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
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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