Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A universe before the big bang

  1. Jan 5, 2005 #1
    Stephan Hawking states that there could have been a so called "Pre-Universe" or a universe before the Big Bang. Now Black holes he states can lose their mass because matter is somewhat able to escape. Thats why when you look at pictures of black holes you see that there is matter streaming at the poles at high speeds. Now when to much of this matter is ejected out the smaller the mass of the black hole. Now it is "said" that when the black hole finally loses all its mass and then implodes. Now this implosion is also said to release most of the matter in which the black hole ate. Well what if the big bang was actually a black hole in which it was born from a big star. Or it could be the merging of other black holes to create a massive black hole. Well its just a thought and if you guys have anything to say go ahead. This is just one of my bizzare ideas.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 6, 2005 #2

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    That matter is not being ejected from the black hole, it's made of the stuff it is feeding upon.
    A black hole does not implode, more like explodes. A black hole radiates away mass until hardly any mass remains. How much is not certain, but a good guess is around a planck mass [~10E-08kg]. At that point it gives off one last tiny burst of radiation and evaporates althogether - at least in theory. This takes a very long time so don't expect to see any photos anytime soon.
    Hawking's concept is interesting, though highly speculative. The universe more strongly resembles a time reversed black hole: it began as a singularity that rapidly expanded to enormous size and has continued to expand since.
     
  4. Jan 6, 2005 #3
    Are you saying that black holes actually lose all their mass and then evaporate?

    Is this all based on Hawkings Radiation or is there other theories supporting this?

    How would black holes evaporate when Hawkings Radiation happen on the event horizon and it's not really part of the actual black hole?

    If a black hole kept consuming mass, then it will never evaporate right? Since the rate of mass loss is less than the rate of consumption.
     
  5. Jan 6, 2005 #4

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Yes.
    Through Hawking radiation.
    Energy conservancy. The black hole sacrifices the mass equivalent required to power the radiation.
    Eventually it will run out of food and the CMB temperature will fall below the temperature of the black hole. But, be patient. This might take awhile - like a day short of eternity. Super massive black holes will be around long after the last star in the universe winks out.
     
  6. Jan 6, 2005 #5

    DB

    User Avatar

    What's that process called again? There's name for what's going on when you see energy and light from the poles of a black hole...
     
  7. Jan 6, 2005 #6

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    According to theory, black hole jets originate in the accretion disk surrounding the event horizon. Infalling matter behaves much like a fluid as it approaches the black hole, forming a disc similar to the rings of saturn. As it spirals in to be consumed, it gets entangled in the intense magnetic / electrostatic field of the black hole. A portion of this highly accelerated matter escapes through the poles creating jets.
    Jets are a common phenomenon in objects such as protostars, neutron stars, and even galaxies. The velocity of jets is proportionate to the escape velocity of the central object. Hence, jets from black holes are spectacularly energetic, traveling at nearly the speed of light. Jets from more pedestrian objects, like protostars, travel at a much more sedate pace.
     
  8. Jan 6, 2005 #7

    DB

    User Avatar

    Jets, that's what it was, thanks.
     
  9. Jan 6, 2005 #8
    How does a black hole sacrifices mass in order to power the radiation? Nothing can excape a black hole, how does it supply mass in the form of energy? If you're talking about Hawkings Radiation, that happens outside of the actualy black hole and has nothing to do with the black hole itself. How would the black hole itself actually lose mass?
     
  10. Feb 5, 2005 #9
  11. Feb 5, 2005 #10
    Or the universe could have emerged from a primordial vacuum by fluctuation...meaning a dead universe gave birth to our universe

    I read somewhere that in Hawking Radiation, fluctuations happen all the time and sooner or later one of the fluctuations will look like a Big Bang
     
  12. Feb 5, 2005 #11
    Wasnt this "universe from a black hole" theory debunked last year
     
  13. Feb 5, 2005 #12

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think Smolin is still counting on it with his Cosmological Natural Selection theory.

    Garth
     
  14. Feb 5, 2005 #13
    nevermind lol
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2005
  15. Nov 15, 2009 #14
    Yes, nothing is actually escaping from those "jets". They occur due to the same force of gravity sucking matter in. To put it closer, its like using the earth's own gravity, to "slingshot" and escape being pulled into it, and even having a net gain in energy from the occurrence. But the matter/energy never crosses the event horizon, else it could not escape. Yet since the matter can leave the area of a black hole with a net gain in energy, it is somehow robbing the black hole of this (energy). But how? I suspect a black hole never actually loses energy. I suspect energy is robbed from other things that are destined to be pulled in, not already in it. What does this mean there is absolutely no "food" for a black hole? ha ha now we are getting into interesting ground!!!!! Bring on the theories, I will now bite my tongue (as hard as it is to contain myself), I don't want to give away what i am working on in the field of gravity right now -toooo much
    gravity.....
     
  16. Nov 18, 2009 #15
    The jets you see called "quasars" is matter being ejected at close to the speed of light, even black holes have magnetic poles of which the particles are ejected but in a more concentrated way, which is why u can see them. But b4 the matter makes it to the jets it gets whipped around the event horizon, forming the accretion disc, which is why it appears to be coming directly from the black hole itself. My confusion about blackholes is if its orginally there due to extreme mass in such a small area, how can it just dissolve away via radiation? My only conclusion would be thats its radiating mass into pure energy and is the only thing that doesnt apply to the rules of physics considering everything else is trapped by the gravity. I also believe that micro-scopic black holes are in a completly different class as the stellar, medium, and super massive ones. so much so that i would even consider the micro-scopic black holes to be black holes in the first place. I think black holes will always be and wont ever dissolve away, there is a singularity but we wont see it since the theory states that light cant escape, so the light will not hit our retinas, even if we were standing next to it. i would like to believe the universe was born, and there are many others being born as well, hence the m theory
     
  17. Nov 26, 2009 #16
    I feel that before the singularity, Fr. Goreges Lemaitre called "the primeval atom", erupted as the big bang, this singularity, must have had an origin.
    Since this singularity DID NOT, occupy a three diminsional time space enviornment, it must have occupied an alternative enviornment. Note, I am not using the Word UNIVERESE, becaise there WAS NO UNIVERSE.
    I propose that the alternative enviornment where our progenitor singularity emerged from was a vast TWO Dimensional UNIVERSE, which we are unaware of, and it with no interaction with us.....It could be that Big Bangs are being produced by the google(not the search engine) by that two dimensioal universe, that we are unawere of.
     
  18. Apr 2, 2010 #17
    If you look at the theory of 'strings' would these (fundamental? things) (presuming they are (???) massless) even be effected by gravity? would they or could they possibly exist in a singularity? If they weren't effected by gravity... they could radiate off too in the form of something like (x-rays)??? Could they disappear off into some other dimension (sounds like a sci-fi question, sorry) or to rephrase -What would happen to these other dimensions? Do they break down? Is there any work being done on applying string theory models inside a black hole?

    Else; does the incredible forces at work create a state where even these strings are no more? Do they from as one dense oscillation or something? I would like to see some ideas as to what happens to string models in a singularity. String theory has me very confused, but my idealistic thinking edges me slowly towards it... I am wondering if a black hole state is the same as a pre-universe state also.
     
  19. Oct 3, 2010 #18
    I personly like the idea of the multiverse, where every songle possability that could of happen appears in a super state and creates a paralel universe, and if the conditions where right, at the big bang the four forces could merge together and when they reach the plank size, they begin to grow again.
     
  20. Oct 3, 2010 #19

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Sigh, try introductory calculus.
     
  21. Oct 3, 2010 #20
    You stated in your post #4, Chronos, that black holes evaporate by Hawking radiation. How long would it take an exterior observer, in theory, to observe Hawking radiation?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: A universe before the big bang
  1. Before the big bang (Replies: 5)

  2. No time before big bang. (Replies: 43)

Loading...