Big Bang: Escape Velocity Change from >c to <c?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edpell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of the Big Bang and its relationship to black holes, questioning whether the universe, if compressed to a 1mm region, would have been a black hole with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. It highlights that the Big Bang involved the expansion of spacetime itself rather than an explosion within pre-existing space, complicating comparisons to black holes. The conversation also touches on the entropy differences between black holes and the early universe, emphasizing that the Big Bang began with energy rather than matter. Additionally, there are inquiries about the potential of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to recreate conditions similar to the Big Bang and the implications of such experiments. Overall, the thread explores fundamental questions about the universe's origins and the nature of spacetime.
edpell
Messages
282
Reaction score
4
If all mass of the universe was in a region 1mm in extent then was it a black hole (escape velocity greater than c)? Now 13 billion years later the universe is bigger. What is the escape velocity now? Did it change from >c to <c?
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The big bang is an odd phenomenon. Singularities are a problem for current physics. I don't think you can really think of the big bang having arisen out of a black hole (Current Physical laws don't seem to work at the moment of the big bang or before, only something like 10^-42 seconds afterwards). There is no escape velocity for the universe, as far as I know you can not leave the universe...
 
edpell said:
If all mass of the universe was in a region 1mm in extent then was it a black hole (escape velocity greater than c)? Now 13 billion years later the universe is bigger. What is the escape velocity now? Did it change from >c to <c?

Since the Schwartzchild radius tells the maximum radius a given mass could have to be a black hole, we can calculate the minimum mass of a 1mm black hole.
R_{Schwarzschild}=\frac{2GM}{c^2}\approx 3km(\frac{M}{M_{sun}})

So setting the Schwarzschild radius equal to 1mm, we get 7*10^23 kg, about a tenth the mass of the Earth.

Really, the smaller a black hole you can achieve (good luck overcoming degeneracy pressure), the less mass you need. (A massive body becomes a black hole depending on the density.)

However, there's a much more important issue here. The Schwartzchild radius describes black holes in space. The big bang was not an explosion in a background of space. The big bang involves spacetime itself expanding from a single point. The universe (which may or may not be infinite) has always had a nearly homogenous and isotropic mass distribution.

In addition, it might interest you that the big bang had excruciatingly low entropy while black holes have the highest possible amount of entropy in a given region of space.
 
Last edited:
edpell said:
If all mass of the universe was in a region 1mm in extent then was it a black hole (escape velocity greater than c)?

Fact is that just after the BigBang, matter did not exist. There was something like a soup of plasma more or less seethrough. It took "very long" for matter to form.

Therefore, you cannot think in the sense of compressing matter into a very small volume. You need to see the Big Bang as a release of energy that eventually formed elementary particles, that eventually formed nuclei, that eventually formed atoms, that eventually contracted to form the matter as we know nowadays.

Cheers
 
Does your collective thinking believe that the LHC can create a Little, Big Bang?

If yes, then that is a lot of bucks for the bang! ... or will it answer the $4.5B question! Is the Higgs Boson the end of the question? What is the next question?

OR, if the answer is no, then 1.) another failed attempt? , or 2.) WHAT? "We came, we saw, we conquered, we left suddenly!"
 
Bethann said:
Does your collective thinking believe that the LHC can create a Little, Big Bang?

By just taking a quick look at the CERN's website makes you realize that they are not focusing on just one particular field. The CERN is a research center open to all research team around the world.

Some of their projects, like the ATLAs has a very specific focuse, and they will use part of the beam. But other research are always welcome to apply for beam time.

Cheers
 
Bethann, I enjoy your sense of humor "we left suddenly" :)

Fatra2, I do not think it "matters" (sorry for the pun) if the stuff is energy or matter I get the impression these are about the same as far as gravitational effects are concerned.

Jolb, your remarks about a "hole in space" versus "spacetime itself expanding" contains so many ideas I do not know where to being and many of the ideas I do not understand. I would ask when can we talk about holes in space? How big does the universe need to be? If a 1mm black hole is about a tenth the mass of the Earth then using 10^55kg as the mass of the universe we can make 1.6x10^30 black holes. If they are all packed next to each other than there was a time when the universe was about 11,000km in radius it "contained" 1.6x10^30 black holes packed cheek to jowl. How do you think about this? At what point do we move from expaning spacetime to hole in space?
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
187
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
1K
Back
Top