Questions about the origin of the universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Origin Universe
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the origins of the universe, questioning whether time was created during the Big Bang and what it was created from. Participants debate the possibility of an infinite universe in terms of space, matter, and time, and whether the universe will continue to expand indefinitely. Concerns are raised about the implications of experiments at CERN, particularly regarding the potential creation of black holes and the nature of matter and energy. The conversation touches on the validity of the Big Bang Theory, with some arguing against the notion that mass can spontaneously arise from nothing. Ultimately, the complexity of the universe and the nature of time remain central themes, highlighting the ongoing quest for understanding in cosmology.
  • #91
Kronos5253 said:
True, but that's most likely because you'd have to observe a black hole for an extremely long period of time before you'd notice any fluctuations in mass or density.

I know about the micro-BH from the LHC.. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis though. The immense amount of density and the resulting rapid rise in gravitational pull from a collapsing star is what causes a BH in the first place (theoretically speaking of course), so how could a micro-BH even exist? A micro-BH might as well just be called a micro-explosion, because the density and amount of matter produced from 2 electrons colliding is nowhere near enough to create a BH. It would be similar to a smaller star collapsing.

If just doing that could create micro-BH, then any star that collapses would inevitibly turn into a black hole, and we already know that isn't true. The star has to be large enough and have enough mass to produce enough density to create a BH.

I just think it's a ridiculous notion lol But that's just an opinion :)

No takers or arguments to this?

I make a valid point correct?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #92
Kronos5253 said:
True, but that's most likely because you'd have to observe a black hole for an extremely long period of time before you'd notice any fluctuations in mass or density.

Exactly, and this timescale is a great many magnitudes larger than that of a human life span. There would have to some monster of a physical mechanism yet to be discovered that causes a rapid mass-loss rate that is observable.

Kronos5253 said:
I know about the micro-BH from the LHC.. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis though. The immense amount of density and the resulting rapid rise in gravitational pull from a collapsing star is what causes a BH in the first place (theoretically speaking of course), so how could a micro-BH even exist? A micro-BH might as well just be called a micro-explosion, because the density and amount of matter produced from 2 electrons colliding is nowhere near enough to create a BH. It would be similar to a smaller star collapsing.

Actually, the LHC will collide protons, which are comprised of quarks. In simple terms, we can say that the apparent mass of some object (in this case a proton) increases as the object approaches the speed of light:

m_{apparent}= \frac{m_{rest}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}

Go ahead and put in something like v = .99999999 c to see what the apparent mass is. So you will have two protons with this apparent mass and now you should see that it is possible to have a large density in a small area.
 
  • #93
buffordboy23 said:
Exactly, and this timescale is a great many magnitudes larger than that of a human life span. There would have to some monster of a physical mechanism yet to be discovered that causes a rapid mass-loss rate that is observable.



Actually, the LHC will collide protons, which are comprised of quarks. In simple terms, we can say that the apparent mass of some object (in this case a proton) increases as the object approaches the speed of light:

m_{apparent}= \frac{m_{rest}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}

Go ahead and put in something like v = .99999999 c to see what the apparent mass is. So you will have two protons with this apparent mass and now you should see that it is possible to have a large density in a small area.

While that forumla theory is facinating, looking at the result I got from the equation, it's still not near enough to form a black hole. The mass I got wasn't half that of our Sun, and our Sun will eventually become a white dwarf, not a black hole, because it doesn't have enough mass.

That concept (and equation) sheds new light on the subject for me though, even if I still don't find it to be plausible.

But thank you :) I appreciate it.
 
  • #94
Kronos5253 said:
While that forumla theory is facinating, looking at the result I got from the equation, it's still not near enough to form a black hole. The mass I got wasn't half that of our Sun, and our Sun will eventually become a white dwarf, not a black hole, because it doesn't have enough mass.

It's not the total mass that is important here. It's the density. Calculate the densities and compare.
 
  • #95
buffordboy23 said:
It's not the total mass that is important here. It's the density. Calculate the densities and compare.

Gotcha.

:resigns:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
11K