From Watts Up With That?
Black holes have been understood as infinite singularities for a century. In 1916, months after Einstein published general relativity, Karl Schwarzschild did something that surprised even Einstein himself. He formulated one of the very first exact solutions to relativity’s equations for a single spherical mass. Out of that solution came a radius now commonly called “the Schwarzschild radius,” also known as the event horizon – the boundary around a black hole where nothing can escape. For the last 110 years the field has built on those equations, and the picture that settled into place is the one we are all taught, that at the center of a black hole sits a singularity, a point of infinite density. Now, new published works offer a different perspective on what black holes are.
The nearest known black hole is Gaia BH1, about 1,600 light years away. That’s roughly 9,400,000,000,000,000 miles. After the 1916 solution, the field continued on with the singularity. In 1965, Penrose wrote “Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities.” The idea is that a star becomes infinite once it collapses, leading to an unavoidable singularity. Similarly, Stephen Hawking took the same kind of reasoning and turned it the other way, applying it not to a single collapsing star but to the whole universe, running backwards in time, and arrived at the same place. A beginning that traces back to a singularity of its own. Between the two of them, the message was hard to argue with. General relativity, taken exactly as written, points to its own breaking point.
The field has, for some reason, largely ignored the elephant in the room and hasn’t yet stopped to question the singularity. Until now, at least. The problem is the singularity itself, this idea that a black hole is just infinity and that’s the end of it. But if a collapsing star creates an infinity, that calls the whole picture into question. Is it really geometry folding neatly into an infinite point? Look at the word we use often. Collapse. Einstein used that word. So did Penrose and Hawking. But they were describing matter contracting to a singularity, not a full geometric failure of spacetime itself. Matter falls inward, geodesics run out, and they called that the end. What they did not say is that the geometry carrying all of it has a breaking point of its own. Geometry does not fold into a point. It fails. It breaks apart. And what is left in its wake, the empty void we call a black hole, is what remains after the break. Or at least, that is what newly published theories are talking about in 2026.
New literature attacks the very fundamentals of how we describe black holes and what they are. The work that defined this shift, “Black hole singularities and the limits of the spacetime continuum,” published in Springer Nature in January, explained exactly how, why, and where black holes fail. It treats the square root of the Kretschmann scalar as a physical load on the geometry, sets a critical threshold where that load can no longer hold, and computes an exact failure surface, a calculable radius where geometry gives way, using nothing but the equations of general relativity already in hand, with no new forces and no exotic matter. The event horizon stops being a gateway to an infinite interior and becomes a phase boundary, the surface where one description of spacetime ends. The paper also unifies the field, pulling the scattered approaches – the limiting-curvature models, the emergent and thermodynamic pictures, the elastic analogies, the phase-transition descriptions – into a single principle. Spacetime has a breaking point, and everything the theory predicts outside the black hole stays exactly the same.
Earlier this year, in March 2026, a notable group of researchers came to the same conclusion from a different direction. Jorge Ovalle, Roberto Casadio, and Alexander Kamenshchik, in a paper published in Physical Review D, “On Schwarzschild black hole singularity formation,” tracked what happens to the geometry of spacetime as a star collapses. They found it cannot stay smooth. At the center, the geometry cracks, a discontinuity they named “Minkowski breaking,” where the structure of spacetime stops being continuous. Before the black hole can settle into its final form, the geometry tears. No stress threshold, no failure surface, none of the same math. Two different roads, the same destination. And when two independent results both refuse to let the Schwarzschild geometry form smoothly, the singularity starts to look like it was never a feature of the universe, just an artifact of the equations we mistook for the real thing.
Both of these papers are bold, fresh, and provocative. They challenge the very foundation of how we understand geometry and black holes. Since 1916, the many physicists who built this field have led us to where we are now, but that understanding is starting to shift. Black holes may be infinite singularities, or they may be phase boundaries, places where geometry fails. The uncertainty goes back to a simple fact: it has only been 110 years since this started. Humanity is still at the cusp of exploring space beyond its own moon, with much left to learn about space and its geometry.
This article was originally published by RealClearScience and made available via RealClearWire.
You must be logged in to post a comment.