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 created the big bang?

  1. Feb 23, 2008 #1
    hi im new here. i dont really know much about physics but i was thinking...
    A Supermassive Black Hole pulls in all this matter due to its gravitational pull. my question is due to the super high mass of the black hole and the curvature of time and space, would it be possible for the black hole to tear a hole in time space and deposit (via white hole) all the matter in an earlier time of the universe.. kinda like the whole chicken and the egg thing?
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 23, 2008 #2
    I dont like the word "sucks". Matter simply falls into black hole. You dont say earth sucks things into itself do you? It remembers me of that horrible BBC document moderated by star trek actor to add it even more scientific atmosphere who described black hole as evil and nasty devil going around and sucking innocent planets and stars.

    Last edited: Feb 23, 2008
  4. Feb 23, 2008 #3
  5. Feb 23, 2008 #4
    i see a lot of people looking.. no comments on this?
  6. Feb 23, 2008 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    AFAIK, no one has found a white hole yet, would it not stick out to an astronomer rather well?
  7. Feb 23, 2008 #6
    Youre thinking that white hole could be the reason for big bang? It is highly unlikely. Its hard to tear a hole in spacetime if there is no spacetime "yet". Also I am not sure you understand how white holes work (well actually nobody does since its purely hypothetical and even mathematically does not make any real sence) though to be honest neither do I, so debating with me on this topic might be the wrong way to go. :)
    If you want some more likely cause of the Big Bang go and have some read about the M-Theory and branes or go and visit the church.

  8. Feb 23, 2008 #7
    i read up on m-theory, brains.. i was just off on a random thought earlier. as far as the white hole.. i was thinking that they may only existed in the beginning when the universe was it being formed. im trying to explain what i got in my head but its hard to put to words.. ok here we go.. lol. i was thinking this. since black holes have a huge gravitational pull and bend space time.. maybe it sends the matter back in time to formation of the universe (big bang time). white holes would only be there.. as the white hole pushes out more and more matter it gets denser and denser till it collapses into a black hole again. a universal paradox. like a matter recyclers. takes all the used up matter compresses it to base elements and deposits it into the past to start its journey all over again.

    just some random thoughts from a board person.. lol
  9. Feb 23, 2008 #8
    Oh... and nice joke with the church.. but id rather take a bridge then listen to fairytales.. lol
  10. Feb 24, 2008 #9
    Church isn't about spewing out fairy tales. But anyway...

    I believe what you're saying is that time travel to the past is possible and that nonexistent objects that are going to exist at some point in the future can cause themselves to exist further back in the past by manifesting themselves by means of curving spacetime in a future black hole? This is a highly unlikely event mostly characterized by speculation.

    Consider the following paradox. Suppose you have the ability to send objects back in time. You have a marble in your hand and you want to send it back in time. In 6 minutes, you plan to send it back exactly 5 minutes into the past. But suddenly 1 minute later, before you can execute the action, a second marble poofs into existence in your hand. You have no idea where this marble came from, but 5 minutes later, after the 6 minutes are up, you successfully send it back into time. The one original marble remains in your hand.

    You have to think: where did this marble come from? What purpose did it serve? Saying it came from the future is paradoxical in that the future marble also poofed into existence 5 minutes earlier. Shouldn't there be an infinite number of marbles in your hand due to the regress of ever greater number of marbles poofing into your hand? And why would the mere thought in your mind of sending a not yet existent marble into the past affect reality in any meaningful way? I believe the only solution is that it's possibly manifested in a parallel universe, except that (even when disregarding the highly speculative nature of the idea of a multiverse) parallel universes have no effect on each other.

    So I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but if you're saying black holes from our universe that exist now made our universe in the past, then I doubt it.
  11. Feb 24, 2008 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, Smolin has a version of this idea - universes spalling off from black holes in 'mother' universes [cosmic natural selection]. An objection is it does not appear to be consistent with such a description [the interior of a black hole].
  12. Feb 24, 2008 #11

    That would be so if the black holes sent all matter back to the exact time. i was thinking in a more linear type of transportation of matter due to the bend in space time. example. if a piece of matter was pulled in on date 1-1-00 at 12noon.. it would get pushed out in the past at 1-1-12billion bce at 12 noon. if the next piece of matter got pulled in on 1-1-00 at 12:01. that next piece would be pushed out at 1-1-12billion bce at 12:01 also. that would eliminate that part of the paradox. yet the paradox as a whole would still be there. in effect all galaxies would be paradoxical and would result in multiple "big bangs" that created each.

    again.. this is just a thought
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2008
  13. Feb 24, 2008 #12
    so i sat here and thought what you had to say about the marble. but i was thinking.. the black hole would be more of a matter transporter. it would break down everything into its lowest form and recycling it to the beginning of the universe. if you think of matter being nonlinear than all matter is everywhere at all time. being nonlinear or thinking in the 4th dimension the marble wouldn't be round. it would look like a long cylinder stretching from the time it was made to the time it was destroyed. so looking in the 4th dimension at that marble you would see the marble as a cylinder with a part that would have a bump in it where the time line was altered. in the end there would still be 1 marble. using the thought i had.. the marble (matter) wouldn't be a long straight cylinder.. more like a big circle in space and time. Matter would spin around constantly changing from objects from the future to basic matter in the past. sending objects back whole is a whole different story and could not happen with a black hole. to travel back in time would have to do with speed. you can slow down time by going fast. but to go back in time you would have to go faster than light. as of now e=mc2 says no but, i guess were looking for ways to get around that

    yes its early.. but beer is still good. i guess i needed some brain lube for that marble thing.. lol. good one though
  14. Feb 26, 2008 #13
    no replys??
  15. Feb 26, 2008 #14
    In the very, very distant future if the universe begins to contract, I think this is called the "big crunch", then will this not be the exact opposite of the big bang and so the two are actually equivelant? Could the big crunch of out universe serve as the big bang for another? So then our universe could have followed another one in a similar way, and when out universe is crunched it could act as another universe's big bang?

    Just a thought, I don't know if that actually holds any relevance or truth to this thread. Please correct me if I am wrong :smile:
  16. Feb 26, 2008 #15
    Black holes are just one of the faces of the universe, they represents a distorted part of it. That is, the universe couldn't be created by a part of it.
  17. Feb 27, 2008 #16
    My Thoughts

    I had two thought on a similar subject. Is it possible that there was just one so called "white hole". It wouldn't be exactly like the white holes described in physics becuase they assume many in one universe. My question, is it possible there is only one white hole in our universe, "the big bang" and that all matter collected by all black holes are directed back in time till the moment of so called "creation". Wouldn't this be a good reason for the conversation of energy. And also a good reason that supermassive blackholes are starting to be discovered at the very, very early points in our universe. I would imagine if this idea were true then black holes would have to exist as soon as anything else "matter\energy" existed. Maybe our universe is actaully like a self circulating system. Such as if a pool had many drains "black holes" at the bottom that all drained into a single pipe "big bang" that fed back into the pool at the top. Just in thinking about this in a logical fashion it would probably have to be some sort of energy required to "pump" the matter back into the "top" beginning of the universe.
    My other postulation is based on hawkins theory that black holes evoporate in a sense. So is it possible that there was no big bang and our universe actaully recycles by randomly distributing molecules over space\time when they get pulled into a black hole using some sort of quantium equations. Posibbly this is the cause of cosmic background radiation?
    I also had my own question? Is the universe actually expanding. I mean from all the evidense the universe is definattly increasing in spacial distance but time is not constant. It actally comes extreemly close to stopping near edges of the universe. When I think of expansion I deffinatly take time into consideration. If time stops near the edge of the universe then can it really be expanding or is it just an allusion in a sense where distance is created wihout actually expanding. I really look forward to your responses.
  18. Feb 27, 2008 #17
    i was thinking bout that also... having 1 super massive white hole connecting all black holes. but here is why i was thinking that there had to be many. each galaxy is separate from the next there are huge spaces between each. so i was looking at it like each was created at different times. each would expand and contract in a paradox. from what ive been reading most of the galaxy's have super massive black holes in the center of them.. and the ones that dont i guess its just a matter of time. that lead me to thinking bout bending and possibly tearing of space/time. now all the matter could be deposited in the same spot in the past or elsewhere. if deposited elsewhere that would throw off the way this reality came to be. in the end id have to say that time is meaningless on a cosmological level but the most important thing to us humans.
  19. Mar 18, 2008 #18
    Re your question

    would it be possible for the black hole to tear a hole in time space and deposit (via white hole) all the matter in an earlier time of the universe.

    The answer is no - time moves forward only the past is gone the future is to come. Cosmology has many odd features but moving back in time is fortunately not one of them.

    I don't a full understanding of this but this is my working assumption.

    Ed Joyce
  20. Apr 6, 2008 #19
    As far as I know, there is no theoretical process that limits the size or lifetime of an isolated black hole.

    It might be possible for an event like the "Big-Bang" to have been created by a mutually disruptive collision or near collision of two ultra-massive black holes. Here I reserve the term "ultra-massive" to indicate black-hole masses on the order of the total mass of the known universe.

    If our universe were created from a massive black-hole disruption, it would not be surprising to find many small black holes in the resulting primordial debris.

    Last edited: Apr 7, 2008
  21. Jun 16, 2008 #20
    Thank-you MLB,
    you have said what I have been thinking for a long time....

    The idea that the Big Bang emerged from an "ultra-massive black hole", of the same (or similar) mass as the present universe, neatly explains where all the matter came from: it was collected together from a prior universe, by mutually attracting black holes, which eventually coalesced, until the limit of stability was reached. Then BOOM!

    This is much more satisfying than the proposal that everything came from nothing....

    Also, as you rightly point out, many smaller black holes would be released during such an event. These would create a perfect mechanism for seeding the cores of new galaxies.

    It is now widely accepted that most if not all galaxies in the known universe have a super-massive black hole at the center. It is also known that these super-massive black holes are surrounded by a cloud of smaller black holes. Interesting!

    Many people assume that (all) black holes were formed gradually, after the Big Bang.
    But what if many or most of these black holes were generated during the Big Bang itself, as a result of the disintegration of an "ultra-massive" black hole? (I think I like the term "ultra-massive" that you used, so I'll keep on using it, if that's okay with you....).

    With these ideas in mind, a much clearer picture of the birth of the universe emerges, one in which the laws of physics are not obliterated in a singularity of minute size. In fact, an ultra-massive Black hole with mass equal to that of the universe would be quite large; maybe several billion Km in diameter? (just an educated guess). That's about one-tenth the size of the Milky Way galaxy.

    It should be added that quite a few super-massive (million or billion solar masses in size) black holes could also have survived the disintegration of an "ultra-massive" black hole. I can think of one found recently that has a mass of well over 10 billion suns and yet was present only a billion years after the Big Bang. How could it have formed so quickly? Unless it was already present from Day One.

    There are many other valuable insights which can be gained from such a model.
    Thanks for mentioning the idea.

    I particularly like the concept of a collision between two "ultra-massive" black holes, maybe a big one and a smaller one. Just when it looked like everything would neatly form with a single stable black hole, such a collision could have set everything in motion again. Beautiful!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook