Speculative Sunday: Can a Black Hole Explode?

Cassiopeia A Spitzer Image
Figure 1. The Supernova Remnant Cassiopeia A, all that remains of a star that ran out of fuel. It contains either a neutron star or a black hole… could that black hole someday explode? (Image created using data from the Hubble, Spitzer, and Chandra space telescopes.)

Nothing can escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, not even light. That’s why they’re, well, black. (Of course, as I’ve described before, black holes can glow very brightly, thanks to all the in-falling matter. Sometimes they even produce gamma rays. I’m also ignoring the negligible amount of Hawking radiation that black holes theoretically produce.) Once you pass the event horizon of a black hole, you cannot ever escape. Escape is simply forbidden by the laws of physics.

That is, of course…if there actually is an event horizon, not just something that looks like one. Carlo Rovelli , one of the founders of loop quantum gravity, recently proposed something crazy: Not only do black holes not really have event horizons, they eventually explode.

The conclusion is crazy, but the reasoning is surprisingly elegant. Let me walk you through it.

Carlo Rovelli
Figure 2. Carlo Rovelli, one of the founders of loop quantum gravity. (Source wikipedia.)

(DISCLAIMER: I want to emphasize that, although the science in this post is peer-reviewed, it’s extremely speculative. The quantum gravity predictions I describe in this post are not guaranteed or even likely to be true.)

Stellar Collapse

The typical story of black hole formation (at least for stellar-mass black holes) goes something like this: A massive star runs out of nuclear fuel, and the fusion reaction keeping the star alive peters out. Without the energy from the fusion, the star can no longer resist its own gravitational pull and collapses in on itself. The resulting compression of its gases triggers a catastrophic explosion, ejecting a fair amount of the gas to leave behind the stellar core, which becomes increasingly dense. If the star is massive enough, the collapsing core squeezes into such a dense ball that it forms an event horizon and becomes a black hole. (If the star isn’t quite massive enough, the core remnant is pushed outward by the Pauli exclusion principle and becomes a neutron star.) This is called a core-collapse supernova. Here’s a video of a simulation of a supernova that results in a neutron star:

(I am, of course, glossing over a huge number of details. Core-collapse supernovae are not fully understood and there is a rich body of work devoted to understanding them…which many of my friends and collaborators are contributing to. See the bottom of the article for a small, hopefully accessible sampling of current research in core-collapse supernovae.)

The Singularity

Once the event horizon forms around the collapsing matter, no information can emerge from the black hole, so we don’t know what’s going on inside. General relativity predicts that the matter will keep collapsing until it forms an infinitely dense singularity. But the modern view among physicists is that this isn’t what actually happens. Rather, the singularity is a sign that the theory of general relativity is incomplete. What happens inside the black hole can only be described by quantum gravity. We don’t have a theory of quantum gravity, but we are actively searching for one and making (slow) progress.

The Quantum Bounce

Rovelli and his collaborators speculate that these quantum gravity effects not only prevent the singularity from forming, but may in fact cause the black hole to explode.

One generic property of quantum mechanics is that it is probabilistic. Any self-respecting theory of quantum gravity will be probabilistic, too. Therefore, just as a proton has some probability of quantum tunnelling out of an atomic nucleus, a collapsing stellar core has some (admittedly tiny) probability of quantum transitioning into an explosion. But this will only happen when quantum gravity dominates–i.e., when the matter is so compact that it’s almost a singularity.

Loop quantum gravity makes an analogous prediction about the early universe. Instead of a Big Bang singularity at the beginning of time, we had a “Big Bounce,” where a collapsing universe transitions into an expanding one just in the regime where quantum gravity dominates. So why can’t a black hole experience a similar quantum bounce?

Indeed, Rovelli and collaborators performed an ad-hoc calculation in the context of quantum gravity to find the amount of time it should take for a collapsing star to quantum tunnel into an explosion. They found that it happens quickly enough to avoid forming a singularity.

What about the Event Horizon?

Some of you may be asking, “What about the event horizon?” If nothing can escape the event horizon, then doesn’t that mean the stellar material that makes up the black hole also can’t escape?

You’re absolutely right! If an event horizon forms, nothing can escape it. However, in Rovelli et al.’s proposal, an event horizon never forms. Instead, an apparent horizon forms. Like an event horizon, this is a region that light cannot escape from. But unlike an event horizon, it is only temporary. The details are technical, but Rovelli and collaborators have cooked up a model spacetime in which the horizon is not a true event horizon—only an apparent horizon.

 So Where Are All the Exploding Black Holes?

If black holes do experience a quantum bounce and form neither singularities nor event horizons, and if the bounce happens at the end of collapse, where are all the explosions? Surely we would have seen them!

Well, not so fast. Time warps in the presence of a strong gravitational field. In fact, near the collapsing star, time will distort so much that a tiny amount of time near the star will appear to be billions of years to a distant observer. Therefore, all the black holes we observe out in the universe—and we observe many—are in the process of collapsing and bouncing into an explosion behind their apparent horizons.

X-Ray imagery of the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way, Sagitarius A*, captured by NuSTAR.
Figure 3. X-Ray imagery of the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Sagittarius A*, captured by NuSTAR.

Primordial Black Holes and Fast Radio Bursts

If Rovelli and collaborators are right, the first black holes that formed in the universe, which formed many billions of years ago, should be exploding about now. And when they explode, they should release a huge amount of energy. Some of this energy will be emitted as light, which we can detect.

The earlier the exploding black hole formed in the history of the universe, the less massive it will be. And this corresponds to a shorter wavelength of the emitted light. But, because the speed of light is constant, looking further away from Earth means looking back in time. So the wavelength of light emitted by exploding black holes should change depending on how far away the black hole is. After correcting for cosmological redshift, this results in a very peculiar and distinct wavelength of light as a function of distance, shown in figure 4.

The wavelength of light produced by exploding black holes (in arbitrary units) as a function of distance from us (in redshift).
Figure 4. The wavelength of light produced by exploding black holes (in arbitrary units) as a function of distance from us (in redshift). Source: Rovelli and Vidotto

So all we have to do is look for some light coming from outside the galaxy and see if we can compare the wavelength of the light to its distance from us. If it matches the curve in figure 4, then Rovelli and collaborators are right. Otherwise, they’re not.

Rovelli and collaborators suggest using fast radio bursts, which have approximately the right wavelength and may be of extragalactic origin, to test the model. So far, we don’t know very much about fast radio bursts. If they turn out to come from exploding black holes, this would be very exciting, because it would be a real probe of quantum gravity.

Black Hole Information Loss

Rovelli and collaborators aren’t the first to propose that black hole event horizons don’t exist. Previously, Rovelli proposed that black holes evaporate into so-called “Planck stars” that remain after a black hole disappears. Stephen Hawking recently argued that black holes only appear to have event horizons because the spacetime around them is turbulent. There is a rich history of such proposals.

These proposals are all motivated by the so-called black hole information paradox. Basically, we believe that information in the universe is conserved. It cannot be created or destroyed. When information falls into a black hole, it is irretrievable. This wouldn’t be so bad, except that the black hole eventually disappears because it gives up its energy to Hawking radiation, which doesn’t transmit all the information in the black hole. Therefore, once the black hole evaporates, all the information that fell into it is lost forever…simply gone from the universe. But that seems to break the law of conservation of information.

Rovelli’s proposal gets around the paradox by proposing that black holes explode and eject all information they contain. And this is certainly one motivation for him considering it.

Spherical Cows

I want to emphasize that Rovelli’s proposal is ridiculously speculative. He is relying on arguments from quantum gravity, which we don’t even remotely understand. And even the arguments that don’t use quantum gravity are rather contrived.

Rovelli writes down a quantitative model of the collapsing and bouncing star, but it’s very simplistic…in fact, I’d call it the general relativity version of a “spherical cow.” The spacetime has a region in which quantum gravity is non-negligible, which means a region in which physics we don’t understand take place. And the collapsing star is modelled as a thin spherical shell of matter, which is way too simple. (Furthermore, spherical shells of matter are known to have pathologies.) Worse yet, the expansion of the matter post-bounce is modelled as a white hole, which is known to be intrinsically unstable.

Yet, despite all that, Rovelli’s proposal is a cool idea. And I like it.

 Further Reading

  • You can find Rovelli and collaborators’ first paper on the bouncing black holes here. The paper where they predict that fast radio bursts come from exploding black holes is here.
  • For a review of the physics of core-collapse supernovae, first published in Nature, check out this article.
  • The physics of core-collapse supernovae are very complicated, and accurately modelling this phenomenon is an open problem in the numerical relativity community. Professor Christian Ott wrote an awesome article about some of the challenges the community faces (revealed by his and his collaborators’ research), which you can find here.
  • This is a nice article by PBS on Hawking’s recent claim that black holes don’t exist and how it relates to the black hole information paradox.
  • This is a great article by Sabine Hossenfelder about what we hope to gain from a theory of quantum gravity.

20 thoughts on “Speculative Sunday: Can a Black Hole Explode?

  1. Let’s explore the hypothesis that the processes of the Big Bang and the formation of a Black Hole are the reverse of one another. If the Big Bang is played backward then all matter and all dimensions (space itself) must disappear into a point singularity. That mathematical point would be equivalent to the balanced dimensions of space. That is, the dimensions add up to zero. Pop a dimension free (insert usual quantum mechanical fluctuation handwaving here) and some of the infinitely curled dimensions come spilling out, creating space. As it uncurls it releases its potential energy which eventually cools through the expansion of space to allow the transition to matter. Viola, the Big Bang.

    Now to a Black Hole and really wild speculation. Collapse everything down until the curvature of space becomes infinite. What is infinitely curved space? Is it space approaching the state of a point singularity? Can this be converted to a point singularity? Are Black Holes basically a forge that can force the loose dimensions back into a neatly balanced point? What would be the consequence of forging a point singularity? The gravitational well containing the mass of the Black Hole would collapse. If the mass is somehow not consumed in the production of the point singularity, it would be liberated when the dimensions collapse to zero. Any remaining mass would be liberated. It suggests the possibility that Black Holes could end in incredibly massive energy radiations.

    1. Thanks for reading, Eric. I have a couple of comments.

      You may be on to more than you realize when you suggest that the singularity at the centre of a black hole and the Big Bang singularity are similar. But not for the reasons you say. The two do indeed have many striking singularities. They are, for example, both moments in time. This isn’t something I’ve discussed in detail before, but the singularity within a black hole is less a place and more a moment in time, inevitably in your future once you cross the event horizon of a black hole.

      However, I a have some comments and corrections to what you’re saying. Let’s start with the idea that the Big Bang is a point. It is absolutely not, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves. Somehow this idea has been placed into the popular consciousness such that many smart non-physicists believe it. The Big Bang was an expansion of space. But space was never “a single point.” Rather, a better way to think of it is that “all distances between all points” were zero. I know this is confusing. It’s hard to explain without a picture. The following links (one by me ad one by another physicist) might help:

      It’s also worth noting that, if inflationary theory is correct, there might not have been a Big Bang. I discuss that in a three-part series on the early universe:

      I also want to mention that most physicists do not believe singularities (in the sense of infinite density or infinite curvature) exist. Rather, they believe these are properties of the fact that general relativity is incomplete. It’s the low-energy limit for some as-of-yet unknown theory of quantum gravity. See this excellent article by Sabine Hossenfelder:

      This belief in the nonexistence of singularities is, in fact, exactly what inspired Rovelli to come up with his “exploding black holes” idea. He saw the prediction in loop quantum gravity that our universe began with a “Big Bounce” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce) and tried to translate that idea into black hole physics.

      1. Thank you so much for your response Jonah. I am eager to explore the links as soon as time permits. I have picked up bits of it here and there, but you are correct that I am a layman; my training is in biology. The issue of multiple points at 0 distance is one that I had worked out for myself. Aa an outsider I may have gotten there by a different route, so I will provide a brief account.

        I like the idea that playing back the universe colapses not just matter, but space itself. As you know, String theory requires extra dimensions. It makes more sense to me that all dimension began bundled and the commonly experienced dimensions broke loose instead of starting wirh large scale dimensions and then collapsing most. However, if one pops free and then greatly expand a few dimensions, then it seems that the compact dimensions would be left at the origin and not available everywhere as needed by string theory. That conundrum led me to think of a sea of mathematical points. I envision a point rupturing and the loose dimensions then triggering the eruption of other mathematical points in a Markov chain. Pet has each point gives rise to a Planck volume of space, each volume containing compacted dimensions, thus satisfying the requirements of string theory. I am agnostic as to whether these gains of space stay discrete or crystalize, although granular space would comport with LQG.

        1. Eric,

          You seem to be coonfusing “dimension” and “distance.” These ideas are often hard to distinguish in our thinking. But the idea in string theory is not that the extra dimensions are “points bundled up.” I like the following analogy:

          From a distance, power cable for your computer looks like a line, i.e., a one-dimensional object. But if you look closely enough, you see that it’s actually a cylinder. This is very much how string theorists see the extra dimensions. This idea (and the advantages it offers) were first explored in Kaluza-Klein theory, which I describe here:

          In a typical singularity scenario, the dimension of the space does not change. The the dynamical object in general relativity (and indeed Reimannian geometry) is how we measure distance. This is quite abstract, and hard to describe in detail, but I do attempt to do so in my series on how GR works. I’ve used the #howgrworks tag to collect the articles:

          The first three, which detail how distance is dynamical and what that means are here:

          I note that neither loop quantum gravity nor string theory actually assume “granular space.” (And in fact, they may be more closely related to each other than previously believed: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160112-string-theory-meets-loop-quantum-gravity/) Loop quantum gravity uses a granular description of spacetime, but this is actually a purely computational technique. The fundamental spacetime itself is assumed to be smooth.

          The only theory of quantum gravity I know of which assumes a truly discrete spacetime is causal set theory:

          I hope to hear from you in the future. 🙂

  2. Due to the extreme theoretical time dialation of the black hole, is it not possible that this “false” event horizon is just time slowing to a near stop? This would explain why some EM radiation is able to “make it out” but light (though it is present) has slowed to a stop.

  3. Similar to neutron stars, black holes may contain squeezed elementary particles. It is possible that elementary particles exist, with a higher order than those observed in collision experiments. In the interior of black holes the elementary particles are structured in layers of particles in increasing order. Larger black holes have a higher number of layers than smaller ones. These layers exchange particles and radiation and are in an equilibrium state. But if any of these layers becomes empty, the black hole collapses and finally explodes. Elementary processes, which absorb neutrinos, keep at least one of these layers populated. As soon as no longer neutrinos can be absorbed in a sufficient rate, the stabilizing layer vanishes and the black hole collapses layer by layer and finally explodes.
    Based on this effect, the neutrino density in the universe coordinates the black hole explosions and with this effect the universe is cyclic and does not end in eternal darkness.

  4. Exolodes so that a cyclic galaxy birth and death process in line with nature. Based on my article below.

    This short article describes the mechanism of the galactic big bang at the centre of a galaxy. The galactic centre is a super massive galactic black hole (GBH) of extremely high density at temperature close to absolute zero. Galactic big bang is not a collision between a massive body and a super massive GBH. It is a spontaneous release of gamma ray energy and matter, when the temperature of GBH is at absolute zero.

    How is the Galactic Big Bang discovered?
    The derivation comes from the link and connection between the basis of spiritualism in life and the basis of matter. The common basis is energy. The analogous comparison with spiritual life, leads to the conclusion that matter from GBH becoming free energy when matter suddenly becomes non matter.

    It is not exactly clear from my analogous comparison, why matter from GBH suddenly become non matter. From the analogous comparison, I propose two possible reasons for matter becoming non matter.

    (a) At absolute temperature of 0K. This article is based on this assumption.
    At the temperature of 0K, the energy flow (note 1) of compressive matter (note 2) in GBH stop, and matter becoming non matter (free energy).

    (b) When energy flow (note 1) in matter stop. E.g. when electron collided with positron, if the net energy flow (note 3) stop, gamma ray is generated.

    Galactic Big Bang mechanism.
    The temperature of GBH will reduce and move towards absolute zero when matter fall into GBH. A time will come when portion of the GBH is at 0K. The absolute zero temperature causes mass portion to be converted to free energy. The sudden huge reduction in gravity and the sudden huge release of energy is a cataclysmic big bang.
    Proof. Unfortunately no direct proof.

    My comment
    The galaxy planar shape appears to be the aftermath of a galactic big bang in the past. The galactic big bang leads to the galactic expansion cycle. This caused the evolution of the galaxy shape from a spot or centre of galactic cluster to unbalance spiral galaxy or balance spiral galaxy shape follow by ellipsoid galaxy shape. The time scale for this transformation is very long.

    Next, the galactic expansion cycle stop and the galactic contraction cycle will start. This change over is a result of GBH becoming more massive over time. The ellipsoid galaxy shape will contract and become galactic cluster or a spot, followed by the next galactic big bang. I.e. the cycle will be endless cycle of expansion, contraction and big bangs.

    How matter is ejected from GBH
    When a massive body falls towards GBH, matter goes through extreme compression and generates gamma ray energy. Likewise when compress matter absorbed gamma ray energy, it will go through decompression.

    When the galactic big bang occurs in the centre, the gamma energy is generated at the centre. The gamma ray will travel in all direction causing matter surrounding it to decompress. The decompression caused a force on both the GBH and the ejected matter. As GBH is very much more massive, the portion of decompress matter shoots out of the galactic black hole at high speed. The gamma ray also escape from the GBH.

    As Hydrogen is the element with the lowest energy absorption, most of the matter will decompress into Hydrogen. This provides ample raw material for the birth of new stars after the galactic big bang. It is also possible that other compounds and elements, including radioactive elements, be formed from the decompression.

    Direction of ejected matter
    The temperature of the GBH is lowest at the centre of GBH. i.e., Energy is liberated in the centre. The GBH is thinner above and below the galactic plane. Thus, the direction of the ejected matter is thus the approximately vertical above and below the centre of the galactic plane.

    Notes: 1. Energy flow consists of spin and orbital angular momentum.
    2. It is not known exactly what particles forms matter behaves in a highly compressive GBH.
    3. Similar to note 1, except energy flow consists of spin.

    1. Hi Yin,
      It seems, that you are thinking about galactic bangs instead of a single big bang, which spawns the universe.
      Do you think that these bangs happen randomly without any coordination?

      1. Yes, multiple galactic big bangs happen randomly without any coordination. The time span between big bangs is extremely long.

        1. I disagree with the prevailing theory, which states that the universe was created by a single Big Bang from an area the size of an atom. The problem with that theory is that there is insufficient mass or energy to create a universe unless you believe in something from nothing.

          If the cosmos is composed of multiple universes (not parallel universes but ones separated by time and distance), then when those universes die, they leave as part of the debris, multiple super giant mega black holes. When one of these reach critical mass, they will implode and explode, releasing huge amounts of energy and matter. As the debris field expands, mass will be supplied to other super giant mega black holes, causing them to reach critical mass. How many times this continues is unknown if it happens at all. If it does, then this would provide the amount of mass and energy to produce a new universe.

        2. I like your concept of galactic Big Bangs. I feel there are two types of Big Bangs. The biggest is the passive Big Bang which is when a super giant black hole reaches critical mass. It then implodes by gravity. The second type is the active type of Big Bang which is smaller and more numerous. When super giant stars are formed, they are burn brightly and burn out quickly. The result is a mega supernova. At the center of that star is a black hole. The
          supernova explosion compresses the black hole resulting in a Big Bang. As you stated, Big Bangs will affect the shape of galaxies.

          You also called the Higgs boson as the God particle. I don’t agree with that although it has been used for years by the physics community. The God particle is that particle makes up all other particles. The only particle which meets that criteria is the em particle (electromagnetic). I am fully aware that the scientific community considers em spectrum are waves and not particles. Even Einstein stated the light sometimes act like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave. I consider light (em spectrum) is a particle which exhibits wave motion. Electrons are particles which exhibit wave motion.

          If an electron meets a positron, they will annihilate each other producing gamma radiation. I am also am aware that Einstein and others considered that E = MC^2 meant that mass was converted to energy without mass. I don’t agree with that assessment. Maximum energy is produced when em particles are produced. In 1986, using both Einstein and Plank’s equations, I calculated the maximum mass of an em particle as 2.2 X 10^-44 grams.

  5. Black holes will continue to grow, until they reach critical mass Whether they are composed of neutrinos or some form of dark matter before they reach critical mass is not yet known. These events would be rare and may not have happened in the space which we call our universe. Let us not forget, that less the one hundred years has passed, since Hubble found that there more than one galaxy. When that critical mass is achieved, then the black becomes unstable and would explode.

    1. I am also convinced, that the theory of galactic bangs is appropriate to explain the structure and the life cycle of the universe. But if a critical mass triggers the explosion, this would be extremely adverse to life. Small galaxies would die with their sun fire. Sudden death would occur in giant galaxies which are eventually full of life. We also should be able to detect extremely old small galaxies with nearly burnt out small stars.
      Therefor I think without a general coordination, which leads to an explosion of all black holes, big ones and small ones, at about the same time, this theory is not correct.
      The only possible and plausible coordination is by products of sun activity e.g. neutrinos or other particles, which we did not yet detect.
      The capability of neutrinos to penetrate even stars and the also known capability to trigger elementary particle processes, indicates that neutrinos could have an impact on highly concentrated matter in the interior of black holes.
      Therefor it is possible that continuous reactions of neutrinos with specific strange particles inside black holes keep the black holes blown up. The absorption of normal matter presumably will also lead to an extension of the life time of the black hole. But without any supply, the life span of black holes could be much shorter than proposed by Hawkins radiation and could be independent from size.

      1. I don’t agree with your conclusions. Smaller Big Bangs would be the result of Gigantic Stars, which would most likely happen in very early galaxies. Thus, it would not destroy a galaxies, but would like an energertic giant super nova. The super nova itself would produce heavier elements and the Big Bang would produce more hydrogen and helium. It would also produce electromagnetic energy and even dark matter. These active Big Bang associated with giant stars (not red giants) can vary in size. However a minimum star size would be required.

        The passive Big Bangs are caused by gravity. They have a critical mass, and thus would be the same. There are possible exceptions to these, such as two super giant black holes colliding.

        With reference to neutrinos, we know they are produced by stars including our sun. However, neutrinos and dark matter will not escape black holes.

        1. Three aspects of your response are not clear to me.

          Do you suppose that super nova explosions can be followed by something like an “active” explosion of a new black hole in the super nova centre?

          If a critical mass triggers a “passive or gravitational” black hole explosion, than this explosion will destroy the rest of the galaxy because an essential part of the galaxy mass would be contained in the black hole. Small galaxies would not at all be able to trigger a black hole explosion and therefor will never get new hydrogen.

          Concerning neutrinos, the idea is that capturing neutrinos prevents a black hole from further shrinking or from a further approach to an unstable situation. The fact that neutrinos do not escape from black holes is part of the theory and not a contradiction. The idea is that after all stars in the universe are burned out and after all the black holes have swallowed the neutrinos, the black holes altogether do not get any further supply an therefor become instable.

          1. I do not agree with your conclusions. Present theories report nothing existed before the Big Bang. It further states that the whole universe came from some entity the size of an atom. Some suggest that our universe was created by branes and/or parallel universes colliding caused the single Big Bang, which resulted in everything we observe today.

            There is no reason to believe that other universes that our universe is the only one exists or has existed. (I am not referring to parallel universes, which I do not believe exists.) There is not enough mass/energy in a single Big Bang to produce the normal and dark matter which we observe. I fully aware that we do not observe dark matter, but we know of its effects from the work of Vera Rubin.

            So if the needed mass/energy is not available from a single Big Bang (especially one that is the size of an atom), where did it come from? The remnants of earlier universes existed before the Big Bang(s) occurred. My theory is the part of the material that existed were Black Holes. These kept feeding and eventually at least one became unstable, because it reached critical mass. This is what I have labeled as a passive Big Bang. Other black holes also existed which also became critical causing additional Big Bangs. This theory if someday is proven correct, could be the source of the mass/energy needed to create a universe.

            The active Big Bang concept is quite different. These are far smaller, but more numerous and would have occurred in mega stars of earlier universes. These would not have destroyed the galaxy, but would have expanded the size of the galaxy allowing smaller stars to be created. The star that is gigantic would produce more and more heavier elements. Just before the giganova occurred a black hole would be formed at its core. The supernova would have thrust out these heavier elements and at the same time would have compressed the black hole causing a secondary (much smaller) Big Bang. The Big Bang would also cause the atoms produced to spread out and create additional hydrogen.

            Can I prove this theory? Obviously not. Does anyone else know what existed before the Big Bang? Does anyone know the causes of the Big Bang? Can anyone prove that our universe was created from something as small of an atom? If you know the answers to these questions, please inform. I am open to new theories and ideas.

  6. This is all my opinion.

    Observational evidence for Galactic Big Bang

    Previously, I write about the proposal for a galactic big bang theory. The galactic big bang theory is formulated from the out of the box thinking about the analogous comparison (note 1) between spiritual life and matter. This article presents the evidences or observations which support the case of the galactic big bang from a galactic black hole.

    The symmetrical Fermi bubbles in our Milky Way on both sides of the Milky Way galaxy looks like a minute burp or mild explosion from the galaxy black hole. The bubbles look so uniform or symmetrical (note 2) all the way across the galaxy black hole (GBH). A more powerful explosion from the GBH, is the galactic jet which is also symmetrical. (note 2)

    If there are Fermi bubble and galactic jets, a massive galactic big bang is also likely. As the nature of matter distributed in black hole is symmetrical (note 2), the massive expulsion of matter from the galactic black hole is most likely symmetrical.

    The massive expulsion of matter coupled with the sudden huge gravity reduction, provides momentum to reach the outer edges of the galaxy to form galactic bar (note 3) and spiral arms. (note 4)

    Secondary explosion can happen after the ejected matter moves out of the black hole. Without severe compression, massive particles become unstable and decomposed into lighter particles giving off energy. The decompression of the matter can also absorb heat energy causing some spots to be at absolute temperature causing secondary burst of energy. This secondary explosion is observed as supernovae explosion.

    I.e. Many of the galaxies shapes are the results of massive galactic big bangs of the past. i.e. There are many galactic big bangs in the past and there will be many more in the future. i.e. This is an endless cycle (note 5) of galactic big bang followed by galactic expansion and finally galactic contraction with no beginning and no ending.

    In my previous email, I mention that after big bang, the expansion cycle started and stop, followed by contraction. The evidence for contraction is in the absence of ‘x’ galaxy plane shape. The previous galaxy plane before galactic big bang must contract fully towards the GBH, otherwise the intersecting ‘x’ shape planes with spiral arms will be created.

    Indirect proof of energy generation in black hole.
    The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world’s largest and most powerful particle collider. Energy (gamma ray) can be generated from LHC collision experiments. At the time instant at the moment of collision, the particles are going through impulsive high compressive stress at a single spot where the particle collided.

    For galactic black hole, matter as particles, are going through continuously and severe compressive stress all around the particle. The compressive stress in the galactic black hole is much higher than that could be achieved by the LHC. If LHC can generate gamma rays, it follows that the galactic black hole should be able to generate gamma ray. For galactic black hole to generate huge energy release in a galactic big bang, lots of particles or massive particles6 must suddenly become free energy. This can happen when the GBH has been contracted to a single spot or a small area.

    Why don’t we often see burst of energy from the GBH?
    This part is speculation and there may be better explanations.
    Like a super volcano that erupts once after a long hibernation, burst of energy from a black hole is not visible because the energy is trapped and absorbed by matter as particles.

    Evidence supporting galactic big bang, is the detection of high gamma ray explosion for few hours in a spot empty of stars, clouds of gas, visible objects or radio sources. An example is the detection of gamma ray burst of at least 94 GeV. (GRB 130427A) Refer to the web page below. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/shocking-burst.html

    The god particle (aka Higgs boson) and other massive particles suggested that the severe compression at the centre of the super massive black hole can produce massive particles than what we known in particle physics.

    As the actual observation and theory tie in nicely together, it follows that the galactic big bang is more likely to be correct than the concept of a big bang in the single spot at the time zero.

    1. An example of the analogous comparison which I found after sending the article about galactic big bang by email.
    Living things e.g. animals and human beings are alive because there are energy flowing in neural network. If the energy flow stop, we say the living things are dead. In contrast with matter for the simple case of electron and positron collision at low speed, matter is ‘dead’ when energy flow stop and gamma ray is liberated.
    For the computer case, when energy is flowing in the CPU, the computer is alive or doing processing. If the computer is switched off, the energy flow in the CPU stop, the computer is dead and the energy flow is dissipated as heat energy.

    2. Why symmetrical galactic burp or burst or jet?
    The symmetrical explosion strongly suggested that the nature of matter distributed in or around black hole is most likely symmetrical. This symmetrical nature can be explained by the following statements in this paragraph. Matter as in the stars, planets, planetoid, asteroids, comets, meteors and etc. consisting of elements and compounds, previously orbit around the super massive black hole. As the galaxy contracts, more matter will be captured by the super massive black hole. The spin7 of the matter captured by the super massive black hole will soon stop or dissipated away. However the orbit around super massive black hole along the galactic plane will still continue although the speed is reduced. This reduction of speed happened as matter is crushed to become particles (a state of matter only possible in a black hole). This is the way matter can exist in or near the super massive black hole in order to occupy a small space. Note: Matter is chiefly empty space. Matter as particles, thus, orbit around the GBH. As the galactic black hole occupies a small spot or area, it will make many revolutions7 around the centre of the GBH. These revolutions cause matter as particles to be distributed uniformly or symmetrically in a super massive black hole.

    3. How galactic bar is formed.
    When galactic big bang occur, the lightest matter e.g. particles or hydrogen gas will shoot out from the GBH at the maximum speed. The most massive bodies will move out at the minimum speed from the GBH. In between the lightest and the massive bodies, the ejected speed ranges from the maximum speed to the minimum speed. After many years, the ejected matter spread continuously from a bar coming out of GBH right up to the spiral arms.

    4. How spiral arms are formed
    The small speed spread among the matter ejected will lead to the formation of a spiral arm of the galaxy. Due to the symmetry of the galactic big bang, the formation of spiral arm is also symmetrical.
    If there are more spiral arms, they will also be symmetrical. The different spiral arms are due to the ejected speed being much different apart.
    But if we consider only one of the spiral arms, the speed spread is relatively close together.

    5. At each big bang cycles, matter as particles will be converted to energy. I.e. After infinite number of big bangs cycles, matter in a galactic black hole will be substantially reduced. Eventually all galaxies will run out of matter. This is not possible to support endless big bang cycles if the reduction in matter is not replaced. Here I proposed that electromagnetic wave is being absorbed by the galactic black holes to form particles with mass. After all light can be consider mass particle with extremely low mass. These extremely low mass particles will soon become massive particles in a galactic black hole.

    6. If the LHC can form heavier particles after collision, a galactic black hole surely can form massive particle.

    7. The matter bodies which are captured by the galactic black hole have the orbital movement around the galactic black hole and the spin around the axis of the matter bodies. The spin can be resolve in two components:

    a) along the galactic plane parallel to the orbital movement. This component alternates
    between reinforce and against the orbital movement. When it is against the orbital
    movement it will dissipates away.

    b) orthogonal to the galactic plane perpendicular to the orbital movement. This component
    move closer to the black hole and then attempt to move vertically inside the galactic plane
    and then move further from the galactic black hole. The last two movement encounter
    resistance and will dissipates away.

    8. Why objects spin?
    Matter as particles, spin or orbit about the centre of the super massive black hole in a plane before big bang. After the galactic big bang, matter is ejected from the black hole. Since, it is spinning previously, the ejected matter bodies will continue to spin. Whether spin clockwise or anti clockwise depends on the ejected bodies are inverted or not. There may be collision when ejected out of the GBH, so the rotation speed can also be zero.

  7. Next I will write about the analogous comparison between spiritual life and matter. As the analogous comparison is not black hole explosion, may not be ok to post here.
    Matter role is to provide energy (explosive event) and spiritual life is the opposite of explosion, i.e. ultimate serenity.
    1. The ultimate conclusion is that matter is not the fundamental entity. energy (electromagnetic wave is the fundamental entity.
    2. This big bang opinion of mine does not prove God exist or God does not exist.
    3. Perhaps, God if exist, had designed the cosmos to be perfect and that a system of automatic punishment and reward system so that he does not need to get involved at all. eg is the law of karma

What do you think?