Register to reply

Could matter pulled in through a Black Hole be same matter that births a Big Bang?

by Laywoman
Tags: big bang backwards, black hole, matter
Share this thread:
Laywoman
#1
May20-11, 11:39 AM
P: 5
Are any ideas out there on the possibility of a Black Hole being a wormhole(?) to another dimension/universe and if so, could the matter that's pulled in through a Black Hole be the same matter that births a Big Bang on the other side of the Black Hole?

Maybe a better question is do we have an idea of what happens to matter that goes into a Black Hole?
Phys.Org News Partner Astronomy news on Phys.org
Comet Jacques makes a 'questionable' appearance
Image: Our flocculent neighbour, the spiral galaxy M33
Image: Chandra's view of the Tycho Supernova remnant
ibysaiyan
#2
May20-11, 12:50 PM
P: 437
All we can do is just make assumptions considering we are working on ways to unify quantum gravity to the other fundamental forces.In terms of GR,black hole is a point of singularity where every matter reaches a point of infinite density i.e becomes a singularity.
We may find a totally unexpected scenario once the mass has been crunched to a plank density scale. Someone with more knowledge on this may add to what I have already mentioned.
-ibysaiyan
Nik_2213
#3
May20-11, 01:01 PM
P: 217
IMHO, even a quasar's feeding frenzy would make for a very modest 'Big Bang' on other side...

Drakkith
#4
May21-11, 05:53 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,565
Could matter pulled in through a Black Hole be same matter that births a Big Bang?

I find it extremely unlikely. Everything in the universe existed at the time of the big bang. With a black hole, you constantly have matter and energy falling into it. Without invoking some kind of time breaking phenomena I don't see how the matter falling into a black hole could be used in a Big Bang elsewhere. (Meaning that you have a constant flow of matter transforming into one big burst somehow) Not to mention the fact that there is nowhere near enough matter inside a black hole to form a universe in my opinion. Could a couple of stellar masses form a new universe? I doubt it. Even the supermassive black holes only have a tiny tiny fraction of the matter in the universe inside them.
Lost in Space
#5
May21-11, 11:21 AM
P: 125
It used to be thought once that quasars were 'white holes' because of the massive amounts of energy they eject and could be the 'other end' of black holes. Quasars are very distant from us in spacetime and are now thought to be part of early galaxy formation.

A spinning black hole theoretically is thought to be a possible wormhole if you enter it at the right kind of angle.
Laywoman
#6
May24-11, 11:23 PM
P: 5
I understand the theory on the Big Bang is that it was an explosion of energy that release pure superpositioned potentiality...meaning that there is potential for wave or particle and particles happen don't exist until there is a reason to organize into matter.


"THERE IS NO MATTER as such...all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious, intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck

But the part where you said: "(Meaning that you have a constant flow of matter transforming into one big burst somehow)" caused me to give pause to the idea...

Thanks for your thoughts...
Laywoman
#7
May24-11, 11:27 PM
P: 5
In terms of GR,black hole is a point of singularity where every matter reaches a point of infinite density i.e becomes a singularity.

Does this mean you agree to the possibility because the Big Bang started as a singularity?
Drakkith
#8
May25-11, 12:08 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,565
Quote Quote by Laywoman View Post
I understand the theory on the Big Bang is that it was an explosion of energy that release pure superpositioned potentiality...meaning that there is potential for wave or particle and particles happen don't exist until there is a reason to organize into matter.
The big bang is theorized to be the rapid expansion OF space, it was not an explosion of energy. That says, to me at least, that space had to exist for the explosion to propegate into. I've never heard of particles not existing until there is a reason for them to exist, at least not in the way you are saying. To my knowledge, as the universe expanded and cooled, the temperature dropped to a point that the particles made by high energy EM radiation could be stable. The only "reason" was that the temperature dropped.


"THERE IS NO MATTER as such...all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious, intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck

But the part where you said: "(Meaning that you have a constant flow of matter transforming into one big burst somehow)" caused me to give pause to the idea...

Thanks for your thoughts...
I can't comment on Max Plancks philosophical or religious views, and I don't really understand what you are saying in that last part.
Drakkith
#9
May25-11, 12:10 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,565
Quote Quote by Laywoman View Post
In terms of GR,black hole is a point of singularity where every matter reaches a point of infinite density i.e becomes a singularity.

Does this mean you agree to the possibility because the Big Bang started as a singularity?
I don't think so. Isn't a singularity a point of infinite density IN space? The universe at the big bang should have been an infinite density OF space and everything in it.
Laywoman
#10
May28-11, 08:34 PM
P: 5
[QUOTE=Drakkith;3320947
I can't comment on Max Plancks philosophical or religious views, and I don't really understand what you are saying in that last part.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, on looking back at my reply I can see that it didn't make much sense -it was late, I was tired and I'm still trying to wrap my mind around Quantum Physics, fact vs. theory etc. Hence my Log In name...
I'd still have more questions about your explanations simply because I believe that a good part of the info on this and other subjects like it is speculation. Kind of like philosophy...and Quantum Physics seems to want to lead me to see some kind of connection with philosophy.
But thank you for your comments.
Lost in Space
#11
May29-11, 07:56 AM
P: 125
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
I don't think so. Isn't a singularity a point of infinite density IN space? The universe at the big bang should have been an infinite density OF space and everything in it.
If it was wouldn't this imply that there was infinite gravity too? Hasn't infinite gravity been dismissed as not possible? If there was infinite density and infinite gravity, how could this be disrupted so catastrophically?

Secondly, are singularities distinctly separate entities or could they be somehow a manifestation of the same thing? Wouldn't the universe at the point of the Big Bang in effect have been a singularity? What would distinguish one singularity from another apart from its relative position in spacetime as determined by its event horizon?

And thirdly, could gravity be some form of super entanglement between all mass somehow linked to the 'primordial atom' that has been theorised as the progenitor of the Big Bang?
qraal
#12
Jun1-11, 04:36 AM
P: 775
It's possible for the matter of a collapsing star to become the white-hole beginning of another universe, via an Einstein-Rosen Bridge...

The universe as a black hole in isotropic coordinates

...and anything falling in afterwards ends up in a separate Universe.
Drakkith
#13
Jun1-11, 06:25 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,565
Quote Quote by qraal View Post
It's possible for the matter of a collapsing star to become the white-hole beginning of another universe, via an Einstein-Rosen Bridge...

The universe as a black hole in isotropic coordinates

...and anything falling in afterwards ends up in a separate Universe.
So all the matter and energy in the universe could be from the initial collapse of a massive star? Unless the laws of physics are different in this other universe, I don't see this being possible as you cannot pack that much matter into a star without it blowing itself to pieces and not forming a black hole.
Cbray
#14
Jun3-11, 06:59 AM
P: 135
Wouldn't you need all the matter from the Universe then?
qraal
#15
Jun3-11, 11:19 PM
P: 775
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
So all the matter and energy in the universe could be from the initial collapse of a massive star? Unless the laws of physics are different in this other universe, I don't see this being possible as you cannot pack that much matter into a star without it blowing itself to pieces and not forming a black hole.
Gravitational energy is negative to the positive of normal mass-energy, thus you can make immense amounts of mass if it can be exactly balanced by its gravitational energy. This has been a part of cosmological theories for years. Poplawski discusses the mass of a Universe that results from a black-hole, quoting some huge figure. Do a search for his papers on arXiv.org if you want more details.
qraal
#16
Jun3-11, 11:21 PM
P: 775
Quote Quote by Cbray View Post
Wouldn't you need all the matter from the Universe then?
The mass of the collapsed star acts as a seed and the new Universe's mass-energy almost perfectly balances out against its gravitational potential energy. Thus the net positive energy needed to make the new Universe is what's inside an average collapsing star.
Drakkith
#17
Jun4-11, 12:18 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,565
Quote Quote by qraal View Post
Gravitational energy is negative to the positive of normal mass-energy, thus you can make immense amounts of mass if it can be exactly balanced by its gravitational energy. This has been a part of cosmological theories for years. Poplawski discusses the mass of a Universe that results from a black-hole, quoting some huge figure. Do a search for his papers on arXiv.org if you want more details.
Negative to the positive of normal mass-energy? What does that even mean? How can you create some huge amount of matter from less?
qraal
#18
Jun4-11, 12:38 AM
P: 775
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
Negative to the positive of normal mass-energy? What does that even mean? How can you create some huge amount of matter from less?
Have you never heard of that idea? The Universe is the ultimate "Free Lunch" because of that. It's been a part of cosmology for years and years.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Anti-matter black-hole, matter black hole, different? Special & General Relativity 6
Black hole matter/antimatter Astronomy & Astrophysics 8
What happens to matter inside a black hole? Special & General Relativity 24