Black hole singularities defy physics. New research could finally do away with them.

An artist's rendering of a black hole
Black holes are bizarre cosmic objects that may not be what they seem, new research suggests. (Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

Black holes are some of the most enigmatic objects in the universe, capable of deforming the fabric of space around them so violently that not even light can escape their gravitational grip. But it turns out, much of what scientists know about these mysterious objects could be wrong.

According to new research, published in April in the journal Physical Review D, black holes could actually be entirely different celestial entities known as gravastars.

"Gravastars are hypothetical astronomical objects that were introduced [in 2001] as alternatives to black holes," study co-author João Luís Rosa, a professor of physics at the University of Gdańsk in Poland, told Live Science in an email. "They can be interpreted as stars made of vacuum energy or dark energy: the same type of energy that propels the accelerated expansion of the universe."

Resolving black hole paradoxes with gravastars

Karl Schwarzschild, a German physicist and astronomer, first predicted black holes in 1915, based on calculations using Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Over the years, astronomical observations have seemingly confirmed the existence of objects resembling black holes. However, Schwarzschild's description of these space bodies has some shortcomings.

In particular, the center of a black hole is predicted to be a point of infinitely high density, called a singularity, where all the mass of the black hole is concentrated, but fundamental physics teaches us that infinities do not exist, and their appearance in any theory signals its inaccuracy or incompleteness.

"These problems indicate that something is either wrong or incomplete in the black hole model, and that the development of alternative models is necessary," Rosa said. "The gravastar is one of many alternative models proposed. The main advantage of gravastars is that they do not have singularities."

Related: Newfound 'glitch' in Einstein's relativity could rewrite the rules of the universe, study suggests

Dark energy is a strange phenomenon thought to be responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe. But could it also be holding black holes together, as gravatar theory suggests? (Image credit: NASA/ESA/Hubble; acknowledgements: Judy Schmidt (Geckzilla))

Like ordinary black holes, gravastars should arise at the final stage of the evolution of massive stars, when the energy released during thermonuclear combustion of the matter inside them is no longer enough to overcome the force of gravity, and the star collapses into a much denser object. But in contrast to black holes, gravastars are not expected to have any singularities and are thought to be thin spheres of matter whose stability is maintained by the dark energy contained within them. 

To find out if gravastars are viable alternatives to singular black holes, Rosa and his colleagues examined the interaction of particles and radiation with these hypothetical objects.

Using Einstein's theory, the authors examined how the huge masses of hot matter that surround supermassive black holes would appear if these black holes were actually gravastars. They also scrutinized the properties of "hot spots" — gigantic gas bubbles orbiting black holes at near-light speeds.

Their findings revealed striking similarities between the matter emissions of gravastars and black holes, suggesting that gravastars don't contradict scientists' experimental observations of the universe. Moreover, the team discovered that a gravastar itself should appear almost like a singular black hole, creating a visible shadow.

"This shadow is not caused by the trapping of light in the event horizon, but by a slightly different phenomenon called the 'gravitational redshift,' causing light to lose energy when it moves through a region with a strong gravitational field," Rosa said. "Indeed, when the light emitted from regions close to these alternative objects reach[es] our telescopes, most of its energy would have been lost to the gravitational field, causing the appearance of this shadow."

The striking resemblances between Schwarzschild's black hole model and gravastars highlight the latter's potential as a realistic alternative, free from the theoretical pitfalls of singularities.

However, this theory needs to be backed up with experiments and observations, which the study authors believe may soon be carried out. While gravastars and singular black holes might behave similarly in many respects, subtle differences in emitted light could potentially distinguish them.

"To test our results experimentally, we are counting on the next generation of observational experiments in gravitational physics," Rosa said, referring to the black hole-hunting Event Horizon Telescope and the GRAVITY+ instrument being added to the Very Large Telescope in Chile. "These two experiments aim to observe closely what happens near the center of galaxies, in particular, our own Milky Way."

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Andrey Feldman
Live Science Contributor

Andrey got his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in elementary particle physics from Novosibirsk State University in Russia, and a Ph.D. in string theory from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. He works as a science writer, specializing in physics, space, and technology. His articles have been published in Elements, N+1, and AdvancedScienceNews.

  • FireNWater
    I doubt that anything in the universe is capable of "defying physics" . . . not even Scottie . . .
    Reply
  • Atlan0001
    Black holes as "gravastars"?! NOT A CHANCE! ON YOUR LIFE, NOT A CHANCE! as I now realize gravity to be.

    The gravitational force (inclusive of the asymptotic Casimir effect strong (nuclear) binding force) is the force of the open systemic, I now realize. Which assigns the closed systemic to the other and anti-gravitational force, the electroweak force.

    Rather than a "gravastar", a black hole is an "electroweak star" (and all that entails)! And intrinsically has integral particle-wave point-portal singularities! It isn't all the "four horsemen" of the closed world system "Apocalyptic" Q (DQ) (QM)-Verse. I probe it, discover from it, and use it all the time in my picturing and modeling, much as I detest any "closed world system."
    Reply
  • billslugg
    I don't understand the assumption the center of a Black Hole be a singularity. We know a neutron star has a finite radius, we know when it gains mass and the escape velocity exceeds c it becomes dark. Why must it necessarily collapse further. The event horizon is a function of mass, spin and charge. It would not change whether the BH was crowding the inside of the event horizon or a singularity at the center.
    Reply
  • Atlan0001
    Atlan0001 said:
    Black holes as "gravastars"?! NOT A CHANCE! ON YOUR LIFE, NOT A CHANCE! as I now realize gravity to be.

    The gravitational force (inclusive of the asymptotic Casimir effect strong (nuclear) binding force) is the force of the open systemic, I now realize. Which assigns the closed systemic to the other and anti-gravitational force, the electroweak force.

    Rather than a "gravastar", a black hole is an "electroweak star" (and all that entails)! And intrinsically has integral particle-wave point-portal singularities! It isn't all the "four horsemen" of the closed world system "Apocalyptic" Q (DQ) (QM)-Verse. I probe it, discover from it, and use it all the time in my picturing and modeling, much as I detest any "closed world system."
    The Schrodinger and asymptotic "point-portal" singularity (singularities) points to elsewhere in the universes from the local black hole itself . . . Points to, tunnels to, the transparent (possibly "dark matter" spewing) white hole(s) elsewhere in the universes. Now, there -- if at all -- is a "gravastar" (now, there -- if at all -- are the "gravastars")!

    My modeling works.
    -------------------------

    ** Quotes from Merriam-Webster Dictionary **
    "Rather than growing in size within our Universe, the expanding monopole would bend spacetime within the accelerator to create a tiny wormhole tunnel leading to a separate region of space." -- Zeeya Merali, Discover Magazine, 19 June 2017.

    "The quandary of the elusive magnetic monopole goes back more than 150 years." -- Adam Hadhazy, Discover Magazine, 13 Nov. 2018.
    Reply
  • Classical Motion
    I propose another solution. Maybe the stellar object at our center is a star, just like other stars only the center star rotates much quicker than a sphere can rotate. So quick that the equator spins so fast that it spins as it rotates....and pulls the poles into the center.......and then into the equatorial spin.....a rotating torus star. There might be a limit on spherical plasma RPM. Plasma field self interaction. Fast RPM might indicate a torus star.

    Any net ions or charge would generate a M field. Which might accelerate net charge from time to time, to the center and be expelled as galactic bubbles. With no net charge, no M field. Until another feeding.

    Could the center gravity be a directional gravity? Or a bow-tie gravity?
    Reply
  • Atlan0001
    Classical Motion said:
    I propose another solution. Maybe the stellar object at our center is a star, just like other stars only the center star rotates much quicker than a sphere can rotate. So quick that the equator spins so fast that it spins as it rotates....and pulls the poles into the center.......and then into the equatorial spin.....a rotating torus star. There might be a limit on spherical plasma RPM. Plasma field self interaction. Fast RPM might indicate a torus star.

    Any net ions or charge would generate a M field. Which might accelerate net charge from time to time, to the center and be expelled as galactic bubbles. With no net charge, no M field. Until another
    billslugg said:
    I don't understand the assumption the center of a Black Hole be a singularity. We know a neutron star has a finite radius, we know when it gains mass and the escape velocity exceeds c it becomes dark. Why must it necessarily collapse further. The event horizon is a function of mass, spin and charge. It would not change whether the BH was crowding the inside of the event horizon or a singularity at the center.

    feeding.

    Could the center gravity be a directional gravity? Or a bow-tie gravity?
    Good thoughts, CM. Toroidal vortex of toroidal vortices from event horizon to event horizons. Some so fast as to be observed to be seemingly, relatively, singularly hard ring causing the appearance, and possibly reality, of a waterfall motion directly into them.

    Bill, think in terms of an obvious "Iron Curtain" master-link vulnerable bubble of countless many invisible invulnerable bubbles (invulnerably present until the master-link disappears, disappearing them all). The "electroweak star" (black hole) itself is the master ring event horizon asymptotic point-portal singularity, Bill, of all its countless many constituent asymptotic point-portal singularities (all the subject constituency subject to a dizzying neo-magical Schrodinger functionality . . . and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).
    ------------------------------------

    ** Quotes from Merriam-Webster Dictionary **
    "Rather than growing in size within our Universe, the expanding monopole would bend spacetime within the accelerator to create a tiny wormhole tunnel leading to a separate region of space." -- Zeeya Merali, Discover Magazine, 19 June 2017.

    "The quandary of the elusive magnetic monopole goes back more than 150 years." -- Adam Hadhazy, Discover Magazine, 13 Nov. 2018.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    Excellent point. Would not an infinitely small point of infinite density violate the Heisenberg
    Uncertainty Principle? Such a point would not have a fixed multiple of energy times location.

    Also, Einstein's difficulty with the singularity was avoided by subsequent formulas that used the spherically shaped event horizon as "zero distance" in a vector space using polar notation.

    This simple change of coordinate systems avoided any singularities. I also believe singularities cannot exist, because, if they were in existence they would be available on the internet, which they are not.
    Reply
  • Atlan0001
    Black hole spin rate:

    (Post #542)
    https://forums.space.com/threads/from-a-drop-of-water.61072/page-22#post-598704
    Reply
  • Helio
    “DEGENERACY “ does begin with “DE”. 😜

    They need to give these objects a much better label than “….star”. We’re finally seeing very few saying “white dwarf stars”.
    Reply
  • Ryan F. Mercer
    What is it about black holes, dark energy, and dark matter that always brings out the pseudo-science nut jobs? It's like the paranormal for a new age.

    You think you understand blackholes when no one else doesn't? Watch the movie Event Horizon. Alone. Late at night.
    Reply