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

[Mr Skeptic]

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.

 

Almost no one uses that definition. A universe is an object and everything causally connected to it, or a space and everything spatially connected to it and contained within that. Our own universe seems to be too large for us to see, so we call our little bit the observable universe, and the rest of that the universe because putting an arbitrary boundary on the observable universe seems like a bad idea, but anything which you would have to leave our universe to be able to get to is no longer in our universe, and also can't affect us (because you can't leave our universe).

[888_GSW]

I believe that it is so funny we as a species are so valiant and confident that mere physics, a man creation, will be something that will question how something as complex as our universe works. I think it's safe to say that what we think we know in regards to anything is far from what the actual truth is considering that we barely got to the moon!

 

Arrogance, greed and political correctness will ensure that our existence will be extinct. I think that something such as a super-massive black hole from another universe is a very practical idea, considering we have only mere human instruments that can barely detect anything within our own galaxy. We live in in such a tiny bubble and focus all of our time trying to bully and control each other that something as simple as a tiny black hole that we'd NEVER be able to detect could lurking within a distance and destroy this entire solar system and there's not a thing we could do about it.

 

We're all left overs from what ever happened and because of that we all have the right to speculate. I think if people spent more time trying to figure out plausibility rather than pointing out flaws especially in the scientific community, we'd probably have a better idea about a few things...

 

888

The space-times are not the same.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

[csmyth3025]

I believe that it is so funny we as a species are so valiant and confident that mere physics, a man creation, will be something that will question how something as complex as our universe works. I think it's safe to say that what we think we know in regards to anything is far from what the actual truth is considering that we barely got to the moon!

 

Arrogance, greed and political correctness will ensure that our existence will be extinct. I think that something such as a super-massive black hole from another universe is a very practical idea, considering we have only mere human instruments that can barely detect anything within our own galaxy...

 

888

 

 

I'm not sure that a super massive black hole from another universe is a very practical idea in terms of the science we have or the science we may develop. If it has no observable effect that we can measure from our little corner of the world then it must remain in the realm of philosophical speculation rather than scientific theory. That's not arrogance, it's just the way science works. Theories that are untestable (even indirectly) are just speculation. If they're postulated as a logical consquence of known science, they're called scientific speculation.

 

Chris

[Widdekind]

What about a 'cyclic cosmos', wherein a prior incarnation, of our space-time, completely contracted, into a Big Crunch... from which 'super singularity', and through some sort of 'Hawking radiation' resembling mechanism, our current incarnation of space-time explosively expanded ?? If so, then the previous space-time, probably lacked a 'dark energy' expansion-acceleration phenomenon.

[pantheory]

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"

The problem I think with your proposal is generally philosophical in nature. According to the Big Bang model, or any finite universe model, if something existed before the beginning event then it no longer would have been the beginning event. Such a model as you suggest begs the questions "then what was before that?" or "what was the cause of that?" If you do not eventually come to an original cause where there was no such a thing as before that, then you are talking about an infinite universe in time and probably infinite in space, field, and matter. There are some cosmologists that ascribe to such models but they are very much in the minority.

.

Edited July 5, 2011 by pantheory

[csmyth3025]

The problem I think with your proposal is generally philosophical in nature. According to the Big Bang model, or any finite universe model, if something existed before the beginning event then it no longer would have been the beginning event. Such a model as you suggest begs the questions "then what was before that?" or "what was the cause of that?" If you do not eventually come to an original cause where there was no such a thing as before that, then you are talking about an infinite universe in time and probably infinite in space, field, and matter. There are some cosmologists that ascribe to such models but they are very much in the minority.

The question "then what was there before that?" reminds me of the "It's turtles all the way down" story:

 

The origins of the turtle story are uncertain.

 

The most widely known version appears in Stephen Hawking's 1988 book A Brief History of Time, which starts:

 

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....ll_the_way_down )

 

Chris

[pantheory]

The question "then what was there before that?" reminds me of the "It's turtles all the way down" story:

 

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....ll_the_way_down )

 

Chris

Love that story Chris. In a version of Greek mythology, as reiterated by Hawking:

 

"Turtles all the way down" is a jocular expression of the infinite regress problem in cosmology posed by the Unmoved mover paradox. The phrase was popularized by Stephen Hawking in 1988. The "turtle" metaphor in the anecdote represents a popular notion of a "primitive cosmological myth", viz. the flat earth supported on the back of a World Turtle

, on the back of another turtle, etc. In one version of Indian cosmology there was first an elephant that held up the world, that was on the back of a turtle, etc. I guess Alexander the Great spread Greek cosmology to India

 

quote from your link above.

 

The editor of my theoretical book on cosmology and physics clued me to "Turtles all the way down" about 3 years ago which I vaguely recalled was the basis of an ancient cosmology. His re-invigoration of the idea enabled me to relish it to the present day. Thanks for the reminder

Edited July 6, 2011 by pantheory