Did an explosion of a Black Hole make the Big Bang

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the hypothesis that the Big Bang could be the result of an explosion of a black hole, exploring the nature of singularities, the definitions of black holes, and the characteristics of the Big Bang. Participants engage in technical reasoning and conceptual clarification regarding these ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the Big Bang could be viewed as an explosion of a singularity, while others challenge the feasibility of such an explosion occurring from a black hole.
  • There is a contention regarding the nature of singularities, with some arguing that a singularity is not an object that can expand, while others propose that it may undergo changes.
  • Several participants assert that there is no known mechanism for a black hole to explode, and that colliding black holes would only result in a larger black hole.
  • Some participants introduce the concept of a "quantum bounce" as a potential mechanism for an explosion, though this remains speculative.
  • There is disagreement on whether the Big Bang can be likened to the act of opening a can of ultra-relativistic matter or if it resembles the rising of bread, with differing perspectives on the nature of the event.
  • Participants note that the term "Big Bang" is not uniformly defined, with some using it to refer to the birth of the universe and others to the rapid expansion of the early universe.
  • One participant emphasizes that the initial singularity is an artifact of a particular model and not necessarily a reflection of actual events in cosmology.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the relationship between black holes and the Big Bang, with no consensus reached on the validity of the explosion hypothesis or the nature of singularities.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the initial conditions of the universe and the definitions of black holes and singularities, indicating that these concepts are subject to interpretation and ongoing debate.

Gjmdp
Messages
147
Reaction score
5
I'm not talking about white holes. Indeed, the big bang as the explosion of a black hole are an explosion of singularity.
 
Space news on Phys.org
An 'exploding' singularity? How might that happen? This is the kind of confusion Fred Hoyle probably envisioned when he coined the term 'big bang'?
 
There is no known mechanism which would cause a black hole to explode, and no reason to expect that there could be one.
Even colliding black holes will only produce a bigger back hole.
 
Chronos said:
An 'exploding' singularity? How might that happen? This is the kind of confusion Fred Hoyle probably envisioned when he coined the term 'big bang'?
At the beginning there was a singularity, then, the singulary expanded. So it can't be an explosion?
 
Gjmdp said:
At the beginning there was a singularity, then, the singulary expanded. So it can't be an explosion?

A singularity is not an object that can expand. It's not really an object at all.
 
Drakkith said:
A singularity is not an object that can expand. It's not really an object at all.
At the first there was singularity, then,from that, there is the universe. Then, singularity may experiment some change,don't?
 
Gjmdp said:
I'm not talking about white holes.

Yes, you are. A white hole is the time reverse of a black hole; that means an "exploding black hole"--with a singularity in the past instead of the future--is a white hole. And white holes are agreed by physicists to be unphysical, because there's no way for them to form.

Gjmdp said:
At the first there was singularity, then,from that, there is the universe.

No, there wasn't. The initial singularity is an artifact of a particular model; it's not something that cosmologists believe actually happened.
 
Here's the deal. We have essentially no idea how the universe was created (if it was created at all) or what started the initial expansion. There are a few theories out there, but they are very, very speculative. Also note that the Big Bang isn't even a well defined event. Some use it to mean the birth of the universe, while others use it to refer to the rapid expansion of the very early universe.

Also, a black hole, as the term commonly means, does not describe the state of the very early universe. If a singularity did exist at the beginning of the universe, it would not be inside a black hole because a black hole is a finite volume of space, inside of which all paths through spacetime lead to the center. The singularity in a black hole is, typically, a single point, not an extended object (though sometimes it can be). In contrast, the singularity at the beginning of the universe would have been everywhere. Every point in space (if space even existed) would have been a singularity.

So the answer to the question in the thread title, can the big bang come from an explosion of a black hole, is simply, "No, it cannot."
Now, whether or not the universe came from a singularity is a different question and one that is impossible to answer at this time.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: enorbet
  • #10
Drakkith said:
Here's the deal.

"A singularity is not an object that can expand. It's not really an object at all."
Thanks! Now I have greater understanding of singularities.

"So the answer to the question in the thread title, can the big bang come from an explosion of a black hole, is simply, "No, it cannot.""
That depends on what you mean by an explosion and what you mean by a black hole. Doesn't the "big bang" look like someone opened a big can of ultra-relativistic matter? (A lot like opening a bottle of warm soda.)

"Now, whether or not the universe came from a singularity is a different question and one that is impossible to answer at this time."
Thats a hard question to answer especially for those who don't clearly understand what a singularity is. Reading more GR should help them.
 
  • #11
Bernie G said:
what you mean by a black hole.

The meaning of "black hole" is unambiguous, and that meaning does not apply to the Big Bang.

Bernie G said:
Doesn't the "big bang" look like someone opened a big can of ultra-relativistic matter?

Sort of; but it does not look like a black hole.
 
  • #12
Bernie G said:
That depends on what you mean by an explosion and what you mean by a black hole. Doesn't the "big bang" look like someone opened a big can of ultra-relativistic matter? (A lot like opening a bottle of warm soda.)

Nope. It looks like bread rising more than it looks like opening a can of ultra-relativistic matter.
 
  • #13
Drakkith said:
""Doesn't the "big bang" look like someone opened a big can of ultra-relativistic matter? (A lot like opening a bottle of warm soda.)""

Nope. It looks like bread rising more than it looks like opening a can of ultra-relativistic matter.

Its relative. If you're an armchair distant observer it looks like bread rising but if you're up close its like opening a bottle of warm soda.
 
  • #14
Bernie G said:
Its relative. If you're an armchair distant observer it looks like bread rising but if you're up close its like opening a bottle of warm soda.

There is no "up close". The big bang (the rapid expansion of space) took place everywhere and smoothly transitioned over time into the expansion we see/experience now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K