Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Big Bang a Dropout?

  1. Sep 16, 2003 #1
    I originally posted this in Theory Developement. It got a number of looks but no responses. I have posted it here where it probably belongs to see if it gets any reponses.

    During the last few years I have read a number of books on The Big Bang including recently one By John Gibbin; "In the Beginning." Most if not all of the books mentioned the precision with which the initial values of some important parameters had to be for the universe to have formed as it has. Such thing as the amount of mass present had to be precisely the amount it apparently was for space to be closed and that the cosmological constant had to be its precise value of 1. There may have been others but those two stick out in my mind. It was apparently such a big deal that they wondered if any particular model could account for it or the universe existing as it does at all. Thinking about this I came up with the following model that I think would cover this with the precision necessary.

    There was another universe from which a black hole formed and eventually grew massive enough to warp its local space enough that it became closed. It would then be cut off from its parent universe and no longer part of it's spacetime. At the exact instant that its space time closed all of those parameters mention would by necessity at the precise value necessary to just close spacetime have the exact mass and gravity to do so and the Universal Constant would be exactly 1.
    At that exact instant it would drop out of existence relative to it's parent universe of origin and into non- spacetime, a dimensionless void where nothing existed not even space itself. The singularity would then be able to expand without restraint including without the restraint of the speed of light as in inflation because there would be no spacetime dimensions outside the universe itself in which velocity or C would have any meaning or could exist. From this the universe would inflate and cool and coalesce into matter and it's own spacetime dimensions as has been described in all of those books.
    This would mean that the universe is still a singularity and still inflating into the dimensionless void. Within the universe, of course the events that have happened would not be effect by the nothing that was outside it's event horizon. This I think would account for everything being at such necessarily precise values. (Another thought came to me as I was proof reading this. Any and every black hole or singularity would and could not be effected by anything what-so-ever outside of its event horizon. Just as we cannot see anything inside it, it can't see anything outside of it.)
    I welcome any and all discussions on these thoughts. If you are able to show me completely wrong and off base and explain why or how to me I would appreciate just as much as any support. If I'm wrong or uninformed I want to know just as much as I want to know if any of this makes any sense or has any validity. Either way I can forget about it and go on to something else instead of being plagued by these thoughts all the time.
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 16, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    your not alone others have writen similar theories

    http://benzer.arkania.org/index.php?p=111 [Broken]

    this is one i found with quick google.

    http://library.thinkquest.org/21008/data/blackhole/big.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017 at 4:20 PM
  4. Sep 16, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A) This absolutely does not belong here, as you are doing nothing but peddling your own theory.

    B) Inflationary cosmology fixes all of these problems without any need for any "closed" black holes, whatever the hell that means.

    - Warren
  5. Sep 16, 2003 #4
    As I said I tried it in theory development and got no respose. So I tried it here and have already gotten two responses, so maybe it does belong here.

    I am not peddling my own theory as it was just a thought after reading about it. It is hardly original with me. It does semm to answer some of the needs for exact values necessary. I posted it to see if it makes any sense to anybody else or if I'm completely out in left field.
    I suggest you chill out and back off. It may die an ignoble death or it may start a discussion. What difference does it make?

    Inflationary cosmology only answers some question of why and how the universe is a big as is. It does not even address the questions of exact values for the parameters mentioned nor does is address how the BB came about in the first place. What's you problem?

    Wolram, thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

    - Warren [/B][/QUOTE]
  6. Sep 16, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Inflationary cosmology does not answer this question, nor does it attempt to.
    Inflationary cosmology absolutely does answer the horizon and flatness problems. Perhaps you just have no clue what you're talking about?
    This is largely a philosophical question. Does your model answer where the black hole came from?
    A) You don't understand real cosmology.
    B) You're trying to peddle your own uneducated opinions in the wrong forum.

    - Warren
  7. Sep 16, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    hi chroot,
    your anger is understood but maybe displaced, please remember
    that this forums purpose is to educate, i for one value your
    opinion, i think you are one of the most educated and up to date
    in this forum, please be a little "kinder" to the uninformed
  8. Sep 16, 2003 #7
    chroot, I don't understand you anger at me posting this here. Obviously I do not have a good understanding of cosmoogical inflation if what you are saying is true. I am referring to the inflation period that the universe went through as it first started expanding from the most recent models that I have read. Obviously you also think that my pet theory is way out in left field. I defer to wolrams respect for you. I shall return to the philosphy forum where you apparently think I belong and apologize for invading your sacred turf. I did not know you were a mentor nor that this was your personal domain.
  9. Sep 17, 2003 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Chroot's agression was out of line. But we all agree that this topic's home is in theory development. I'll move it back and leave a "moved topic" flag so interested astronomy-forum goers can be directed there and hopefully continue the discussion.

    Alternatively, y'all could discuss how inflation theory addresses the OP, but given the current condition of this topic, I'd recommend starting a new one that specifically poses a question to that effect. Discussions of inflation theory can be posted in the Astronomy forum.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: The Big Bang a Dropout?
  1. Before the 'BIG BANG' (Replies: 1)

  2. Big Bang (Replies: 10)