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.
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
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.
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.
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.