Could Black Holes Have Created Our Universe?

[doc.madani]

is it possible that our universe was created via a black hole? ... could this be possible since black holes act as a vacuum which sucks matter into another dimension or universe? hence a black hole could have created our own universe?

Another this is what is dark matter?

 

[Glennage]

It's actually another Theory, obviously never proved, but it could be true, and makes sense in some ways.

have a read of this:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html

 

[Glennage]

Oh sorry, and dark matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

[doc.madani]

what is our universe expanding into?

if we could travel to the edge of our universe and maintain the same speed as it is expanding what would we see? would we be able to see what we are expanding into?

are we expanding into NOTHING? something that has no mass and no energy? if so how can something expand into nothing?

 

[granpa]

look up 'white hole'.

what is the universe expanding into? what exists between the individual quata of space?

 

[bebe7]

There is a theory that the universe continually recycles itself, that is to say it will continue to expand to a certain extent and then will contract on itself and compres into nothingness. We should also realize that if the Universe is truly infinite, there can then be an infinite number of "smaller universes" within the overall Universe. Each smaller universe reacting within itself.

 

[doc.madani]

as the Earth spins we are warping space and time, can we warp space enough in which we fall into it?

 

[G3n3sis1]

as the Earth spins we are warping space and time, can we warp space enough in which we fall into it?

Your question " if we were at the edge of the universe what would we see?" actually provides logic that the universe cannot be expanding because in order to expand there has to be a beginng. The universe is infinite which by definition can not have a beginning. Infinitcy has no end but if its infinite there can not be a beginning because where there is a beginning there is an end and where there is an end there is a beginning. To explain exactly what the universe is you would have to be completely open to ideas that seem far out in a higher magnitude to the very ideas that Einstein proposed and Steven Hawking prosposed.

 

[bcrowell]

what is our universe expanding into?

if we could travel to the edge of our universe and maintain the same speed as it is expanding what would we see? would we be able to see what we are expanding into?

are we expanding into NOTHING? something that has no mass and no energy? if so how can something expand into nothing?

FAQ: What about the edge of the universe?

Standard cosmological models do not have edges. They come in two flavors, open and closed. The open type has negative spatial curvature and infinite volume. The closed one has positive curvature and finite volume; spatially, it is the three-dimensional analog of a sphere. Neither has an edge. The open type has no edges because it extends to infinite distances. The closed type has no edges because it wraps around on itself. Current observations of the cosmic microwave background's anisotropy show that our universe is very nearly spatially flat (on the cosmological scale). If it is exactly flat, then it is a special case lying between the more general open and closed cases. The flat case has infinite volume and no edges.

Sometimes people use the word "universe" when they really mean "observable universe." The observable universe does have an edge, which simply lies at the maximum distance from the observer that light would have been able to travel since the universe became transparent shortly after the Big Bang. We are at the center of our observable universe, and its edges are expanding outward as time goes on, because in the future light will have had more time to travel to us. An observer billions of light years away from us is at the center of their observable universe, which has different edges than ours. All of these edges are boundaries of the availability of information, not places where anything physically special happens.

 

[bcrowell]

Your question " if we were at the edge of the universe what would we see?" actually provides logic that the universe cannot be expanding because in order to expand there has to be a beginng.

This is incorrect. There are cosmological models that expand without having a beginning, although current observations show we don't live in a universe like that.

The universe is infinite which by definition can not have a beginning.

We don't know whether the universe is spatially infinite; see the FAQ below. All current, realistic cosmological models begin with a Big Bang singularity. This includes both the spatially finite ones and the spatially infinite ones.

Infinitcy has no end but if its infinite there can not be a beginning because where there is a beginning there is an end and where there is an end there is a beginning.

All current, realistic cosmological models have a Big Bang singularity at the beginning, but they do not end in a singularity.

If you'd like to learn a little about general relativity, the book I always suggest to beginners is Relativity Simply Explained, by Martin Gardner.

FAQ: Is the universe finite, or is it infinite?

Standard cosmological models come in two flavors, open and closed. The open type has negative spatial curvature and infinite spatial volume. The closed one has positive curvature and finite spatial volume; spatially, it is the three-dimensional analog of a sphere. Since both types are mathematically self-consistent solutions to the Einstein field equations, the finiteness or infiniteness of the universe is something that cannot be determined by solely logic but only by observation.

Current observations of the cosmic microwave background's anisotropy show that our universe is very nearly spatially flat (on the cosmological scale). If it is exactly flat, then it is a special case lying between the more general open and closed cases. The flat case has infinite volume. However, the range of uncertainty in the curvature is wide enough to be consistent with either positive or negative curvature, so right now the finiteness or infiniteness of the universe is an open question.

Sometimes people use the word "universe" when they really mean "observable universe." The observable universe is finite in volume because light has only had a finite time to travel since the Big Bang.

 

[G3n3sis1]

I would agree with you if i agreed with the current models of what the universe is. Fact of the matter is "for me", they don't make sense. Not in the sense I don't understand them but in the sense I don't understand how they make sense. If that makes sense lol. You said that the "observable universe is finite" because the light only has traveled since the big bang. However.. i can't wrap my head around that because what if we were to move faster than the expansion of the big bang? eventually that light will disappear. What happened to the Observable universe? What would we be traveling through then? That is a question the Big Bang, Singularity or whatever cannot answer. And infinite means without end... how can it be infinite if it has a point where it stops? I believe the universe is made of three particles that break down the natural state of the universe "gravity, black holes" and forms matter once broken down and constantly attempts to build back up through a complicated process. All broken down energy is pulled towards the natural state, thus why gravity pulls. Light, radiation, heat, are all different intensity waves emitted by this process. The particles are infinitely small and build up creating large forms of the particles because of the broken down energy. The particles are infinitely small and the universe is inifinite in time and space allowing for the particles to build up infinitely creating larger and larger forms of the process... atoms... solar systems... galaxies... and the unknown. That is just my beginners opinion of what the universe really.

 

[Jack21222]

The set of all positive integers is infinite, but it clearly has a beginning.

You have a lot of other errors, but address that error first.

 

[G3n3sis1]

The set of all positive integers is infinite, but it clearly has a beginning.

You have a lot of other errors, but address that error first.

Im not a mathematician lol but I think you said that numbers basically start from zero and go infinitely? is that what you meant or...

 

[DaveC426913]

Im not a mathematician lol but I think you said that numbers basically start from zero and go infinitely? is that what you meant or...

Sure. Address that.

There is a difference between 'this is illogical' and 'this does not make sense to me'. Virtually all of your statements so far fall into the latter.

I am not sure why you would profess to have an opinion while at the same time acknowledging that you don't know enough about it to understand it. Wouldn't it be better to pose questions rather than make statements you know you don't have the background to make? Especially if you're ostensibly trying to help someone else answer their own questions?

...what if we were to move faster than the expansion of the big bang?

How will you do that? How will you travel faster than the speed limit of the universe? You literally can't get there from here.

And infinite means without end... how can it be infinite if it has a point where it stops?

Why do you keep using the word infinite? You should stop using it.

I believe...

There are lots of places where personal beliefs and theories can be discussed. PF is not one of them. It violates PF rules (and as such, will be removed).

If there's something that doesn't make sense to you, ask. We're happy to educate.

 

[G3n3sis1]

Sure. Address that.

There is a difference between 'this is illogical' and 'this does not make sense to me'. Virtually all of your statements so far fall into the latter.

I am not sure why you would profess to have an opinion while at the same time acknowledging that you don't know enough about it to understand it. Wouldn't it be better to pose questions rather than make statements you know you don't have the background to make? Especially if you're ostensibly trying to help someone else answer their own questions?


How will you do that? How will you travel faster than the speed limit of the universe? You literally can't get there from here.


Why do you keep using the word infinite? You should stop using it.


There are lots of places where personal beliefs and theories can be discussed. PF is not one of them. It violates PF rules (and as such, will be removed).

If there's something that doesn't make sense to you, ask. We're happy to educate.

Im not trying to agitate you but I am not posing facts nor is any other individual who posts on this website including you. Physics is more perspective than fact because there is more than one way to expalnin anyone problem. So when i say I BELIEVE i am expressing what i believe... a point of view just like wikipedia or any other website that claims to have the facts... and you can't CONVERSATE about the origins of the universe without using the Term INFINITE. Friendly conversation or debate would be nice instead of immature responses by the "educators".

 

[Cosmo Novice]

FAQ: What about the edge of the universe?

Standard cosmological models do not have edges. They come in two flavors, open and closed. The open type has negative spatial curvature and infinite volume. The closed one has positive curvature and finite volume; spatially, it is the three-dimensional analog of a sphere. Neither has an edge. The open type has no edges because it extends to infinite distances. The closed type has no edges because it wraps around on itself. Current observations of the cosmic microwave background's anisotropy show that our universe is very nearly spatially flat (on the cosmological scale). If it is exactly flat, then it is a special case lying between the more general open and closed cases. The flat case has infinite volume and no edges.

Sometimes people use the word "universe" when they really mean "observable universe." The observable universe does have an edge, which simply lies at the maximum distance from the observer that light would have been able to travel since the universe became transparent shortly after the Big Bang. We are at the center of our observable universe, and its edges are expanding outward as time goes on, because in the future light will have had more time to travel to us. An observer billions of light years away from us is at the center of their observable universe, which has different edges than ours. All of these edges are boundaries of the availability of information, not places where anything physically special happens.

Ok so if standard cosmology models agree on an increasingly expanding universe but there was a time pre inflation, a finite time ago, and the universe expanded at a finite rate then is it even possible for space to be flat and infinite? Unless the edges of the universe, far beyond the observable universe were expanding at an infinite rate? How can the sum of two finite variables equal an infinite amount?

DaveC I have read many of your posts and would be interested in your opionion also.

 

[Jack21222]

Physics is more perspective than fact

This is possibly the most incorrect thing I've read all week. Perhaps you're confusing physics and philosophy? They both start with a ph...

 

[DaveC426913]

Im not trying to agitate you but I am not posing facts nor is any other individual who posts on this website including you.

We are posting the understanding of cosmology as it is currently understood by science.

Physics is more perspective than fact because there is more than one way to expalnin anyone problem.

There are accepted models and there are unaccepted models. PF is about accepted models.

So when i say I BELIEVE i am expressing what i believe... a point of view just like wikipedia or any other website that claims to have the facts...

This is not wikipedia. There are places where people are welcome to share their beliefs. Here, the rules (which you agreed to) require that you adhere to currently-accepted theories.

and you can't CONVERSATE about the origins of the universe without using the Term INFINITE.

Use it if you use it correctly.

Friendly conversation or debate would be nice instead of immature responses by the "educators".

I am not an educator, I have no more right here than you. Nor is pointing out the rules immature ("I do not sink zat word means what you sink it means"). It's my duty to do so.

I do not wish to chase you away by seeming shirty, but PF has a very clear mandate to uphold currently accepted models and is quite diligent in sticking to it. That's why it has 250,000 members.

Unfortunately, you will have to learn that you do you not have to right to voice any opinion you want here. I hope you enjoy it anyway.

 

[nickthrop101]

there is also the theory of the multiverse, where our universe is not the only universe in the whole scheme of things, yet there are lots of universe expanding into space but are infinatly far apart from other universes

 

[DaveC426913]

there is also the theory of the multiverse...

It is better classified as a conjecture. There is no evidence of any multiverse, nor any reason other than conjecture to think there might be one, and there is no conceivable tests to gain any evidence one way or 'tother. I don't even think it counts as a hypothesis. But definitely not a theory.

 

[phinds]

... where there is a beginning there is an end ...

This is a philosophical/religious belief that has no bearing on physics.

 

[Chalnoth]

It is better classified as a conjecture. There is no evidence of any multiverse, nor any reason other than conjecture to think there might be one, and there is no conceivable tests to gain any evidence one way or 'tother. I don't even think it counts as a hypothesis. But definitely not a theory.

Well, first of all, there are multiple different multiverse ideas. But it is just wrong to think of them as being confirmable in this way. The way you verify a multiverse idea is to show that some physics that we observe working in our universe unambiguously predicts some sort of multiverse. And this is basically the case with some of these multiverse ideas.

Tegmark broke the multiverse down into four levels:

Level 1: Inflation produces a set of Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions. Given the evidence for inflation, this one is pretty likely. There are still a few observational kinks that need to be worked out, but this is the prevailing theory at present. And even if it turns out that not every set of initial conditions, it is clear that many must be. It can be tested by learning more about inflation.

Level 2: Every sort of high-energy physics which we have today, both the standard model and proposals beyond the standard model, has the potential to have different sorts of low-energy physical laws, due to the existence of spontaneous symmetry breaking. So this one is nearly certain. It can be tested by learning more about the nature of high-energy physics.

Level 3: In unitary quantum mechanics, there are other branches of the wavefunction which behave very much like other universes. It's positively absurd that so many refuse to take quantum mechanics at its word that this sort of multiverse exists, and instead insist on adding additional assumptions to quantum mechanics to make it go away.

Level 4: Tegmark's own idea about different mathematical structures leading to different universes.

The fourth of these is purely hypothetical, and seems to be extraordinarily difficult to test (if it is even possible to do so). But multiverse ideas 1-3 are basically confirmed already by existing experiment. What remains is to determine the precise properties of these sorts of multiverses. The failure to accept that current experimentally-tested physics unambiguously predicts such multiverses is absurd to me.

 

[narrator]

Related to the original question...

On a recent science show they said that the idea that the known universe would eventually slow then shrink back has hit a bit of a bump. Apparently recent data shows that the universe is still accelerating in its expansion, which suggests that the recycle theory is improbable.

On the topic of the edge of the universe, as has already been said, the space (complete emptiness) may be infinite, but the matter in our universe (the observable universe) may be finite. Hence, phrases like "infinite universe" are confusing.

p.s. I've been to the end of the universe. I met Q at the restaurant. We had a nice cup of tea.

 

[bcrowell]

On the topic of the edge of the universe, as has already been said, the space (complete emptiness) may be infinite, but the matter in our universe (the observable universe) may be finite. Hence, phrases like "infinite universe" are confusing.

It sounds like you're imagining a cosmology in which the Big Bang occurred at a certain spot within a preexisting spacetime. That's not how modern cosmological models work.

 

[bcrowell]

Ok so if standard cosmology models agree on an increasingly expanding universe but there was a time pre inflation,

Inflation is not the same thing as accelerating expansion.

a finite time ago, and the universe expanded at a finite rate then is it even possible for space to be flat and infinite?

In cosmologies where space is infinite, it has always been infinite.

Unless the edges of the universe, far beyond the observable universe were expanding at an infinite rate?

Standard cosmological models don't have edges.

 

[narrator]

It sounds like you're imagining a cosmology in which the Big Bang occurred at a certain spot within a preexisting spacetime. That's not how modern cosmological models work.

No, just quoting from the above posts. People use the phrase "infinite universe", which begs the question, do they mean the empty space or the matter.

 

[bcrowell]

No, just quoting from the above posts. People use the phrase "infinite universe", which begs the question, do they mean the empty space or the matter.

There is no empty space in any modern cosmological model. All modern cosmological models are either approximately or exactly homogeneous.

In the open models, both the space and the amount of matter are infinite.

In the closed models, both the space and the amount of matter are finite.

There are no modern cosmological models in which one is finite and the other is infinite.

 

[narrator]

There is no empty space in any modern cosmological model. All modern cosmological models are either approximately or exactly homogeneous.

In the open models, both the space and the amount of matter are infinite.

In the closed models, both the space and the amount of matter are finite.

There are no modern cosmological models in which one is finite and the other is infinite.

I stand corrected ;)

Though from reading the discussions here, there seems to be some melding of the two models, which suggests variations which might allow for elements of both models.

It also prompts something I've been confused about in other readings here. If the BB happened everywhere, yet immediately after Planck time it was the size of a dime, doesn't that suggest a finite origin? I'm having difficulty getting my head around the difference.

 

[bcrowell]

Though from reading the discussions here, there seems to be some melding of the two models, which suggests variations which might allow for elements of both models.

I'm not clear on what you mean by this. What two models?

It also prompts something I've been confused about in other readings here. If the BB happened everywhere, yet immediately after Planck time it was the size of a dime, doesn't that suggest a finite origin? I'm having difficulty getting my head around the difference.

You have to be careful to make the distinction between the whole universe and the observable universe. The dime size refers to the observable universe.

 

[narrator]

I'm not clear on what you mean by this. What two models?


You have to be careful to make the distinction between the whole universe and the observable universe. The dime size refers to the observable universe.

The open and closed models.

On the second point: That helps a lot in my understanding. Thanks. I think what you're saying is that, that part of the universe we can currently observe would have fit into that dime size, but the universe as a whole was "everywhere", even in that same moment.

I guess "big bang" is almost the wrong expression. From nothing, suddenly came everything everywhere. Big Bang is suggestive of an explosion, which suggests a point of origin of the explosion. But hard to find wording that fits.

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess "big bang" is almost the wrong expression. From nothing, suddenly came everything everywhere. Big Bang is suggestive of an explosion, which suggests a point of origin of the explosion. But hard to find wording that fits.

Indeed.

The term was actually coined by an opponent of the theory in an attempt to cast it in a preposterous light. The name stuck.

 

[narrator]

Thanks Dave.. pretty cool when the penny drops, and interesting background info.