At https://phys.org/news/2023-06-didnt-big-collapse-giant-black.html … why didn’t the Big Bang collapse into a giant black hole? It is thought the latter are the remnants of a massive star that exploded as a supernova. The black hole traps light because of its intense gravitational field. The black hole distorts space arount it, we are told, which in turn warps images of background stars lined up behind it. This gravitational lensing effect is the only visible evidence of a black hole. The Hubble Space Telescope looks for black holes by looking for distortions in starlight or black holes that may drift in front of background stars.
In spite of the enormous density produced by Big Bang the early universe did not collapse into a black hole – becuse thee was nothing to collapse into. Is that a cop out?
We are told it si pretty straightforward to infer a black hole. All you need is persistence – apply enough pressure and keep squeezing until matter is reduced to small volumes. At a critical point in the process the gravitational forces become so strong that it overwhelms any other force in Nature, creating the black hole, as described. It is thought black holes are common. In fact, incredibly common. They also have an origin in dying stars. See https://phys.org/news/2023-06-jwst-stars-univese.html … which concerns the atomic remains of Big Bang – more than 99 per cent of stars in the universe. All the other elements, it would seem, from carbon to iron to gold, were created through entire physical processes.
At https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-experiment-casts-doubt-on-the-leading-theory-of-the-nucleus-20230612 … a new measurement of the strong nuclear force which binds protons and neutrons together, may be a problem.