Dark Origins: Departure from an Ex-Nihilo Big Bang Onyemaechi Ahanotu Abstract1 With the growing body of research on black holes, it is becoming increasingly apparent that these celestial objects may have2 a stronger part to play in our Universe than previously thought, shaping galaxies and influencing star formation. In this3 manuscript, I take these findings a step further, proposing a new set of boundary conditions to both the early and late Universe,4 extrapolating from thermodynamics. I propose that our Universe may collapse into a massive black hole and that the Big5 Bang is a result of a collision or interaction between Supra Massive Black Bodies (SMBBs, black holes at the mass scale6 of the known Universe) of opposite matter type (baryonic and anti-baryonic) and disproportionate masses a stark departure7 from the classical Ex-Nihilo creation (from nothing) approach. Such a collision, between a matter and anti-matter SMBB,8 with disproportionate masses could account for both the explosion referenced as the Big Bang, as well as the drastic baryonic9 asymmetry that we observe. Expulsion of black body material from the interaction could also account for Primordial Seed10 black holes.11 Keywords: Black Hole; Big Bang; Early Universe; Dark Matter; Ex-Nihilo; Baryonic Asymmetry12 Original DraftJune 22nd, 202013 RevisionJuly 11th, 202014 1. Introduction15 Many creation or origin stories center around the concept of Ex Nihilo (from nothing) creation; from the16 Kono people's Hâ [1] to the current Big Bang Theory. [2] Prior to the key 'creation' event, it is commonly17 theorized that there had been a void of sorts, free from the 'real' time and physical laws we know. While18 not materially influential to our lives, how we think about the origins and bounds of the Universe has19 direct implications on our approaches to understanding the world around us, and how we utilize our limited20 scientific resources. While we continue to understand more and more, we should humbly acknowledge our21 collective scientific history, as there is often something beyond that which we can seeboth in the direction22 of the very small and very large.23 The past decade (2010-2019) has played host to monumental collaborative research, the impacts of which24 are yet to be truly understood. In 2012, CERN's team was able to detect the Higgs-Boson [3] the particle25 thought to be responsible for mass. In 2016, the LIGO/Virgo collaboration published observations of the26 gravity fluctuations caused by merger GW150914 [4] and the visualization of the accretion disk [5] around27 the super massive black hole in Galaxy M87. In addition, last year a proposal emerged that there may be28 a 'basketball-sized' black hole, in our solar systemas a Trans-Neptunian Object; [6] accounting for the29 missing mass in our solar system. We are learning that black holes, likely at the center of every galaxy, may30 be playing a larger role in our Universe than we think.31 1 Black holes can be formed through the supernova of a massive star, or the implosion of a neutron star-32 both relying on the compression of a critical mass under immense forces. These routes to formation have33 size/mass restrictions that are linked to the stability of the previous form. Accretion-based growth rate34 limitations can be described by the Eddington limit [7] and is generally accepted, at the moment, with some35 slight special case exceptions. [8] In all cases, other than merger, the growth rates are limited by both the36 available 'food' and accretion dynamics (i.e. maximum luminosity a body can achieve; balance of radiative37 and gravitational forces). These models and assumptions can account for observed black holes such as ones38 in the center of our own Milky Way, but they cannot explain so-called Primordial Black Holes (PBHs), [9]39 formed through unknown mechanisms, increasingly believed to be quite prevalent across our Universe. PBHs40 and more generally Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects (MACHO), [10] such as black holes, dwarfs41 and planets not associated with planetary systems, are the current best candidates to account for the 'dark42 matter' [11] within our Universe.43 So many open question remain, a few of them include: Dynamics of inflation of our Universe (shortly44 after the Big Bang), what are the bounds of our Universe, and perhaps the most fundamental question-45 'Where did all of this come from?' The Big Bang is accepted to be the 'what' in our Universe coming into46 existence, but how and why that 'Big Bang' occurred is something entirely different. Extrapolating from the47 accumulated knowledge, we may begin to understand the more generalized nature of black holes.48 Inspiration and analogies can come in many forms; J.J. Thompson had plums in pudding, [12] Isaac49 Newton had The Apple [13] and Albert Einstein had The Train. [14] Simple objects in the world around50 us can be used to orient how we think about the complex Universe, acting all around us. With so much51 unknown and currently untestable, this paper orients away from the contents of a black hole and towards52 the more generalized behavior and what we can learn from it.53 54 2. Discussion55 A concept that assisted with my orientation around the concept of black holes was the coalescence of bubbles56 in a cappuccino foam, enjoyed after a black hole symposium. Energy and agitation are required to mix the57 air with milk and create the new interfaces present in the micro foam. Each air bubble within the foam58 is temporarily stabilized by the surrounding milk matrix. Given time, the air bubbles are driven towards59 merger; the smaller the foam bubbles the longer it will take the merging bubbles to reach a given size. What60 can we learn from the foam and how can these holes help us complete the picture?61 From observations of black hole mergers, we can see that black hole merger is favorable. The growth of62 a black hole event horizon there is a theorized increase in entropy, according to the Berkenstein-Hawking63 formula [15] SBH = kBA 4l2p ; where SBH is the entropy of the black hole event horizon, kB is the Boltzmann64 constant, A is the area of the event horizon and lp is the Plank length. The merger and growth of black65 holes should be entropically favored, in line with the second law of thermodynamics.66 Through understanding where our Universe may trend towards as time goes towards infinity, we may67 understand something about the 'initial' state and possible perturbations. With enough time, the known68 2 Universe may move towards black body material, through absorption and coalescence similar to that seen in69 droplet growth dynamics; large droplets 'eating' smaller ones driven through surface tension. Likewise, in the70 case of black holes, surface energetics that occur at the event horizon are entropically driven. [16] With this71 in mind, let us recall the old adage: 'From dust to dust.' [17] I theorize that the Big Bang, and the formation72 of our Universe, were caused by the interaction of black-holes far more massive than our Universe. Rather73 than ex-Nihilo, our Universe creation may resemble something closer to the Hirayagarbha, [18] ('Golden74 Egg') from which all emerged in Vedic philosophy.75 2.1 Supra Massive Black Body Annihilation76 A thought experiment: Imagine the merger of two black holes, except instead of them both being made up77 of baryonic or koinomatter ('Ordinary' matter), [19] one is made of Anti-Matter, obeying the same physics,78 though opposite in quantum properties [20] (momentum, charge, etc.). Both of the black holes contain very79 concentrated masses that would attract one another, however instead of merging, there would be a spectacular80 annihilation (Figure 1). The interaction would give rise to massive amounts of energy, production of photons81 and neutrinos.[21] The energy released should be proportional to the mass-energy equivalence; E=mc2 (E is82 Energy, m is mass 2 x MassAnti-matter BH, c is the speed of light).83 Figure 1. Proposed schematic of the Big Bang event and production of primordial black84 holes; A) attraction of baryonic /Anti-Baryonic SMBBs of asymmetric masses, B) Partial85 annihilation of baryonic SMBB, C) post inflation Universe with Cosmic Background radiation86 from annihilation and 'atomization' of SMBB to form primordial black holes, D) entropically87 driven merger of remaining universal mass into barionic black hole as time goes to infinity.88 89 If this thought experiment were to occur at the mass scale of our Universe, a interaction with an anti-90 matter black hole could result in what we refer to as the Big Bang. The Eddington limit, might point to91 why once mutual annihilation occurred with SMBB, that there was no immediate re-consolidation allowing92 for a sufficiently long cooling period to reach the 'Matter Dominated Era' (est. 47,000 yrs. post-Big Bang).93 To explain the baryonic asymmetry in the observable Universe, imbalance of matter (baryons) and94 3 anti-matter (anti-baryons): if these two black bodies (SMBBs) were unequal in mass there would be an95 asymmetrical distribution of matter type remaining. In this framework, I postulate that the baryonic black96 body was far more massive than the anti-matter black body resulting in a large explosion, expelling large97 baryonic black bodies that form what we observe as PBH sprinkled around the observable Universe. Other98 approaches to explain the asymmetric distribution of matter types lean on the quantum mechanical mecha-99 nisms occurring during electroweak epoch, [22] grand unification epoch, [23] or leptogenesis [24]all occurring100 after the Big Bang. The framework proposed has to do more with proportions of matter type pre-Big Bang101 rather than more complicated quantum conversions of matter type.102 One result of the above scenario, the CMB may be the residual outwardly propagating photons from103 the energetic annihilation, similar to what we observe in super nova, however it does not represent the real104 bound of the Universe but rather a shock wave of sorts. Beyond that more empty space, containing more105 SMBBs and temporary, low-density matter systems, like our own.106 A second result from the above conjecture: the energies released via annihilation of asymmetric masses107 could cause 'atomization' or divisions of black bodies from the massive SMBB. This could cause a narrow108 distribution of black hole masses which gradually grew and opportunistically merged during our early Uni-109 verse. Revisiting the foam analogy, this would be something of an inverse of our traditional image of foam;110 a dense spherified phase surrounded by a low density matrix. These dense spherified objects could be what111 we refer to as primordial black holes and could have been key shapers of early nebulas and galaxies.112 A third results is that if a similar SMBB pair interaction occurred with opposite mass proportions (possibly113 with other SMBB-black bodies) a 'Universe'/system, like ours, would exist and be made of 'anti-matter'. Such114 systems may co-exist presently but are spaced sufficiently far from our own making observation/detection115 beyond the CMB difficult.116 117 3. Conclusion118 Unification of our part of the Universe into a singular black hole, seems to be entropically favored and in119 line with the second law of thermodynamics, though kinetics of such a "Big Crunch" are not taken into120 account here. If this is the case, the end of our Universe would look similar to the beginningconsidering121 the Big Bang theory currently starts off as a 'singularity' which is also what lays beyond an event horizon.122 With more tools to observe black hole behavior we can continue to understand the Universe around123 us. The deeper we dig, the more questions we answer but also the more that are unearthed. There is124 much evidence supporting the Big Bang, and particle physicists are continually searching for theoretical125 particles to explain the observable Universe. Leptogenesis is the current testable hypothesis to explain the126 asymmetry of matter and anti-matter, requiring stripping of the Higgs-field that gives mass and conversions127 of anti-matter to matter in our early Universe. As a counter to leptogenesis, I propose that the asymmetry128 of matter and anti-matter existed before the big-bang. Furthermore, the Big Bang itself was caused by the129 proportional annihilation of anti-matter and matter black bodies with masses larger than the scale of the130 currently observed Universe. Energetic remnants from this annihilation eventually proceeded to form our131 4 matter dominated Universe that we exist in currently, along with formation of a distribution of 'seed' black132 holes, at 'time=0' after the Big Bang, acting as particle concentrators and shaping the structures of our133 Universe.134 Research in the following areas will continue to evolve/develop and should be used to interrogate this135 theory: definitive evidence of leptogenesis, starting with neutrino particle physics, understandings around136 black hole stability and of course the composition beyond the event horizon. This is in addition to under-137 standing if the bounds of the Universe exist as we believe them to. As humans, thinking beyond (or even138 at) the scale of our current model of our Universe is almost too abstract to fathom.139 Acknowledgements140 The author wishes to thank Anna Shneidman for constructive comments and review assistance, in addition141 to Nima Dinyari and Sarah Schlotter for fruitful discussions and/or ramblings. The author would like to142 acknowledge Harvard University's Center for Astrophysics for their symposia and providing a welcoming143 attitude.144 References145 [1]B. Holas, Le culte de Zié: Eléments de la religion Kono (Haute Guinée Française). Thèse pour le doctorat146 d'université, FeniXX, 1954.147 [2]J.B. Hartle, S.W. Hawking, Wave function of the Universe, Physical Review D. 28 (1983) 2960–2975.148 https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.28.2960.149 [3]A. Collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the150 ATLAS detector at the LHC, Physics Letters B. 716 (2012) 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.151 2012.08.020.152 [4]L.I.G.O.S. Collaboration, V. Collaboration, Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole153 Merger, Physical Review Letters. 116 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102.154 [5]E.H.T. Collaboration, First M87 Event Horizon Telescope results. I. The shadow of the supermassive155 black hole, Astrophysical Journal Letters. 875 (2019) L1.156 [6]J. Scholtz, J. Unwin, What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole?, ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1909.11090.157 (2019).158 [7]A.S. Eddington, On the radiative equilibrium of the stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical159 Society. 77 (1917) 596–612.160 [8]M. Volonteri, J. Silk, G. Dubus, THE CASE FOR SUPERCRITICAL ACCRETION ONTO MASSIVE161 BLACK HOLES AT HIGH REDSHIFT, The Astrophysical Journal. 804 (2015) 148. https://doi.org/162 10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/148.163 5 [9]S. Hawking, Gravitationally Collapsed Objects of Very Low Mass, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro-164 nomical Society. 152 (1971) 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/152.1.75.165 [10]C. Alcock, R.A. Allsman, D.R. Alves, T.S. Axelrod, A.C. Becker, D.P. Bennett, K.H. Cook, N. Dalal,166 A.J. Drake, K.C. Freeman, M. Geha, K. Griest, M.J. Lehner, S.L. Marshall, D. Minniti, C.A. Nelson, B.A.167 Peterson, P. Popowski, M.R. Pratt, P.J. Quinn, C.W. Stubbs, W. Sutherland, A.B. Tomaney, T. Vandehei, D.168 Welch, The MACHO Project: Microlensing Results from 5.7 Years of Large Magellanic Cloud Observations,169 The Astrophysical Journal. 542 (2000) 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1086/309512.170 [11]K. Inomata, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida, Y. Tada, T.T. Yanagida, Inflationary primordial black holes as171 all dark matter, Physical Review D. 96 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.96.043504.172 [12]K. Inomata, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida, Y. Tada, T.T. Yanagida, Inflationary primordial black holes as173 all dark matter, Phys. Rev. D. 96 (2017) 043504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043504.174 [13]N. Nersessian, D. Malament, Reading Natural Philosophy: Essays in the History and Philosophy of175 Science and Mathematics, Open Court Chicago, 2002.176 [14]A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory (15th ed.), Crown Publishers, Inc., 1961.177 [15]S.W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Communications In Mathematical Physics. 43 (1975)178 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02345020.179 [16]D.J.E. Callaway, Surface tension, hydrophobicity, and black holes: The entropic connection, Physical180 Review E. 53 (1996) 3738.181 [17]Book of common prayer, Burial II (n.d.) 501.182 [18]K.M. Ganguli, The Mahābhārata, n.d.183 [19]P. Sukys, Lifting the Scientific Veil: Science Appreciation for the Nonscientist, Rowman & Littlefield,184 1999. https://books.google.com/books?id=WEM4hqxJ-xYC.185 [20]M. Ahmadi, B.X.R. Alves, C.J. Baker, W. Bertsche, E. Butler, A. Capra, C. Carruth, C.L. Cesar, M.186 Charlton, S. Cohen, R. Collister, S. Eriksson, A. Evans, N. Evetts, J. Fajans, T. Friesen, M.C. Fujiwara, D.R.187 Gill, A. Gutierrez, J.S. Hangst, W.N. Hardy, M.E. Hayden, C.A. Isaac, A. Ishida, M.A. Johnson, S.A. Jones,188 S. Jonsell, L. Kurchaninov, N. Madsen, M. Mathers, D. Maxwell, J.T.K. McKenna, S. Menary, J.M. Michan,189 T. Momose, J.J. Munich, P. Nolan, K. Olchanski, A. Olin, P. Pusa, C.Ø. Rasmussen, F. Robicheaux,190 R.L. Sacramento, M. Sameed, E. Sarid, D.M. Silveira, S. Stracka, G. Stutter, C. So, T.D. Tharp, J.E.191 Thompson, R.I. Thompson, D.P. van der Werf, J.S. Wurtele, Observation of the 1S–2S transition in trapped192 antihydrogen, Nature. 541 (2016) 506–510. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21040.193 [21]R. Oerter, The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern194 Physics, Penguin Publishing Group, 2006. https://books.google.com/books?id=KAMlsa8jjt4C.195 [22]V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov, M.E. Shaposhnikov, On anomalous electroweak baryon-number non-196 conservation in the early universe, Physics Letters B. 155 (1985) 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-197 2693(85)91028-7.198 6 [23]H. Georgi, S.L. Glashow, Unity of All Elementary-Particle Forces, Physical Review Letters. 32 (1974)199 438–441. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.32.438.200 [24]M. Fukugita, T. Yanagida, Barygenesis without grand unification, Physics Letters B. 174 (1986) 45–47.201 [25]J.J. Thomson, XXIV. On the structure of the atom: an investigation of the stability and periods of202 oscillation of a number of corpuscles arranged at equal intervals around the circumference of a circle with203 application of the results to the theory of atomic structure, The London Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical204 Magazine and Journal of Science. 7 (1904) 237–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440409463107.205 [26]The Mahabharata, (n.d.).206 [27]A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory (15th ed.), New York: Crown Publishers,207 Inc., 1961.208