BIG BANG: EXPLOSION OF A BLACK HOLE?

[mubashirmansoor]

As I was thinking about the BigBang, & the reason for expansion of universe & the reason for all these theories, I made up a scenery and I wanted to know your opinions about it;<br /> <br /> <br />Big Bang was the result of explosin of a super super masive Blackhole, <br /> <br />Reasoning: According to one of the theories, this universe will end up with a black hole. So if we consider that, in the long future nothing would be left inside the universe other than the black hole than we can say that the tempreture outside the black hole is absolute zero because there is NO radiation (radiation appears in excess of energy), & nothing else to give energy to the black hole so the atoms will lose all their energy and will finally lose the bonds between each and other, This process of lossing the bonds can act as an explosion (Big Bang) because black holes are extreamly compact and have a great potential energy, so when the bond is lost the atom will be thrown outside with a very high velocity (expansion of universe) and this velocity results to the kinetic energy which gives the atom a very high tempreture & now comes the cosmic cooling and so on......... seems logical right?

 

[mubashirmansoor]

GIVE REASONS FOR SAYING "NO" TO IT BECAUSE THIS THEORY HAS BEEN OKEYED BY PROF. VICTORY,<br /><br />I WILL ANSWER ANYTHING

 

[nova_explored]

well, black holes, super or not, all have emission jets. They can't retain their balance between mass and energy and must jettison in order to balance. so the universe wouldn't be empty. <br /><br />as far as atoms loosing there ability to maintain their bonds. This is true. In the inner core. But there is a lot more going on. The super super massive black hole, in order to maintain that balance for the mass of the entire universe, requires a singularity. <br /><br />the problem with singularities, is they point to multi-dimensional universes (see Stephen Hawking's "Black holes and baby universes"), and that means the transference of energy. What would actually happen in theory, is the black hole would turn to a singularity and transfer all of the energy from this universe into another (the birth of a new one), and our universe would simply dwindle out. Its properties lost as we loose all information. Of course this is a theory. But in keeping with the big bang model, the most likely result. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mubashirmansoor]

Firstly i would like to thankyou for the answer,<br /> But still some questions are there for me;<br /><br />1) When you do accept with the process of losing the bonds, doesn't it mean that there is no more Black hole to give off those jets if we don't consider the real time?<br /><br />2) Why is there need of balancing the mass of universe? cant we say that if it's mass is not ballanced it will just get a specific type of motion?

 

[nova_explored]

1) look at the structure of a neutron star for more information.<br /><br />2)systems in the universe have to balance themselves on the subatomic level. The natural order is stability. Every atom moves towards this state at all times. Its not really about angular momentum (a type of motion) of the object, mass of the universe can clump together and tip the overall isometric balance of the universe. Its the individual systems that have to balance. A black hole has to balance. a singularity is what you are talking about. Thats the theoritical finality to all matter and mass being converted to energy. The end of one universe, the beginning of another. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mubashirmansoor]

Thankyou once again, Do you know any website or book from which I can get the detailed data about isometric balance? Because I don't even understand the reason for presence of such a system.<br /><br />Jets: Dont you think that there cant be any equalizing of mass and energy where the energy is not present?<br />So no ballancing but losing evrything????<br /><br />About the jets: Don't you think that theres no need of those jets in a condiction where it has no energy, and its all converted to mass? and theres no energy to balance it so no jet but losing the bonds?<br /><br />

 

[vidar]

Mubashirmansoor:<br />Big Bang was the result of explosin of a super super masive Blackhole<br />------------------<br /><br />There are basically three fundamental theories about the universe’s beginning and end. There are the Unchanging Universe (forever as today), the Created Universe (‘Let there be light’ / Big Bang) and the Cyclic Universe (crunch-bang). <br /><br />It seems to me that you favour the Cyclic Universe theory and not the Big Bang theory.<br /><br />Perhaps a single galaxy can collapse and explode like a supernova star, in a ‘not so’ Big Bang. I suppose there must be black holes in the centre of galaxies in order to counter weight the stars’ centripetal force.<br />

 

[mubashirmansoor]

You are completely correct what I'm talking about is the cyclic universe starting with a black hole and ending with the other one, About the black hole in the center of galaxies you are right many galaxies have been observed with a black hole at the center.<br />But we cant say the galaxy exploded because all the mass should be in a particular point (singularity) & if the galaxy has a black hole it will logically eat up evrything. And the thing to explode will be no more than a B.H

 

[vidar]

mubashirmansoor<br /><br />These ideas of Big Bang (let there be light) were developed long before we had today’s information of Galaxies.<br /><br />It is not that hard to imagine that there has to be a gravitational force in the centre of any galaxy that’s stronger than all the stars together. It can't be anything but a so-called black hole.<br /><br />The black hole, in the centre of galaxies, have eaten most, except the stars that has counter centripetal force. It’s just like our planets manage to circle around our sun, though it has swollowed most.<br />

 

[mubashirmansoor]

Even those stars left will be eaten as the time passes because the stars are not just orbiting around the B.H they are having a translational motion towards the B.H too, as shown in almost all images showing the rotation of the objects inside a galaxy. so that centripetal force is not forever.

 

[vidar]

If so, I suppose the BlackHole will collapse like a supernova star and become a ‘not-so’ big bang.

 

[alokmohan]

Where singularity came from is a big question.Possibly cyclic universe theory cannot answer it to the point.In fact we are in the realm of Alice in wonderland in which any thing may or may not happen.Apoint of view is universe came out of a white hole.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

You are right but the point where the blakhole colapses is the time when it has no energy otherwise it can go on as a black hole and finally end with radiations only ( hawking radiation)

 

[mubashirmansoor]

The thing is that the white hole was previously a black hole ( read it in a article in space.com)