Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: White bang

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    959

    White bang

    Maybe the big bang was really the eruption of a white hole.

    Spitting out our universe.

    Could this have been possible??

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by brianok View Post
    Maybe the big bang was really the eruption of a white hole.

    Spitting out our universe.

    Could this have been possible??
    Hello brianok.

    With over 800 posts to your name, you are certainly not a newbie to BAUT, good!

    Are you aware that, very recently, the Advice for ATM Idea Advocates - Read before posting in ATM thread was revised? While it contains nothing substantially new, compared with the one it replaces, it is much more concise (and well worth a read, IMHO).

    One thing I'm curious about: what, exactly, is the ATM idea (or concept, or hypothesis) that you are presenting in this thread? By this I mean, the idea that you are prepared to address challenges to, and answer questions on.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    959
    The white hole which was actually the cause of the big bang threw out massive black holes surrounded by debris.

    These became the galaxies which now occupy the universe.

    Quasars are young versions of these.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,810
    Quote Originally Posted by brianok View Post
    The white hole which was actually the cause of the big bang threw out massive black holes surrounded by debris.
    So where is this white hole now?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,878
    It's a fun idea, but it implies a universe with a center, which we do not see in our universe, as Baric says.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,810
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    It's a fun idea, but it implies a universe with a center, which we do not see in our universe, as Baric says.
    It would be awesome if it were true. Geez, can you imagine the religious implications?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    959
    Perhaps the white hole evaporated or closed

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,810
    Quote Originally Posted by brianok View Post
    Perhaps the white hole evaporated or closed
    Well, then what evidence do you have for your claim?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,476
    To make Nereid's advice more moderatorly (to coin a word), here's one part of the new ATM guidelines I'd like to point out:

    3. Be prepared to defend your ideas. You are going to be challenged to defend them with evidence and you are expected to do so. Doing your preparation and your research before you even start your thread is an excellent idea. The ATM forum is not intended for you to develop your idea, it is for you to present your idea.
    The ATM forum isn't the place to play what-ifs-and-couldabeens. If you're not ready to substantively defend this idea, this thread will not go well.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    959
    This theory makes more sense that having some cosmic egg that has floated around for an almost infinite time.

    A white hole is theoretically possible.

    It has been speculated that there may be other universes with different laws of physics.

    One could have imploded [the big crunch] creating a new universe.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,550
    I do believe that "fecund universe" models do propose something like this. However in those, it tends to be black holes that lead to branching off of new universes and the white hole (or whatever one calls it) doesn't spit out anything, it becomes the new inflation bubble just as in the mainstream thinking, the whatever-it-was-that-went-Big-Bang becomes our observable universe (+ extras).
    The dog, the dog, he's at it again!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    959
    Check this out!!
    --------------------------------------------------

    Like part of a cosmic Russian doll, our universe may be nested inside a black hole that is itself part of a larger universe.
    In turn, all the black holes found so far in our universe—from the microscopic to the supermassive—may be doorways into alternate realities.
    According to a mind-bending new theory, a black hole is actually a tunnel between universes—a type of wormhole
    __________________________________________________ _
    Link to the rest of the article--------
    ---http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,550
    Poplawski's research paper has been mentioned at least once as of late here and I also posted about it on RationalSkepticism but for some reason it doesn't seem to catch on much. Maybe it's because it's not really such a new idea?
    The dog, the dog, he's at it again!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,272
    A 'White Hole' is a mathematical possibility that results from the breakdown of physics at the point of a black hole reaching the state of being a singularity.

    If a black hole somehow spontaneously erupted into a white hole, I expect that the energy output of it would would make hyper-nova's and massive GRB's look minor. If such a thing happened, the black hole would literally explode in a flash of energy that would likely outshine the output of all the stars in the universe for a few seconds. The light echo from such an event would likely be detectable for billions of years, and be easily extinguishable from the microwave background. There is no evidence of such an event occurring so while white holes are an interesting mathematical outcome, the universe laws of physics combine in such a way that doesn't to allow for that to happen.

    While the big bang seems to be the only true singularity there ever was, the reason it appears as a singularity is there was no space or time in existence when it exploded, so we perceive the universe as expanding from this singularity that exploded some how. In truth though because there was no space or time until after the big bang, the pre big bang universe could be anything from the size of a single point (a true singularity) to something as large as a universe. We just will never know because in our universe, the big bang started space and time, so that will always appear as a singularity in our universe. And what it really was before then will remain an untestable and unknown condition.

    I'm actually a fan of recycling universe theories, but the main problem is that they delve into a state of science that is untestable by physics, and they don't really contradict the big bag, just add a lot of suppositions to it.

    While the big bang certainly seems to behave the way a white hole might, by releasing all it's energy almost at a single moment, if it was such a construct it would be the only one ever and still be untestable. Black hole's that accreat matter grow in size, but not just with the event horizon, there is some indications that black holes don't actually collapse completely into a singularity, as that would require a total loss of information, which would include the loss of gravity information.

    This is why we don't see black holes turning into white holes, they don't collapse far enough that the gravity information is lost.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    I'll number my questions, for easy reference
    Quote Originally Posted by brianok View Post
    The white hole which was actually the cause of the big bang threw out massive black holes surrounded by debris.
    N1: Is this speculation consistent with the theory of general relativity (GR)?

    N2: If so, please show how it is consistent, in detail.

    N3: If not, what theory of gravity does this ATM idea use?

    These became the galaxies which now occupy the universe.
    N4: What is the characteristic mass of these "massive black holes" (MBH)?

    N5: How did the MBH become "the galaxies which now occupy the universe"?

    Quasars are young versions of these.
    N6: What does "young versions of these" mean?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by brianok View Post
    This theory makes more sense that having some cosmic egg that has floated around for an almost infinite time.
    N7: If you are using the word "theory" with its standard meaning, please provide references to where it has been published.

    N8: How well does this theory account for the different kinds of observations usually cited as being consistent with LCDM cosmological models?

    N9: Specifically, the WMAP results, the BAO observations, the estimated primordial abundance of light nuclides, the high-z SNe observations.

    A white hole is theoretically possible.
    N10: Please provide references - preferably papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - to support this assertion.

    It has been speculated that there may be other universes with different laws of physics.
    N11: How is this relevant to the ATM idea presented, by you, in this thread?

    One could have imploded [the big crunch] creating a new universe.
    N12: How is this relevant to the ATM idea presented, by you, in this thread?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    959
    Nereid:

    For questions 1 2 & 3

    According to the Poplawski paper:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    "According to Einstein's equations for general relativity, singularities are created whenever matter in a given region gets too dense, as would happen at the ultradense heart of a black hole.

    Einstein's theory suggests singularities take up no space, are infinitely dense, and are infinitely hot—a concept supported by numerous lines of indirect evidence but still so outlandish that many scientists find it hard to accept.

    According to the new equations, the matter black holes absorb and seemingly destroy is actually expelled and becomes the building blocks for galaxies, stars, and planets in another reality

    ---------------------------------------------------

    For the rest of your questions read the link at the bottom of posting # 12

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    N12 Which new equations?
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    N12 Which new equations?
    That'd be "HO1"!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Ah, N for Nereid, not for Number.

    Ok, a repeat with a new number:

    Quote Originally Posted by brianok View Post
    "According to Einstein's equations for general relativity, singularities are created whenever matter in a given region gets too dense, as would happen at the ultradense heart of a black hole.

    Einstein's theory suggests singularities take up no space, are infinitely dense, and are infinitely hot—a concept supported by numerous lines of indirect evidence but still so outlandish that many scientists find it hard to accept.

    According to the new equations, the matter black holes absorb and seemingly destroy is actually expelled and becomes the building blocks for galaxies, stars, and planets in another reality
    HO1: Which new equations? Please list them and tell how they're relevant for the existence of white holes and how they relate to the untestable hypothesis that the Big Bang was a White hole.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by brianok View Post
    Nereid:

    For questions 1 2 & 3

    According to the Poplawski paper:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    "According to Einstein's equations for general relativity, singularities are created whenever matter in a given region gets too dense, as would happen at the ultradense heart of a black hole.

    Einstein's theory suggests singularities take up no space, are infinitely dense, and are infinitely hot—a concept supported by numerous lines of indirect evidence but still so outlandish that many scientists find it hard to accept.

    According to the new equations, the matter black holes absorb and seemingly destroy is actually expelled and becomes the building blocks for galaxies, stars, and planets in another reality

    ---------------------------------------------------

    For the rest of your questions read the link at the bottom of posting # 12
    Thanks for your swift reply.

    However, this does not answer any of my questions.

    For starters, the link in post #12 is to an article on the National Geographic website, not a paper published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal. Further, the quotes (in this last post of yours) are from that website, not (apparently) from any paper Poplawski may (or may not) have published.

    So, here are N1, N2, and N3 again; please answer them:

    N1: Is this speculation consistent with the theory of general relativity (GR)?

    N2: If so, please show how it is consistent, in detail.

    N3: If not, what theory of gravity does this ATM idea use?

    Unless you are Poplawski, the ATM idea presented in this thread is yours, so you need to supply the answers to direct questions, pertinent to the ATM idea presented, as presented.

    So, please answer questions N4, N5, N6, N7, N8, N9, N10, N11, and N12.

    Here they are again:

    N4: What is the characteristic mass of these "massive black holes" (MBH)?

    N5: How did the MBH become "the galaxies which now occupy the universe"?

    N6: What does "young versions of these" mean?

    N7: If you are using the word "theory" with its standard meaning, please provide references to where it has been published.

    N8: How well does this theory account for the different kinds of observations usually cited as being consistent with LCDM cosmological models?

    N9: Specifically, the WMAP results, the BAO observations, the estimated primordial abundance of light nuclides, the high-z SNe observations.

    N10: Please provide references - preferably papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - to support this assertion ("A white hole is theoretically possible").

    N11: How is this ("It has been speculated that there may be other universes with different laws of physics") relevant to the ATM idea presented, by you, in this thread?

    N12: How is this ("One could have imploded [the big crunch] creating a new universe") relevant to the ATM idea presented, by you, in this thread?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    959
    Check this link for some equations

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/p...901.0215v1.pdf

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,476
    brianok,

    Make your case here, in this thread. Simply posting links is not the way to defend your theory. I suggest you stop and take some time to read the Alternate Theory Advice linked in my signature line below.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by brianok View Post
    If I may, at this point in the discussion, digress a bit; have you read the advice for ATM promoters posted here?

    Note specifically point 4.
    4. Whenever possible, defend your points with published research – and make sure you can provide some explanation in your own words as to how that research supports what you are saying. Quoting articles or providing links to on-line videos with no explanation is not evidence.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,476
    Please leave moderation to the moderators.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    959
    Well:

    I just posted this as an interesting idea.

    I cannot defend it very strongly

    But it seems more logical to me than the BING BANG

    Cheers

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by brianok View Post
    Well:

    I just posted this as an interesting idea.

    I cannot defend it very strongly
    For avoidance of doubt, are you saying you refuse to answer my questions? Or that the answer to all my questions is some variant of "I don't know"?

    Please clarify.

    But it seems more logical to me than the BING BANG

    Cheers
    N13: Why, in detail, does it seem more logical than "the BING BANG"?

    N14: What is this "BING BANG" that you mention?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,810
    Quote Originally Posted by brianok View Post
    Well:

    I just posted this as an interesting idea.

    I cannot defend it very strongly

    But it seems more logical to me than the BING BANG

    Cheers
    You do understand that the term "Big Bang" was coined by someone who was trying to make it sound implausible?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,669
    brianok, are you posting this as your own idea, or as something you read somewhere?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    N14: What is this "BING BANG" that you mention?
    Mafia physics. Shortened, but originally called the "Ba-da-Bing Ba-da-Bang" theory, the theory you can't refuse. Inspired by the Horsehead nebula.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,476
    Quote Originally Posted by brianok View Post
    Well:

    I just posted this as an interesting idea.

    I cannot defend it very strongly

    But it seems more logical to me than the BING BANG

    Cheers
    I'll take this as a withdrawal of your claim from discussion and close this thread. If you later feel that you can support your argument, please report this post to ask for the thread to be reopened.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Similar Threads

  1. The Biggest Bang (amendment to the Big Bang)
    By RWFinFW in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2011-Aug-19, 09:05 PM
  2. Big Bang as a White Hole.
    By Infinitenight2093 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 2010-Dec-11, 07:03 PM
  3. How did the Big Bang manage to...bang out?
    By dnj123 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 2008-Jan-13, 11:19 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2007-Dec-04, 09:49 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2007-Apr-28, 04:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •