PDA

View Full Version : Was the Big Bang a supernova?



Faulkner
2004-Feb-17, 12:24 PM
What are your responses to such an idea?

GOURDHEAD
2004-Feb-17, 01:03 PM
:ph34r: No. In addition to being many times (googleplex of solar masses comes to mind) more powerful than a supernova, the big bang, if it occurred as currently posited, appears to have generated both space and time which supernovae merely modulate.

How big I think the universe can have grown since the big bang is included in this quote from another topic.


Let's take 13.7 billion light years as the size of the currently (speed of light limited) observable universe from best guessing at the value of the Hubble constant. This is largely speculation not a measurement. An observer on an object that far away, by looking in the direction opposite from the direction to us should be able to see an object 13.7 billion lightyears in that direction as will an observer on that object be able to see an object 13.7 billion lightyears still further on in the established direction of looking, etc.,. I'm not sure how this ever ends which means that the volume of the universe increases without limit unless something about the inflation and normal expansion introduces a limiting process; even if so how do we bring this sizing algorithm to a close? :ph34r:

Since the universe is beleived by some to have expanded from a sphere of ~10^-10 meters radius to one of > than 10^+15 meters within a time interval from 10^-43 to 10^-35 seconds, the portion of it (the actual physical universe) observable by us due to speed of light limitations is a tiny fraction of the whole. The energy equivalent to all the mass in the actual physical universe was involved in the big bang...maybe. Comparing this amount of energy to that of a supernova can not be useful at our current level of understanding. <_<

Faulkner
2004-Feb-20, 08:25 AM
I&#39;m certainly not in disagreeance here.

I guess where I was coming from was the fact that black holes exist, and they are manufactured in supernovae.

There are supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies. Galaxies are meant to have evolved from quasars, which appear to be stupendously-bright star-like objects. I&#39;m thinking that maybe quasars WERE in fact rotating supermassive stars that exploded (gamma ray bursts?), the nebulae condensing into the the whirlpool galaxies we see (very similar to the creation of a solar system, but on a bigger scale).

It could very easily follow that the entire Universe is a black hole (we&#39;re inside it, obviously), which formed from the explosion of a SUPER-super-super-massive star.

The Big Bang, in effect, becomes a runaway chain-reaction of smaller and smaller (and more and more) supernovae. Would this "scaling-down" effect continue forever?

We are told that physics breaks down at the event horizon of a black hole. Maybe it doesn&#39;t&#33;?

Faulkner
2004-Feb-20, 08:34 AM
Sorry to double-post, but I think I&#39;m onto something here...&#33;&#33; :P

When the quasars exploded, the nebulae contracts into galaxies...but meanwhile the pressure fronts from the explosions would continue to rush out, colliding with the pressure fronts from other quasar explosions, thus "pushing" everything away from each other&#33;

Yes? Perhaps? :lol: