What stops the singularity of a black hole from exploding just like the singularity at the beginning of the universe?
Is there a minimum mass where it causes some sort of phase transition in space which allows the energy to be expelled into the true vacuum? Was the false vacuum at the beginning of the universe the reason the singularity was able to expand?
PerfectDark
I am not a cosmologist, but I think you’re confused about the concept of a singularity. It is a mathematical concept, really, meaning a place where the rules break down. If you were attempting to graph a function and there was a point where the slope of the curve became infinite, that would be a singularity.
The center of a black hole is also a singularity, as is the big bang, because you can’t extrapolate what lies beyond them, based solely on information that exists outside of them. They also both represent areas of very high density. But that doesn’t mean that a black hole and the big bang are both examples of the same phenomenon. One way in which they differ is that the early universe had very low entropy, while a black hole could have a very high entropy.
As far as the rest of your post, I have no idea what you mean by the ‘true’ and ‘false’ vacuum. Could you elaborate?
I think false vacuum is an old phase vacuum of the universe.
When you say ‘could have’ do you mean ‘does have’ or ‘your not really sure’ or ‘nobody’s really sure’?
Very high density? I thought a singularity had infinite density? I know that it can’t be measured from the outside, but if you added an extension to the edges of the black hole as a mass in this universe, could it inverse (at the singularity) it’s edges though itself and out the other side into an ‘imaginary’ universe?
*‘imaginary’ as in space that can exist outside of the universe. The blackhole therefore explodes into the imaginary universe leaving a point in our universe where anything that falls into the black hole is transported to a point in time the imaginary universe was created, seeing as though the universe is imaginary and there not having to be any correlation between time in our universe and the imaginary universe.
PerfectDark
For one thing, the singularity of a black hole is different that the Big Bang singularity/seed (whatever that was). The singularity of a black hole is only defined within the context of spacetime. The Big Bang seed was the source of spacetime itself and did not sit within another spacetime as far as we know.
We know of nothing that is outside this universe, so there’s no way to provide an answer about such things other than speculation.
Didn’t gravity separate out from the other forces at least a few milliseconds after the initial expansion ? That makes it impossible to talk meaningfully about the mass of the initial singularity. It may have had measurable properties in terms of some other type of force, but no one seems to have any ideas as to what that force is like yet.
Sorry, but I still don’t get what you mean. Could you point me to where you picked up this concept of false vacuum?
Black holes can basically be described by three values: mass, angular momentum, and entropy. The entropy of a hole might be very large, or it could be smaller. Steven Hawking and others showed that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the surface area of the event horizon, I believe. Come to think of it, that’s another difference between a black hole singularity and the Big Bang singularity: it is believed that you can’t have a ‘naked’ black hole singularity, but the Big Bang didn’t have an event horizon (because space did not exist, there was nowhere to put an event horizon).
When I said ‘very high density’ I was thinking of the area inside the event horizon, not just the singularity. That was a fuzzy way to be thinking at that time. Sorry.
As Phobos said, any thoughts about someplace outside our universe is pure speculation. You can’t, at our current level of understanding, say that the mass entering a black hole goes into another universe. In fact, I’d say it almost surely doesn’t, since its mass is still acting in our universe.
So, we are back to my original point: The Big Bang did not jump out of a black hole singularity. The singularity at the beginning of the universe was of a different type.
I’ve heard of the false vacuum vs. the true vacuum. It has always been in an article about the Higgs boson. There was an article I read in Scientific American. Near as I can figure, the energy of the false vacuum gives rise to mass. It is one of those things I just never fully understood.
Saltire
Black holes can basically be described by three values: mass, angular momentum, and charge. The entropy depends upon the area of the event horizon which in turn depends upon the mass.
One difference between the singularity of a Black Hole and the singularity of the Big Bang is that a Black Hole singularity is always in the future light cone of an observer, never in the past light cone, while the Big Bang singularity is always in the past light cone, never in the future.
[minor nitpick]
Black holes are also described by their magnetic charge. Yeah, so far as we know, there’s zero magnetic charges in the Universe. That doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
[/minor nitpick]
Yet another complication here is that we don’t know why the Big Bang banged, either. In fact, there’s an awful lot that we don’t know about the initial whatever-it-was. In fact, we don’t know much about black hole singularities, either, but one of the things we do know is that we probably don’t need too know much about them. Convenient, no?
A black hole has only three properties:
Mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. . . and magnetic charge
A black hole has only four properties:
Mass, angular momentum, electric charge, and magnetic charge.
No one expect the Spanish Inquisition!
This is assuming that the big bang was a singularity and similar to that of a black hole. Pardon my astrophysics but I was under the impression that the major evidence for the big bang is that the known universe is expanding, indicating that at some time in the past the universe was smaller and more dense than it is now. The whole big bang / singularity thing was just one theory posturizing that the universe began such expansion from an infinitely-dense, infinitely-small point.
What the OP’s looking for is a theory based on the differences between two theories, one of which the nearest example of being millions of light years away, the other mostly hypothetical and beyond the range of anything we can currently examine.
I’ve got one of those wonderful “huberis of science” feelings like trying to explain what would happen to your ship if you were to sail of the edge of the earth. I’m just going to wait for someone to discover that the earth is round.
I’m Glad as hell to hear they don’t.