<p>The Hubble length <span class="math-container">$c/H$</span> is indeed the same as the Schwarzschild radius of the energy enclosed within a radius <span class="math-container">$c/H$</span>. This is because the same physics set both. It does not imply that the Universe is a black hole.</p>
<p>Incidentally, it should be noted that the radius of the observable Universe <span class="math-container">$\simeq 46$</span> billion light years is larger than <span class="math-container">$c/H\simeq 14$</span> billion light years by a factor of a few.</p>
<p>People have legitimately thought about whether the Universe could be inside a black hole. I have no comment to make about those ideas specifically. I will only note that the cosmological solution to the equations of general relativity, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric" rel="nofollow noreferrer">FLRW metric</a>, is valid in any spherical region irrespective of what lies outside of it (under some simplifying but reasonable assumptions). So while we understand the expansion history of the observable Universe well, that implies little about what lies beyond it.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-26T06:33:05.667Z
2024-02-26T06:33:05.667Z
Sten
<p>It might point to a related &quot;black hole&quot; effect; that light from our galaxy will not &quot;escape&quot; the visible cosmos because of the total mass. Similarly the opposite way; the galaxies outside of the visible cosmos have their own visible cosmoses, which we are outside of - and thus cannot see. That <em>could</em> explain why the radii are the same, without it being a &quot;black hole&quot; in terms of sucking everything into the center.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-26T14:20:55.830Z
Thank you, but I don't see how this reasoning "could explain" the radii coincidence...
Juan Casado
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-27T08:41:52.000Z
Think of it like this: every galaxy is in the center of a giant ball of mass. With critical density of 9.47×10−27 kg/m³, that means the event horizon is 13.7bn ly. We can't see a galaxy 14bn ly away, because its light "stops" at 13.7bn. It's trapped in its "visible cosmos". 

Meaning the boundaries of our visible cosmos is simply where the light sources outside of it, can't reach us. 

If we move f.ex. 5 bn light years in any direction, the boundaries of the visible cosmos will move accordingly.
2x_espresso
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-28T17:49:45.527Z
I agree but, again, I don’t see the relationship with the commented answer.
Juan Casado
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-25T13:39:37.233Z
2024-02-25T13:39:37.233Z
2x_espresso
<p>Well if there was a black hole, for it to be growing at all, it would have to be consuming matter outside of the event horizon, however if this event horizon is expanding at the speed of light, it would be impossible for any matter to exist outside of it, because the matter would have had to be outside the event horizon before it expanded there (the only way to accomplish this is assuming that matter can move faster than the speed of light for no apparent reason)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-26T14:22:09.413Z
Thank you. You are assuming that the observable universe IS the whole universe and it is finite... We can´t be certain about that.
Juan Casado
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-27T01:16:33.070Z
well if it is infinite then that's implying that there is something such as faster than light speed or something like infinite speed, and that just isn't something that is possible (to our current knowledge). Additionally, because (as far as we know, and correct me if i'm wrong) all black holes have some spin in them, the centrifugal force would force everything to the edges of the black hole (in this case the edge of the universe). for this to work, that would mean everything is moving away from a certain center point, which we know isn't happening.
EastPoint
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-28T17:53:35.073Z
No, as the whole universe was already infinite at the Big Bang
Juan Casado
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-26T04:01:13.140Z
2024-02-26T04:01:13.140Z
EastPoint
<p>As far as I know, the critical density of our observable universe coincides with the density of a huge black hole of the same radius. It could be a BH expanding at the speed of light and growing in mass/energy accordingly (maintaining critical density through time)…
Any evidence in support or against this hypothetical BHU model?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-19T10:37:15.233Z
It is very nice to downvote a question without giving any reason, answer or comments…
Juan Casado
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-19T10:39:21.523Z
Does this answer your question? [Observable universe equals its Schwarzschild radius (event horizon)?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/32443/observable-universe-equals-its-schwarzschild-radius-event-horizon)
pela
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-19T10:41:31.027Z
I agree that you shouldn't downvote without giving a reason. The reason, though, might be that your question already has an answer on this site. For this reason I've voted to close it (which resulted in the automatic message above), but let me know if you disagree.
pela
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-19T21:14:29.743Z
It's really not helpful to downvote a question just for being a duplicate, and that doesn't match the stated use of the downvote.  Downs are supposed to mean "lack of research effort, unclear, or not useful".  Dupes can be marked as dupes and help others find the answer (stating a question many ways and linking to one answer is great!) but "somebody didn't search the right words to find the existing answer" shouldn't be a reason to downvote. (It just makes new users feel like they're unwelcome and that's not a good look.)
Darth Pseudonym
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-20T01:20:59.550Z
The black hole cosmological model is just a theory, while also being built on other hypotheticals such as the white hole and multiverse theory in some claims. The most widely accepted models suggest our universe is everything - period. So in a more conventional sense, comparing the universe to a black hole would be somewhat of a metaphor more than anything because it might share characteristics with one. Point is, as far as we know, the universe isn't actually a black hole. But in the end, we simply don't know, and since we can't see outside of the universe, it's an educated guessing game.
4NT4R3S
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-20T11:40:40.523Z
The answer is related to my question but does not really answer it, @pela
Juan Casado
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-20T11:45:08.517Z
Due to the criticism of the downvotes by commenters above, I'll remove mine. I initially downvoted the post due, frankly, to how ludicrous the question is. EDIT: I can't remove it until the question is edited, apparently.
White Prime
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-20T19:15:02.403Z
@WhitePrime, the question does seem quite out there, I'll give you that - but it's actually a real theory that the universe is a black hole in some multiverse. It is not a widely accepted or supported one, but it's still out there.
4NT4R3S
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-25T16:49:05.497Z
Cosmological theories frequently feed on the *lack* of evidence/data. I would count this one amongst those.
Thomas
<black-hole><cosmology><universe><density>
Is there evidence against a Universe Black Hole?
Juan Casado
# Is there evidence against a Universe Black Hole?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-01-19)

As far as I know, the critical density of our observable universe coincides with the density of a huge black hole of the same radius. It could be a BH expanding at the speed of light and growing in mass/energy accordingly (maintaining critical density through time)…
Any evidence in support or against this hypothetical BHU model?

**Tags:** black-hole, cosmology, universe, density

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: It is very nice to downvote a question without giving any reason, answer or comments…  
> **username_1**: Does this answer your question? [Observable universe equals its Schwarzschild radius (event horizon)?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/32443/observable-universe-equals-its-schwarzschild-radius-event-horizon)  
> **username_1**: I agree that you shouldn't downvote without giving a reason. The reason, though, might be that your question already has an answer on this site. For this reason I've voted to close it (which resulted in the automatic message above), but let me know if you disagree.  
> **username_2**: It's really not helpful to downvote a question just for being a duplicate, and that doesn't match the stated use of the downvote.  Downs are supposed to mean "lack of research effort, unclear, or not useful".  Dupes can be marked as dupes and help others find the answer (stating a question many ways and linking to one answer is great!) but "somebody didn't search the right words to find the existing answer" shouldn't be a reason to downvote. (It just makes new users feel like they're unwelcome and that's not a good look.)  
> **username_3**: The black hole cosmological model is just a theory, while also being built on other hypotheticals such as the username_4 hole and multiverse theory in some claims. The most widely accepted models suggest our universe is everything - period. So in a more conventional sense, comparing the universe to a black hole would be somewhat of a metaphor more than anything because it might share characteristics with one. Point is, as far as we know, the universe isn't actually a black hole. But in the end, we simply don't know, and since we can't see outside of the universe, it's an educated guessing game.  
> **username_0**: The answer is related to my question but does not really answer it, @username_1  
> **username_4**: Due to the criticism of the downvotes by commenters above, I'll remove mine. I initially downvoted the post due, frankly, to how ludicrous the question is. EDIT: I can't remove it until the question is edited, apparently.  
> **username_3**: @username_4, the question does seem quite out there, I'll give you that - but it's actually a real theory that the universe is a black hole in some multiverse. It is not a widely accepted or supported one, but it's still out there.  
> **username_5**: Cosmological theories frequently feed on the *lack* of evidence/data. I would count this one amongst those.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2024-02-26. Score: 1

The Hubble length $c/H$ is indeed the same as the Schwarzschild radius of the energy enclosed within a radius $c/H$. This is because the same physics set both. It does not imply that the Universe is a black hole.

Incidentally, it should be noted that the radius of the observable Universe $\simeq 46$ billion light years is larger than $c/H\simeq 14$ billion light years by a factor of a few.

People have legitimately thought about whether the Universe could be inside a black hole. I have no comment to make about those ideas specifically. I will only note that the cosmological solution to the equations of general relativity, the [FLRW metric](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric), is valid in any spherical region irrespective of what lies outside of it (under some simplifying but reasonable assumptions). So while we understand the expansion history of the observable Universe well, that implies little about what lies beyond it.


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2024-02-25. Score: 0

It might point to a related "black hole" effect; that light from our galaxy will not "escape" the visible cosmos because of the total mass. Similarly the opposite way; the galaxies outside of the visible cosmos have their own visible cosmoses, which we are outside of - and thus cannot see. That *could* explain why the radii are the same, without it being a "black hole" in terms of sucking everything into the center.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you, but I don't see how this reasoning "could explain" the radii coincidence...  
> **username_7**: Think of it like this: every galaxy is in the center of a giant ball of mass. With critical density of 9.47×10−27 kg/m³, that means the event horizon is 13.7bn ly. We can't see a galaxy 14bn ly away, because its light "stops" at 13.7bn. It's trapped in its "visible cosmos".   Meaning the boundaries of our visible cosmos is simply where the light sources outside of it, can't reach us.   If we move f.ex. 5 bn light years in any direction, the boundaries of the visible cosmos will move accordingly.  
> **username_0**: I agree but, again, I don’t see the relationship with the commented answer.  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2024-02-26. Score: 0

Well if there was a black hole, for it to be growing at all, it would have to be consuming matter outside of the event horizon, however if this event horizon is expanding at the speed of light, it would be impossible for any matter to exist outside of it, because the matter would have had to be outside the event horizon before it expanded there (the only way to accomplish this is assuming that matter can move faster than the speed of light for no apparent reason)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you. You are assuming that the observable universe IS the whole universe and it is finite... We can´t be certain about that.  
> **username_8**: well if it is infinite then that's implying that there is something such as faster than light speed or something like infinite speed, and that just isn't something that is possible (to our current knowledge). Additionally, because (as far as we know, and correct me if i'm wrong) all black holes have some spin in them, the centrifugal force would force everything to the edges of the black hole (in this case the edge of the universe). for this to work, that would mean everything is moving away from a certain center point, which we know isn't happening.  
> **username_0**: No, as the whole universe was already infinite at the Big Bang  

---

