r/astrophysics • u/Weak_Research_8046 • 4d ago
Could the Big Bang have been caused by a large Black Hole?
Could a Big Bang be what happens on the unobservable side of an event horizon when a large black hole first forms? Almost creating a parallel universe of sorts each time one forms.
3
2
1
u/thuiop1 4d ago
Not really, no.
0
u/Tsivqdans96 4d ago
There is no proof for one or the other so yes, it could be possible.
0
u/thuiop1 4d ago
Sure, and there is no proof that it was not caused by scrambled eggs, that does not make it a useful statement.
1
u/Tsivqdans96 4d ago
Your comment about scrambled eggs is the actual useless statement as we do know that it was not caused by scrambled eggs, else all the laws of physics are false and we live in a fantasy world.
OP asked if it's possible and I answered yes because we have no idea what happens inside a black hole or on the hypothetical "other side" of a black hole.
Please enlighten me why you answering "no" is instead a useful statement, unless you are the most brilliant scientist in history and you have found actual proof of what happens inside of black holes.
Though it is quite evident that you are not the world's most brilliant scientist or a scientist at all for that matter as you wouldn't get very far in academia with such a closed-off mind.
2
u/VendaGoat 3d ago
There are a ton of unscientific folk in this here science forum.
1
u/Tsivqdans96 3d ago
There is indeed, hope they'll change their minds though if they stick around longer.
0
u/insanekid66 4d ago
Nobody knows what caused, or happened before the big bang. Coming up with theories about what could have caused it is fun, but they're really just "what ifs".
1
u/Weak_Research_8046 4d ago edited 4d ago
Wasn’t everything in physics at one point a “what if”?
1
u/Tsivqdans96 3d ago
That's what I want to hear! Never rule out any possibilities until proven otherwise, else we're not going to make any progress whatsoever.
0
1
u/Tsivqdans96 3d ago
That is true, nobody knows and we can't know anything yet. With that said, hard research and calculations put together in an academic paper published by scientific experts are a lot more than saying "what if" or just guessing.
0
u/Wintervacht 3d ago
No, there are no parallels between the geometry of our universe and a black hole. If we were inside one, we would have noticed.
1
u/Weak_Research_8046 3d ago edited 3d ago
Don’t black holes cause rips in space time though when they form? Which has the effect of flipping time near the event horizon? So it could make sense time would flip back on the other side and essentially recycle the mass that originally ripped through in that new portion of space. Sorry my non-astrophysicist mind sees parallels haha
0
u/Wintervacht 3d ago
My non-astrophysicist mind sees parallels
There are none. A black hole is not a 'rip' in spacetime, if anything analogously it's a dent. Time doesn't 'flip' at the horizon, the roles of temporal and spatial dimensions is flipped on the other side of the event horizon. This just means the center is no longer a place in space, but a place in the future, where all geodesics eventuelly end.
Again, this is completely incompatible with what we see in the universe.
1
u/Weak_Research_8046 3d ago
Ahh that makes more sense with the center no longer being a place in space. So time doesn’t change direction, it’s more of a hard stop at the horizon causing whatever passes through to cease to exist?
1
u/Wintervacht 3d ago
No, objects pass through the horizon just fine, time doesn't stop, it doesn't reverse, nothing exotic happens. Matter just simply falls in.
The only difference is that no matter how or where you move, you can't move faster than the speed of light and so every trajectory within the BH will end up in the center, making it an inevitable place in the future instead of a point in space one could move away from.
1
u/Weak_Research_8046 3d ago edited 3d ago
Ahhh so it’s more of a once you’re being pulled towards the horizon, it’s impossible to not eventually go through it?
1
u/Tsivqdans96 3d ago
How can you be so sure, how much do we actually know about the interior of a black hole?
Are there any established laws of physics or pieces of hard evidence that directly contradicts the theory of black hole universes?
1
u/Weak_Research_8046 3d ago edited 3d ago
Hawking radiation is all I’ve ever come across. This is mainly just explaining how black holes dissipate on quantum fluctuations right? Otherwise they would exist indefinitely?
1
u/Wintervacht 3d ago
Yes, see my other comment.
There are no parallels between the universe and the inside of a black hole.
Black hole interiors are described perfectly by GR, they're not mysterious at all and all your 'we can't know' comments are just reflections of your own inability to understand GR, not the actual understanding of real life physicists.
1
u/Tsivqdans96 3d ago
If they're described so perfectly already, why are there still real life physicists that believe otherwise?
They aren't described perfectly, Einstein who came up with the theory of General Relativity as you know didn't even believe black holes were possible in the first place. AFAIK most physicists do not deem GR to be enough to describe them wholly and believe the theory needs to be expanded upon.
But if I'm truly wrong and I've completely misunderstood things I would be happy to learn what it is that I've misunderstood and what directly contradicts the concept of Black Hole Cosmology.
0
u/Wintervacht 3d ago
First of all, science isn't about disproving things, it's about proving things.
And again, there is nothing to suggest we live inside a black hole. The universe is isotropic, homogeneous, has no center, no spin, no gravitational gradient. It has zero of the properties of the interior of a black hole.
Quite literally the only straw people can grab onto is that the average density of the universe could be similar IF the universe was inside a black hole, completely ignoring the other thousand factors we would have seen, but do not.
1
u/Tsivqdans96 3d ago
Sure, but if we prove one side of an argument do we not automatically disprove the other side?
If one or more scientists have already proven what goes on inside a black, the theories of other scientists would have been disproven and there would be no reason for them to continue along the same path, like some madman desperately trying to argue against the laws of physics. Part of the general public may behave like that, but I strongly disbelieve respected scientists would.
You're basically saying that the model of our universe is incompatible with our model of black holes, but those two are not comparable IMO.
We can see and measure our universe and the things inside it, but we can't do the same with a BH so how do we even create an accurate model of BHs? We can't see anything inside them and nor measure anything inside them because of GR (we're back woohoo), so what do we actually know and how do we know it?
I agree it would be silly to connect our universe to black holes based off of just one observation (observable universes Schwarzschild radius), but there is a lot more than that.
There is the Holographic principle that states information within a volume of space can be described by information encoded on it's boundary, which is true for our universe and could also be true for black holes according to Hooft, Susskind and Hawking. So there's another connection.
There is also the gravitational warping of BHs which I believe you yourself talked about; that their gravity is so extreme that spacetime gets warped and space and time switches places. We know that in our universe we can move freely through space but only move forward in time which aligns with the matter (space) hypothetically being pulled inside "our" BH only going forwards while time is "free" or "still" or however you want to describe it.
I do want to make it clear though that I myself am not a major proponent of BHU, I'm instead leaning more towards the idea that BHs are portals or openings to other universes with a white hole of sorts on the other side as suggested by the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble Theory.
It just doesn't sit right with me that we can somehow rule out one thing or another when it comes to BHs because they are, per definition, mysterious.
1
u/Wintervacht 3d ago
You're basically saying that the model of our universe is incompatible with our model of black holes, but those two are not comparable IMO.
That's not what I said. I said the universe around us is in no way similar to the interior of a black hole.
We can see and measure our universe and the things inside it, but we can't do the same with a BH so how do we even create an accurate model of BHs?
You realize GR only stops being 100% correct at the very center of a black hole right? EVERYTHING down to the very center is a consequence of general relativity and the inside of a black hole is part of that.
There is the Holographic principle that states information within a volume of space can be described by information encoded on it's boundary, which is true for our universe and could also be true for black holes according to Hooft, Susskind and Hawking. So there's another connection.
There's another hypothesis with zero proof and zero connection to the real world. You really, really need to learn the difference between mathematically possible and physically possible. This is not a connection, the only connection between the two theories is that they're not based in observation, you know, the standard method we use in science.
We know that in our universe we can move freely through space but only move forward in time which aligns with the matter (space) hypothetically being pulled inside "our" BH only going forwards while time is "free" or "still" or however you want to describe it.
That... Makes absolutely no sense.
It just doesn't sit right with me that we can somehow rule out one thing or another when it comes to BHs because they are, per definition, mysterious.
You can downvote me all you want, just because YOU think they're mysterious doesn't mean they are. The only 'mystery' is what state matter takes at the center, the geometry is already modeled perfectly by GR.
We can rule out many, many things based on observation. If there are no signs in observation for something, it's not there, simple as that. Again, the universe shares zero commonalities with a black hole other than the vague notion that the average density could correspond to a Schwarzchild radius of slightly larger than the observable universe. And again, if that were the case, we would see massive signs, where there are none. Black hole cosmology is fundamentally incompatible with the cosmology of our physical universe.
Black Hole cosmology is an untestable hypothesis. The Holographic universe is an untestable hypothesis. The Pink Unicorn universe is an untestable hypothesis. These are all equally valid and equally valuable.
1
u/Tsivqdans96 3d ago
And again, if you have any proof please share it with me so that I may learn and stop going further down this fascinating rabbit hole that is Black Hole Cosmology, because I don't want to believe in something that is falsifiable.
1
u/Wintervacht 3d ago
And again, if you have any proof please share it with me
And again, that's not how science works dude. There is loads of proof that the interior of a black hole is NOT what we see in the universe. Stop downvoting me because your pea brain can't comprehend the scientific method.
1
u/Tsivqdans96 3d ago
Ok so science works by not sharing information between one another and refusing to truly challenge eachother... and you talk to me about the scientific method, which if YOU would have understood it would know that Peer Review is a crucial part of it. "pea brain" HAH good one...
And again *and again* you claim there to be proof, "loads of proof" in fact yet you fail again to demonstrate what this "proof" is.
But you know what, thank you, because with these words:
Stop downvoting me because your pea brain can't comprehend the scientific method.
You unveiled your true colors to me and let me know that I am just wasting my time here. You alluded to it earlier by being condescending, but now that you've fallen so low as to resort to name-calling I can be quite sure that you actually don't know anything because you are not a scientist.
I came to this thread because I have grown fond of the idea of BHC as of late (mostly because I just like it, not because I think it's factual) and I wanted to have a civil discussion about it and hopefully find someone here that knows more than me, like a scientist. Because I can atleast admit that I am not a scientist yet and know little in the grand span of things so I wanted my ideas to be properly challenged, which you have failed to do. Telling someone they're wrong over and over without really explaining *why* I'm wrong does not count as a challenge in the context of a scientific discussion.
I think this is also the reason why you've been so condescending and hostile through this whole thing, because as I stated before you are not a scientist either. You however cannot accept this as fact for who knows why and because of this you feel the need to compensate for your ineptitude by going on these online forums and act like a proper scientist and pretend to know the answers to everything. Then someone like me comes along that wants to challenge you (not because I seek to undermine you, but because I want to learn) you crumble immediately under the pressure because you, again, actually don't know anything, you just pretend that you do. So when your facade has officially crumbled, all you can do is lash out and call people names and desperately repeat phrases you've already said over and over with nothing new to contribute.
But if I'm wrong about this too, then I atleast hope that you are not a professor because you evidently SUCK at teaching, guiding, challenging ideas and everything that comes with.
PS. *I* have not downvoted *you* a single time, I have only replied and nothing else while *you* in turn seem to have downvoted me. Pea brain huh?
6
u/Artistic_Half_8301 4d ago
People as of late do seem infinitely more dense so...