I figure at least some of it comes from the idea that mathematically, a singularity is a point (e.g., in the graph of z=1/w, there is a singularity at the point w=0, and in the graph of z=(1-w)²/(1-w) there is a removable singularity at w=1 (that is, the function is undefined at w=1, but if you put a point at (1,0), the graph will be continuous and no longer have any holes in it). The fact that both have the same name and the similar behavior of a black hole singularity to a mathematical singularity¹ can lead people to make an incorrect assumption.

⸻

1. I must admit to a lack of sufficient GR education to feel confident in this, but I think that one of the issues that made physicists unwilling to accept the idea of black holes when they were first postulated was that there ended up being a division by zero in the mathematics.

As someone with basically only popsci knowledge of black holes: people claiming it would be a literal point never made much sense - fundamentally, common sense (as much as it can apply here) dictates that you cannot compress particles to an absolute point.

Or read Susskind's "The Theoretical Minimum: General Relativity". For a non-spinning blackhole at least, not only is the singularity not a point, it is a surface in time, not space (as the book explains, the space and time coordinates switch places as you cross the event horizon).

> Anyone who has taken a graduate level class in General Relativity would have been able to tell you the same.

You say that and yet this thread is full of people arguing about it, and there's an entire Wikipedia article on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity.

In fact, that article says:

> No complete and precise definition of singularities exist in the theory of general relativity,

So which is it? It can't both be trivial to any grad student but also an open question. And things like naked singularities aren't proven to not exist either.

Also, general relativity is a classical, geometric-only theory. It seems obvious that better understanding what a black hole's singularity is would require quantum mechanics because the singularity is effectively what's "left over" of the physical material once you go beyond a neutron star.

I think it's not even a valid critique of that and it's sort of playing games with what the definition of a singularity is to reach the claim that it's making. I think the topology of the singularity is not even a well defined question and certainly not well understood enough to bear the strong claims in the paper.

[dead]