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

Black Holes and the Big Bang

  1. Nov 28, 2011 #1
    Am I correct in saying that in theory Time, Matter and presumably Energy are compressed to a singularity at the centre of a black hole?

    If that is so then wouldn't they be "transported" back to the state and position they were in at the very beginning of time. In other words the instant of the big bang?

    And given enough time is it possible that all matter in the universe will be swallowed by Black Holes?

    So is the origin of the Big Bang the future universe that was created when it took place?
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 28, 2011 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, you would be correct in saying that a singularity is a place where the math in our models breaks down and we don't have a clue what's really going on

    Maybe, but it's indeterminate

    Not a chance

    I don't even know what you are saying, but I doubt it's right
  4. Nov 28, 2011 #3
    I would say Yes, it is just one more step in the process of accumulation from atoms, molecules, dust, rocks, planets, stars and so on. Why does it have to be any more complicated than that? Just because the gravitational effect is strong enough to hold back photons does not mean that things are not there the same as all other accumulated bodies.

    Not at each blackhole, that wouldn't happen until all the blackholes were accumulated and formed one called the singularity.

    In a cyclical universe yes and that process has already started.

    If you are trying to say, will the universe eventually cycle around to where it once was then yes.
  5. Nov 28, 2011 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Nonsense. First, all black holes HAVE a singularity and second, they are NOT going to combine, so your statement has no basis in science.
  6. Nov 28, 2011 #5
    Of course black holes have and will combine. There is already proof some are orbiting each other right now. And what about those in galaxies spiraling into the center? Why wouldn't black holes combine?
  7. Nov 28, 2011 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Your statement was that ALL black holes would combine --- I assumed you meant every black hole in the universe which is what the OP was asking about and what is NOT going to happen, thus my statement.
  8. Nov 28, 2011 #7
    Anyone who thinks the universe is cyclical also believes they will combine again eventually. That group includes scientist, professors, teachers and want to be layman like myself. Making unfounded statements like " they are NOT going to combine" does not agree with many people. Is there any proof?
  9. Nov 28, 2011 #8
    It would indeed be extremely unlikely that the Black Holes would combine if the universe expanded forever rather than reaching a contraction stage but I thought that the jury was still out on that?
  10. Nov 28, 2011 #9
    Yes, we and a lot of others also thought so.
  11. Nov 28, 2011 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, you are correct that there is no proof, but it seems unlikely that the current accelerating expansion is actually going to reverse. There just isn't any known mechanism for it. That of course doesn't mean there ISN'T any mechanism, it just seems unlikely and posits a state change for no known reason.
  12. Nov 28, 2011 #11

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    According to Physics Forums Rules,
    you have to back this up with references to articles in peer-reviewed, mainstream professional journals.
  13. Nov 28, 2011 #12
    There is no proof but you still say "current accelerating expansion" your right there is no known mechanism for it. On the other hand there have been alternate sources for red shift proposed including theories that do not include recession. There have also been state changes for no known reasons before or we wouldn't be here.
  14. Nov 28, 2011 #13
    A cyclical universe is a well known and main stream theory that has been around for some time now and written about in many books. If it can't be discussed on this forum what could be?
  15. Nov 29, 2011 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And my understanding is that they have all been proven false and recession is accepted as fact. Are you going to bring up "tired light", for example, as one of your alternatives?
  16. Nov 29, 2011 #15
    The burden of proof in this case is on you as the claimant. Accelerated expansion is currently the best fit for the mounds of observational data which is how Cosmological models are formulated - (As a best fit to existing data)

    You have answered the OP in what appears to be concrete statements where you have left little room for interpretation.

    You have boldly claimed ALL black holes will merge to create one big singularity and in truth this is a load of rubbish and you cannot state this as a fact on a science forum without expecting to be pulled to task regarding the absurd statements.

    Can you provide any recently peer reviewed articles that support your claim wrt a cyclical Universe and a mreger of all Black Holes? Does this include timeframes as a crunch would need to be complete before Black Holes evaporated? Of course not... as it is overly speculative!
  17. Nov 29, 2011 #16
    Not only SMBHs either, -all- black holes implies that this crunch will occur (definitively as stated in his posts) before stellar black holes evaporate too. I did a double take reading those posts and have trouble believing they aren't trolling or devil's advocate gone wrong. As others have stated it is one thing to believe in possible cosmological theories which are not the currently most favoured or evidence-supported theories but it is another to recklessly educate someone stating the tenants of those unfavoured theories as fact.

    I don't mind that you answered the question regarding BHs absorbing all matter in the universe with in a cyclical universe but your immediately proceeding and preceding answers do not do this.

    Also, contradicting a crunch theory does not agree with many people? What? It agrees with the majority of the scientific community.

    There is nothing wrong with discussing that theory on this forum, it is discussed quite a lot and there is nothing wrong with answering his questions under the hypothetical scenario in which that theory is the correct description of our universe but you are misleadingly stating it as fact or as the most widely accepted theory.
  18. Nov 29, 2011 #17
    Seems to me that both sides are stating their preferred view as FACT and ridiculing any contra view rather than referring to supporting evidence or logical argument.

    Personally I would prefer to be directed to supporting articles and evidence to help me consider both sides of the argument.
  19. Nov 29, 2011 #18
    The evidence for accelerated expansion is overhwhelming. I am not stating this as a fact merely as the currently accepted cosmological model based on observations. The recent Nobel prize was awarded along a similar vein based on the SN data.

    Currently there are NO models that are cyclical that fit with current observation - there is for accelerated expansion. As previously stated it is entirely POSSIBLE for their to be a mechanism which causes a collapse - but this is unobserver and entirely speculation. SN data has proved that currently the Universe is accelerating.
  20. Nov 29, 2011 #19
    Thank you for that. From my limited reading I can see that the evidence for the current accelerated expansion is overwhelming but won't we have to wait until projects such as SDDS are completed (if that is even possible) before we can say for sure whether this will continue forever or at some point reverse? There is still a lot of missing data on density and distribution.
  21. Nov 29, 2011 #20
    We can always amend the current cosmological model based on new data. However, I do not think we will ever be able to say for sure (100% and unequivocally) whether the Universe will continue accelerating as their may be underlying mechanisms we are yet to discover or that are yet to even occur. The current consensus is of accelerated expansion but this may change given additional data - all science can continue to do is match observation with mathematical models.

    The cyclical Universe is not currently accepted and flies in the face of the huge amount of observational evidence. Bill seemed to be promoting this as fact, I am not stating that the Universes accelerated expansion is a fact, but it is a best fit to the data and currently accepted model.

    We have only been seriously looking at the stars with actual physical understanding for the last century or so (wrt General Relativity) and we know this is an incomplete theory and needs to be accorded with a theory of QG.) So who knows what physical laws/mechanisms we have yet to undrstand.

    I hope this helps.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook