Are Black Holes linked to our Universe & Dark Energy/Matter?

[HARVEYU1E1]

After a quick and not fruitful Google Search I leave this question in better minds than my own.
Q- Has there been any discussion linking the start of our Universe with a black hole?
<Reason behind Question> I feel as if certain phenomenon seems quite similar to one another. A) star dies, implodes, becomes a black hole B) Big Bang occurs "out of nowhere" creates a Universe.

Further, does the black hole consuming whatever matter in its wake account for the "Dark energy & Matter" that we have been able to detect? I picture; a star dies, and becomes a black hole, in turn, creating a Universe. Within the Universe, the Black hole pumps whatever matter it has consumed into it.

I see it being a very understandable process. Which also, to me, accounts for Inflation. The more the Black Hole consumes, the bigger it gets, which allows it to consume more and more than it previously did when it first occurred.

 

[Dale]

It sounds like you are mixing a lot of concepts together that you have heard about but only in a pop sci context.

Black holes and cosmological spacetimes are quite different. One important difference is that the black hole spacetime is asymptotically flat, but the cosmological spacetime is not. This may seem like a small distinction, but it has some big consequences. For example, a global conserved energy can be defined in the black hole spacetime, but not in the cosmological one.

 

[rootone]

Q- Has there been any discussion linking the start of our Universe with a black hole?

To argue for that you have to argue for the existence of a meta-Universe in which the black hole must have originally formed.
It then logically follows that this meta-Universe is itself the product of another black hole in a meta-meta-Universe, and so on ...

 

[HARVEYU1E1]

It sounds like you are mixing a lot of concepts together that you have heard about but only in a pop sci context.

Black holes and cosmological spacetimes are quite different. One important difference is that the black hole spacetime is asymptotically flat, but the cosmological spacetime is not. This may seem like a small distinction, but it has some big consequences. For example, a global conserved energy can be defined in the black hole spacetime, but not in the cosmological one.[/QUOTE

To argue for that you have to argue for the existence of a meta-Universe in which the black hole must have originally formed.
It then logically follows that this meta-Universe is itself the product of another black hole in a meta-meta-Universe, and so on ...

Well, clearly, and I agree. I am ill equipped to answer a question like that, my only reasoning for asking mine was to see if there has been any study/questions posed about the prospect of it.

 

[HARVEYU1E1]

@Dale ... I understand that point. It just seems to me that if there would ever be a time for something completely "I'll rational" <as if everything else in this universe makes complete sense, said jokingly) to happen it would be in discussion with the most unexplained phenomena that we know about. I.e. Black Holes, Big Bang, Dark Matter/Energy.
All of the above is still in regards to posed question- Has the ever been a any study/questions posed in the past about the prospect of it. Thank you for your reply.

 

[rootone]

This speculation that our Universe exists inside a black hole in another Universe has been suggested before.
It is not a scientifically addressable idea because other Universes are by definition not part of our Universe and can't be studied.
However as I pointed out there is a flaw in the logic because you end up with an infinite series of Universes containing other Universes without end.

 

[Dale]

@Dale ... I understand that point. It just seems to me that if there would ever be a time for something completely "I'll rational" <as if everything else in this universe makes complete sense, said jokingly) to happen it would be in discussion with the most unexplained phenomena that we know about. I.e. Black Holes, Big Bang, Dark Matter/Energy.
All of the above is still in regards to posed question- Has the ever been a any study/questions posed in the past about the prospect of it. Thank you for your reply.

I understand your desire here, but this generally is not the way that knowledge progresses. First we start to understand separate phenomena and develop models for them, and then we notice connections between them. A good example is electromagnetism, we first characterized electricity and magnetism and light, and afterwards we found the connection.

There may be such discussions in the literature, but even from professionals it would be speculative.

 

[HARVEYU1E1]

I understand your desire here, but this generally is not the way that knowledge progresses. .

I am of the mind that it doesn't matter which way knowledge "generally" progresses, only that it does. As a professional athlete I wrote an outline of my Goals out on paper. There was one main goal, which was the heading. I believed it to be the correct path. I then worked backward to see which smaller goals would attribute to the success of the Header. Regardless of my success, my point remains is that there is no right or wrong way to reach a destination.

Q- Do you find it interesting that one event "destroys"<for lack of a better term> life? (Black Hole). And another event "starts"<for lack of a better term>life?(Big Bang)

 

[Khashishi]

There's no reason to believe that black holes create new universes. Sometimes pop sci likes to emphasize what could speculatively be possible with the basic equations, but there isn't any evidence or even a coherent theory of how this could work.

 

[HARVEYU1E1]

There's no reason to believe that black holes create new universes.

Respectively, to say there is "NO reason to believe" seems a bit misguided. The adage being; "a lack of evidence isn't evidence at all".

Also, formulas & previous theories aside KHASHISHI, do you not find it coincidental that "A Black Hole destroys life and the Big Bang creates life? This is the route of my inquiry.

 

[phinds]

Also, formulas & previous theories aside KHASHISHI, do you not find it coincidental that "A Black Hole destroys life and the Big Bang creates life? This is the route of my inquiry.

Personally I don't find it "coincidental", just random facts that you are REALLY stretching to try to correlate in any meaningful way

 

[PeterDonis]

to say there is "NO reason to believe" seems a bit misguided. The adage being; "a lack of evidence isn't evidence at all".

All your adage means is that if there is no evidence, you don't have a reason to believe and you don't have a reason to disbelieve. It doesn't mean that in the absence of evidence you can believe whatever you want. It means you should admit you don't know and stop there.

 

[PeterDonis]

if there would ever be a time for something completely "I'll rational" <as if everything else in this universe makes complete sense, said jokingly) to happen it would be in discussion with the most unexplained phenomena that we know about. I.e. Black Holes, Big Bang, Dark Matter/Energy

Basically, your argument here is: all of these phenomena are unexplained, therefore they must be the same thing. That isn't a valid argument. It isn't even much of a heuristic guess. The similarities you describe are superficial; when you dig below the surface there are many more differences.

Which also, to me, accounts for Inflation. The more the Black Hole consumes, the bigger it gets, which allows it to consume more and more than it previously did when it first occurred.

This isn't even a superficial similarity: the process of inflation has nothing in common, that I can see, with a black hole growing as things fall into it. Inflation doesn't "consume" anything.

 

[HARVEYU1E1]

It doesn't mean that in the absence of evidence you can believe whatever you want. It means you should admit you don't know and stop there.

*believe whatever I want*... My apologies for not articulating my point as I should have. I do not believe, definitively, in anything. I only BELIEVE that these phenomena seemed very similar.

Also, it was posed as a question, because even though I admit I don't know, I'm not going to just "stop there".

Better question for you, Peter. Do you believe that a more informed person should belittle a less informed person who is trying to learn/converse about Physics?
Regardless, thank you for your feedback.

 

[HARVEYU1E1]

Basically, your argument here is: all of these phenomena are unexplained, therefore they must be the same thing. That isn't a valid argument.

I'm sorry, but this is not my argument.

 

[HARVEYU1E1]

the process of inflation has nothing in common, that I can see, with a black hole growing as things fall into it. Inflation doesn't "consume" anything.

My question to others was this, Peter...

If***** a black hole was linked to our universe, could it be possible that the consumption of matter/lite from a black hole, then feed our Universe?
(Again, I apologize if I am not articulating myself well enough)
I picture a Black hole consuming matter/lite and getting bigger and bigger. And, if it does in fact feed our Universe, could the rate of inflation be linked to the expansion of a Black hole?

This is why I posed the question. Am I correct in assuming that a black hole gains mass from the consumption of matter/lite over time?

 

[phinds]

I picture a Black hole consuming matter/lite and getting bigger and bigger. And, if it does in fact feed our Universe ...

Do you not see how in consecutive sentences you have directly contradicted yourself.

Look, thinking outside the box is not a bad thing, but first you have to know what's IN the box. You don't and you clearly would serve yourself better to do some studying of basic cosmology rather than asking random and disjointed questions on an internet forum.

 

[HARVEYU1E1]

Do you not see how in consecutive sentences you have directly contradicted yourself.

Look, thinking outside the box is not a bad thing, but first you have to know what's IN the box. You don't and you clearly would serve yourself better to do some studying of basic cosmology rather than asking random and disjointed questions on an internet forum.

I apologize, but I do not see the contradiction. However, I am open to being shown how.

Also, the studying of Basic Cosmology is difficult for myself. Try as I do, without proper education giving you step by step instruction, it is quite challenging for most (I assume) to become adequate enough to hold an intelligent conversation with a topic as difficult as any field of Physics.

Lastly, I posed a question on the Internet for help, for conversation... Had I known beforehand that I was going to offend the Forum Gods I still would've done it. Physics should be spoken of. Not for just the very few with an understanding, but everyone. It's what I believe would help our culture. What doesn't, in my opinion, is responding to someone's post, (when you didn't have to in the first place) negatively. My unsolicited thoughts anyways. Maybe you're normal and will take this to heart, and maybe, just maybe, down the way you could help nurture someone's interest. Regardless, thank you for your input. Good day.

 

[Dale]

Q- Do you find it interesting that one event "destroys"<for lack of a better term> life? (Black Hole). And another event "starts"<for lack of a better term>life?(Big Bang)

Yes, I do find it interesting, but no more or less interesting than any other pair of otherwise loosely related lethal and essential things.

 

[PeterDonis]

even though I admit I don't know, I'm not going to just "stop there".

If not stopping there means speculating, please review the PF rules. PF is focused on discussion of mainstream science. We have the Beyond the Standard Model forum where some proposed theories that are not mainstream are discussed, but even those have enough of a rigorous formulation in peer-reviewed papers that there is a basis for discussion. There are no such formulations that I'm aware of regarding the things you have mentioned here.

Do you believe that a more informed person should belittle a less informed person who is trying to learn/converse about Physics?

Do you believe that pointing out the limitations of your knowledge is belittling? Particularly when the limitation is not even personal to you, but is shared by everyone?

I'm sorry, but this is not my argument.

Then I'm afraid I don't understand what your argument is. If it's just pointing out that those three things are unexplained, then where do we go from there? We don't have any basis for discussion beyond "these things are unexplained, but they all look similar to me". That's not enough to get anywhere.

Am I correct in assuming that a black hole gains mass from the consumption of matter/lite over time?

Yes, that is correct.

could it be possible that the consumption of matter/lite from a black hole, then feed our Universe?

What do you mean by "feed our universe"? If you mean, can a black hole gaining mass cause our universe to have inflated in the past, no, there is no basis for that in our current theories, or in any proposed models of inflation.

 

[HARVEYU1E1]

Yes, I do find it interesting, but no more or less interesting than any other pair of otherwise loosely related lethal and essential things.

Lol, understood. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Dale]

I only BELIEVE that these phenomena seemed very similar.

Hmm, the only obvious similarities are that they are both spherically symmetric and they both have spacelike singularities. Other than that one is static the other is not, one has an event horizon the other does not, one is a vacuum the other is not, one is asymptotically flat the other is not. In most of the ways that spacetimes are characterized they are different.

 

[HARVEYU1E1]

Hmm, the only obvious similarities are that they are both spherically symmetric and they both have spacelike singularities. Other than that one is static the other is not, one has an event horizon the other does not, one is a vacuum the other is not, one is asymptotically flat the other is not. In most of the ways that spacetimes are characterized they are different.

I'm going to have to apologize for my having to apologize so much. Lol.
"Similar"... No clue why I used this word.

Coincidence. It seems coincidental that one phenomena ends life, and the other starts life.
Now, "Life", it seems, is always trying to happen and subsequently evolve. I thought this even before reading of fine-tuning just with the basic understanding of Natural Selection. So why is it that we have this Finely-Tuned Universe with Black Holes in the center of Galaxies trying to end life? Now, obviously there is equal probability for another reason of why this happens, but I choose to investigate the possibility of life not ending at the Singularity, but instead being created elsewhere.

So, not similarities, but it seems coincidental that Black Holes end life, and Big Bangs create it. I'm not sure of the term, but doesn't everything have its counterpart? Yen/yang, matter/antimatter, light/dark? Well, now I choose to investigate; LIFE DESTROYER/LIFE STARTER.

 

[PeterDonis]

"Life", it seems, is always trying to happen and subsequently evolve

What evidence do we have of this? The only life we know of is here, on Earth--one planet, out of possibly billions of planets in our galaxy, which is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies. We have no idea whether there is life anywhere else in the universe. So I see no basis for making such a sweeping claim.

 

[HARVEYU1E1]

What evidence do we have of this? The only life we know of is here, on Earth--one planet, out of possibly billions of planets in our galaxy, which is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies. We have no idea whether there is life anywhere else in the universe. So I see no basis for making such a sweeping claim.

There is no evidence. I only say it as my own personal belief, as well as not being able to say it definitively.

 

[Dale]

There is no evidence. I only say it as my own personal belief

That is not what we do here. We promote mainstream professional science, not personal speculation.

Thread closed