Why Bang and not a hole?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ericc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ericc

Guest
I have only high school physics. A number of posts talked about the Big Bang. My question is if everything collapses to a singularity just prior to the BB, why didn’t it result in a black hole instead? Could it, should it?

Does it point to divine intervention preventing the formation of the black hole if the black hole should have been created instead?

If it is a stupid question, just identify it as such and close the thread. :o
 
Uhmm, the big bang theory postulates that the Universe was created by the explosion FROM a singularity.

Evidently when a star of a certain magnitude dies and it colapses onto itself a singularity is created AND a black hole ensues.

Now apparently the size of a black hole can change although the size of the singularity cannot. It is a contradiction of mathematics and logic :rolleyes:

So we might yet need to learn some more facts to help us differentiate the singularity that preceded the big bang from a singularity (black hole) created by a colapsing star.

Now as for your question, prior to the big bang there could not have been a black hole simply because it is the physical manifestation of the presence of a singularity within it.
In other words a black hole is or are the effects of the presence in our universe of a singularity. Hope this helps you.
 
As a scientific theory the Big Bang starts (a small fraction of a second after) when all energy exists and all space is increasing from a very confined extent. Before this real scientific theory should stay mute because we have no data to base any further theory upon. So, the claim that the Universe started from a singularity has no foundation and is unscientific.

The beginning of the Universe is a very special case that has many vast differences from a Black Hole. For example, Black Holes don’t go through inflation which is an important part of the early history of our universe according to the Big Bang theory.
 
JerryZ said:
Uhmm, the big bang theory postulates that the Universe was created by the explosion FROM a singularity.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I could twist this a little. Just BEFORE the singularity was reached (if there is such a thing), would the conditions then be suitable for black hole formation (high densities/gravity?)?

If there is no BEFORE, then of course the starting point t=0 would be the point of singularity explosion.

I was trying to imagine if God were to create the conditions for the Big Bang, did he just willed the singularity to existence or were there intermediate steps leading to the singularity. I was visualizing “stuff” out there willed into existence before they started to gather together to form the singularity. And in the process of the formation of the singularity, won’t conditions be similar to that of black hole formation and hence my question why no hole.

I am a novice as you can see. So hope you guys don’t mind simpleton questions.
 
ericc said:
I have only high school physics. A number of posts talked about the Big Bang. My question is if everything collapses to a singularity just prior to the BB, why didn’t it result in a black hole instead? Could it, should it?

Does it point to divine intervention preventing the formation of the black hole if the black hole should have been created instead?

If it is a stupid question, just identify it as such and close the thread. :o
Click to expand...
Because there was no BB. There was a big collission, where two giant spheres with enormous gravitational fields drew upon each other -pulling each other closer, and closer picking up speed all the time. When they finally made contact they incinerated each other, and the universe is fragments of that collission. The speed that our universe is going right now is probably extremely fast, and we wont know how fast we’re actually going until we reach the next giant sphere, who’s gravitational pull is slowly ripping our universe into its mass -the outside edges moving quicker and quicker all the time, giving the appearance that the universe is expanding when actually it is being drawn in.
 
ericc said:
I have only high school physics. A number of posts talked about the Big Bang. My question is if everything collapses to a singularity just prior to the BB
Click to expand...
That’s not quite it. There was nothing to collapse. Prior to the Big Bang there was nothing. The Big Bang is when everything came into existence.
To show this mathematically you would describe a singularity; first nothing, then the next attosecond, Everything.
 
Ignatius said:
That’s not quite it. There was nothing to collapse. Prior to the Big Bang there was nothing. The Big Bang is when everything came into existence.
To show this mathematically you would describe a singularity; first nothing, then the next attosecond, Everything.
Click to expand...
Did matter exist before the big bang?
 
Ignatius said:
That’s not quite it. There was nothing to collapse. Prior to the Big Bang there was nothing. The Big Bang is when everything came into existence.
To show this mathematically you would describe a singularity; first nothing, then the next attosecond, Everything.
Click to expand...
Now I see why it is so difficult for an atheist to explain how this world come into being. Non-existence, then suddenly poof! , existence. There was no nothing, no energies, dark or not so dark, no quantum stuff, nothing for a scientist to lay his hands on to start off a chain of causation. The quantum stuff are all-post existence, am I correct in saying that?
 
I am not a scientist. All I can say is that I read some, and try to pay attention.

But my impression is this:
  1. A “singularity” is not a particular thing. It is an expression used by physicists to mean “something we can’t get beyond right now and might never solve”. It’s something presently thought of as a “dead end” for human knowledge and understanding.
  2. The “string of energy” that theoretically exploded into the Big Bang is believed by many to have been pure energy; an immense amount of energy concentrated into a very tiny “space”. It’s sometimes called a “singularity” because the explanation of its existence (if it existed) its precise characteristics and what preceded it are not known and (some think) can never be known because the big bang itself changed all the “rules” that now govern the behavior of the matter and energy we do know about.
  3. A black hole is thought to be largely matter, not energy. But it’s thought (but not by all) that it’s matter from which energy cannot escape. It’s thought to be a “singularity” only in the sense that, since (some think) nothing can escape that would tell us anything about what goes on inside it, our knowledge has hit a “dead end”.
Matter and energy are thought to be opposite sides of one coin. Matter can turn into energy (like in a nuclear explosion or, more simply, striking a match) and energy can turn into matter (like a plant photosynthesizing sunlight). How and why they might interchange is somewhat known, but not in full. It is thought that a lot of energy sort of “condensed” into matter after the big bang, but was energy to start with.

So, the “string” of energy that resulted in the “big bang” is one thing, and a black hole is quite another thing, though, as I said, it is thought that one can turn into the other in ways nobody fully understands.

But it isn’t as if physicists agree on all of that. They most certainly don’t.
 
Maybe I should have added:
  1. Not all physicists agree that everything collapsed to a point resulting in the Big Bang. Some do think that, and that’s sometimes referred to as the “bang-bang” theory. But that, I believe, is a minority theory.
  2. Some physicists think the initial energy “string” which exploded into the big bang was the result of the intersection (point collision) of two energy “membranes” of which perhaps nothing can ever really be known because they correspond to different dimensions which we cannot actually perceive in any manner.
  3. All of this gets more and more theoretical the more physicists delve into it. Nobody ever expects to do anything more than show that mathematical models “explaining” these mysterious phenomena work out mathematically and don’t contradict some other known thing.
 
ericc said:
Now I see why it is so difficult for an atheist to explain how this world come into being.
Click to expand...
It’s no more difficult for an atheist to explain how the world came into being than it is for a theist to explain how the world came into being. Because neither of them knows how it came into being. The atheist is just far more likely to admit that.
Non-existence, then suddenly poof! , existence.
Click to expand...
This is an incorrect characterization. There was never a point in time when nothing existed. The ultimate source of the universe MUST be eternal. You can call it God, or quantum “stuff”, but in either case existence either arose from something else, or it’s eternal. There are no other choices. Thus you end up with two options, an infinite regress of causes, or an eternal cause. In either case, there was never a point in time when nothing existed. This is true whether there’s a God or not.
The quantum stuff are all-post existence, am I correct in saying that?
Click to expand...
No, this is an assumption, not based on any known laws of physics. Classical physics describes the evolution of the physical universe from the Big Bang to the present day, but classical laws don’t apply to the quantum world. Just because the physical universe has an apparent beginning, doesn’t mean that the quantum world does also. About the best that can be said about the quantum world is, that without it nothing would exist.

P.S. Ridgerunner, very nice explanation. Thanks
 
Partinobodycula said:
It’s no more difficult for an atheist to explain how the world came into being than it is for a theist to explain how the world came into being. Because neither of them knows how it came into being. The atheist is just far more likely to admit that.
Click to expand...
The theist knows who created it. Atheist don’t. The theist recorded experiences of communication with God. That’s why atheists know about God. Before knowledge about quantum stuff came around, what did atheists believe then?
This is an incorrect characterization. There was never a point in time when nothing existed. The ultimate source of the universe MUST be eternal. You can call it God, or quantum “stuff”, but in either case existence either arose from something else, or it’s eternal. There are no other choices. Thus you end up with two options, an infinite regress of causes, or an eternal cause. In either case, there was never a point in time when nothing existed. This is true whether there’s a God or not.
Click to expand...
No, this is an assumption, not based on any known laws of physics. Classical physics describes the evolution of the physical universe from the Big Bang to the present day, but classical laws don’t apply to the quantum world. Just because the physical universe has an apparent beginning, doesn’t mean that the quantum world does also. About the best that can be said about the quantum world is, that without it nothing would exist.
Click to expand...
I agree one must have an eternal solution to stop the infinite regress. Which one then exist eternally? Quantum stuff or God? Does quantum stuff have an intelligent mind? The God I have in mind has the intelligence and power to create life and consciousness from dead mindless matter, create quantum stuff and so on. Does quantum stuff possess all these attributes to create the world and life? Where did it get its intelligence and power to do that? So either you have an Intelligent and Powerful Being to do that or you have some murky quantum stuff that somehow possess the ability to do that while in the process creating itself to do that. Which leads to an endless loop.

But I think we have digressed from the Black Hole. I am happy with the Bang and no hole answer.
 
ericc said:
Perhaps I could twist this a little. Just BEFORE the singularity was reached (if there is such a thing), would the conditions then be suitable for black hole formation (high densities/gravity?)?

If there is no BEFORE, then of course the starting point t=0 would be the point of singularity explosion.

I was trying to imagine if God were to create the conditions for the Big Bang, did he just willed the singularity to existence or were there intermediate steps leading to the singularity. I was visualizing “stuff” out there willed into existence before they started to gather together to form the singularity. And in the process of the formation of the singularity, won’t conditions be similar to that of black hole formation and hence my question why no hole.

I am a novice as you can see. So hope you guys don’t mind simpleton questions.
Click to expand...
preposterousuniverse.com/writings/cosmologyprimer/faq.html
What came before the Big Bang?
The strictly correct answer is: nobody knows, and nobody even knows if the question makes sense. According to general relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravity and our best understanding of what governs the early universe, there is no such thing as “before the Big Bang” – it is the point at which space and time come into existence. However, it is also a “singular” point, at which our theories break down. It is possible that some future reconciliation of general relativity with quantum mechanics will help us understand the origin of the Big Bang, just as it is possible that we may come to believe that the universe had an interesting history even before what we now call the Bang. Both possibilities are being actively pursued by cosmologists.
Click to expand...
 
ericc said:
The theist knows who created it. Atheist don’t. The theist recorded experiences of communication with God. That’s why atheists know about God. Before knowledge about quantum stuff came around, what did atheists believe then?
Click to expand...
preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement.[2] This conviction necessarily falls short of a proof, but it is backed up by good reasons. While we don’t have the final answers, I will attempt to explain the rationale behind the belief that science will ultimately understand the universe without involving God in any way.
Click to expand...
A century ago, we knew essentially none of what are now considered the basic facts of cosmology. This situation changed rapidly, first on the theoretical front in the 1910’s, then on the observational front in the 1920’s.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top