Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 0 down vote favorite

From my understanding, the Big Bang is theorized to have been a result of matter ejecting from a decayed white hole space/time singularity.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html provides an explanation for the beginning of the universe. Assuming I understand it correctly, there are distortions of space, time, and matter called singularities. A black hole is one, and in it is theorized to be of infinite mass, infinite density, infinite space, and most importantly, infinite time. So, there essentially is no measure of time inside of them. It is theorized that before the universe began there existed a singularity, and out of the singularity came the universe. So, considering that there is no measure of time in a singularity, it could have always existed and have had no beginning. Furthermore, there would have existed nothing outside of this singularity, so there could have been no measure of time outside of it either. At some point, matter and energy were ejected from the white hole, and this event was the "big bang," the beginning of our universe.

Is this accurate, and if not, what of my interpretation needs to change?

share|improve this question
5  
I haven't read the Quentin Smith article, but I can say that a number of statements in your question are incorrect. According to both standard theory and all available observational evidence, the Big Bang has nothing to do with a white hole singularity. Black holes are not "theorized to be of infinite mass." There certainly is a "measure of time" inside a black hole. I'm afraid the other statements you make are also either incorrect or ill-defined. – Ted Bunn Jun 29 '11 at 17:23
Alright, good to know. I'll refine then. – Chad Johnson Jun 29 '11 at 17:30
3  
As Ted said, the question is kind of a mess as is - it reeks of pop-sci mysticism (okay, it's not that bad). If you edit it to make it more precise and correct, I'll be happy to reopen it. (You can flag the question for mod attention when you edit so one of us moderators will get to it quickly.) – David Zaslavsky♦ Jun 29 '11 at 18:24

closed as not constructive by David Zaslavsky♦ Jun 29 '11 at 18:22

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.