Supernova Alert! Astronomers Developing Explosion Predictors
Image of the Day: The Coldest Star in the Universe --Cooler than the Human Body

"Some Black Holes Existed Prior to the Big Bang" (Today's Most Popular)

 

          Supermassive_black_hole (1)

Cosmologists have begun to think seriously about processes that occurred before the Big Bang. Alan Coley from Canada's Dalhousie University and Bernard Carr from Queen Mary University in London, have theorized that some so-called primordial black holes might have been created in the Big Crunch that came before the Big Bang, which supports the theory that the Big Bang was not a single event, but one that occurs over and over again as the Universe crunches down to a single point, then blows up again.

In some circumstances, they say, black holes of a certain mass could avoid this fate and survive the crunch as separate entities. The masses for which this is possible range from a few hundred million kilograms to about the mass of our Sun.

The theory is based on the fact that the Earth, and the rest of the known Universe is occasionally bombarded with unexplained bursts of gamma rays -- something that could, according to Coley and Carr, be the result of primordial black holes running out of energy and disintegrating. These small black holes ought to evaporate away in relatively short period of time, finally disappearing in a violent explosion of gamma rays. Some cosmologists say this thinking might explain the gamma ray bursts that we already see from time to time.

Primordial black holes are thought to be of a different type than the regular kind that are formed when a supernova occurs but rather formed in the first “moments” after the Big Bang. Primordial black holes would be smaller and created by the energy of the Big Bang itself and would then have been widely dispersed as the Universe expanded.

In their theory, however, Coley and Carr suggest that some of these black holes, if they actually exist, might have been created by the collapsing Universe as part of the Big Crunch, and then somehow escaped being pulled into the pinpoint singularity comprised of everything else. And then, after the Big Bang, they simply assimilated with the newly formed Universe.

A key problem they agree on is that it would likely be impossible to tell the difference between pre- and post Big Bang primordial black holes.* The theory raises major questions for cosmologists: if the Universe contracts, then blows up, over and over, has this gone on forever? Or is it possible that our view of the Universe is so limited that we’re only seeing one tiny fraction of it, and thus, any theories or explanations we offer, are little more than guesses.

Image at the top of page shows co-orbiting supermassive black holes powering the giant radio source 3C 75. Surrounded by multimillion degree x-ray emitting gas, and blasting out jets of relativistic particles the supermassive black holes are separated by 25,000 light-years. At the cores of two merging galaxies in the Abell 400 galaxy cluster they are some 300 million light-years away.

Such spectacular cosmic mergers are thought to be common in crowded galaxy cluster environments in the distant Universe. In their final stages the mergers are expected to be intense sources of gravitational waves.

More information: Persistence of black holes through a cosmological bounce, B. J. Carr, A.A. Coley, arXiv:1104.3796v1 [astro-ph.CO] http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3796

The Daily Galaxy via MIT Technology Review

Image credit: http://www.zeitnews.org/space-science/scientists-gear-up-to-take-a-picture-of-a-black-hole.html and University of Arizona

Comments

How does the universe "crunch" if we have data showing the expanding universe?

This does not compute.

Maybe black holes caused the big bang maybe they eat planets get so big then explode maybe the big bang never happened at all but appears to have happened from black holes exploding wouldn't that account for the universe expanding like I am thinking the entire big bang might of really been a big old black hole ????

like we know these black holes explode when they get so big if the big bang was just a big black hole explosion then it could loop forever as those black holes are constantly created and destroyed

the more I have thought about black holes and the big bang they are the exact same events they say everything was compressed real small then exploded that's what a black hole is I bet I am right

A never ending story 'The Big Bang' may have not been a single event, but one that has occured repeatedly as the Universe crunches down to singularity, then expands.

We started with singularity, after the furies of birth, the mature cosmos now evolves more slowly.

Stars will continue to form for as long as another 100 trillion years (about 10,000 times the present age of the universe), which leaves plenty of time for slow-building cosmic phenomena to occur. And we may end up as singularity. Fascinating beginning and every atom of our body is going to be the part of the final culmination 100 trillion years from now.

If the space itself was created during bigbang, where (in which space) these blackholes existed during singularity.

Do black holes attract or repel each other? Where in the universe are
the two closest black holes and do they share what is close by. Can
a black hole eat another one or do they merge to form a bigger one?

@ Iqbal Latif:

100 trillion years from now?

More like a googol+ years from now. All that 100 trillion years from now will bring is the end of star formation and the last tiniest stars finally fading away from view and we would slowly enter the seemingly infinite dark ages (where timescales become unimaginably large, whatever elementary particles are left keep expanding and growing farther apart, and the average temperature settles closer to absolute zero)... A cold, impossibly lonely, and dark death indeed... Either a big rip or a big crunch would ultimately save us from our indefinite heat death... But putting a number on when either a big rip or big crunch would happen seems as farfetched as time travel into the past does.

Here's a nice read on our bleak future (assuming a big crunch or big rip doesn't happen anytime soon): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

To is obvious that our understanding, at this moment, is so limited, that 1,000 years from now people will think of us a an off shoot of the 'flat earth' society.

Here's the problem: the idea of a Cyclic Universe that has been expanding and contracting in an infinite cycle is logically impossible. The past cannot be infinite, because if it is, then enough time will *never* elapse for the present, observed moment to occur. No matter how long one waits, if the past is infinite, this observed today will never arrive.

Yet here we are. Q.E.D.

What might make more sense is to consider time to be circular; if there is a Big Crunch, time stops, and if time stops the "previous" Big Bang, which also precedes time, would technically be simultaneous with the Big Crunch. Thus the Universe is its own Alpha and Omega -- its ending also marks its beginning. It does not loop infinitely, it only loops once, but this accounts for how its prior collapse shapes its subsequent expansion. Ironically, this model does not contain the logical fallacy of an infinite past: a circle's circumference has no endpoints, yet still is finite.

But as Carrion points out above, the "Big Crunch" theorists are sadly behind the times now that "Big Rip" theories are the New Hotness.

Of course, the Expanding Universe model means Science owes everyone who has ever been mocked for pursuing Perpetual Motion one HUGE apology...

Why are we still talking about the Big Bang theory when so much evidence contradicts? These scientists are so set in their ways. Think about it, these guys think that the universe is only 14 billion years old, because thats all we can observe so far. Large walls of superclusters point otherwise, because they would have taken many of billions of years to form, much more than 14 billion years.
I will agree that the universe is expanding, and this may be the reason we dont see past 14 billion years ago at the moment.

This theory is interesting still, but it doesnt make sense that something can exist in nothing. But this is all pretty much theoretical.

But I almost certainly guarantee that all of our ideas are wrong, given time will prove this. Like a previous poster said, we will (the people of this era) will be lumped into the same type of category as those that believe the earth was flat. But what fun is it if we know everything?

How does a black hole evaporate?

I was under the impression that the fact the expansion of the universe has actually increased, indicated that there wasn't enough mass to overcome the expansion and lead to a "Big Crunch."

Question to anyone: If all of space and time were contained within the singularity that became the Big Bang, then where did that singularity exist? That would assume there was space OUTSIDE of the space contained within the singularity, wouldn't it?

There is a connection in all the division. The (total) nothing is (all) one. The nothing is a "singularity". A singularity anywhere, anytime... The "existing" anything (anytime, anyspace, anyfeature...) is a flaw of/in nothing, appearing and disappearing in nothing. Maybe this approach can help to imagine how the "universe" probably works.

There is a connection in all the division. The (total) nothing is (all) one. The nothing is a "singularity". A singularity anywhere, anytime... The "existing" anything (anytime, anyspace, anyfeature...) is a flaw of/in nothing, appearing and disappearing in nothing. Maybe this approach can help to imagine how the "universe" probably works.

It may be possible that the "Accelerating Universe" theory is wrong and the time itself is ending as theorized by some scientists. So instead of dark energy taking over and surpassing the dark matter, dark matter might surpass dark energy and cause a big crunch and will have a final say on the fate of the universe, creating conditions for the next Big Bang.!

@archaeopteryx,
There wasn't any space 'outside' the 'singularity' before the Big Bang. In fact, there was no 'outside' then. As for your question that where did the singularity exist, it existed here and it existed where you are or just any part of the universe or more correctly, the space we live in existed in that singularity which then burst into existence or inflated. You can say that the singularity was blown up creating all the space, time and matter in the present universe.

@Steve,

Hawking has theorized (lol. in a paper I remember reading about 15 years ago and in his book Black holes and Baby Universes) that quantum theory says that every once in a while a particle of radiation is given off by a black hole. Most of them get reabsorbed immediately since they are still within the event horizon, but every once in a while one gets kicked hard enough to be outside the the event horizon, meaning a loss of mass for the black hole.

Assuming that the black hole is far enough away from a source of matter and/or energy that means that the black hole gets infinitesimally smaller. Over 100 years that doesn't matter at all but over 5 billion years it adds up. Adds up to the point that there is too little matter in the singularity to maintain the black hole and it pops out of existence and dies.

But the really cool part is that is that when the black hole pops out of this universe, it pops into a new baby universe all its own. Of course, by this time it has very little mass left and only takes a bit along with it so such universes are baby, unstable things and disappear fairly rapidly.

Well, that's the theory at least.

But that raises a problem to me which I'll enumerate in another post.

I think we don't know alot about black holes by a LOT. But maybe it's just me. I'm a computer type, certainly not an astronomer or scientist. But I got my list of questions handy. :)

For instance:

I keep hearing over and over that black holes have infinite gravity and that all of the matter and energy that falls into a black hole is spaghettified and "disappears" from the universe.

Logically that's a silly notion.

If we have 3 black holes, A, B and C and A takes in a half a billion tons of matter, B takes in 700 billion tons of matter and C takes in 900 billion tons of matter, surely they have to have different gravitational measurements. They can't all just have "infinite" gravity.

The next question: If as Hawking has theorized (see my post above), black holes give off matter and energy in the form of radiation, where does this radiation come from? It appears as if by magic? In every paper and documentary I've ever read, we're told that matter just 'disappears' when it hits the singularity. It's torn apart and that's the end of the story.

But if that is the case, then why do different sized black holes exist? Why does a black hole that's giving off radiation get smaller and black holes that take on matter/energy get bigger? Why do galaxy collisions produce black holes that are bigger than the original black holes in either of the host galaxies. They're never smaller, they're bigger.

I think that we don't know a LOT about black holes. I think that the matter that they take in is stored in the singularity, but we just don't have the technology to detect them. But one day in the far future we'll develop the technology to tap into these storehouses of matter and energy.

Just a few random thoughts that have tumbled into my head on occasion. :) Yeah, it's a pretty icky place up there. lol.

Godspeed

why do different sized black holes exist?

I've heard of at least 3 different types/sizes of black holes.

Supermassive black holes are at the centers of most galaxies. Different sizes. Think ours is about 4 million times the mass of our sun.

Stellar mass black holes are the remains of massive stars that supernova. When a star 100 times the size of our sun go supernova there's enough matter and therefore gravity to form the black hole. But again, surely a star that's 100 times the mass of our sun and a star that's 1000 times the mass of our sun and a star that's a billion times the mass of our sun, all have to have different sized black holes as a result and different gravity reasdings, so I guess I just don't get the 'all black holes have infinite gravity' theory.

There are (or were) micro black holes, after the big bang.

This Idea has a deeper impact to me.If it proves true then we can say primordial Black holes are the means by which we can mediate from one universe to the next one.
But again for that we need to have a technology to go in and come out of that Black Hole.
If we disintigrate mass into energy and again re-intigrate it (maybe with the help of Higgs Boson) then we could sustain inside black hole .After crossing event horizon due to its emmense gravitational pull matteres often breaks down and part of it became energy.
So better we convert mass into enery(Photon),get that energy inside a primordial black hole,wait till the Big Bang get over,then come out of black hole,and then re-established the mass from that energy !
Splendid Sci-fi it looks like ... but for this to happen we need to program Higgs Boson,and need to figure out how to get out of the black hole,and identify black hole which all are going to survive the Big Crunch !!
And most of all we need to be sure that the elementery particles are always same through out all the version of universe.If the laws of Physics get changed then the Photon and Higgs Boson might not have the same property as now !!!!

The universe is expanding faster and faster but we can only see a small part of it. Perhaps the rest of the universe is already collapsing. The local accelerated expansion could be the result of the gravitational pull of the rest of the universe increasing.

Interesting Idea. Isn't the universe collapsing behind the event horizon(s) of our expanding area?

And in a shrinking area of universe we'd ask: Isn't the universe expanding behind the reach of our shrinking area?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)