Big Bang

[Guest Warhawk]

I didn't really know where else to put this, so I just put it here.

 

Lately, I have been getting really interested in physics, and in almost everything I've read about the big bang, it doesn't say where the singularity came from. Could it be that it was a black hole from, I guess you would say, previous universe? Like, could everything from that universe have been sucked into one huge (well, you know what I mean) black hole?

 

Now, the big bang part... I read somewhere that eventually black holes evaporate, and when they do, create an explosion equal to that of like a billion nuclear bombs. Now, imagine a black hole with everything in the universe in it... Couldn't that create an explosion with so much energy, that it would be able to create all the matter in this universe?

 

This must be wrong, since I can't have been the first one to think of this, so I would like to hear why it is wrong. Thanks!

[Radical Edward]

the bigger the black hole, the slower it evaporates, at least that is the principal. the mechanism behind how the universe came about will be a different once I suspect.

[Clown]

I wasn't aware there was a big explosion when BH's die, and if they did, it would still not compare to the energy released in the big bang.

[Guest Warhawk]

Yeah, see I was thinking that the more mass the black hole had, the bigger the explosion when it evaporated. But I had a new thought that I wanted you guys to tell me if it's right or not. Ok, I was thinking about other universes and how they could exist, and it seemed like they would run into each other... But then I thought some more and this is what I came up with. "Space" is a part of this universe. Beyond this universe there is no "space" to take up, so there is no way another universe could run into us. I mean, I know our universe is expanding, but it's more creating space then taking up. Do you guys see what I'm getting at?

[JaKiri]

Evaporation happens over time you know...

 

You're also confused about the whole 'multiple universe' things.

 

They're not like, say, people in a swimming pool; self contained but all existing in the same medium.

[Clown]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Basically, space cannot be seperated by any distance, because that distance would necessarily be space as well.

 

So any multiverse (such as those born from inflation theories) that postulates many universes running around in some meta spacetime, are not true multiverse theories. The universe then would actually be the mother spacetime in which the different inflation epochs (or big bangs if you will) occur.

 

MrL_JaKiri mentioned a multiverse with universes contained in the same medium. That would be a true multiverse in a sense, with the universes being contained in the same wave function. That one is not so easily to imagine though.

[Guest Warhawk]

Yeah I know evaporation happens over time, that's why we haven't seen any yet. I still don't see where I'm wrong with the other universes. I think our universe started in a big batch of nothing I guess you would say, and it created a whole bunch of space and all that. With other universes, I think the same thing happened, what's wrong with that?

[Clown]

Are you saying the universe was created out of nothing then?

[NapoleonGH]

why not clown?

 

plenty of hypothesis out there for what caused the big bang. where the cosmic egg came from ect, but mind you since there was no such thing as time or space prior to the bigbang it doesnt actually need a cause or anything to happen before it in order for it to have happened.

[Clown]

Indeed, but those theories all require that the laws of physics exist even when space and time didn't. To many physicists, the idea that some arbitrary laws of physics have existence independent of the actual fields they govern, is rather silly. But hey, that's a whole new can of worms.

 

But then, you could just easily say there is literally no "before" the big bang at all, in the same way that there is no "outside" of space.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Clown

Indeed, but those theories all require that the laws of physics exist even when space and time didn't. To many physicists, the idea that some arbitrary laws of physics have existence independent of the actual fields they govern, is rather silly. But hey, that's a whole new can of worms.

 

But then, you could just easily say there is literally no "before" the big bang at all, in the same way that there is no "outside" of space.

I agree that is quite silly.

 

Someone once explained to me that it was possible that absolute nothing had to decay into something even without the laws of physics, and this caused the big bang, but although his reasoning was quite sound I can't remember it

 

Anyone heard of a theory like that?

[Clown]

Physicists are often just sloppy with the english language. The absolute nothing they sometimes call a void is supposed to be a quantum state where spacetime does not yet exist. Still, they call it nothing. It gets worse, because some still call the vacuum nothing as well, causing all sorts of confusion.

 

It's similar to the confusion that comes from the use of the word "observer" in quantum mechanics.

[Sayonara]

Do you know what the devil he was talking about then?

[Clown]

No, but I don't think he did either. Any scientific proposal for the universe coming into existence as a vacuum fluctation will require the laws of physics to exist first.

 

But as I said, physicists can be confusing at times, and many interpret some quantum nothing state to be the philosophical concept of nothingness. So this confusion causes many to make the all common fallacy of reification of the zero, even though it's not based on any physics.

[Sayonara]

Oddly enough he's now less of a physicist and more of a Wiccan.