Who's Afraid of a Big Black Hole
Black holes are one of the most destructive forces in the universe, capable of tearing a planet apart and swallowing an entire star.
Yet scientists now believe they could hold the key to answering the ultimate question - what was there before the Big Bang?
The trouble is that researching them is next to impossible. Black holes are by definition invisible and there's no scientific theory able to explain them.
Despite these obvious obstacles, Horizon meets the astronomers attempting to image a black hole for the very first time and the theoretical physicists getting ever closer to unlocking their mysteries.
It's a story that takes us into the heart of a black hole and to the very edge of what we think we know about the universe.
Directed by: Stephen Cooter
So, in lay terms, a black hole is an imploding star where gravity is the only force left, this causes the mass to revert on itself until it becomes so tiny you can not measured, a singularity, but at the same time the force of gravity is such that not even light can escape . The Big Bang is the other side of a black hole, where we are right now, the quantum forces regaining power...and the process repeats like a yo-yo.
I remember when Einstein said universe was shaped like a donut. Everyone was working on donut math. OK
*charted.
Okay, I'm gonna need one, just one(1) physicist or astronomer to point to evidence of just one(1) star that had previously been seen and chatted but later been eaten by a black hole. Yeah. That would be great.
So....we are too wrapped up in trying to understand, that we truly refuse to recognize that things exists outside human comprehension. No time before time, no time before the Big Bang...only the human mind. All other animals just live. We are amazing.
My favorite line in this doc, spoken by an astrophysicist: "I can't deal with that number."
So, with a little imagination, it goes like this:
The cosmos is infinite. The Big Bang singularity is the same as the black hole singularity. When a star / system of stars / galaxy dies causing spacetime and mass to compress in a quantum level singularity (while creating a black hole in the process via super-bending spacetime), all this energy exist simultaneously in infinite number of places. These places are places within the universe where infinite singularities are ready to cause Big Bangs that could create infinite numbers of parallel universes (which exist theoretically according to Hawking). So black holes are indeed, in a sense, wormholes that connect parallel universes. We could also be living within a black hole as we speak, our whole known universe and never notice anything about it.
i have a question, if objects (fe l the sun) curve space time, does this mean that although the earth has an elliptical orbit, it is really traveling in a straight line, albeit in curved space time? love this stuff tho makes me feel real; small and in perspective, in the grand scheme of things.
Well yes, thats the correct view... a straight line in a curved space-time - thats what we perceive as orbiting a gravitational center
I do not think Black Holes are that black. we dont know anything about it.
Amazing!
IF an aeroplane window fell out the air pressure would rush out if a star explodes causing a black hole the vacume of space gets sucked out,different vacumes,(pressures) all act the same until they equalize but do all black hole funnels meet on the other side of course they do and when the bins full and everything has been sucked down ----ANOTHER BING BANG and so on and so on
@ keving55 : thats brilliant a vacuum in a vacuum, i was thinking this :) or like space collapses through its self. i read Stephen hawking that said its imposable to know what lies beyond our universe as our laws of physics don't apply. like asking what created god. but yeah it fun to speculate. theoretical physicists are the modern philosophers
"there is no center, technically, or if you prefer, absolutely everywhere is exactly where the center of the BB is, from which the universe erupted"
hehe... That makes about as much logical sense as: "and God said 'Let There Be Light'"
Oh, and uh... "Everything is NOT moving away from everything else". The Milky Way is set to collide with Andromeda in about, oh, 3 billion years, or so.
Ya gotta love Google Scientists!
Release ten ants randomly on a partially filled balloon. Let them crawl around on the balloon while you blow the balloon to twenty times its original size. Just because two ants will eventually bump into each other doesn't mean the average distance between all the ants hasn't increased by about twenty times.
I love google scientists. That is, I love the ones who try to learn and discuss and are not just ridiculing things they may not understand.
@David Foster
"there is no center, technically, or if you prefer, absolutely everywhere is exactly where the center of the BB is, from which the universe erupted"
hehe... That makes about as much logical sense as: "and God said 'Let There Be Light'"
These words make much more sense then your analogy to God which is complitly unanalogous.
What author of this words meant was that asking where the big bang happend is as relevant to reality as asking what happens if you go over the edge of the earth.
When talking about center you are talking about some sort of reference in space. BB however did not happen in space so the concept of center was meaningless. All of the space that ever existed was within the BB. There was no space or time (different views on this one) beyond the BB itself.
"Oh, and uh... "Everything is NOT moving away from everything else". The Milky Way is set to collide with Andromeda in about, oh, 3 billion years, or so."
Yes everything IS moving away from everything else. It's just that it's doing so statistically due to the nature of space and ever accelerating universe expansion.
@ David Foster: according to current theory space is expanding, that means every point is the point of a big bang. like stretching an infinitely small piece of elastic. or along they lines :). your right tho it dont make much sense but i have heard the analogy of baking raisin bread. the raisins are the galaxies and as the bread expands the raisins get further apart with out increasing in size. like vic says every thing is moving away just at different speeds and relative to each point
Hahaha your primitive attempts to predict the universe from a single location and point in time makes me chuckle deep like Satan looking up at us (not that Satan exists). Before one starts to even think big one must think small, I suggest you read up on a previously theorized particle that has been recently proven by nano particles on a circuit board attached to a semiconductor and a superconductor. The same particle thought to be the only one that acts as its own anti-particle. BB is a good Sunday school story but even with all the theory's your numbers still can’t back your misguided but encouraged efforts
Interesting thing. I can't Imagine how the scientists acheive this level of fact
@moderators...sorry guys i did it again, i corrected a typo on a comment that had gone to you because of an attached link and it sent it back to moderators again.
az
@Samuel Morrisey
If i imagine a BB, does the expansion go up and out like a nuclear bomb, forward in time like a gun shot or all directions at once from a center?
Where are we in that? Are we on the edge of an imagined expanding circle?
If from the earth we measure with our view to that far away dot, it is fair to say that that same distance exist on the other side of that dot.
With the Hublle telescope they claim to have gone back in space far enough to reach the noise of the BB. Quote: "Called the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, the view represents the deepest portrait of the visible universe ever achieved by humankind. The snapshot reveals the first galaxies to emerge from the so-called "dark ages," the time shortly after the big bang when the first stars reheated the cold, dark universe."
If that's the case then the universe is an expanding assembled cluster of particles. Then what is the space surrounding it? What is it expanding in or towards. And how do universes collapse together in such a situation?
May be the universe has to be contained for multiple universes to make sense otherwise they would simply merge.
I tend to think that this universe does not exist other than in our mind.
az
Hi Azilda,
I think the problem is in our perception of the BB being an 'explosion' like a bomb or gun cartridge etc. A nuclear blast rises through convection (in effect because it is so hot it begins to float on the cooler atmosphere), and a gunshot is only powerful because of the cartridge containment itself, without which there would be only a fizzle (and maybe a smoke genie!) The 'big bang' name is misleading for this reason, it implies an explosion in the way that matter is converted to energy very quickly. This is not what is thought to have happened at the BB, as matter and energy were themselves thought to be created by this event. It is difficult to shake this though, I will try to analogise (which is the best anyone can do)
Imagine a flat 2-dimensional plane, then imagine a 3-dimensional sphere passing through the plane. For the purposes of this argument lets say that all matter, energy, space and time as we perceive it can only exist within and is created by the intersection of the sphere and the plane. What we get (in 2 dimensions) is a universe that starts out as a single point (from nothing) and rapidly expands to create a 2 dimensional universe, which would subsequently slow down, stop then slowly start to shrink again, accelerating back down to a point, just before it was nothing again.
This is not a description of how I think the universe works, it is just an example to try and get you thinking outside of the explosion metaphor. Note I tried to word it carefully, it is difficult using words like 'before' and describing motion whilst admitting that time and space as we know it only exists inside our colliding plane and sphere - by this I imply that time and space could exist 'outside' or 'before' the described collision, but not the 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time that we can know or perceive, and we run into conceptual and language problems trying to describe these things.
String theory suggests that just before (for want of a better term) the BB event, all of the n (>=11) dimensions of spacetime were unfolded in symmetrical equilibrium, and that the BB itself was a breaking of this symmetry, which immediately caused all the dimensions to curl up infinitesimally small except for our 3 of space and 1 of time, which appeared to suddenly expand to fill the void left by the other shrinking dimensions. I can only read in awe about the possibilities that theories like this suggest, without PhD math I can barely comprehend the analogies. Maybe they're on to something? impossible for anyone to know, yet.
My personal thoughts on it vary over time, currently I am entertaining the idea that our universe never actually left the singularity. To explain this; maybe when black holes are created (by matter being compressed into 0 dimensions of space) that a new universe is created at the singularity, with the disassembled matter/energy/time/space flooding into it causing a phenomenon that evolved sentient beings within that new universe would later term the 'big bang'. In effect our entire universe is the center of a black hole itself, if this idea is correct, and other universes exist within the singularities of all the black holes within our universe, and yet more universes within the black holes of those universes and so on.
There is one particular thought process that compels me to think this may be the case, and that is; the lack of containment or boundary or edge of space, of time, to our current knowledge. To elaborate on this will again require me to analogise yet another 2 dimensional universe ... Imagine a group of 2 dimensional creatures in a 2 dimensional world. When I first thought of this I imagined circular beings on a piece of paper, bouncing into each other in their limited world. The more I thought on this however, it occurred to me, that in fact they would be able to pass over (or under) each other very easily, as in the dimension that they lacked, you could stack an infinite amount of them on top of each other, as they have 0 size in this dimension and their combined size in this dimension would still be 0. Therefore, from the creatures point of view, the 3rd dimension that they lacked, would appear to be infinite, without a boundary, whereas their 2 dimensions would end at the edge of the paper.
Our 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time do at the moment appear to be unbounded, possibly infinite. Could this be because actually we exist in a 0 dimensional singularity in the center of a black hole within a previous universe, that all directions seem infinite?
Questions like this will need to wait until we get closer to a black hole and really start to analyse what is going on there, as our mathematics currently hits infinity at the singularity, and in our experience, every time this happens, there is something fundamentally wrong with our mathematics. However 'black holes' whatever they exactly are, certainly do exist. There is the possibility, that the singularity we describe does not exist, that there is a fundamental level of matter beyond which it cannot be compressed, for example, a neutron star is incredibly massive and compressed, even so the gravity created by that mass is not enough to overcome the neutron degeneracy pressure (that stops a neutron occupying the same space as another neutron). So beyond this we are not sure, apart from the fact that there must be a mass that creates gravity so strong that it overcomes this neutron pressure, as we have black holes. There may be more stages though, check wikipedia for the hypothetical 'quark star' - this may be a more correct description of our black holes. Beyond that maybe even a 'string star' ? but I am going way out here, I think it is time for me to stop.
Again if that made any sense to anyone, I applaud you.
Regards, Sam.
Right then if the bb did happen and space being space with no gravity of its own and that it's expanding all the time, Then logic says that in the area of the bb there MUST be a hell of a of an empty area wich is getting bigger why don't we look for that ?
I know how to process his data fast using that super computer or another one of those. This is exactly what neuro-fuzzy networks are for (non-linear problems). It is part of my engineering studies :) Would take a few years to? build, troubleshoot and train though.
My suggestions may be very amateurish and can raise a lot of LOL here, but I think, that the mistakes of the scientists lay in their attempts to disapprove Einstein’s theory instead of trying to find its limited but legal place in the explanation of the Universe. Every scientific theory, whether it is mechanical physics, or the theory of relativity or quantum physics, are just layers of one big theory of life, one big truth. So they all are valid within their limits, and their laws are working on their particular layers, therefore it does not mean that they are wrong or false. The other mistake, as I think, is that the scientists are trying to find the explanation of the Universe within particular layer, now within quantum physics, where laws of light can work only. But is there something beyond light, like, for example, black holes? A lot of hidden wisdom is contained in folk stories. You may ask any Russian kid who is familiar with old fairy tales, “What is the fastest in the world?”, and you may get an answer – “Thought!”, as this is what they say in those old stories. The theory of singularity, in which zero equal to eternity, where there is no time or distance existing, is absolutely true for a thought. This may explain telepathy, mindreading, ghosts, travelling in time and other “abnormality” happening in our life. The thought can expand to materialization and narrow to pure energy, it can be seen or measured in quantum physics and at the same time can clash all laws of it, as it goes beyond its limits. Could origin and the nature of human thought lead us to the whole truth?? I assume that if SOMEONE (theoretically) would be able to achieve the momentum of singularity in his life, similar to the black hole, the only laws existing there would be the law of his FREE WILL, which could give birth to a thought that can materialize into any creation (a monster or a masterpiece) “First came the word…” Does it mean under word actually “the thought”, as in the original script of the Bible it meant wider than just the word meaning… Only after that appeared darkness and light.
Thankyou for your replies and i do have a clearer understanig of what you mean, So much so i think i'll sit here till they hit the outer edge of the universe and bounce back ; ) And yes Sam i did read it all
Looks like Yoda the asian man does.
So if all the galaxies are moving away from our galaxy in wich direction are they going, And so we can map this to see where they started from which would be the center of the the big bang, or do we know already if so can you post it.
As far as I understand, currently, no, we can not, very far from it.
The problem you describe in a simple way - 'all the galaxies are moving away from our galaxy in which direction... where is the center' but the reality of what you ask is far more subtle and vastly complex.
When we talk about distance, we imagine a line between 2 fixed points, however in reality there are no actual fixed points. This is because everything is always moving relative to everything else. The center of the big bang, is no longer where it began. This is compounded by the fact that before the big bang, there was no space, and therefore no where. In effect, the entire universe is exactly where the big bang started, and all this is only true if the big bang theory is correct, about which no one can be certain. It is fairly hard to grasp the concept of no real fixed points, the best analogy I can give is in lay mathematics so bear with me :)
take 1 divided by 3. the answer in a fraction is 1 third. So if our number scale is based on fractional thirds, we have the marks 0, 1/3, 2/3, 1 from 0 to 1, and our answer lies exactly on the 1/3 mark. This seems to be a definite position on our scale. But, in our decimal system, the answer is 0.333 with an infinite amount of 3s on the end. Now however you write it down in this scale, you can never come to the exact answer. 0.333 is just too little, and 0.334 is just too much. No matter how many decimal places along you go this will always be true, so our answer can be close, and closer still, but never quite spot on. Conversely, there are exact answers to problems in decimal, that can never be pinned down in other number scales. Another example (that my non mathematician simple brain can relate) to show that there are no definite points between any set of 2 numbers, is to take 1 divide by 2. Take the result and divide again by 2. Keep doing that and you will never reach 0. you will get closer and closer, but the decimal places will just keep extending. This leads to the conclusion that there are an infinite amount of numbers, just between 0 and 1, or in fact any 2 numbers. The last thing to explain about this is, that there are some numbers, that defy any measure put on them, as you get closer to the answer the decimal places just get longer. I think (might be wrong) PI is one of these. No matter what scale, it will always fall between the marks. You may think OK, lets mark our scale as 1xPI, 2xPI, 3xPi etc, but the problem is you will never be able to make the first mark after 0, as you can not know exactly where PI is relative to 0.
It seems to me very possible that the speed of light c is one of these numbers also, as it has been measured many millions of times on the same equipment in identical conditions and the answer has never been recorded exactly the same twice. Relativity tells us that c is a universal constant, but remember it is our number scale that can not pin it down, and it is our equipment that is changing, not c. The conditions can never be exactly identical from one measurement to the next, regardless of how careful and precise we imagine it might be. Between each test, there are an incredibly vast amount of infinitely subtle changes, with atoms zooming and quantum fields swirling, maybe even strings vibrating in 11 dimensions etc. Using relativity, our assumption is that the red shift (lengthening of the wavelength towards the red end of the spectrum) in the light we observe from very distant objects is indicative of relative movement away from our point of observation, in a similar way that sound waves lengthen as a noisy object accelerates away from our point of listening. This tells us it is moving, and how fast, and wether it is accelerating or not relative to us, but no exact distance is or can be inferred. This is of course only true if relativity is true, and we assume it is (every prediction made tested true so far), but we are certain it is incomplete, even as much as it has been added to since Einstein.
Distance can be measured with simple trigonometry, I.e take 2 observations of 1 object at the greatest possible distance forming a triangle, and measure the angles of the triangle at the 2 observation points. From this and the distance between your 2 points you can extrapolate the 3rd angle, and the length of the unknown 2 sides, giving you a good estimation of the distance. The trouble with this when dealing with relativistic distances is Euclidean geometry of which trig is a part of is based on a flat plane, and as tests indicate that spacetime is not at all flat in this sense, so our seemingly straight lines may well be sections of great or smaller circles or curves in n dimensional spacetime, which would slew our result one way or the other depending on the shape of the curve itself.
What you are asking, would require exact positional knowledge of objects that are so distant, that it took light billions of years to reach us, and are similarly distant from each other, at the exact same moment in time. To know where another galaxy is right now, when we mark our own position for the initial relative point, we need to wait another several billion years to measure the distance at the time we made our initial mark. To measure velocity (speed & direction) would require another similar measurement after yet another impossible length of time, in order to compare the 2. This is impossible even on the scale of our own galaxy, which is several thousand light years from top to bottom, and at least 100K light years in diameter. We can only know roughly with a great degree of tentative humility and acceptance that we could be very wrong, where the solar system is in within the Milky Way.
The weirdest thing about all this is that no matter what direction we look, if we look far enough, the light from objects at that distance is red shifted, and, the further we look, the further it is shifted. This makes me suspicious of the redshift phenomenon, as it implies that at a certain distance, everything is travelling at the speed of light away from us. But I think maybe in my limited understanding it is due to the fact that space=time=spacetime. Distance IS time, and time IS distance. It is my perception that is confined to percieve them differently, and I simply can not comprehend the meaning of it.
Phew... there is a wall of text and no mistake, if you read this all the way through I thank you kindly for indulging me and my forgiveness if you gave up! Any thoughts or corrections are welcome, It is one of my favourite subjects.
Regards, Sam.
I have thought about this last bit for a while (not an expert by any stretch) and I believe what they are saying is this: If galaxy X is moving away from us at 10% of c, and another galaxy Y is moving away from galaxy X at 10% of c, then the effect is galaxy Y is moving >10% of c, relative to us (and this continued for (near) infinity. Sort of strange to think about, but I once saw a physicist show an elastic rope with balls on it at even intervals. When you stretch the rope, the balls all move away from each other at the same rate, but the balls further from the center move away from the center faster than the balls closer to the center...and that is true no matter which ball you consider the center. Crazy stuff!
Matthew
Very interesting way to look at things and even more so, interesting way to write it. Normally this kind of stuff is barely comprehensible, you make it sound manageable.
Now i would be curious to know if the @Achems, @Epicurus, @over the edge, @WTC7, @Vlatko and the likes agree with you.
az
Az...@Samuel Morrissey: post was easy to read and made sense. Anything concerning science especially at the quantum scale is not without some very small errors, always will have small errors, and is acceptable to use approximations as paradigms. That's just how it is. That is why some of the math will not completely add up, will come to the closest approximations. But will be viable.
Az, I would first like to say that I am more than flattered that you include me in this group that may have something to say about Samuel's inspirational post! Thank you! But I will probably be a disappointment when I say that the first person in the street would understand more about mathematics than I do :). I try to understand things about Universe exclusively in theoretical terms, devoid of any maths (basically from sources that popularize science for common folks-laymen).
In any case, from my point of view, it is not easy to understand the concept of the expanding Universe and, more importantly, where is its center - because it doesn't have one. It is difficult to understand because we all know that BB was an explosion, and every explosion has its center and we know how matter expands from that center - all according to our understanding of the familiar laws of physics. The best approximation of the expanding Universe from its starting point, the BB, that I can visualize, is the expanding balloon. Any imagined dot on its surface will run away from the next dot in more or less similar way as the galaxies move away from each other. But the center of the balloon doesn't represent the point of BB. Nooooooope!
In my layman understanding, shortly after the explosion of the matter confined in singularity, inflation happened - the matter (and space, also confined in singularity) inflated suddenly and in a very short period of time dispersed over a vast space. I assume that's how the center of the explosion also got lost, spreading itself, and the related microwave radiation evenly throughout, so that today, wherever we look around us, that radiation will always show the same measurement, it's evenly spread in whichever direction you look. We can't find where the BB happened, because it looks like it happened everywhere - because of the inflation?
What bothers me about the BB is that the laws of physics (as we know them) don't allow for any loss of matter/energy. If BB came out of nothing, there must exist some other physics that we don't know anything about, or our physics is not correct or is partial. If nothing is the beginning of everything, than there is certainly a contradiction beyond my understanding.
I doubt I shed any light here, as much as try to understand it, without maths, I simply can't. So, I guess i haven't contributed much :).
I have come to the conclusion that it is either my limitet intellectual capacity that cannot comprehend any of this stuff or that nobody really knows with certainty what is going on there. Although even scientists can't agree, I still tend to go for the former, but....
I am not as puzzled about the center as i am about the universe being contained or not?
Thanks for your reply.
I too would like to talk math but French, English and a bit of Spanish is all my herstory could manage.
az
@Matthew Hall, Achems_Razor, Azilda, WTC7, over the edge.
Thank you for your kind comments.
My mathematics is obviously flawed, there indeed definite answers to problems inside mathematical models. It was just the best way I could explain the chaotic probability nature of reality and the constant relative motion of all things.
Azilda, the contained question is a good one. There is a distinction to make before it can be attempted though, are you asking whether or not it is infinite? the reason i ask is it is possible that the universe is finite, and yet not at all contained if you will. going back to over the edges analogy of the ocean, imagine a water world (no land at all) . In this world the boat can travel without ever reaching a boundary, yet the ocean is only so big. This is a finite but unbounded world in 2 dimensions. I think the most accepted current thinking is that the universe most likely follows this same principle only in 3+ dimensions which would mean that containment is not needed, as in all directions it eventually wraps around and meets itself. Unfortunately we can only imagine the 2 dimensional finite and unbounded universe as a 3 dimensional sphere, to imagine it in 3 dimensions we would need to describe it in at least 4. Of course it is possible that the universe is infinitely large, which would mean again there are no boundaries. For it to bounded, there would need to be a place outside of the boundary, which is possible if the idea that all spacetime being created in the BB is wrong, that space and time of some sort was present before the BB. Which is also possible.
We are fairly sure spacetime is not flat, so in my mind there is a good chance that it is finite and unbounded, but the implications are quite mind boggling. If you could travel far enough in one direction you could conceivably end up where you began, in space. This is fairly straight forward, but does it also mean time follows the same principle? I try not to think too hard about it because I just get brainache.
I left school at 17, but I did listen to what was being taught while I was there. I am no mathematician, theoretician or scientist, but I like to read and imagine. The universe is truly a deeply mystical and wondrous place, full of serenity, beauty, order, chaos and violence.
Regards, Sam.
a busy day today...but i'll get back with you on the "container".
az
well said
@wtc7 we are inside the explosion not a result of it. the explosion of space is still continuing.
@az
yes i agree with him and i am also flattered that you feel i deserve to be included in this group on this particular subject. but sadly i do not. i am not sure if you remember but you asked me a similar question a while back and i refused to answer due to my lack of knowledge and you asked me to answer anyway. i didn't then but i will now only because you earned the respect from me to walk this far out of my comfort zone.
think of the expanding universe and in particular our view of it. we are like a boat floating in the ocean with no land in sight. all we see is the horizon and we appear to be the center but as you float around and your position changes you still appear in the canter. until we get a reference point the canter is dependent on our perspective. our technology as of today only permits a very small horizon and the center to us is irrelevant. just a disclaimer the analogy was not mine. i would give credit but i cannot remember where i stole it (i would be embarrassing if i stole it from the above doc lol)
Why do i get the impression you know more than you do....?
May be i forget in what subject you excel.
az
@az
at the risk of going off topic. you asked "Why do i get the impression you know more than you do." is because in my opinion you see the potential and good in everything/everyone a gift i sincerely admire
I may not be one of Az's "and the like" but I do have a thought or two on the subject. From space the earth is round and we perceive it from there as we would perceive a ball here on earth, with three dimensions. When on earth we all perceive ourselves to be the center of the earth although there is no central point. That would be because our perception has changed from the round earth to a flat earth. We see space in three dimensions going out in every direction, but that is the only way our limited senses can make sense of it. It leaves us thinking that the universe is round just like we believe intuitively that the earth is flat. However, space has no central point either, confusing us as we want to give it some kind of shape that makes sense to us. If its not flat or two dimensional or round, three dimensional, what shape is it? Considering time to be the fourth dimension which helps to measure the three dimensions it would seem that there must be at least one more dimension. This is where intuitive logic goes out the window and theoretical physics takes over and everything starts to become intuitively illogical. I, maybe all of us to an extent, want to stand outside the universe and observe it that way so the logic of it all comes back to us but that is impossible. It fascinates and confuses me at the same time.
I find it interesting that science thinks that there is only the material, when clearly there was something before the big bang. the subset cannot define the superset.that space outside the ball of energy that would end up becoming our universe would have to be non-physical and non-materialistic since the physical and material cam after the big bang. a theory of everything must include this. how do we know we are not interacting with that outer layer from within the universe regarding such anomalous things like telepathy.
@ John Jacquard,
I don't think that any of the scientists in this doc attempted to make a case for or against the non-material and non-physical properties of whatever brought the Big Bang about. I also don't remember any of them claiming that the material world sprang after the BB, which would consequently imply it didn't exist before it.
science can only attempt to enplane the material that consist with in the laws of physics, the rest is the realm of philosophy
to summarize my last 2 entries. H 1.00794 moves through solid matter (against gravity ) in all proven experiments at near absolute zero.
with as little as i know, i know that matter as near 0 overlaps with itself. given the density of a black hole no matter the temp means matter can overlap upon itself.
Disclaimer: I know nothing about physics.
What if there is a upper limit to temperature or temp range where matter would act as if it would at near absolute zero at the density of black holes creating a massive bose einstein condensate?
To succeed in life, you need two things: ignorance and confidence.
Mark Twain
"what was there before the Big Bang?"
There is no such thing as time "before" the Big Bang because the nature of time as we know it didn't existed at the moment Big Bang event happened. Time itself is a byproduct of the Big Bang, same way as mass and space. Just so you know: Inside a Black hole the time is equal to 0. That very "Big" Black hole which resulted in the Big Bang "created" time in an evolutionary process. As long this expansion of space-time continues, WE experience time in only one direction. At that very moment space-time starts contracting back to the point where it all began: The Big Crunch may result in time reversal. Scientists don't know the true nature of that time in reverse because there is absolutely no way of knowing it until our universe hit the event of the Big Crunch, which is very unlikely as our current models of observation show. But there is no telling that it won't happen in the future because the Big Bang would never have occurred if it wasn't for the Big Crunch hitting previous universe(s) BEFORE our current universe!
created time in evolutionary process(what)? you are telling there is no time yet in the last sentence you are saying before... future... it is tedious to think outside of our realm of experience. from what I understand there are diffrent concepts like the multiverse, or that of some multidimensional planes hitting each other, or whatnot. I though the big crunch is dated.
The illusion of time flowing in a linear direction, into the future, is a product of entropy not the expansion of space time. There is no reason to think a the big crunch will cause a time reversal, no theory stated this as far as I know. It is also not certain or even theorized hat a big black hole caused the BB, only that a singularity existed. They have never attempted to explain the origin of this singularity. You speak as if you are certain of this big crunch that produced the singularity from which the universe sprang, why? What evidence could you possibly have that it occurred, considering all physics breaks down within the singularity itself leaving us no rules or guiding parameters within which to operate if we go back any further?
white hole
einstines equations predicted these also, an einstine-rosenhel bridge , i think
Because gravitational singularity under our current understanding of physics only can exist in the center of the Black Hole. Singularity cannot just "exist" unless something "caused" its existence BEFORE. If you imply that nothing EXISTED before that singularity that caused the Big Bang, then you are rejecting your own argument: Time only flows in one direction. Because space-time came in to being by the Big Bang, like many others I do believe its the expansion of space-time that decide how WE perceive this dimension. Well then of course there are others who disagree.
"....Of course there are others who disagree..."
Yep, the vast majority of established science disagrees with you. The singularity is proposed to have come exactly from where you say it couldn't, from nothing. Quantum theory tells us that isn't only possible but likely. Time also does not flow in any one direction, and I never said it did. I said we percieve it that way but, there is no physical law or logical reason time can not flow in all directions. Study relativity and you will find time is relevant to our prespective, study quantum mechanics and you will find the direction of time means little, study entropy and you will find time is a direct result of energy finding its most stable condition. These are not theories, they are facts. They have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by physical observation and repeatable experiments. You say something had to exist BEFORE the singularity, then you admit time was created by the BB. Which is it, if time was created by the BB then there was no such thing as BEFORE the singularity now was there? Your intuition will not serve you well when questioning things like the BB, for obvious reasons.
Enjoyable although some stuff was a little dated. It would be nice to get an update on the black hole modelling project using multiple radiotelescopes.
Science can go on and on about something that is not understood and still remain relavent. The Universe is truly an enigma.
Oh no, not that crazy Michio Kaku again...
ya, crazy enough to challenge them all and positioned rightly to tell us about it. He sure seem to know his math.
I wish the same exact group of scientists updated this doc with the April 2012 version. I am always left hungry when i watch a 2009 rendition.
az