Big Bang and black hole

[Jacques]

Hi

At the Big Bang period all the mass of the universe was contained in a very small volume. I think that the density and mass is enought to consider the universe at that time has a black hole and from a blackhole nothing can go out.

Then how is it possible that the Bigbang happened ?

Do we live in a blackhole ?

[ed84c]

well mathematically we do; the size of our universe (if closed) and mass is enough to form a black hole. I forget the figures though.

[Sayonara]

I would have thought "black hole" implies there is something surrounding the singularity.

[ed84c]

It could have a ring singularity, maybe thats what cosmic strings are?

 

But im afraid your wrong there isnt necisarily a singularity at all in a black hole.

[Sayonara]

But im afraid your wrong there isnt necisarily a singularity at all in a black hole.

I'm not saying there has to be - I'm saying what he described is probably not a black hole.

 

[JaKiri]

Or, at least, there's no way to empirically verify if it is.

[ed84c]

I see your meaning now, sorry.

 

But you say the Cosmic egg is a singularity, Jacques, but a black hole (usually) is Infinately warped space time. If the space time is in the egg (but also does not exist yet) how can it be a black hole?

 

Try getting your head around that one!

[ed84c]

Jakiri, you can actually have a naked singularity, if you are saying that Seeing is a prequisite to decided something exists.

[Sayonara]

Or, at least, there's no way to empirically verify if it is.

Well, yes. Really I should have phrased my previous as "he has given the wrong name to what he is attempting to describe".

 

But you say the Cosmic egg is a singularity, Jacques, but a black hole (usually) is Infinately warped space time. If the space time is in the egg (but also does not exist yet) how can it be a black hole?

See above bit -^

[ed84c]

I believe it was the gtravitational collapse issue he was discussing.

 

Technically therefore he is attempting to describe nothing, as a black hole (or for a Cosmic egg to have the same effect as what the original post was about) has ST flowing into it at the speed of light (hence Photons 'hovering') and there is no space time to flow into it. Therefore Our universe exists.

[JaKiri]

Jakiri, you can actually have a naked singularity, if you are saying that Seeing is a prequisite to decided something exists.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting the arguments that you're replying to from. Do you post on some kind of Bizarro Science Forums, and there's been some crosscontamination?

[Jacques]

ed84c I think that the most scientist thinks the universe is open.

[ed84c]

sory mate they do not (as far as i understand the situation)

[ed84c]

This may be of interest

The universe: open, closed or flat?

 

Knowing the size of the dense regions that gave birth to galaxies would, in turn, tell us whether the universe is "open," "closed" or "flat."

 

Open means it would last forever, expanding, as it has done since the Big Bang. Closed means it would eventually re-collapse under its own weight, billions of years from now. Flat means it is balanced between those two extremes, expanding just fast enough to fend off collapse.

 

In a feat of cosmic surveying, MAP scientists plan to draw a theoretical triangle between us on Earth and two points at opposite edges of one of these hot regions in the young universe. They then plan to measure the angles in that triangle.

 

If the angles' combined width adds up to more than a certain amount, Wilkinson explained, that indicates the universe is closed and will shrink into oblivion.

 

That's because calculations show a closed universe is spherical, and a triangle on the face of a sphere has wider angles than one on a flat sheet. Conversely, narrower angles suggest an ever-expanding "open" universe.

[Severian]

WMAP has shown shown that the universe is (to a good accuracy) flat:

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_content.html

 

Edit: one could of course agrue that it could still be closed, because the measured value of Omega is 1.02+-0.02, but if the universe IS flat we will never be able to prove Omega=1 with 100% certainty (since we will always have some experimental error).

[ed84c]

hmmm, i took a closed meaning to mean that it has boundaries. (wasnt infinite)

[Severian]

hmmm, i took a closed meaning to mean that it has boundaries. (wasnt infinite)

 

Yes - that is true. (Although this assumes isotropy - and anisotropous universe could I suppose be flat in some directions and curved in others, like a cylinder.) Maybe I expressed myself badly above. Edited for clarification...

[Jacques]

If the expansion of the universe is accelerating does't it mean that the universe is open ?

[ed84c]

explain your reasoning, i see no reason for it to.

 

I may like to remind you of Hawking's drunken balloon blower's balloon

[Jacques]

From ed84c

Open means it would last forever, expanding, as it has done since the Big Bang.

The supernovae survey indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. If it is accelerating the expansion will last forever so it is open. Do you understand what I mean ?

[ed84c]

Hmmm.

 

I see what you mean, but the forces of expansion may be over come by gravity eventually, rather like a star does.

[Jacques]

I see that the 'blackhole' word created confusion and nobody understood what was my question. I will try again without using the word 'blackhole'

At the beginning (not at time 0, but a little bit after) all the mass of the universe was concentrated in a small volume. The escape speed of that mass was greater than c (the speed of light). Nothing can go faster than c. Then how can anything have escaped out of there ?

[Jacques]

but the forces of expansion may be over come by gravity eventually

The force of gravity is inversly proportional to the square of distance. The expansion increase the distance between object. So the force of gravity will decrease with time and will never be able to overcome the expansion. If the expansion was decelarating then it would be an idication that gravity may take over, but the observation are indicating the contrary

[The Rebel]

I see that the 'blackhole' word created confusion and nobody understood what was my question. I will try again without using the word 'blackhole'

At the beginning (not at time 0' date=' but a little bit after) all the mass of the universe was concentrated in a small volume. The escape speed of that mass was greater than c (the speed of light). Nothing can go faster than c. Then how can anything have escaped out of there ?[/quote']

 

 

At the risk of blaspheming in the eyes of other forum members. Some have said that c was a lot faster then than it is now. Meaning mass did indeed go faster than light.

 

The basis of this I believe was that the universe structure is too vast for the age that it is.

[ed84c]

12bn years? Im sure i could nock one up in that time scale.