Was the Big Bang the result of a super-massive black hole in another universe?

[Brad Watson_Miami FL]

Our universe is 13.7 billion years old. But what was going on before that? And what caused the Big Bang of this universe? Both the Big Bang and black holes are singularities which are points with infinite density and the radius of zero, and where the laws of physics break down. We have now directly observed a super-massive black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy and astrophysicists have concluded that there is a super-massive black hole at the center of every galaxy. Is is possible, perhaps even likely, that these two singularities - a super-massive black hole and a Big Bang or super-massive white hole - are linked in a death-birth relationship?! This would be a non-random and simple explanation of how there could be infinite space and eternity which would include before the birth of this universe and after its death. Is our universe one of billions in The Conglomerate of universes ('multiverse')?

 

"A duality occurs when you can look at the same phenomenon in two distinct ways, taking one theory and mapping it to another theory. In a sense, the two theories are equivalent." - String Theory for Dummies

 

Is the relationship between a super-massive black hole and a super-massive white hole/Big Bang, in fact, a duality? I say, yes. But, how can this be proven? Well, it appears impossible to directly observe, however, science may find a way in the future. For now, we only have a principle developed in the 14th century - Occam's razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.

 

Signature- Brad Watson, Miami, FL - "In God and science we trust"

[ajb]

Is is possible, perhaps even likely, that these two singularities - a super-massive black hole and a Big Bang or super-massive white hole - are linked in a death-birth relationship?!

 

I don't know what you have in mind here, but the black-hole solutions in GR are not the same as the FRW cosmologies. So, any relationship would be highly non-trivial.

 

Is the relationship between a super-massive black hole and a super-massive white hole/Big Bang, in fact, a duality?

 

A duality is quite a technical thing. However, what is true is that the same global techniques can be used to analyse singularities in both cosmological expansion and gravitational collapse . This was done in the 1960's and 1970's, look up the Penrose--Hawking theorems.

 

 

For now, we only have a principle developed in the 14th century - Occam's razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.

 

Well, only if the explanations are otherwise indistinguishable. Occam's razor cannot simply state the duality you seek.

[Brad Watson_Miami FL]

ajb,

 

Thanks for the reply. I don't what what you mean by saying, "The black-hole solutions in general relativity are not the same as the FRW (Friedman Robertson Walker [metric in general relativity]) cosmologies." Could you explain that? Also, regarding "any relationship would be highly non-trivial", yes, making a connection between the Big Bang/super-massive white hole and a super-massive black hole in another universe is a HUGE discovery! Is that what you mean? Do you agree that there is a duality or not between these two singularities? The Penrose-Hawking theorems reinforce that the Big Bang and black holes are singularities, don't they? There are no other singularities, right? And I refer to Occam's Razor because out of the different causes/no-cause propositions for the creation of this universe, and the explanation of eternity and infinite space, this one seems to be the simplest. Do you agree?

Edited August 2, 2010 by Brad Watson_Miami FL

[ajb]

I don't what what you mean by saying, "The black-hole solutions in general relativity are not the same as the FRW (Friedman Robertson Walker [metric in general relativity]) cosmologies." Could you explain that?

 

The space-times are not the same.

 

Also, regarding "any relationship would be highly non-trivial", yes, making a connection between the Big Bang/super-massive white hole and a super-massive black hole in another universe is a HUGE discovery! Is that what you mean?

 

It would also be very complicated, if at all possible. Matching the physics in both space-times is going to be hard.

 

Do you agree that there is a duality or not between these two singularities?

 

A duality would state that the physics is identical in both space-times. This is not the case, or at least it is not clear. However, like I said you can use the same global techniques to analyse things. I don't see that is a duality.

 

The Penrose-Hawking theorems reinforce that the Big Bang and black holes are singularities, don't they? There are no other singularities, right?

 

They say that under reasonable assumptions (quite technical, but reasonable) that gravitational collapse in classical general relativity always leads to the creation of a singularity. In "reverse" they state that the expansion of the universe must have started from a singularity, again in the context of general relativity. I don't think they state that these are the only singularities as such. There is a conjecture that naked singularities cannot exist, again with some technical assumptions. However, I do not think this is really proved.

 

And I refer to Occam's Razor because out of the different causes/no-cause propositions for the creation of this universe, and the explanation of eternity and infinite space, this one seems to be the simplest. Do you agree?

 

But the universe is under no obligation to be "simple". Occam's razor will only help when we have two equally valid explanations. Even then, experiments and observation trump and simplicity.

[Martin]

Our universe is 13.7 billion years old. But what was going on before that? And what caused the Big Bang of this universe? ...

 

The research area you are asking about is "quantum cosmology".

A natural place to do a keyword search of the professional literature is the Spires database at Stanford/SLAC

Here are the papers on that topic which have appeared since 2006

 

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+DK+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY+AND+DATE%3E2005&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29

 

The papers are listed in order of citation count---the number of times the paper has been cited as a reference in other research---a rough measure of how important or influential they have been.

 

This is not just about your particular idea. It is about the general question of what was going on, what might have led up to the big bang, started the expansion. I think your idea, in one form or another is probably part of the mix. The big question now is how can we observe effects in the cosmic microwave background that can serve to test the various preliminary ideas people have, and the various mathematical models of how the big bang was caused.

 

The most recent paper I know of about testing was given last month in Paris by Aurelien Barrau at a major conference called the ICHEP. It may not mean anything to you but this gets into empirical stuff, space instruments, observational cosmology. Using a proposed model to predict details in the CMB which they can then look for with improved space instruments and check if they are in the data. The business needs to get off of a purely speculative track and contact the real sky.

 

Here are a couple of recent papers by Barrau:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3745

http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4660

 

If you go to those links and click on "pdf" you get the papers. They reflect what he had to say at the ICHEP conference this summer.

The conference slides are here: http://indico.cern.ch/contributionDisplay.py?contribId=126&sessionId=47&confId=73513

 

It may not mean much or be very comprehensible (depending on your background) but in any case it gives a taste of how the observational side of things is beginning to creep in to pre-bang cosmology.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Martin

[PeterSzachow]

I have no real education on the subject, but I have recently been looking into the beginning of the universe, Big Bang, etc. I have some questions about the Big Bang. At the beginning, there was a singular point containing ALL the mass and matter of the universe. Now, I would have to imagine that when this thing blew, the explosion would have to be on an unprecedented scale unlike anything we could ever imagine. I would also have to assume, that just like when a start dies, this explosion would have created a black hole. Now, the black hole from the Big Bang would have to be INCREDIBLY LARGE, correct, and would obviously lay at the center. So would it be safe to say that our universe looks like a gigantic galaxy, except instead of stars making up the arms, it would be billions of galaxies.

 

---Just brainstorming here---- Our solar system lies in an arm of the milky way galaxy, which lays in an arm of the "universe galaxy," which is basically a Milky Way, but instead of stars, it is composed of that many galaxies. But what if our universe was simply ONE of many "universe galaxies" that lays in an arm of a "SUPER HUGE UNIVERSE GALAXY," that is composed of billions of universes instead of stars. But I digress.----

 

Anyways. What do you guys think about the universe looking like a gigantic galaxy with a massive black hole at the center? Makes sense doesn't it?

 

(If I just came up with some revolutionary new theory, don't steal it, and if you do, give me a citation.)

[pioneer]

Going from the short-lived substructure of matter at extreme energy, into long-lived matter like electrons-protons, implies a drastic loss of entropy. With the loss of entropy, there should be a extreme release of the energy, which had been contained within the entropy; big bang. In accelerators, it takes a lot of energy to convert long lived protons into short lived high entropy sub-structure. The formation of the universe went the other way, going from short lived high entropy accelerator product into long lived protons/electrons; entropy drop.

 

Therefore the formation of the universe needs a way to drastically lower entropy. A white hole, I would guess, would adds to much energy and would therefore increase the entropy. It would be good for making the initial high entropy state, but we would still need a way to lower entropy. One possible way is to combine a white hole and a black hole. We have a white hole that overlaps a black hole. The white hole gives us the high entropy states, while the black hole lowers the entropy. What is left is long lived matter and a lot of energy for an expansion of low entropy product.

Edited August 22, 2010 by pioneer

[Airbrush]

...making a connection between the Big Bang/super-massive white hole and a super-massive black hole in another universe is a HUGE discovery! Is that what you mean? Do you agree that there is a duality or not between these two singularities? The Penrose-Hawking theorems reinforce that the Big Bang and black holes are singularities, don't they? There are no other singularities, right? And I refer to Occam's Razor because out of the different causes/no-cause propositions for the creation of this universe, and the explanation of eternity and infinite space, this one seems to be the simplest. Do you agree?

 

The only way there can be a relationship between the Big Bang and Supermassive Black Holes (SBHs) is if there is a Big Crunch, which is the only way to bring all matter back into a singularity. Currently it seems like a Big Crunch is not going to happen, but it could have happened in another universe that existed before ours was created.

 

The most massive SBH detected, OJ 287 is only 18 Billion solar masses, which is miniscule in comparison to the mass of the observable universe. So there is no connection.

 

Could the Big Bang have originated from a HUGE region rather than a tiny singularity of infinite density? How does such a massive object expand against overwelming gravity?

Edited August 26, 2010 by Airbrush

[Brad Watson_Miami FL]

If I could tweak the op, I would add this summation at the beginning...

 

Universe Creation Theory

The Big Bang (super-massive white hole) 13.7 billion years ago was the result of a super-massive black hole in another universe. This duality combines these two singularities that are linked in a birth-death relationship within The Conglomerate of universes. This ‘simple’ cause-and-effect explains the existence of both infinite space and infinite time (eternity).

 

 

[DanielC]

If I could tweak the op, I would add this summation at the beginning...

 

I would not advice it. I think ajb was just too polite to say it, but the idea that the Big Bang was a "white hole" or that it resulted from a black hole in another universe is basically a crackpot idea with no basis on modern science. Btw, none of this should be confused with the "Big Bounce" ideas from LQG. I just did a search on ADS. There are no published papers with the term "white hole" in the abstract.

[Airbrush]

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9803014

 

"A model of the universe as a very large white hole provides a useful alternative inhomogeneous theory to pit against the homogeneous standard FLRW big bang models. The white hole would have to be sufficiently large that we can fit comfortably inside the event horizon at the present time, so that the inhomogeneities of space-time are not in contradiction with current observational limits. A specific Lemaitre-Tolman model of a spherically symmetric non-rotating white hole with a few adjustable parameters is investigated. Comparison of calculated anisotropy in the Hubble flow and the CMB against observational limits constrain the parameter space. A Copernican principle would require that we are not too near the centre of the white hole. As an additional constraint this predicts a value of Omega between 0.9999 and 1."

 

Can anyone explain this in plain English? It seems to make sense that the Big Bang is the only example we have of a white hole, however super-super-massive, if not infinite. We are the children of a white hole.

[DanielC]

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9803014

 

"A model of the universe as a very large white hole provides a useful alternative inhomogeneous theory to pit against the homogeneous standard FLRW big bang models. The white hole would have to be sufficiently large that we can fit comfortably inside the event horizon at the present time, so that the inhomogeneities of space-time are not in contradiction with current observational limits. A specific Lemaitre-Tolman model of a spherically symmetric non-rotating white hole with a few adjustable parameters is investigated. Comparison of calculated anisotropy in the Hubble flow and the CMB against observational limits constrain the parameter space. A Copernican principle would require that we are not too near the centre of the white hole. As an additional constraint this predicts a value of Omega between 0.9999 and 1."

 

Can anyone explain this in plain English? It seems to make sense that the Big Bang is the only example we have of a white hole, however super-super-massive, if not infinite. We are the children of a white hole.

 

Honestly, I don't know what he means. I am not sure that this is a published (aka refereed) article. I cannot find it in any refereed journal. I should mention that articles at arXiv.org are not refereed. Basically anyone with an account can upload whatever they want. This can be great because you can get very recent research, but you can also get complete garbage some times, and if you are not an expert it can be difficult to know which is which. I am not an expert on Big Bang cosmology, so I really cannot judge. But isn't it interesting that this article is 12 years old and I still can't find any referee articles that say "white hole" in the abstract?

 

If you want to search for referred papers, you should try ADS:

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html

 

If you scroll to the bottom of the page, under the section "FILTERS", there is an option to get only refereed articles. You should always pick that if you want to separate mainstream science from just whatever someone decided to upload.

 

Hope that helps.

Edited October 7, 2010 by DanielC

[Airbrush]

You have been consistently a great help, DanielC. Thank you.

[alpha2cen]

Let us think about "Far away Universe is moving fast and near Universe is moving slow".

Another assumption.

Far away Universe is old Universe, and we see it now.

Nearby Universe is not old Universe, and we see it now.

So long time ago, the Universe moving speed is past.

But recently , it's movement is not so past than before.

I think, this concept also should be tested by mathematical modeling.

Geometrical concept and time concept of the Universe are also important too.

Is the movement of galaxy around us accelerating recently?

[steevey]

Our universe is 13.7 billion years old. But what was going on before that? And what caused the Big Bang of this universe? Both the Big Bang and black holes are singularities which are points with infinite density and the radius of zero, and where the laws of physics break down. We have now directly observed a super-massive black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy and astrophysicists have concluded that there is a super-massive black hole at the center of every galaxy. Is is possible, perhaps even likely, that these two singularities - a super-massive black hole and a Big Bang or super-massive white hole - are linked in a death-birth relationship?! This would be a non-random and simple explanation of how there could be infinite space and eternity which would include before the birth of this universe and after its death. Is our universe one of billions in The Conglomerate of universes ('multiverse')?

 

"A duality occurs when you can look at the same phenomenon in two distinct ways, taking one theory and mapping it to another theory. In a sense, the two theories are equivalent." - String Theory for Dummies

 

Is the relationship between a super-massive black hole and a super-massive white hole/Big Bang, in fact, a duality? I say, yes. But, how can this be proven? Well, it appears impossible to directly observe, however, science may find a way in the future. For now, we only have a principle developed in the 14th century - Occam's razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.

 

Signature- Brad Watson, Miami, FL - "In God and science we trust"

 

 

There can't be "another universe". The universe is everything that exists, so if there's another large quantity of matter somewhere, that's still part of the singular universe. Also its not a black hole thats predicted to be before the big bang, its a region of space with 0 volume and therefore infinite density that's predicted to be there. Also before the big bang, there shouldn't have been any matter or energy to create a black hole.

Edited January 27, 2011 by steevey

[granpa]

There can't be "another universe". The universe is everything that exists...

 

that would be the omniverse

[steevey]

that would be the omniverse

 

There's no other "verse" though, it would just be another place where there's a large quantity of matter and energy.

Edited January 27, 2011 by steevey

[Mr Skeptic]

!

Moderator Note

Vak's tangent on tired photons split to here

[D H]

There can't be "another universe". The universe is everything that exists, ...

that would be the omniverse

Or multiverse. There are a lot of variations on what this means, and whether it means anything at all.

 

 

... so if there's another large quantity of matter somewhere, that's still part of the singular universe.

No. Some in cosmology have moved beyond that. According to some, we live in our own private little universe. Whether any of this multiverse / omniverse stuff is science (i.e., observable / testable) is a different question.

 

 

Also its not a black hole thats predicted to be before the big bang, its a region of space with 0 volume and therefore infinite density that's predicted to be there.

Not quite right, but much closer to the mark than the OP's hypothesis. Our universe may just be a zero energy quantum fluctuation in some other universe, something absolutely huge from absolutely nothing at all.

 

 

 

[steevey]

Or multiverse. There are a lot of variations on what this means, and whether it means anything at all.

 

 

 

No. Some in cosmology have moved beyond that. According to some, we live in our own private little universe. Whether any of this multiverse / omniverse stuff is science (i.e., observable / testable) is a different question.

 

 

 

Not quite right, but much closer to the mark than the OP's hypothesis. Our universe may just be a zero energy quantum fluctuation in some other universe, something absolutely huge from absolutely nothing at all.

 

 

 

 

The "from nothing at all thing" is also whats described as the wave function of the singularity universe.

 

But, there is a totality of everything. No matter where matter exists and how, by definition, the universe is EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter if there's another dimension, its part of the universe. Doesn't matter if there's a worm hole, its part of the universe. Doesn't matter if theres some other place with a bunch of matter and energy like that in out visible space, its still the universe. It doesn't matter if multiple permissibility of matter are existing in determined forms, its still part of THE universe.

It's impossible to have multiple everything's.

[D H]

But, there is a totality of everything. No matter where matter exists and how, by definition, the universe is EVERYTHING.

That is not what astronomers and cosmologists now mean by the word "universe". Instead of arguing semantics, why don't you try googling the terms omniverse and multiverse? Neither granpa nor I invented those terms.

 

 

[steevey]

That is not what astronomers and cosmologists now mean by the word "universe". Instead of arguing semantics, why don't you try googling the terms omniverse and multiverse? Neither granpa nor I invented those terms.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if there are other "dimensions" or "possible worlds" because those are all just different forms of the same one universe and/or superpositions of matter.

 

Even in that membrane theory, there is a totality of membranes that exist which is how different membranes could bump into each other.

Edited January 28, 2011 by steevey

[Curran c doddabele]

No the black hole was not formed when the big bang took place according to Albert Einstein or sir issac Newton said that the planets roatation was so strong that it ripped the universe and thus the blackhole was formed

Edited January 28, 2011 by Curran c doddabele

[D H]

It doesn't matter if there are other "dimensions" or "possible worlds" because those are all just different forms of the same one universe and/or superpositions of matter.

By your personal definition of universe. By the definition used by astronomers and cosmologists, no.

 

 

 

[StringJunky]

By your personal definition of universe. By the definition used by astronomers and cosmologists, no.

 

It's been my understanding that it's the same as Steevey's but I accept that the astronomical definition may have changed as happens in science with increased knowledge But the fact (remains for now) is there is only ONE universe...multiverses are pure speculation...Steevey's understanding is completely within the bounds of the conventional definition AFAIK.

 

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

 

I think, to be consistent, if we are in a bubble amongst many bubbles (multiverse) then those individual bubbles are sub-universes and 'The 'Universe' is still the sum total of all the bubbles and the space they are in...the standard definition can remain intact...but I'm not the Scientific Establishment.

Edited January 28, 2011 by StringJunky