Duda Jarek

For better intuition, it is good to imagine vacuum cleaner with both suction and blow mode, switched by T/CPT symmetry - white hole has lightcones directed outside, hence would only blow also electromagnetically (positive radiation pressure) ... and black hole as its T/CPT symmetry is not "doing nothing" but should have symmetric suction, also electromagnetic (negative radiation pressure).

"the system is dissipative and decohering in both temporal directions" was only my favorite quote from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-87323-x , not title. The fact that there is no mainstream unification of EM + gravity, only shows its ignorance - does not mean nature do not interact this way. Personally, I see Einstein's attempt to unify them as the most promising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism

I copied shorter quote, assuming most physicists agree with "Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a Hermitian Hamiltonian" ... would gladly discuss if there are any doubts. Otherwise, if there are asymmetry theorems like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-theorem , they always hide mean-field-like approximation called "Stosszahlansatz" ... one could first apply CPT symmetry and then repeat such theorem - "proving" entropy growth in the opposite direction ... well summarized in https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-87323-x : "the system is dissipative and decohering in both temporal directions" Thinking about entropy gradient e.g. before Big Bounce, shouldn't it be reversed?

Fundamentally there is CPT symmetry in equations governing physics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry : "The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena" ... which requires possibility of WH assuming existence of BH ... Just appeared fresh Event Horizon Telescope news - showing surprising amounts of jets ... no longer surprising if thinking about this marine propeller analogy: white holes should form vortices going out, so symmetrically black holes should form vortices coming in. New EHT Images Reveal Unexpected...New EHT Images Reveal Unexpected Polarization Flips at M8..."magnetized plasma swirling near the event horizon is far from static; it’s dynamic and complex, pushing our theoretical models to the limit.”

White hole is not my idea, but something theoretically allowed e.g. in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%E2%80%93Szekeres_coordinates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure is just p=<ExH>/c vector: positive if toward surface (pushing), negative if outward (pulling) ... https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?q=negative+radiation+pressure Even if there would be zero WH realizations in this moment (3D submanifold of 4D spacetime), WH would only emit - pushing objects outside with positive radiation pressure, and BH are their T/CPT analogs - this transform reverses H magnetic field reversing p=<ExH>/c pressure sign to negative, like changing rotation direction of marine propeller or in Barnett effect ... still not needing having realization of WH. The real thermodynamics problem was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox : But including negative radiation pressure of BH, it is conterminously interacting with exterior, exchanging information - no need for paradoxes.

So imagine there was Big Bounce - wouldn't there be symmetrically white holes before for us? There might be more ways to form them, e.g. going through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-orientable_wormhole , and "difficult to realize" does not allow to be certain something does not exist ... And we conclude e.g. from symmetries even if we don't know if what we consider was actually realized somewhere, it is sufficient that it is theoretically possible.

Reversed WH dynamics is BH dynamics - seems quite reversible. Moreover, including missing negative radiation pressure might help to finally resolve the real thermodynamical problem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox MigL, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole doesn't say anything about supersymmetry?

While we might not observe them in this moment, in theory they are possible - e.g. as consequence of BH existence and CPT symmetry. And consequences of e.g. symmetries do not require actual realization of all possibilities. E.g. they discuss https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_life before it actually exists (on our planet, we think)

Most believe black holes exist, here we would like to understand their properties from symmetry - existence of white holes is not needed for that. But maybe they exist, e.g. assuming there was Big Bounce, before it I would expect symmetric formation of our white holes, so maybe also before our Big Crunch - while unlikely, I wouldn't be surprised if observing them in some future. Both are coupling of two electrons on both sides of horizon, with photon crossing horizon in the allowed direction - we just switch Feynman diagram between white and black hole, as shown above. But positive/negative radiation pressure seems more intuitive - like revering marine propeller or rotation in EM Barnett effect.

I use white holes here only to better understand black holes - as you say, the former would be trivial to observe - acting with absorption equation on sensor of telescope. If we believe in CPT symmetry, black holes should analogously act with stimulated emission - could reduce the number of excited atoms e.g. in telescope sensor, we might be able to observe: if initially exciting it, and monitoring its population. Sure, maybe CPT is violated and it will not work, but there are not many options to observe lone BH - this one might be slightly more practical alternative to observation of Hawking radiation ... ps. The main diagram again as there are problems with above:

Yes, N1 is the number of ground state atom e.g. in diagram, N2 of excited - absorption equation increases N2 (e.g. outside white hole), stimulated emission decreases N2 (symmetrically should be outside black hole). Usually excited atoms mainly undergo spontaneous emission, but stimulated emission could make it faster - suggesting how to try to observe it: continuously excite the sensor of telescope, and monitor its population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_effect can be viewed as EM analog of marine propeller - switching rotation direction to change the sign of created pressure.

From atomic perspective, white holes increase N2 number of excited atoms outside with absorption equation - its T/CPT analog is black hole decreasing N2 number of excited atom with stimulated emission. Regarding radiation pressure, white hole only emits - pushing objects outside, acting with positive radiation pressure ... applying T/CPT symmetry, doesn't it mean pulling, applying negative radiation pressure? Like applying T symmetry to marine propeller situation: Hydrodynamics is mathematically very close to EM, allowing such marine propeller analog:

Including that while white holes should act with positive radiation pressure, black holes should symmetrically act with negative radiation pressure, might resolve the black hole information paradox (?) - showing there was a lot of information exchange before reaching the end of evaporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox :

T/CPT symmetric analog of black hole in Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates is white hole, which only allows photons to cross horizon outside, hence pushing objects around with EM - act with positive radiation pressure p=<ExH>/c vectors outside, absorption equation increasing the number of excited atoms (N2) outside. If so, shouldn't black hole symmetrically act with negative radiation pressure - pull objects around with EM by p=<ExH>/c radiation pressure vectors pointing inside, act with stimulated emission equation decreasing the number of excited atoms (N2) outside? Such looking necessary effect of black hole could be slightly easier to observe than Hawking radiation, maybe even look below the horizon - would need e.g. telescope with excited sensor, monitoring its population - testing if it doesn't deexcite faster than usual by stimulated emission e.g. from black hole.

This is a question of minimal time required for formation of observable objects after Big Bang? If observing earlier ones, wouldn't it mean they had to come from before T=0? My point is that observing extreme Z could offer experimental way to distinguish Big Bang from Big Bounce, e.g. the latter might have no upper bound for Z. What other experimental evidence could confirm there was nothing before?

There are recent claims for observations of up to redshift 25 objects by JWST, which are said too early to be formed by standard Big Bang models, e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-james-webb-telescope-may-have-found-primordial-black-holes/ Probably even higher redshifts will be found in the future, so I wanted to ask if some objects like black holes could e.g. "pass in safe distance" surviving Big Bounce - now being observed as having extreme redshifts? www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOowNVML4_I

Notice you can get all these protein by just copying DNA ... for minimal cells we are talking about hundreds of genes: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06288-x - e.g. "493 genes, JCVI-syn3B". Synthesizing the central dogma + DNA, all these proteins will be created themselves ... e.g. enzymes for basic metabolism ... the hard part seem membrane structure, cytoskeleton, replication - which do you think will be technically impossible to recreate in a lab? It is said there are ~10x more bactoriophages than bacteria, coming from infected bacteria ... and this is only one of bacteria natural enemies, preventing exponential growth through e.g. Lotka–Volterra predator-prey cohabitation ... mirror bacteria will have nearly no natural enemies, with exponential growth limited nearly only by resources - taking it from other organisms, dominating succeeding ecological niches ... replacing especially higher organisms: with much slower evolution.

Mirror dogma as complete transcription/translation machinery - just chemistry, done everyday in labs, no problem to enclose it into a membrane ... so where are technical impossibilities for adding further functions like basic metabolism ... finally cell replication? The report is very detailed - if you have lots of concerns, maybe gather more skeptical biochemists and write some detailed critical answer to this report? (would gladly read) It needs sources of energy and materials, natural bacteria has adapted to mirror e.g. sugars so mirror bacteria should adapt to consume e.g. D-sugars ... but there are also lots of achiral molecules both chirality bacteria can directly consume - Table 1.1 of report: Citrate, fumarate, glycolate, glyoxylate, ɑ-ketoglutarate, pyruvate, succinate, Acetate, acetoacetate, butyrate, propionate, valerate, Medium-chain (C6–C10) fatty acids, Long-chain (≥C12) fatty acids, Butanol, ethanol, propanol, Dihydroxyacetone, ethylene glycol, galactitol, glycerol, mucate, Benzoate, m-coumarate, 2-furoate, 3-hydroxyphenylacetate, phenylacetate, phenylpropionate, phenylethylamine, γ-aminobutyrate, putrescine, γ-hydroxybutyric acid, methyl pyruvate, m-tartaric acid, Glycine, Agmatine, γ-aminobutyrate, dopamine, phenylethylamine, putrescine, spermidine, tyramine, Adenine, cytidine, thymine, uracil, Allantoin, urate. One basic question is immune response, and most of its mechanisms are chirality dependent, the report cites lots of research for various types of interactions between natural biology and enantiomers of natural biomolecules ... even if some of them would still work (the report distinguishes certain and unknown), many won't - this would be situation as in immunodeficiencies. Natural bacteria has lots of enemies starting with bacteriophages - mirror bacteria will not have. Also being different many new ecological niches will open for it - what through evolution could drastically change the ecosystem. Regarding Fermi paradox, sure there many dangers coming especially with new technologies - is there a hope our civilization will pass them for the next 10, 30, 100, 1000 years? Very serious question: how to make it more likely? If scientists will not have answers to such question, who to ask?

Like GMO? So you accept synthesizing mirror dogma is reachable (?) and further steps toward mirror bacteria (?), and now say consequences won't be that bad? (otherwise please define your uncrossable barrier on the way) So imagine such mirror bacteria got into the environment, if prepared by malicious player being able to feed on e.g. D-glucose, otherwise still consuming achiral molecules ... not having natural enemies like bacteriphages, being ignored by most immune systems, potentially toxic if consumed ... taking available ecological niches, evolving, spreading ... how do you think it would end? And we are still very early in synthetic life, which will lead to many further organisms relatively easy to create ... then practically impossible to stop spreading, evolving ... you don't see serious dangers to our civilization there? Can they be realistically overcomed? How? And what do you think about Fermi paradox: why, against statistics, we don't see advanced civilizations ... could synthetic life e.g. mirror be the reason?

From Craig Venture Institute, anyway 10-30 years could be also overstatement, and there could be e.g. malicious players paying to quickly get there ... for me it sounds very serious and dangerous, not some abstract SF story, but something really coming and nearly unavoidable (?) ... Can our civilization prevent such fate ? ("Fermi paradox explanation" in 10, 30, 100, 1000 years?) I am thinking about this question since 2007 and the most realistic way I see is another SF sounding technology - from articles observing response before impulse like https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-of-negative-time-found-in-quantum-physics-experiment/ ... as a physicists I believe in CPT theorem, which also says that causality should work in both time directions, e.g. in the action optimization or Feynman ensembles - in theory allowing for wormholes, but maybe also much more accessible ways to send just information back in time (e.g. using lasers https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.15399 ) - if getting there, we could send back details about e.g. escaped mirror bacteria, hence physics should action optimize history of the Universe to one without such catastrophe.

I am just listening to discussion about this mirror bacteria report, somebody very serious just claimed that they are planning complete bottom-up synthesis of natural cell in a year(!), they are wondering if there should be moratorium already on mirror ribosome ... very serious, will respond later.

I have some experience in chemoinformatics (e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11030-022-10589-0 predicting probability distributions of ADMET properties like cardiotoxicity) and yes - excluding various toxicities is extremely crucial and difficult part of drug design, from virtual screening to clinical trials. Some mechanisms should still work (e.g. achiral) and Chapter 5: Medical Countermeasures of the report discusses some approaches like achiral antibiotics, producing mirror antibiotics, or releasing mirror bacteriophages ... but many would not - as in immunodeficient persons we should compare with. From the other side, mirror bacteria would indeed have crippled mechanisms like adhesion, also feeding with natural components - but there are also many achiral sources (Table 1.1: Achiral organic molecules that can be utilized by wild-type or mutant E. coli K-12), and bacteria can adapt to feed on mirror sugars ... the question is if it can get into the bloodstream, e.g. through injuries, if so it could rather easily exponentially grow in population leading to e.g. sepsis for example from released mirror proteins in necrosis. And getting mirror bacteria, it would evolve, take new ecological niches having practically no natural enemies ... also malicious players could easily modify them to become more dangerous.

Sure one can synthesize proteins from single amino acids, but comparing with its production by bacteria, what would be the difference in cost and volume? A thousand? A million? My point is that there will be large financial incentives for such cost reductions and scaling up, and there is a quickly growing number of potential applications, e.g. from the report: > Are you also worried about naturally occurring mirror molecules? For naturally appearing around us, evolution should generally prepare us for. But for others it did not, what does not automatically mean toxicity, but that there is a probability of various toxicities due to looking random interactions (again thalidomide example) ... and the number of potential interactions grows with the square of number of chiral biomolecules, so multiply this probability by millions e.g. for necrosis of mirror bacteria in human bloodstream - for me it sounds worrying.

Sure a company could now produce mirror protein drug for maybe thousans of customers ... but what if millions would like to buy it? If we agree synthetic central dogma is doable, why they couldn't build on it adding further features? Where exactly is your boundary you believe they will not be able to cross?

Just watching a week old presented by Yutetsu Kuruma from Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology: Design and construction of artificial cells based on cell-free system - mentions the most difficult is cell replication, where I completely agree ... but just recreating (mirror) central dogma looks doable (?) - and might be sufficient for safe mass production of mirror biomolecules (?) ... or will become the first step toward replicating mirror cells ... George Church Synthetic genomes & tRNAs in vitro & vivo (Nov 2024):