Big bangs create universes?

[JesterFace]

I'm not that familiar with theories about black holes so can someone with more knowledge say if this has been suggested before and if so, how many times.... =)

Maybe black holes create big bangs?
Maybe there's another universe on the other side of a black hole.
Black hole suck a massive amount of material into it and eventually it explodes on the other side, a big bang and new universe is created?
Black holes can suck up basically anything so there's a lot of different material to build a new universe out of.
That would make our universe a place on the other side of a black hole, somewhere.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

No.

 

[JesterFace]

No.

No for....
No, no one has ever suggested it?
No, it couldn't happen?
No, get a life.
No, don't try to be a scientiest.

 

[Santaman]

I assume TV means: "No, it doesn't work like that, read up on black holes and how they work."

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

There are lots of theories along those lines, although I have no idea how one would falsify any of them - so not really science from the point of view of Popperian epistemology. That's a common problem in cosmology anyway. We're a very long way off being able to recreate the energy densities in the early universe, which is perhaps a good thing.

 

[StarCruiser]

Yep, like ... how do you prove string theory? Build something like the LHC the size of the Milky Way...yeah...not happening.

TV was just being all Koshy-like:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Santaman]

There are lots of theories along those lines, although I have no idea how one would falsify any of them - so not really science from the point of view of Popperian epistemology. That's a common problem in cosmology anyway. We're a very long way off being able to recreate the energy densities in the early universe, which is perhaps a good thing.

Would be an incredible irony.. a mega advanced species trying to understand the origin of the universe and then create a big bang by accident.. don't think any insurance will cover that..

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

“All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.” ― J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan

 

[JesterFace]

I just noticed that the thread title is wrong, it's supposed to be "Black holes create universes?".
Big bangs do create them as far as we know.

 

[publiusr]

About that:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_cosmology

Guth thought you could make a universe in a lab
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/14/science/physicist-aims-to-create-a-universe-literally.html
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990NuPhB.339..417F/abstract

It would bud off its own space…a deist type deal…but no interaction thereafter.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

That article seems to be behind its own event horizon aka a paywall. One might claim to create a pocket universe, but if it's not observable in any fashion, it's literally metaphysical. That's a problem that we come up against more and more as we expand the bounds of what we try to understand. It's possibly related to computational irreducibility.

 

[XCV330]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Eric Lerner's theory that the big bang never happened, might have a little more credence with recent findings. I find the idea that "Big Bang Theory doesnt work anymore but let's keep it until we find a better one" a very poor counter argument.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I'm prepared to reserve judgment until JWST returns results about element abundances at high Z values. There should be relatively less of elements with atomic numbers hight than 3 (lithium) than exists currently. If the abundances are anomalous, that would suggest there's something wrong with the big bang model as only deuterium, helium and lithium should have been created from protons and neutrons between t = 10s and t = 1200s when the temperature and number density were high enough for thermonuclear fusion, but not so high as to result in immediate dissociation. There are reasonable doubts about systematic errors in the deduction of red shift and possibly incorrect initial mass functions being assumed. We also don't understand enough about dark matter to exclude its influence on early star and galaxy formation.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

No for....
No, no one has ever suggested it?
No, it couldn't happen?
No, get a life.
No, don't try to be a scientiest.

Sorry about being a tad to snippy before.

it‘s great that you ask questions, but they are seeped in unreasonable and uninformed assumptions.

If you want to get a good layman’s base knowledge about Black Holes, I can recommend reading Dr. Becky Smethurst‘s book „A Small History of Black Holes“
She is a phenomenal science communicator and astrophysicist specialized in black hole research and their role in galaxy formation.

the book is written in an understandable fashion without dumbing down the science.
It also approaches the topic wit a healthy amount of science history, so you understand where the current understanding and conclusions are coming from.
10/10 highly recommended.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I was a little surprised about her not immediately getting why the crew of the Rosinante on The Expanse feel the effects of acceleration to be like gravity when the ship is accelerating. That's the equivalence principle, which is the basis of general relativity.

Einstein also referred to two reference frames, K and K'. K is a uniform gravitational field, whereas K' has no gravitational field but is uniformly accelerated such that objects in the two frames experience identical forces:

We arrive at a very satisfactory interpretation of this law of experience, if we assume that the systems K and K' are physically exactly equivalent, that is, if we assume that we may just as well regard the system K as being in a space free from gravitational fields, if we then regard K as uniformly accelerated. This assumption of exact physical equivalence makes it impossible for us to speak of the absolute acceleration of the system of reference, just as the usual theory of relativity forbids us to talk of the absolute velocity of a system; and it makes the equal falling of all bodies in a gravitational field seem a matter of course.​

— Einstein, 1911​

This observation was the start of a process that culminated in general relativity. Einstein suggested that it should be elevated to the status of a general principle, which he called the "principle of equivalence" when constructing his theory of relativity:

As long as we restrict ourselves to purely mechanical processes in the realm where Newton's mechanics holds sway, we are certain of the equivalence of the systems K and K'. But this view of ours will not have any deeper significance unless the systems K and K' are equivalent with respect to all physical processes, that is, unless the laws of nature with respect to K are in entire agreement with those with respect to K'. By assuming this to be so, we arrive at a principle which, if it is really true, has great heuristic importance. For by theoretical consideration of processes which take place relatively to a system of reference with uniform acceleration, we obtain information as to the career of processes in a homogeneous gravitational field.​

— Einstein, 1911​

Equivalence principle - Wikipedia

Mind you, we all have brain farts, but she could have edited it out of the reaction video. Her actual science videos are good, though.