universe center

[Milliways]

I was wandering that if the universe started with a big bang and knowing how stars die (supernovea) I wander if "our" universe was once a supermassive "star" the went supernova leaving behind a sea of matter that clumped together to form galaxies, stars, planets and so forth, and at the center of our universe leaving a supermassive blackhole, and maybe there are other universes out there (reminents of other supermassive "stars" from the past)

Just something i have been thinking about for a while lol please don't be brutal

Dave.

[EA2007]

hi Dave,

quite a few ideas I have to disagree with you (sorry)

a) the initial star would need to be very large, I think there is a limit to star size due to gravitational potential energy, the thing would perhaps implode, that is even if it lived long enough. usually if you have a massive star they deplete their fuel very quickly, so a star of that size would be over before it began.

if as you suggest there was this star, surely there would be similar ones at the time, so going by your idea there would be numerous big bang events occurring through the universe.....there isn't much evidence of this.

c) a supernova would not be able to produce that much material, no matter how large the progenitor star. the resulting black hole or neutron star would be sufficiently large enough to suck up any remaining matter in the local vicinity no doubt.

d) the light from this event would mos likely still be able to be seen bouncing around the universe (a bit like the CMB), the CMB proves the theory of a singularity event, not a supernovae. Also, the current theory shows that we will never see the Big Bang because luminous matter was not created until a good few million years after. This supernovae would surely be a little visible and the light before it!

Just my thoughts.......I may be wrong on some of that stuff tho.

[ollypenrice]

But there is a theory which has somethig in common with Dave's. Lee Smolin, a big-hitting professional, suggested that new universes might be 'seeded' by the supernova deaths of stars. That wouldn't have anything to do with matter in our universe; the newly seeded universe would have its own space, time, matter and energy so no need to worry about the relative tininess of a star compared with a universe. The imagined seeding process is beyond our physics, as Smolin freely admits.

He was trying to construct a theory of evolution in universes; universes that were good at producing stars would seed lots of universes also good at proucing stars. Those lots of universes would produce lots of supernovae which would produce even more universes good at producing stars...and so on. The point of all this is to construct a theory that PREDICTS star production in universes when all other theories predict the opposite. (A tiny alteration in any of the fundamental forces means no stars which means no us...and that can't be right for obvious reasons.)

On the other hand universes bad at producing stars would seed few or no new universes and die out. It is an adaptation of Evolution by Natural Selection - which struck Smolin as the only theory in science capable of explaining complexity. (Your only other alternative would be a divine creator, which is fine if you can stomach the idea but some of us can't!)

The book in question is called The Life of the Cosmos. Recommended , but not as a five minute read...

Olly.