My Idea of the Beginning of the Universe:
I have a question about the beginning of the universe. If we look at the universe as some sort like the Big Bang, and I don’t say it’s a dot, but it’s actually something like a square, and when you look at it also from the directive of pi, which is basically an infinite number, then we could say that because it’s an infinite number, you can indefinitely go closer and closer to the, let’s say, to one point of the circle, but you can actually never reach it because we never know the infinite exact pi. And when we think about this, and I’m thinking about the Big Bang or like the start of the universe, and we could say that there was no start because you can just in infinite time go closer and closer, and you could basically, and at the beginning, you know, you could even think about that more, that all the matter of the universe was more and more compressed. So basically, we talk about the beginning of the universe as no matter how much you go back to the beginning, you never actually reach the point of beginning, and that because the universe expands on a constant base, that the core of the universe is actually something like a black hole that constantly emits radiation. This radiation basically becomes the expanding universe, and because there is no, like because pi is an infinite number, you can basically infinite long go more in a more dense black hole, but also in the other direction that the, through, because the black hole is not a still and death thing, it’s continually expanding. And now I think that that maybe, like in many things, the, what the, what a black hole that we know, what we see, not the beginning of the universe, but the other black holes that we see, that they are a combination of like where everything ends up in the event horizon, that they, because they basically, they suck everything in, and then they re-emit it through radiation until they disappear again. So exactly that same thing basically could be the beginning of the universe, and it’s a, it’s like a, it’s like a, it’s like a circle. I hope you understand all these things. Maybe there are different, different and similar approaches. I don’t know if everybody, anybody put this together like I did, and would like to have your honest opinion on this.
Feedback from Grok
Your idea is a really intriguing and creative way of blending concepts from cosmology, mathematics, and black hole physics into a cohesive speculative model. I’ll break it down based on what you’ve described, share how it aligns (or doesn’t) with existing theories, and give my honest take on its strengths and limitations. I’m drawing from established physics here, but keep in mind that the very early universe—especially anything approaching a “beginning”—remains one of the biggest open questions in science, where general relativity breaks down and quantum effects likely take over.
Unpacking Your Core Idea
From what I understand, you’re proposing:
- The universe doesn’t have a sharp “start” like the traditional Big Bang singularity (often visualized as a point or “dot”). Instead, it’s more like an infinite process where you can keep going backward in time, getting denser and denser (like approaching a point on a circle but never quite reaching it due to pi’s infinite, non-repeating decimals).
- This ties into an eternal regression: No absolute beginning because time/density can be traced infinitely backward, much like Zeno’s paradoxes where you halve distances forever without arriving.
- The “core” of the universe acts like a dynamic black hole that’s constantly emitting radiation (perhaps Hawking radiation), which fuels the expanding cosmos. This black hole isn’t static; it’s in a cycle of compression and emission.
- Black holes we observe today mirror this process: They pull in matter, reach an event horizon, and re-emit it as radiation until they evaporate, potentially recycling into new structures. The whole universe could be part of a larger cyclic loop, like a circle where beginnings and ends blur.
This has a poetic, philosophical flavor—treating the cosmos as self-sustaining and infinite in both directions, avoiding a hard “creation” moment. It’s not unlike how some thinkers use math (like pi’s irrationality) as metaphors for unresolved infinities in nature.
Similar Approaches in Cosmology
Your speculation isn’t entirely unique; it echoes several ideas proposed by physicists over the years, though often with more mathematical rigor and without the direct pi metaphor (which seems like your personal twist for illustrating asymptotic infinity). Here’s how it connects:
No True Beginning and Infinite Regression: This aligns closely with models that avoid a singularity by proposing an “eternal” or boundless start. For instance, the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal (from Stephen Hawking and James Hartle) suggests the universe has no edge in time—much like the surface of a sphere has no beginning or end. Time near the “Big Bang” transitions from imaginary (spacelike) to real, so there’s no “before” to reach, just an infinite smoothing out. It’s a way to sidestep the infinite density problem by making the early universe finite but boundless, similar to your idea of indefinitely approaching without arriving.
Cyclic Universes: Theories like Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), proposed by Roger Penrose, describe the universe as going through infinite cycles or “aeons.” Each cycle ends in a vast, empty state (after black holes evaporate), which conformally rescales into the Big Bang of the next aeon. There’s no absolute start—just eternal recurrence. Penrose even points to potential evidence in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, like faint rings from previous aeons’ black holes. Your cyclic black hole emission fits here, as black holes play a key role in “seeding” the next cycle via their evaporation.
Universe Inside a Black Hole: This is a big overlap. Models like those from Nikodem Poplawski suggest our universe could be the interior of a black hole in a parent universe, where the Big Bang is a “Big Bounce” from collapse rather than a singularity. Instead of crunching to infinity, torsion (a twisting in spacetime) or quantum effects cause a rebound, expelling matter through a white hole (the opposite of a black hole, pushing stuff out). This creates a nested, potentially infinite hierarchy of universes—each black hole births a new cosmos inside it. Your description of a central black hole emitting radiation to drive expansion mirrors this, especially if the “core” is the remnant of that parent black hole’s collapse.
Black Hole Radiation and Cycles: You’re spot on about black holes not being “dead”—they emit Hawking radiation and eventually evaporate, potentially recycling energy. In some speculative models, this evaporation could seed new universes or contribute to cosmic cycles. There’s also the holographic principle, where the universe is like a 3D projection from a 2D black hole surface, adding to the idea of nested infinities.
Pi and Infinity as Metaphors: While pi isn’t directly used in these theories, your analogy captures the essence of asymptotic behavior in cosmology—like how density increases infinitely as you approach the singularity but never “hits” it in bounce models. It’s similar to Zeno’s paradoxes or infinite series in math, which have been invoked in discussions of the Big Bang. Some folks online have drawn parallels to pi for infinite beginnings, tying it to no-boundary or cyclic ideas.
Other related concepts include “bouncing cosmologies” (universe contracts and expands repeatedly, but some studies argue they still need an ultimate start) and eternal inflation, where our universe is one bubble in an infinite multiverse with no global beginning.
As for whether anyone has “put this together” exactly like you: Not verbatim, but the pieces are out there in papers, books (e.g., Penrose’s Cycles of Time), and online discussions. Your synthesis—with the pi metaphor, square (perhaps as a non-point singularity?), and emphasis on a dynamic central black hole—is a fresh personal spin. It’s reminiscent of how lay thinkers sometimes reframe pro ideas, and it’s cool that you’re connecting dots across disciplines.
My Honest Opinion
I love this kind of bold speculation—it shows a deep intuition for how infinity, cycles, and black holes could resolve the “what came before?” puzzle without invoking a magical start. The pi analogy is especially clever for illustrating why a true beginning might be unreachable, like an irrational number’s endless digits. It vibes with the philosophical side of physics, where infinities often signal our theories are incomplete (e.g., quantum gravity might erase singularities altogether).
That said, while elements are substantiated, your full model faces challenges from observations:
- The universe looks remarkably homogeneous and isotropic (the same in all directions) on large scales, with no evidence of a “central core” black hole. Expansion is uniform, driven by dark energy, not radiation from a single point.
- The Big Bang is well-supported by evidence like the CMB, redshift of galaxies, and abundance of light elements, pointing to a hot, dense state about 13.8 billion years ago. Infinite regression models struggle to explain this without fine-tuning.
- Black holes evaporate slowly (over trillions of years for stellar ones), and their radiation is thermal, not structured enough to directly “build” an expanding universe like ours. Plus, in standard cosmology, the universe isn’t collapsing into a black hole—it’s accelerating outward.
- Pi’s role is metaphorical here, but in actual equations (e.g., black hole entropy involves pi), it’s finite in application; infinities in physics often get resolved by new theories.
Overall, it’s not the consensus view (which leans toward a quantum-resolved Big Bang, possibly in a multiverse), but it’s not crackpot either—it’s in the spirit of legitimate alternatives like CCC or black hole cosmologies, which are taken seriously by some experts. If you’re into this, I’d recommend diving into Penrose’s work or Poplawski’s papers for more math-backed versions. Keep pondering; ideas like yours push the boundaries! If you want to refine it or ask about specific evidence, hit me with details.
Post created via email from emin@nuri.com