I don’t think that’s settled yet, is it?
Hmm, I thought I read somewhere that Hawking had figured out that there had to be something thrown off. Oh well, whatever works.
Thanks, hotflungwok.
But when did matter become matter? at Big Bang + an arbitrarily small time interval? It just seems to me that whenever that was, it would all be contained within a spherical boundary and the radius of that sphere would be small enough that all the matter in the universe would comprise a black hole.
I’d like to ask the OP to please respond to post #23 inasmuch as it was a sincere attempt at responding to his question.
Space and time are actually the same thing: spacetime. Both came into existance in the explosion, hence there is no “before” the Big Bang.
Sorry, I left the receipts in the other universe.
- If by “before” you mean “earlier in time”, the answer is nothing. The Big Bang is the beginning of space and time. “Before the Big Bang” is similar to “north of the North Pole”.
If by “before” you mean “outside the Universe”, the answer is we don’t know.
-
The Big Bang is not so much an explosion of matter-energy, but the expansion of space-time itself. Of course, they’re related via General Relativity. There’s still a lot of debate over the exact nature of cosmic inflation, but a simple (and inexact) analogy is just the expansion of a bubble of gas into a vacuum. Stuff tends to go where there isn’t other stuff.
-
The Universe is very similar to a black hole and you are very astute to notice that. Things inside the Universe cannot escape, similar to matter-energy inside a black hole. There are differences though: a black hole is embedded in our 4D space-time. There’s no corresponding 4D space-time that our Universe is embedded in.
It’s better to think of the Big Bang as the point in space-time where-when the Universe was very small and had a very high matter-energy density. There’s no “sphere” of matter-energy like what you’re thinking separate from the rest of the Universe–the entire Universe was filled with matter-energy.
Sez you.
But a better way to put it would be that if there is a corresponding 4D or 5D or nD space-time that our Universe is embedded in, it seems certain that there is no physically possible way for us to ever learn anything about that larger universe, and therefore it might as well be said not to exist.
I don’t think it’s topologically possible for our 4D Universe to be embedded in another 4D structure, but only in a 5+D structure.
We might be able to deduce properties of a higher-dimensional super-structure we’re embedded in by measuring how it affects our Universe.
But the same could be said if we were proven to be inside a black hole, with the exception that things could possibly fall inward toward us.
But interestingly enough, the mass of the universe is within a couple orders of magnitude of a black hole the mass of the universe would be. So if it indeed is at the critical density, why doesn’t it collapse on itself? Some possible answers:
1 – Black holes don’t work that way on that sort of supermassive scale due to some physics we don’t know
2 – Inflation (i.e. dark energy) counteracts gravity over such a large distance
and 3 – we ARE in a black hole! Notice how the farther we get from a galaxy, it appears to be retreating faster and faster from us, until at the edge of the observable universe, it is retreating nearly faster than we could possibly reach? Well, what if just beyond that is the event horizon, which we will never get to because it is retreating from us at superluminal speeds? What’s the difference between that and being caught in a black hole where spacetime is warped so that the edge always appears to be retreating faster than we could ever hope to catch up?
The key thing to realize is that the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion INTO space, it was an explosion OF space. So many of the normal rules for how matter can move don’t apply. Strictly speaking matter that emerged from the singularity wasn’t moving at all, it was just being carried along for the ride as space stretched around it.
That’s why the universe wasn’t trapped inside a black hole at birth. (Or, alternatively you can think of the entire universe being inside a black hole with the event horizon inflated out to the edge of the visible universe by the expansion of space.)
The fact that they Big Bang was a deformation of space itself, not an actual explosion has other consequences. For example during the inflationary period of the Universe, space was actually stretching faster than the speed of light, moving
regions that had been close together out of causal contact with each other. (Even in our current era where the rate of expansion is lower there are still parts of the universe that are receding from us at greater than the speed of light.)
The red shift of distant galaxies isn’t a Doppler shift. It’s not caused because the galaxies have a high velocity relative to us. In fact, aside from some local drift they’re essentially stationary. The red shift is caused by space stretching around the light as it makes its long journey from there to here.
You cannot prove black holes.
You all use language of assumption. Black holes are assumed.
Now, I can assume another hypothesis…
The heavens move until all of the stars shine into a mass point/singularity. The force from the stars and from all directions prior to striking the singular point will pass beyond the point creating an omni-directional vortex. These forces then are slowed down by the oncoming and ever moving energies that are steadily, by the movement of the heavens, aiming themselves toward the singularity. When the time comes, the conglomerate of energies from all of the stars, strike the singularity. They try to escape and are turned back onto themselves, thereby creating mass and matter—and a star is born. A black hole is then, by definition, not a black hole—it is a Galaxy or Sun being born.
(Furthermore: Our Sun is oblated, we think, at the poles. This would give one to think there is more energy pushing at the poles than in the equitorial region. If that be so, the mass/matter created by the “giving” process is sent/pushed out in and from the equitorial region and placed in orbit and equilibrium by the oncoming forces from the other and surrounding stars. The elliptical orbits of the planets would be derived by the same greater energy forces that are causing the formulation of the very galaxy we live in.)
You can argue all you want, however, you cannot disprove what I am saying. Moreover, I cannot prove what I am saying.
I know this: a pulling force at the beginning of creation is the very concept that innately teaches mass man, at any expense and even by brute strength, to take, by making a personal profit from those who are not as well devised.
My choice though, rather than a pulling or gravitional force into a singularity, that does not make sense because it breaks down mathematically at the beginning, is to believe in a giving energy force—an energy force from a giving, spiritual and loving entity that is in the business of creating the heavens and the earth and that life which resides on the earth and within the heaven of the stars.
Though I assume, I know you cannot prove me incorrect and I cannot prove you incorrect. I, however, make an assumptive choice different than your assumptive choice.
To all:
So, with all the blather presented here by you and myself, let us see where all of this is taking us.
When we start with the “big bang”, it is already given by what we can see of the coming resultant, that man wants to rule man, and by so doing, he will do it with a big bomb, er, I mean bang. So, the big bang is in fact the makings of a big bomb that in order to make it bang, must have energy sent into—as if it were a singularity—an atom to split it and make it blow up. Our findings then, are predicated on the need for man to rule man. The whole of the story leads me back to Tycho Brae and all who followed—especially the Church and their capitulation toward and then their made up theologies bringing the masses to believe in ex Nihilo—out of nothing.
I believe the giving entity, that created the heavens and the earth, is the God of the Bible. Moreover, I believe that My God is substantive. I see the God of the Bible is leading us in a different direction from the ways of the big bang and man ruling man—toward earthly dominion with the energy of “giving” as the dominant and ruling power. By so doing, I can see that mankind can live forever and that is long enough to figure out any physicial conundrum he might realize. By beginning with a giving spirit we will end with a giving spirit and reside within all of the things the heavens and the earth can and will produce for our benefit.
The big bang is dumb and no person can prove its validity—except its ability to bring death to mankind.
Procede with giving and see life forever…
Blessings
Fuck.
Warn me when the next one comes along?
I can prove that My gigantic Boner is more than a match for your black hole, but you’re going to need to come a little closer.
My mistake. I’m such a fucking sucker.
This may come as a shock, but in real life not all creations are allegorical. The ‘big bang’ isn’t some fictional creation myth like the biblical Genesis stories; it’s simply what happened, and it doesn’t mean anything.
And your argumentive style is amazing. I have rarely seen the like of it. That bit where you coyly swapped the word ‘bomb’ for ‘bang’; that was a maneuver that the best debaters and smartest thinkers would never dare attempt. Astounding!
Should I rate this as a threat or a solicitation–both being against the rules, of course? 
You are always free to either Pit or ignore the poster. By now, the variety of his discussions and quality of his arguments should be pretty clear. It is not as though he has interrupted someone else’s discussion.
[ /Moderating ]
We can use telescopes to see invisible objects, as in black objects on black space, suck up matter, rip up stars, have things orbit around them, bend light, and just plain act exactly how black holes are supposed to act. That’s way beyond “assuming”.
Now, I can assume another hypothesis…
At some point in time, if we wait long enough, a person will visit a certain message board, and make arguments that are so dense that light will bend around them. Oh, and…
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
I have little to add except that lightwait’s post #71 reminded me a lot of a Dr Bronner soap label. (Excellent example here)
I’ve heard scientists glibly declare this so many times on Nova and similar programs, and it seems to me to be such a blatant case of handwaving that I want to slap them.
The Big Bang was an effect. Effects imply causes, which they follow. If there were no extra-universal “time” in which the Bang hadn’t happened, and then had happened, then it wouldn’t have happened.