1. I have read that for a free-falling observer within the event horizon of a black hole that all lines of sight will end at the singularity which is black.

  2. I also look up and see that the sky is mostly black.

  3. I also know that by measuring the red-shifts of the galaxies that they are all accelelerating towards that blackness. (rather than accelerating away from a big-bang event, which makes less intuitive sense)

  4. The red-shifts are greatest for those galaxies closest to the singularity (i.e. furthest away from us).

I therefore conclude from these consistent observations that all the matter in at least the finite observable region of the universe in which we are located, is accelerating due to gravity towards the singularity of a super-massive black hole.

In the spirit of good science I will happy accept being wrong, but I need to understand why I am wrong.

Predictions from the theory:

The light from the universe outside the event horizon of the black hole should be visible as a small disc or point light source in the direction facing away from the singularity. Of course, if this happens to be inconveniently located on the far side of the milky way's core from us, then we will be unable to observe it.

Further Speculations:

It may be that in regions of the universe far ouside the influence of this black hole (e.g. >50 billon light years away) that the sky is white hot due to Olber's paradox.

The black hole may have been formed from a large quantity of anti-matter, which might explain the local perponderance of ordinary matter.

The microwave background radiation may be a result of Hawking radiation at the event horizon (which we are viewing fromn the inside), or, depending upon the non-euclidian geometry, we may be observing the result of matter being destroyed at the singularity.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ From what I know, the universe is expanding.. and galaxies are getting farther from each other as time passes and not converging towards a single point. Where did you get that? (point 3 in your post) $\endgroup$ – Ioan Paul Pirau Jul 26 '11 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe I'm cynical, but this seems awfully like a troll post designed to start arguments... $\endgroup$ – Rory Alsop Jul 26 '11 at 18:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Nicholas Lee I have merged your initial unregistered account with your new, properly registered account; this question and all other input now belong to a single account, and now you have control over things posted between the two. $\endgroup$ – Grant Thomas Jul 28 '11 at 12:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Rory, this is an interesting question and I would not classify as trolling. $\endgroup$ – Jus12 Jul 29 '11 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/23118/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jul 22 '16 at 6:38

This is a case of an unwisely chosen simile taken waaaay too far. This idea, that the entire universe could be inside the event horizon of not a supermassive, but rather a superduperultrahypermegastupendouslymassive black hole, is usually introduced in introductory classes about general relativity. The instructor in this case is trying to make clear that, contrary to a fairly popular misconception, the event horizon of a black hole is locally flat. That is, there are no CGI-fireworks, nor any kind of hard "surface", nor anything else particularly special, in the immediate vicinity of the event horizon. The only special thing that happens is a long distance effect, like noticing that every direction now points off in the distance towards the singularity.

The simile is also used to point out that, at the event horizon, even second-order, nearly local effects (that is, curvature of spacetime, or tidal effects in other words) become less pronounced the more massive the black hole is. (As an aside, this also explains why Hawking radiation is more intense for smaller black holes) So... as the simile suggests, if the black hole were massive enough, we might not even be able to detect it.

The key, though is massive enough. First of all, the whole beauty of the Einstein curvature tensor (the left side of Einstein's equation) is that it is Lorentz invariant, so it can be calculated in any reference frame, including one that is hypothetically based inside an event horizon.

The curvature can still be unambiguously calculated, so when you suggest that it may be only an optical illusion, you are also suggesting that all the scientists who do that type of large-scale curvature calculation (not me personally) are totally incompetent. Just so you know. I would suggest not mentioning that at any conferences on cosmology. One of the enduring mysteries of modern cosmology is that the large-scale curvature of the Universe seems to be open (like the 3-space-plus-one-time dimensional analog of a saddle or Pringle potato chip) and not flat (like Euclidean geometry) or closed (like a sphere). The last is what we would calculate if the visible Universe were inside a black hole.

So, for the visible Universe to be inside an event horizon, the Cosmic Acceleration we have seen thus far would have to actually just be one small, contrarian region inside an even larger event horizon of globally closed curvature. Just to make the event horizon radius 13.7 giga-lightyears (a bare minimum starting point that excludes all manner of things that make the real situation many orders of magnitude worse*), you would need over 8E52 kg of mass in the singularity. This would require over 5E79 protons, where I have heard that the entire visible Universe only has about 10^80 particles, total, and I think I heard that there are about 10^18 photons for every proton, or maybe even all other particles. Somebody can look that up if they want to, but it's definitely a big number. The upshot is that there would have to be an amount of mass, all crammed into one singularity, that would render the total mass of every single thing we can see a barely detectable rounding error. Monkeying with all those dark matter and even dark energy theories is less of a leap than that.

Your prediction doesn't actually predict anything, since you account for either its presence or its absence.

Speculation 1: Olber's Paradox is already solved for accepted theories of cosmology, so pointing out that your theory can also resolve it is nice but doesn't score any points.

Speculation 2: Are you suggesting that the singularity is where all the antimatter to match the Universe's matter went? Remember the singularity dwarfs the visible Universe. That still doesn't explain the asymmetry, it only pushes the question back by one logical step: Why did the antimatter go into the big singularity and not the matter?

Speculation 3: Hawking radiation for the big singularity's event horizon lends whole new meaning to the term negligible. See my previous aside. Also, we can't observe matter being destroyed at the singularity. That's information flowing the wrong way. Also, that negates the previous assertion that the sky is black because it's towards the singularity.

*Like cosmic expansion, just how small our contrarian region is, compared to the whole event horizon, and probably some other, subtler things.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is it truly outrageous to speculate that "the Universe is inside a black hole"? Because it seems common enough in the popular science press. For instance, New Scientist newscientist.com/article/… starts "WE COULD be living inside a black hole." $\endgroup$ – Larry OBrien Jul 28 '11 at 3:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Outrageousness is in the eye of the beholder. Also, New Scientist specializes in reporting on what is probably best described as the "brainstorming" of the scientific community, hunting out the "maybes," "initial results suggest," "not inconsistent with..." type articles that make for splashy headlines, not definitive results in mature subfields, so take anything there with a grain of salt. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Jul 28 '11 at 14:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the clarification. My feeling with New Scientist is that they're willing to entertain speculation, but not absurdities. For some reason, I'm pleased that "Universe in a black hole" is conceivable. $\endgroup$ – Larry OBrien Jul 28 '11 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ Lots of helpful references in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe, including an estimate of 10^80 atoms, not particles. My bad... so we're a lot closer than I originally let on, but it's still not a credible contender as an alternative cosmological theory. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Feb 15 '12 at 18:03
  • $\begingroup$ "..... lends whole new meaning to the term negligible" $\text{LOL}^{\aleph_0}$. $\endgroup$ – WetSavannaAnimal Mar 3 '14 at 23:30

The light from the universe outside the event horizon of the black hole should be visible as a small disc or point light source in the direction facing away from the singularity.

This will happen even before you reached the event horizon. You do not need to cross the horizon to see this effect. At ergosphere distance the BH will cover half of the sky and closer to the BH the BH will cover greater part.

So one can assume that we are just outside the event horizon. And this is true: if the space is de Sitter we are just outside the cosmic event horizon, whether it is BH or not. For a distant observer we seem to be sticked to this surface and time-diliated.

As this "BH" evaporates (via de Sitter/Hawking radiation), the diameter of the cosmic horizon will become smaller and the temperature will rise.

But we will never cross the horizon: we will be ripped before. This is called "Big Rip" scenario. We will experience the same what experiences an observer trying to reach a black hole: he will finally see a great explosion when the BH radius will reach zero.


Not when space is infinite with a homogeneous matter distribution, since there is no center where the matter would gravitate towards.

I think this is what descheleschilder is trying to say in his answer. However, one cannot use the Schwarzschild metric according to an answer in: Supermassive black holes with the density of the Universe?

Finally, since gravity is communicated with the speed of light, the curvature within a certain radius has to be causally connected for it to add up. The expansion of the universe could prevent a cosmic black hole.


If we only consider the observable universe without the surrounding matter then yes, we are living in a black hole (which doesn't need a singularity.

For the Schwarzschild radius we have:


Filling in:


Now for M I only counted the non-dark matter neither the dark energy, which makes M in fact much bigger. Say 20 times. This makes $r_s=2,4*10^{27}(m)$.

Now the radius of the visible universe is. $$9,6*10^{15}*4,6*10^{10}=4,25*10^{26}(m)$$

From which it follows we are (under the unreal assumption that our visible universe is all there is) living inside a black hole.

Off course all the matter around the observable Universe prevent this black hole to really exist, and light rays can travel throughout the entire Universe (except of course if they meet a real black hole).


protected by Qmechanic Mar 2 '14 at 22:58

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?