Time Before Big Bang: Stephen Hawking & Other Universes

[CCWilson]

Isn't the general idea that perhaps there was a black hole of unimaginable density which was somehow triggered into the big bang? If that's the case, then time within the black hole to an outside observer (if there was one) would have stopped, as we believe is the case with black holes in the universe. However, as in black holes, until an observer is destroyed, time would proceed normally as perceived by that observer. Right? So maybe some version of time was going on in there.

 

[cdux]

Isn't the general idea that perhaps there was a black hole of unimaginable density which was somehow triggered into the big bang? If that's the case, then time within the black hole to an outside observer (if there was one) would have stopped, as we believe is the case with black holes in the universe. However, as in black holes, until an observer is destroyed, time would proceed normally as perceived by that observer. Right? So maybe some version of time was going on in there.

Yeah the (relatively abstract I would say) theory is that since the observers would also be eventually part of the hole, then there would be nothing but the hole and no time. I understand this is very "hands on" science but I've heard some respectable minds describe it like that.
It would then, even if that was accepted, be clashed with theories involving other universes IMO.

 

[bcrowell]

Every article I have ever read describes it as an infitismally small point. Perhaps all those articles are wrong.
here is one example

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/cosmos_bigbang.html

This particular article is sloppy. Using GR as a model, an infinite universe stays infinite, and a finite universe stays finite. We don't know whether the universe is finite or infinite.

Perlmutter, 1998, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9812133

Kowalski, 2008, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4142

 

[detective]

...the idea that the big bang emanated from a giant black hole appeals to me for a couple of reasons...

...firstly it dispenses with the problem of a singularity and secondly, matter either couldn't ever have existed, or previously had been reduced to pure energy by this big bang/big crunch eventuality...

...also light energy is rendered impotent due to the crushing effects of the overwhelming gravitational forces... and until a situation occurs whereby energy degrades into matter is when time can be inserted as a functioning, viable useful device to measure the effects of the transition from this one extremely pure state, to another more massive, chaotic one...

 

[cdux]

I don't know how they could say a lone black hole equates or tends to a big bang when they also accept it emanates radiation.

edit: Unless I guess they take the effect to be diminishing as the black hole implodes and then not existing somehow (?).

 

[Drake711]

using logic one can say that something can't just come into existence which means the energy from the big bang and time itself have always existed (I think Kalam's Law says something like this, I may have just used the law of sylogism). You could also make the argument that something can't just always have existed but time coming into existence and always being there is the same thing (irrelevant) since there wasn't anyone to observe before the big bang since all observers emerge from the big bang.

 

[phinds]

using logic one can say that something can't just come into existence which means the energy from the big bang and time itself have always existed

Unsubstantiated personal speculation is against the forum rules.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...