Tim blackburn


This conversation is closed.

Which came first? The star, or the black hole?

We know black holes are the result of the collapsing of a star, but we also know the majority of the galaxies in the known universe have a super massive black hole at its center, and the even mostly void new galaxies without much to feed it contain black holes at their center. The question is, was the star first there to collapse into a black hole, or was it the "occurance" of a black hole with the gasses and such to help birth new galaxies?

  • thumb
    Nov 2 2011: Well, maybe once upon a time a blackhole sneezed and a tiny baby star crawled out and then the star got lonely and snuck up behind the black hole and tickled it a bit so he would sneeze again and then another littlegirl star wiggled out and they fell in love and had babies and :universes-and so on and so forth and here we are.
    Welp, I think that pretty much settles the matter-moving on..... :)
  • thumb
    Nov 1 2011: He, he, he, deja vous... music or dancing? Chicken or egg?

    I will be following this debate, can't wait to see what you all have to share!
    • thumb
      Nov 2 2011: its exactly a question like that. lol. what do YOU think?
      • thumb
        Nov 2 2011: Hmmm... music, definitely!

        And chicken (two of them, it is)
      • thumb
        Nov 2 2011: Krisztian, you got me there :-)

        I was just thinking of propagation of species, not omelette...
        • thumb
          Nov 3 2011: Given that many species layed eggs before chickens came to exist, it's most definitely the egg that came first.
  • thumb

    Jo Eun

    • +1
    Nov 1 2011: It's especially interesting topic to me cause I'm studying of star these days.
    I'm sure no one will find the answer. Famous scientists neither can't figure it out.
    Human, is living on the earth during very short time. We couldn't see the birth of stars or black holes.
    Also, we can't sure black holes are the result of the collapsing of a star. It's just scientists' guess.
    There were much various opinions about it, and the theory which we study today the nearest answer.
    (To be accurate....it's not the answer....just most people cognize that it is the answer)

    But, I know the writher didn't meat it and I'm agree with former opinion.
    I mean..the black hole can exist since the stars exist.

    It was very interesting topic:D
    • thumb
      Nov 1 2011: all this very true, just looking to open up a good no answere debate, for more spurred thought than answers. thanks!
  • Nov 1 2011: As much as I enjoy talking about the topic (to my wife's dismay) I enjoy hearing about other possibilities, even more. Any other theories out there to ponder?
  • thumb
    Nov 6 2011: Neither. Everything happens at the same time. Black holes are the drains and the plumbing that join together in a Big Crunch that feed the white fountain commonly known as the Big Bang. Only world-lines exist. All world lines start at the Big Bang singularity and end at the Big Crunch singularity. Today, physicists don't believe there will be a big crunch. They say the universe will expand forever. I predict they are wrong. My conjecture is testable if you live long enough. Only time will tell.Black holes are compressors, they are places where space is contracting and deflating, and time is reversing. Entropy creatres the arrow of time. The 2LoT may not be true inside black holes. Bekestein-Hawking radiation has never been verified. As space deflates there are fewer quantum states as they are fewer and fewer places for matter to occupy. Even OWS can't occupy non-existant space. The smaller the universe the closer you get to the Big Bang. First there was inflation of space-time, then there was a Big Bang, there there was cooling of matter-energy. then there is deflation, then the universe becomes a single colllapsing black hole which ends in a worm hole which leads to the Big Bang. The universe does not start over again, matter-energy just reaches the end of time which is also the beginning of time. The universe is finiite but unbounded like Hartle and Hawking describe in their No Boundary Proposal (NBP). Causality is violated in modern physics.
  • thumb
    Nov 3 2011: A cause yields an effect, which is itself a cause. This is the framework we use to understand the universe, but it seems to cause a conflict in our logic. Was there ever a cause which was never an effect? This lies outside of the framework. And yet a universe that always existed trips us out too... and so does your picture. I'm beginning to get off topic. What did we learn from the chicken and the egg? Alethiology... what is a chicken, and what is an egg?

    What is a black hole? What was a black hole? What will be a black hole? Are the chicken and the egg in nature one and the same? Are the black hole and the star one and the same?

    Often enough (this is going to be a mouth full), the concept of a "beginning" relies on abstracting reality into recognizable forms that inherit consistency. This holds some footing in logic, as our own being is somewhat consistent. Certainly my experience of being me, and your experience of being you both had beginnings. They will both have an end. Even though our experience changes daily, this light of being alive is consistent. But a single life seems to be the exception, and only in each instance. Objectively, everything is collectively a continuation of everything before it. Unless a star or a black hole can claim some kind of sentience, what we recognize as a star or a black hole is really just an abstraction of a movement that will yield many stars and black holes. Which came first, the star or the black hole, is really just a question of definition. What we know to be a star is really just a behavior of a movement in nature... they lack consistency chemically. What began the movement is a more logical question, but brings us round circle. Can there be a cause that was never an effect?
  • thumb
    Nov 3 2011: Do you count black holes that formed before the Big Bang? Roger Penrose says we might be able to see their echo in the cosmic background radiation.
  • thumb
    Nov 1 2011: Jo made a good point. we cant, at this time, observe how the collapse leads to a black hole. just the same, we assume at this time that we will not be able to observe how exactly a quantum comutation would hapen. do think the mechanisim that would allow a black hole to be a loop cycle for galaxy formation be the same as a instant momment of an quantum computation? imo, i think more understanding of one will lead to more understanding of the other.
  • thumb
    Nov 1 2011: i recently read a paper on an observation which points into the direction that supermassive black holes do not originate in star matter. the observation was that young galaxies has similar sized center black holes as old ones. it seems that black holes attract matter around them to form galaxies. according to that theory, supermassive galaxy centers are actually primordial black holes. this is far from fact though, but an interesting idea.
    • thumb
      Nov 1 2011: this is true. i dont think a black hole rarley starts massive ( a huge huge star could though) what you said i believe to be correct.
  • Nov 1 2011: Star...
    • thumb
      Nov 1 2011: any reason why?
      • Nov 1 2011: Well as I understand it to be a black hole cannot be produced by just anything but rather the collapse of a star into itself.
        So logically the star had to be first to produce a black hole
        • thumb
          Nov 1 2011: our understanding of black holes, dark matter, and dark energy changes and is challenged weekly it seems, i dont think theres a whole lot of logic behind it
        • thumb
          Nov 2 2011: for timothy: look up the term "primordial black hole"

          for the person that upvoted: give me the reason for the upvote, i'm very curious.
      • Nov 3 2011: To Krisztian

        I looked it up and I agree. Your right.

        The only thing keeping us from saying it is a fact, is that it is a hypothetical type of black hole.
  • Nov 1 2011: Interesting topic and i hesitate to be too quick to answer.

    This intrigues me to say the least.

    The possibilities are as endless as the cyclic idea behind the posed topic.

    I suppose my thought, which is based on the idea of a big bang theory, is the singularity that started it all would be the inverted side of a supermassive black hole.

    That's if you subscribe to the idea the big bang was in fact the beginning.
    • thumb
      Nov 1 2011: it is definatly a theory thats out there,the closing of a black hole is the snap of another star. its all i have been thinking about lately.
      • thumb
        Nov 1 2011: What does that mean? The snap of another star?

        A black hole ultimately results in the formation of a new star - it comes out on the other side of the black hole?
        • thumb
          Nov 1 2011: well...we cant prove that. but if what quantum phyics is trying to do works and is true, there would have to be a 5th (or more) dimension at work, allowing (assumingly) such a thing to hapen.
      • thumb
        Nov 1 2011: I've been giggling since last night about your comment, "It's all I've been thinking about lately." I don't know you of course, but it conjures up a wonderful image we all recognize - when a mystery or riddle consumes our thoughts...your humanity shone through. :)
        • thumb
          Nov 1 2011: its true! lol. its relating this circular idea that has been sugested and posed in diffrent ways throught human lifetime. its like, why is it, the further we go in, the bigger the space gets?

          crazy stuff :)
      • thumb
        Nov 1 2011: sounds like our minds. ;)