Scientists have discovered a way to create black holes without the mysterious singularities where physics breaks down.
By using pure gravity rather than exotic matter, their new model challenges previous theories and brings us closer to understanding the true nature of spacetime. This breakthrough not only simplifies the conditions for black hole formation but also aligns with the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. The research opens doors to new astrophysical applications and could ultimately reveal how the universe prevents singularities from forming.
Black Holes Without Singularities
Black holes, as described by Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, are thought to contain singularities — points where the laws of physics no longer apply. Understanding how these singularities might be resolved within the framework of quantum gravity remains one of the biggest challenges in theoretical physics.
Now, researchers from the Institute of Cosmos Sciences at the University of Barcelona (ICCUB) have made a groundbreaking discovery. For the first time, they have demonstrated that black holes can form purely through gravitational effects, without requiring exotic matter — an ingredient that some previous models depended on.
Published in Physics Letters B, this finding offers new insights into the quantum nature of gravity and could reshape our understanding of the true structure of spacetime.
Exotic Matter No Longer Needed
The term exotic matter refers to a type of matter that has unusual properties not found in ordinary matter. It often has a negative energy density, creates repulsive gravitational effects, and can violate certain energy conditions in general relativity. Exotic matter is largely theoretical and has not been observed in nature, but is used in models to explore concepts such as wormholes, faster-than-light travel and the resolution of black hole singularities.
The new study mathematically demonstrates that an infinite series of higher-order gravitational corrections can eliminate these singularities and result in so-called regular black holes.
Pure Gravity and Regular Black Holes
Unlike previous models, which required exotic matter, this new study reveals that pure gravity — without additional matter fields — can generate regular black holes without singularities.
This discovery represents a significant departure from previous theories and simplifies the conditions necessary for regular black holes.
“The beauty of our construction is that it is based only on modifications of the Einstein equations predicted naturally by quantum gravity. No other components are needed,” says researcher Pablo A. Cano, from the Department of Quantum Physics and Astrophysics at the Faculty of Physics and ICCUB.
The theories deployed by the ICCUB team are applicable to any dimension of spacetime greater than or equal to five. “The reason for considering higher spacetime dimensions is purely technical,” says Cano, “as it allows us to reduce the mathematical complexity of the problem.” However, the researchers say that “the same conclusions should apply to our four-dimensional spacetime.”
Unraveling the Mystery of Singularities
“Most scientists agree that the singularities of general relativity must ultimately be resolved, although we know very little about how this process might be achieved. Our work provides the first mechanism to achieve this in a robust way, albeit under certain symmetry assumptions,” explains Robie Hennigar (UB and ICCUB). “It is not yet clear how nature prevents the formation of singularities in the universe, but we hope that our model will help us to gain a better understanding of this process,” says the expert.
Thermodynamics and Astrophysical Insights
The study also explores the thermodynamic properties of these regular black holes and reveals that they comply with the first law of thermodynamics. The theories developed provide a robust framework for understanding the thermodynamics of black holes in a completely universal and unambiguous way. This consistency adds credibility and potential applicability to the findings.
The researchers plan to extend their work to four-dimensional spacetime and explore the implications of their findings in various astrophysical scenarios. They also aim to investigate the stability and possible observational signatures of these regular black holes.
“These theories not only predict singularity-free black holes, but also allow us to understand how these objects form and what is the fate of matter falling into a black hole. We are already working on these questions and expect to find really exciting results,” concludes Cano.
Reference: “Regular black holes from pure gravity” by Pablo Bueno, Pablo A. Cano and Robie A. Hennigar, 16 January 2025, Physics Letters B.
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139260
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
76 Comments
Black Hole Mystery…mystery I thought you geniuses had this ALL figured out ?
I love it when scientists claim that mathematics and metaphysical speculation is the same thing as empirical science.
I had a look at the scientific paper referenced here and I didn’t see these scientists mention anything like that. It’s a piece of theoretical work.
Mathematics has many times predicted phenomenon later shown to be empirically true. Dirac’s math-based prediction of antimatter is but one example. Quantum physics is mostly math and verified experimentally time and again. Dismissing math as you have done is a categorical error.
Mark Twain: “If you argue with a f00l, the onlookers won’t be able to tell the difference.”
Nah. People only pretend it’s all figured out, until the next idea comes along.
Absolutely no one in physics is pretending it’s all figured out.
There is no longer any need for these ad hoc fantasy theories to explain gravitational anomalies in deep space, Wal Thornhill and the Thunderbolts Project have already elegantly solved this with the Electric Universe model. Please dispense with the dark matter, black holes and other insanity to explain our universe, not everything in our universe can be explained with a whiteboard full mathematical equation. Sometimes the best answer is the most simplest one and engineers have solved a lot of questions over the centuries. Scientists on the other hand only seem to seek more questions only to merit gaining more grants and research funding for further inane theories of which we can never see, except on a white board equation.
Real scientists don’t profess to know anything for certain.
Ok. I’m only going to do this once. They are not holes. They’re bubbles. Or more precisely as you would understand it. The reflection of bubbles. Doing what bubbles do in a liquid through and created by. Your perception filters.
In other words. Your doing it backwards.
whatever happened to the theory that Space itself is gravity and is only activated by mass?
Wow! How many starving children in the world, could this research money, have fed? It seems as if these monies, could have been used for a more humanitarium purpose. Just my opiniun!!! Thank You.
Fedding human unfortunaltly is required in country by high fertlitty tate and produce more hungry human make problem worse not better giving cundom and pill ducted taped on wheat and rice bag is good option
Looks like your spelling skills got sucked away by a black hole.
r/talesfromcavesupport
There were starving children when I was a small boy, or so I/we children constantly were told. Today, at nearly 84, I still am being badgered by NGOs, tax-sucking politicians and governments, and bleeding hearts for more of my hard-won assets to feed the starving children. What, pray tell happened to all the money collected and allocated over the past near-century?
It appears that DOGE is in the process of answering my question.
Here, here! With age comes wisdom
Yeah, that 1% of US revenues going to hungry and sick children must be a real burden for you. Quite the humanitarian.
Considering this is about science and not politics, it’s kinda weird that you would bring politics of the US into something that is based on a journal article from post graduate students in Barcelona. It’s also weird that the person you replied to would mention anything regarding feeding starving children, when there is zero relation to the subject, because again, it’s about post graduate students in Barcelona.
Aside from the obvious issue with your qualms, you clearly don’t know how any of what you mentioned even works. Since you are bringing politics into the conversation, you may want to consider that Elon Musk (a genuine crony and oligarch) himself could resolve world hunger by himself, with the sheer amount of money he has and still have Billions of dollars remaining; but hey, let’s not forget that he’s an unelected fool running a beurocratic nightmare (DOGE) completely destroying the government (which literally only exists to help keep society safe and healthy), while also giving his own businesses contracts. Your logical reasoning is gone.
You’re an 83 year old (by your own admission), so I suggest acting like it, instead of acting like a childish fool with no awareness of reality.
What about Dr Paul Laviolette’s theories? Sub quantum kinetics has more verified predictions than any other theory. Just check out the Starburst Foundstions web site has most of his research posted for free. But before I was born he had this theory as a ready answer to a slew of physics and cosmology problems using an open system approach and focusing on process not order. He took an already verified science of chemical oscillations and continuing stabilization of the reaction sustains itself. This called the Brusselator model by Ilya Prigogine except Laviolette applied this same principle to physics except adding an additional variable and the results were astounding because the resulting reactions of these particles called etheron showed mathematically equivalent to what science calls sub atomic particles.
https://starburstfound.org/
That’s definitely just you’re uneducated “opiniun”.
Theoretical work like this actually requires very little public funding. So I don’t suspect it would have fed too many people.
looks like two graduate students to me.
What’s the problem?
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English isn’t your first language. What does humanitarian aid have to do with post graduate university work? Perhaps this is just my opinion, but it isn’t related to the study of cosmology or astrophysics.
The closest relation your question has to astrophysics or cosmology, is that the discoveries made with work such as this, could potentially unlock information about the universe that could some day be used to manipulate matter; this could in turn be used to produce food from raw elements, somewhat like the replicators in the scifi series Star Trek. This could be one of the most valuable discoveries necessary for that, far outweighing any amount of money spent on this research.
Sounds like you should change what you are spending YOUR money on.
The infinite emptiness contains contents (mass-energy) in the system of nature.
These aren’t black holes, but rather a chunk of emptiness resulting from unusual process in the contents (mass-energy) of infinite emptiness. A decay of emptiness created in the contents (mass-energy) pull nearby contents including light just like vacuum pulls mass to replace it.
wtf are you going on about lmao
Cosmological don’t fully appreciate the sundry ramifications of Quantum gravitational theories nor are their theories consistent with postulates.
Quote: “The new study mathematically demonstrates that an infinite series of higher-order gravitational corrections”
As if Einstein’s math means correcting?
Some of these studies sound like monkeys with the wrench hitting a computer screen trying to bring it out of sleep mode.
Works for me….
My computer responds best to a good slap. If slapping doesn’t work, a sound cursing often brings results, the nastier and more emphatic the better.
Try sweet talking it next time and watch what pops up on your computer screen. You won’t be disappointed.👯💃🏼
A place where space should be but is not. Indeed ,nature avoids singularity.
Why should space be at the singularity? Because scientists can’t figure out this condrum?
Cosmo;ogists have been on a lost path for a long time. Maxwell was onto it, but the men who followede left out all that they didn’t understand. Gravity has a force of 1, while electromagnetism has a force of 10-39th power. now dark matter or dark energy is rewquired if you put electormagnetism into play. the solar wind isn’t wind, its a currewtn of iopnized particles flowing from the sun, that is an electric current and that creates electromagnetism. Gravity is a function of the magnetization of all the atoms that make up everything. The greater the electromagnetism of a sun, planet, or galaxy the greater the gravitational force placed on attoms that cause them to have a bipolar effect and that force holds things together.
Everythiing we see with our fabulous new telescopes have filiments that are rep[resentative of magnetism in play and it is far more powerful than anything else we know!
Correction, “dark matter and dark energy ar not required”
i wonder about the whole singularity , dark energy , dark matter stories .. (are they a religious cult , or perhaps science fiction? ) the different time zones that surround galaxies of differing mass.. would account for disparate galaxy rotation time measurement..
I believe this to be somewhat correct if you’re interested in gravity as Magnetism you can read my published papers on OSF.io
I explain exactly how gravity is Magnetism, I also have a paper on blackholes and singularities without invoking dark matter and keeping thermal dynamics and Einstein’s theories in place.
This is my work:
https://osf.io/vzwxe/?view_only=97af4e04185a454196f6b71f2eeeb3f9
My comment was in response to (Menos comment)
no just no
” … It is not yet clear how nature prevents the formation of singularities in the universe …”
Uh, you know, it’s not yet clear that nature DOES prevent the formation of singularities.
Here’s a better title:
A Theory We Don’t Have Might Finally Solve a Mystery that Might Not be a Mystery
In general relativity, gravity doesn’t pull anything, SpaceTime condense toward massive objects creating a curved pathway around massive objects that becomes steeper the closer you get to the object.
Philosophically speaking, singularity of a black hole isn’t empty. It has an infinite density and no volume. Something that has no volume can’t be empty or full so we can’t use these linguistic terms to describe a space time gravitational singularity.
… if a singularity has no measurement , how then can it be said to spin? where does the spinning momentum energy go ? (is it more likely that there is a big lump that exists inside the event horizon ? acting as a flywheel to spin the approaching matter..?) just sayin
Like a plasmoid? Just a conjecture
I believe this to be somewhat correct if you’re interested in gravity as Magnetism you can read my published papers on OSF.io
I explain exactly how gravity is Magnetism, I also have a paper on blackholes and singularities without invoking dark matter and keeping thermal dynamics and Einstein’s theories in place.
This is my work:
https://osf.io/vzwxe/?view_only=97af4e04185a454196f6b71f2eeeb3f9
A singularity in GR is not a location on the manifold but a condition upon a spacetime such that world-lines find their terminus.
There is no time-like killing vector on the interior spacetime, meaning, concepts such as volume and density can’t even be uniquely defined.
The lib/progressive/socialists tell us that we’re too stupid to understand how smart they are and are incapable of grasping the “nuance” of their policies. Theoretical and Astrophysicists act in the same way. Both are shoveling sh!te to keep the public funds flowing to support their unproductive lives. They are a difference without a distinction
Spoken like a true genius that is a master of nothing.
And there’s water on mars too right? Let’s see what other lies do these “scientists” need to constantly douse us with? They twist artist renderings as factual concrete basis for relevancy, scamming funding, and then they expect us to believe them, forever? Nope, we don’t believe one word anymore from these lying, self important, soon to be DOGEd money grubbers.
Seems these researchers are from Spain, how exactly will they be “DOGEd”? As for the artist images, those seem to be added by the media. If you look at the actual scientific paper, there are no such images present.
Wait until AI gets in on the game. You ain’t seen nothin yet.
What the heck are you doing on a science-based website with apparently no understanding of science? Please go out and get an education.
If a theory is not falsifiable it is convenient and it is BS!
Your digging for a new stipend for your musings.
Ground your work in measurable phenomena.
Those photos are ridiculous. We are to believe they worked this out on a chalkboard?
This is nothing but a press release ahead of a grant submission.
Oh sorry, they obviously weren’t aware that you have been traumatized by chalkboards since elementarty school. Perhaps therapy would help?
… if a singularity has no measurement , how then can it be said to spin? where does the spinning momentum energy go ? (is it more likely that there is a big lump that exists inside the event horizon ? acting as a flywheel to spin the approaching matter..?) just sayin
Most physicists today do not understand Einstein’s General Relativity.
Einstein wrote a paper with Mayer in 1932 asking what is the correct basis for Relativity…… they found it was quaternions. When General Relativity is received using a quarternion basis, lonand behold, there’s Gravity and EM together. Everyone missed it. When the world then explored we find there is only Gravity and EM together……. The strong and weak forces are derived from Gravity and EM at atomic distances.
Who is Lonand?
Every physics course I had in college started with a simple premise. “Everything you’ve been taught so far is wrong. We just simplified it so your simple minds could absorb it. here’s the real physics.” That was 50 years ago. I see that practice is still going on.
That goes way back before 50 years. Education has always been a process of successive approximation. In primary school I was taught that you can’t take 3 from 2.
In HS I was taught that you not only can, sometimes you must. And now we know that Nature herself requires that √-1 is not only a mathematical placeholder, but an object that inheres in certain quantum realities:
“Quantum Physics Falls Apart without Imaginary Numbers”
—Scientific American, April 1, 2023
Graviton Stars are at the center of every Black Hole. Gather enough Gravitons and they crush into a pure energy Singularity. It is at that point that Gravity and Spacetime Stop and we start all over when pure energy erupts.
As I wrote in a physics lab report in my undergrad days: There is no gravity, the universe sucks.
“Gravity” has fewer syllables than “the universe sucks”, and the phenomena we associate with either are equally conveniently subsumed under the former.
Most of the comments fall into two buckets:
1. “I has a bettr theory that is more smarter than thesedumb sientests.
2. “This stuff is a libruhl dreamworld that steels tax money.”
Many, of both sources, need their spellcheckers turned ON.
This is a great empirical observation. And a hoot.
Sad thing is, they probably did.
Hold on. You mean this isn’t “settled science”? Well, there goes my day.🤪
It would be appreciated if the article would include their definition of Singularity – seems that different articles define it differently.
Scientific research does not have and never will have “Experts” When journalist insist on throwing this expert label around only underscores that fact that they are writing about something they really do not understand.
I agree that the word “expert” is a bit cringe worthy, especially in the public climate today. But in scentific circles, this word means something a bit different than what it has come to imply in the public. An “expert” isn’t someone who “knows everything” and is “infallible”, but more like someone who is considerably more studied than the typical person on a given topic.
Like a mechanic would be an “expert” at fixing cars. It doesn’t mean they can solve every problem, but the average mechanic will do better than the average member of the public when it comes to fixing a car.
In this case, it seems the original article was a press release from the University of Barcelona, written in Spanish, and then translated to English for SciTechDaily. It’s possible that “expert” is a more acceptable term in Spanish than in English. And this bit of nuance may be responsible for the use of that term.
Many of these comments appear to be part of a coordinated smear attack on the two authors and it’s as disgusting as any other attack on freedom of speech.
Of course this conclusion is theoretical and the math does use unconventional processes , they have reached out side of the box and have explained that a singularity is not the only path , seems with the multitude amount of gravitational waves crossing all the plains of flat space and time and build on top of each other their math with a collolation to thermal dynamics has merit , don’t be like the professors that once concluded that Einstein was wrong in his conclusions of physics .
Mike O’Neill – I must ask why the following is mentioned, when there is absolutely no mention of this stuff in the journal article you referenced:
“The theories deployed by the ICCUB team are applicable to any dimension of spacetime greater than or equal to five. “The reason for considering higher spacetime dimensions is purely technical,” says Cano, “as it allows us to reduce the mathematical complexity of the problem.” However, the researchers say that “the same conclusions should apply to our four-dimensional spacetime.””
“The researchers plan to extend their work to four-dimensional spacetime and explore the implications of their findings in various astrophysical scenarios. They also aim to investigate the stability and possible observational signatures of these regular black holes.”
Are these from conversations you had separate from the referenced journal article? Why are they in the sections you entered them into? Would it not have been more prudent to specify this information in a separate section of its own, if only to retain clarity on what the referenced journal article is regarding?
I do feel the information is relevant, but I don’t feel that they are appropriately placed, which is just an opinion. I also find the article you produced to be fascinating and wonderful work, so please only take this as a productive critique, as I do enjoy your articles and have read some of your other works. One thing I always appreciate is the inclusion of a link to the original journal articles to review for myself.
Warm Regards
Black holes took more than billions of years to form. The core of a black hole cannot be determined how dense it is and what materials it is made of. It is exactly strange to scientists. The density of a black hole, as Albert Einstein said, the world is being swallowed up by black holes. Finally, let’s think about the solar system and the Milky Way. The knowledge of black holes is of no use to us. It is a very important issue that I have always pointed out. There are secrets that the previous humans had for us. They left in underground cities