If two condensed universes (similar to black holes based on my limited knowledge) were accelerated towards each other due to gravity, and then they collided, could that explain how these two pseudo black holes (or condensed mass/universes) were able to explode and cause the expansion of the universe commonly talked about? You know when they say our galaxy is in the approximate center of all the other galaxies in the universe and that the universe is expanding outwards. And that all the galaxies are moving.

"Universes" don't exist as moving objects in a space that can collide like black holes do. Also, black holes don't explode when they collide, they just merger. (Black holes do eventually explode, after an unfathomably long period of time, as their "evaporation" accelerates as they get smaller).

The inflationary model (well, the eternal inflation model, which seems to be what's proposed here) is that the natural state of most of the universe ("multiverse") is to be accelerating everything away from everything else ridiculously faster than the speed of light, but then quantum fluctuations can cause a small part of that to decelerate, converting enormous quantities of that dark energy into other forms, filling that little decelerated pocket with energy. Such an event would have been the start of our "universe": we're a little pocket that has temporarily stopped accelerating so much. And now we're on our way back to accelerating apart again, very, very slowly.

PBS SpaceTime is a great YouTube series with some really good videos on this stuff. I think these are some the relevant ones:





Also IIRC this one is about black holes colliding, though there might be others too:

Universes" don't exist as moving objects in a space that can collide like black holes do. Also, black holes don't explode when they collide, they just merger. (Black holes do eventually explode, after an unfathomably long period of time, as their "evaporation" accelerates as they get smaller). — Pfhorrest

I looked it up. Some Physicists do believe that its possible for when two black holes collide for them to explode. Stephen Hawkings believes a black hole is like a star that is so dense that the gravitational pull won't let light to escape.

The inflationary model (well, the eternal inflation model, which seems to be what's proposed here) is that the natural state of most of the universe ("multiverse") is to be accelerating everything away from everything else ridiculously faster than the speed of light, but then quantum fluctuations can cause a small part of that to decelerate, converting enormous quantities of that dark energy into other forms, filling that little decelerated pocket with energy. Such an event would have been the start of our "universe": we're a little pocket that has temporarily stopped accelerating so much. And now we're on our way back to accelerating apart again, very, very slowly. — Pfhorrest

Did you read the article? What do you think caused the universe to expand intinitally (initially) or what do you think allowed the big bang?

I might watch those videos later, do you have articles that pertain to those videos?

I looked it up. Some Physicists do believe that its possible for when two black holes collide for them to explode. — christian2017

[citation needed]

Stephen Hawkings believes a black hole is like a star that is so dense that the gravitational pull won't let light to escape. — christian2017

That’s the normal idea of a black hole yeah.

Did you read the article? What do you think caused the universe to expand intinitally (initially) or what do you think allowed the big bang? — christian2017

I didn’t read the article because it sounds like just a pop sci retelling of something I already know.

According to the eternal inflation model, which I tentatively accept as the best science we have at the moment, nothing caused the universe to expand initially because there is no initiation, runaway expansion has always been the normal state of the universe going back potentially forever. The big bang was a random temporary slowdown of a small part of it, which became our known universe, which has been slowly accelerating back up ever since and will someday resume that runaway expansion like everything else beyond it.

According to the eternal inflation model, which I tentatively accept as the best science we have at the moment, nothing caused the universe to expand initially because there is no initiation, runaway expansion has always been the normal state of the universe going back potentially forever. The big bang was a random temporary slowdown of a small part of it, which became our known universe, which has been slowly accelerating back up ever since and will someday resume that runaway expansion like everything else beyond it. — Pfhorrest

So there's an infinite inflation where a finite part had a temporary slowdown?

I'm not very satisfied with that idea. I'm not even sure what it could mean. At what point during the infinite inflation was there a temporary slowdown?

I have a problem with real infinites, so maybe that's it. Infinity sounds like a concept humans created, not an actual quantity of something existing. I thought that if you end up with infinities in physics, that was an indication that something went wrong.

It's not just one specific finite part that had a temporary slowdown. A whole bunch of finite parts randomly have temporary slowdowns all over the place all the time, always have, and always will, but the parts in between are expanding so incredibly fast that communication between them is fundamentally impossible. That's covered in the third of those videos above.

But yeah, if you have a problem with infinities in general, I don't know what to tell you. But as for "when in infinity", you could equally well ask "where in infinite space is x?" There's no absolute coordinates, so any answer you could give to either "where" or "when" would be relative anyway. We can say about how long ago the part of the infinitely old "multiverse" our "universe" is part of stopped expanding (about 14 billion years ago), as well as we can say how far away in the infinitely large space Proxima Centauri is (about 4 lightyears away). What better answer could you want?

NB that we don't actually know for sure that either space or time are infinite. We just know that they extend at least so far that we can't tell any finite measurement of them apart from infinity.

I think we continue to make the mistake of assuming that ‘prior’ to the Big Bang, everything still needs to be explained in relation to spacetime. We’re talking about potential energy and ‘interacting’ fields of quantum potentiality, after all - none of which need pertain to four-dimensional spacetime in order to exist.

My grasp of the physics in all this is not great, I’ll admit. But it seems to me that most of the issues might be resolved by proposing a fifth-dimensional aspect, which manifests an unfolding, observable universe (including spacetime itself) out of relating field potentialities and/or values regardless of spatial or temporal properties.

We commonly reduce potentiality to four, three, two and even one-dimensional information in order to make use of it, but each time we do that we effectively ignore the relativity of that information to all aspects of reality: we’re assuming at least one aspect relates with a zero, identical or constant value instead of a relative variable. And then we forget to take that into account when we apply the concepts back to reality, because the majority of our interaction occurs below conscious awareness of a fifth dimension. That is, we experience ‘reality’ in time, in space, as shape and at distance, but we think of potential or value as something else entirely.

As far as I can see, the ‘multiverse’ has no spatio-temporal properties. What’s more, space and time have only potentially infinite values...

I looked it up. Some Physicists do believe that its possible for when two black holes collide for them to explode.
— christian2017

[citation needed] — Pfhorrest

Just google it. I didn't ask for citations when most of the other people commented. In a couple of days or perhaps in 2 hours i'll provide a citation. And by the way posting a video is not a citation.

Stephen Hawkings believes a black hole is like a star that is so dense that the gravitational pull won't let light to escape.
— christian2017

That’s the normal idea of a black hole yeah. — Pfhorrest

thanks.

Did you read the article? What do you think caused the universe to expand intinitally (initially) or what do you think allowed the big bang?
— christian2017

I didn’t read the article because it sounds like just a pop sci retelling of something I already know.

According to the eternal inflation model, which I tentatively accept as the best science we have at the moment, nothing caused the universe to expand initially because there is no initiation, runaway expansion has always been the normal state of the universe going back potentially forever. The big bang was a random temporary slowdown of a small part of it, which became our known universe, which has been slowly accelerating back up ever since and will someday resume that runaway expansion like everything else beyond it. — Pfhorrest

citation?

lol.

Are you aware that gravity would probably keep the universe from expanding at that point? My citation is the article i posted in the OP. If your not willing to read the article posted in the OP, why would you expect me to post a citation. In regards to what you asked me to post a citation for in a post above, i'll get to it in a couple of hours.

I think we continue to make the mistake of assuming that ‘prior’ to the Big Bang, everything still needs to be explained in relation to spacetime. We’re talking about potential energy and ‘interacting’ fields of quantum potentiality, after all - none of which need pertain to four-dimensional spacetime in order to exist.

My grasp of the physics in all this is not great, I’ll admit. But it seems to me that most of the issues might be resolved by proposing a fifth-dimensional aspect, which manifests an unfolding, observable universe (including spacetime itself) out of relating field potentialities and/or values regardless of spatial or temporal properties.

We commonly reduce potentiality to four, three, two and even one-dimensional information in order to make use of it, but each time we do that we effectively ignore the relativity of that information to all aspects of reality: we’re assuming at least one aspect relates with a zero, identical or constant value instead of a relative variable. And then we forget to take that into account when we apply the concepts back to reality, because the majority of our interaction occurs below conscious awareness of a fifth dimension. That is, we experience ‘reality’ in time, in space, as shape and at distance, but we think of potential or value as something else entirely.

As far as I can see, the ‘multiverse’ has no spatio-temporal properties. What’s more, space and time have only potentially infinite values... — Possibility

thats fair.

I looked it up. Some Physicists do believe that its possible for when two black holes collide for them to explode.
— christian2017

[citation needed]

Stephen Hawkings believes a black hole is like a star that is so dense that the gravitational pull won't let light to escape.
— christian2017

That’s the normal idea of a black hole yeah.

Did you read the article? What do you think caused the universe to expand intinitally (initially) or what do you think allowed the big bang?
— christian2017

I didn’t read the article because it sounds like just a pop sci retelling of something I already know.

According to the eternal inflation model, which I tentatively accept as the best science we have at the moment, nothing caused the universe to expand initially because there is no initiation, runaway expansion has always been the normal state of the universe going back potentially forever. The big bang was a random temporary slowdown of a small part of it, which became our known universe, which has been slowly accelerating back up ever since and will someday resume that runaway expansion like everything else beyond it. — Pfhorrest

You said the OP article was pop sci, how familiar are you with calculus, newtonian physics and for lack of a better way to put this more advanced physics subjects?

In order to assess an article on physics i would think you would have to atleast have a moderately strong mathematical background. Do either one of us have that. I'm ok with Calculus but that really isn't saying much considering there are higher levels of Calculus let alone mastering linear algebra can be quite tricky.

I would argue reading the OP article is important for critiqueing the forum topic, but i could be wrong. Notice i didn't post a video. Videos are much harder to critque because they hard to divide up and analyze piece by piece.

how the universe managed to expand and break free from gravity in the "beginning"? — christian2017

From the perspective of a high school physics 20 years old and odd bits of physics knowledge, this is an insightful remark. The gravity of even supermassive black holes probably pale in comparison to the Big Bang singularity and yet matter managed to escape the latter; quite spectacularly I must say. If even light can't escape a run of the mill black hole it would imply that when the Big Bang occured, matter would've achieved superluminal velocities to overcome the "infinite" gravity therein active.

I guess there's a perfectly good and singularly boring explanation for this.

If you will allow me a guess, it isn't the case that matter actually flew/is flying apart from the Big Bang singularity like a shrapnel when a grenade explodes. What actually happened and is happening is space is expanding. That way we could have the Big Bang without violating the Einsteinian speed limit. We're still inside the singularity. :scream: That means the structure of this universe is actually that of a singularity :scream: :gasp:

Much confusion can be avoided by looking at what sort of thing a singularity is, followed by what sort of singularity one wishes to talk about.

https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/singularities/

It can be readily seen here that it is one thing to say that the start of time or the beginning of the universe was a singularity, and quite another to say that it was caused by a singularity. The latter is somewhat incoherent, as if one were to say the universe was caused by a corner.

how the universe managed to expand and break free from gravity in the "beginning"?
— christian2017

From the perspective of a high school physics 20 years old and odd bits of physics knowledge, this is an insightful remark. The gravity of even supermassive black holes probably pale in comparison to the Big Bang singularity and yet matter managed to escape the latter; quite spectacularly I must say. If even light can't escape a run of the mill black hole it would imply that when the Big Bang occured, matter would've achieved superluminal velocities to overcome the "infinite" gravity therein active.

I guess there's a perfectly good and singularly boring explanation for this.

If you will allow me a guess, it isn't the case that matter actually flew/is flying apart from the Big Bang singularity like a shrapnel when a grenade explodes. What actually happened and is happening is space is expanding. That way we could have the Big Bang without violating the Einsteinian speed limit. We're still inside the singularity. :scream: That means the structure of this universe is actually that of a singularity :scream: — TheMadFool

I've heard this sort of thing before. I only half way understand the concept. Considering i only half way understand the concept, i can't say you are wrong. There are too many variables for me to claim you are wrong or right. This is on top of the fact that i'm not all that great at math.

I've heard this sort of thing before. I only half way understand the concept. Considering i only half way understand the concept, i can't say you are wrong. There are too many variables for me to claim you are wrong or right. This is on top of the fact that i'm not all that great at math. — christian2017

Mine's just a shot in the dark.