A BLACK HOLE IN BIG BANG
Posted by anthonynorth on April 15, 2008
Big Bang happened like this. Once upon a time there was a ‘singularity’ that contained everything that was. Suddenly it blew up, releasing fundamental particles that expanded to fill space.
Gravity came into being and particles came together into stars and planets. More complicated particles were ‘cooked’ in the stars, and were released through supernova, to form other heavenly bodies, and from them eventually came life.
The theory is neat and tidy.
It came out of the realization that the universe was expanding, and when background radiation was found, identified as residue of the Big Bang, the theory gained consensus.
Of course, there are massive problems with the theory. The ‘singularity’ is nothing but a mathematical point of infinity, with no physical validity, and the math of the theory means there is 90% of the matter and energy in the universe missing.
Exotic theories come and go to account for this lack of universal weight.
Dark matter and dark energy are among them. Then there is the search for ‘mass’ in massless particles. It doesn’t occur to science that the theory may be wrong.
Previous to Big Bang was the Steady State theory. Here, matter was continually created, the universe renewing itself. But as no means was known how it did this, it was rejected for Big Bang, even though no one knows how it did this.
Big Bang fits western philosophy.
In the east, everything is cyclical, renewing itself, whilst in the west, we are linear. Things must move from a beginning to an end. Hence, it follows that the universe must also have history with a beginning and an end.
Is this philosophical mind-set the main reason we prefer Big Bang over Steady State? After all, neither can be proved. Of course, the argument is that background radiation seals it. But in other areas of science, it is accepted that nothing can have only one answer.
It seems to me that Big Bang theory has got itself in a steady state.
And maybe it’s time to look again at Steady State itself. For instance, is it still true that there is no conceivable ‘mechanism’ whereby matter can be continually created?
I don’t think it is. For years now I’ve been thinking about Black Holes, the supposed residue of collapsed stars, with a gravitational pull so powerful that everything that approaches them is sucked in.
Where does all this matter and energy go?
Science is scratching its head, trying to decide. Theories suggest that if you went through a Black Hole and survived, you’d resurface somewhere in the universe.
Isn’t this a ‘recycling’ of matter back into the universe itself? It seems to me that the black hole is a perfect mechanism to give Steady State greater validity than Big Bang. Maybe physicists should be looking at a possible way the system could still provide expansion, and background radiation, within a forever reincarnating universe.
© Anthony North, April 2008
BEYOND THE BLOG 
JTR3 said
Fred Hoyle and Halton Arp come to mind, both astrophysicists, who dare question the validity of the Black Hole theory. MSS (main stream science) has now labeled them as ‘maverick’ researchers; they have been limited to the amount of time they can spend at certain observatories. My heroes are those who question established ideas.
JTR3 said
Sorry- that should be Big Bang Theory, not black hole theory. I was distracted…
Brian said
Personally, I believe that the Universe was created by accident. The turtle caught a cold, sneezed, and suddenly there was matter everywhere.
Either that, or the Universe is simply a Van Gough painting on a really, really big canvas. 🙂
anthonynorth said
Hi JTR3,
As I recall it, Hoyle was one of the main proponents of Steady State Theory, and when Big Bang began to gain primacy, it was Hoyle who named it Big Bang as a form of ridicule. Even the name is therefore a joke 🙂
Hi Brian,
That snot funny 🙂
Well, it is actually. Your final comment isn’t too far from an idea of mine. I’ve written about it years ago, and it’s on my list of posts to do, giving it a new interpretation.
Basically, are telescopes recording a reality in deep space, or reflecting our own ideas of what we expect to see out there?
Kind of like artist’s brushes.
Brian said
Since reality doesn’t exist until it is observed and what we observe is based on the reality we expect… then the turtle in the telescope is dismissed as being the result of too much beer.
anthonynorth said
Hi Brian,
This is quite possibly the truth, but unknown by the general public because none of the physicists can say Quantum Turtlomics when drunk.
Brian said
Well dat’s too bad then…hic… scuse me, where’s the bathroom?
anthonynorth said
Hi Brian,
Talking of drink, you may like the poem on this post:
Just One More
jan doble said
thank you so much for your kind comment on my poem. i appreciate it!
anthonynorth said
Hi Jan,
You’re welcome.
whypaisley said
i could not read this without thinking of how very self centered we are as “modern civilized human beings” to think that we have control over the “big picture” when it comes to the evolution of life in the infrastructure we have come to know as our home…. who are we to say,, that everything is not going exactly according to plan,, and there is a species more deserving of life just waiting in the wings for the next big bang… so that it can indeed come into power as the supreme being??????
after all… we were that species at some point in time… were we not????
food for thought…..
anthonynorth said
Hi Paisley,
Indeed, we were. My thoughts on this are simple, really. One of the major things that makes us human is our curiosity – our need to know. And it is thus inevitable that we will try to place ideas upon the universe.
The problem comes when we are so arrogant that we think we’ve got it right. The reality is, I suppose, we NEED to devise knowledge to make us feel better – give us a means of understanding in our terms – take away the fears.
Ankit Gupta said
In 1999 I also thought of the same thing but in a different manner. My point is that.. may be when all the matter and energy in this universe got sucked up in a super massive black hole ( like the one NASA has just discovered), there would have been a time when this super massive black whole could not shrunk more and ultimately the internal temperature and energy overcame the super gravitational pull. It may have resulted in the BIG BANG. It is just my idea. I am not sure whether this is technical possibility or not.. still cannot completely rule it out.
What do you say people?
anthonynorth said
Hi Ankit Gupta,
An interesting proposition. I’m not sure whether the physics could work, but neither are most physicists on anything from the ‘fringe’.
What we would end up with here, is a constant form of ‘serial creation’, or, for eastern tastes, again the reincarnated universe.
Thanks for your thoughts.
W. Scott said
You close on the note: “Theories suggest that if you went through a Black Hole and survived, you’d resurface somewhere in the universe.
Isn’t this a ‘recycling’ of matter back into the universe itself?”
Whoa there. What actual “theories” are you referencing here? The “Star Trek” theory? A black hole is NOT a tunnel, and is a distinctly different phenomenon than the mathematically proposed “wormhole.” And we’re not talking about the “recycling” of matter, we’re talking about the GENERATION of NEW MATTER. The universe is a closed system, and the second law of thermodynamics insists that in a closed system, available energy must always decrease and never increase.
Therefore, if the universe is a closed system, then it cannot support a “steady state.” And if it’s not a closed system, then there can be no “steady state.”
A black hole is nothing more than a gravity well with an escape velocity greater than C, from which NO matter or energy escapes (with the exception of tiny amounts of Hawking Radiation, but that’s a minor quantum exception.) Stuff that falls into a black hole DOES NOT pop out somewhere in the Delta Quadrant–it gets crushed into the infinitely dense core of the singularity. There’s no “passing through.” Matter and energy check-in, but they don’t check out.
Big Bang theory’s only real problem is that when you wind the clock back to the instant immediately following the explosion, the physical laws which govern spacetime as we know it didn’t yet exist, so the theory can’t adequately describe what it was that exploded, why it exploded, and why it chose that particular moment to do so. However, Einstein and Neils Bohr are not the only ones weighing-in on the subject. Stephen Hawking is siding with Edward Whitten’s no-boundary M-Theory Cosmology, which not only works out nicely in what it specifically describes about the big bang, but also works all the way back to and before the moment of the big bang. Whitten proposes p-brane collisions as the engine of cosmological genesis, and the argument is compelling.
The real problem with Steady-State theory isn’t just the background radiation… it’s that in whichever direction we look, most of the matter in the universe is still moving away from us, meaning that the fabric of spacetime is still expanding. The problem of “the missing matter” which dark-matter and dark-energy theorists attempt to answer with their speculations about exotic substances and energies is not as entirely puzzling as we’re led to believe. It is only possible for us to see out to a distance of 13.7 Billion light years because energy radiated by anything further away would have had to travel faster than light to reach us. But because spacetime is curved, it’s entirely possible that there is a whole lot of stuff further away than 13.7 Billion light years which would fill-up that side of the equation. It’s not completely reasonable to assume that the distribution of matter must be uniform. In fact, it is only an “educated guess” in the Big Bang Theory which says the distribution should be relatively uniform, but without having any way to be certain of the actual distribution of high-energy particles between 10^-43 and 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang, (when the four fundamental forces were presumably unified as a single force) then we can only guess as to the density of distant regions which cannot be observed post-expansion.
I understand your general misgivings about Big Bang Theory as it was originally formulated, but we’ve had a lot of time to refine it, and it succeeded in making accurate predictions which Steady State theory failed to do. Okay, ask the tough questions about Big Bang Theory, but you’re venturing into seriously murky waters when you suggest that because it is not absolutely perfect, we should wholly discard it and return to a theory which has been considered “discredited” since 1978.
anthonynorth said
Hi W Scott,
I didn’t say anything about discarding Big Bang. I suggested we re-consider Steady State – a totally different thing. You’re seeming to talk with great authority, in absolute terms, about things that are, as yet, unproveable.
This always worries me. We cannot say, as yet, whether the universe is, or is not, a closed system, nor what it implies by being, or not being, either.
Our knowledge of Black Holes is so rudimentary, we cannot even be sure they exist. But if they do, and they suck things in, we cannot say a definite as to what happens to it. Are you telling me that there has never been hypotheses of that matter/energy having a destination?
You speak of matter and energy existing but us not yet being able to see far enough into the universe to see it. There be dragons out there!
I suppose in many ways this essay is not so much about Big Bang or Steady State, but what we can, and cannot, know. And with so much that we cannot know, it is too closed-minded to consider Big Bang alone.
Kevin G said
I think it’s a big red flag when black holes are discussed as “singularities” with no size or shape, which seems to be purely a mathematical construct and not rooted in any possible reality. I think what are called black holes must be something like an oblate spheroid, or perhaps even a ring- a very dense spinning object with a real size, shape and mass. Sorry if that violates the theoretical mathematical explanations that have been postulated. Then the “event horizon”, once again a mathematical construct, is postulated as something from which nothing can escape. Er, except for Hawking radiation. Oh, and also those massive relativistic jets we observe shooting out across vast reaches of space from each end of these “black holes. Except, somehow, those jets are considered to not be escaping from the black holes? Hello! Something IS escaping, quite obviously! Quite a lot of something, for that matter. Black Hole theory has been quite obvioiusly led astray by these misleading mathematical constructs. Now don’t even get me started on the “Big Bang” and the biggest whopper of all- inflation theory.
anthonynorth said
Hi Kevin G,
Enjoyed that rant 🙂
I do so agree with much of it!
mrepoet said
W. Scott may have the science right. anthonynorth may have the philosophy right.
Einstein said – “Imagination is more important than knowledge” –
Science requires imagination to move forward.
I am by no means an astrophysicist but I am familiar with the story of how M-theory and the concept of a multiverse gained popularity to explain how the ‘singularity’ led to the big bang. It took a couple of brilliant minds to just talk together casually and imagine how it could happen, but then they had a lot of work to do to support it (along with some serendipity supplied by a contemporary scientist). Forgive if I can’t recall the scientists names involved you can do your own research or I’m sure someone else can do the leg work for me … that isn’t really the point of my comment. My point – there’s no end to the rabbit hole. It doesn’t really ‘matter’ if the universe is in a steady state or if there was a big bang or if multiverses exist. It is important that we continue to use our imaginations, it gives us something to do.
Knowledge is there when our imagination requires it.
anthonynorth said
Hi Mrepoet,
You’re a born diplomat 🙂
Yes, I agree with what you say here. I’m certainly not a scientist, but I do know that the boundaries must always be pushed, awkward questions always asked, and ideas reworked to see if something was missed before.
Sadly I don’t see much of this attitude in science today – which is my central point.
Vince Johnson said
Consider the possibility that black holes are latent “time bombs” due to general relativity effects. Giant voids that have been detected could be indicators of black holes whose “timers” (based on mass) have run out and exploded.
From the black holes’ time reference, the collapse and explosion is instantaneous. From an external observer’s reference, the process takes billions of years.
anthonynorth said
Hi Vince,
I’ve never heard that one before! I haven’t a clue whether any physics would fit, but one thing I do know – in the present scientific climate, you’d never find out.
I sometimes think science should have a system similar to the Catholics. If the Cardinals take too long electing a new pope, they’re locked in.
A similar thing should happen with ideas on the fringe of the fringe, giving them an imperative to work out some sort of system whereby it might work.
I can guarantee you, such a system COULD be found! I say this because much of fringe physics is speculative, so the mind can always grasp something from it.
Of course, it doesn’t mean it’s right, but one day such a fringe idea may well provide a definitive answer – and an answer that could not be found today because most physicists ridicule anything against the consensus.
Gerard said
I have a short paper on astronomy laymen view to long to put here if anthony north would like to read send me a response to rasheeve@gmail.com
GLENDA said
AT LEAST THERE IS ONE POINT THAT MOST CAN AGREE…….. BLACK HOLES EXIST….
anthonynorth said
Hi Glenda,
True, even though none have actually been seen.
Angela said
Just saw an interesting interpretation of this very thing by this guy Nassim Haramein, check out http://www.theresonanceproject.org. His DVD blew my mind, talking about just this – the missing dark matter, the theory that black holes also emit energy as white holes, it spins around in a double torus shape via the pull of gravitation vs. electromagnetism, and is sucked back in again on the other side’s white hole, – and this as the basic construct of everything from galaxies to atoms, to spacetime itself. Pretty wild stuff.
anthonynorth said
Hi Angela,
Thanks for that. The subject is fascinating and has infinite variations. Unfortunately, a consensus grows of how our scientists think things work, and nothing can be allowed to rock the boat.
It’s wrong. There should be a much richer culture of checking out more angles, more ideas.
Cartern Denice said
Well I believe that WE are actually in a black hole right now , and basically everything that’s in a blackhole is something that looks like our universe , it contains , gravity , magnetic fields , and everything else , and i believe the thing that holds a black hole together is radiation it’s like the core of a black hole (like the core in EARTH full of magma and such) and it eventually explodes creating our universe.
other black holes we see are portals to other universes and dimensions etc….IDK this is something that I find more believable than the big bang theory.
anthonynorth said
Hi Cartern Denice,
Thanks for that. Certainly an interesting idea.
red pill junkie said
If there are black holes… those that mean that there could also be white holes out there?
anthonynorth said
Hi Red,
See cmt #26 above. We’ve got it covered here 🙂
at0m said
Hi,
Just a personal thought idea, let it inspire you: As opposed to the expansion – what if matter were shrinking as the (visible?) universe cools down to zero degrees Kelvin? Distances would appear to grow larger, speeds would decrease, explaining the redshift at larger distances.
Unfortunately the maths involved are so complex, only teams of the world’s best are capable of combining observations with calculations as to come up with any sensible theory.
Anyways, the future looks bright, I’m putting high hopes in the new LHC: finally we’ll get the chance to test M-theory to observations!
anthonynorth said
Hi AtOm,
There have been theories before regarding the universe shrinking. As for the new collider, I always suspect that such atom smashers, remembering the role of consciousness in observation, allow scientists to see what they want to see.
Don Bull said
All I can find on this thread is a lot of nonsense about Big Bang, Black holes, dark matter etc etc all of which are unexplainable other than in abstruse mathematical theories but which seem to be regarded as fact by many serious scientists and also by the media informing a gullible public.
Why no mention of The Electric Universe model which now has a huge following of scientists and has been growing in strength over the last thirty years in spite of no public funding?
The Electric Universe Model gives a coherent description of the universe using plasma cosmology and proves the utter nonsense of the views of “conventional” astronomers who deny the existence of electricity in the universe. The EU is based more on observations and experiment than on abstract theory.
An excellent starting point for anyone wishing to find out more is to try http://www.thunderbolts.info/
Don
Linda Gerber said
Mr. North- Thanks for the link to this article.
I agree with your opinions regarding the “big bang”. I am intrigued by the notion that a black hole is possibly a worm hole- regurgitating matter into ??what??
My thought is possibly another universe. If the matter from the black hole were spewed out & back in to our universe, wouldn’t astronomers be able to pick up the matter as it arrives at the new destination?
Keep up the good works- I like your philosophy.
And best regards…
anthonynorth said
Hi Linda,
Thanks for that. Glad you like it, and hopefully I’ll continue to keep you interested.
chelsea said
I think this is wrong what you are doing just leave the world how it is no one really cares about how the world was made bar the scientist im a 15 year old girl and i dont really want to die at this age……..you are making people scared and i know one girl that want even come out of her house if you going to do things like this you shouldnt say anything because of the way you are making people scared.
im so scared noone would understand
chelsea said
I think this is wrong what you are doing just leave the world how it is no one really cares about how the world was made bar the scientist im a 15 year old girl and i dont really want to die at this age……..you are making people scared and i know one girl that want even come out of her house if you going to do things like this you shouldnt say anything because of the way you are making people scared.
athensboy said
I will add a “second that” to what Don Bull says in Reply #34. I think the Thunderbolts may be on to something big… and sensible.
anthonynorth said
Hi Athensboy,
Thanks for the comment.
Ryan Cowling said
“Fred Hoyle and Halton Arp”
The problem with steady state theories is how do you explain red shift?
Ryan Cowling said
“I think it’s a big red flag when black holes are discussed as “singularities” with no size or shape, which seems to be purely a mathematical construct and not rooted in any possible reality. I think what are called black holes must be something like an oblate spheroid, or perhaps even a ring- a very dense spinning object with a real size, shape and mass. Sorry if that violates the theoretical mathematical explanations that have been postulated.”
I agree with Kevin G here, and Mr N. Singularities in black hole models are the point where relativity theory breaks down. The model is not a good approximation. String theory appears to resolve this inadequacy.
“Then the “event horizon”, once again a mathematical construct, is postulated as something from which nothing can escape. Er, except for Hawking radiation. Oh, and also those massive relativistic jets we observe shooting out across vast reaches of space from each end of these “black holes. Except, somehow, those jets are considered to not be escaping from the black holes? Hello! Something IS escaping, quite obviously! Quite a lot of something, for that matter.”
There have been interesting models proposed that show a huge magnetic field developing around the accretion disk of matter around the black hole. These may explain why we see these massive polar jets.
“Black Hole theory has been quite obvioiusly led astray by these misleading mathematical constructs. Now don’t even get me started on the “Big Bang” and the biggest whopper of all- inflation theory.”
Quite obviously black hole models are not good approximations. Likewise inflation theory. We can only hope for better theories as cosmologists get better data from astronomical observations:).
anthonynorth said
Hi Ryan,
I’m not saying Big Bang is wrong, but as I see it, not enough research is being done in Steady State theories to even attempt an answer to your question. It is easy to ask such questions when the culture of science automatically disarms a person from research that could suggest an answer.
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
This person is showing some of the greatest disrespect I have ever seen, coming to another person’s site and attempting to dominate through a theoretical understanding of knowledge, this shows a significant misunderstanding of the true nature of knowledge.
I am disgusted. I know that you can’t say that, but I will.
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
This is uncharacteristic of you. Are you ok?
Ryan Cowling said
“not enough research is being done in Steady State theories to even attempt an answer to your question.”
I agree that a consensus has developed in cosmology that actively stops research on steady state theories like the electric universe. Cosmologists should realise that the data they deal with can have various interpretations, and they should not denounce alternative theories without first checking out like they would their own theories.
“This person is showing some of the greatest disrespect I have ever seen, coming to another person’s site and attempting to dominate through a theoretical understanding of knowledge, this shows a significant misunderstanding of the true nature of knowledge.
I am disgusted. I know that you can’t say that, but I will.”
If you mean me, I can assure you that I am not here to dominate Mr N’s site, and even if I disagree with Mr N at times, I mean no offence. I find Mr N and most of the people that post on this site intellectually stimulating. The true nature of knowledge is that it is based on models of the universe. Can I not discuss models that I have enjoyed reading about, or that I specifically like without raising Chris’s ire?
anthonynorth said
Hi Ryan,
Yes, when I disagree with that general word ‘science’ it is nearly always the consensus that forms around it – although you will find some provisos to this startement on my blog 🙂
As for Chris, I don’t know what’s happening here. He has been a regular friend on this blog for a very long time, and has always joined in openly with debates, and often with excellent humour.
That comment IS unacceptable, but in light of what I’ve just said, can I ask you to be patient a while.
Ryan Cowling said
“That comment IS unacceptable, but in light of what I’ve just said, can I ask you to be patient a while.”
I have had much worse comments directed my way by hypersceptics. I hope that Chris doesn’t think I’m some type of Bond villain, attempting to annex your website for my own Machiavellian ends.
I’m just here because it is fun to talk to someone with ideas that are stimulating to my jaded brain.:)
anthonynorth said
Hi Ryan,
And there’s a lot to talk about here, I hope. Have you found my Y Files list yet? Click THE UNEXPLAINED on strip below title and you’ll find a link. Also, THINKER’S CORNER takes you to a crammed MYSTERIES page.
Ryan Cowling said
“Have you found my Y Files list yet? Click THE UNEXPLAINED on strip below title and you’ll find a link. Also, THINKER’S CORNER takes you to a crammed MYSTERIES page.2
Yes.I’ve extended my insideous tendrils into your website even further and soon you will be totally under my control BWA HA HA HA!
😉
anthonynorth said
Hi Ryan,
You’d better begin with the essays on demons and possession, then 😉
WHAT’S REASON? « BEYOND THE BLOG said
[…] A Black Hole In Big Bang […]
Linda G said
Hi Anthony,
Revisited this page via a link from your current page. Being that you are now writing shorter pieces & I really enjoy your longer works- I will soon have to dive in & explore your “big blog”.
Like the universe I am sure there is much more to it than meets the eye. 😉
Hope when I do that I will be able to leave comments. The exchange of ideas is what makes your blog a ‘shorcut on my desktop’. A recently restored one at that.
I think the comment I left on this page is the first time I ever visited your site- as a link from ‘unexplained mysteries’.
anthonynorth said
Hi Linda,
Thanks for that. I never close a comment thread, so anyone can still debate on any of the subjects. I’ve taken the decision to move to shorter pieces for two main reasons: first, I think this is very much the future of communication and literature in the mass info world; and second, after two years of weekly – sometimes twice weekly – essays, I feel I need a break from them. Hope you understand.
As a hint, the real meaty stuff can be accessed from THINKERS CORNER on the top strip of the blog.
Linda G said
Hi Anthony,
Thanks for an authors recommended reading list. I now have a ‘thinkers corner’ shortcut also.
I do agree shorter info pieces are the way to go – most people’s lives are ‘over booked’ these days. So they must use their free time wisely. I guess I’m a bit old-fashioned that way.
But I do share your philosophical views & will keep coming back for more reading of your articles.
After I finish my tax returns tho- I am a big procrastinator & my computer meltdown has shown me the folly of my bad habits- at least one of them. 🙂
anthonynorth said
Hi Linda,
Good luck with that 🙂
Yes, I’m trying to write these short pieces whilst maintaining something to think about. Hopefully it will catch on in the new mass-media world.
Graham Priestley said
“Why no mention of The Electric Universe model which now has a huge following of scientists and has been growing in strength over the last thirty years in spite of no public funding?
The Electric Universe Model gives a coherent description of the universe using plasma cosmology and proves the utter nonsense of the views of “conventional” astronomers who deny the existence of electricity in the universe. The EU is based more on observations and experiment than on abstract theory.”
Don Bull is in error. The electric universe theory isn’t growing in strength. Real astronomers and plasma physicists have utterly destroyed the ideas put forward by these neoVelikovskyans.”Conventional” astronomers are the ones who actually do observation and measurement and don’t believe that the Earth once revolved around the planet Saturn.” Conventional” astronomers actually study astronomy and are required to be knowledgeable on their subject unlike the fantasists of the thunderblogs website.
anthonynorth said
Hi Graham,
I take it that’s a ‘no’ then.
dave headcleaner said
ok – this is from a philosophical stand point – not based on maths, an idea that maybe maths could prove. ive always wondered whether black holes are all actually the big bang, that their points of infinite mass/energy are one and the same. all the energy in the universe is looping round continually to the beginning – at least the beginning as we see it from a linear point of view. this is both a steady state and a big bang.