Why is the existence of The Big Bang agreed upon?

  • #1

Main Question or Discussion Point

Why is the existence of The Big Bang "agreed" upon?

From all my research and studies mathmatical evidence shows the existence of Black holes. From some of the most fundamental physics we have our Conservation of Energy and Black holes are at the moment considered points where it is possible that energy could be destroyed, breaking this rule. Well besides Hawking Radiation. Black holes are also points that are considered to cause a loss of information also breaking the Conservation of Information. To further illustrate the point Black holes also rip apart matter breaking the Conservation of Matter. White holes are considered to be anti-black holes spitting matter, energy and information out across another universe. This spitting of matter and energy could be used to describe the "balloon" expasion of the early universe and why the farther from the white hole's mouth we get the slower our expansion has gotten. White holes can explain the background radiation just as good as the Big Bang can. If this idea is considered it also corrects the idea that black holes only destroy which makes since with all of our Conservation theories. Which is something that black holes without white holes does not do. Black holes without white holes and the Big Bang do not seem in my opinion the accuratly describe our univese as clearly as do White Holes. And with there being so many Black Holes thought to exist in the center of so many galaxies, each of these being supermassive, also gives us our first glimpses of the path to other universes. This also could aid in the "lost dimensions" since they possibly stayed in the universe we can from and only our 4 made it. Now a big bang has no has any reason to exist and doesn't in our mathematics, but Black holes do. So with all of this why do we even consider the existence of a Big Bang? Shouldn't it be the Big Push? What are the pros and cons of this idea?
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,643
2,115


1] To make it readable, you might want to break your ideas into paragraphs, one per thought.
2] Several of your assumptions are wrong.

"Black holes are at the moment considered points where it is possible that energy could be destroyed, breaking this rule"
Yep. We do not assume our rules apply inside a black hole. The point of a singularity is that our models of physics break down.

"breaking the Conservation of Matter"
Conservation of Matter is very limited in its scope. Matter is destroyed routinely in every nuclear reaction. It is converted to energy.

"White holes are considered to be"
White holes are considered to be entirely speculative. There is no reason to think they are more than word play. There is no such thing as anti-gravity, so no anti-black holes either.

"This spitting of matter and energy could be used to describe the "balloon" expasion of the early universe and why the farther from the white hole's mouth we get the slower our expansion has gotten."
It does not describe what we see.


3] Your white hole idea is highly speculative and unfounded. We do not support personal speculation here.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Simon Bridge
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
17,847
1,644


You need to read around your subjects more, you appear to have accepted a lot of speculation about black holes that does not count as "accepted" and I'm not sure the bit about "lost" dimensions being hidden down a black hole even makes sense. There are so many signs of misunderstanding in there that it is difficult to sort out which are actual misunderstandings and which are due to having to talk about them "in a nutshell".

For eg. You seem to be thinking that the Universe expands from a center , or maybe multiple centers, where there may be a white hole?

So I suppose, to your question, the pros are that it would make for entertaining TV and the cons are that it is a load of rubbish.
 
  • #4
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
738


I assure you, Dave does not think the universe expanded from a 'center'. You are reading conclusions between lines that have not even been drawn.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
124
0


From all my research and studies mathmatical evidence shows the existence of Black holes. From some of the most fundamental physics we have our Conservation of Energy and Black holes are at the moment considered points where it is possible that energy could be destroyed, breaking this rule. Well besides Hawking Radiation. Black holes are also points that are considered to cause a loss of information also breaking the Conservation of Information.


Maybe black holes are no different than anything else. Their just accumilating matter and information. Just because we can't see in there dosn't mean its not there. Why wouldn't it be?
 
  • #6
Simon Bridge
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
17,847
1,644


@Chronos: fair enough, thanks.
 
  • #7
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,643
2,115


@Chronos: fair enough, thanks.
Wait. Your comment was directed at me? I assumed it was directed at the OP.
 
  • #8


I appreciate everyones replies but nobody really went into the detail I was hoping for.
I am still confused about why it is accepted that there was a Big Bang? Doesn't that seem to be just as speculative as our universe coming from a White hole?
 
  • #9
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,643
2,115


I appreciate everyones replies but nobody really went into the detail I was hoping for.
I am still confused about why it is accepted that there was a Big Bang? Doesn't that seem to be just as speculative as our universe coming from a White hole?
No.
Scientists have been able to satisfactorily model the universe back to microseconds after the BB.

This white hole of yours would have a ballistic profile. Its particles would start slowing down due to gravity the moment they emerged.

The universe we see is expanding in a way that is not due to a ballistic initial impetus.
It wouldn't be expanding in areas faster than c.
It wouldn't have a recession velocity proportional to distance.

Scientists don't just guess at stuff that seems plausible; they apply rigorous treatment to the early universe and it simply would not look anything like it does today if it were spewed out of a white hole.
 
  • #10
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
738


Find a white hole and then we will talk. There are tons of black holes, but, nary a single white hole to be found in the observable universe.
 
  • #11


I appreciate that Dave thats more along the depth I was looking for.
I have another question, why does this theory of the Eternal Bubble seem to have so many scientist intrigued, especially for the light it sheds on the time before the BB?
 
  • #12
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,643
2,115


why does this theory of the Eternal Bubble seem to have so many scientist intrigued
When I Google "Eternal Bubble", I get a stress relief product for harried Japanese executives.

Clearly these scientists of yours are under a lot of stress and looking for a cure.
 
  • #13
832
30


Find a white hole and then we will talk. There are tons of black holes, but, nary a single white hole to be found in the observable universe.
Is there any evidence of black holes? I mean, has ever been a black hole observed?
I don't think there are white holes neither, I mean, there is no scientific evidence of it, but I accept that black holes does exist, as the entire scientific community does. Anyway, I've never heard about evidence on black holes. Its perhaps maybe because of ignorance, but I'd rather like to know if that evidence exists.
 
  • #14
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,643
2,115


Is there any evidence of black holes? I mean, has ever been a black hole observed?
Yes.

Cygnus X-1 is a black hole.

What is that the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy has a maximum known radius and a minimum known mass. It can't be normal matter. Whether you want to call it a Black Hole or not, we have only one model of it.


I don't think there are white holes neither, I mean, there is no scientific evidence of it,
Problem is, white holes don't even make sense. Gravity has no repulsive counterpart.
 
  • #15
832
30


Right! one realizes about it with electromagnetism. But it could be that it exists in "other parts of the universe", or something like that. I think actually it was Stephen Hawking who stated this idea of white holes that curves space in "the other way", and... I really can't tell, but from a quantum mechanical perspective, perhaps those kind of particles the antigravitons or whatever they're called could exist. There are no evidence of it, and its completely speculative as you said. I can't really tell, cause I don't know anything about quantum mechanics, but I'm not sure neither if that kind of theory would be self consistent, I just say to my self, why not? in the speculative field everything seems to be possible. Of course, its not science, its speculation.
 
  • #16


Dave you are right I messed up on the name of the theories accidentally combining two different theories. I meant the Eternal Inflation theory and it is being compared against the Bubble theory, I think it is called. In which its viewed that our univserse is just one of many bubbles in a multiverse and supposedly there is evidence of 4 collisions on the CMB. And I wanted to get a deeper understanding of this from an expert in the field.
 
  • #17
256
0


From all my research and studies mathmatical evidence shows the existence of Black holes. From some of the most fundamental physics we have our Conservation of Energy and Black holes are at the moment considered points where it is possible that energy could be destroyed, breaking this rule. Well besides Hawking Radiation. Black holes are also points that are considered to cause a loss of information also breaking the Conservation of Information. To further illustrate the point Black holes also rip apart matter breaking the Conservation of Matter. White holes are considered to be anti-black holes spitting matter, energy and information out across another universe. This spitting of matter and energy could be used to describe the "balloon" expasion of the early universe and why the farther from the white hole's mouth we get the slower our expansion has gotten. White holes can explain the background radiation just as good as the Big Bang can. If this idea is considered it also corrects the idea that black holes only destroy which makes since with all of our Conservation theories. Which is something that black holes without white holes does not do. Black holes without white holes and the Big Bang do not seem in my opinion the accuratly describe our univese as clearly as do White Holes. And with there being so many Black Holes thought to exist in the center of so many galaxies, each of these being supermassive, also gives us our first glimpses of the path to other universes. This also could aid in the "lost dimensions" since they possibly stayed in the universe we can from and only our 4 made it. Now a big bang has no has any reason to exist and doesn't in our mathematics, but Black holes do. So with all of this why do we even consider the existence of a Big Bang? Shouldn't it be the Big Push? What are the pros and cons of this idea?
Hi Mindastronaut. Replies you received on your OP are not quite right. It is possible to model entire universe as a white hole and get a fit with cosmological observations. In fact you can't even distinguish between white hole and Big Bang so easy.
If we take a time reversal of star collapsing into the black hole (a.k.a. white hole), ignore pressure, treat it as spherical cloud of dust without any internal forces other than gravity, stitch together FRW solution for inside of cloud and Schwarzschild solution for outside, spacetime within the cloud remains homogeneous and isotropic during the collapse. What follows is that the time reversal for inside of collapsing sphere of dust is indistinguishable from the FRW model of universe. Of course, sphere should be larger then observable universe.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,107
73


I meant the Eternal Inflation theory and it is being compared against the Bubble theory, I think it is called.
Eternal inflation is a widely known term, but what you call the 'bubble theory' is not.

In which its viewed that our univserse is just one of many bubbles in a multiverse and supposedly there is evidence of 4 collisions on the CMB. And I wanted to get a deeper understanding of this from an expert in the field.
Eternal inflation predicts that there are many 'bubble' universes residing in a 'multiverse'. What you are talking about are two recent papers which looked in the WMAP data for evidence of any bubble collisions.

The following blog contains an article written by one of the authors of these papers, and also provides links to the papers themselves. You will probably get more understanding from reading this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/12/22/observing-the-multiverse-guest-post/
 
  • #19
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,107
73


Of course, sphere should be larger then observable universe.
But then, as far as observations go, you simply have a FRW model...
 
  • #20
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,907
5,579


Dave you are right I messed up on the name of the theories accidentally combining two different theories. I meant the Eternal Inflation theory and it is being compared against the Bubble theory, I think it is called. In which its viewed that our univserse is just one of many bubbles in a multiverse and supposedly there is evidence of 4 collisions on the CMB. And I wanted to get a deeper understanding of this from an expert in the field.

Can you provide a source for the bolded statement? I'm dubious about it.

OOPS: I see christo already did
 
  • #21
172
1


I appreciate everyones replies but nobody really went into the detail I was hoping for.
I am still confused about why it is accepted that there was a Big Bang? Doesn't that seem to be just as speculative as our universe coming from a White hole?
I think the key point is that pretty much every observation made fits the big bang model. The cosmic microwave background, the mass fraction of helium, and the observed expansion of the universe all point to a hot, dense initial state of the universe.
 
  • #22
309
4


Problem is, white holes don't even make sense. Gravity has no repulsive counterpart.
Dave, You obviously know what you are talking about, and I should start by stating that I don't believe in whiteholes ... I think ... but something is driving the expansion of the universe ... and that would appear to have the type of anti gravity properties.

Also, not too long ago, blackholes and dark matter were just speculation, isn't it very dangerous to just dismiss their "anti" form out of hand?

Regards,

Noel.
 
  • #23
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,643
2,115


Also, not too long ago, blackholes and dark matter were just speculation, isn't it very dangerous to just dismiss their "anti" form out of hand?
First evidence, then speculation.
 
  • #24
Simon Bridge
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
17,847
1,644


... if this web site existed back then we'd probably have wanted to restrict conversations about black holes and dark matter. The reasons for the rule are more political than scientific.

However - we'd be less definite about restricting black hole discussions since there was a plausible mechanism by which a black hole may form while white holes would have had to be there from the start of Everything.

Which is what has been proposed.

Dark matter was one postulate to account for the results of some observations, and would have been allowed in the rules in that context.

It looks to me like white-holes at the "start" of the universe would fit in what is acceptable but I'm new. From the discussion I gather that it is possible to make a white-hole theory which accounts for all the data known for the big-bang. This would make it mathematically equivalent. In which case, it is really just another big-bang theory.

So... what was the question?
 
  • #25
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,643
2,115


... if this web site existed back then we'd probably have wanted to restrict conversations about black holes and dark matter. The reasons for the rule are more political than scientific.

However - we'd be less definite about restricting black hole discussions since there was a plausible mechanism by which a black hole may form while white holes would have had to be there from the start of Everything.

Which is what has been proposed.

Dark matter was one postulate to account for the results of some observations, and would have been allowed in the rules in that context.

It looks to me like white-holes at the "start" of the universe would fit in what is acceptable but I'm new. From the discussion I gather that it is possible to make a white-hole theory which accounts for all the data known for the big-bang. This would make it mathematically equivalent. In which case, it is really just another big-bang theory.

So... what was the question?
The problem is, white holes - in any form we care to describe them - do not explain what we see. The start of the universe did not come from a pouring out of matter and energy. It came with a rapid inflation of space and the particles were carried with it. No concept of white hole has anything to do with this.

With a very thin understanding of the events immediately following the BB, it is easy to see a superficial likeness with a while hole, and make the mistake of thinking the likeness goes deeper. But the more you look into the events of the BB, the less it will fit.

Read what we are pretty sure of so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
 

Related Threads on Why is the existence of The Big Bang agreed upon?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
42
Views
10K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
5K
Top