Black holes and the Big Bang: A Theory

[jablan]

Hi all. I would like to first offer this disclaimer:

 

I'm not a physicist or scientist. I'm a computer technology professional and an enjoyer of all things involving theoretical physics.

 

With that said, I've been thinking about black holes and their "evaporation" over time and the resulting spew of energy after the black hole collapse.

 

My thoughts about this are as follows:

 

1. All of the energy ejected as the mass of the black hole decreases was originally captured/ensnared/eaten by the black hole.

 

2. As the black hole's mass increased, so did it's gravity, and thus it's distortion of space-time.

 

3. The dip caused by increased the gravity is a giant hole that is storing energy. As gravity increases, the dip lengthens and offers more room for energy storage.

 

4. Finally, when the gravity of the black hole can no longer contain the "dip"'s own force, it begins to erupt.

 

So this long train of thought brought me to the idea that if this were true or some mechanism similar to this was true, the big bang was nothing more than a super-super-super-massive black hole that died.

 

This could explain how all the matter in the universe could have come from a single point (which it didn't but you know what I mean). Brings back the old oscillating universe theory.

 

Anyway, if I'm way off base posting this here, my apologies. I just have no other outlet for my science geekery.

 

-- J

[jablan]

So no one has any comments? No one understands what I was trying to explain? No one cares?

 

Bueller? Bueller?

[Spyman]

There is no theoretical upper limit to how massive a Black Hole can become, as long as it can gain more mass it will continue to grow.

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

 

Black Holes are thought to evaporate very slowly through Hawking Radiation. When a Black Hole is ready to "erupt" it has already lost so much mass it's much much smaller than a tiny fraction of Earth, close to 250 000 kg the evaporation accelerates towards a second.

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

 

Loop Quantum Gravity replaces the Big Bang spacetime singularity with a Big Bounce. The theory has an old contracting Universe building up momentum until it manages to overcome the inertia and gravity from the collapsing matter and then recoils out in the Big Bang.

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

[iNow]

There are also some great links and reading on this topic here:

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/cosmology/index.html

 

h/t Martin

[devrimci_kürt]

There are also some great links and reading on this topic here:

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/cosmology/index.html

 

h/t Martin

yes..a marvel Website

[jablan]

So I'm way off base... thanks!

[cyberphlak]

For this theoretical dip in space to occur, or for the bowling ball on a sheet example of gravity to be plausible, space would have to be flat. Surely, it is obvious, that space is not flat. In my opinion, before anyone should get too wrapped up in any idea involving time, they should consider that the universe is time independent, everything is, except mankind. We use it to categorize and explain in simple terms. In reality, it does not seem to exist at all.

[insane_alien]

or maybe you should realise that an analogy is never intended to explain a whole theory. just get the jist across with minimal technicalities.

 

there is no need for space to be flat either. although it does actually appear to be so as determined by experimentation. of course, due to intrinsic errors in the measurements there is also the possibility that it is curved either positively or negatively too but either way its not going to be a severe curvature and for all intents and purposes would be condsidered flat.

[cyberphlak]

Space is at least three dimensional. Flat is at best, two dimensional. Neither this post nor the previous are "knocking" or flaming. Just a nudge to consider ideas, like current gravity theory, from one's own point of view, not from the popular opinion.

[Spyman]

If Ω > 1 then Universe is shaped like a Hypersphere

If Ω < 1 then Universe is shaped in a Hyperbolic shape

If Ω = 1 then Universe is truly flat

 

One aspect of local geometry to emerge from General Relativity and the FLRW model is that the density parameter, Omega (Ω), is related to the curvature of space. Omega is the average density of the universe divided by the critical energy density, i.e. that required for the universe to be flat (zero curvature).

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

[insane_alien]

Space is at least three dimensional. Flat is at best, two dimensional. Neither this post nor the previous are "knocking" or flaming. Just a nudge to consider ideas, like current gravity theory, from one's own point of view, not from the popular opinion.

 

we aren't talking about two dimensional flat. but talking about a similar scenario for higher geometries. this is common in mathematical constructs as it prevents you having to invent a new word for flat for every dimension.

 

by calling the universe flat we mean that there is no large scale distortion of it.

[swansont]

Space is at least three dimensional. Flat is at best, two dimensional. Neither this post nor the previous are "knocking" or flaming. Just a nudge to consider ideas, like current gravity theory, from one's own point of view, not from the popular opinion.

 

Responses to posts should reflect mainstream science. "Alternative" explanations, even nudges, should only appear in the Speculations forum, and only in a thread dedicated to discussing them.

[ajb]

Space is at least three dimensional. Flat is at best, two dimensional. Neither this post nor the previous are "knocking" or flaming. Just a nudge to consider ideas, like current gravity theory, from one's own point of view, not from the popular opinion.

 

You can generalise the notion of curvature to any dimension.

 

Have a look at the Riemannian geometry page on wiki.

[alex folen]

You can generalise the notion of curvature to any dimension.

 

Have a look at the Riemannian geometry page on wiki.

 

I tend to agree here, Yo! ...(Sorry alien just had to) Broad generalizations is the safety zone.