Assuming a black hole

[AO2012]

And again, assuming that a black-hole might be the best ... visual characteristic for gravity, would it be logical to assume a ... big-bang would be the best visual opposite ... for anti-gravity?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If it is a stupid assumption, and I need to be hit with the dummy stick, please by all means do so.

[Klaynos]

What is a "visual characteristic for gravity"? What does that mean?

[AO2012]

When I think of gravity, and its flagship, I think of a black-hole. To my understanding is it the heavy-weight of gravity, the champion. And when I think of a black-hole I think of something like ... water going down a drain, it collects all the little particles of ... stuff around it and swirls it down. Up to the point of the event horizon, we can see gravity "sucking" everything down to the ... "mouth of the drain." a collapsing effect

 

If for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, would a big-bang be this opposite champion? And an explosion or, repelling effect by a big bang?

 

 

*edit* I am not a scientist by any means, just a dualist ... with my head in the clouds. In all seriousness, I am not trying to question in a manner of ignorance, I just want to visualize somewhat better what possibilities there might be. The line of thought I am in, goes along with what I posted in the size of the universe thread posted by MB. I am more visual thinker.

 

I also see some of a parallel with magnetism, the way I visualize the way a black-hole and big-bang work.

Edited April 17, 2009 by AO2012
Silly add-on

[jackson33]

And again, assuming that a black-hole might be the best ... visual characteristic for gravity, would it be logical to assume a ... big-bang would be the best visual opposite ... for anti-gravity?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If it is a stupid assumption, and I need to be hit with the dummy stick, please by all means do so.

 

Black Hole

The collapsed core of a massive star. Stars that are very massive will collapse under their own gravity when their fuel is exhausted. The collapse continues until all matter is crushed out of existence into what is known as a singularity. The gravitational pull is so strong that not even light can escape.

 

List of the largest stars Star name VY Canis Majoris 1800-2100 times the mass of our sun, WOH G64 2000 VV Cephei A 1600-1900 V354 Cephei 1520 RW Cephei 1260-1610 KW Sagittarii 1460 KY Cygni 1420or1440 Mu Cephei (Herschel's "Garnet Star") 1420 Betelgeuse (Alpha Orionis)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_stars

 

http://blackholes.stardate.org/resources/faqs/faq.php?id=5

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Some good sites to pick up on what a BH is and how it formed...

 

The largest known BH, is about the size of our entire solar system. That's condensed matter with an equal gravity of all that went into it's formation.

 

In my opinion, in Astronomy, there are no stupid questions and at worst any assumption can be made from ignorance, certainly NOT stupidity. If anything however, some will say that the BB Singularity could have been a form of a BH, resulting from a a previous collapse of the Universe, that is same and not opposite. BH do over great periods of time evaporate, not begin to expand. Kind of a process in the death of very large Stars. Our Sun is expected to condense into a 'White Dwarf' also evaporating over time. Last I heard anyway...

[Royston]

What AO2012 is asking, is if the converse of a black hole, is a big bang.

 

If for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, would a big-bang be this opposite champion?

 

You can't apply Newtons 3rd Law in these situations, but it's certainly not a stupid assumption. You may want to grab a copy of 'Life of the Cosmos', as a similar idea was proposed back in the 90's by Lee Smolin aka the Fecund Universe approach. It's quite an old book (by pop sci standards) plus this has been discussed quite a bit, so use the search function.

 

I havn't been following this field much at all recently, so maybe hunt around to see if there's anything more recent out there.

[jackson33]

What AO2012 is asking, is if the converse of a black hole, is a big bang.

 

You can't apply Newtons 3rd Law in these situations, but it's certainly not a stupid assumption. You may want to grab a copy of 'Life of the Cosmos', as a similar idea was proposed back in the 90's by Lee Smolin aka the Fecund Universe approach. It's quite an old book (by pop sci standards) plus this has been discussed quite a bit, so use the search function.

 

I havn't been following this field much at all recently, so maybe hunt around to see if there's anything more recent out there.

 

 

What your talking about, for his observation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universe

 

What I was thinking was basically an effort to explain and/or defuse BBT, early in it's forming under the creation principle, which was the formation of a singularity similar to what is thought occurs or occurring in the very large BH, then the joining of BH on and on to a single single unit, then bang, over and over probably infinitely into the past.

-------------------------------

The oscillatory universe is a cosmological model, originally derived by Alexander Friedman in 1922, investigated briefly by Einstein in 1930 and critiqued by Richard Tolmanin 1934, in which the universe undergoes a series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.

http://www.reference.com/browse/Pulsating+universe

[AO2012]

I will try avoiding rambling too much, and try to actually look into things a bit more, but it's hard to resist just raising a question or two amongst people whom have a greater knowledge already to help refine my search parameters. I have a tail end question, would any of said theories encompass a BH or BB as transition points? That a BB would function as returning everything to a universal center for a bounce, etc. But some like magnets? The one polarity end of the singularity would be a BH and the other a BB and there is an endless assortment of them? For every BH, in another dimension or plane there is a BB? SS sounds silly to me, and the BBT is almost right there with it. I don't know. Sorry for the babble! And thank you for the input!

[NowThatWeKnow]

...I have a tail end question, would any of said theories encompass a BH or BB as transition points? That a BB would function as returning everything to a universal center for a bounce, etc...

 

The current mainstream theories do not believe the BB was from a singularity. However, that is not saying a BH was not involved in some way. I may not have understood what you were asking though.

[Martin]

The current mainstream theories do not believe the BB was from a singularity...

 

I believe that is a fair statement. And it is an interesting one, since a lot of nonspecialists have not realized this yet. One way to gauge the mainstream is to look at the main professional society, the GRG (international society for general relativity and gravitation.) They have the triennial meetings where they cover gravitational waves, numerical GR, black holes, big bang, tests of GR etc etc the whole works, everything related to gravitation and cosmology.

 

In 2007 the membership elected Abhay Ashtekar president of GRG so if you want a thumbnail sketch of the mainstream he is Mister General Rel Gravitation and Cosmology. Well in the last 3 years he has been doing mostly research in quantum cosmology, and he is kind of the spokesman for that field---the survey papers, the invited overview talks etc.

 

And if you want a snapshot of quantum cosmology, since 2006, say, then look at the authors titles citation counts of the top 20 or 30 papers that have appeared since 2006 (i.e. 2007 or later). Check the abstracts if you want more detail information:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+DK+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY+AND+DATE+%3E+2006&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29

This list has over 200 papers but the most representative would be the first 20 or 30 (the most highly cited.)

 

If you look over the list you will see that a lot of the most highly cited papers are by Ashtekar. And a large number of papers are about models of the big bang and of black holes which have no singularity.

There is no scientific evidence that a singularity actually exists or existed in nature. In the BB case this would mean that time stops at the BB! No time evolution before that instant . There is no empirical evidence of that. So a considerable amount of contemporary research is aimed at discovering testable models that extend back prior to BB.

That is essentially what Ashtekar (who is Mister Mainstream in this context) is focusing on.

 

So I think you are basically right. Anybody who wants to get a more detailed impression can look at a few of the top ten articles on the Stanford database listing I just gave.

 

The last GRG meeting had over 400 participants, it was in Sydney Australia. The upcoming meeting will be next year. Some of the program is already available on the website.

http://www.gr19.com/index.php

Edited April 18, 2009 by Martin

[jackson33]

I will try avoiding rambling too much, and try to actually look into things a bit more, but it's hard to resist just raising a question or two amongst people whom have a greater knowledge already to help refine my search parameters. I have a tail end question, would any of said theories encompass a BH or BB as transition points? That a BB would function as returning everything to a universal center for a bounce, etc. But some like magnets? The one polarity end of the singularity would be a BH and the other a BB and there is an endless assortment of them? For every BH, in another dimension or plane there is a BB? SS sounds silly to me, and the BBT is almost right there with it. I don't know. Sorry for the babble! And thank you for the input!

 

Your getting to be interesting; I find it hard to believe your going at this issue w/o some pre-conceived idea of 'String Theory". If wrong you might check out the following site...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

 

This seems to be where your thoughts are coming from, with the exception of mixing gravity and magnatism...

[AO2012]

I know they don't mix well, I was just trying to draw crude -almost parallels/similarities with an inadequate vocabulary and understanding. I have heard a bit about string theory, but I just can't visualize, strings, planes, or "cosmic" skin. Sphere/circles/disks - maybe I'm hung up on the linear representation that comes to mind when I think of a string but ... I don't know, it just seems to me that the relative shape mechanics would be consistent. atoms and their parts seem to scale up into planets and moons, systems, galaxies, universe then suddenly things seem to go flat. Maybe a string is more like a ripple!

 

Again, I'm grateful for all the time saving, via link, thanks for putting up with me! I think I have enough material to cover my interests for now! I'll be back to drive you nutty again later!

 

*edit* What I was trying to get at with magnetism is more like a cosmic binary, on being BB, and off being BH ... or something like that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From what I have read so far, between Fecund theory and String, I would imagine the 2 to work together somehow. And where ST describes connections as "strings," I would imagine them more as ripples or currents. I get that they are pretty much the same thing, but on the specials I have seen about string theory, it's always represented by planes and lines visually ... and I can't get around that. What I got from Wiki is that both are within possibility but more merit is given to ST, because there is a greater chance of observation?

 

I think I'll be picking up some new books this summer, an will be more comfortable with elements going over my head, rather than swirling around in it and making a mess ... like my current read for class, The Republic of Plato.

Edited April 18, 2009 by AO2012
add-on thought