The Beginning of the Universe

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I am not sure where I stand about the big bang. Actually I am but it is an odd place I suppose. Anyway, I was doing some reading on the big bang. Apparently scientists believe it was the beginning of our universe. I do not think it was the beginnning. But merely the beginning of what we know now.

Let me explain. The universe if it exceeds the critical mass it will begin to receed in on itself. That would mean almost all matter in the universe clumping together. THen perhaps another big bang? This cycle could happen only a finite amount of times I think because black holes will devour matter and thus taking from existence. (as far as we know)

Now I hope that made sence. I would like to discuss it and I am hoping to learn something as well.

You need to remember that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion where matter was thrown outwards, it was the expansion of space its self, which resulted in matter being drawn out along with it; like dots on the surface of an expanding balloon. So even if all of the matter in the universe were to collapse in on its self (although it's now thought that that won't happen), that wouldn't mark the beginning of a new Big Bang; because then you'd just have a collection of matter in an already existing space.

As someone else already said, black holes don't devour matter (matter and energy can't be destroyed, but they can be converted from one to the other --> "E=MC²" ). Black holes are just matter, they're the remnants of massive stars which have collapsed in on themselves at the end of their life.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

You need to remember that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion where matter was thrown outwards, it was the expansion of space its self, which resulted in matter being drawn out along with it; like dots on the surface of an expanding balloon. So even if all of the matter in the universe were to collapse in on its self (although it's now thought that that won't happen), that wouldn't mark the beginning of a new Big Bang; because then you'd just have a collection of matter in an already existing space.

As someone else already said, black holes don't devour matter (matter and energy can't be destroyed, but they can be converted from one to the other --> "E=MC²" ). Black holes are just matter, they're the remnants of massive stars which have collapsed in on themselves at the end of their life.

That true about black holes but then again that matter will never return to its origial state.

The weird thing is, it might. Sort-of. Black holes, contrary to all common sense, actually emit stuff. Eventually they will emit all of their mass back into space.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

That true about black holes but then again that matter will never return to its origial state.

Actually the matter is released again. Black holes slowly evaporate by emitting what's known as Hawking radiation; although it takes an extremely long time to do so. One the size of our sun would take 10^67 years to fully evaporate (1 with 67 zeros after it).

Yes but many black holes are merely the size of a pin head. Is the matter released in the same way it was consumed?

But I suppose my point is matter cannot be created from nothing.

The matter is released as "Hawking radiation," if you read the post before you.

I have read theories that suggest that the universe goes in a cycle. The Big Bang isn't the beginning, simply the beginning of the phase we're in. After a few billion trillion years (or something), there's a new phase, a super spaced-out one, where nothing can hold together. Then it all collapses, and then there's a big bang, and it all starts again.

I should find some articles for this...

Originally Posted by Akira

The matter is released as "Hawking radiation," if you read the post before you.

I have read theories that suggest that the universe goes in a cycle. The Big Bang isn't the beginning, simply the beginning of the phase we're in. After a few billion trillion years (or something), there's a new phase, a super spaced-out one, where nothing can hold together. Then it all collapses, and then there's a big bang, and it all starts again.

I should find some articles for this...

Thats what I am saying I am just interpreting it with what i have learned thusfar.

The smaller the black hole the faster it destroys itself via Hawking radiation, so ones the size of a pin-head vanish almost instantly.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Yes but many black holes are merely the size of a pin head. Is the matter released in the same way it was consumed?

But I suppose my point is matter cannot be created from nothing.

It's not released in the same way, it's a complex process.

All particles have their own antiparticle counterpart, electrons/positrons, proton/antiproton etc. They're exactly the same as each other but have opposite charges, and if they ever meet they "annihilate" and are converted in to pure energy. Now on the quantum scale there are things known as virtual particles, they're particles which pop in and out of existence from nowhere.

When these appear on the edge of the event horizon of a black hole, there's a tiny chance that one of these virtual particles will fall in to the black hole and its counterpart will escape outwards. It's hard to explain without going deep in to quantum mechanics, but the particle that escapes steals a tiny amount of energy from the black hole, thus reducing its mass.

The event horizon of a black hole is a region where the gravitational field becomes so strong that nothing is able to escape, the black region.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

The smaller the black hole the faster it destroys itself via Hawking radiation, so ones the size of a pin-head vanish almost instantly.

The first part is true, IIRC the length of time it takes for a black hole to evaporate is proportional to the cube of its mass. But remember size and mass are different things. All black holes are the size of a pinhead (actually they're even smaller then that, a gravitational singularity); but that's not indicative of their mass.

If the Universe never exceeds critcal mass and continues to expand exponentially, we have an interesting situation. All the black holes will gobble everything up and evaporate, all the lovely little surviving protons will die of old age (literally) and eventually even all waves of energy will die. This will leave a very large universe with absolutely nothing in it for all of eternity, by about the year 100 trillion.

In this vast space with all of eternity for itself, you get a lot of quantum vacuum. Mostly it'll be just random photons and the like blobbing up, but eventually, and inevitably, you get whole atoms. This must lead to whole groups of atoms blobbing up. 99.999 recurring percent of the time, you'll get only random packs of rubbish, but eventually, inevitably, you'll get whole stars, planets, life and just about every possible... thing it's possible to have. A cheese curtain, a radio saying "Yellow man fall Humdow" that has an arm trying to kill itself, Charles Darwin wearing a fake moustache under a real one. Even you, sitting at your computer, reading this post.

And anything that can happen, must happen. This means that, yep, you guessed it, the quantum vacuum churns up something that somehow starts the Big Bang. But this has certain problems. If this is true, then the Universe is expanding into an old, empty Universe full of very strange objects that is turn expanding into another, and so on...

I think the only reason for the Big Bang at the moment that has even the slightest scientific backup is that it was caused by that quantum vacuum thing, that yolk that somehow creates little blobs of energy and matter from absolutely nothing.
Here is where I read this (read last few paragraphs). I'll admit it isn't a professional site, but it explains things clearly.

All black holes are the size of a pinhead (actually they're even smaller then that, a gravitational singularity); but that's not indicative of their mass.

I thought that the event horizon varied in proportion to the mass of the black hole, which meant that more massive ones would be larger. After all, surely they don't have enough gravitational energy to infinitely compress matter.


Edit: Also, merged the Big Bang thread with the beginning of the universe one.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I thought that the event horizon varied in proportion to the mass of the black hole, which meant that more massive ones would be larger. After all, surely they don't have enough gravitational energy to infinitely compress matter.


Edit: Also, merged the Big Bang thread with the beginning of the universe one.

Okay I see what you mean. You're right, the size of the event horizon does vary according to the mass. The confusion is that the actual black hole and the event horizon are different things. The black hole is the infinitely dense core of matter and the event horizon is the region where escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. When Flames of Valor mentioned black holes being the size of a pinhead I guessed he was talking about the singularity, although if he meant the event horizon of micro black holes then you're right, they evaporate almost instantly.

Gravitational singularities are described as having infinite density by general relativity, but this isn't allowed by quantum mechanics; which is one of the reasons why we need a unified theory to properly explain what's going on.

Why on earth was the black hole discussion merged with The Beginning of the Universe, since its primary is focused on the end of the universe?

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

Why on earth was the black hole discussion merged with The Beginning of the Universe, since its primary is focused on the end of the universe?

Because in order to understand why something begins, we must understand why it ends.

Mostly because the two threads are related, the black hole part is just off topic.

Thanks for that explanation Nemesis, I was a bit fuzzy on the details.

Originally Posted by Surio

The beginning of the universe was not the big bang, it was God. Why? Because the Christian view makes sense, while the big bang theory actually contradicts many of the scientific laws.

I have never thought the Genesis story made much sense at all. I won't go into detail, for fear of some form of ban, I'll just leave that statement out there, until someone contradicts me. Then everything I say (withing reason) is justified.

Oh, the whole Singualrity thing. To be honest, I've always thought it was a load of rubbish used by physicists to explain things they don't understand. I mean "A place where no rules apply and anything we say goes"? Really.

Originally Posted by Surio

The beginning of the universe was not the big bang, it was God. Why? Because the Christian view makes sense.

How does the Christian view make sense? The Christianic account offers no mechanism for the creation of the universe, no explanation. There's nothing there to "make sense" in the first place.

Also, there had to be a beginning of time. Why? Because an infinite amount of time would have to have passed before now if there was no beginning, and since an infinite amount can never pass, it hasn't passed before now. The only explanation is God. God created time. "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

The big bang marked the beginning of space and time.

...while the big bang theory actually contradicts many of the scientific laws.

Name one.

What about the comets? They can't last longer than 10 thousand years. If the universe was created billions of years ago, then why are there still comets out there.

They have a short life time while orbiting within the inner regions of the Solar system. The comets we see now are young objects which only recently emerged from either the Kuiper Belt or the Oort cloud.

Originally Posted by Sicin Mor

Oh, the whole Singualrity thing. To be honest, I've always thought it was a load of rubbish used by physicists to explain things they don't understand. I mean "A place where no rules apply and anything we say goes"? Really.

No physicist ever says that "no rules apply". Different rules do.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

No physicist ever says that "no rules apply". Different rules do.

Even better! They can just say, "Oh, such and such a rule is in effect here, meaning that we are actually correct."

The thing is, there's a reason why they say that.

If you do the math, you'll find that the laws stop acting like they normally do the closer you get to a black hole, and once you're inside of one all the equations require you to divide by square roots of negative numbers, which don't actually exist.

I am a born again Christian and I believe the Christian way of how everything was made; god created all. I do not believe in evolution at all and I highly disagree with it being taught in schools.