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

Was the Big Bang a White Hole ?

  1. Jun 28, 2003 #1
    it seems to me that there are many paradigms for the idea of what the first inception of creation was. I have heard of the speed of light being as many as e60 times faster at the big bang, and this is obviously, what we theorize to be the absolute source of all the universe.

    Well, if a black hole eventually dies or erodes, and a white hole is said to be the opposite of a black hole, spewing out matter and energy like a polar opposite, then is it not possible that the big bang and a white hole have similar characteristics ?

    (i doubt im the first or even thousandth person to ask this)
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 28, 2003 #2
    the first arguement against this would be the most obvious: we don't know if white holes exist or ever can exist.

    even if they could you must still wonder about the implications that a white hole/big bang duality would suggest. would this mean that there was a universe (or at least spacetime) before the big bang, white hole, whatever? there would have to be or there could not be enough (or any for that matter) matter to warp spacetime enough to create a black hole which therefore would create a white hole.

    also, if this is the case, and a black hole creates a white hole, then why aren't there any now? we think we have strong evidence that black holes exist, so why isn't there another universe created by the white hole which was created by this very black hole?

    no you are most certainly not. in fact, you are about the third this week to post this speculation in this very forum.
  4. Jun 29, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    White holes defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics so at the moment they are thought of unrealistic symetric solutions in relativity.

    Your're right, your're not the first person to think of this and it may well be that the big bang singularity and a white hole have simlair properties.
  5. Jun 29, 2003 #4
    Is there not a fundamental difference with the Big Bang singularity versus a singularity associated with black holes? I thought I once read in some book on relativity and cosmology that there was some fundamental difference.[?]
  6. Jun 29, 2003 #5
    one is pulling in and the other is pushing out. that's pretty fundemental.:wink:
  7. Jun 29, 2003 #6
    Not an obvious difference like that

    It was some subtle but fundamental thing. Curses, if I can remember or find it again, I'll post it.
  8. Jun 30, 2003 #7

    This concept struck my fancy because the description of a white hole within the universe seemed ludicrus, as it would fill up the whole universe with supposedly inifinite energy and light, but...

    If a white hole is like a black hole- in that it is not an eternal thing, it just seems that way, and progresses to it's state,

    Then with the current theory of an ever expanding universe which is accelerating (wierd huh ?) although the inception of a white whole may seem impossible (Let there be light), it is not impossible that some of the same characteristics, post formation, could exist as we know them today - in other words, we are billions of years the latter result at the far rim of what was once a central infinite explosion that instead of like a firecracker, was more like an inflated baloon with a consistantly accelerating pressure...

    The only difference may be, that when some possible oppositely sided blackhole inverted into the white hole, it may have gone from zero radius to a positive integer seeming like infinite, then the ratio of expansion would slow down, yet the speed, as with a black hole, some how accelerated gradually...

    Does this make any sense ?

    Im not saying the big bang IS a white whole, I'm saying we should look at the two for similar characteristics, and see if we can draw any observations about our existant cosm, using a theoretical model.
  9. Jun 30, 2003 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No a white hole couldn't fill up the universe with with an unlimited about of energy/matter, it coukldn't release anymore than the energy equivalent of it's inital mass. A white hole is just a time reverse black hole, so the only way to visualise it is to imagine someone making a movie of a black hole and then playing it backwards.
  10. Jun 30, 2003 #9
    initial mass? if the big bang or white hole/black hole were singlarites, how could they have any mass? it seems there would be no "room" for any difference between white/black holes. if indeed a singularity has zero mass but infinite density. but what i wonder is not in there is mass, but is there some other mysterious effect on spacetime? we think that if a blackhole was a singularity it would have 0 mass but still have a gravitational curvature on spacetime. is there some possible opposite effect that i white hole could have while retaining 0 mass? a sort of anti-gravitational positive curvature of spacetime?
  11. Jun 30, 2003 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Singularities DO have mass, black holes have mass (typically 10 solar masses), the big bang singularity had mass (the current mass of the universe), white holes too would have mass.
  12. Jun 30, 2003 #11
    I don't understand how this is true. The second law of Thermo has to do with the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one. If you could elaborate on this argument, I would appreciate it. I'll be the first to admit, Thermo wasn't my favorite subject :)
  13. Jun 30, 2003 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A black hole is fully complaint with the laws of thermodynamics and it's actions represent an increase in entropy therefore the time-reverse of a black hole represents the opposite of this and must violate the second law of thermodynamics (infact a white hole would be the equivalent of a cold bodyb radiating heat onto a hot body).
  14. Jun 30, 2003 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A black hole singularity is a thing defined within spacetime (it's something that only exists in the universe). A Big Bang singularity is the entirety of spacetime (it is the universe).
  15. Jul 7, 2003 #14
    I suggested something similar on another thread , I thought since a black hole sucks in so much energy , and the energy does not disappear it could be the eggsack for a new universe but i realise now that even that is not enough energy to form a new universe, to be more precise even though a black hole sucks up galaxys (the big ones) its just one black hole in a big universe.
    You could suggest and this just thinking out lowd in lots of years time, im not get in to numbers, every available bit of energy is sucked up by the black holes and that they start eating eachother (gravity) that would concentrate all that energy untill there is one massive suppa hole, who would explode into a new universe.
    Now i dont know how many phisycs laws ive broke this would require a steady-state universe and ive heard they still havent figuered out if well expand forever or do crunch back again or come to a stop and just fade
  16. Jul 7, 2003 #15
    That's the ticket! I hate it when the answer is so obvious.
  17. Jul 13, 2004 #16

    Exacly, A Black Hole is defined by the Addition of matter, energy, heat, in affect, a Black hole goes against the 2nd law. while a white hole (functional opposite) is taking from it's stores of energy, matter, heat (it does not create them from this air) and Releases it to 'space', hence spreading out the matter, energy, heat. Therefore confirming the second Law of thermodynamics.

    Edit:// just noticed this is acually archives... :surprise:
  18. Jul 27, 2005 #17
    What about the singularity described in Eon(by Greg Bear) is this "type" of singularity possible?

    Of course if you haven't read Eon you wouldn't understand:P
  19. Nov 3, 2005 #18
    everybody have little knowledge about universe big bang. today its predicted that, many stellar object and many small particles have older than bigbang. So, what its show? you think about it.
    because my opinion is universe is like energy it not created nor destroyed. it always present but reshuffling like bigbang occurs.
  20. Nov 4, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    perhaps you're mixing old and new data or mixing cosmological models

    currently nothing in the universe is dated to be older than the universe itself
  21. Nov 5, 2005 #20
    Ahh! So what if the universe is a giant 4-D mobius strip? Not just that, but also that all black holes suck in the matter and space-time at different "drains", but all the drains flow into the big bang. For that matter, why not all particles too, since they are described with delta functions, which are singularities. these could all be multiply connected to the big bang, and space-time flows into them as if they were drains.

    I know it's probably not the case, I just like that thought 'cause it's so wierd.:tongue2:
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Threads - Bang White Hole Date
I The Dark Ages post "Big Bang" Mar 5, 2018
A Could vacuum decay fundamentally change our universe? Dec 12, 2017
I Could vacuum decay save multiverse ideas? Nov 26, 2017
White holes and the big bang Nov 20, 2004
Big bang=white hole Jun 24, 2003