CMB and the big bang

[aaron_ironmonger]

Hi all, I'd like to apologise in advance for the layman's terminology in the idea below. I'd be delighted to get any feedback/thoughts on whether CMB observations could be explained in this way.

 

Could the universe have started as a giant black hole that reached a critical mass and collapsed in on itself?

 

White dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes have all collapsed to a denser state under the effects of gravity. Maybe black holes can collapse too. Imagine a black hole becomes so massive that it can no longer maintain itself against the huge gravitational forces. The black hole might collapse in on itself and then explode with all the predicted effects of the inflationary big bang model. In order for critical mass to be reached material would need to be falling into the black hole and this spiralling disc of material might explain the so-called axis of evil that appears in the CMB. An inflationary model expanding into non-nothingness might also produce the less uniform CMB of experimental observation.

 

Best regards

 

Aaron Ironmonger

[mathematic]

Black holes (some) are the result of star remnant collapse. However the galactic centers contain black holes (origin unknown) having masses millions or more times that of the sun. There is no known physical limit to black hole size. Physics of the inside of a black hole is unknown.

[EdEarl]

Aaron whether or not your hypothesis is valid, does not address why a Universe. And, if you cannot at least show by math that your hypothesis is reasonable, you merely have an unfounded speculation. You could use it in a sci-fi story.

 

Welcome to SFN.

[aaron_ironmonger]

You make a good point EdEarl and thank-you for your welcome:)

I don't have the mathematical background to back up my idea but I wanted to put it out there for those of you that do. It seems difficult to explain why the 'axis of evil' exists in the cosmic microwave background without some perturbation of the system and I wondered if an accretion disc surrounding an inflationary universe might provide it?

[EdEarl]

I'm not that good in math. And, AFAIK no one can do the math back to the instant of the BB.

[Airbrush]

I've never heard of any expert in astronomy suggest that a black hole singularity could further collapse.

[Bill Angel]

Hi all, I'd like to apologise in advance for the layman's terminology in the idea below. I'd be delighted to get any feedback/thoughts on whether CMB observations could be explained in this way.

 

Could the universe have started as a giant black hole that reached a critical mass and collapsed in on itself?

 

White dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes have all collapsed to a denser state under the effects of gravity. Maybe black holes can collapse too. Imagine a black hole becomes so massive that it can no longer maintain itself against the huge gravitational forces. The black hole might collapse in on itself and then explode with all the predicted effects of the inflationary big bang model. In order for critical mass to be reached material would need to be falling into the black hole and this spiralling disc of material might explain the so-called axis of evil that appears in the CMB. An inflationary model expanding into non-nothingness might also produce the less uniform CMB of experimental observation.

 

Best regards

 

Aaron Ironmonger

 

I believe that theoretical work has been done that addresses some of the issues that you mentioned.

See Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?

To quote from this article:

According to a mind-bending new theory, a black hole is actually a tunnel between universes—a type of wormhole. The matter the black hole attracts doesn't collapse into a single point, as has been predicted, but rather gushes out a "white hole" at the other end of the black one, the theory goes.

 

 

You mentioned the so-called "axis of evil" present in the CMB. Might our universe be rotating about this "axis of evil"?

To quote further from this same article:

 

There is at least one way to test Poplawski's theory: Some of our universe's black holes rotate, and if our universe was born inside a similarly revolving black hole, then our universe should have inherited the parent object's rotation.

If future experiments reveal that our universe appears to rotate in a preferred direction, it would be indirect evidence supporting his wormhole theory, Poplawski said.

 

[Iggy]

Hi all, I'd like to apologise in advance for the layman's terminology in the idea below. I'd be delighted to get any feedback/thoughts on whether CMB observations could be explained in this way.

 

Could the universe have started as a giant black hole that reached a critical mass and collapsed in on itself?

 

White dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes have all collapsed to a denser state under the effects of gravity. Maybe black holes can collapse too. Imagine a black hole becomes so massive that it can no longer maintain itself against the huge gravitational forces. The black hole might collapse in on itself and then explode with all the predicted effects of the inflationary big bang model. In order for critical mass to be reached material would need to be falling into the black hole and this spiralling disc of material might explain the so-called axis of evil that appears in the CMB. An inflationary model expanding into non-nothingness might also produce the less uniform CMB of experimental observation.

 

Best regards

 

Aaron Ironmonger

 

The CMB (and everything we've predicted and subsequently measured about it) means very conclusively that the observable universe started as a very small, dense, and hot place.

 

Black holes can also be thought of as small, dense, and hot in their own way, so I see where you're coming from. The distinction, however, is quite clear. Black holes want to collapse and eventually will, and the universe doesn't seem to want to, and it never seems it will.

 

Cosmologists think that in the waning moments of our beginning everything may have collapsed in on itself if the density were a little higher, but that assuredly didn't happen, otherwise there would be no us.

[sevensixtwo]

One of the interesting things about the CMB is that no matter which direction we look, it always the same distance away. Normally, when a surface is lies at the same distance in every direction we say that the surface is a sphere and the observer is at its center. For some reason, the principle of cosmic hand-waving or some such, this standard obvious logic does not apply to the universe. Instead we say the universe has a finite size governed by expansion since the big bang, but no matter where you are in the universe the CMB will be eqaully far in every direction. I hope the faulty logic there is clear. If it is the same distance in evey direction -- from every point in the universe -- then the universe has to be inifinite. If the universe is finite, the CMB can only appear equidistant when observed from near the center.

 

Here is an alternative interpretation of the CMB. Consider a diver in the ocean. There is some sphere of visibility around him that ends in a wall of blue at some distance. This is the mean free path of light in the water. No matter where the diver goes or looks, the distance to the wall of blue light will always be equidistant in all directions. Now replace the blue light with microwaves and the diver with Earth. The CMB appears equidistant due to some scattering effect. It is hard to say what the scattering effect might be, but hey... it's hard to say why the Earth should be in the exact center of the universe in the prevailing CMB theory.

Edited August 18, 2013 by sevensixtwo

[Spyman]

It is hard to say what the scattering effect might be, but hey... it's hard to say why the Earth should be in the exact center of the universe in the prevailing CMB theory.

The CMBR we see comes from the edge of Earth's visual sphere, in which the Earth of course are in the center. However the outside of our observable universe is unknown and it is likely that our view is only a tiny bubble in the whole Universe. Like your analogy with the diver, he can't see how big the ocean is and can't possibly know if it is infinite or not.

 

But tired light has been ruled out as an alternative explanation for the increasing redshift with distance.

 

 

The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years, based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size.2C_age.2C_contents.2C_structure.2C_and_laws

 

In Big Bang cosmology, the observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can, in principle, be observed from Earth in the present day because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion. Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction. That is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer, regardless of the shape of the universe as a whole. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe, which may or may not overlap with the one centered on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

 

Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the metric expansion of space of which the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies are the most famous examples. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones. Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. Additionally, the surface brightness of galaxies evolving with time, time dilation of cosmological sources, and a thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background have been observed these effects that should not be present if the cosmological redshift was due to any tired light scattering mechanism. Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Edited August 19, 2013 by Spyman