Is the Universe Inside a Black Hole?

[Will K]

"Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across." Isn't this describing what the singularity of a black hole is? Black holes spin extremely fast, close to the speed of light which causes torsion. According to Dr. Poplawski, "This torsion is not just small and heavy; it's also twisted and compressed. This can suddenly unspring with a bang. Make that the Big Bang (or the Big Bounce)". So could our universe be nestled inside of a black hole? If so, is the black hole inside another universe?

 

[Aizen]

From a theoretical standpoint this sounds perfectly logical, having all that mass packed into that small of an area should yeild a black hole, and because of torsion it could be likely that it was the cause for the sudden expansion of our universe that is the big bang. But there is some conflicting evidence such as the schwarzschild radius of the universe is believed to be about 13.7 billion light years while the distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 46 billion light years since the universe is expanding all the time. But in the end there is pretty much no way to tell weather or not the universe is in a black hole or not. In order to do that we would have to know exactly what happened at the supposed beginning of the universe and most likely even bore that.
Here are some links supporting both sides mind you though they are both in the favor of their belief:

https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/

(A bit of a disclaimer also, I'm just a high school student and obviously don't know everything about black holes the universe etc. this was just kind of my two cents hopefully someone else will be able to answer your question better.)

 

[phinds]

"Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across." Isn't this describing what the singularity of a black hole is? Black holes spin extremely fast, close to the speed of light which causes torsion. According to Dr. Poplawski, "This torsion is not just small and heavy; it's also twisted and compressed. This can suddenly unspring with a bang. Make that the Big Bang (or the Big Bounce)". So could our universe be nestled inside of a black hole? If so, is the black hole inside another universe?

No, it is not. You are overlooking that they are not talking about the universe, they are talking about the OBSERVABLE universe, which is believed to be many orders of magnitude smaller than the universe (and that's only if the universe is finite which it may not be). This entire "universe is a black hole" has been discussed here many times. I suggest a forum search.

 

[Drakkith]

Isn't this describing what the singularity of a black hole is?

No. A black hole singularity has a finite amount of mass packed into zero volume, yielding an infinite density (though technically it's undefined, not infinite). The very early observable universe was packed into a non-zero volume, not zero volume.

 

[Will K]

No. A black hole singularity has a finite amount of mass packed into zero volume, yielding an infinite density (though technically it's undefined, not infinite). The very early observable universe was packed into a non-zero volume, not zero volume.

So there was no initial singularity?

 

[Drakkith]

So there was no initial singularity?

There is a singularity if you take the current model back to t=0, but this is believed to be a result of our incomplete knowledge of physics at the huge energy and density scales of the early universe. It is considered unlikely that a singularity actually existed.

Note that singularities arise in models all the time. Optical caustics have singularities, but you don't see a black hole form every time sunlight shines through a glass to form a caustic.

In short, we know that our knowledge of the early universe is extremely limited and nonsensical predictions should be treated very skeptically.

 

[Will K]

There is a singularity if you take the current model back to t=0, but this is believed to be a result of our incomplete knowledge of physics at the huge energy and density scales of the early universe. It is considered unlikely that a singularity actually existed.

Note that singularities arise in models all the time. Optical caustics have singularities, but you don't see a black hole form every time sunlight shines through a glass to form a caustic.

In short, we know that our knowledge of the early universe is extremely limited and nonsensical predictions should be treated very skeptically.

Ok, thanks for the clarity

 

[Comeback City]

The idea that our universe STARTED as a black hole is a good concept, but I don't think you could really argue that our universe, in its current state, is inside a black hole. The gravitational effects are not relatively close to that of a black hole and the matter is fairly spread out, compared to the infinite density of the black hole's singularity. It's a good thought though.

 

[phinds]

The idea that our universe STARTED as a black hole is a good concept

No, it isn't. Had it started as a BH it would have stayed that way, not expanded the way it did.

 

[Comeback City]

No, it isn't. Had it started as a BH it would have stayed that way, not expanded the way it did.

When I say good concept, I mean an interesting concept. And by that, I mean the similarities between the supposed state of condensed matter before the Big Bang and a black
hole singularity. I'm obviously not saying for a fact that our universe started as a black hole.

 

[phinds]

When I say good concept, I mean an interesting concept. And by that, I mean the similarities between the supposed state of condensed matter before the Big Bang and a black
hole singularity. I'm obviously not saying for a fact that our universe started as a black hole.

It's not clear, and certainly not a proven fact, that the singularities of (1) the Big Bang precursor and (2) the BH singularity, have ANYTHING to do with each other. They ARE both ares of high density that we don't understand but may well be otherwise unrelated.

 

[Comeback City]

It's not clear, and certainly not a proven fact, that the singularities of (1) the Big Bang precursor and (2) the BH singularity, have ANYTHING to do with each other. They ARE both ares of high density that we don't understand but may well be otherwise unrelated.

And with our limited knowledge of black holes, and our extremely limited knowledge of the Big Bang, and the fact that they are the only singularities in our universe with infinite density, I find it hard to completely rule out a theory that they are related. I am also not saying I even believe they are related. Simply that there are similarities between them that are hard to disprove.

 

[phinds]

And with our limited knowledge of black holes, and our extremely limited knowledge of the Big Bang, and the fact that they are the only singularities in our universe with infinite density, I find it hard to completely rule out a theory that they are related. I am also not saying I even believe they are related. Simply that there are similarities between them that are hard to disprove.

No argument there.

 

[Comeback City]

No argument there.

Please provide one piece of evidence that completely rules out the theory. One piece of evidence that disproves that black hole singularities and the original point of the Big Bang are not related at all.

 

[phinds]

Please provide one piece of evidence that completely rules out the theory. One piece of evidence that disproves that black hole singularities and the original point of the Big Bang are not related at all.

Reread post #11

 

[Comeback City]

Reread post #11

That, by no means, is evidence. That's just you saying there's nothing to prove it's true. I'm asking you to prove it is false.

 

[phinds]

That, by no means, is evidence. That's just you saying there's nothing to prove it's true. I'm asking you to prove it is false.

No, that's saying clearly that there IS no proof so I was puzzled as to why you would even ask me for proof.

 

[Comeback City]

No, that's saying clearly that there IS no proof so I was puzzled as to why you would even ask me for proof.

And I am puzzled as to why you are trying so hard to disprove this theory with no evidence to disprove it. Will K provided the evidence of the density relationship and the torsion possibly causing a "big bang". You have nothing, and that isn't why I am asking you for evidence.

 

[Comeback City]

and that isn't why I am asking you for evidence.

That is* why

 

[phinds]

That, by no means, is evidence. That's just you saying there's nothing to prove it's true. I'm asking you to prove it is false.

You cannot prove a negative, so that's a pointless discussion.

 

[Comeback City]

You cannot prove a negative, so that's a pointless discussion.

Did you read post 18(and19)?

 

[phinds]

@Will K I'm sorry we've dragged your thread off into pointless bickering. I assume your question has been answered.

 

[Comeback City]

@Will K I'm sorry we've dragged your thread off into pointless bickering. I assume your question has been answered.

Still no evidence :(

I guess we'll call it a day in that case.

 

[Drakkith]

Please provide one piece of evidence that completely rules out the theory. One piece of evidence that disproves that black hole singularities and the original point of the Big Bang are not related at all.

If I understand things correctly:

1.The solutions to the equations of GR for black holes are very different than the solutions that describe the very early universe. For one, universal expansion has no effect on a black hole, whereas it is a very important part of the early universe.
2. Black holes exist within our universe and have finite mass. The singularity only arises in a finite portion of space.
3. The big bang singularity is a result of the density of matter going to infinity EVERYWHERE at the same time. So there is no one original point for the singularity. It would exist at all points and have infinite mass and density.

 

[Drakkith]

And I am puzzled as to why you are trying so hard to disprove this theory with no evidence to disprove it. Will K provided the evidence of the density relationship and the torsion possibly causing a "big bang". You have nothing, and that isn't why I am asking you for evidence.

No one here is trying to disprove the theory. What we're trying to get across is that these theories are extremely hypothetical and have essentially no evidence supporting them over other possibilities, and may be more complicated than alternative explanations. There's no need to try to disprove the theory, it doesn't have enough supporting evidence to even be accepted as a likely possibility yet. It doesn't even make any predictions that are observable at this time, so what you're asking for isn't possible to obtain in the first place.

 

[Comeback City]

1.The solutions to the equations of GR for black holes are very different than the solutions that describe the very early universe. For one, universal expansion has no effect on a black hole, whereas it is a very important part of the early universe.

Obviously at this point in our universe's timeline, expansion will not affect a black hole.

It would exist at all points and have infinite mass and density.

So in this version of the Big Bang Theory (rather than the version of everything starting at one point) are you saying there was an infinite amount of mass/matter at every single location in the universe? If so, would that not mean there is an infinite amount of mass in the universe now? I don't believe that's true, rather I think there should be a finite amount of mass rather than infinite. But I do agree with the density part.

 

[Drakkith]

So in this version of the Big Bang Theory (rather than the version of everything starting at one point)

They are the same version. The idea that the standard big bang theory states that the universe started at a single point in space is a misunderstanding of the theory. The theory does not, nor has it ever, predicted this.

are you saying there was an infinite amount of mass/matter at every single location in the universe?

I think the amount of mass at each point is finite, but the singularity would take up the entirety of the universe, which is infinite, and would thus have infinite mass along with an infinite density.

If so, would that not mean there is an infinite amount of mass in the universe now? I don't believe that's true, rather I think there should be a finite amount of mass rather than infinite. But I do agree with the density part.

If the universe is infinite in size then there is an infinite amount of matter and mass in it.

 

[Comeback City]

They are the same version. The idea that the standard big bang theory states that the universe started at a single point in space is a misunderstanding of the theory. The theory does not, nor has it ever, predicted this.

Okay. I was under the impression that the theory stated it did start at one point. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[phinds]

Okay. I was under the impression that the theory stated it did start at one point.

This is without a doubt THE most widely promulgated of the several utterly false concepts you see on pop-sci TV programs and in such books. I've even seen reputable scientists who unquestionably know better saying it on dumbed down TV shows. It seems to be part of the contract to be on such shows that you have to say at least 3 completely false things.