Astronomy / Space The Big Black Bang Hole that wasn't

[Cargobane]

From the Wiki Black Hole:

At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite...
The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density...
When they reach the singularity, they are crushed to infinite density and their mass is added to the total of the black hole.

Is dividing by zero still approved in Mathematics?

Or maybe there's some new thinking out there to not have 'infinite' associated with BH now.

The cores of black holes may not hold points of infinite density as currently thought, but portals to elsewhere in the universe

Magical... Maybe a BH is where Unicorns go to hide so we can't see them on Earth.

And finally, if there was a Big Bang, it would have been a Black Hole, and nothing would have escaped, and there would be no universe. Right?

 

[edd]

Density != mass. And it's usually felt that something probably happens at that level to stop you getting infinite density - the above as it notes is 'as described by general relativity' and we don't expect GR to be right in those sorts of extreme situations, so yes, something new. No good idea of what yet though.

And the big bang wouldn't be a black hole, although there might be some similarities in their description. We'd expect the singularity then to be avoided somehow, but noone knows how too.

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

 

[Cargobane]

more Wiki

The density, or more precisely, the volumetric mass density, of a substance is its mass per unit volume.

So the problem continues, because it is also proclaimed that the singularity (the center of a Black Hole) has zero volume. Thus anything that crosses into this threshold of nothing, transfers it's mass into infinite nothing. And the rabbit hole continues to infinity as this basically false supposition of having an infinite creation point BB with countless infinite consumption points BH creates an zero/null value to understanding reality. imho

There was light, but it couldn't go far because the universe wasn't transparent - it was an optically thick plasma

This goes beyond Gobbledygook. Think about it.

 

[Zieman]

This goes beyond Gobbledygook. Think about it.

View attachment 35845

Did you just ignore

Just like there's light inside the Sun, but you can't see that light - you only see the light emitted from the surface of the Sun.

or didn't you understand what was said?

 

[edd]

So the problem continues, because it is also proclaimed that the singularity (the center of a Black Hole) has zero volume. Thus anything that crosses into this threshold of nothing, transfers it's mass into infinite nothing. And the rabbit hole continues to infinity as this basically false supposition of having an infinite creation point BB with countless infinite consumption points BH creates an zero/null value to understanding reality. imho

Yes, infinite density not infinite mass (which is a lot more problematic). Infinite densities are not nice - this is an understatement by the way - but infinite masses would break everything. It's an indication that general relativity at that point is almost certainly not a good representation of reality. We don't know how to fix that problem. It doesn't mean that all the rest of the big bang idea, which describes the evolution of the universe from just shortly after that point, is in any way problematic, or that the the universe originating from a very hot very dense early state (but not infinitely dense or hot) is anything less than essentially a fact.

These infinities you're worrying about are only philosophically troubling if you think we know everything already, and we don't. We've every reason to expect that when we know more we will understand how they are avoided.

 

[greenlantern]

I want to chime in here because I can't let that stand uncommented. The title of the book that spawned this meme was originally meant to be "The goddamn particle" (source), rather referring to the difficulty of proving its existence, but the editor insisted on shortening that to "the god particle", and now we are in this mess where almost all online and offline news keeps repeating that stupid phrase.

Uh....Peter is a bit of a joker, and that joke is a "dig" at the scientist who coined the term God Particle, a "play on words" getting as you mention the point across of the difficultly in exposing it. God particle and for sales....never intended to be titled Goddamn particle.

 

[Cargobane]

Did you just ignore

or didn't you understand what was said?

Please troll harder Zieman and welcome to the thread. It's the old crew back together again after a few weeks off.

So. Is your proposition now that it's possible the Sun contains a Black Hole? After all, it can contain 'light'. lol.. Or that Stars can be explained as easily as not being able to see the light on the surface of a match head because it's on fire lighting your tinder..?
The press would have you believe such a thing.
Did you see the one about crazy <anti>positrons from Lightning and the Scientist is all like, baffled and junk, it's hilarious. Dumbfounded by Electricity.

And because they could not see the electric plasma for what it was, and what it can do, they instead decided to say, it must be "Dark Lighting" that is producing this effect on our "scope". LOLOL HAHAHAHAHAH ROFLAMO.....

wow...

A Black Hole and it's primary properties is a nebulous unknown that everyone knows can't be questioned. It can't not even be inaccurately antidescribed. It is both hegemony and chaos infinite.

And there's one lurking to consume all matter in the universe at the center of every galaxy. Sometimes MULTIPLE BH's battling each to consume to nothing more everything. Some are even called SUPER MASSIVE. The factor of Infinity this involves must require a High Math that no mortal can hold in his relative frame of reference. Which is probably about 10^-32 seconds or something. So of course, that's how the Universe started. And all explanations of everything we observe afterward, must support this. /noid

 

[edd]

Cargobane - you sound very confused about what is and isn't a black hole. There's obviously no reason to think the Sun is a black hole, and there's obviously every reason to think there is in no way a black hole horizon between us and the vast majority of the observable universe including the cosmic microwave background and the matter that sourced it directly or indirectly. Because it's observable for one thing...

And infinities get involved nowhere in our description of the observational properties of black holes, including supermassive ones at galactic cores.

And as I've tried to already explain singularities don't get taken seriously as part of any sane description of the early universe. No one likes the things.

 

[Zieman]

delusional rambling

You're the only troll in this thread.

Apologies for trying to correct the craziest misconseptions you have.

 

[Microblitz]

That's it....I'm bored now....Moving on...

 

[Cargobane]

Zeiman, this my thread and you are the one trolling. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

edd, you are confused thinking I'm confused. You're the one who used the Sun to describe what the early Universe was like. I was responding to you.
And now you are just making stuff up. No infinites or singularities with BH or BB??!! What breakthrough of science are you referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

A simple illustration of a non-spinning Black Hole and its singularity ... the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity.

Look at all the usage of infinite and singularity in there

 

[Cargobane]

And to further put this infinite point to rest, look at the extreme Gobbledygook on this page

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae649.cfm

[SIZE=-1]The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. This singularity contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe.

And just a few sentences later

[SIZE=-1]Black hole singularities are created after the core of a very massive star collapses beyond an imaginary sphere called the event horizon. Since these singularities are infinitesimally small, they possess infinite density.

So are these Physicists and Astronomers insane?[/SIZE] I think so, and you would agree.
[/SIZE]

 

[Surly_Badger]

So are these Physicists and Astronomers insane?[/SIZE] I think so, and you would agree.

I think they're speaking imprecisely. There should be "for all intents and purposes" or "nearly" scattered around in there rather liberally. I don't think anyone who understands black holes at all thinks they are an infinitesimally small point. They're small, but in cosmological terms "small" can be pretty much what you and I would call "huge" and asymptotes are not assumed to be equal to infinity - I suppose there are some high school students who slept through that class.

 

[Aquamonkey]

edd, you are confused thinking I'm confused. You're the one who used the Sun to describe what the early Universe was like. I was responding to you.

Because that's what the early universe was like. It was a hot, optically opaque plasma.

 

[Zieman]

Zeiman, this my thread and you are the one trolling. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Hmmm. Should I respond the way you favour and may understand?
LOLOLOLOL Gobbledygook!

Nah, that would be childish.

The idea that you're trolling your own thread is funny though.

But, by your response(s), it looks like you're serious.

You telling that

There was light, but it couldn't go far because the universe wasn't transparent - it was an optically thick plasma. Just like there's light inside the Sun, but you can't see that light - you only see the light emitted from the surface of the Sun.

"goes beyond Gobbledygook" just reveals your ignorance.

I'll try to explain it to you. Let's start with basics:

Common matter can exist in differend forms, referred as phases in physical sciences.
The phase of matter depends usually on ambient temperature, volume and pressure.
Phases familiar to all of us are solid, liquid and gas.
Plasma is referred as the fourth fundamental state of matter.

To put it very simply, a plasma is an ionized gas, a gas into which sufficient energy is provided to free electrons from atoms or molecules and to allow both species, ions and electrons, to coexist.

What plasma has got to do with the Sun?
Sun is basically a big ball of plasma. That plasma isn't transparent (especially at visible light waveleghts). Both the temperatures and magnetic field in the Sun give enough energy to ionize almost all of its mass.

So, Sun is a ball of plasma, what has that got to do with the early universe (younger than ~380000 years)?
The universe was all plasma before that time - it was so hot as to prevent atoms forming because all energy (matter, dark matter, dark energy) was contained in such a 'small' volume. As the volume (= the whole universe) expanded, it cooled enough to become less ionized and thus radiation could propagate.

Are you still with me?
The cosmic microwave background radiation is a snapshot of the instant when the universe became transparent, only stretched and cooled from high energy gamma rays to microwaves because of the expansion of the universe.

P.S
some info on matter, plasma & such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(matter)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)#Common_plasmas
http://education.jlab.org/qa/plasma_01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Photosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

 

[Cargobane]

So if the entire universe was pure plasma, contained in a sphere, how was it contained? Gravity? Or was this before Gravity existed as well? What was outside this sphere?

I don't think anyone who understands black holes at all thinks they are an infinitesimally small point.

Maybe NASA doesn't understand black holes either.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/ask_astro/black_holes.html

The Question
At the center of a black hole the singularity point has zero volume and infinite density. I know that the singularity is a point in space rather than an object with specific dimensions, but how is it possible for something to have zero volume and infinite density?
The Answer
This is indeed difficult to grasp. Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity. At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume. You might check out the web site for further information on black holes and singularities:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/rjn_bht.html.

God loves a Black Hole. He can do anything with it. To infinity and beyond.

 

[edd]

edd, you are confused thinking I'm confused. You're the one who used the Sun to describe what the early Universe was like. I was responding to you.
And now you are just making stuff up. No infinites or singularities with BH or BB??!! What breakthrough of science are you referring to?

I think Zieman and Aquamonkey have the Sun and early universe as a plasma thing covered nicely.

As for singularities and whether they actually exist or not - GR predicts gravitational singularities in certain circumstances. Black holes, and the Big Bang origin if it's a simple matter and/or radiation dominated universes. GR is not however a complete theory of the universe. There's every reason to think it's probably wrong especially on small length scales (and a black hole singularity is certainly on a small length scale). Some kind of quantum gravity may well smudge out the singularity and avoid infinities.

With the big bang, the theory is a collection of ideas describing varying parts of the early evolution of the universe. Most of these are pretty solid, and we're convinced of much of the evolution of the universe. The very first super early moments are not solid. Take a look at http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/26/which-parts-of-the-big-bang-theory-are-reliable/ - the bit where the classic GR singularity would be, if it happened at all, would be left of the red uncertain region in the first diagram. Way past highly speculative at best.

Also note the inclusion of inflation. Inflation is by no means certain, but a very promising looking idea for what may have happened very early on to fix several rather giant problems with classic big bang theories. It may or may not be true, but if it is, then very early on there was a phase of exponential expansion. Exponentially expanding universes can't be wound back to an initial singularity, and such inflation also has the property of basically wiping out any knowledge you might have of a previous state, so you can't tell what happened before it if there was a period before the exponential inflation that had a singularity, except perhaps in more circumstantial ways (which we don't yet have).

So noone knows if there was a singularity back then or not. Most people think there probably wasn't, but it's also very hard to test. It's absolutely not a fundamental part of the big bang theory as understood today.

It's not some new breakthrough of science. It's really more a result of an admission that we don't know what is going on completely, and that it almost certainly involved some weird stuff we don't understand yet, while still recognising that an awful lot of the ideas of the big bang are very solid indeed.

 

[Zieman]

So if the entire universe was pure plasma, contained in a sphere, how was it contained?

It was contained by the size of the universe. The universe was expanding really fast, it just hadn't had time to expand enough to not be too hot for anything than plasma before the age ~380000 years.

Gravity? Or was this before Gravity existed as well?

Gravity wasn't/isn't strong enough to stop/slow the expansion with the energy density/distribution of the universe.

What was outside this sphere?

Now that's a question! According to Big Bang Cosmology the question is moot, there was (is) no such thing as 'outside' - not even nothing is outside the universe.

 

[Cody]

According to Big Bang Cosmology the question is moot, there was (is) no such thing as 'outside' - not even nothing is outside the universe.

<scratches head> That brings to mind a crazy, drunken discussion way back when... it was quality brandy though!

 

[Cargobane]

Pure circular reasoning with conclusions based on preconceptions. Apparently not only can you not be swayed to question the BB/BH faith, you can't even agree with the mainstream concepts reflected in the references I've posted which support BB/BH. Well done.

Why bother having a BB/BH. What would happen, or be so bad if it was just a fantastic lack of understanding some nature beyond our reason. And really what's happening is not what we think at all. Uh?

The time when Newton explained Gravity with his work of absolute genius, was just a bit too early. Imagine what he would think of Electricity and it's by-product Magnetism, or even further into space-time with the Atom.