Goodbye Big Bang, hello black hole?

In summary, this article discusses a possible new way of looking at the origins of the universe that suggests it came out of a black hole that was created as a result of a collapse of a star. The theory is based on the idea that there are extra dimensions beyond the ones that we are familiar with, and that a black hole can exist in one of these other dimensions. While the idea is intriguing, there are some significant limitations to the theory that need to be considered before it can be accepted as fact.
  • #1


Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Holographic BB out of prior BH (stringy version of BH bounce)
Out of the White Hole: A Holographic Origin for the Big Bang
Razieh Pourhasan, Niayesh Afshordi, Robert B. Mann
(Submitted on 5 Sep 2013)
While most of the singularities of General Relativity are expected to be safely hidden behind event horizons by the cosmic censorship conjecture, we happen to live in the causal future of the classical big bang singularity, whose resolution constitutes the active field of early universe cosmology. Could the big bang be also hidden behind a causal horizon, making us immune to the decadent impacts of a naked singularity? We describe a braneworld description of cosmology with both 4d induced and 5d bulk gravity (otherwise known as Dvali-Gabadadze-Porati, or DGP model), which exhibits this feature: The universe emerges as a spherical 3-brane out of the formation of a 5d Schwarzschild black hole. In particular, we show that a pressure singularity of the holographic fluid, discovered earlier, happens inside the white hole horizon, and thus need not be real or imply any pathology. Furthermore, we outline a novel mechanism through which any thermal atmosphere for the brane, with comoving temperature of 20% of the 5D Planck mass can induce scale-invariant primordial curvature perturbations on the brane, circumventing the need for a separate process (such as cosmic inflation) to explain current cosmological observations. Finally, we note that 5D space-time is asymptotically flat, and thus potentially allows an S-matrix or (after minor modifications) AdS/CFT description of the cosmological big bang.
16 pages, 3 figures - latest science and technology news stories on
  • #2

Out of the White Hole: A Holographic Origin for the Big Bang

Could the famed "Big Bang" theory need a revision? A group of theoretical physicists suppose the birth of the universe could have happened after a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole and ejected debris.

The long and the short of it? To bring this back to things that we can see, it is clear from observations that the universe is expanding (and indeed is getting faster as it expands, possibly due to the mysterious dark energy). The new theory says that the expansion comes from this 3-D brane's growth. But there is at least one limitation.

Is anything blatantly wrong with this concept?

"For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity," stated Niayesh Afshordi

Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
To quote the article:

The Arxiv entry does not specify if the paper has been submitted to any peer-reviewed scientific journals for publication

I'd remain skeptical.
  • #4
Drakkith said:
To quote the article:

I'd remain skeptical.

oh come on, the PF is a peer review of and of in its self, right? let's embrace it, no?
  • #5
Dohbis said:
oh come on, the PF is a peer review of and of in its self, right?

Not at all!
PF is a forum, not a science journal.
  • #6
This is rather ... speculative, to put it mildly. I never heard of these guys.
  • #7
Niayesh Afshordi, is a scientist with a very descent background certainly to be taken seriously!

Take a look at the Arxiv database for further papers

Also Marcus started a threat over at "Beyond the standard model" handling this paper.
Last edited:
  • #8
Dohbis said:
oh come on, the PF is a peer review of and of in its self, right?

No, we're not. We stick to stuff that has already been professionally peer-reviewed (i.e. published in a mainstream journal) or is at least demonstrably taken seriously in professional circles. is not formally peer-reviewed. Highly speculative stuff does show up there, that never gets off the ground with other people besides the author. Therefore we usually avoid stuff that appears only on

You can review our rules by clicking "Site Info" at the top of the page and choosing "Rules & Guidelines."
  • #9
I glanced at this a bit ago. Doesn't seem completely crazy. But it's one of a great many of extremely speculative ideas, and I don't think it's any more likely to be correct than the others.

Suggested for: Goodbye Big Bang, hello black hole?