll both pretend we understood it all. However, I don't have to pretend being fascinated by it all. I simply wish I did understand it much better than I actually do.

@Georgy303 without wanting to sound religious we're verging on the realms of unknowable with this stuff. What I mean by that is are brains aren't equipped to make sense of the bits if the universe that aren't playing along in our usual dimensions. I'm sure you've come across the flatland analogy which describes it better (I forget the source). The best anyone can do to understand it is the mathematical concepts and theories that point to some strange answers. The maths is a bit beyond me though I think! But yes it's frustrating, having to rely on faith rather than real understanding, which is an alien concept to me!! No wonder so many find it easy to fall into the god trap.

At this point it is just a mathematical theory. Many mathematical theories, including black holes, have been found to be true. This is one that might not because it defies other laws of physics including conservation of energy and entropy. Still, what is possible mathematically might be out there in some form.

Yes, it is, as long as people are aware it's still theoretical. Sometimes these "new" ideas get over-hyped when the real stuff (evidence-based) can be just as exciting. The media tends to go after the new, though, because that's what it does (and why it's "news" ).

@wdwyer Right! Don’t ever read/listen to the popular media explain science. Know your sources. Hype, hype, hype for $ $ $. ?

@wdwyer only a decade or two ago, black holes were just theoretical.

@novoxguy Yes, that's correct, but not justification for other theories, which may or may not result in experimental evidence to support them.

@novoxguy Technically black holes have been a theory (well hypothesis) since 1784 but called something different and observed indirectly since the 1970's and they're still just a theory since theories in science mean something more certain than the seemingly guesswork meaning outside of science.