Why didn't the infant universe collapse into a black hole?

"Yes, the early universe was incredibly dense. But it was dense everywhere, with barely any differences. Without those differences, black holes couldn't form, because there was no difference in gravity that could lead to the sudden collapse of matter."

It would be good to see just when this condition existed in nature. The Big Bang violates conservation law of energy and Alan Guth uses replusive gravity force for inflation in the inflaton. I did not see when gravity appears in the model compared to replusive gravity and inflaton for inflation. The article does wrap up with:

"The rules of black hole formation simply don't apply in an expanding universe. It's no longer like a star sitting in the middle of empty space, imploding on itself. To collapse into a singularity, it's not enough to have a ton of mass sitting around. You need an overwhelming amount of mass to counteract the natural expansion of the universe and force it to collapse. And there simply wasn't enough mass in the universe to do that — back then and even now. For decades, cosmologists wondered if there might be enough matter in the universe to cause the present-day expansion to slow down, stop and reverse, eventually leading to a "big crunch" and a return to a singularity. But multiple measurements have confirmed that there isn't enough stuff to get the job done. Our universe will, as far as we can tell, continue expanding well into the future. Which is a good thing for us — life as we know it doesn't tend to do well inside black holes."

My note, keep in mind the cosmological constant, DM, and DE too. So fine tuning here seems needed :)
For all my life that I ever thought about it until I saw an illustration of the strong force as being a Casimer-like effect outside-in force rather than the inside-out force I had thought that all four fundamental forces, including gravity, were. It took that illustration to make me imagine the gravitational force as also being outside-in string-horizon force rather than equal-but-opposite inside-out 0-point (portal) magnetic monopole (moment) singularity orientated force such as the electromagnetic and weak forces are. A String Horizon entity of microcosmic / macrocosmic Planck / Big Bang force (space's surface horizon defining gravity / strong force (quantum gravitational strong force)) to the center . . . all of an infinity of centers . . . equally but oppositely opposed by 0-point electroweak (moment) entity.
Last edited:
This article seems to be mainly circular logic - it doesn't actually answer the question "Why didn't the infant universe collapse into a black hole?" It just says it can't because it didn't. The logic for why it didn't is either missing or opens up other questions.

For instance, the article states
"One, the creation of a black hole relies on not only incredibly high densities but also density differences. To make a black hole, you need a lot of material crammed into a very small volume, with nothing else surrounding it."
So, that immediately brings up the point that "something else" was surrounding the "universe" that was of similar density to its condition when it was created. But, not matter how big you make that "something else", if it has only finite extent, no matter what its total extent, then it should all collapse into a black hole. So, does this explanation require an infinite universe? It is illogical to assume that the "observable" universe is the whole universe.

And the arguments that there must be an "outside" for a black hole to form is just cocktail party quality rhetoric. Even if the "edge" of a mass with density sufficient to be a black hole is the "edge" of the universe, the question still remains "Why doesn't gravitationally compress?"

The answer this article proposes for that question is
"But even if it wasn't a black hole, what prevented the collapse into a singularity? What prevented it is that the early universe wasn't static — it was dynamic. It was evolving. It was changing. And most importantly, it was expanding."

But, that misses the point about why it was expanding. Don't tell us it had to expand because it was so hot and dense, because, for matter to expand through space fast enough to get out of its event horizon is not believed to be possible, according to General Relativity Theory.

So, the "solution" to this problem in the theory is to invent the concept of "inflation" of space itself. That is a phenomenon that we do not understand at all, or even have solid proof that it occurred.

So, this article really has a one-word answer for its title: "Inflation". But it provides nothing in the way of explaining why inflation occurred nor how it occurred.

Like a black hole, this article sucks in readers with its title, but emits no real illumination on the subject.
  • Like
Reactions: rod and murgatroyd
"Why didn't the infant universes collapse into a black hole?"

Why should it since it is already in the set (Planck Big Bang (Black) Hole (collapsed cosmological (/\) constant) (T=0, t=0) Horizon)? And has never been anywhere else; never will be anywhere else. A traveler, on the other hand, can travel universes simply by going, accelerating (steady state, that is), "jetting," vertical into FRACTAL hyperspaces (subspaces) || subspaces (hyperspaces). Actually, no difference from relatively quickly traveling an infinite horizontal FLATLAND universe via super-arcing superposition.
Last edited:
The "theory" (hypothesis ?) about how the early universe was able to expand, despite having a density too high to avoid gravitational collapse, is called "inflation".

The real question seems to be, if we believe that inflation acted on the early universe, why don't we believe that inflation can act today on the contents of what we call a black hole?
To begin with, was there an early universe?

We cannot create matter or destroy matter.
We cannot create energy or destroy energy.

As for Black Holes, the Classical Black Hole with a singularity cannot form, because compact matter forms a dipolar electromagnetic field that expels matter away.
Compact matter can form vector fields pulling all matter including EMR creating a Mimic Black Hole

As for expansion of the universe, the question is.
What does the expansion.?
Space or matter

We look out into deep field 13.3 billion Ltyrs in any direction and we find billions of galaxies.

We see clustering of Stars, Galaxies, Local groups of Galaxies and Super clusters of galaxies.

Clustering is observed.
There is an opinion piece in the NYT (that may or may not be behind a pay wall for members here) which says the same things that I have been posting here for a while now. Basically, it says that the BBT is not necessarily correct about the early universe, and that we should be considering alternative conceptualizations. See https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/02/opinion/cosmology-crisis-webb-telescope.html .

Like my point of view, that article is not pushing its own different concepts, it is only saying that there is too much mysterious stuff necessary to make the BBT seem to fit the observations, and that new observations are not fitting until the BBT is modified with even more mysterious stuff.

My approach has been a little different. I ask, if some postulated process happened as described in the BBT, what else would we expect that process to do that we should be able to observe. Too often, the BBT simply invokes a mysterious process to do whatever is needed to fit observations, and then that process is not subjected to any further critical thinking about what else it might do that would make the theory not fit our other observations.

This article says it addresses one such question, but it really did not, as explained in my post #4.
The BBT is an attempt to meld the way we think we understand the quantum world with the way we think we understand the macro/astronomical world. We know we have major problems with understanding both, individually. And, we know we have problems understanding why we cannot fit the two models together.

It seems that the BBT makes use of the willingness to accept vague concepts in both realms to weave together a vague concept of the evolution of the universe, which is accepted on the basis of acceptance of similar concepts in one or the other models for quantum mechanics or astrophysics.

There is "evidence" in the form of observations, but it is not conclusive proof that our conceptualizations of how those observations come about are correct.

My challenges to some of those concepts are things I can put into the format of "If you believe this, why don't you also believe that, because they should be related by [some physics or logic].
Harry, I am not going to repeat all of the stuff that has previously been posted here using observations, plus assumptions to support the BBT. There are definitely observations, such as the CMBR, that have been used to support the theory. But, the interpretations of those observations are what is in dispute. The available observations cannot prove the BBT is correct. So, I would agree with you if you rephrase to say "There is no conclusive evidence."
Hello Unclear Engineer
I agree there is no conclusive evidence to support the BBT.

CMBR is not an observation that can prove the BBT.

Many years ago, I had a discussion with NASA people.
They said that they will prove to the world that the BB occurred 13.7 billion years ago.
By pointing the Hubble Telescope at the Northern Hemisphere in area of a rice seed complete darkness, for one million seconds.
They predicted that they would see the beginning of the BB.

I said you will observe over 5000 galaxies in various stages.

After one million seconds they made an announcement.

Along these lines: We cannot explain how we observed over 5000 galaxies in an area of a rice seed 13.2 billion light years.

I gave my remark:

They said space and time was much different those years.

They repeated the same in the southern Hemisphere, with the same result.

The more we find out the less likely the BBT is correct.