The Schwarzschild metric applies to an isolated spherically symmetric mass in a vacuum but the early universe has uniform density everywhere, there was no vacuum.

Just to add on Dishman's comment,it is important to note that space itself is expanding when we talk about the expansion of the universe.Let us assume just for thought experiment purposes that the Schwarzschild metric can be applied to the early universe.

So you have your ccordinate and curvature sngularity separated by a distance r.Then after some time t,SPACE will have expanded such that there will be  a distance R>r between the curvature and coordinate singularity.

To interpret this physicswise, if it is  possible to define an event horizon covering the entire primordial universe,using standard big bang,it  "rushes  outwards''still covering the entire universe but over a larger volume.

So the universe has not expanded beyond the Schwarzschild radius(if it has one)because the radius has also expanded!!

@Carringtone Kinyanjui: "So the universe has not expanded beyond the Schwarzschild radius(if it has one)because the radius has also expanded!!" I didn't know jet, that we are living in a black hole.

Well some speculative cosmologies state that the universe is a blackhole.They may be true...or false.

* First we are not living in a black hole. If we were in a black hole the distant sky would be white hot instead of black 2.7 degrees K. White hot in a black hole appears from blue shifted everything falling in. Even if there was originally nothing outside to fall and get blue shifted, the strong gravity potential creates particle pairs in abundance, resulting in observed x-rays.

* Second the standard model contains no mass in the first expansion, only massless radiation energy. Mass came later after expansion beyond the suggested event horizon.

* Third, stable black holes are only observed and calculated to occur after nearly all of the potential radiation energy has been propagated far away. Other models of black holes are regarded to be unstable with short lifetime.

* Everywhere radiation and gravity compete with each other to control expansion and contraction. If a stable black hole should receive an excess of radiant energy by some process, theories say the radiation cannot escape the event horizon. There is no theory to prevent the inside of the black hole from having strong excess of photons from reacting with degenerate mass to recreate the original star, expanding mass beyond the event horizon.

* Penrose and Hawking debated Nature of Space and Time in 1994. It is the only effort I know of to introduce blue shifted radiation. They concluded the event horizon , must reach an equilibrium with the cosmic background radiation 2.7 degrees K. Earlier theories predated the discovery of background radiation and have never been repaired to account for blue shift. Equilibrium means black holes reach a temperature so high from in falling blue shift, that very soon they reach a Planck temperature limit and are no longer completely black. They give off immensely energetic photons of heat radiation that red shift to 2.7 degrees K at some distant place.

* From the same debate 1994 black holes are said to be structured such that they only appear black from infinite distance. The closer they are approached, the less black they appear.

** Conclusion there is nothing cold or dark inside a black hole.

*** Answer to your question, early universe was not able to reach a stable equilibrium for a black hole with the composition and energies it had available. Other people might try to impose impossible constraints, but with obsolete and defective theories.

There are speculative theories of black holes that allow them to explode when they get too big, resulting in the creation of a new universe. I put it in a separate message, because these theories are not widely accepted. It is the conversion of mass to kinetic energy with spontaneous symmetry breaking in degenerate space time. Everything reaches a limit. Then the rules change.

This is the answer from the physics FAQ on Usenet.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

in some form or fashion,

repulsive: nuclear force, electro magnetic radiation

must have outweighed gravity and or other attractive forces.

TY for the link you posted above George, 

it includes this quote:

'It has to be admitted that if we drop the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy then there are many other possible cosmological models, including many with non-trivial topologies. This makes it difficult to derive anything concrete from such theories. But this has not stopped some brave and imaginative cosmologists thinking about them.'

RMP: in some form or fashion, repulsive: nuclear force, electro magnetic radiation must have outweighed gravity and or other attractive forces.

No, you are making the mistake of thinking of pushing stuff through space at faster than light again, that cannot happen and doesn't need to. Remind yourself of the raisins-in-dough analogy, the raisins don't need to be pushed through the dough at all, they are simply carried farther apart as it expands.

RMP: .. the link you posted above .. includes this quote ..

That's right Roger, you see I'm not just "knocking your views" as you might feel, I'm trying to provide a balanced and truthful summary of what science says.

However, remember that isotropy and homogeneity are confirmed by observation as far as we can observe, Baez is talking about possible variations so far beyond the horizon of what is observable that they don't affect what we see, so currently much more than ~46 billion light years from our location.

Hi George,

can you see how the positions you hold contradict each other?

you hold by an initial singularity. (as I do)

you hold nothing can exceed the speed of light (we disagree)

and the speed of light is limited to the speed of light. (we agree)

you hold a visible universe of at least 46 B light years. (i hold up to 26 B LY diameter)

you hold the universe is well under 20 B (edit - should read 'Years Old' here and not light years) light years.(we agree :)

at least the Pearlman SPIRAL is internally consistent even if we disagree on the possibility that the universe did expand at some point at a speed faster than light speed, 

yet even your positions depend on just that ,

with your position cosmic inflation is implicit.

with The Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and cosmology gives empirical evidence for the Cosmic Inflation that is one of its principles.

Hi Roger,

RMP: can you see how the positions you hold contradict each other?

Nothing you say below suggests any conflict in my statements, however your statements contradict themselves.

RMP: you hold by an initial singularity. (as I do)

Not necessarily but I think we mean different things by that word.

I note that the classical form of the laws gives a mathematical singularity if extrapolated to zero scale factor but generally I would not trust such an extension beyond the Planck Time.

I also note that there is observational evidence that the universe might have started in a state called "inflation" which is a viable alternative to the breakdown at a singularity.

I also am confident that a quantum solution will supersede both of those as our knowledge matures, as do all scientists I know, and I expect it to resolve the choice between a singularity or inflation as the starting point.

RMP: you hold nothing can exceed the speed of light (we disagree)

I acknowledge the experimental evidence that the universe obeys Lorentz Symmetry as tested for example by the experiment in the attached link. That imposes a finite limit on the measurement we call speed.

RMP: and the speed of light is limited to the speed of light. (we agree)

Light has no mass so inevitably travels at the maximum possible speed. Matter has mass so inevitably travels slower than light for any finite energy. You might dispute Lorentz Symmetry but you can't both agree and disagree with the same feature of the geometry, hence your position is self-contradictory.

RMP: you hold a visible universe of at least 46 B light years. (i hold up to 26 B LY diameter)

I accept that the arithmetic says that our horizon within the much larger universe is limited to matter which is now at most 46 billion light years from us measured as the co-moving Hubble distance. (Other definitions of distance exist.)

RMP: you hold the universe is well under 20 B light years.

Was that a typo? I said that in my opinion the measurements suggest that the universe as a whole has a circumference of at least 23,000 B light years, and probably much more. In fact my personal opinion is that the universe is asymptotically flat at the largest scales which would make it infinite in extent but we haven't discussed that. Presumably you looked at the WMAP page on the shape of the universe which I've cited twice before.

RMP: (we agree :)

We don't, not even close.

RMP: at least the Pearlman SPIRAL is internally consistent

It isn't, you said above of the visible universe "i hold up to 26 B LY diameter" which would require 13 billion years for light from the most distant sources to reach us but you claim an age that is much less. Your position is therefore self-contradictory.

RMP: even if we disagree on the possibility that the universe did expand at some point at a speed faster than light speed,

You cannot define a single speed for an effect which is proportional to distance, your statement is self-contradictory, not even something that we can agree or disagree about. The common term for this is "not even wrong".

RMP: with The Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis

Your described hypothesis of faster-than-light motion followed by no expansion predicts no redshift, your claim to have a "redshift hypothesis" is fallacious.

Basically Roger, you need to rework your idea quite a lot because at the moment it contradicts itself in several ways and doesn't make the prediction that you claim for it.

Standard cosmology on the other hand:

• is internally self-consistent
• is consistent with all known lab tests including Lorentz Symmetry
• is described by the FLRW metric which is a rigorous analytic solution to General Relativity
• agrees with all known astronomical observations (including redshift)
• is consistent with the known ages and chemistry of stars including the Sun

I have also linked a diagram which shows distance horizontally and the age of the universe vertically. The singularity or instant of inflation is the point of convergence at the bottom, centre. Galaxies which are drifting nearly motionless in space are the curved upward grey lines (space between them can be seen to expand). The triangles show the motion of light emitted at various times from those galaxies, the 45 degree slope of the sides indicating a speed of 1 light year per year, i.e. the speed of light, and the red curves show the path of light from very early times. The diagram is taken from Prof. Wright's tutorial on cosmology, the start of which is the third link.

If you want to criticise standard cosmology, that diagram is what you need to attack. I suggest you try drawing something similar to illustrate your alternative ideas, I don't think you can do so without exposing the contradictions I have identified above.

Finally, you might like to take a look at the fourth link which you may find pertinent ;-)

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-precise-lorentz-symmetry-photon-constant.html

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo200.gif

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo-religion.html

Hi George yes I meant we both agree the age of the universe is well under 20 Billion (B) years old not Light Years, TY, r

Hi George yes I meant we both agree the age of the universe is well under 20 Billion (B) years old not Light Years,

So you do not agree with me the universe is well under 20 billion years old?

please advise

TY, r

Hi George,

despite our many comments to each other it is apparent you still do not understand The Pearlmman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model, that explains how/why CR from even the most distant stars can be and is  visible to us without that light exceeding the speed of light.

In order to calculate the Schwarzschild radius you have probably made an assumption about the mass of the universe and then applied R=2GM/c2. But what was the mass of the universe at the time of the big bang? It was the combined mass of the (currently) observable universe and the (currently) unobservable universe. Recall that the unobservable universe could be spatially infinite! Certainly, there are reasons to think it is very much larger than the observable universe. So your value for R may need to be increased by many orders of magnitude.

Although this seems to circumvent the problem posed in your question, it actually makes matters worse! Expansion seems to have occurred from a far denser region than your estimate suggests. I notice that no mention has been made as yet of dark energy, but general relativity can accommodate anti-gravitating substances of negative pressure. Besides, the Schwarzschild metric is a very poor basis for deriving physical insight. As Einstein appreciated long ago, it is most improbable that anything resembling the Schwarzschild metric can even exist in nature. In addition to his solid theoretical objections to black holes, we can now point to clear astronomical observations that confirm that objects with event horizons cannot form in a universe of finite age.

Preprint Dispelling Black Hole Pathologies Through Theory and Observation

Hi,

Almost (but not) all you have said are based on uncorroborated assumptions, hypothesis and mathematical sophistry  (even the most sophisticated ones.) Big Bang was the brain child of a Belgian priest, contrary to what is commonly believed: that General Relativity predicts it. (His assumption was purely based on religious purposes:  to scale back the onslaught  of science against religion by assuming that something came out of nothing--this is certainly not physics.) GR, among all its shortcomings and wrong results, cannot do it because it cannot handle singularities, unless, as usual, one makes a leap of faith.  Constancy of speed of light is  another unconfirmed assumption by Einstein, just like E = mc^2.  There is no way to know the age of our universe.   To say it is 20B,or 15B or whatever, again you must assume speed of light is constant based on purely convenient assumption.  Mathematics and hypothesis are insufficient, although necessary, to solve physical problems.  That was Einstein's mistake:  Having realized that his mathematical background was quite inadequate, out of necessity he sought the help of some of the brilliant mathematicians of his time to formulate GR. But, unfortunately, they lacked physical insight.

Hi Arsalan,

the idea of an initial singularity was developed (or at least known) and recorded by Ramban about 1,000 years ago.

So this is an example where just because we think we know something,(RE your attribution to a Belgian priest)  we do not know everything..

based on my limited understanding of the science, (see The Pearlman SPIRAL) there is empirical evidence of cosmic inflation, so this could be an example it is not all based on uncorroborated assumptions.

I suppose if everyone already knew and verified every fact of every hypothesis then we might all agree on one model.

Hi Roger,

RMP: yes I meant we both agree the age of the universe is well under 20 Billion (B) years old not Light Years, ..

It's an easy typo to make but completely changes the meaning.

RMP: So you do not agree with me the universe is well under 20 billion years old? please advise

The current best measurement obtained by combining the Planck mission and other results is13.799 billion years with an uncertainty of plus or minus 21 million.

I expect that to be slightly affected when the new measurements from the GAIA mission are released later this year, they should allow an improvement in the calibration of the distance ladder.

RMP: despite our many comments to each other it is apparent you still do not understand The Pearlmman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis ...

That is correct, you have said that your model has little expansion after the stars reach their distant locations, essentially an almost static model, hence it should predict no redshift. You have often made the claim that your hypothesis results in a predicted redshift but never explained how you think it does that.

The fact that we can see those distant stars at all also conflicts with your claim of a low age so clearly these apparent contradictions mean that either I do not understand what you have been saying or your hypothesis doesn't support your claims.

RMP: The idea of an initial singularity was developed (or at least known) and recorded by Ramban about 1,000 years ago. So this is an example where just because we think we know something,(RE your attribution to a Belgian priest) we do not know everything..

LeMaitre gave the expanding universe as a mathematical solution to Einstein's equations, did Ramban provide a mathematical model of the expanding universe? In fact Friedmann derived a set of equations (which we still use) earlier than LeMaitre but they weren't well publicised at the time so LeMaitre's rediscovery of them was independent.

Hi George,

I just described on the question you are following on my profile page why The Pearlman SPIRAL is consistent with:

A start at an initial singularity.

Cosmic expansion and inflation up to 13 Billion light years early in the universe.

Light speed not exceeding the speed of light.

Light from distant stars having cosmological redshift.

Ramban wrote about starting at a tiny initial singularity, using the smallest common reference of his day tof something that starts out small but can grow /expand into something much larger in order to describe.

I do not think he was aware of cosmological redshift and do not know if he held by an expanding universe, or one that after an early expansion somewhat stabilized in size,

In my opinion,

1. Zero Energy Universe Model.

2.We can solve the problem of singularity by separating the term of gravitational self-energy from mass and including it in the solutions of field equations.

The concept of gravitational self-energy is the total of gravitational potential energy possessed by a certain object M itself. Since a certain object M itself is a binding state of infinitesimal mass dM, it involves the existence of gravitational potential energy among these dMs and is the value of adding up these.

In the generality of cases, the value of gravitational self-energy(sum of the gravitational potential energy) is small enough to be negligible, compared to mass energy mc^2. Therefore, in usual cases, |U_gs|

Hi Roger,

RMP: I just described on the question you are following on my profile page why The Pearlman SPIRAL is consistent ..

I'll answer in that thread, there's no point repeating the same conversation in two.

RMP: Ramban wrote about starting at a tiny initial singularity ...

Many people have bright ideas and develop vaguely logical concepts based on them, that is fundamentally philosphy. The point I was making is that Friedmann and LeMaitre are credited with originating modern cosmology because they gave us the mathematical models which describe it, not just vague hand-waving ideas. Cosmology these days is a branch of physics and as such is mathematically based, that's what turns it into one of the "hard sciences" and I doubt Ramban did that.

Hi George,

you might be surprised how much math some of the ancients did know, even prior to ancient Egypt.

often we would use rounded numbers for Pi and the like for convenience and so accessible to more people who might otherwise not have the time or ability to calculate.

As pointed out earlier, an" intergalactic space density of DQV has a value of Planck density" is only Dr. Sorli's assumption, without any justification or smallest hint of physical background. It's a kind of new ether.

RMP: you might be surprised how much math some of the ancients did know,

Maybe or maybe not. I work for a company named after Thales of Miletus, a philosopher and mathematician who lived more than 2500 years ago and worked on geometry related to that of special relativity.