Why no 'Big Crunch' a femtosecond after Big Bang ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fastartcee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores why the universe did not collapse into a black hole immediately after the Big Bang, despite its immense mass. It suggests that the universe was expanding faster than gravity could act, as expansion can exceed the speed of gravity. The initial expansion provided enough kinetic energy to counteract gravitational forces. While this explanation aligns with classical physics, it is acknowledged that the full understanding within general relativity remains elusive. Ultimately, the mechanisms behind the universe's initial expansion are still a mystery.
fastartcee
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Why no 'Big Crunch' a femtosecond after "Big Bang"?

When the Universe was the size of a grapefruit, with the mass of 100 billion galaxies (actually, 20 times that mass, I suppose, given dark matter and dark energy), why did it not instantly suffer gravitational collapse into a megamega black hole?

After all, nothing (except Hawking radiation?) escapes from a puny black hole with the mass of only 100 million Suns or so.
 
Space news on Phys.org
The most honest answer is that is just not what the equations of cosmology predict will happen.

If you want to rationalize it, perhaps say that in the beginning the universe was expandind faster than gravity could catch up ( expansion has unlimited "velocity", gravity goes the speed of light).
 
fastartcee said:
When the Universe was the size of a grapefruit, with the mass of 100 billion galaxies (actually, 20 times that mass, I suppose, given dark matter and dark energy), why did it not instantly suffer gravitational collapse into a megamega black hole?

You can think of the Big Bang as a "kick" of sorts. In the classical approximation, the answer is that the universe had enough kinetic energy to keep expanding, despite the force of gravity. That's not entirely correct in the general relativistic way of looking at things, but the idea is the same.

As to how it got that initial kick, nobody knows. If the big bang theory is true, then we may never know.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
56
Views
7K
Back
Top