Black holes created the big bang?

[xdawpax]

hi I am new here. i don't 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?

 

[Tachyonie]

I don't like the word "sucks". Matter simply falls into black hole. You don't 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.

Tachyon.

 

[xdawpax]

fixed

 

[xdawpax]

i see a lot of people looking.. no comments on this?

 

[wolram]

i see a lot of people looking.. no comments on this?

AFAIK, no one has found a white hole yet, would it not stick out to an astronomer rather well?

 

[Tachyonie]

hi I am new here. i don't 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?

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.

Tachyon.

 

[xdawpax]

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. I am 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

 

[xdawpax]

Oh... and nice joke with the church.. but id rather take a bridge then listen to fairytales.. lol

 

[PseudoIntellect]

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.

 

[Chronos]

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].

 

[xdawpax]

PseudoIntellect

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

 

[xdawpax]

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

 

[xdawpax]

no replys??

 

[_Mayday_]

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

 

[Pippo]

hi I am new here. i don't 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?

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.

 

[AceHack]

My Thoughts

hi I am new here. i don't 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?

PseudoIntellect
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

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 because 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 black holes 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 spatial 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.

 

[xdawpax]

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 I've been reading most of the galaxy's have super massive black holes in the center of them.. and the ones that don't 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.

 

[edjoyce]

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

 

[MLBar]

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.

MLB

 

[sleepacatcher]

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!

 

[sleepacatcher]

Okay, I just realized Acehack has covered some of these ideas as well, so, keep the ideas flowing!

 

[BoomBoom]

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

I agree 100%! It is also more satisfying than the assumption that the universe is somehow some self-contained entity with no boundaries/edge and that there is nothing beyond it.

There is no way that we will ever know for sure one way or the other because it is beyond our realm of observation. So why it is that one postulation is credible while another is tossed aside or labelled as "crackpot" when BOTH are equally speculatory is beyond me.

 

[sleepacatcher]

Good points BB. Especially the one about what is outside the universe.

Because, now we can talk about three topic-related questions at once:

1) what is outside the universe?
2) where did the energy for the Big Bang come from?
3) where is the gravitational energy of black holes stored?

Obviously 2) and 3) are related, if the Big Bang came from some sort of "ultra-massive" black hole scenario, as proposed by previous posters.

In all three cases, the answer could be (without being facetious): SPACE...
Not empty space, because we are coming to realize more and more as time goes on that space is not empty. But rather, space under pressure.

By "space", I mean the vacuum medium, which permeates almost everything (except perhaps elementary particles) and is the seat of inertia, gravitation, electric and magnetic fields, etc.

In other words, suppose that "space" is a compressible, rotateable medium which can support gravitational pressure and magnetic and electric fields. That is why "space" has its own magnetic permeability (µo) and electric permittivity (εo), even when there are no other polarisable or magnetiseable materials present.

Thinking about what is outside the universe, consider the leading edge of the expanding wavefront from the former Big Bang (of 14 billion years ago), where we think everything is moving at the speed of light. In that region there could be a highly pressurised area of space, like a spherical shock-wave front. Beyond that, the pressure of the vacuum medium would fall to the ambient level of space, over some as yet unknown distance. Until the next universe is encountered...
As regards the energy that caused the Big Bang, if this was stored in the gravitational energy of an "ultra-massive black hole", then it would be the vacuum medium (space) itself which supplied the energy, via the monstrous gravitational pressures which it evidently can support in the vicinity of a black hole.

Okay, now if you did not choke on any of that, I take my hat off to you! Because that probably means you are a free thinker. You might also be aware that such a space or vacuum medium is perfectly in accord with Relativity, both Special and General (being Lorentz invariant, amongst other things), so it does not cause Michelsen or Morley any lost sleep in their respective graves.

Now, the big question for me is: how does matter cause gravitation, especially in a black hole?
Anyone like to propose a mechanism at the level of the vacuum medium?

Obviously to do that, one must first come up with a realistic model of the vacuum medium (space) itself, at a level down to, say, the Planck dimension...Is that asking too much?
Okay, now I am being facetious...

Perhaps elementary particles are some type of void or bubble in the space-time medium. It takes considerable energy to make a bubble in a pressurised medium. When enough massive particles collect in one place, the pressure of space itself pressing in on them, keeps them pressed together with an immense gravitational force, that may be nothing more than the pressure of the vacuum medium (space) itself. When the bubble gets to a certain "ultra-massive" size, or is catastrophically perturbed in some way, nothing can stop space imploding and producing a rather big bang (THE Big Bang?).

I will stop there.

Hopefully these ideas will seed yet more ideas and we can speculate freely in good company!

 

[BoomBoom]

Hopefully these ideas will seed yet more ideas and we can speculate freely in good company!

Well actually, idle speculation is not allowed here and this thread will probably be locked or deleted.

I am just a skeptic by nature with ALL things and I was pointing out the fact that some things (which cannot be known) are are curiously accepted speculation (like the nature of the unobservable universe) and others are not (perhaps the rest of an infinite universe outside our expanding bubble). I think it just all comes down to the "credentials" of the speculator.

"Free" speculation in good company will likely need to be done in other forums...
...suggestions? :)

 

[sleepacatcher]

I take your point BoomBoom, after reading the rules.
I will go elsewhere.
It is your loss.
Goodbye.

 

[BoomBoom]

I take your point BoomBoom, after reading the rules.

uhhh, well it wasn't really MY point...I was just pointing out how things usually go around here just based upon observation.

...doesn't mean I agree with it :)

 

[81+]

Sleepacatcher, don't leave just because a moderator might block a post. "Black Holes Created The Big Bang" can be discussed in many ways within the forum rules. I like your speculations and would like to see where they take you. If you do decide to leave, please email me what forum you've found to carry on your thoughts. My email is franksterne@comcast.net. Thanks.

 

[marcus]

I take your point BoomBoom, after reading the rules.
I will go elsewhere.
It is your loss.
Goodbye.

uhhh, well it wasn't really MY point...I was just pointing out how things usually go around here just based upon observation.

...doesn't mean I agree with it :)

Sleepacatcher, don't leave just because a moderator might block a post. "Black Holes Created The Big Bang" can be discussed in many ways within the forum rules. I like your speculations and would like to see where they take you. If you do decide to leave, please email me what forum you've found to carry on your thoughts. My email is franksterne@comcast.net. Thanks.

The general idea of BB coming out of BH has been around in the peer-review professional research literature at least since 1994. Actually voiced much earlier by J.A.Wheeler but since 1994 a bunch of published journal articles.

Also a chapter in a scholarly book that came out last year. (too expensive to buy, look in university libraries, title = Universe or Multiverse). Also a chapter in a forthcoming scholarly book scheduled to go on sale November 2008, Springer Press, edited by R. Vaas.
Title=Beyond the Big Bang.

I think we have had threads about the BH-> BB idea before at PF Cosmology, over the years. Don't remember perfectly but don't think any trouble with rules. the main way to get along with the rules, I think, is
Know the professional research and know how your own pet ideas fit in with current peer-review publication.

Don't stress that your ideas are original with you, in other words. Emphasize that they are already in the professional literature, and give links to articles.
===============

The bottom line, I think, is that 81+ is probably right in saying "can be discussed in many ways" in accordance with forum rules. I'm not an expert about forum rules and moderation, however, so I'm just giving you my unofficial personal take on it.