Was it a Black Hole that Exploded in the Big Bang?

Hello dear readers, I am with you again after a long time. "Was a Black Hole Exploding in the Big Bang?" Let's consider the theory.

In its simplest form, we will consider why this theory might make sense. So let's start...

EXPRESSION

What makes a black hole a black hole? Not the dark part, of course. The event horizon is the hallmark of a black hole. The line we call the event horizon, one side of the border is like a different universe and the other side is a completely different universe. If you're outside, you have a chance. If you can be fast enough you can escape.

Of course, if you're inside. Forget all the endings you know. It's really the end of everything for an object. An end other than death. An end to the singularity. And in a few seconds, you find yourself in that singularity, in the center of the black hole. All that's left of you is the additional mass you add to the black hole. Whatever black holes eat, they grow… It gains mass.

But what does this have to do with the beginning of our universe?

It's so weird. We are coming.

Now. Everything in the universe. But let's take everything and try to fit it into an atomic nucleus together. When we say everything, we mean the following. Our materials are:

Matter as we know it, made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Ghost particle neutrinos that hardly interact with normal matter.

Dark matter, which has done everything to stay undetected until now, but has covered the four corners of the universe.

Dear photons, which carry the energy of even the smallest electromagnetic event throughout cosmic history. Light particles.

And gravitational waves that form in the fabric of spacetime every time a mass moves.

Yes. These materials are enough for us.

When we look at the universe, we can see up to 46 billion light years in all directions. And when you mix all the materials together in accordance with the observable universe, you can calculate the "mass" of the universe according to Einstein's legendary formula E = mc2.

Then our question is this. What would happen if we gathered everything in one spot? The answer is clear. What would happen if we squeezed any large mass into a single point right now. Black hole.

This is where things start to get interesting.

This is where Einstein's incredible gravity comes into play. If the mass and/or energy we are talking about is not electrically charged and, let's say, it doesn't spin, if it doesn't have a spin, only the amount of mass determines how big this black hole will be. We call this the Schwarzschild radius. In short, this is the radius you have to compress to turn matter into a black hole. If a mass compresses up to this radius, the movie is over. There is no other possibility but to turn into a black hole.

And if we took all the matter in the universe and compressed it into a single point and formed a black hole, you know what the Schwarzschild radius of that black hole would be? Almost exactly the size of the observable universe. Is that a coinsidence? So we, everything came from a black hole?

stop. We haven't even started yet. It gets even weirder.

In the mid-1960s, a discovery would take place that would radically change our view of the universe. When we looked out into space, wherever we looked, there was a very regular, low-energy radiation coming from all directions. The temperature of this radiation was also only a few degrees above absolute zero. It performed an almost perfect blackbody glow. It's like it's coming from a hot, thermal source.

This phenomenon, which was called the "ancient fireball" when it was first discovered, is now known as "cosmic background radiation". In its simplest form, it showed that the universe was much hotter and denser long ago, expanding and getting colder.

Therefore, when we rewind the tape, we can deduce that everything is much smaller and denser. And when we go to the beginning, we reach a singularity. We can see this singularity only in black holes. Points where density, temperature, and energy are high enough to invalidate all laws of physics.

And when we look at the equations describing a black hole, we encounter something unusual.

Example. The distance of the line you draw from just outside the event horizon to anywhere can go from the Schwarschild radius to infinity. On the other hand, if you draw a line from the inner part of the event horizon to the center of the black hole, to the singularity, you will see that this distance is exactly the opposite of zero. Zero versus infinity.

What can we say about that?

But the math tells us something else.

When you swap the distance and radius and compare the features outside the event horizon of a black hole with the features inside it, you will see that they are exactly the same in every sense.

It is really interesting.

Of course, on the other hand, our understanding of the universe has improved a lot in the last century. With two new discoveries, the stones have been moved. One of them was “cosmic inflation”. It's called Cosmic Expansion. That is, just before the big bang, we discovered that the universe was expanding at an incredibly fast pace. It was as if a space-specific energy had come from some kind of field, and after that expansion had ceased, the explosion had occurred.

The second discovery was dark energy. As the universe expands, distant galaxies are getting faster and farther away. Again, it's as if the vacuum of space has its own energy. And this energy does not dilute as the universe expands. It seems to be getting stronger. And since these cosmic expansion and dark energy discoveries, scientists have thought there might be a connection between them.

But what? Here again, black holes are thought to contain this answer.

Black holes gain mass with every mass they swallow, grow, and then lose mass with Hawking radiation. In this case, a lot of questions arise. In this process, for example, as the size of the event horizon changes, does the energy of space also change for an observer inside the event horizon? Could the big bang that started with cosmic expansion have emerged from a supermassive black hole? Could what we call dark energy be related to black holes?

Even crazier. We know that black holes are constantly forming in the universe. So, does each black hole hide a baby universe?

This is of course speculation and has been on the minds of physicists for a very long time. Especially if your area of expertise is black holes, thermodynamics, entropy, general relativity and the beginning or end of the universe, it is impossible to stop asking these questions.

And within this framework, many models emerged. But all models were unfortunately somewhat lacking. It was missing the features a scientific model needed to be successful. When we say missing, we mean this.

No model has been able to reconstruct the observed and proven phenomena to date.

He could not put forward a new claim that previous theories could not explain.

He was unable to make new predictions that differed from existing theories that we could test.

The most ambitious of these models is Roger Penrose's Circular Universe model. The claim that a universe gives birth to a new universe after its death. Of course, we do not have any evidence of this, unfortunately.

Like other models that examine the connection between the birth of the universe and black holes.

But all the possibilities I just mentioned prevent us from ignoring this connection. It is possible that there is a connection between the birth of the universe and a possible supermassive black hole before the big bang. And the existence of a universe inside all the black holes that are currently occurring in our universe.

Unfortunately, we do not have strong evidence to show us this. Which is the biggest challenge facing theoretical physicists. Finding the crumbs of a new theory in the observable universe, finding the evidence to distinguish this new theory from existing theories. It is not possible to talk about any reality without finding them. However, ignoring this possibility would be a big mistake.

In other words, we have a very interesting answer to the question of what happens if we fall into a black hole. If you were to fall into a black hole, you could provide the material to form the material of a new universe. You could suddenly be completely nothing and be born a universe…

Now, let's move on to Scientifically proven Q&A and remove the doubt in minds;

Why didn't the universe collapse into a black hole in the beginning?

Sometimes people have a hard time understanding why the Big Bang wasn't a black hole. After all, the density of matter in the first fraction of a second was much higher than that found in any star, and dense matter is assumed to strongly warp spacetime. With sufficient density, there must be matter in a region smaller than the Schwarzschild radius for its mass. Still, the Big Bang manages to avoid being trapped inside a black hole of its own making, and paradoxically, the field near the singularity is actually flat rather than tightly curved. How can this be?

What is the difference between Big Bang model and black hole?

Standard Big Bang models are Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) solutions to the gravitational field equations of general relativity. These can describe open or closed universes. At the beginning of all these FRW universes there is a singularity that represents the Big Bang. Black holes have singularities. Moreover, no light can escape in the case of a closed universe, this is just the general definition of a black hole. So what's the difference?

The first clear difference is that the Big Bang singularity of the FRW models lies in the history of all events in the universe, while the singularity of the black hole lies in the future. The Big Bang is therefore more like a "white hole": a time-reversed version of a black hole. According to classical general relativity, white holes should not exist, as they cannot be created for the same (time-reversed) reasons that black holes cannot be destroyed. But if they have always existed, this may not be the case.

But the standard FRW Big Bang models also differ from a white hole. A white hole has an event horizon that is the opposite of a black hole event horizon. Nothing can pass through this horizon, just as nothing can escape from the black hole horizon. Roughly speaking, this is the definition of a white hole. Note that it would be easy to show that the FRW pattern differs from a standard black or white hole solution such as static Schwarzschild solutions or rotating Kerr solutions, but it is more difficult to show the difference from a more general black hole solution. or white hole. The real difference is that FRW models do not have the same type of event horizon as a black or white hole.

MT THOUGHTS

It would be a big step for something like this to happen, even though it goes far beyond the proposal we have accepted so far. The reason why it cannot go beyond the theory yet is what caused the Big Bang, which is the most important question we have not found the answer to. If the cause of the Big Bang is a black hole, it means that it brings questions behind the black hole, and a dead end will be entered again. To find the absolute reason for this, rather than starting from the same terms, we need to find a different term and lead us to change our whole way of understanding. Of course, as it is said, it is not an easy thing to find, but it should be a comforting concept like god at the point where people get into a dead end. Despite everything, as we mentioned above, we have achieved an incredible development as a civilization in the last 3 centuries, and we will. We should never say, "This is the limit of my mind, I cannot know further". Human potential is a very, very high creature. Don't hesitate to use it. Thanks for reading, see you in the next articles =)

by: Yunus Emre Eşkin