Rosa Rubicondior: Creationism Refuted - Scientists Explain How To Make A Universe

An expanding mini universe could counterbalance the collapsing matter of a star, thereby creating a stable gravastar.

Credit: Daniel Jampolski and Luciano Rezzolla,
Goethe University Frankfurt

Big Bang inside a star: How a gravastar forms | EurekAlert!

Creationists like to think they have dealt a death-blow to cosmology with the childish question, "How can a universe come from nothing?" Usually, this is not so much an argument as an admission that they have mistaken a failure of their own imagination for a law of physics. They begin with the assumption that "nothing" must mean a sort of empty box waiting for a god to put something in it, then demand that science should explain the box, the waiting, and the god.

But modern physics has a habit of being far more imaginative, and far less parochial, than Bronze Age mythology.

A paper recently published in Physical Review D, by theoretical physicists Daniel Jampolski and Professor Luciano Rezzolla of Goethe University Frankfurt, explores one of those ideas that sounds, at first hearing, almost like science fiction: a collapsing star might not inevitably form a conventional black hole. Under the right conditions, the collapse could instead generate what is called a gravastar — a gravitational vacuum star — containing an expanding region of dark-energy-like spacetime, rather like a tiny universe forming inside the dying star.

This does not mean, of course, that physicists have proved that our universe began inside a star, still less that they have solved every problem in cosmology. Nor does it mean that "nothing" in physics is the same as the philosopher's or theologian's absolute nothing. What it does show, however, is that serious scientists can construct mathematical models in which expanding spacetime can arise naturally from the equations of general relativity, without once needing to insert a magic being, a supernatural command, or a cosmic conjuring trick.

That is the part creationists habitually miss. Science is not claiming that universes pop into existence by magic. It is doing what science always does: examining what the known laws imply under extreme conditions, identifying where those laws may need refinement, and testing whether natural processes can account for phenomena that once seemed impossible. In this case, the model suggests that when matter collapses to almost the point of becoming a black hole, a rapidly expanding de Sitter region could form inside it and counterbalance the collapse.

So, far from helping creationism, this work illustrates precisely why the creationist argument from incredulity is so feeble. "I don't understand how it could happen naturally" is not evidence for a god. It is merely the opening sentence of a scientific investigation.

Glossary^ Some Terms Used In This Research. Big Bang: The name given to the early hot, dense, rapidly expanding phase of our universe. It was not an explosion into pre-existing empty space, but the expansion of space itself from an extremely compressed state.

Black hole: An extremely compact object whose gravity is so strong that, within a certain boundary, not even light can escape. Black holes are a natural prediction of Einstein’s general relativity, although their innermost structure remains one of the deepest problems in physics.

Event horizon: The boundary around a black hole beyond which anything that enters cannot return or send information back to the outside universe. It is not a physical surface, but a point of no return in spacetime.

Singularity: In the simplest black-hole models, the point where matter is crushed to infinite density and spacetime curvature becomes infinite. Physicists generally regard this as a sign that the theory has reached its limit, not as a comfortably understood physical object.

Spacetime: The four-dimensional fabric made of three dimensions of space and one of time. In general relativity, gravity is not treated as an invisible force pulling objects together, but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy.

General relativity: Einstein’s theory of gravity, in which matter and energy tell spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move. It successfully explains many phenomena, including gravitational lensing, black holes, and the expansion of the universe.

Einstein field equations: The mathematical core of general relativity. These equations relate the distribution of matter and energy to the shape and behaviour of spacetime. In this research, the authors explore a new solution to these equations under extreme conditions.

Gravitational collapse: The inward collapse of a massive object under its own gravity. In stars, this can happen when the outward pressure from nuclear fusion can no longer resist gravity.

Nuclear fusion: The process that powers normal stars. Light atomic nuclei fuse into heavier nuclei, releasing energy. That energy helps provide the outward pressure that prevents a star from collapsing while it has fuel available.

Radiation pressure: The outward pressure produced by light and other radiation inside a star. In a stable star, this pressure helps balance the inward pull of gravity.

Ultra-compact star: An object packed into an extremely small volume, with intense gravity. Neutron stars are real examples; gravastars are proposed exotic examples.

Gravastar: Short for “gravitational vacuum star”. It is a proposed alternative to a black hole: an extremely compact object that could look much like a black hole from the outside, but without an event horizon or singularity. In the model discussed here, it contains a dark-energy-like interior.

Horizonless black-hole mimicker: A hypothetical object that would resemble a black hole in many observational ways, but would not have an event horizon. A gravastar is one such proposed object.

Dark energy: The name given to whatever is causing the expansion of our universe to accelerate. In simple terms, it behaves like a form of energy associated with empty space and can produce a repulsive, outward effect on cosmic scales.

Vacuum energy: Energy associated with space itself rather than with ordinary matter. In cosmology, vacuum-like energy can act rather like dark energy, driving expansion instead of collapse.

De Sitter spacetime: A mathematical model of spacetime dominated by vacuum energy or dark-energy-like behaviour. In the gravastar model, a tiny de Sitter region forms inside the collapsing matter and expands outward.

Nucleation: The beginning of a new region or phase from an initially tiny seed. Here it refers to the formation of a de Sitter region at the centre of the collapsing star.

Schwarzschild radius: The radius within which a given mass would become a black hole if compressed sufficiently. For a non-rotating black hole, this radius marks the event horizon.

Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse: A classic simplified model of a collapsing star, first studied in 1939. It treats the collapsing matter as a uniform sphere of pressureless “dust”, making the mathematics easier to handle.

Dust sphere: In this context, “dust” does not mean household dust. It means idealised matter with density but no pressure. Physicists use such simplified models to explore the consequences of gravity in a manageable way.

Compactness: A measure of how much mass is packed into a given radius. The more compact an object is, the stronger its gravitational field becomes. In this model, there is a limit beyond which collapse to a black hole becomes unavoidable.

Equilibrium: A balanced state. In the proposed gravastar model, the inward pull of the collapsing matter is balanced by the outward expansion of the dark-energy-like interior.

Computational simulation/model: A mathematical or computer-based exploration of what the equations predict under specified conditions. It is not the same as a direct observation, but it can show whether a proposed physical process is mathematically possible.

Fine-tuned conditions: Conditions that must fall within a narrow range for a particular outcome to occur. This does not mean supernatural “fine-tuning”; it means the model works only under specific physical assumptions.

New physics: A phrase physicists use when known theories may need extending or replacing under extreme conditions. It does not mean magic; it means there may be natural processes that current theories do not yet fully describe.

“Nothing” in physics: Not necessarily the absolute philosophical “nothing” beloved of creationist apologetics. In physics, even apparently empty space can have structure, fields, energy, and laws. Confusing these meanings is one of the common tricks in creationist arguments about the origin of the universe.

The Paper in Physical Review D was accompanied by a news release from Goethe University via EurekAlert!:

Big Bang inside a star: How a gravastar forms
Physicists at Goethe University use Einstein’s general theory of relativity to explain the formation of ultra-compact stars
Stars shine because atoms fuse in their interiors, releasing energy. When a very massive star has exhausted its nuclear fuel, radiation pressure can no longer provide sufficient counterforce to gravity. The star then collapses under its own mass until only a single point remains: the singularity.

While the formation of a black hole appears plausible, black holes themselves continue to pose major challenges for science. How can ten billion solar masses concentrate on a single tiny point? How can spacetime be curved infinitely at that point, the singularity? At this stage, the laws of physics break down, making it impossible to predict what happens. Moreover, black holes conceal all information from observation: everything, including light, disappears irretrievably beyond the event horizon.

Filled with dark energy

It is therefore possible that black holes are in fact entirely different objects, such as ultra-compact stars, which cannot be seen because of their intense gravity and are therefore also called gravastars. In addition to ordinary matter present in their outer layers, they would be filled with dark energy, which exerts an outward pressure and stabilizes their mass, which wants instead to collapse. Gravastars are easier for physicists to accept than black holes because they do not possess a singularity nor an event horizon and, yet are almost as massive and compact as black holes. What had remained unclear, however, was how such gravastars could form in practice.

The two theoretical physicists, Daniel Jampolski and Professor Luciano Rezzolla, have now presented for the first time a dynamic solution to the field equations of Albert Einstein’s General Relativity describing the collapse of a star that could lead to the formation of such a gravastar. The solution has shown that the collapse may trigger the creation of a mini universe inside the collapsing matter not very different from the Big Bang from which our universe has emerged. Like our own universe, its expansion is driven by dark energy. In this way, the expansion of the new universe counteracts the gravitational forces and halts the collapse of the star before a black hole can form. In this process, an equilibrium is established between the expanding mini universe and the collapsing matter and this equilibrium is what leads to a stable gravastar. With this solution to General Relativity, the Frankfurt physicists have provided the first answer to a question that scientists have been debating for 25 years: how do gravastars form during the collapse of ordinary matter?

Room for new physics

The Big Bang of the emerging universe can unfold once the star has already collapsed almost to the point of beoming a black hole. [The unresolved behavior of extremely compressed matter leaves room for new physics:] It is easier to imagine that the Big Bang occurs only at a very late stage, when matter has already been compressed to an extreme degree, thereby giving rise to new effects.

Daniel Jampolski, first author.
Institut für Theoretische Physik
Goethe University Frankfurt
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Looking for alternatives to black holes should not suggest a skepticism towards black holes, which still represent the most natural and simplest solution to the fate of gravitational collapse. However, as scientists in general, and as theoretical physicists in particular, it is essential to maintain an unbiased approach towards what we do not know and hence explore both the accepted wisdom and the more exotic interpretations. History teaches us that it is not unusual for the latter to become the former.

Professor Luciano Rezzolla, co-author.
Institut für Theoretische Physik
Goethe University Frankfurt
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Publication:
Jampolski, Daniel & Rezzolla, Luciano
Formation of gravastars
Physical Review D 113(12) L121502, DOI: 10.1103/c6lw-nx7k

Abstract
Regular black holes and horizonless black hole mimickers offer mathematically consistent alternatives to address the challenges posed by standard black holes. However, the formation mechanism of these alternative objects is still largely unclear and constitutes a significant open problem since understanding their dynamical formation represents a first step to assess their existence. We here investigate, for the first time and without invoking higher-curvature corrections, the dynamical formation of a well-known horizonless black hole mimicker, namely, a gravastar. More specifically, starting from the collapse of a uniform dust sphere, as in the case of the Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse, we demonstrate that, under fine-tuned conditions, a gravastar can form from the nucleation and expansion of a de Sitter region with initial zero size at the center of the collapsing sphere. Furthermore, the de Sitter expansion naturally slows down near the Schwarzschild radius, where it meets the collapsing dust surface and gives rise to a static equilibrium. Interestingly, we also find a maximum initial compactness of the collapsing star of $C = 3 / 8$ , above which the collapse to a black hole is inevitable.

Jampolski, Daniel & Rezzolla, Luciano
Formation of gravastars
Physical Review D 113(12) L121502, DOI: 10.1103/c6lw-nx7k

© 2026 American Physical Society.
Reprinted under the terms of s60 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

So, the creationist claim that science cannot explain a universe from “nothing” turns out, yet again, to be mostly a word game. The “nothing” of creationist apologetics is a philosophical absolute, carefully defined so that nothing can happen in it — except, by special pleading, the sudden appearance of whichever god the apologist already believes in. The “nothing” discussed in physics is not that childish abstraction, but a far more subtle question involving spacetime, fields, energy, quantum effects and the limits of our present theories.

This paper does not prove that our universe formed inside a collapsing star, nor does it claim to. What it does show is something much more damaging to creationism: that physicists can explore, with mathematics rather than mythology, how expanding regions of spacetime might arise from extreme gravitational collapse. It is another example of science pushing inquiry into regions where common sense is a very poor guide and ancient origin myths are no guide at all.

The proper scientific response to such ideas is caution, testing, criticism and refinement. The creationist response, by contrast, is normally to misrepresent the science, declare that any remaining uncertainty is a conveniently god-shaped gap, and then pretend that this gap somehow confirms a favoured Bronze Age creation story. But uncertainty in science is not evidence for magic. It is where research begins.

And that is the real contrast. Science does not claim to have all the answers; it has a method for finding better ones. Creationism has a conclusion in search of excuses. Every time physicists show that the universe is stranger, deeper and more mathematically subtle than human intuition suggests, the creationist god is not vindicated. It is simply pushed a little further back into the shrinking shadows.

Advertisement

Amazon