Slashdot Mirror
Why the Universe Didn't Become a Black Hole
StartsWithABang writes: With some 10^90 particles in the observable Universe, even stretched across 92 billion light-years today, the Universe is precariously close to recollapsing. How, then, is it possible that back in the early stages after the Big Bang, when all this matter-and-energy was concentrated within a region of space no bigger than our current Solar System, the Universe didn't collapse down to a black hole? Not only do we have the explanation, but we learn that even if the Universe did recollapse, we wouldn't get a black hole at all!
If at some point in the past the mass of the universe was in a volume wholly contained within its own Schwarzschild radius, why did the universe not become (or, more accurately, remain) a black hole?
"...Schwarzschild’s solution is a static one, meaning that the metric of space does not evolve as time progresses. But there are plenty of other solutions—de Sitter space, for one, and the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric, for another—that describe spacetimes that either expand or contract."
Literally everything else in the article was off-topic, and I can't help but feel this highly evasive 'answer' might have been "Ask Ethan" admitting he just didn't know.
Which is a pity because it is a fascinating question.
Stop posting links to medium.com... the worst Science site I've ever seen short of timecube... wait, actually timecubes at least entertaining.
All of their articles boil down to:
Subject "Could *insert some inane scifi topic* really be??"
10 pages of images scraped from geocities homepages, font type and spacing worthy of a freshman English paper and then...
No, not really, but thanks for reading!
You want real science news? Here you go: http://phys.org/physics-news/