Was the pre big-bang universe a highly compact black hole? Follow up question bellow...?

No, the early universe was not a black hole. The criteria for forming a black hole are actually quite complicated in general, but basically, since all of the universe was hot and dense at the same time, there was no preferential direction. Gravity pulls in all directions equally.

No matter what the rate of the expansion is, whether it's today, yesterday, or tomorrow, some parts of the universe will recede at speeds greater than c, because the expansion rate is not a *speed.* It's a percent expansion of distances per unit time. Start with a long enough initial distance, and that percent per second exceeds c no matter what the rate is.

no the pre big bang universe was more like a very dense white dwarf look up white dwarf. it was matter highly condensced into a very small point. a black hole is a tear in space and draws matter into it the pre big bang universe would draw matter into it but it wasn't a tear in space it was just very dense. and your right about the big bang happening faster than light but not becasue it was a black hole if it was than how could it explode. the reason that it was able to go faster than light is uknown we know it did becasue the temp of the universe is over all consistent or even though out. if you look at a normal explosion than the closer you get to the center will be hotter and there will also be fluctuations though out some spots will be hotter others cooler this isn't so with the universe. SOME THERIOS AND ARTICLES IN SOURCE.

Well, ..., no it was not.

The problem is the term "singularity" is over loaded. It means two very different things depending on the context of your conversation. When talking of Big Bang it is the initial super-massive yet infinitesimally small object that was bound by the Electromagnetic, Gravitational, Strong Nuclear, and Weak Nuclear forces which later expanded to become the universe that we know today. There was only one of it's kind and there will never be another.

Whereas the singularity at the center of a black hole is small but not infinitesimally small and bound by only one force ... gravity and there are many of them.

So it's the same word but it is used to describe two very different objects.

There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a quantum vacuum fluctuation -- via natural processes.

In relativity, gravity is negative energy, and matter and photons are positive energy. Because negative and positive energy seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy. When energy condenses into matter, equal parts of matter and antimatter are created — which annihilate each other to form energy. However there is a slight imbalance to the process, which results in matter dominating over antimatter.

I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd."

For more, watch the video at the 1st link - "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

-