"Cosmic Variance" --Are There Fewer Faint, Distant Galaxies in the Universe?
Today's 'Galaxy' Insight --"Beyond the Big Bang"

Big Bang Nixed --"Our Universe Evolved from the Black Hole of a Collapsed 4-D Star" (Today's Most Popular)





“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” said Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada. Big Bang was a mirage from collapsing higher-dimensional star, theorists propose. While the recent Planck results “prove that inflation is correct”, they leave open the question of how inflation happened. A new The study could help to show how inflation was triggered by the motion of the Universe through a higher-dimensional reality.

The event horizon of a black hole — the point of no return for anything that falls in — is a spherical surface. In a higher-dimensional universe, a black hole could have a three-dimensional event horizon, which could spawn a whole new universe as it forms.

It could be time to bid the Big Bang bye-bye. Cosmologists have speculated that the Universe formed from the debris ejected when a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole — a scenario that would help to explain why the cosmos seems to be so uniform in all directions.

The standard Big Bang model tells us that the Universe exploded out of an infinitely dense point, or singularity. But nobody knows what would have triggered this outburst: the known laws of physics cannot tell us what happened at that moment.

It is also difficult to explain how a violent Big Bang would have left behind a Universe that has an almost completely uniform temperature, because there does not seem to have been enough time since the birth of the cosmos for it to have reached temperature equilibrium.

To most cosmologists, the most plausible explanation for that uniformity is that, soon after the beginning of time, some unknown form of energy made the young Universe inflate at a rate that was faster than the speed of light. That way, a small patch with roughly uniform temperature would have stretched into the vast cosmos we see today. But Afshordi notes that “the Big Bang was so chaotic, it’s not clear there would have been even a small homogenous patch for inflation to start working on”.

In a paper posted last week on the arXiv preprint server1, Afshordi and his colleagues turn their attention to a proposal made in 2000 by a team including Gia Dvali, a physicist now at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich, Germany. In that model, our three-dimensional (3D) Universe is a membrane, or brane, that floats through a ‘bulk universe’ that has four spatial dimensions.

Ashfordi's team realized that if the bulk universe contained its own four-dimensional (4D) stars, some of them could collapse, forming 4D black holes in the same way that massive stars in our Universe do: they explode as supernovae, violently ejecting their outer layers, while their inner layers collapse into a black hole.

In our Universe, a black hole is bounded by a spherical surface called an event horizon. Whereas in ordinary three-dimensional space it takes a two-dimensional object (a surface) to create a boundary inside a black hole, in the bulk universe the event horizon of a 4D black hole would be a 3D object — a shape called a hypersphere. When Afshordi’s team modelled the death of a 4D star, they found that the ejected material would form a 3D brane surrounding that 3D event horizon, and slowly expand.

The authors postulate that the 3D Universe we live in might be just such a brane — and that we detect the brane’s growth as cosmic expansion. “Astronomers measured that expansion and extrapolated back that the Universe must have begun with a Big Bang — but that is just a mirage,” says Afshordi.

The model also naturally explains our Universe’s uniformity. Because the 4D bulk universe could have existed for an infinitely long time in the past, there would have been ample opportunity for different parts of the 4D bulk to reach an equilibrium, which our 3D Universe would have inherited.

The picture has some problems, however. Earlier this year, the European Space Agency's Planck space observatory released data that mapped the slight temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background — the relic radiation that carries imprints of the Universe’s early moments. The observed patterns matched predictions made by the standard Big Bang model and inflation, but the black-hole model deviates from Planck's observations by about 4%. Hoping to resolve the discrepancy, Afshordi says that his is now refining its model.

Despite the mismatch, Dvali praises the ingenious way in which the team threw out the Big Bang model. “The singularity is the most fundamental problem in cosmology and they have rewritten history so that we never encountered it,” he says. Whereas the Planck results “prove that inflation is correct”, they leave open the question of how inflation happened, Dvali adds. The study could help to show how inflation is triggered by the motion of the Universe through a higher-dimensional reality, he says.

Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2013.13743

The Daily Galaxy via Zeeya Merali/nature.com and The Perimeter Institute

Image credit: The Perimeter Institute


Again, avoiding the real question with more suppositions and theories you can neither test or see. Smh.

Kinda all hinges on whether there *is* a 4D universe. Come back when you have some evidence. Hint: math isn't evidence.

That's why u correctly said theories. I once taught if this long time ago. Uts a possibility. Cleary can't prove it.

I don't see how this disproves the big bang. If anything, it supports it, and just adds the pre-bang explanation.

nearly by definition, our universe is the event horizon of the next universe up.
and on it goes. i thought of this in high school.
and what we think of as "thought" is just the other side the event horizon. that's why you can't move it.

anything you can't move, has one foot in another universe just one step up.
this is so much fun. thanks.

The universe is pulsating. Big bang for expansion which eventually will will stall. Black hole's will become bigger and bigger, and eventually will merge into one supermassive black hole...which will reach critical mass (should we call it big Collapse?) and boom.... Big Bang again...
This is just a theory at the moment...

I believe that the evolution of the universe has yet to be explained. We need to "go back to the drawing board on this subject". I don't like the most popular theory any more than the rest of them. The most popular theory asks one to rely on the imagination, [invisible matter]to make it work.

Not the article, but the comments wowed me. (Okay, de article wowed me too). But these comments! So many talented amateur cosmologist who know it better. What a missed chance for science and humanity.

Arduenn: My thoughts exactly. Where is the 4D black hole from where all these sniding besserwissers spawn from? Internet really brings out the worst in some people.

The problem with the 4d universe is its beginning, it can only come from a 6d universe or the 4d universe always existed like einstein's original theory.

To all panel. If you have read and understand the theory of «Pointal Charges», described in the book «From the inside of quarks and up to beyond the Universe» you would have realized that all this talk has no meaning. I beg you, for the sake of science read this theory. Those who love the progress, take a look at it.
We devote more than a century for the big bang: let devote even five minutes on something different. We had tired enough to read the same and the same things, without any real effect.

The only reason people believe that our inflationary Universe exploded out of an infinitely dense point is because of the possibly incorrect theory that a black hole is a point singularity.

The present ideas about a point singularity, fuzzballs, string theory, or 4D stars are probably wrong. The virial equation indicates a star of ultra relativistic matter has a radius of 0.92 SR.

This article are old news recycled over and over again, see:


Correction to the last sentence of my last statement above; it should read: "a radius of 0.82 SR."

Imagine a black with time reversed. What is inside a black hole? Whole space and time contracted. As we come out of it, we will notice both time and space stretching. As we come out space seems more and more expanded. And inside the black hole time is at halt, so coming out of it, or playing time reverse in case of black hole is like watching time start off, time begin.

What if this is a real scenario, that big bang is actually a black hole with direction of time in the hyper reality just reversed.

If our universe is a 3D brane moving through a 4D universe, is that 4th dimension time, and does this explain why we move forward through that time? Does this also also explain why our spacetime is curved?

This thread is interesting in that the lion's share of comments show a lot of insight and thought. Thank you all for that.

The big bang theory basically stated that our universe emerged from a point...a singularity. That would of course be 100% true if our 3D universe came from a 4D BH. The big bang theory only said that...it didn't say anything about a 4D BH being our origin point, i.e. a 4D singularity. So to me the big bang still holds but it's only half the story for it does not go beyond the expansion from a point. I think it would be safe to have that idea, the big bang but with an open mind to what was the real source...a 4D BH or whatnot. Beyond the expansion from a point, we still don't know diddly squat however speculation is mistermed as "theory". More on that below.

There is a huge difference in an idea, a postulate and a theory. An idea is just that. You could base it on intuition, some fuzzy logic, a dream or just a thought. A postulate is an idea with some basis...the bases are sometimes (a lot of the time) erroneously called "proofs" (not proofs though). A Theory differs from an idea or a postulate because unlike ideas and postulates, theories require proofs.

There is zero proof in the beginning instant of the big bang and zero proof in the 4D BH singularity. If there were proof it would be FACT and neither the instant of expansion nor the proposed 4D sinularity is fact, for neither has a scrap of real honest to goodness proof. Not yet. Soreferece to the "big bang theory" is a misnomer for there is no theory for there is no real proof...only a valid theory of expansion, which some still argue isn't a valid theory.

So where are we? Actually, no further at all from the first glimmer of the thought of a "big bang".

My scientific intuition "feels" that more observances, more facts, more theories and hence more answers will manifest in the next few years, aided by but not dependent on CERN's data coming in and being interpreted. The key word is "interpreted". Mark my word, even the interpretations will change in time since new data comes in all the time. The word "interpretation" itself suggests fuzzy fact.

So be fluid, be open minded, be scientists...accept the dynamics of discovery, don't rewrite text books with "this is now the law" type of thing...be universal in our, LOL, 3D universe.

"a scenario that would help to explain why the cosmos seems to be so uniform in all directions."

Its actually not, right after the big bang the universe was uniform, a nice hot uniform plasma all over. Then after a while quantum sorcery made sure randomness appeared then gravity took care of the rest. Now we have an unsorted universe with bits and pieces everywhere. Inflation.

Retraction of statement: "The virial equation indicates a star of ultra relativistic matter has a radius of 0.92 or 0.82 SR." This is incorrect. A compact star slightly larger than 1.0 SR is a better explanation for what is commonly called a black hole. This star although extremely hot would be effectively invisible due to gravitational red shift.

Even if a 4D and a 6D ad infinitum ...universes exist, I should think there would ultimately have to be a starting point. Conversely, no matter how small the single concentrated point of a black hole is it came from somewhere. Was it all coming originally from energy and if so, from whence did that come? Also, it seems a black hole should implode rather than explode. So sorry if this is far too elementary for the current discussion.

Going thru old posts: My previous statement of a star of about 0.82 or 0.92 Schwarzschild radius is wrong. A star 1.0 Schwarzschild radius or smaller is a mathematical impossibility because it would be an infinite gravitational accelerator: Mathematically a single incoming atom would attain the speed of light and have more mass-energy than the entire universe. A nominal radius of 1.1 (+/- 0.1) Schwarzschild radius for the size of so called black holes makes much more sense. This star would emit infrared.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


Post a comment

Your Information

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