First, take 4 minutes and learn a bit about "white holes" from the video, below. Trust me, you'll like it - that is, assuming you're even a little bit into physics. Now, a few questions - is it possible that a white hole expelling a quantity of energy equal to the total mass-energy of our universe can exist for tens, hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of billions of years instead of mere seconds like the one mentioned in the SciShow video? if so, could the Big Bang and subsequent expansion of the universe actually be a humongous white hole that proceeded from a singularity? Could that singularity be one residing at the core of a humongous black hole of an even more humongous super-universe? <br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 14.5600004196167px;" rel="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 14.5600004196167px;">The supposed Big Bang appears to be the ultimate violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics - an entire universe of energy from nothing. Or is it? Is it conceivable that the universe is actually a super-humongous white hole? Could it be that the total energy and information of all the black holes, white holes, and all universes from humongous white holes be constant and thus no 2nd law violation occurs when considering the overall total of all energy manifestations? A pictorial of a universe from a white hole is shown here Have fun...
I believe a different theory The big bang did no create anything. Nothing was created or destroyed as per the laws of physics. Instead, it was a singularity. Literally it was one unit, the only unit. Everything and nothing. That unit "broke" apart, becomming ever more complex. -yuri
I see it as either requiring eternally existing, dynamic spacetime-energy or something else that was never created to do that creation ex nihilo thing. Energy the size of a universe - or a foam of such bubble universe - or any sized energy - doesn't like to be concentrated, especially to infinite degrees. Nor does it like to pop into existence - especially when we're talking unverse sized one. Those two facts normally nails most conjectures to the cross - eventually. If by universe, we mean Universe - everything, regardless of whether we are or ever will be aware of it or not - it's entirely possible there could always have existed an undulating, oscillating energy substrate - probably a manifestation of the elastic nature of spacetime. Eternal vibrations at all levels in whatever the fuck is vibrating. One thing that blows me away is, this particular arrangement and progression of stresses and strains in elastic, hyperdimensional spacetime (or whatever) have produced patterns of energetic interactions that are organized to the degree that they can actually hypothesise how it all works on an internet forum! That's fucking amazing! Whether God, or just a marvelous (yet pointless?) system of energy transformations, it's freakin awesome!
^ But that sux too. Whenever we posit something that has energy and has always existed then we can wonder how it is that there isn't an overall dispersal of energy that would put the kibosh on its eternal existence as anything but an everlasting "heat death"? What acts as a perfect restorative agent, driving the pendulum of energy density distributions and preventing the eventual dampening of oscillations? In the case of gravity it's the elastic nature of spacetime itself. According to the GR model, an accelerating mass produces a gravitational wave propagation - similar to an accelerating charge producing an electromagnetic wave propagation through the vacuum. For gravitation at least, it's modeled as ripple in the geometry of spacetime. As the wave passes, the local spacetime becomes progressively distorted, reaches some maximum, then returns back to its previous geometry. That return to previous geometry points to an elasticity of the underlying fabric of gravitational energy - spacetime itself. Maybe for the Universe as a whole, it's space-time-energy elasticity on the Ultimate scale. Or, that's stupid too. lol
Not sure if this is quite what you mean but m.phys.org/news/2015-06-universe-crystal-glass.html supposedly the universe is sort of undulating. Yes i think the Big Bang does violate the 2nd law unless you resort to special pleading. R. Sheldrake"Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest." And the one free miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it from nothing at a single instant. Even assuming the universe is ultimately symmetrical, thus no net energy surplus, one must ask what through off the symmetry initially to produce local asymmetry?
If the initial state was perfectly symmetrical it would be a literal nothing, unless we posit consciousness is supernatural or something.
Just searched Humpreys White Hole and found this www.icr.org/article/prestigious-journal-endorses-basics-creationist-co/
the big bang only violates the law if it creates the enerfy However if the big bang is simply the expansion/complication of an origional unit, nothing was ever created or destroyed. -yuri
this is why I believe in spontaneity However, it is possible instead that the multivers hypothesis is correct Because spontaneity should also violate the laws of conservation. Perhaps the universe iis in fact symmetrical, and what we experience is a representation of possibilities. For example, a particle can do multiple different things that are all possible. What if it always does them all? -yuri
This is what I believe m theory talks about with dimensions. A particle can move up down left right forward back and through time. Perhaps the other (I don't like to think of them as higher) dimensions are simply possibilities. Moving up or down or back in time, from the particles perspective, is no different than moving through the possibility storm -yuri
If we assume there was an original united state, we must also posit that for it to have produced this un-unified state, something must have happened. For the energy is now seperated, posive and negative
that is not true Consider this Everything that happens causes something else to happen. It is impossible for a singularity to remain single because its mere existence is a cause. The mere existence of energy itself causes itself to evocle through reaction. The idea of it needing to be caused by inteligence is self a contradiction, because intelligence itself must come from something. The only logical explanation is that everything has always existed, and.simply became mmore complex over time Intelligence must have been created by the universe, because the reverse iis impossible -yuri
Mere existence of energy itself.... A state of unity wouldnt be a state of energy, for energy to exist it must be a duality of positive and negative. As i have said before, a cause cannot give rise to anything fundamentally new to the effect. An effect is always the result of the causes, whose qualities and properties can only be a combination of those present in the causes.
Why? Positive and negative is a duality not a singularity. It must first evovle from said singularity. <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >As i have said before, a cause cannot give rise to anything fundamentally new to the effect. An effect is always the result of the causes, whose qualities and properties can only be a combination of those present in the causes. </blockquote>Which as you said would result ina perfectly uniform symmetrical universe Which is why I believe there must be spontaneity. Intelligence must arise from complexity. But simplicity cannot evolve by itself as you said. The reason we don't observe spontaneity in macro systems is because its insignificant. One quantum bit may appear disappear or change randomly inside your body, but that would have almost no noticible effect. However, in a perfectly symmetrical singularity, said quantum fluctuations would cause a chain reaction resulting in the evolution of the universe. It is possible that the universe itself is intelligent and seeks balance, but I would still believe this intelligence evolved from a singularity as a result of a balancing act between spontaneity and order -yuri
You mentioned an 'original unity' i assumed you meant a unity not a duality. Btw i didnt say a uniform symmetrical universe, as a whole it is assuming to be symmetrical, but obviously there is localized asymmetry. If it was perfectly uniform and symmetrical it would be a literal nothing, which is what i believe the universe came from. You say simplicity cannot evolve by itself, so how do you think the universe transitioned from simple to complex? In my opinion, said perfectly symmetrical singularity would not have quantum fluctuations, for something to fluctuate there must be asymmetry. Your balancing act presupposes the guiding laws that the universe follows, are these too an emergent property?
spontaneity <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > In my opinion, said perfectly symmetrical singularity would not have quantum fluctuations, for something to fluctuate there must be asymmetry. Your balancing act presupposes the guiding laws that the universe follows, are these too an emergent property? </blockquote> That's why I say spontaneity -yuri