Unraveling the Mysteries of Black Holes and the Big Bang

[Dave Apsey]

Am I correct in saying that in theory Time, Matter and presumably Energy are compressed to a singularity at the centre of a black hole?

If that is so then wouldn't they be "transported" back to the state and position they were in at the very beginning of time. In other words the instant of the big bang?

And given enough time is it possible that all matter in the universe will be swallowed by Black Holes?

So is the origin of the Big Bang the future universe that was created when it took place?

 

[phinds]

Am I correct in saying that in theory Time, Matter and presumably Energy are compressed to a singularity at the centre of a black hole?

No, you would be correct in saying that a singularity is a place where the math in our models breaks down and we don't have a clue what's really going on

If that is so then wouldn't they be "transported" back to the state and position they were in at the very beginning of time. In other words the instant of the big bang?

Maybe, but it's indeterminate

And given enough time is it possible that all matter in the universe will be swallowed by Black Holes?

Not a chance

So is the origin of the Big Bang the future universe that was created when it took place?

I don't even know what you are saying, but I doubt it's right

 

[bill alsept]

Am I correct in saying that in theory Time, Matter and presumably Energy are compressed to a singularity at the centre of a black hole?

I would say Yes, it is just one more step in the process of accumulation from atoms, molecules, dust, rocks, planets, stars and so on. Why does it have to be any more complicated than that? Just because the gravitational effect is strong enough to hold back photons does not mean that things are not there the same as all other accumulated bodies.

If that is so then wouldn't they be "transported" back to the state and position they were in at the very beginning of time. In other words the instant of the big bang?

Not at each black hole, that wouldn't happen until all the black holes were accumulated and formed one called the singularity.

And given enough time is it possible that all matter in the universe will be swallowed by Black Holes?

In a cyclical universe yes and that process has already started.

So is the origin of the Big Bang the future universe that was created when it took place?

If you are trying to say, will the universe eventually cycle around to where it once was then yes.

 

[phinds]

Not at each black hole, that wouldn't happen until all the black holes were accumulated and formed one called the singularity.

Nonsense. First, all black holes HAVE a singularity and second, they are NOT going to combine, so your statement has no basis in science.

 

[bill alsept]

Nonsense. First, all black holes HAVE a singularity and second, they are NOT going to combine, so your statement has no basis in science.

Of course black holes have and will combine. There is already proof some are orbiting each other right now. And what about those in galaxies spiraling into the center? Why wouldn't black holes combine?

 

[phinds]

Of course black holes have and will combine. There is already proof some are orbiting each other right now. And what about those in galaxies spiraling into the center? Why wouldn't black holes combine?

Your statement was that ALL black holes would combine --- I assumed you meant every black hole in the universe which is what the OP was asking about and what is NOT going to happen, thus my statement.

 

[bill alsept]

Your statement was that ALL black holes would combine --- I assumed you meant every black hole in the universe which is what the OP was asking about and what is NOT going to happen, thus my statement.

Anyone who thinks the universe is cyclical also believes they will combine again eventually. That group includes scientist, professors, teachers and want to be layman like myself. Making unfounded statements like " they are NOT going to combine" does not agree with many people. Is there any proof?

 

[Dave Apsey]

It would indeed be extremely unlikely that the Black Holes would combine if the universe expanded forever rather than reaching a contraction stage but I thought that the jury was still out on that?

 

[bill alsept]

It would indeed be extremely unlikely that the Black Holes would combine if the universe expanded forever rather than reaching a contraction stage but I thought that the jury was still out on that?

Yes, we and a lot of others also thought so.

 

[phinds]

Anyone who thinks the universe is cyclical also believes they will combine again eventually. That group includes scientist, professors, teachers and want to be layman like myself. Making unfounded statements like " they are NOT going to combine" does not agree with many people. Is there any proof?

No, you are correct that there is no proof, but it seems unlikely that the current accelerating expansion is actually going to reverse. There just isn't any known mechanism for it. That of course doesn't mean there ISN'T any mechanism, it just seems unlikely and posits a state change for no known reason.

 

[George Jones]

Yes, we and a lot of others also thought so.

According to Physics Forums Rules,

Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site.

you have to back this up with references to articles in peer-reviewed, mainstream professional journals.

 

[bill alsept]

No, you are correct that there is no proof, but it seems unlikely that the current accelerating expansion is actually going to reverse. There just isn't any known mechanism for it. That of course doesn't mean there ISN'T any mechanism, it just seems unlikely and posits a state change for no known reason.

There is no proof but you still say "current accelerating expansion" your right there is no known mechanism for it. On the other hand there have been alternate sources for red shift proposed including theories that do not include recession. There have also been state changes for no known reasons before or we wouldn't be here.

 

[bill alsept]

According to Physics Forums Rules,


you have to back this up with references to articles in peer-reviewed, mainstream professional journals.

A cyclical universe is a well known and main stream theory that has been around for some time now and written about in many books. If it can't be discussed on this forum what could be?

 

[phinds]

On the other hand there have been alternate sources for red shift proposed including theories that do not include recession.

And my understanding is that they have all been proven false and recession is accepted as fact. Are you going to bring up "tired light", for example, as one of your alternatives?

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Anyone who thinks the universe is cyclical also believes they will combine again eventually. That group includes scientist, professors, teachers and want to be layman like myself. Making unfounded statements like " they are NOT going to combine" does not agree with many people. Is there any proof?

The burden of proof in this case is on you as the claimant. Accelerated expansion is currently the best fit for the mounds of observational data which is how Cosmological models are formulated - (As a best fit to existing data)

You have answered the OP in what appears to be concrete statements where you have left little room for interpretation.

You have boldly claimed ALL black holes will merge to create one big singularity and in truth this is a load of rubbish and you cannot state this as a fact on a science forum without expecting to be pulled to task regarding the absurd statements.

Can you provide any recently peer reviewed articles that support your claim wrt a cyclical Universe and a mreger of all Black Holes? Does this include timeframes as a crunch would need to be complete before Black Holes evaporated? Of course not... as it is overly speculative!

 

[TheTechNoir]

Not only SMBHs either, -all- black holes implies that this crunch will occur (definitively as stated in his posts) before stellar black holes evaporate too. I did a double take reading those posts and have trouble believing they aren't trolling or devil's advocate gone wrong. As others have stated it is one thing to believe in possible cosmological theories which are not the currently most favoured or evidence-supported theories but it is another to recklessly educate someone stating the tenants of those unfavoured theories as fact.

I don't mind that you answered the question regarding BHs absorbing all matter in the universe with in a cyclical universe but your immediately proceeding and preceding answers do not do this.

Also, contradicting a crunch theory does not agree with many people? What? It agrees with the majority of the scientific community.

There is nothing wrong with discussing that theory on this forum, it is discussed quite a lot and there is nothing wrong with answering his questions under the hypothetical scenario in which that theory is the correct description of our universe but you are misleadingly stating it as fact or as the most widely accepted theory.

 

[Dave Apsey]

Seems to me that both sides are stating their preferred view as FACT and ridiculing any contra view rather than referring to supporting evidence or logical argument.

Personally I would prefer to be directed to supporting articles and evidence to help me consider both sides of the argument.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Seems to me that both sides are stating their preferred view as FACT and ridiculing any contra view rather than referring to supporting evidence or logical argument.

Personally I would prefer to be directed to supporting articles and evidence to help me consider both sides of the argument.

The evidence for accelerated expansion is overhwhelming. I am not stating this as a fact merely as the currently accepted cosmological model based on observations. The recent Nobel prize was awarded along a similar vein based on the SN data.

Currently there are NO models that are cyclical that fit with current observation - there is for accelerated expansion. As previously stated it is entirely POSSIBLE for their to be a mechanism which causes a collapse - but this is unobserver and entirely speculation. SN data has proved that currently the Universe is accelerating.

 

[Dave Apsey]

The evidence for accelerated expansion is overhwhelming. I am not stating this as a fact merely as the currently accepted cosmological model based on observations. The recent Nobel prize was awarded along a similar vein based on the SN data.

Currently there are NO models that are cyclical that fit with current observation - there is for accelerated expansion. As previously stated it is entirely POSSIBLE for their to be a mechanism which causes a collapse - but this is unobserver and entirely speculation. SN data has proved that currently the Universe is accelerating.

Thank you for that. From my limited reading I can see that the evidence for the current accelerated expansion is overwhelming but won't we have to wait until projects such as SDDS are completed (if that is even possible) before we can say for sure whether this will continue forever or at some point reverse? There is still a lot of missing data on density and distribution.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Thank you for that. From my limited reading I can see that the evidence for the current accelerated expansion is overwhelming but won't we have to wait until projects such as SDDS are completed (if that is even possible) before we can say for sure whether this will continue forever or at some point reverse? There is still a lot of missing data on density and distribution.

We can always amend the current cosmological model based on new data. However, I do not think we will ever be able to say for sure (100% and unequivocally) whether the Universe will continue accelerating as their may be underlying mechanisms we are yet to discover or that are yet to even occur. The current consensus is of accelerated expansion but this may change given additional data - all science can continue to do is match observation with mathematical models.

The cyclical Universe is not currently accepted and flies in the face of the huge amount of observational evidence. Bill seemed to be promoting this as fact, I am not stating that the Universes accelerated expansion is a fact, but it is a best fit to the data and currently accepted model.

We have only been seriously looking at the stars with actual physical understanding for the last century or so (wrt General Relativity) and we know this is an incomplete theory and needs to be accorded with a theory of QG.) So who knows what physical laws/mechanisms we have yet to undrstand.

I hope this helps.

Cosmo

 

[bill alsept]

And my understanding is that they have all been proven false and recession is accepted as fact. Are you going to bring up "tired light", for example, as one of your alternatives?

There are many alternatives like powerful quasars showing far more red shift than the galaxies right beside them and who knows how many calculation in time dilations one could make to explain red shift. Tired light and other theories of light have also been suggested. The point is there are many alternatives for the source of red shift besides ressesion. Expansions ONLY proof IS the red shift nd then dark energy needs to be thrown into the mix to account for the expansion. That’s fine but just as much a stretch as the alternatives.

 

[bill alsept]

You have boldly claimed ALL black holes will merge to create one big singularity and in truth this is a load of rubbish and you cannot state this as a fact on a science forum without expecting to be pulled to task regarding the absurd statements.

I have not stated anything as fact other than I said anyone who believes the universe cycles would have to believe all black holes will merge. You said "that is a load of rubbish" as if you knew that for a fact.

 

[George Jones]

A cyclical universe is a well known and main stream theory that has been around for some time now and written about in many books. If it can't be discussed on this forum what could be?

Physics Forums rules, as quoted by me above, are quite explicit. Discussion of non-mainstream personal theory is not allowed. You agreed to the Physics Forums rules when you registered.

If cyclical theories in which all black hole merge are well known, it should be easy to give a mainstream reference.

anyone who believes the universe cycles would have to believe all black holes will merge.

This statement is, in fact, demonstrably false. Roger Penrose believes both that the universe is cyclic, and that not all black holes merge.

 

[bill alsept]

Physics Forums rules, as quoted by me above, are quite explicit. Discussion of non-mainstream personal theory is not allowed. You agreed to the Physics Forums rules when you registered.

I am not trying to be argumentive or state personal theories sorry if it comes off that way. I thought (but I will check) that most cosmology books talk about cyclical universes. You have to admit that cycle usually means repeating patterns etc. So my assuming (again I am not the only one thinking this) that all matter in the universe would eventually CYCLE back to where it was should not be a stretch or a bold statement. Some call it a bounce. I am just trying to have logical discussion that’s all.

If cyclical theories in which all black hole merge are well known, it should be easy to give a mainstream reference.

Cyclical universe theories are well known as for everything merging yes that is only an opinion although I did not know it was so original. I have to admit I am totally confused on this subject now because for the life of me I cannot picture a cycle that does not come back to where it started. Maybe you could explain or point me to this theory

 

[Dave Apsey]

This is a fascinating thread but I still think that it is getting bogged down in Semantics.

First of all there are large numbers supporting both the ever expanding universe and the big crunch theories although the former are currently in the ascendancy. Bill seems to be in the latter camp and if that were to be correct then it would seem reasonable that as the Universe contracts black holes, along with everything else will merge back to a singularity.

Prompted by this thread I have taken a look at what Roger Penrose was/is saying about Cyclic universes. Not sure if it is allowable to post a link here but if you google "Cyclic Universe Penrose" you will find a great interview he did for BBC explaining his idea. There is an even better one on the Coventry university site if you have an hour spare to watch his lecture.

Unfortunately for Bill, while Penrose is supporting the idea of a Cyclic Universe i.e one in which there are multiple big bangs he doesn't include the concept that a big crunch is part of the cycle.

Instead he seems to putting forward the idea that the universe will keep expanding until all the matter within it that is driving the expansion will be used up and it will effectively evaporate to its original condition followed by a new Big Bang. I have probably totally misunderstood but no doubt someone will correct me.

So what I would appreciate Bill would be if you could point me to a link or paper supporting the big crunch theory. I am not having a lot of luck on Google finding anything authoritive that I can understand.

 

[bill alsept]

So what I would appreciate Bill would be if you could point me to a link or paper supporting the big crunch theory. I am not having a lot of luck on Google finding anything authoritive that I can understand.

I will see what I can find but in the mean time could you explain how Penrose or anyone gets a cycle out of never ending expansion. I'm not arguing his theory only that it’s not a cycle.

 

[Dave Apsey]

I will see what I can find but in the mean time could you explain how Penrose or anyone gets a cycle out of never ending expansion. I'm not arguing his theory only that it’s not a cycle.

That's the trouble with semantics, Bill. What one person hears might not be what the other one thought he said. I think that you have been on the receiving end of just that in this thread.

Anyway, as I understand it, Penrose is proposing that the Universe does NOT expand forever but just until it uses up all the matter, energy, dark energy or whatever that drives that expansion.

At that point, time and space become meaningless (His term is that it evaporates) and the now Non-Universe, sorry but I don't know the technical term, is now in the state that it was when the current Big Bang occurred so a new Big Bang happens and the whole cycle starts over.

So his Cycle is more like a life cycle -Birth, Growth, Decay, Death followed by the next Generation. He doesn't have the contraction phase of the Big Crunch.

I do recommend that you watch that interview on the BBC. Beyond me but fascinating.

 

[boson18]

this might be off topic. but is my understanding correct when the thinking behind Ω is from taking the stress tensor to find the elasticity of geometric space?