No Big Bang? No Black Holes?

[Times Roman]

Now, I'm not saying this article is right. Nor am I even remotely suggesting that some white dude with the beard of Abraham and a staff is the prime mover, but my point is, many of us seem to think the "Big Bang" is a fact, when it certainly is not.

Read on.

Big Bang Theory Wrong And Black Holes Don’t Exist? Scientists Say The Math Doesn’t Add Up

Big Bang Theory Wrong And Black Holes Don’t Exist? Scientists Say The Math Doesn’t Add Up

Is the long-held scientific theory that our universe began with a big bang wrong? A pair of scientists think it might be, and they’ve done the math to prove it.


The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill sent out a press release Tuesday on a paper by UNC physics professor, Laura Mersini-Houghton, who claims to have proven mathematically that black holes don’t exist. If the numbers are proven to work out, scientists will be forced to “reimage the fabric of space-time” and “rethink the origins of the universe.”

Scientists have long thought that black holes were formed when a massive star collapsed under its own gravity, creating a singularity or single point in space with a gravitational pull so strong that even light could not escape it. The singularity is thought to be surrounded by an invisible membrane, known as the event horizon.

The event horizon is the point of no return. Anything crossing it is swallowed by the black hole’s strong gravitational pull, disappearing forever.

Black holes are bizarre in that they pit conflicting scientific theories against each other. Einstein’s theory of gravity supports the formation of black holes, but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that nothing from the universe can ever disappear. The efforts to combine the two theories create mathematical nonsense – what is known as the information loss paradox.

But what does the existence of black holes have to do with the Big Bang Theory? Scientists believe that the universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang. If black holes don’t exist, then there was no singularity – meaning the theory is wrong and the Big Bang may never have happened.

The UNC physicist’s work is based Steven Hawking’s 1974 finding that black holes emit radiation. Scientists have since then used Hawking radiation to locate black holes, such as this recently discovered one reported by The Inquisitr. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off Hawking radiation, the collapsed star also sheds mass. In doing so as it shrinks, it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Mersini-Houghton’s work says that before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms nor does an event horizon. Therefore, no black hole can exist.

“I’m still not over the shock,” said Mersini-Houghton. “We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about.”

“Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories – Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics – for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony. And that’s a big deal.”

Mersini-Houghton’s paper was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, a University of Toronto numerical relativity expert. Their work has not yet been peer-reviewed, but the UNC physicist says that the mathematics are conclusive.

According to Phys.org, experimental evidence has not conclusively proven or disproved the existence of black holes, so it remains to be seen if she is correct.

What do you think? Do black holes really exist? Or will we have to rethink our ideas on the universe?

[Times Roman]

Personally, I do think black holes of some sort or fashion do exist. I believe that it is our understanding of them is flawed. But there is certainly something out there....

[CanisLupus]

Explain the gravitational "lensing" that they experience in areas believed to contain black holes, then. Dark matter?

[davidtheman100]

Time did not exist at that time

[Joco71]

I will stick with the creator. To each their own. Just my 2 cents.

[Times Roman]

Explain the gravitational "lensing" that they experience in areas believed to contain black holes, then. Dark matter?

it would still be a gravitational sink hole. What they are saying is that the definition of an event horizon "once crossed, nothing comes back, not even information" needs revision. I personally never bought into the notion of a black hole producing a while spout, each leg in a different universe. What goes into a black hole disappears from this universe and comes out the other side in a white spout in a different universe. I never bought into that. My position was that matter remained in this universe, but in an incredibly small volume. It would be interesting if they could prove another force. For example, the weak force holds electrons around their orbital path around the nucleus of a molecule. The strong force holds neutrons and protons together. But neutrons and protons are made of other matter, called quarks. So it would be interesting to see if the stuff that quarks are made of (super strings?) what holds them together? Would it be a massively strong force with the same exponential difference exhibited between the strong and weak forces? And a tangent to this line of reasoning, is it possible to have a quark star? Much smaller than a neutron star, yet larger than a singularity? We don't know, because we suppose the next step below a neutron star is a singularity. But what happens if there is a quark star? is it possible that this is what the article is referring? It is possible that below this invisible membrane we call the event horizon lies not a singularity but a quark star? if so, there are forces we can only imagine.

What in interesting universe we happen to find ourselves in!

Time did not exist at that time

if a big bang, then no time prior to the bang. this is a well understood and heavily discussed theory.

[Times Roman]

I will stick with the creator. To each their own. Just my 2 cents.

I'm not saying you are wrong. But I am saying this is a detailed intellectual discussion, and it would be interesting to see a rational discussion that supports that position, other than referring to religious scripture. But this request is more than most can handle, so let's make this a rhetorical comment on my end and leave it at that.

[Times Roman]

I will stick with the creator. To each their own. Just my 2 cents.

there is a scientific approach to a metaphysical discussion, and it totally has nothing to do with scripture...............

(hint hint)

[Joco71]

Ya TR that discussion is just something I'm not well versed on. I meant no disrespect to your thread.

[Times Roman]

Ya TR that discussion is just something I'm not well versed on. I meant no disrespect to your thread.

not a problem mate. I welcome intellectual metaphysical discussions. Quoting scripture does not have a rational basis. Unfortunately. It is emotionally charged.

But the metaphysical discussion can be made, if started from the right vantage point.

[thisAngelBites]

Quoting scripture does not have a rational basis. Unfortunately. It is emotionally charged.

The problem is not the emotional charge, it's the assuming the consequent that's the problem! :

[thisAngelBites]

And also no idea whether black holes exist or not, but I am glad people can try to disprove the theory and if the can do so, reasonable people will change their minds.

These findings will need to be published in detail so that they can be examined and critiqued by her peers.

[Lee_1978]

it would still be a gravitational sink hole. What they are saying is that the definition of an event horizon "once crossed, nothing comes back, not even information" needs revision. I personally never bought into the notion of a black hole producing a while spout, each leg in a different universe. What goes into a black hole disappears from this universe and comes out the other side in a white spout in a different universe. I never bought into that. My position was that matter remained in this universe, but in an incredibly small volume. It would be interesting if they could prove another force. For example, the weak force holds electrons around their orbital path around the nucleus of a molecule. The strong force holds neutrons and protons together. But neutrons and protons are made of other matter, called quarks. So it would be interesting to see if the stuff that quarks are made of (super strings?) what holds them together? Would it be a massively strong force with the same exponential difference exhibited between the strong and weak forces? And a tangent to this line of reasoning, is it possible to have a quark star? Much smaller than a neutron star, yet larger than a singularity? We don't know, because we suppose the next step below a neutron star is a singularity. But what happens if there is a quark star? is it possible that this is what the article is referring? It is possible that below this invisible membrane we call the event horizon lies not a singularity but a quark star? if so, there are forces we can only imagine.

What in interesting universe we happen to find ourselves in!



if a big bang, then no time prior to the bang. this is a well understood and heavily discussed theory.

It simply baffles me to try and comprehend what existed or didn't exist before the supposed 'Big Bang'...

[CanisLupus]

I've always seen postulating the dawn of the universe as peering into how the creator did it. Whether you believe that he was there, causing it to happen, or that he created a universe with a back story (who creates something that doesn't?), you are not, in my opinion, proving that God does not exist, simply because you are exploring the origins of everything. If anything, for me, it's the opposite.

[Times Roman]

It simply baffles me to try and comprehend what existed or didn't exist before the supposed 'Big Bang'...

you can't think like that. There was no "before". You are thinking that the universe has existed and will exist in either time direction for an infinitely long time. This is not supported by the standard theories. Time is directly tied to space. Without space, there is no time. A difficult concept to wrap your mind around, for sure. We also have a pretty good idea that if you warp space, you also warp time. And so at the dawn of the universe, both time and space were created. So in this fashion, there was no "before" the big bang.

I've always seen postulating the dawn of the universe as peering into how the creator did it. Whether you believe that he was there, causing it to happen, or that he created a universe with a back story (who creates something that doesn't?), you are not, in my opinion, proving that God does not exist, simply because you are exploring the origins of everything. If anything, for me, it's the opposite.

There are so many rational ways of looking at a "creator" which we correlate to a supreme being.

At it's very root, the creator is called the prime mover, the entity that started this whole thing, putting it in motion, aka "mover".

One may believe in a prime mover, and yet not in the being referred to in the King James.

It is very possible that there is a prime mover, responsible for the creation of the universe, but nothing beyond that. This may mean no life after death, no heaven, no hell. Very possible this entity is ONLY responsible for the initial conditions that allowed everything else to happen after, like someone knocking over the first domino. And if this is correct, it may very be possible this entity may have no direct knowledge of our existence, or even cares. It's level of consciousness may exist on a plane much different than ours, where maybe time has no meaning, unlike anything we can comprehend.

As we progress our discussion through all the various possible types of god there may be, we end up at the other end of the spectrum referred to in the King James, where this being is all knowing, all present, and all powerful. To go even further, this being directly effected our evolution/creation and became so enamored with us, her creation, that she keeps a watchful "eye" over us and takes a personal interest in what we do and our final outcome; motivating us with the ol' carrot and stick; do good and go to heaven, fvck up and go to hell.

If there is a prime mover, I suspect it would be somewhere in the middle, and maybe not of this universe.

Either way, I'm still interested to see if someone can discuss god in an analytical fashion without referring to religious scripture?

[CanisLupus]

I've often considered the human event of reaching quantum computing as a possible singularity event.

This is way out there... but stay with me... Two objects can be linked by quantum entanglement... potentially at opposite ends of the universe. Affecting a particle near that far object through some force, which could in turn be itself, linked to another object just as distant. Many common religions believe in an omnipresent god. If god is everywhere, in everything... perhaps he is simply a quantum computer that covers the whole of space/time, possibly even created by humans in a past expansion/contraction cycle of the universe. That god, in turn, sparks the next big bang (expansion), which leads, again to life, and the creation (discovery?) of god again. Not exactly airtight, but trippy, right?

[Times Roman]

Ok, ignoring your theory that we or god or both are software programs, which I would gladly discuss, just not right now, you touched on an element for discussing metaphysics in terms palatable to those bent on analysis and critical thinking.

The first clue is quantum entanglement.

Can you run with it, or do you want me to put another dot out there for you to try and connect?

[Times Roman]

and just to be clear, discussing metaphysics is a discussion of those things that are beyond or greater than or which defy or cannot be explained by physics or the laws of physics or properties of the physical plane. A difficult bridge to cross. But once crossed, it opens up the realm of the convergence of religion, philosophy and science.

[CanisLupus]

From quantum entanglement? I could postulate that we all came from a single point, thus supporting a big-bang scenario. Or I could go with the "we are all connected", either in a hippy sense, or in an more metaphysical ESP, telekinesis, your soul lives on forever way. This could be because each atom in your brain is entangled to another, somewhere else. There are others, such as time travel, but that's another subject.

[Lee_1978]

you can't think like that. There was no "before". You are thinking that the universe has existed and will exist in either time direction for an infinitely long time. This is not supported by the standard theories. Time is directly tied to space. Without space, there is no time. A difficult concept to wrap your mind around, for sure. We also have a pretty good idea that if you warp space, you also warp time. And so at the dawn of the universe, both time and space were created. So in this fashion, there was no "before" the big bang.

There are so many rational ways of looking at a "creator" which we correlate to a supreme being.

At it's very root, the creator is called the prime mover, the entity that started this whole thing, putting it in motion, aka "mover".

One may believe in a prime mover, and yet not in the being referred to in the King James.

It is very possible that there is a prime mover, responsible for the creation of the universe, but nothing beyond that. This may mean no life after death, no heaven, no hell. Very possible this entity is ONLY responsible for the initial conditions that allowed everything else to happen after, like someone knocking over the first domino. And if this is correct, it may very be possible this entity may have no direct knowledge of our existence, or even cares. It's level of consciousness may exist on a plane much different than ours, where maybe time has no meaning, unlike anything we can comprehend.

As we progress our discussion through all the various possible types of god there may be, we end up at the other end of the spectrum referred to in the King James, where this being is all knowing, all present, and all powerful. To go even further, this being directly effected our evolution/creation and became so enamored with us, her creation, that she keeps a watchful "eye" over us and takes a personal interest in what we do and our final outcome; motivating us with the ol' carrot and stick; do good and go to heaven, fvck up and go to hell.

If there is a prime mover, I suspect it would be somewhere in the middle, and maybe not of this universe.

Either way, I'm still interested to see if someone can discuss god in an analytical fashion without referring to religious scripture?

The inextricable link between space and time is a concept that many, including myself, struggle to grasp despite my fascination with space and cosmology.


As someone who was raised a Christian, I have grown to reject or dispute a majority of the scriptures simply through sheer implausibility. However, I am keen on the 'agnostic' theories which neither deny or affirm the existence of God. I'd like to believe in a 'higher power' or entity akin to an energy force that is somehow directly or indirectly part of the origins of humankind. The Horror author Stephen King had a similar idea in his book ' The girl who loved Tom Gordon'. Despite this, I am a science man through and through!

[Times Roman]

From quantum entanglement? I could postulate that we all came from a single point, thus supporting a big-bang scenario. Or I could go with the "we are all connected", either in a hippy sense, or in an more metaphysical ESP, telekinesis, your soul lives on forever way. This could be because each atom in your brain is entangled to another, somewhere else. There are others, such as time travel, but that's another subject.

you are close. the next dot.

quantum entanglement. two particles, quantumly entangled, light years apart. one is acted on by a force, instantly effecting the other particle, even though light years away. How can this be? The laws of physics disallow any form of communication transpiring faster than light. How is it that the physical properties of the other particle can be affected even though the physical properties of the universe somehow does not allow it?

The inextricable link between space and time is a concept that many, including myself, struggle to grasp despite my fascination with space and cosmology.


As someone who was raised a Christian, I have grown to reject or dispute a majority of the scriptures simply through sheer implausibility. However, I am keen on the 'agnostic' theories which neither deny or affirm the existence of God. I'd like to believe in a 'higher power' or entity akin to an energy force that is somehow directly or indirectly part of the origins of humankind. The Horror author Stephen King had a similar idea in his book ' The girl who loved Tom Gordon'. Despite this, I am a science man through and through!

Jesus read scripture with an open mind, not a closed mind. He understood that scripture quite often was not meant to be taken literally. And he picked and chose which ones he believed, and which ones he did not.

The bible should be read openly and with a critical mind. Only when it becomes institutionalized and taught as dogma does it become a trap and closes the minds of anyone buying into the institution.

So, CL, I think you are on the right track. Being religious can be a very positive thing. Only when "true believers" close their minds and shut their ears does it become dangerous.

[CanisLupus]

you are close. the next dot.

quantum entanglement. two particles, quantumly entangled, light years apart. one is acted on by a force, instantly effecting the other particle, even though light years away. How can this be? The laws of physics disallow any form of communication transpiring faster than light. How is it that the physical properties of the other particle can be affected even though the physical properties of the universe somehow does not allow it?

Oh, that. No, you're totally right. I thought I covered it above, but when I read what I wrote again I see that I just brushed past it, when I said "two objects linked on opposite sides of the universe". I just failed to mention that acting on the linked particles allowed transfer of information faster than light. Sorta what I meant by time travel, also. If I could view what that other object, millions of light years away, sees when it looks back at the earth, you could potentially see millions of years into the earth's past, possibly even to it's very formation. Pretty cool stuff. Makes you wonder if the vastness of space won't turn out to be some type of funhouse mirror type illusion, and that if you look at it from a different angle (dimension) the objects are actually still right next to each other, but we just can't see it with our limited perspective. Something like that might allow us to break those laws of physics, and travel to impossibly distant planets, etc. The fact that what we know is so limited, means the possibilities are unfathomable to us right now. Cool stuff.

[Times Roman]

^ok, so you understand the basic principle. now move on, extrapolating this violation of known physics, and take a leap into the metaphysical. Connect the dots.

[CanisLupus]

^ok, so you understand the basic principle. now move on, extrapolating this violation of known physics, and take a leap into the metaphysical. Connect the dots.

Not sure I follow you, but I could say that, based on this violation of mathematically provable physics, that none of this is really here at all. It's an illusion. A dream where anything is possible.

Sidenote: I'm really enjoying this conversation, man, you're a trip to talk to (or it could be the morphine...)

[Times Roman]

this violation of the known laws of physics is clear. There is either some fundamental aspect of this universe we do not understand, or, there is something more out there beyond the physical universe, greater than the known universe...... metaphysics!

I was on the morphine for a week or so, and have been off for almost a month. I guess when I say morphine, it sticks in people's minds. it was a low oral dose to boot.

[Times Roman]

I usually talk like this passing the wine jug while sitting around the camp fire.

I was enjoying a conversation like this one time at the beach, sitting away from a blazing bon fire, when a "moving star" slowly passed overhead. I pointed it out to a close buddy of mine. He saw it. He had no idea what it was. I explained it was a satellite, probably a communication satellite. Maybe a hundred miles up. Maybe a bit smaller than a VW bug. He said BS, no way you can see something that small from so far away. I explained the suns reflective properties off a straight metal surface, that after 93 million miles, the suns rays won't diffuse nor scatter, but more like a laser, explaining that is also why the shadow of your hand does not grow whether it is ten or 25 feet away. Years went by. Still thought I was a lying piece of shit. Read an internet article on the subject, and emailed it to him, supporting my position from years ago.

Some people look up in the sky and wonder, and others just get a sore neck.

I think most people just get a sore neck?

[CanisLupus]

this violation of the known laws of physics is clear. There is either some fundamental aspect of this universe we do not understand, or, there is something more out there beyond the physical universe, greater than the known universe...... metaphysics!

Excellent point. I'm always amazed at how, just when we get some concept of the inconceivable scale of everything, we find out it's actually billions of times more complex.
There's something in computer graphics called MIP Mapping, whereby the object being viewed has several different versions, depending on how closely you view it. The farther away you are, the lower quality the image is because you wouldn't notice the change from such a distance anyway, and it saves computing resources. When you view it very close, it's very detailed.

I've heard it argued that the universe operates in a similar manner. The farther away we develop the technology to see, the more we see that there's more to see. The smaller we look at the subatomic level, the more complexity we uncover. You get the idea. There's even a guy who's using this to argue the we are living in a computer simulation, albeit an inconceivably complex one.

I was on the morphine for a week or so, and have been off for almost a month. I guess when I say morphine, it sticks in people's minds. it was a low oral dose to boot.

Yeah, I've seen some others make the joke, that's all that was. I don't really think you're currently on morphine :-)

Some people look up in the sky and wonder, and others just get a sore neck.

I seriously popped out the womb insatiably curious. The internet was not invented then, but we had a set of World Book Encyclopedias, and I wore them out reading them.

[Times Roman]

one of the tests they are performing in trying to determine if we are programs in a simulated universe is to check for minute variations in the speed of light. in any computer, there are anomalies in certain calculations where they should not be. For example, when performing a mathematical calculation in Excel, and are nesting several dimensions of calculations into a complex formula, and you are expecting the outcome to be zero, sometimes, it is not. it may look like a zero, but if you expand the decimals out 15 or 20 places, you begin to see non zero values. The speed of light is a constant, not a variable, and so we are testing to see how constant this constant is. Unexplained variations are further considered. If no explanation can be made, then one possible explanation would point to the Excel analogy I mentioned earlier. A temporary flaw in the program. if we are in a programmer, it could be that the program, to conserve processing capacity, only provides sufficient detail when an observer is looking in that direction. And every once in a while, the observer will look earlier than the program is able to provide the detail, and hence the anomaly.

The theory continues by supposing that it is not necessary for a living programmer to maintain the program, but instead, another program. From a "religious" perspective, heaven could be the next program up.