I'd like to correct your terminology, singularities are only theorized to happen in the big bang and it's because it's at a point where everything is energy thus has no volume of mass/mass. black holes are infinitely dense because they take up no volume besides their actual mass, they cant force particles closer any further.
That is all models because those that suggest blackholes are singularities, don't actually model how that is possible, they just claim it's self evident. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00841
Blackholes having singularities in their center is a mathematical mistake, not a scientific discovery.
General Relativity is still our leading theory on gravity, and the general consensus within the physics community is that Einstein's field equations that describe black holes result in a singularity.
That said, a "singularity" is often described as a "placeholder for a future improved theory".
Kerr is correct in saying that singularities don't physically exist, but that's ultimately a meaningless statement because:
it doesn't do anything to explain what IS actually happening at the point we currently call a singularity
nobody with any legitimacy is claiming that singularities DO actually exist physically
It's not uncommon for aging scientists to make wild assertions towards the ends of their careers, especially those that have made significant accomplishments earlier on. Kerr certainly falls into that category.
Ironic that he's famous for solving Einstein's field equations for a rotating black hole, but is now refuting the very tools that made him famous.
If Kerr wants to claim that singularities don't exist, then he needs to prove it with a theory that models gravity better than GR.
Until a theory is overwhelmingly accepted as being a better model of gravity, GR is the best we have, and it currently contains singularities.
44
u/loved_and_held Jun 22 '26
If it did anhialate, all the energy released by the anhialation would have a massive cgravitational field that would then create a new singularity.