Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theory on the beginning of the universe

Chloe8
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 4:13:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?

Its not a crazy thought, or unique.

http://www.space.com...
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 4:44:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 4:13:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?

Its not a crazy thought, or unique.

http://www.space.com...

Until fairly recently there was a theory that gravitation would eventually cause the universe to contract back in a 'big crunch.' Black holes have massive gravity, and the thought was that they would suck up all the mass, collapse into eachother - and the universe would be crushed into the singularity from which it sprung. However, more accurate measurements have revealed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - not slowing - so the 'big crunch' looks increasingly unlikely.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 5:29:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 5:27:31 PM, famousdebater wrote:
The Big Bang.

Did you even read the OP?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 5:32:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 5:29:11 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/12/2016 5:27:31 PM, famousdebater wrote:
The Big Bang.

Did you even read the OP?

That's weird. Ignore that post. I just typed out a paragraph on it and it only posted the first part of the sentence. My phone is massively glitchy. Sorry about that.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 5:37:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Ignore my first post that was a glitch.

I doubt that your theory is correct. The Big Bang requires quantum fluctuations to cause instability in energy in comparison to the rest of the universe in order to create a release of matter, gravity, energy and time. That cannot be replicated.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Chloe8
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 8:16:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 4:44:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:13:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?

Its not a crazy thought, or unique.

http://www.space.com...

Until fairly recently there was a theory that gravitation would eventually cause the universe to contract back in a 'big crunch.' Black holes have massive gravity, and the thought was that they would suck up all the mass, collapse into eachother - and the universe would be crushed into the singularity from which it sprung. However, more accurate measurements have revealed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - not slowing - so the 'big crunch' looks increasingly unlikely.

Yes I've heard of the big crunch theory. However I'm suggesting universes being created in big bang like events inside super massive black holes not the entire universe contracting into a big crunch.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 8:21:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 8:16:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:44:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:13:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?

Its not a crazy thought, or unique.

http://www.space.com...

Until fairly recently there was a theory that gravitation would eventually cause the universe to contract back in a 'big crunch.' Black holes have massive gravity, and the thought was that they would suck up all the mass, collapse into eachother - and the universe would be crushed into the singularity from which it sprung. However, more accurate measurements have revealed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - not slowing - so the 'big crunch' looks increasingly unlikely.

Yes I've heard of the big crunch theory. However I'm suggesting universes being created in big bang like events inside super massive black holes not the entire universe contracting into a big crunch.

I have a book (somewhere) titled "White Holes" by John Gribbin (1977) which discussed this very subject, been years since I looked into this myself.

Harry.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 9:56:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 8:16:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:44:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:13:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?

Its not a crazy thought, or unique.

http://www.space.com...

Until fairly recently there was a theory that gravitation would eventually cause the universe to contract back in a 'big crunch.' Black holes have massive gravity, and the thought was that they would suck up all the mass, collapse into eachother - and the universe would be crushed into the singularity from which it sprung. However, more accurate measurements have revealed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - not slowing - so the 'big crunch' looks increasingly unlikely.

Yes I've heard of the big crunch theory. However I'm suggesting universes being created in big bang like events inside super massive black holes not the entire universe contracting into a big crunch.

What caused the first black hole that created the first universe? Where did the mass and energy come from?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 10:04:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 9:56:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/12/2016 8:16:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:44:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:13:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?

Its not a crazy thought, or unique.

http://www.space.com...

Until fairly recently there was a theory that gravitation would eventually cause the universe to contract back in a 'big crunch.' Black holes have massive gravity, and the thought was that they would suck up all the mass, collapse into eachother - and the universe would be crushed into the singularity from which it sprung. However, more accurate measurements have revealed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - not slowing - so the 'big crunch' looks increasingly unlikely.

Yes I've heard of the big crunch theory. However I'm suggesting universes being created in big bang like events inside super massive black holes not the entire universe contracting into a big crunch.

What caused the first black hole that created the first universe? Where did the mass and energy come from?

I have no idea but most likely it would be something that has gone on for eternity.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 11:08:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 9:56:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/12/2016 8:16:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:44:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:13:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?

Its not a crazy thought, or unique.

http://www.space.com...

Until fairly recently there was a theory that gravitation would eventually cause the universe to contract back in a 'big crunch.' Black holes have massive gravity, and the thought was that they would suck up all the mass, collapse into eachother - and the universe would be crushed into the singularity from which it sprung. However, more accurate measurements have revealed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - not slowing - so the 'big crunch' looks increasingly unlikely.

Yes I've heard of the big crunch theory. However I'm suggesting universes being created in big bang like events inside super massive black holes not the entire universe contracting into a big crunch.

What caused the first black hole that created the first universe? Where did the mass and energy come from?

Mr. nothing came along from a place called nowhere and said "let everything just exist" and it did and Mr. nothing said "let there be laws" and there were laws. And Mr. nothing said " 'let the nothingness bring forth something' and the laws came to be and brought forth quarks and fields".

This is the story of creation as espoused by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Atkins and Krauss, this story is revered by many in these forums.

Harry.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 11:10:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 11:08:09 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 9:56:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/12/2016 8:16:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:44:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:13:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?

Its not a crazy thought, or unique.

http://www.space.com...

Until fairly recently there was a theory that gravitation would eventually cause the universe to contract back in a 'big crunch.' Black holes have massive gravity, and the thought was that they would suck up all the mass, collapse into eachother - and the universe would be crushed into the singularity from which it sprung. However, more accurate measurements have revealed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - not slowing - so the 'big crunch' looks increasingly unlikely.

Yes I've heard of the big crunch theory. However I'm suggesting universes being created in big bang like events inside super massive black holes not the entire universe contracting into a big crunch.

What caused the first black hole that created the first universe? Where did the mass and energy come from?

Mr. nothing came along from a place called nowhere and said "let everything just exist" and it did and Mr. nothing said "let there be laws" and there were laws. And Mr. nothing said " 'let the nothingness bring forth something' and the laws came to be and brought forth quarks and fields".

This is the story of creation as espoused by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Atkins and Krauss, this story is revered by many in these forums.

Harry.

Yes, pretty silly isn't it?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 12:00:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 11:10:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/12/2016 11:08:09 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 9:56:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/12/2016 8:16:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:44:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:13:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?

Its not a crazy thought, or unique.

http://www.space.com...

Until fairly recently there was a theory that gravitation would eventually cause the universe to contract back in a 'big crunch.' Black holes have massive gravity, and the thought was that they would suck up all the mass, collapse into eachother - and the universe would be crushed into the singularity from which it sprung. However, more accurate measurements have revealed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - not slowing - so the 'big crunch' looks increasingly unlikely.

Yes I've heard of the big crunch theory. However I'm suggesting universes being created in big bang like events inside super massive black holes not the entire universe contracting into a big crunch.

What caused the first black hole that created the first universe? Where did the mass and energy come from?

Mr. nothing came along from a place called nowhere and said "let everything just exist" and it did and Mr. nothing said "let there be laws" and there were laws. And Mr. nothing said " 'let the nothingness bring forth something' and the laws came to be and brought forth quarks and fields".

This is the story of creation as espoused by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Atkins and Krauss, this story is revered by many in these forums.

Harry.

Yes, pretty silly isn't it?

In a way yes, mainly because this "explanation" is elevated by the elite as somehow superior to alternatives.

There are - as I'm sure you've noticed - many here who place their faith in empiricism and the scientific method - without recognizing that they're exercising faith.

All of science rests upon axioms - assumptions - and so nothing they consider as proof is any more sound than any other conclusions which rest on assumption.

Harry.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 3:58:14 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 5:37:47 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Ignore my first post that was a glitch.

I doubt that your theory is correct. The Big Bang requires quantum fluctuations to cause instability in energy in comparison to the rest of the universe in order to create a release of matter, gravity, energy and time. That cannot be replicated.

(a) The Big Bang isn't even the "creation of the universe." The Big Bang is a cosmological model that traces the expansion of the universe.

(b) Why does it require "quantum fluctuations"? Can you please explain that?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 4:34:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 12:00:18 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 11:10:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/12/2016 11:08:09 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 9:56:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/12/2016 8:16:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:44:32 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:13:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?

Its not a crazy thought, or unique.

http://www.space.com...

Until fairly recently there was a theory that gravitation would eventually cause the universe to contract back in a 'big crunch.' Black holes have massive gravity, and the thought was that they would suck up all the mass, collapse into eachother - and the universe would be crushed into the singularity from which it sprung. However, more accurate measurements have revealed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - not slowing - so the 'big crunch' looks increasingly unlikely.

Yes I've heard of the big crunch theory. However I'm suggesting universes being created in big bang like events inside super massive black holes not the entire universe contracting into a big crunch.

What caused the first black hole that created the first universe? Where did the mass and energy come from?

Mr. nothing came along from a place called nowhere and said "let everything just exist" and it did and Mr. nothing said "let there be laws" and there were laws. And Mr. nothing said " 'let the nothingness bring forth something' and the laws came to be and brought forth quarks and fields".

This is the story of creation as espoused by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Atkins and Krauss, this story is revered by many in these forums.

Harry.

Yes, pretty silly isn't it?

In a way yes, mainly because this "explanation" is elevated by the elite as somehow superior to alternatives.


Replace "elite" by "evidence" and you've got it.

There are - as I'm sure you've noticed - many here who place their faith in empiricism and the scientific method - without recognizing that they're exercising faith.


And those who make esoteric philosophical arguments such as yours, in an effort to paint science as just as faith-based as religion, don't recognize that there are massive differences in degrees of faith. It takes a tiny leap of faith to believe that empiricism will continue to provide reliable results. In fact, I can't think of anything that requires a smaller leap of faith, except perhaps faith that our senses provide mostly reliable information about reality. Contrast that to the huge leap of faith required to believe religious claims.

Arguments against empiricism ultimately fail because, in the end, they amount to arguments against reason. And one cannot argue against reason without sounding circular or irrational.

All of science rests upon axioms - assumptions - and so nothing they consider as proof is any more sound than any other conclusions which rest on assumption.


No one seriously lives their life without accepting the axioms of science. You can assume that there is no reason to believe that the laws of nature in Chicago are the same as they are in London, but good luck living your life that way, or making any sense of the world.
Nivek
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 6:07:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 11:08:09 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
This is the story of creation as espoused by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Atkins and Krauss, this story is revered by many in these forums.

Harry.

This is false. You're ignoring the whole literature behind it. Ptolemy and Aristotle believed that the Earth was at the center of the Universe while Copernicus believed that the Sun was the center. The distinction matters because both sides went on to absurd lengths claiming that their system was in fact at the center of everything and that the fixed stars were all centering around them, all for the sake of "Aether" which supposedly should exist in the center of the earth as proof of all matter fixating on our system. Almost all of the pre-modern scientists believed that the fixed stars did not move, and it spans all the way back to Al-Sufi.

Of course, everything is false ever since we manage to prove that the "fixed stars" were moving according to it's gravity. How did you come across the idea that Dawkins & Krauss manipulated science?
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:20:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 3:58:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/12/2016 5:37:47 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Ignore my first post that was a glitch.

I doubt that your theory is correct. The Big Bang requires quantum fluctuations to cause instability in energy in comparison to the rest of the universe in order to create a release of matter, gravity, energy and time. That cannot be replicated.

(a) The Big Bang isn't even the "creation of the universe." The Big Bang is a cosmological model that traces the expansion of the universe.

You're technically correct but wrong in some ways too. The current model of the Big Bang states that before the Big Bang there was no time, matter, Gravity, energy, etc (ie quantum fluctuations). Meaning that the universe was virtually non existent prior to be Big Bang.

(b) Why does it require "quantum fluctuations"? Can you please explain that?

I'll respond to this after school remind me if I forget.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:49:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:20:20 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/13/2016 3:58:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/12/2016 5:37:47 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Ignore my first post that was a glitch.

I doubt that your theory is correct. The Big Bang requires quantum fluctuations to cause instability in energy in comparison to the rest of the universe in order to create a release of matter, gravity, energy and time. That cannot be replicated.

(a) The Big Bang isn't even the "creation of the universe." The Big Bang is a cosmological model that traces the expansion of the universe.

You're technically correct but wrong in some ways too. The current model of the Big Bang states that before the Big Bang there was no time, matter, Gravity, energy, etc (ie quantum fluctuations). Meaning that the universe was virtually non existent prior to be Big Bang.

You're wrong that the Big Bang is an event. The universe was non-existent prior to the initial hyperinflation, which is often (incorrectly) referred to as "the Big Bang." The Big Bang is a cosmological model, not an event.


(b) Why does it require "quantum fluctuations"? Can you please explain that?

I'll respond to this after school remind me if I forget.

Okay.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:18:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 2:47:37 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I'm no scientist but from all accounts the big bang was an explosion of a lot of mass from a small space. I'm wondering if this mass was actually an enormous black hole in a previous universe, or the universe as we know it is actually only part of an even bigger universe that this super massive black hole was part of. My theory is Maybe if a black hole reaches a certain mass a big bang like event occurs.

I've literally just thought of that theory in the last five minutes and don't claim its credible or correct so i apologize if science clearly disproves it.

Does anyone think it could be possible?

It's not a new idea as others have pointed out. In my view it has some major flaws.

Firstly, if the intolerable pressure of matter crunched together inside a black hole resulted in a new universe (space-time) being created to shunt this matter into, then the original black hole would lose its mass and disappear. We have no evidence of that happening within our universe. Such events could not go unnoticed. What's more it would violate the law of conservation of mass-energy within our universe.

Secondly, it is unsatisfying as an explanation since it involves infinite regress. In fact, it is more than just an untidy explanation. You then have the traversal of an infinite series problem to contend with. There is no way to get to here from there since an infinite number of steps are required.

Lastly, each new baby universe must be of a fixed size if your notion about a threshold mass of a black hole were correct. The new universe would then not have enough mass in total to create a black hole big enough to continue the process. That would be the end of the line. We must be in such a universe if your theory holds, which means this is it. That leaves us with the puzzle of where the parent universe came from. A dead end.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 1:38:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Ok, I get a lot of questions on this, and for good reason.
One thing is, that the inner workings of quantum mechanics are counter intuitive to our cause and effect related brains developed over time on this earth...either way, this is where the evidence indicates:

Quantum Fluctuations are incomplete, sub nuclear particles and their forces, fluctuating in and out of existence constantly, and ubiquitously.
If you can't understand that this is a factual aspect of reality (as much as the existence of microorganisms is) that incomplete sub nuclear particles and their forces can appear and disappear from NO ENERGY, a vacuum, then understanding quantum fluctuations will require you to read up on quantum mechanics, specifically the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Well, all of the studies we've done on the topic of this OP indicate that space was once really small, since the big bang is the rapid EXPANSION, not explosion, of space, so space was once the size of an incomplete sub nuclear particle; trace space back to its origins and it was once this size.

Currently in our universe, we have space, so any experiment we've ever done has shown that zero energy, a vacuum, produces these incomplete sub nuclear particles and their forces in empty space.

However, when there was no universe, there was NO space. So could there be these quantum fluctuations when there was no space?
Yes, because space itself fluctuated in and out of existence with the incomplete sub nuclear particles and their forces; at the pseudo moment of the sub nuclear particle existing and then being annihilated, space follows along.

So to physicists, no energy, no complete particles, no radiation, no time, no space, no laws would be nothing, or a nothing state.
Quantum fluctuations are a nothing state, because any would be particles/radiation are annihilated and there is no remaining energy, nothing.
This nothing state is unstable, given all of those incomplete particles and their forces fluctuating all of the time, the nothing state cannot remain; energy can result.

When there was no universe, there were quantum fluctuations, which, because they are an unstable state of nothing, are guaranteed to express something, energy.

While the energy that was expressed from unstable quantum fluctuations is not very potent, the proportion of that mild energy to space the size of a an incomplete sub nuclear particle is actually quite massive.
In fact, the proportion of space the size of an incomplete sub nuclear particle to energy expressed from quantum fluctuations results in a very hot dense state in such a small space that must expand.

From unstable quantum fluctuations-->the big bang.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 1:41:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:49:27 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:20:20 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/13/2016 3:58:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/12/2016 5:37:47 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Ignore my first post that was a glitch.

I doubt that your theory is correct. The Big Bang requires quantum fluctuations to cause instability in energy in comparison to the rest of the universe in order to create a release of matter, gravity, energy and time. That cannot be replicated.

(a) The Big Bang isn't even the "creation of the universe." The Big Bang is a cosmological model that traces the expansion of the universe.

You're technically correct but wrong in some ways too. The current model of the Big Bang states that before the Big Bang there was no time, matter, Gravity, energy, etc (ie quantum fluctuations). Meaning that the universe was virtually non existent prior to be Big Bang.

You're wrong that the Big Bang is an event. The universe was non-existent prior to the initial hyperinflation, which is often (incorrectly) referred to as "the Big Bang." The Big Bang is a cosmological model, not an event.

I agree with you that the universe was non-existent prior to the initial hyperinflation and I'm not calling that the Big Bang. I'm referring to the entire process of the creation of the universe as The Big Bang. The official definition of The Big Bang theory on virtually all definition sites (both general and scientific sites) refer to it as an event.

(b) Why does it require "quantum fluctuations"? Can you please explain that?

I'll respond to this after school remind me if I forget.

Okay.

I'll respond now. In order for a comparable event to the Big Bang to occur it will need comparable factors. Our current idea of what the Big Bang is and how it happened states that as a total energy set, matter and gravity in the universe would look like [+matter, -gravity] = 0. So, without a big bang, matter and gravity are at [+0,-0] = 0. There is no matter or gravity to speak of and of course the total energy is 0.
In this zero energy state, there is no time/matter/energy/gravity...nothing. Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate too. This is what nothing is (at least it's as close to nothing as is possible). These sub nuclear particles appear to be something but in reality they are nothing. They are being created and destroyed simultaneously, thus making them nothing. With all of these fluctuations, thermal variations are in fact, like the particles, existing and being "annihilated" as well. If it's the case that an unstable thermal variation reaches a critical temperature, before annihilation, for that tiny moment it exists, a subnuclear particle has an opportunity to avoid the annihilation and remain. These quantum fluctuations, nothing, are so unstable that energy is guaranteed to be expressed from these quantum fluctuations. Unstable [+0,-0] = 0 --> The Big Bang [+1,-1] = 0. At the big bang, we have (+1) some matter and (-1) some gravity, which now allows for stative space and time. The universe expands [+10,-10] = 0. Inflation accelerates [+100000,-100000] = 0. Quantum fluctuations are necessary in creating a Big Bang.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 1:58:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 1:41:10 PM, famousdebater wrote:

[Plagiarized word-for-word from: http://www.debate.org...]

The zero-energy universe hypothesis does not mean there is *no energy* in the universe. It only means the net energy in the universe cancels out to be zero. So "zero energy" merely means zero exertion to cause curvature of space-time, not literally "zero energy." The zero-energy universe hypothesis doesn't actually entail "zero energy," it only entails "zero energy exerting upon space-time geometry." What this means is that there *is* something to be "created" at the universe. If your debts and assets cancel each other out, it doesn't actually show that there is no cause of your current financial condition, as Craig puts it. Also, quantum fluctuations aren't "nothing." These virtual particles don't come into existence ex nihilo, because these particles are in what is called a "false vacuum." Any false vacuum is a *part of the universe.* Also, all you've shown above is that it is *possible* for the universe to have originated via quantum fluctuations (which itself is dubious). That doesn't mean the universe actually was caused by quantum fluctuations. I prefer models such as the Hartle-Hawking state and Quentin Smith's simultaneous causation models.

As for the Big Bang issue, dictionary definitions don't provide the best definitions of what the Big Bang is. "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution." [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Basically, the Big Bang doesn't detail the *start of the universe,* only the progression of the universe from a high-density, high-temperature state to what it is now.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 2:02:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
@MagicAintReal

I strongly disagree that quantum fluctuations provide a sound model for the origins of the universe, for two primary reasons.

(1) For the quantum fluctuation model to work, it has to rely on the uncertainty principle allowing for a violation of the conservation of energy. Subutai explains it better than I ever could, regarding a misinterpretation of what <>t is in the uncertainty principle: "Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured. One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense. Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two."

(2) I don't buy the zero-energy universe would allow such a violation either, which is what the QF hypothesis relies on. The zero-energy universe hypothesis does not mean there is *no energy* in the universe. It only means the net energy in the universe cancels out to be zero. So "zero energy" merely means zero exertion to cause curvature of space-time, not literally "zero energy." The zero-energy universe hypothesis doesn't actually entail "zero energy," it only entails "zero energy exerting upon space-time geometry." What this means is that there *is* something to be "created" at the universe. If your debts and assets cancel each other out, it doesn't actually show that there is no cause of your current financial condition, as Craig puts it. Also, quantum fluctuations aren't "nothing." These virtual particles don't come into existence ex nihilo, because these particles are in what is called a "false vacuum." Any false vacuum is a *part of the universe.* Also, all you've shown above is that it is *possible* for the universe to have originated via quantum fluctuations (which itself is dubious). That doesn't mean the universe actually was caused by quantum fluctuations. I prefer models such as the Hartle-Hawking state and Quentin Smith's simultaneous causation models.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 2:06:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The "black hole as origin of the universe" hypothesis has been one which has already been put forward. [http://www.space.com...] But such a theory would only work under a multiverse hypothesis, because if it was a single-universe model and a black hole as the "singularity," the Big Bang singularity would lie on a future light cone (since all black hole singularities do). But we know the origin was in the past.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 2:09:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 1:58:51 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/13/2016 1:41:10 PM, famousdebater wrote:

[Plagiarized word-for-word from: http://www.debate.org...]

I'm just using that to explain it. It's not plagiarized I just used to equations and what they mean from there. That's also partially how I learnt more about this theory regarding the Big Bang.

The zero-energy universe hypothesis does not mean there is *no energy* in the universe. It only means the net energy in the universe cancels out to be zero. So "zero energy" merely means zero exertion to cause curvature of space-time, not literally "zero energy."

Actually you just explained why it is technically 0 energy. Due to the fact that it cancels out this means that it is ultimately 0 energy.

The zero-energy universe hypothesis doesn't actually entail "zero energy," it only entails "zero energy exerting upon space-time geometry." What this means is that there *is* something to be "created" at the universe. If your debts and assets cancel each other out, it doesn't actually show that there is no cause of your current financial condition, as Craig puts it. Also, quantum fluctuations aren't "nothing."

I know but it's as close to nothing as is possible (as far as I know).

These virtual particles don't come into existence ex nihilo, because thes e particles are in what is called a "false vacuum." Any false vacuum is a *part of the universe.* Also, all you've shown above is that it is *possible* for the universe to have originated via quantum fluctuations (which itself is dubious). That doesn't mean the universe actually was caused by quantum fluctuations. I prefer models such as the Hartle-Hawking state and Quentin Smith's simultaneous causation models.

Please explain these theories. I don't know about them.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 2:15:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 2:09:27 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Actually you just explained why it is technically 0 energy. Due to the fact that it cancels out this means that it is ultimately 0 energy.

As I said below, the zero-energy universe doesn't actually entail zero energy, only zero energy exerting on the space-time manifold.

I know but it's as close to nothing as is possible (as far as I know).

But anything, even if it's "close to nothing," would need the universe to exist, unless it's something way beyond our comprehension.

Please explain these theories. I don't know about them.

Quentin Smith's model basically states that a cause and an effect could happen at one instantaneous moment. Since sans the universe there's no time, a "preceding" cause of the universe would be incoherent. Smith says that a few elementary particles could have caused themselves into existence: not literally "causing themselves," rather Particle X causes Particle Y and Particle Y causes Particle X, since they are both occurring on the same instantaneous moment. These would likely be electrons or quarks or something similar. [http://infidels.org...]

Hartle-Hawking state is the idea that the universe isn't expanding per any absolute reference frame, so the BGV theorem doesn't work well enough to suggest an "absolute beginning." It instead argues that the universe doesn't have any space-time boundaries and is static from the reference frame of an external observer. This would mean a virtually eternal universe. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 2:28:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 2:02:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
@MagicAintReal

I strongly disagree that quantum fluctuations provide a sound model for the origins of the universe, for two primary reasons.

Then you might wanna tell NASA about it.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

(1) For the quantum fluctuation model to work, it has to rely on the uncertainty principle allowing for a violation of the conservation of energy. Subutai explains it better than I ever could, regarding a misinterpretation of what <>t is in the uncertainty principle: "Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured. One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense. Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two."

You've described the HUP. If I observe a particle's momentum, I sacrifice accuracy on its position, and vice versa, this negates not quantum fluctuations, in fact describes it, even with your delta parameter.

(2) I don't buy the zero-energy universe would allow such a violation either, which is what the QF hypothesis relies on. The zero-energy universe hypothesis does not mean there is *no energy* in the universe. It only means the net energy in the universe cancels out to be zero. So "zero energy" merely means zero exertion to cause curvature of space-time, not literally "zero energy." The zero-energy universe hypothesis doesn't actually entail "zero energy," it only entails "zero energy exerting upon space-time geometry." What this means is that there *is* something to be "created" at the universe. If your debts and assets cancel each other out, it doesn't actually show that there is no cause of your current financial condition, as Craig puts it. Also, quantum fluctuations aren't "nothing." These virtual particles don't come into existence ex nihilo, because these particles are in what is called a "false vacuum." Any false vacuum is a *part of the universe.* Also, all you've shown above is that it is *possible* for the universe to have originated via quantum fluctuations (which itself is dubious). That doesn't mean the universe actually was caused by quantum fluctuations. I prefer models such as the Hartle-Hawking state and Quentin Smith's simultaneous causation models.

Uh, I never mentioned the zero energy universe, you did, and I'm well aware of the spacial curvature of the universe being zero thanks to the flatness we've observed with an anisotropy probe.

In a vacuum, there is no energy. This is the STATE to which I'm referring.
While I also buy that the universe has zero spacial curvature, zero total energy (+matter) and (-gravity), this is NOT what i said about QF --> big bang.

The false vacuum is a vacuum NOT created by humans.
This is the STATE of things when there was no universe.
No energy, no particles, no radiation, etc...
This DOES NOT require a universe.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 2:29:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 2:15:27 PM, tejretics wrote:
So why do you find those theories preferable to the one that I presented?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 2:33:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 2:28:14 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
You've described the HUP. If I observe a particle's momentum, I sacrifice accuracy on its position, and vice versa, this negates not quantum fluctuations, in fact describes it, even with your delta parameter.

But time can't be observed, so you can't demonstrate that an uncertainty in time allows for an uncertainty in energy.

Maybe I misunderstood what he's saying; perhaps you'll understand it better: http://www.debate.org...

In a vacuum, there is no energy. This is the STATE to which I'm referring.
While I also buy that the universe has zero spacial curvature, zero total energy (+matter) and (-gravity), this is NOT what i said about QF --> big bang.

The false vacuum is a vacuum NOT created by humans.
This is the STATE of things when there was no universe.
No energy, no particles, no radiation, etc...
This DOES NOT require a universe.

Virtual particles *are* particles and they do exist in these false vacuums. There is a minuscule amount of radiation in such a vacuum because of these constantly emerging particles.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass