Ewen Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 I appologise if this is posted in the wrong section. I wasn't sure exactly where to post it. The Big Bang seems to be described as a black hole in reverse. Or at least it has in some of the books I've read. If this is the case, how come other black holes just fade away or evaporate? How come we havn't detected a similar explosion like that which supposedly created our Universe? Or am I missing a vital point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molotov Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 If you read into the big crunch theory the big bang could have been the result of all matter and energy in the universe condensing into one tiny point. Basically a universal blackhole. Its possible that when a black hole reaches a certain mass it can't contain itself anymore and "exploads". The reason we havent seen this in stellar or galactic black holes is because they lack the mass to trigger an explosion. Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted July 3, 2005 Author Share Posted July 3, 2005 It reminds me of something I've thought about before. I pictured it as like a sqeezebox or accordian. Though would I be right to assume that this would imply a repeating contraction and expansion sequence that would give us a closed universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 The Big Bang as a Black Hole is its debunking. After all how can a universal black hole expand? Its gravity would prevent it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 may not have been a black hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 This is the problem dad. Not just might not have been; couldn't have been. But how is that? There are no black holes. There is a gravity limit. There are no black holes but there is an extreme of gravity. I say that matter didn't begin as a singularity. that the orginal buildup of energy created matter at a finite density. If there is no gravity then the early universe violates Hawkings No Boundary Proposal. Without gravity the universal cosmology has to be an open one with boundaries. or space and then no-space So Hawking can't have it both ways: To start without gravity and still have his closed universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 or the equations don't work right @ big bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 or the equations don't work right @ big bang That's what Hawking has to say but he did not go far enough: GR predicts its own downfall by predicting singlarities. In other words there are infinities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now