[CliffordK]

Clifford - I am not sure this is quite what you are getting at - but your two "simple decays" are a little misleading.  They seem to be over-simplified versions of and but they are missing neutrinos antineutrinos and and Energy input for .  Natural proton decay - ie without a boost of energy is predicted, but very rare, halflife is 10^32 years and is via pions.

¹⁰C (10.0168532 u) --> ¹⁰B (10.0129370 u) (β+)
¹¹C (11.0114336 u) --> ¹¹B (11.0093054 u) (β+)
¹³N (13.00573861 u) --> ¹³C (13.0033548378 u) (β+)
¹³O (13.024812 u) --> ¹³N (13.00573861 u) (β+) (89.1% of the time)
¹⁴O (14.00859625 u) --> ¹⁴N (14.0030740048 u) (β+)
¹⁵O (15.0030656 u) --> ¹⁵N (15.0001088982 u) (β+)
²²⁹U (229.033506 u) --> ²²⁹Pa (229.0320968 u) (β+) (80% of the time)

So, while β+ (positron) decay is not uncommon, one does, in fact, loose mass in conjunction with the decay, greater than the published mass of an electron (0.0005 4857990946 u) (which would also be lost).

[imatfaal]

Clifford - I am not sure this is quite what you are getting at - but your two "simple decays" are a little misleading.  They seem to be over-simplified versions of and but they are missing neutrinos antineutrinos and and Energy input for .  Natural proton decay - ie without a boost of energy is predicted, but very rare, halflife is 10^32 years and is via pions.

¹⁰C (10.0168532 u) --> ¹⁰B (10.0129370 u) (β+)
¹¹C (11.0114336 u) --> ¹¹B (11.0093054 u) (β+)
¹³N (13.00573861 u) --> ¹³C (13.0033548378 u) (β+)
¹³O (13.024812 u) --> ¹³N (13.00573861 u) (β+) (89.1% of the time)
¹⁴O (14.00859625 u) --> ¹⁴N (14.0030740048 u) (β+)
¹⁵O (15.0030656 u) --> ¹⁵N (15.0001088982 u) (β+)
²²⁹U (229.033506 u) --> ²²⁹Pa (229.0320968 u) (β+) (80% of the time)

So, while β+ (positron) decay is not uncommon, one does, in fact, loose mass in conjunction with the decay, greater than the published mass of an electron (0.0005 4857990946 u) (which would also be lost).

One never violates mass/energy conservation in these reactions - and there certainly is no circular decay path.  I am still not sure what you are getting at.

decay

This is NOT equivalent to

which you seem to be implying it is. 

[MikeS (OP)]

If matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive then the electron is bound by the intense gravitational field whilst the positron is gravitationally expelled through the event horizon and accelerates away.

Which could be a problem because one would quickly develop a large negative charge within the black hole, and a large positive charge in the surrounding space where electrons are annihilated. 

Clifford
Why is this a problem?

For a start the like charge of the black hole and the electron will repel and the electrons will stop falling into the hole at some point - the opposite charge of the BH and the positron will attract and eventually overcome gravitational repulsion.  BUT please can we keep speculative theories to NEW THEORIES

But the charge of the black hole is within the event horizon so surely is not felt by the electrons outside the event horizon?  Also charge is short range where gravity is long range and we are talking overwhelming gravity.
Positrons are likely to be expelled at great velocity due to the immense gravity of the black hole.  The gravitational 'push' whilst declining with distance is still going to accelerate the positrons.  The charge attraction being short range soon declines with distance.

[MikeS (OP)]

imatfaal

I have no objection to you splitting this thread if you like.  The problem, I find is there tends to be very little debate in the New Theories forum.  As well as having a New Theories forum perhaps a Non-Mainstream sub section could be added to Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology forum?  This way non-mainstream ideas that are not necessarily new-theories as such could be discussed.  If it was a sub-section Moderators could move any posts in the main forum to the sub section if relevant and without asking.  So long as the posts were cross indexed it should not be a problem.  Just an idea.  What do you think?

[Peteuplink]

I was once told that asking the question of what was before the big bang is like asking what is beyond the north pole...

[MikeS (OP)]

I was once told that asking the question of what was before the big bang is like asking what is beyond the north pole...

Easy, the South Pole.

[dropoutscience]

what if two super black holes, say like the one in our galaxy and another galaxy collide and pull each other in? would they not possibly have enough gravity to suck in more? and if it occured could it not suck in another super black hole in another galaxy until the whole universe was sucked into a tiny unstable particle by the mass creating (if it's possible) what I would call a big bang particle? just a thought.

[MikeS (OP)]

The universe is thought to be expanding and that expansion accelerating.  If correct and this trend is not reversed then it would appear that gravity has lost the battle and black holes will not win out. If on the other hand gravity does win then black holes could keep combining theoretically until there is just one super black hole containing all of the mass and energy of the universe unless there is some unknown process that can stop it.

I can't go into further detail in this mainline thread but it is theoretically possible that the universe may be cyclic.

[dchung]

I'm not a smart person.. but I wanna weigh in on this to hear what you guys think .. nature tends to revolve everything , like the rain cycle or stuff like that.. So, do you think the Big Bang was a black hole that sucked in the whole 'old' universe, then exploded a new one ? .. like a universe recycling system ?.. What do u think brainy ppl ? educate me with your grand nerdliness, if you would ..  (with luv)

[yor_on]

We all want to know
And maybe we will.

[evan_au]

Re:

Was the Big Bang an exploding Black Hole?

I think the question may be worded ambiguously:

• From a viewpoint outside the black hole, anything that passes the event horizon does not come out again intact, as far as we know [apart from diffused radiation if and when the black hole evaporates]
• If the big bang was initially dense enough to form a black hole [seems logical, given current theories], then our viewpoint is not outside the event horizon, it is inside the event horizon.
• So the most interesting question is not "what can cause a black hole to effectively explode [from a viewpoint outside the black hole]?"
• But "what can cause a black hole to effectively explode [from a viewpoint inside the black hole]?"

As Yuling said:

Everything everyone says about what happens at the singularity is pure speculation.

One attempt to guide those speculations looked at light cones (the path of light emitted at a point, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone). They looked at light cones outside the black hole, and tried to extrapolate that to the event horizon, and then inside the event horizon. Assuming this extrapolation to have some validity, the volume inside the black hole may have consistent physics, but would not be considered "normal space" by an observer outside the black hole!

One interpretation of this extrapolation is that inside the event horizon, the dimensions of time and space are swapped, in some sense.

Could what seems to an observer outside the black hole like matter & energy falling into an extended surface over an extended period of time could seem to an observer within the black hole like a lot of energy appearing at a single point in space at a single point in time?

This conjures up an image of an Inception-like series of nested universes with twisted geometries,  in some sense embedded in one another, but cut off from one another.

[Downunder]

Is concept of the Big Bang similar to the concept of the Black Hole? It has to be said that the absolute fundamental premises in both cases are that they both include a singularity. Both singularities have an astronomical amount of mass. So yes the two concepts are fundamentally similar.
Ok, are they the same? A singularity is a singularity. The only variation from one to the other is mass. So in essence, yes they are the same to varying degrees of mass.
To say that the singularity of a Black Hole doesn't have a mechanism to explode and expand outward is the same as saying that the singularity of the Big Bang doesn't have a mechanism to explode and expand outward. But without knowing the exact mechanism, scientists must assume there is one.
The universe is showing how the singularity of a Big Bang can occur as we observe life cycles of Black Holes with Astronomy. So to say that the singularity of a Black Hole cant grow to the critical mass to ignite a Big Bang event is the same as saying that the Big Bang cant have happened at all because a singularity doesn't have a critical mass to ignite the event. You cant have one and not the other. Either the Big Bang didn't happen or Black Holes can cause a Big Bang event if they grow big enough.
I hypothesis that a critical mass exists whereby a singularity (or a similar object with small but not infinitely small dimensions) reaches a point that a Big Bang event occurs. Below the critical mass the object is stable. A Black Hole that consumes matter (or Dark Matter if you like) to the extent that it reaches the critical mass, will ignite a Big Bang event. I hypotheses that this process occurs in cycles. I hypothesis that it doesn't require multidimensional universes or Turtles all the way down either. All Big Bang events occur in the one universe. Space, mass and time is compressed in one location in the universe to a singularity and is cyclically released when the critical mass is reached. The Space, mass and time is uncompressed and released back to its original state (via Big Bang expansion). Like a rubber ball being squashed and then released. I hypotheses that the remnants of one Big Bang event (that is stars, galaxies, matter, anti matter, dark matter etc.) may overlap and encounter the remnants of other Big Bang events. The remnants combining together and the cycle of gravitational coalescence continues. Remnants from two of more Big Bang events gravitationally crunch down to a singularity until they reach critical mass again and another Big Bang event occurs. The Big Bang event is not creating space and time and mass as it expands. It is simply returning them back to their normal state. The gravitational crunch phase that compresses Space and Mass and Time is like a spring being compressed. The Big Bang Phase is like the spring's energy being released back to its normal state.
Its a cyclical process, it occurs in the one single and only universe plain.
Thank you,
Steve McMaster, Australia.

[guest45734]

If the big bang was initially dense enough to form a black hole [seems logical, given current theories], then our viewpoint is not outside the event horizon, it is inside the event horizon.
So the most interesting question is not "what can cause a black hole to effectively explode [from a viewpoint outside the black hole]?"
But "what can cause a black hole to effectively explode [from a viewpoint inside the black hole]?"

All Big Bang events occur in the one universe. Space, mass and time is compressed in one location in the universe to a singularity and is cyclically released when the critical mass is reached

In a zero energy universe dark energy and gravity causing the expansion and contraction of the universe can be regarded as negative energy, other forms of energy are +ve energy. Looking at gravity, if a black hole/singularity is the absence of space time, could quantum black holes over time have the same effect as the perceived big bang. Theoretically Hawking radiation could allow a large BH to evaporate over time, could the same apply to quantum black holes virtual or otherwise.

The theoretical ER and EPR allows for wormholes in space time ie a shortcut through space, if ER = EPR could all black holes be connected to the same wormhole, rather than existing inside a Black hole event horizon could we in actual fact exist inside a wormhole between a black hole in the past to a white hole in the future. Would there be an edge of space time inside a wormhole.? Is there any extant theories speculating the expansion of space time is driven by black holes ?