How does BBT resolve away from "It should be a black hole"

In summary: The expansion prevented the collapse into a black hole. In summary, the early universe did not bypass the formation of a black hole because it was not in the same conditions as a static object. The rapid expansion prevented the collapse into a black hole.
  • #1
AshPowers
7
0
TL;DR Summary
Shouldn't it?
If it all started with a big bang of incredible density and energy, does that mean there must be particles that can travel faster than light? How would anything escape the grip of that kind of gravity? I was under the impression that at a certain threshold of mass/density, it turns into a black hole, right? How did the emergence/early universe just skip past this? Or spring out of it? What is the explanation here?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
AshPowers said:
Summary: Shouldn't it?
No.
If it all started with a big bang of incredible density and energy
Yes, but that was not a point in space, it was a point in time so it was nothing like an "explosion"
, does that mean there must be particles that can travel faster than light?
No, there's no need to posit that. Things moved away from each other faster than light but there was little or no proper motion so no speeding tickets were issued. I suggest the link in my signature
How would anything escape the grip of that kind of gravity?
Because it was the same in all directions, so no "escape" was necessary
I was under the impression that at a certain threshold of mass/density, it turns into a black hole, right?
Yes but not when EVERYTHING around it has the same density. What direction would it move?
How did the emergence/early universe just skip past this? Or spring out of it? What is the explanation here?
See above

These are all trivial concerns that have been discussed here many hundreds of times. I suggest that you do a forum search, and just study some really basic cosmology.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #3
AshPowers said:
I was under the impression that at a certain threshold of mass/density, it turns into a black hole, right?

An object that is static will collapse into a black hole if it is compressed enough (enough mass enclosed in a small enough sphere). But the early universe was not static; it was expanding rapidly. So it was a very different condition from the conditions that form a black hole.
 

FAQ: How does BBT resolve away from "It should be a black hole"

1. How does BBT resolve away from "It should be a black hole"?

The Big Bang Theory (BBT) explains the origin and evolution of the universe, but it does not directly address the concept of black holes. However, BBT does provide evidence and explanations for the formation and behavior of objects that were previously thought to be black holes.

2. What evidence does BBT provide for the existence of objects that were previously thought to be black holes?

BBT provides evidence for the existence of objects that were previously thought to be black holes through observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the expansion of the universe, and the distribution of galaxies and dark matter. These observations support the idea that these objects are actually supermassive stars or dense clusters of stars, rather than black holes.

3. How does BBT explain the formation of objects that were previously thought to be black holes?

BBT explains the formation of objects that were previously thought to be black holes through the process of stellar evolution. According to BBT, supermassive stars and dense clusters of stars can form from the collapse of gas and dust in the early universe. These objects can also grow in size through mergers with other objects, such as galaxies.

4. Can BBT explain the behavior of objects that were previously thought to be black holes?

While BBT does not directly address black holes, it does provide explanations for the observed behavior of objects that were previously thought to be black holes. For example, BBT can explain the extreme gravitational pull and high temperatures of these objects through the processes of accretion and fusion, which occur in supermassive stars and dense clusters of stars.

5. How does BBT's explanation for objects previously thought to be black holes differ from the traditional understanding of black holes?

The traditional understanding of black holes is based on the theory of general relativity, which predicts the existence of singularities - points of infinite density and gravity. BBT's explanation for objects previously thought to be black holes is based on the principles of stellar evolution and does not involve the concept of singularities. Additionally, BBT suggests that these objects may not be true black holes, but rather dense and massive objects that exhibit similar properties.

Similar threads

Back
Top