Black Holes A Opposed To The Big Bang

If a black hole is so dense that it warps space time to the extent of creating a depression not even light can escape, how is it reconciled that, prior to the theorized big bang, with all space time limited to the expanse of the compressed universe, the big bang is supposed to have occurred when all that existed would have essentially been the deepest black hole ever?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly the BB and a BH are two different beasts.....The BB singularity was a singularity of spacetime, while a BH singularity is a singularity in space time.
Secondly the BB in the first instance was an evolution of this space and time, at an accelerating rate. At this early time, we did not have the four known forces we have today, and conditions were such that matter could not exist.
The four forces were united in what we call the "Superforce"
Also the space and time [spacetime] that evolved from the BB, has a vacuum energy Einstein called the Cosmological Constant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They are envisioned as two different things. My question posits that they are not. Under general relativity, how could all that compressed matter and energy not have produced a black hole?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All what compressed matter and energy? The soliton in Guths inflaton field had the mass of a garden pea.

 

Just as I told you earlier.

 

The only difference between the two is that one is to have collapsed a portion of space time and the other is to have collapsed all of space time. The properties would remain the same with neither allowing any energy to escape. How is the big bang supposed to have exploded?

 

Pretty dumbshit troll dude.
*plonk*

 

ISDAMan, you ask a question that, sincerely, at this time, cannot be answered!

The Big Bang Theory posits that what existed prior to the BB is an "unknown" entity. That is, whatever "it" was, was and still is, beyond our ability to "KNOW"!!

There are Members of this Forum that "speculate?", and allow said "speculation" to influence their interpretation of different Theories/Scenarios - but the fact of the matter is that the BB theory has some aspects that must be "accepted" or "assumed" to be true - on faith(?) alone.

 

Read my first answer.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

Can you answer a question for me.....Is this querie of yours genuine or do you have an agenda?

 

Let me tell you again......
[1]The BB was an evolution of spacetime.
[2] Gravity did not exist per se at the moment of the BB:It was part of a Superforce during that first instant: Matter could not exist under such conditions.
[3]The spacetime that did evolve had a vacuum energy density Einstein called the cosmological constant, that drove the expansion rate and the period of Inflation.
[4] the BB singularity was a singularity of spacetime: A BH singularity is a singularity in spacetime.

 

Let me tell you some scientific facts ISDAMan.
The BB is well supported by evidence, so much so, that even the Catholic church recognises it along with the certainty of Evolution.
Why it banged and how it banged is still a mystery, but a mystery science/cosmology is continually working on. Science and cosmology in particular make plenty of logical reasonable assumptions, just as most disciplines anywhere make. Science can also logically and reasonably speculate on other issues.
The BB being a evolution of space and time in the first instant, was assumed to be driven by a CC or even some other DE component.
After the initial imputus and inflation, the density of the matter/energy within the then Universe was acting to slow it down.
This slowing continued for a few billion years.
As the Universe/spacetime expanded the "constant nature of the CC or DE component, was gradually acting over a Universe/spacetime that was getting less and less dense. [same matter/energy content and gravity...larger spacetime/Universe due to expansion]
This has lead to the recent discovery of an acceleration on the expansion rate, which is assumed to be driven by the DE component.
We do not as yet know the true nature of this DE component, but most assume it to be the CC of Einstein fame.
There my dear friend [and other doubting Thomas's] is the basic reasonable assumptions as to what has happened since that first momentous beginnings 13.83 billion years ago.

 

Let me add to that.
While science and cosmology work on further revelations as to the why and how of the BB, the Catholic church put it down to the work of God.
In effect what science and cosmology has done, is push the need of a magical all powerful creator further and further back.
Obviously this will and has upset religious orginizations, and seeing their reasons and faith and their magical deity being pushed into oblivion, has some resorting to lies, inuendo, and derision of science, to support their blind faith.

 

To everyone,

Anyone putting forth an idea has an agenda. I'm not afraid to say that I do not subscribe to the big bang theory. What I asked was a very simple question. Perhaps, I should ask it like this. How would all the matter and energy in the universe, being infinitely compressed, not be a black hole?

If the big bang or any theory is going to last, its supporters are going tho have to consider and answer some difficult questions. I have no doubt that people here can tackle this.

Because the big bang theory has aspects that must be "accepted" or "assumed", it too is speculation until it is able to stand without those aspects or those aspects are proven. So, my agenda, clearly, is to encourage the big bang's supporters to prove them or show how the theory is able to stand without them. Any supporter of that position who responds to a difficult question by insinuating that the question or the questioner is a "troll" or other derogatory and pejorative sort shows little faith in that position.

I would also put forth that, under general relativity and with all the knowledge we have gathered through observation, should the big bang have occurred, and the concept of the universe's prior existence being a black hole not be put on the table, not only is it impossible to know what the universe was prior to the big bang, it is also impossible to know that it was. Yet, here everything is. So, we come down to something happened to nothing or, something happened to something. I already started another thread asking questions about nothingness so, I'm going to stick to somethingness here. And, since energy and matter, like lazy humans, prefer the path of least resistance, they have predictability. Predictability is something greater than assumption. It's based upon observation. If all our observations show that, when portions of matter are compressed infinitely, they produce a black hole, then, the same is true when all is compressed infinitely. The zeroth law of thermodynamics would confirm such. Algebra would confirm such. If all the terms of an equation equal zero, the equation as a whole equals zero.

Lastly, I'm not catholic. The catholic church, like all organizations comprised of humans, has made some bad choices. Just because any group of people says that they believe something, it doesn't mean that I will. I am quite reluctant to allow any group to control understanding on my behalf.

 

Sorry, ISDAMan, but I fail to see how "The zeroth law of thermodynamics would confirm..." anything having to do with "infinitely compressed matter" - other than possibly the temperature of said "infinitely compressed matter" if it were in equilibrium with some other "matter".

Maybe, just maybe, ISDAMan, you might want to do some studying of the "BB theory", and learn the particulars of it - prior to trying to refute it.

 

That's total bullshit about anyone asking a question must have an agenda.
Other than knowing and knowledge of course.
Your simple question was answered, and as yet you have preferred to ramble on rather then addressing those answers.
The evidence for the BB is overwhelming, so much so even the Catholic church now recognise it.

Other than the question that you have already asked and that has been answered, what other questions on the BB do you have?

Perhaps you need to study the scientific method. Scientific theories do not deal in actual proof.
The evidence for the BB is as follows....
[1] The observed expansion: [This observation suggests that the universe was once compacted].
[2] The CMBR at a precise predicted 2.73K
[3] Abundance of the lighter elements.

Accepting we dont know why or how the BB occurred, from here science is allowed to speculate until evidence supporting a particular scenario is found.
In the mean time, as I posted in your other thread...
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

and
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.



In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.

 

The laws of physics and GR tell us that when any mass is compressed to within its Schwarzchild radius, it will become a BH.

I am. Although I may have been excommunicated by now.
And likewise just because you along with your obvious religious agenda and divine deity unscientific explanation, says the BB did not happen, you still need to invalidate the evidence supporting it, or explain it in another logical way.

 

Why are you totally ignoring the fact that, [1] the BB was the evolution of spacetime, while a BH forms in spacetime, by the collapsing of a stellar mass to within its Schwarzchild radius[2]the BB started off expanding driven by a vacuum energy density, [3]we now see that expansion accelerating.
The BB and a BH are two different animals.

 

Further to that misunderstanding, it is the laws of physics and GR that tell us that when a mass is compressed to within its Schwarzchild radius it will become a BH. The same laws of physics and GR that tell us that since we observe expansion and even accelerated expansion, then something is responsible for that...science assumes a DE component the nature of which is unknown although most assume the CC.

 

ISDAMan, as you have no doubt noticed - for some reason your "Anyone putting forth an idea has an agenda." - is read by some as "anyone asking a question must have an agenda". Why that is, is unknown to me.

At any rate, you should also have noticed by now that your question : "How would all the matter and energy in the universe, being infinitely compressed, not be a black hole?" is evidently going to be ignored or misconstrued.

My only response is : that is a question that cannot be answered to your satisfaction, at this time.

BTW, this Forum is not a substitute for an actual education.

 

Further more to your quandary, it was in actual fact a Belgian Jesuit priest named George La-maitre that first "speculated" the BB as the beginning of the Universe [it was only speculative back then, it is now a near certain scientific theory]
As evidence and data was gathered, other theories [steady state and Oscillating] fell by the wayside and the BB rose to prominence to gradually be accepted.
Ask yourself...Why would science just "pull out of there backside" a theory that showed the universe had a beginning? Doesn't that immediatly leave the door open for religious orginizations to jump on the bandwagon and put that beginning down to the work of God? Note carefully, the other two theories I mentioned to not need a beginning.
The answer to all those questions are the nature of science and cosmology in dealing in facts, observations, experiments, deductions, logic and sensibility.
They accepted the BB [despite the implications] because that is what the evidence was telling them.
That's science. Unlike religion it isn't based on pure faith and belief.