Was the BB actually a WHITE HOLE

Aug 21, 2021
8
5
15
It seems logical that at the end of the universe as we know it, when only 'black holes' are left, they will consume each other in a rapidly increasing chain reaction until somewhere/somewhen, a 'big bang' occurs and another universe is born - the ultimate 'white hole'.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,838
2,427
8,070
  • Like
Reactions: vincenzosassone
Aug 31, 2021
1
0
10
Just wondering if there are any theories regarding any matter entering a black hole being sent to the time of the big bang?
I was looking into white hole theories and kinda wondered if the big bang was this Universes only white hole. Especially with the theoretical wormhole between black holes and white holes.
I mean if crossing the singularity takes you out of the normal flow of time isn't the only place you can reenter it at the beginning?
Times like these I wish I had the head for maths needed for this kinda thing. But if anyone could point me at any papers on the matter I would appreciate it.


mymilestonecard.com
 
Last edited:

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
723
823
1,760
Just wondering if there are any theories regarding any matter entering a black hole being sent to the time of the big bang?
I was looking into white hole theories and kinda wondered if the big bang was this Universes only white hole. Especially with the theoretical wormhole between black holes and white holes.
I mean if crossing the singularity takes you out of the normal flow of time isn't the only place you can reenter it at the beginning?
Times like these I wish I had the head for maths needed for this kinda thing. But if anyone could point me at any papers on the matter I would appreciate it.
First of all, welcome to Space.com Forums!

Secondly, according to General Relativity, Physics does not work inside a blackhole, that is, a singularity, it just... breaks down.

Like, think of it, consider one unit mass at zero unit volume. That just breaks down to mass existing at nowhere - that doesn't even make any sense, does it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,838
2,427
8,070
ER,
There are cyclic theories (such as you are arriving at) which avoid the ridiculous concept of singularities (infinite anything). However, these are not without their own (lesser) difficulties.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Jun 1, 2020
1,614
1,361
3,560
I've only just been reading about theoretic white holes and was wondering if the big bang was a white hole ejection?
Though your question is a fair one, it is asking how we get to the BBT. Keep in mind that the BBT itself is a scientific theory that only extends where physics can address it, which excludes events at t=0. It's like asking how Newton's equations handle time dilation - they don't because Newtonian physics fails when travel is close to the speed of light. Of course, we do have Einstein physics that does address time dilation, but there is no sound physics (metaphysics perhaps) that addresses what preceded BBT.
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
723
823
1,760
Though your question is a fair one, it is asking how we get to the BBT. Keep in mind that the BBT itself is a scientific theory that only extends where physics can address it, which excludes events at t=0. It's like asking how Newton's equations handle time dilation - they don't because Newtonian physics fails when travel is close to the speed of light. Of course, we do have Einstein physics that does address time dilation, but there is no sound physics (metaphysics perhaps) that addresses what preceded BBT.
Doesn't the BBT say that there was nothing before BBT?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,838
2,427
8,070
One way of putting it, is that there was nothing before the BB. (Obviously ridiculous). Another, not necessarily requiring cyclic alternative, is that the BB is as far back as we can see (not strictly true) but, since we cannot see beyond/further, we can make no scientific comment/judgement.

Cat :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,614
1,361
3,560
Doesn't the BBT say that there was nothing before BBT?
No.

Here is the original paper (without Slipher's redshifts that were partially out of date in 1931 thanks to Hubble) that initiated what we now call the BBT. This is the 1931 translated version from the earlier French (Belgium) paper by Lemaitre.

He determined that the universe was expanding and he was one of the few who understood Einstein's GR. This work allowed physicists to imagine the universe in the past, hence with greater and greater density, etc. But, like the Limbo, how low (far back) can we go (with physics). Surprisingly, almost to the first tiny fraction of a second, but the equations completely fall apart as they approach t = 0. Thus, at t=0 or earlier we go beyond known science and enter either pseudoscience or metaphysics, depending how one likes to admire the math. :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY