A Scary thought occurs to me regarding the Big bang theory.?

Question

As I understand the theory, it states that the entire Universe as we know it began as a tiny pinpoint containing all that exists in the universe, including space and time itself...born out of a "singularity"...which would make it the same thing as a black hole.
With our less than thorough knowledge of black holes and singularities, it makes me wonder if there may actually be such a thing as a LIMIT to how much mass a black hole can have before it reaches a point of "critical mass" and blows up like another "big bang"...creating a "new universe" NOT IN ANOTHER DIMENSION, BUT IN OUR OWN DIMENSION!!!...wiping out and negating all that is in our own universe in the process.
Could it be that "our universe" was once the most massive black hole in a previous universe that got wiped out when our "big bang" occured??? I actually hope I'm wrong...it's a scary idea.
Any thoughts?

PS To Blunt: But how do we know it actually contained "all the mass"? How do we know there wasn't pre-existing mass that surrounded it?

PS to rdbn...I doubt most people involved with the hookah would feel enogh intiative to think this up....I really don't think this theory is any less sensible than the idea that the entire universe could fit into an infinitely small pinpoint and then spread itself in to a field of "non-existence". There had to be something BEFORE the big bang.

PS to Andrew----"your team"?? Who's this "team"?

PS to Mathematician: Agreed that GR doesn't cover a "before the BB" scenario....but then i run into the following problem....it implies the "existence of non-existence".
How can space & time expand into its size...whatever that is....without a PRE-EXISTING field for it to expand into???
Obviously, GR isn't entirely complete.

Answer 1

Excellent question! It's got many of us thinking.

The nature of black holes is such that not everything cannot escape from it, contrary to popular belief.

Black holes will emit high energy photons in a gamma ray burst.

David Cline at UCLA suggests they are the detonation of microscopic black holes formed in the Big Bang, which most astronomers believe was the beginning of the universe. If the idea is right, billions and billions of relatively nearby, primordial black holes are just waiting to explode.

Some may exist just beyond the orbit of Pluto, based on the math.

There was a recent article in New Scientist regarding a similar topic to this. Another good point for research would be NASA's Chandra telescope pages.

I'll certainly be discussing this one with my team!

Answer 2

First of all, the big bang was not an explosion in the usual sense of the term. In an explosion, things are propelled through space while in the big bang space itself is expanding. It did not 'wipe out' any 'before' it.

Second, the singularity at the big bang is of a different type than that of a black hole. Remember that a black hole is really 'part' of this universe.

Next, the underlying theory for this whole discussion is general relativity. In that theory, there is literally no 'before the big bang'. Why? Because time is *part* of the geometry of the universe and the universe began at the big bang! In a very real sense, asking what happened 'before the big bang' is like asking what is 'north of the north pole'. The coordinate system just doesn't go there. Another way to see this is that time is affected by the density of matter. But the density goes infinite as we approach the big bang singularity, so time 'stops' at that singualrity. You can't go back any further.

Answer 3

I am not an educated person, but it seems to me that I read that Einstein and Rosen theorized that a black hole had an other end from which everything that had gone into the black end came out the other side from a wormhole. So our big bang may have been the emergence of everything that passed the Schwarzschild event horizon of a black hole elsewhere? I really wish that I had gone to school so that I could understand all this better. But it does imply that if it happened once, that it could happen again.

ALSO, did I not read somewhere that the universe will expand for a finite amount of time then begin to collapse? It seems like this may be a cyclic phenomenon on a cosmic time scale, maybe every trillion years or so? (give or take a week). I have heard that we are still in the expansion phase, IE; the red shift says things are still moving apart. So, when they stop- in a few billion years, then they will reverse, and THEN we gotta start sweating, no?

Answer 4

well, this isn't really the kind of question that i usually like to answer, but i'll say this: you aren't the first person to wonder this. the fact is, the mass of a black hole does not seem to have an upper limit. black holes do lose mass, someone really needs to think of a better name for them, and the less massive ones lose mass more quickly, but eventually, all black holes will evaporate. as you know, black holes "warp" space-time, and the intensity of this "warping" is such that it has a large amount of energy. this energy can then be converted into mass in the form of particle-antiparticle pairs. if one of these falls beyond the event horizon then the other is then free to escape without being annihilated. this "warping" increases as the mass and schwartzschild radius decrease (inversely proportional) so less massive black holes evaporate much more quickly. in the end, it should be very quick and bright.

it is my impression that singularities are thought not to exist. singularities are a prediction of general relativity (predicted in 1916 by karl schwartzschild), but no on has come up with anything which resolves the contradictions between general relativity and quantum physics. when someone does, it will probably resolve them.

there is no evidence that there is any other universe, but you may find these interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147

Answer 5

I highly doubt that A) a black hole will gain to much matter that it causes it to explode and B) that a second universe would be born in our own that would in effect negate our own space/time. Although your arguments have a basis in theory and could possible be explained mathematically, it is highly doubtable. The big bang may have been created by a singularity that contained all the energy and mass that this space/time is made of but i believe you are confusing terms here. Yes a Singularity is considered to be a black hole and thusly you extend the same logic into the big bang saying that it was in effect a black hole as well. The problem with your misunderstanding is that a singularity is a single infinitesimally small spot in the universe that contains so much mass that it affects the space/time it is surrounded by in such a way that nothing can escape it. The stronger the attraction, the larger the affect it has. So they both are considered a singularity but I believe that is where the similarity ends.

If anything, there may be another universe that is contained inside of each singularity but I highly doubt that as well.

Your question is an excellent one though for those individuals who wish to partake of the hookah and converse on such matters. In real science, your theory holds no water.

Answer 6

I find it most interesting that people can study things and produce well thought out theories about how all things began, and onlookers can simply ask, " Well, what went on before that?"

While your idea has merit, I offer that in the relativity of time, since the earth has been calculated to be roughly 4 billion years old... what difference does it make? I don't want to step on your
idea, but somewhere you must yield to the concept that this stuff happened so very long ago that nobody really knows for sure.

Seriously, imagine the intellect that it must have taken to deduce the probable age of the Earth using all the scientific instruments we have available today. I am truly amazed at that capability. Alas, some insist on going beyond into the land of Blinking and Nod. To some, conjecture is a plain to play upon.

If you want to go blind with numbers, try to compute the size of the Milky Way Galaxy in miles. Then with the realization that our galaxy is but one of 100 billion others beyond the Milky Way, try to compute the size of that in miles. I predict that you will run out of pencil lead, and blindness will set in.

Did those galaxies also have a Big Bang date? Or were they just there all the time? Maybe two Suns collided and that was the Big Bang.

Have a good Day.
Zah

Answer 7

You raise an interesting question, and I don't think anyone really has the answers, but it's fun conjecturing.

Black holes come from matter in our universe. It's possible that nothing existed before the Big Bang.

In quantum physics, there's a notion of "virtual particles", which can appear for a brief time and then disappear. These "virtual particles" are used to attractive forces, such as electromagnetism.

Now, the principle conservation of matter states that matter can't be created or destroyed, but quantum theory seems to be predicated on the universe refusing to obey laws on the subatomic level, and so violations are allowed for short periods of time.

This is somewhat over my head, but I quote:

"It is sometimes suggested that pair production can be used to explain the origin of matter in the universe. In models of the Big Bang, it is suggested that vacuum fluctuations, or virtual particles, briefly appear. Then, due to effects such as CP-violation, an imbalance between the number of virtual particles and antiparticles is created, leaving a surfeit of particles, thus accounting for the visible matter in the universe."

Perhaps at the end of the day, our Universe is simply a quantum fluctuation.

I'm not a Taoist, but this quote seems appropriate:

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
—(Gia-Fu Feng & Jane English, 1972).

Answer 8

Stephen Hawking thought that black holes could eventually evaporate with a bang. They would be tiny though because they get smaller as they evaporate, until they dissipate into nothing. I'm not sure how dangerous it would be to an evaporating black hole, but it would not be catastrophic to the whole universe. The universe has been around a long long time and if any black holes have evaporated completely, it hasn't destroyed much that we know of. So far we have not detected any.

Answer 9

Well if you think this is possible, then it wont happen in the next billion - trillion years or so.

But the thing is, scientists say that if there is a black hole then there is a white hole on the other side of the black hole well.
Thus there is another dimension. Now that dimension has everything in it; the dimension is very big so it has enough storage. by the time it is full, the black holes would have evaporated along with time.
(yes, time will die too because it was born) So we really would not have been crushed as the universe came into an end or the omega point.
So the White hole dimension has most of the things and since it expands, there is more space of storage.

Answer 10

A concept happens in somebody's head, who then writes it down. this is a form, a series of equations and reasons, to purpose and recognize ways issues artwork. The call enormous Bang is surely an undesirable nickname given via somebody who became against the theory. It supplies the fake impact that there became some style of explosion that created the universe from a tiny factor. that's no longer what the theory says. hence, the theory something infinitely dense exploded isn't area of the theory. The priest who got here up with the belief for the theory we now call enormous Bang, additionally theory that God created the universe, and that He used the expansion of area to do it. regrettably, Fred Hoyle, the adversary who became a fervent atheist, did no longer prefer to have self assurance that, so he gave the undesirable nickname enormous Bang to the theory that got here from the priest's theory. For years, atheists have been lifeless set against the priest's theory and the theory that got here out of it. so a approaches as i will tell, even on the instant, the human beings who're the main against the super Bang concept are atheists. --- Father Lemaitre became additionally a great mathematician. He had to argue with Einstein (a extra extra useful time-honored mathematician) with reference to the mathematics in the back of the expansion of area. After the communicate, Einstein apologized. The Church enjoyed Father Lemaitre's theory plenty that they made him an honorary prelate (rank equivalent to a bishop). His identify became Monsignor Lemaitre. it would look that Monsignor Lemaitre had no issue combining his concept and his concept in God.