I suspect the moment of creation of a black hole looks a helluvalot like a big bang -- from inside the black hole. Including inflationary expansion.

I wouldn't put too much stock into the notion of black hole creation being like a mini big bang. The big bang itself, unlike the supernovae that precedes a black hole, wasn't an explosion. The univere's initial expansion was less like a "bang" and more like a "vrooooosh". More to the point, the physics that lead to black hole formation have the opposite dynamics: contraction rather than expansion.

Still, I think the clearest argument against relating the big bang to black holes is that the former was, necessarily (else we wouldn't be here), a relatively low entropy state, while a black hole represents a maximal entropy configuration. Black holes look much more like the end of the universe than the beginning.

 

Black holes look much more like the end of the universe than the beginning.

I think it very much depends on whether you are on the outside looking in or on the inside looking out.

 

I think it very much depends on whether you are on the outside looking in or on the inside looking out.

Again, the opposite dynamics are at play. From inside the universe, everything looks red-shifted; from inside the black hole, everything would presumably look blue-shifted.

 

from inside the black hole, everything would presumably look blue-shifted.

I disagree. But it cannot be proven either way.

 

Sure, if every human jumped inside a black hole then we would all know the truth for all human observers.

We just need to make a banana black hole from 3200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 bananas

Yesterday I watched Interstellar for probably the fifth or sixth time...

I never get tired of that movie ...

 

Yesterday I watched Interstellar for probably the fifth or sixth time...

I never get tired of that movie ...

A good mixture of physics and informed speculation that the movie doesn’t distinguish.

 

I hope I get to see some WEBB results.

I want to see a black hole. A star collision. Not to mention harder red shift.

But what I am really looking forward to......is gravitational lensing.

The WEBB will show us a larger and more populated universe.

But is that observation true....or only apparent? Are we really seeing more mass.......or are we just seeing a longer exposure.......of a system that migrates with time?

If we could change the velocity of light to instant......which means all light in transit is completed.....would we see a bright star-field or a dark star field?

Is the real time universe full or empty? Is everything still shinning?

 

If we could change the velocity of light to instant......which means all light in transit is completed.....would we see a bright star-field or a dark star field?

Is the real time universe full or empty? Is everything still shinning?

If we changed the velocity of light to instant we wouldn't see anything because electromagnetic waves (no wavelengths) would not exist and the universe as we know it would be a very strange (maybe dead) place.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/Orthogonal

 

A good mixture of physics and informed speculation that the movie doesn’t distinguish.

You've just described the best recipe for good SciFi

 

You've just described the best recipe for good SciFi

Speaking of...

Oops. Wrong thread.

 

The WEBB will show us a larger and more populated universe.

But is that observation true....or only apparent? Are we really seeing more mass.......or are we just seeing a longer exposure.......of a system that migrates with time?

If we could change the velocity of light to instant......which means all light in transit is completed.....would we see a bright star-field or a dark star field?

Is the real time universe full or empty? Is everything still shinning?

The universe is mostly empty (and getting emptier). The majority of the electromagnetically visible stuff out there comes in the form of galaxies, many (most?) of which are very old, nearly as old as the universe. But galaxies have very long lifetimes. Most stars become white dwarfs when they run out of nuclear fuel and die; even in this state, they will still keep shining longer than the current age of the universe. And since we can see many stars in various stages of the stellar lifecycle in our own little corner of the galaxy, it seems reasonable to conclude that distant galaxies still have active stars.

 

Another view:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/adva...ccessKey=97d03104-9d3e-40a7-a7f2-55e905b84a9a

The hypothesis that the universe is expanding is a basic pillar of the Big Bang theory. But observations of the size and brightness of thousands of galaxies contradict predictions based on the Big Bang expansion hypothesis, thus shaking this key pillar, according to anew paperpublished in the leading astrophysical journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, a publication of Oxford University Press. The new study by LPPFusion Chief Scientist Eric Lerner, titled “Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis”, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data. All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process.

 

other, currently unknown, process -> New Physics?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...e-against-expanding-universe-in-mnras.943111/

 

other, currently unknown, process -> New Physics?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...e-against-expanding-universe-in-mnras.943111/

A post about possible new physics... by you! ... there's still hope for all the hard-line skeptics out there, after all!

 

A post about possible new physics... by you! ... there's still hope for all the hard-line skeptics out there, after all!

I am a skeptic but that's what it would mean. Most people who are experts on the subject think it's a 'nothing burger'.

 

I am a skeptic but that's what it would mean. Most people who are experts on the subject think it's a 'nothing burger'.

That’s a little like the 97% “consensus”. In other words, a little skepticism is to be expected.

 

Hi,

It seems to me that we can not fully comprehend a black hole in the first place. That's because our comprehension, our existence depends on time itself. If we have zero time, we have zero comprehension. If we have zero time to exist we have zero comprehension.

Example:
Imagine you were given a 100 page book that contained each and every single detail about black holes. It you could read that entire book, including the very last page, you would understand black holes completely with nothing left to learn.
But something funny happens when you get to the last word on page 99. You've learned so very much over the last 99 pages, but as you begin to turn the page to get to page 100, time starts to slow down. The more you turn the page, the more time slows down, and the heavier the page becomes. Just as you finally get the page turned so that you can read it, time comes to a stop. Now there is no way for you to read the page and thus comprehend the final chapter on the black hole.
Because time came to a standstill, the experience ends and you have no control over that. You can never go any farther because there's no time to do it in. Any facts that are left to learn are outside of your realm of understanding because there is no way to experience that.

 

Hi,

It seems to me that we can not fully comprehend a black hole in the first place. That's because our comprehension, our existence depends on time itself. If we have zero time, we have zero comprehension. If we have zero time to exist we have zero comprehension.

Example:
Imagine you were given a 100 page book that contained each and every single detail about black holes. It you could read that entire book, including the very last page, you would understand black holes completely with nothing left to learn.
But something funny happens when you get to the last word on page 99. You've learned so very much over the last 99 pages, but as you begin to turn the page to get to page 100, time starts to slow down. The more you turn the page, the more time slows down, and the heavier the page becomes. Just as you finally get the page turned so that you can read it, time comes to a stop. Now there is no way for you to read the page and thus comprehend the final chapter on the black hole.
Because time came to a standstill, the experience ends and you have no control over that. You can never go any farther because there's no time to do it in. Any facts that are left to learn are outside of your realm of understanding because there is no way to experience that.

Well, then. I suppose I should give up.

 

Well, then. I suppose I should give up.

Hi,

Well it appears that we can not comprehend things that are outside of our realm of experience. We always want an analogy to something we already know about completely. It's all about mechanics of things, but mechanics involves motion, and without time we dont get any motion. There's no time derivative to look at.

 

The dimensions and properties of space can not change. It is the only physical example we have of a point entity.