But this one’s at a much lower level than DarrenS’s OP.
Just before the Big Bang occurred, all the stuff in this universe was concentrated in a mass, smaller than the nucleus of an atom.
Question: At this moment—just before the great explosion—was what we had there the Mother of All Black Holes?
And if the answer is 'Yes!" what is keeping all the other Black Holes from exploding (if indeed they’re not)?
What might be the trigger(s) for Black Holes exploding?
Considering the enormity of both time and space, it’s possible that there are many other black holes exploding all the time, but far enough away in either time or space that we can never know about them.
Personally, though, I find the big bang as absurd as string theory. Fun to talk about but really just a mathematical fantasy, like imaginary numbers.
I’m a steady state, Newton was righter than Einstein, kind of guy.
Now, now. This is GQ, where people expect factual answers to things. String theory may be a bunch of malarkey, but there is near-insurmountable evidence to back up the current model of an expanding universe. If the universe were a steady-state, how do you explain something like Hubble’s Law, which was observed as early as the 1930s? How do you explain isotropic microwave background radiation in a steady-state system?
And let us not forget that Einstein was in fact a proponent of stationary universe himself.
Okay, so factually answer my question. 
I would but I’m no astrophysicist. I have just enough college physics to know about the steady-state vs. expanding-universe stuff but that’s it.
I agree with E = mc² that you should stick to his/her topic.
[aside to friedo: The problem with Hubble’s law is that it is based on the idea that the red shift is a result of things traveling away from us. I suggest, as have others, that it is due to the loss a growing percentage of photons the farther something is from us. Due to interstellar dust simply blocking it. The fewer photon that reach us per second, the redder the light. The same way the atmosphere turns the setting sun red without it’s flying away from us. As to Einstein, he didn’t really subscribe to steady state, but also frequently refered to the red shift, which I repeat is the core idea behind the expanding universe, which is the heart of the big bang theory. If you want more, call me at 1-800-555-000 ;)]
[/end of aside. Back to the OP]
Good grief. Not the interstellar dust theory. Even the steady staters don’t believe that nonsense. Here a New Scientist article with some respectable objections to the big bang. Though notice that they really have no good evidence for their views.
And what’s with the phony telephone number?
Ugh. I need to wash before I tackle the OP.
There is no good evidence that that the universe developed from an exploded black hole. There’s no reason to bring black holes into the subject at all. Black holes are not exploding into other universes.
The best modern model is a fluctuation in vacuum energy, the energy that must exist even without space-time, according to both quantum theory and string theory. If a flucuation came into existence and then inflated it can create the universe we observe. Here’s another New Scientist article talking about this.
Oh dear. The tired, tired light hypothesis.
And in any case - surely the decrease in number of photons would cause the intensity of the light to decrease, rather than change its color; the color (wavelength) is a function of the energy of individual photons.
Regarding a phrase used in the OP: “just before the Big Bang occurred”…
Was the Big Bang the zeroth moment, or the first?
Mods, please close this thread.
:eek: My apologies, E = mc². I didn’t know that sidebars would be more inviting than your question.
I felt your question was valid, and that’s why I answered it. And asked others to answer it.
Perhaps if you just wait until this is closed and try again, hopefully it will get a different set of respondants.
Wow. I guess then the sunset reddening *is *caused by the sun shooting away from us after all. And photons are all different in energy. That’s certainly new. Live and learn.
I’m closing the thread at the request of the OP, and also because of the hijacks/arguments on tangential subjects.
Anyone who wants to debate any of these side isuses, I’d suggest Great Debates.
samclem GQ moderator