I have always wondered why the 'Big Bang' wasn't a black hole.
It would seem that if all the energy and matter in the entire universe were
contained in a relatively small space that it would be a black hole.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
I have always wondered why the 'Big Bang' wasn't a black hole.
It would seem that if all the energy and matter in the entire universe
were contained in a relatively small space that it would be a black hole.

Add in the properties of the false vacuum and matter expands instead of
contracting on itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

Thanks
Bill

Jack wrote:
I have always wondered why the 'Big Bang' wasn't a black hole.
It would seem that if all the energy and matter in the entire universe were
contained in a relatively small space that it would be a black hole.

There are many different types of singularities in GR, and the type for
the big bang is considerably different from that of a black hole. It is
much closer to the singularity of a white hole (a time-reversed black
hole, which has a horizon that no timelike or null object can enter, and
such objects that find themselves inside are compelled to leave).

Very loosely: while the density immediately after the big bang was
emormous, so was the expansion velocity of all the matter, and this
prevented a black hole from forming.


Tom Roberts

No, Tom.!! NOT in General Relativity Theorey (i.e. gtr).!!
Quoth GR gtr: "BiG BANG ..happened EVERYwhere, at ONCE".!!
DOCTOR GORDON D. PUSCH ought explain this to GR-DOooOPs.!!
DOCTOR CHRiSTOPHER HiLLMAN ought explain his GR TEST-mass.
DOCTOR CHRiSTOPHER HiLLMAN ought explain gtr's POiNT-mass.
DOCTOR CHRiSTOPHER HiLLMAN ought show his TEST-mass hover.
DOCTOR CHRiSTOPHER HiLLMAN's GR TEST-mass hasn't a CAViTY.
DOCTOR CHRiSTOPHER HiLLMAN's gtr TEST-mass had "no field".
DOCTOR CHRiSTOPHER HiLLMAN's GR m1 had "no field". M1 did.
DOCTOR CHRiSTOPHER HiLLMAN's GR m1 & M1 not G_uv attached.
DOCTOR CHRiSTOPHER HiLLMAN's GR m1 & M1 each a POiNT-mass.
[This means you CANNOT attach ROCKETs, to TOP and BOTTOM].
[This means you CANNOT *stretch* POiNT-mass into any ROD].
[This means you CANNOT *stretch* POiNT-mass in SPACEtime].

The gtr, theoretically, CANNOT equate G_uv, with ANY mass.

Google GROUP SEARCH Chris (you can call me, DR) Hillman.

brian a m stuckless


Tom Roberts wrote:
Very loosely: while the density immediately after the
big bang was emormous, so was the expansion velocity
of all the matter, --

insert ..see top of PAGE.!!

-- and this prevented a black hole from forming.

Tom Roberts

Jack wrote:
I have always wondered why the 'Big Bang' wasn't a black hole.
It would seem that if all the energy and matter in the entire universe were
contained in a relatively small space that it would be a black hole.


We really don't know whether it was or not, Jack. We can go back only
to the BBT explosion and not beyond. I've always thought a singularity
would have to been a BH at some time of its development. Isn't one
theory about that the one where it is claimed that a BH will or may
collapse of its own weight and in that way become a singularity?

Tom Roberts wrote:
Jack wrote:
I have always wondered why the 'Big Bang' wasn't a black hole.
It would seem that if all the energy and matter in the entire universe were
contained in a relatively small space that it would be a black hole.

There are many different types of singularities in GR, and the type for
the big bang is considerably different from that of a black hole. It is
much closer to the singularity of a white hole (a time-reversed black
hole, which has a horizon that no timelike or null object can enter, and
such objects that find themselves inside are compelled to leave).

Very loosely: while the density immediately after the big bang was
emormous, so was the expansion velocity of all the matter, and this
prevented a black hole from forming.


Tom Roberts


That was not quite the question. You answered the question, "Why did a
BH not form after the BB?" The OP asked why the BB was not a BH,
period. And I believe there was no matter present immediately after
the BB; it could only form later as the universe cooled somewhat.

TomGee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
There are many different types of singularities in GR, and the type for
the big bang is considerably different from that of a black hole.
[...]
That was not quite the question. You answered the question, "Why did a
BH not form after the BB?" The OP asked why the BB was not a BH,
period.

The sentence retained above answers that question.


And I believe there was no matter present immediately after
the BB; it could only form later as the universe cooled somewhat.

In GR we often use the term "matter" loosely to mean anything with a
nonzero energy-momentum tensor. But nobody really expects GR to remain
valid all the way in to a singularity; quantum effects simply must
become important.


Tom Roberts

Mathematically relate G_uv to "mass", in GR (gtr), Tom.
brian a m stuckless

Tom Roberts wrote:
In GR we often use the term "matter" loosely to mean anything
with a nonzero energy-momentum tensor.
[```SNiP```]
Tom Roberts

So does this mean that the expansion velocity was above light speed?
Because if the expansion velocity was at or below light speed and the
density was high enough to be a black hole, then I can't really accept the
answer that GR doesn't use the black hole mathematics to describe the big
bang.


"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
I have always wondered why the 'Big Bang' wasn't a black hole.
It would seem that if all the energy and matter in the entire universe
were contained in a relatively small space that it would be a black hole.

There are many different types of singularities in GR, and the type for
the big bang is considerably different from that of a black hole. It is
much closer to the singularity of a white hole (a time-reversed black
hole, which has a horizon that no timelike or null object can enter, and
such objects that find themselves inside are compelled to leave).

Very loosely: while the density immediately after the big bang was
emormous, so was the expansion velocity of all the matter, and this
prevented a black hole from forming.


Tom Roberts

Jack wrote:
So does this mean that the expansion velocity was above light speed?


I have thought that it is possible that the contents of the BB exceeded
light speed if what came out immediately ( first) was not energy in the
form of matter but energy in a form that could exceed c. As the
universe cooled, matter formed from the energy. In such a case, the
inflationary period (IP) is not needed to explain the homogeneous
distribution of elements in the universe.

In fact, my model makes that specific claim, that the IP did not need
to occur because at the high speeds that occurred at first in the BB,
the energy sent out by the BB would move outward as the edge of the
universe and by the time the universe cooled enough for matter to
appear, the elements that comprise matter were well-distributed in a
homogeneous manner. For that to be true, however, requires that energy
at that time existed lacking matter, and that violates E=mc^2.

My model also contends that if energy without any equivalent matter
existed then, it would not have the property of time, and thus it could
move far outward until the universe cooled enough for matter to appear
and only then would time exist for the matter involved.


Because if the expansion velocity was at or below light speed and the
density was high enough to be a black hole, then I can't really accept the
answer that GR doesn't use the black hole mathematics to describe the big
bang.