What is the Universe expanding into..

Do you think there was anything before the big bang?

  • I don't think there was anything before the Big Bang

    Votes: 56 12.5%
  • I think something existed before the Big Bang

    Votes: 200 44.7%
  • I don't think the big bang happened

    Votes: 54 12.1%
  • I think the universe is part of a mutiverse

    Votes: 201 45.0%

  • Total voters
    447
Status
Not open for further replies.
It has been suggested that a singularity, which contains matter compressed to an infinite density, could become a Big Bang, creating an entire new universe within the black hole

If that is so, then the new universe might have slightly different physical properties from the one that made the black hole in the first place.

Liken that to the random mutation that allows a coronavirus to become a different strain.

Indeed. However, I was implying that there is no such thing as "infinite density", but that the matter would compress in on itself when achieving specific points in mass up to a point where the mass would reach a critical state where a massive explosion would be triggered instead.
 
I thought we did Black Holes to death earlier... but evidently they still lure us "siren-like" onto the rocks. :D

Surely the only issue with them is the two (accelerating) relativistic observer reference frames we use, which happen to involve that troublesome infinity. And extreme tidal forces, which is not something we usually worry about too much. But as a sea-faring Pompey lad, I am OK on tides.

Einstein Field Equations - for beginners! - YouTube

Taking a break at 53:12 in the Einstein Field Equations for Beginners. Getting a bit heavy, but we have got the metric tensor (which distorts triangles, AFAIK) out of the way. Onto the Ricci tensor. Can't wait! :cool:
 
Last edited:
Getting a bit heavy, but we have got the metric tensor (which distorts triangles, AFAIK) out of the way.
Come on Steve! We mere mortals need an explanation of what a metric tensor is! :nownow:

On a Flat Space, the Pythagoras Theorum (you know, the square on the hypoteneuse equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides) holds true. You can draw a right angled triangle on a flat piece of paper to prove it.

However, things get interesting when we try to draw right angled triangles on a Curved Space such as a Sphere. Then we can even draw triangles where all three angles are right angles and the Pythagoras Theorum no longer holds true!

3776c40d.jpg


And that's where the Metric Tensor comes in!

The Metric Tensor can be thought of as the device which makes corrections to the Pythagoras Theorem when the Right Angled Triangle is on a Curved Space instead of a Flat Space!
 
What's all this Curvature stuff got to do with General Relativity? :scratch:

At school we were taught Euclidean Geometry. That's the geometry in which the three angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees.

However, the geometry of spacetime is non-Euclidean. For example, if a triangle is constructed out of three rays of light, then the angles do not necessarily add up to 180 degrees because of the effect of gravity.

This led Einstein, in his theory of General Relativity, to introduce the idea of spacetime Curvature.

Einstein's idea that spacetime is curved was later verified by the observation of the slight bending of starlight by the Sun during a solar eclipse in 1919.
 
If we can see its event horizon is it as physically large as a typical galaxy, or a tiny point that's as massive as a typical galaxy?
When we talk about the size of a black hole, we mean the radius of the event horizon, or Schwarzschild radius.

It is the Schwarzchild radius that might possibly (its only sensationalist conjecture) be as large as a galaxy, but it is a geometrical largeness, not a physical largeness.

200px-Black_hole_details.JPG


All of the mass of a SLAB is concentrated at the singularity which has no physical dimensions whatsoever. :bigeyes:
 
Last edited:
www.hifisonix.com
Joined 2003
Paid Member
Seems SLABS or near-SLAB’s must be of primordial origin since there’s not enough matter in close proximity to form objects that large in today’s universe.

(The article mentions WIMP’s - I thought these had been discounted as a serious possible explanation for dark matter?)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.