A Big Bang Question

pseudonymous

pseudonymous

Obtuse Kineticist
Messages
362
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Maine
out of ignorance alone, and curiosity at a thought i had, is it possible for the other side of the big bang being a black hole? hoping someone can answer this for me because i wouldn't know where to begin to explore...

dcv-
 
It's certainly possible - but one of the dictums of the current theories of cosmology is that we would have absolutely no was of telling what may have occured on the other side of the Big Bang.

It's all related to the speed of light and the movement of information, in what I believe are called "Light Cones" (I could be wrong here - it's a long time since I read this part).
 
Namaste all,

Brian, you are correct...

current cosmological theories dispense with what was before. here's why... what was before would be something that could be described by classical physics (assuming that the before state was something that we could recognize) however, as we have discovered, classical physics breaks down at a singularity, in this case a black hole. ergo, no effects or affects from a classical system can be observed or experienced if they happened prior to the singularity.

you are also correct in that the description of space/time from the point of origin (if there is a "point", there are more complete theories that would posit a "bowl" shape to the beginning) is done in what are called "light cones", which describes the expansion of space/time.

as for places to explore for this information.... there are a few online resources that may prove to be of assistance:

http://www.quantum.bowmain.com/thermodynamics.html

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000

http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html
 
No problem - though, if I may add - light cones only apply if the speed of light in a vacuum repersents the speed limit at which information can be carried. There is no reason to presume that this will always be the case. :)
 
I said:
No problem - though, if I may add - light cones only apply if the speed of light in a vacuum repersents the speed limit at which information can be carried. There is no reason to presume that this will always be the case. :)
Click to expand...

we know that information can "travel" faster than light as demonstrated through the Einstein-Rosen-Polodosky Paradox commonly known as Spooky Action at a Distance.

moreover, from what i was able to understand, the light cones can also only be used should we incorporate the concept of "imaginary time". imaginary time is similar in most respects to imaginary numbers that we are all famaliar with in maths.
 
There's been considerable speculation that black holes might be linked through hyperdimensional connections called wormholes to things called "white holes," which would be objects spewing matter/energy out into space. The idea was floated briefly as an explanation for quasars--distant objects that appear to be the most luminous objects in the universe; perhaps they are the "other side" of black holes. The idea has largely been abandoned, however; quasars appear to be extremely energetic objects powered by supermassive black holes at the cores of distant, and therefore very young, galaxies. Black holes at the hearts of those galaxies are devouring so much matter so quickly that the excess is spewed off into space, creating a quasar.

It sounds, though, like your question takes things a step higher. Since the big bang is, essentially, energy exploding out into space from nothing, could the universe itself be a giant white hole on the other end, somehow, of a black hole?

While we can't know what lies on the other side of the universe, pseudonymous, there is a fascinating chain of reasoning that suggests something like this.

To make a black hole out of a mass equal to that of Earth, we'd need to collapse it down to something just under a centimeter in diameter. We could then say that that black hole had a certain density, since density is defined as mass per unit volume, and volume can be derived from the diameter.

To make a black hole out of the Sun, we'd have to collapse it down to something close to about six kilometers--forget the exact size, but that's approximately right. If we derived the density of THAT black hole, we'd find that it was considerably less than the density of the former Earth.

This is because as you double the mass of an object, you double the radius, but in three dimensions you're spreading that mass through eight times the volume. Therefore, increase the mass, and you decrease the density.

Same for the Galaxy. Collapse the entire Galaxy of three hundred billion-some stars into a black hole, and you'd get something with a diameter of, roughly, fifty times the diameter of our entire solar system or a bit more. And the density would be even less--about .000001 grams per cubic centimeter. That's about right for the density of a gas at standard temperature and pressure.

So . . . .

Physicists have calculated the size of a black hole equivalent to the theoretical mass of the entire universe. If they assume a total mass only a bit more than what we currently believe it to be, they arrive at a figure of something like twenty-five billion light years, which, interestingly enough, is close to the size of our universe, with a currently assumed radius of 12.5 billion light years. The density would be that of an atom or so per several cubic centimeters, or close to the average density of our own universe.

The presumption is, then, that we are actually living inside a very large black hole. The fact that the universe is curved upon itself, so that light cannot escape it, is identical to the defining situation obtained within a black hole. I believe it was physicist Kip Thorne who first suggested this idea.

We can only speculate about whether this universal black hole of ours exists as an astronomical object in some other, vaster universe, that matter here derived from matter *there* falling into a gravitational singularity. We can also only speculate that this vaster cosmos has countless other black holes, each its own universe like ours.

However, the most recent cosmological thinking posits that our uiniverse is not closed after all, in the sense that it would someday collapse upon itself, but that it will continue to expand forever until, ultimately, matter dissolves through entropy. I'm not sure how, if at all, this fits with the universal black hole idea.

Still, it's fascinating to think about!
 
Namaste,

but remember, whkeith, it didn't "explode into space" as space was part of what was expanding at the same time. there wasn't anything for it to expand into, as it were.... moreover, time, energy, space, matter etc.. all expanded from the intial point...

though, at this point, i should point out that nearly all the inflationary models (read Big Bang) have been shown to be inaccurate or incompletel for explaining the orgins of the universe.

the most complete theory that i'm aware of to date, is the Hawking/Turok Instation Theory coupled with the Anthropic Princple and the No Boundary Proposal.

by the by... Black Holes do emit radiation... they are not the matter consuming horrors we had originally thought. this radiation is called Hawking Radiation named after the professor himself.

you say that the recent cosmological thinking proposes an ever expanding universe... do you have any sources on that... i'd be very pleased to read up on it.

hmm.. entropy... from what i have understood... entropy is defined as the energy available for work in a closed system.
 
Vajradhara said:
Namaste,

but remember, whkeith, it didn't "explode into space" as space was part of what was expanding at the same time. there wasn't anything for it to expand into, as it were.... moreover, time, energy, space, matter etc.. all expanded from the intial point...
Click to expand...
LOL! Agreed, friend Vaj, agreed. I was simply, and for simplicity's sake, refering to the idea of matter coming out of nothing.

Agreed on your other points. Hawking Radiation is a posited demonstration of the quantum zero-point field. As particles and antiparticles spontaneously come into existence, in the region close to a black hole's event horizon, some pairs are broken up before they can annihilate one another, giving the appearance of radiation "escaping" from the black hole, and also allowing the black hole to evaporate over time. This is the usual argument given for why there are no longer microblack holes around this long after the Big bang; the smaller ones evaporate first. The fact of Hawking radiation doesn't change the basic elementary definition of a black hole--an object of such mass that it produces a gravitational singularity with an escape velocity so great that even light can't escape it.

I'll try to get back to you on a cite for the current flat- or open-universe idea. It's linked to current estimates of the amount of dark matter and of dark energy in the cosmos, which, of course, is yet a bit iffy.

I believe there's an article in the current issue (December, '03) of Discover Magazine. According to that, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe demonstrated last February that the total mass of the universe is right at the critical balance point between open and closed, i.e. flat. You might try a Web search on WMAP.

But the wild card in the mix is evidence--well-accepted now among physicists--that the rate of expansion of the universe is NOT steady, but is accelerating. If that is true, a flat universe would become open, as the galaxies rush apart more and more quickly. There are a bunch of theories floating around for this latest weird twist to the universe, most having to do with the 73% dark matter and energy that make up the cosmos.

Dark energy is now being associated with the virtual energy (of Hawking radiation fame) arising in so-called empty vacuum at a subatomic level--quantum energy. One theory holds that quantum (also called zero-point or vacuum) energy--a very great deal of it--is responsible for accelerating the rate of universal expansion.
Vajradhara said:
hmm.. entropy... from what i have understood... entropy is defined as the energy available for work in a closed system.
Click to expand...
True. It's also applied to the general idea that my office is NOT going to become neat if I simply ignore the clutter. Well, quantum physics says there's a chance it will suddenly fall into greater order, but that seems VERY unlikely!
In this sense, entropy refers to the heat-death of the universe, as all energy and, eventually, all matter, gradually slips into the lowest possible energy state. Even neutrons would eventually decay and radiate away in something in excess of 10^100 years.
 
Vajradhara said:
...entropy is defined as the energy available for work in a closed system....
Click to expand...
Forgive my late rejoinder, but the above definition seems to reveal a misapprehension. The wording of the difinition is fair enough, given an proper understanding of the words "work" and "available."
It is simpler if you realize that entropy will always increase when work is done. Example: the sun releases energy stored in the structure of light (i.e. un-heavy) atoms. This energy could be 'captured' and redirected into other uses, but not with 100% efficiency. This is because some atoms in the collection apparatus invariably grow warmer, representing an increase in the internal kinetic energy of the system (which is of a random nature and generally cannot be reclaimed) Thence the relationship between the "heat death" of the universe and "entropy."



I have developed the proceeding unorthodox belief regarding the main (Big-Bang) question.
All black holes, taken together, represent the 'end' of time.
Anything that passes through an event-horizon finds itself expanding with the big-bang at the 'beginning' of time.

In my training as an engineer, we learned that when any mathematical formalism provides an infinite solution, or singularity, this is evidence that the model no longer describes reality. Which is to say that we should not expect to see matter collapsed into an incalculably small point within a black hole.
If you inform your intuition through Einstein's general relativity, you find that an outside observer will see things falling towards the event-horizon but never passing through. This is because from a viewpoint some distance outside of a black hole, time appears to halt at the surface of the event horizon.
However, if the observer falls in themself, the view is different. It is said that the observer will be stretched by tidal forces, but if the apparent mass of the hole is large enough this effect is minimal near the horizon itself. Approaching the horizon, the observer may look back on a frozen universe-- the rate of the passage of time back there appears to slow down to zero as they pass through.
"Through" is a poor word in this instance, since the observer would not percieve the crossing of any boundary at the event horizon.
Once 'through,' mathematics predicts that the observer continues until they are compacted into nothing, but this makes little physical sense. Intuitively, shouldn't time (don't ask me what "time" is) flip past zero, and start over backwards? This would propell the observer, or at least their constitiuent parts, out into a fresh new universe.

From a postulated omnicisent viewpoint outside of 'space-time,' time and space would form a closed hyper-sphere (don't bother trying to visualize it) and the universe would continuously create and destroy itself. :cool:

Honestly, I'm not (currently) on drugs.
 
DrewJMore said:
Approaching the horizon, the observer may look back on a frozen universe-- the rate of the passage of time back there appears to slow down to zero as they pass through.
Click to expand...
Excuse me. The rate of time will appear to accellerate, not decellerate. First, the apparent rate of time behind them would speed up exponentially. Second, their field of view would be taken up increasingly by the event horizon itself, until it closed in behind them as they passed beyond it.
Further, it is my assertion that once the event horizon has 'shut' behind them, they will not find themseves contained, rather they will find themselves travelling outward from a so-called "white hole." Whether there would be a single "big-bang" event, or numerous "parallel universes" seems to fall outside the scope of my intuition.
 
THREE SOMETHING’S FROM NOTHING



Friction energy light, due to the intention of nothing, the centre of nothing is the intention of something. (Intention of nothing is the vacuum of space, (black hole) for example if you take away something (light) what have you left? nothing, (endless dark space) the intensity of nothing is concentrated space creating (black matter.)

It would look like a dark cloud with energy occurring in the centre like lightning, due to energy being from the friction of heat made by the intention from all point from the centre of cold space.

The energy would travel outwards from the centre of this black thick cloud (black matter) in other wards the (black hole) and create an abode around the black hole, meaning a ring around the depth of darkness. As more masses of energy is created through the vacuum of nothing (black hole) the external abode becomes greater and greater due to the up building of energy masses, to a point of reflection inward towards the vacuum (black hole) creating forces of depth.

In return at different pressure points (energy level of masses) come the oxidation between nitrogen and hydrogen creating ammonia and oxygen by the changing of atom tries, meaning compounds to elements due to added energy masses (changing matter forms, evolve state of being) as travelling up the chain to the abode until solid matter becomes acids liquids, gases, pure liquids and pure gases, the closer to the abode the purer the form, as senses from feeling, seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting develops by from moving up the chain with the travelling sphere we are born on, as cells, as we are in the same manner little (vacuums) for we have space of mind which we fill in by our own intentions. The word intention is from the beginning, we are created not only in the same image as or heavenly father but in the same (likeness), for he is the first and the last, the alpha and the omega, life is everlasting and light increases over comes darkness. God said to Job 38; 4 where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?

Job 38; 21 did you come to know at that time you were being born which makes you days many,

Meaning we are as old as this earth we develop through different stages of senses aries due to energy masses increasing changing matter formations

 
Going back to the original query about the relation between black holes and the big bang . I read somwhere an interesting idea .At both of these singularities , according to relativity ,time slows down the nearer you aproach a singularity .So both in a sense lie outside of time .i.e. a black hole singularity is always in the 'future' and the big bang singularity is always in the 'past' and all possible time lies between them but never actually 'reaches' either . Perhaps this is another way of regarding the universe as being closed ?
 
florian said:
Going back to the original query about the relation between black holes and the big bang . I read somwhere an interesting idea .At both of these singularities , according to relativity ,time slows down the nearer you aproach a singularity .So both in a sense lie outside of time .i.e. a black hole singularity is always in the 'future' and the big bang singularity is always in the 'past' and all possible time lies between them but never actually 'reaches' either . Perhaps this is another way of regarding the universe as being closed ?
Click to expand...

Or wide open...

v/r

Q
 
florian said:
...all possible time lies between them but never actually 'reaches' either . Perhaps this is another way of regarding the universe as being closed ?
Click to expand...

Imagine an asymptotic function shown on a graph.
(e.g. http://www.math.lsu.edu/~neal/TI_89/graphing/windows/examples/rational/rational.html)

If the present is t=0, once time 'reaches' t=inifinity (in the future), it returns toward the present from the past (t= negative-infinity). [At least in my cockeyed, admittedly unverifiable thought experiment.]
 
DrewJMore said:
Imagine an asymptotic function shown on a graph.
(e.g. http://www.math.lsu.edu/~neal/TI_89/graphing/windows/examples/rational/rational.html)

If the present is t=0, once time 'reaches' t=inifinity (in the future), it returns toward the present from the past (t= negative-infinity). [At least in my cockeyed, admittedly unverifiable thought experiment.]
Click to expand...

Interesting points both of you have. What about local time dialations? I refer to pockets of time moving at different paces, relative to the Universe (multiverse) in general?

Since we are debating the beginning of the Universe, and the arguement is that it is billions of years old, but for example the Sol's solar system is not? For arguement's sake, let us consider that religious scriptures are painting a literal view of the history of our solars ystem, including the amount of time it took to make it (days instead of eons). Possible? If "somone" had the means by which to alter time locally?

Within a localized "bubble" of time dialation, time could be slowed down or sped up relative to the rest of the expanse...could it not?

Just a thought, thought, thought, thoughtttttttttt...:D

v/r

Q
 
Interesting point but what about this. If time were to run at a slower rate within a 'bubble' then space within that bubble would expand at a slower rate than the universe outside , this would surely mean that when the bubble 'rejoined' the rest of the universe everything that had been within the bubble , would be out of scale with the universe around it .
 
On second thoughts I suppose this would depend on whether the expansion of the universe is caused by existing space being stretched or new space being added in between .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top