Slashdot Mirror
Did Some Black Holes Survive the Big Bang?
astroengine writes "Could anything survive from one universe to the next, through a Big Crunch and resulting Big Bang? According to two researchers, a special class of pre-Big Bang black hole may have the ability to traverse the Big Bang singularity. The upshot is that there may be black holes that existed before the Big Bang knocking around in our modern universe. What's more, we might be able to detect them through the theorized gamma-ray burst produced when these pre-Big Bang black holes evaporate out of existence. But how would we distinguish between these black holes and the primordial black holes thought to be produced after the Big Bang? Well, that's just too confusing right now."
Pre-existing black holes aren't covered by the Universe's health insurance.
So there may not be multiple big bangs. In which case their ability to survive is moot.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
We can't release a photo of this as it may incite other, more restive black holes into action.
That was a gangbang they survived - not quite as dramatic as the big bang.
We just cant comprehend it because of the complexity of the multidimensionality of it all.
Read A Brief History of Time. Dated 1988
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time
Or this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll#From_Eternity_To_Here
Either way, this is OLD news
Current theory relies on very limited information. http://xkcd.com/605/
So, if one model of the universe (currently out if favor) is correct that has it oscillating between big bangs and big crunches, would this be a way for sone super civilization to survive the end (big crunch) of the universe? The "Heechee" in Frederick Pohl's Gateway novels had them hiding out in black holes (though not for this reason). They were hiding out from another even more advanced race that had created the universe (which explained why the cosmological constant amongst other things was so finely tuned) and didn't want to be around when they came back to reclaim their "property".
The Heechee had some way as well of getting OUT of these black holes (FTL travel?). Of course since the the latest models show the universe to be expending itself to smithereens even if you could hide out in a black hole, it is likely there would be literally nothing to come back to.
By the way, does time stop completely below the event horizon? Might be another reason why hiding out in a black hole wouldn't be such a good idea.
Could the supermassive black holes that likely exist in the centre of galaxies be these mutli-universe spanning black holes? If they survivied one big crunch, perhaps not allowing enough time for hawking evaporation, have they survived many universes?
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
IMO for the big bang theory and the singularity concept to work this should be observable.
its also possible that a black hole is the threshold where space inverts, so inside a black hole is the opposite of outside, so what we perceive as the big bang is actually the creation of a black hole in the inverse space. and we are possibly inside a giant black hole, which would explain the background gamma radiation. this also allows for an oscillating universe which gives more support to the very nature of existence being independent of observation and frame-reference.
but what would i know? i dropped out of high school in year 10.
Right. But, the article implies that at "0 + delta_t" seconds, where delta_t -> 0, there existed black holes. This will have a significant impact on how the universe expands.
Indeed, and note that Hawking is talking not only of time, but of space too. Space-time could not exist before inflation.
"His name was James Damore."
I assumed the only black hole left was the one sucking all the brains from Donald Trump.
Blackhole sucking void? That is a new concept.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
that i can never tell the difference between cosmology and the ramblings of a stoner?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw94.html -- reference (not the one I was looking for, but it is mentioned)
Some other ideas about different boundary conditions at t=0 may be found at these pages:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node4.html [conventional view]
http://www.space.com/4019-glimpse-time-big-bang.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7440217.stm
http://www.universetoday.com/15051/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/
but maybe I got this wrong :)
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
Expanding and accelerating. Perhaps the Big Bang didn't just start, but continues to this day. It just so happens that as each moment in time passes, the more warped and distorted the pace of time becomes the further you look back. That is to say, the pace of time is constantly moving forward as events take place. But from our perspective, it's constant. Can be a bit confusing, I know. Sorry.
and hold.
<tight>"Like, man. Maybe our universe is only a little speck in so other universe?"</tight>
Exhale.
"Dude. Wouldn't it be funny if we like wrote that up as a paper or something?"
Thus stands most cosmological theory.
Current theory relies on very limited information. http://xkcd.com/605/
Limited how?
By what theories? The indigenous peoples have many theories of the universe. The Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, and their intelligent progenitors have many more. The history of the future is defined by the theories that are ignored.
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions? -RAH
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
A singularity is just a place where the math breaks. In other words, god only knows what the hell happened at the singularity -- all we can do is look where it's not. Since we're on this side of the Big Bang singularity, all we can look at is events inside a light cone constrained by our position, the current time, and the age of the universe since the Big Bang.
Short version, their question is more philosophy than cosmology.
...
One Hole to rule them all, One Hole to find them,
One Hole to bring them all and in the blackness bind them
Before the Big Bang where the Shadows lie.
One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
If you don't you'll have Bruce Lee worked into this scenario...
Its hardly glorifying it to associated with this fairy tale. But maybe you should try a bud or two sometime.
Just say Perhaps.
anyone who uses xkcd as a "citation needed" is dumber then someone that believes that the universe is closed or open.
It's a comic strip, not a scientific journal.
In the beginning, there was nothing, which then exploded.
The article is a newspaper report about some physics papers. Half of it's just fine (slight-post-Big-Bang black holes still being around is a perfectly reasonable concept.)
The other half apparently has at least some math to it and is trying to see what it implies, and while it's more likely to be wrong than right, unless you've gone and read the physics papers it's a bit excessive to call even that half of the article pseudo-scientific nonsense. I'm skeptical about it (after the previous universe's Big Crunch (speculative but not unpopular) there was nothing left (still ok), occupying no space because space itself no longer existed (still okayish), and that nothing had HOLES IN IT (or next to it or something), which sounds like a major stretch, but all of the scientific theories of the very early origins of the universe are pretty much of a stretch. It's something that's at least as falsifiable as any theory of the early Big Bang period.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
No. A black hole is a singularity surrounded by an horizon, with space outside. The Big Crunch is a singularity, but where's the horizon and the outside space?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
By what theories? The indigenous peoples have many theories of the universe. The Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, and their intelligent progenitors have many more.
Hate to be fussy, but careful with the use of theory. It's misinterpretation in this context is what people who believe in the supernatural cling to when discussing such things as the theory of evolution.
Theory: a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. Theories have been typically tested repeatedly in many ways and have become widely accepted truth.
Hypothesis: Testable and informed predictions with supporting facts. What is expected to happen during a specific study.
The Mayans, Incas etc were more at the early conjecture stage, which is more of an opinion and without supporting evidence.
The theory goes that in the very early universe, temperatures and pressures were so high that even small fluctuations in the density of matter would have resulted in local regions becoming dense enough to collapse into black holes. The time period considered here is long before any nucleosynthesis occurred: in fact temperatures and pressures were so high in this period that the strong nuclear force is not yet able to confine quarks into hadrons.
These tiny primordial black holes would not, contrary to popular conception, simply suck in everything around them. A typical black hole of this type would have a mass of about a billion tons (about the mass of a mid-sized asteroid), and have an event horizon smaller than the diameter of a proton. With mass that low its gravity would be correspondingly low and its interaction with normal matter very feeble. They should, however, be emitting large amounts of gamma rays if the theory of Hawking radiation is correct, and that might be one way that they'd be detected.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
I assumed the only black hole left was the one sucking all the brains from Donald Trump.
Blackhole sucking void? That is a new concept.
Black holes can collide.
Yes the BB continues to this day, that's how we know there was a big bang! Also time is relative, there is no universal timer tick.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
And electrons! Have you ever seen one? They're completetly made up, just a theoretical kludge.
Just because this universe expands forever, doesn't mean its parent did. Could just be this particular universe is the end of the line of its lineage. So I think the question is still quite relevant.
I always thought that time was only created with the Big Bang - so how can there be a "before"?
I think its a pretty bold theory considering black holes arent even proven to exist yet. I think many of these questions wont be answered until someone can come up with a better understanding of gravity.
HTTP/1.1 400
I heard you like singularities, so I put some black holes in your black holes so you can big bang while you big bang.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
"Talking about what was "before" the big bang, is like talking about what is north of the north pole."
Maybe, maybe not. If we find evidence for these black holes then it shows there was a before the big bang and we have to change our view of the universe accordingly. Until we look for the evidence we don't know, that's kind of the point of science.
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Is that cat alive, dead, or a combination or both?
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
1) Could this explain how the symmetric particle soup go asymmetric, allowing "proper" particles, dust clouds, galaxies etc to form?
2) If I had a lot of very large black holes, could they account for the missing anti-matter? If we assume a _large_ pre-existing universe, this would/might shift the problem from "where is it" to "it's really far away" due to distribution and "local" fluctuation.
3) Assuming anti-matter has normal gravity, could we detect black holes made from anti-matter other than seeing them dwindle, over time?
not science
nothing about it is testable
therefore, string theory is indeed the ramblings of a stoner. a very intelligent, mathematical stoner, but completely useless to the realm of actual science nonetheless
i don't understand much of the math in string theory, but i do know it is not testable. therefore, string theory is nothing but mental masturbation of the sort mildly stoned college students engage in. of no more value to us who are interested in actual scientific efforts
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Redshifting, the primary support behind the expanding universe theory, has only been known/studied for the past hundred years or so. At best, that gives us some hundred years of data. On a cosmological level, this is near insignificant. Based on the calculations of Einstein's field theory, we know that the acceleration outward has a positive second derivative, meaning that the acceleration is increasing (and not decreasing as previously thought). Why is not known (and so the expanding universe is an observation, rather than a theory).
The most curious part of this is that the expanding universe theory heavily relies on the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric (mentioned above). And that all mention of this in academia yields that this positive second derivative merely suggests that the Universe is expanding. However, if we look in all basic knowledge about what the Universe is doing, it says nearly unequivocally or is largely implied with certainty that the Universe is expanding and everything is going to suffer from entropy.
NASA (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.html) even doesn't claim this, and mentions the possibility of the Universe collapsing in on itself. To say that "current theory" supports the expanding universe theory is wrong-- it's largely tied up in controversy.
black holes go in, black holes go out, never a miscommunication.
Actually, one current theory is that the universe does expand forever, but collision points between universes causes "big bangs" which sparks energy/matter into existence. The best explanation is two drum heads colliding at a single point, which would result in a "drum beat" of a bang, with the vibrations and ripples being the equivalent energy/matter.
So, a pre-big bang black hole could be from a prior collision. It would be a "vibration" that never completely lost gravitational cohesiveness, which is the current theory of how the universe will end... when dark energy (blowing us apart) overcomes the force of dark matter (pulling us together).
Understanding these black holes would only matter to us billions of years in the future should we attempt to survive our universe dissolving into dust. Or... if you wanna find the most ancient aliens with god-like technology, maybe they're hibernating in one of these things.
Then again, IANAS, I just watch a lot of Discovery and misc sci programming.
I8-D
Blackhole sucking void? That is a new concept.
No actually, that is not a new concept at all. Besides if there truly are pre-existing black holes, the fact that they "suck void" is the only hope we have of detecting their presence. Given that all matter surrounding these black holes would have been removed during the singularity normal ways of detecting them, by their accretion discs, will fail.
Some current research papers even argue the second derivative- the data in inconclusive enough that there may be in the range of 30% probability that the expansion is slowing, depending on how you run the numbers. (The universe is still expanding faster and faster, but instead of expanding runaway exponentially faster it may be falling back to linear, which could then slow down).
Amateur here, but methinks.... 1) You mean how the universe is made out of matter instead of antimatter? The truth is we don't know, and we're only just starting to come up with some good guesses. 2) Pose that a different way- why haven't antimatter black holes changed everything into antimatter? (Morbo: Black holes do not work that way!) 3) Anti-matter has exactly the same properties of matter (we think, so far). If the universe were made out of antimatter instead of matter, we would have just named the terms the other way around.
That's the point. This is the oldest information of all.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Yeah, but didn't the Big Bang supposedly CREATE space and time in our universe? So how could anything be said to exist BEFORE the Big Bang?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
> 1) You mean how the universe is made out of matter instead of antimatter? The truth is we don't know, and we're only just starting to come up with some good guesses
And I was asking about the viability of my guess.
> 2) Pose that a different way- why haven't antimatter black holes changed everything into antimatter? (Morbo: Black holes do not work that way!)
Also, that is not what I asked ;)
> 3) Anti-matter has exactly the same properties of matter (we think, so far). If the universe were made out of antimatter instead of matter, we would have just named the terms the other way around.
We don't know if anti-matter has gravity or anti-gravity. We will be able to test this soonish as 32(?) anti-hydrogen atoms existed for several seconds, just a few days ago.
You're supposed to say "magnets, how do they work?" or something like that. Do try to keep up with popular culture, or at least try for a sense of humor.
The "Cosmological Constant" has been an admitted kludge for a century. But somehow recently it seems to have gone from an explicit lable for "here's the place where our theory breaks" to "our theory's great, and here another great theory too", which isn't healthy.
The uniformity of tempurature of the CMBR, for example, was a bit of a surprise - being too uniform for how large the universe was at recombination - and not really predicted by anyone's theories (or hypotheses) on universe expansion. As a result this silly band-aid of "the universe must have expanded .. faster than light, yeah, that's the ticket" was hastily improvised. And now we have "inflatrons" (presumably emitted by Carter?) and other such attempts to describe in detail somehting that is guesswork in the first place.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yeah, this is a tough one, too. Since no evidence exists for alternative universes, either preceding or parallel, these things cannot be tested. Just because a parent universe could exist doesn't mean it did exist. The only evidence available is that the universe we live in is the only universe that does or has ever existed. So when ordering possibilities, the parent universe and a lineage of universes falls lower in likelihood than the current universe is the only one, ever.
And of course current theory is now fixed in stone for ever like the Ten Commandments. Not last year's or last decade's or last century's current theory, just the current current theory as of today.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yeah, this is a tough one, too. Since no evidence exists for alternative universes, either preceding or parallel, these things cannot be tested. Just because a parent universe could exist doesn't mean it did exist. The only evidence available is that the universe we live in is the only universe that does or has ever existed.
Well, that's something this experiment would be designed to answer, actually. If a black hole can - through exceedingly careful experimentation - be proven to predate the universe, that would be evidence there. Besides, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It simply means that we don't know, because, absent the possibilities raised in the article, the notion of parallel universes doesn't appear to be testable.
So when ordering possibilities, the parent universe and a lineage of universes falls lower in likelihood than the current universe is the only one, ever.
By the same reasoning you provided above, you also have no evidence by which to handicap that race. We simply don't know. If nothing else, you're left with the very sticky question of 'where the hell did the universe come from'?
I don't know, but allow me to help the scientists test this. All I need is to be hooked up to some deadly neurotoxin.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
"What's that sound?" :D
1) As it turns out, there may have never been any symmetry. - I recommend the radio lab pod cast called - Symmetry.
2) read - http://books.google.com/books?id=AbQXSDAZQLwC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=antimatter+black+holes+deGrasse+tyson&source=bl&ots=RwPjQDitC3&sig=vLKNFewMgPCsOmHzdzd3dV7xXag&hl=en&ei=g9rCTeeQO4GgsQPyzvDyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
We don't know if anti-matter has gravity or anti-gravity. We will be able to test this soonish as 32(?) anti-hydrogen atoms existed for several seconds, just a few days ago.
I think the ability to measure the gravity of individual hydrogen (or anti-hydrogen) atoms is a little longer off then anything I wold consider soonish.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Of course you can see the space outside. Light can fall in quite fine, it only can't come out.
And if you don't believe me, please look at the spacetime diagram in coordinates appropriate for a falling observer.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
You're supposed to say "magnets, how do they work?" or something like that.
The magnets attract, the magnets repel - you can't explain that.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Apparently there is a way. Don't ask me which, though.
What makes you think that?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
A version of the atomic fountain technique should work for samples of a few thousand anti-hydrogen atoms. Cool them in the center of your chamber, release them, and watch for the burst of gamma rays as they hit the bottom of the chamber (or the top if matter and antimatter repel).
If you can't cool them that much send a low-energy beam of them down a long horizontal tube and measure the droop.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
No, magnets can be explained one step further by saying "photons" (possibly even virtual photons). Electrons started out as a kludge for "it seems that the charge/mass ratio of the negative emissions is identical, regardless of what emits them", just as evasive as inflation is today. Inflation might end up being superseded by a theory better able to explain the observations, or it might over time be more and more solid, but until we can make that distinction, the best we can do is to keep talking about it as inflation, and keep in mind that it is just a model with some evidence, like everything else in physics.
The article is assuming that an universe existed before Big Bang. If that was the case it would be feasible to guess that the bang happened BEFORE every little mass (or massless) particle dropped into the black hole to explode. There is a reason to cause the big bang to happen (maybe a critical mass ?) and if I were to explode as the big bang I couldn't wait for every little particle, would You ?
I have understood that big bang theories assume that before that there was no space or time. So no universe before that. We'll never know.
That will really put a nail on the coffin of people saying that brute-forcing the most advanced forms of cryptography will require more processing time than the life expectancy of the universe.
Now, all the NSA needs to do is to put their brute-force cluster inside a black hole and wait for it to survive for the next 10^n big-bang cycles !!!
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
We don't know if anti-matter has gravity or anti-gravity. We will be able to test this soonish as 32(?) anti-hydrogen atoms existed for several seconds, just a few days ago.
If anti-gravity exists, it obviously has to be an attractive force between anti-matter particles. Whether anti-matter attracts normal matter or repels it may remain to be seen, but it's still safe to say that a universe made out of anti-matter would still behave pretty much the same as our universe, with the same observable laws of physics.
From KnowYourMeme
Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work? is a lyrical reference to the 2009 single Miracles by the Insane Clown Posse, an American hip hop duo from Detroit, Michigan. The song describes the wonders of the universe and an appreciation for nature's beauty, while angrily eschewing science. Among the most quotable lines can be heard at 1:52, "fucking magnets, how do they work," which instantly became a popular catchphrase on the web.
Most other kludges resolve themselves quickly - even the more elusive like neutrinos and dark matter didn't take that long to gain experimental evidence. But universal expansion has been kludged forever - we're clearly missing somehting very fundamental.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Oh, I had forgotten that particular piece of stupid by ICP.
Neutrinos were suggested in 1930 and confirmed experimentally in 1956. I wouldn't call 26 years quickly. Inflation was suggested in 1980, so it's not that far behind neutrinos. But, of course, that isn't the important thing. Come up with a theory that better explains the data, and inflation will fall. Until that day, inflation is the best we have. The cosmological constant doesn't pose as anything but a kludge, but until we get better data or better theories, what are we to do?