Spencer,

A singularity is not a physical thing. In the present understanding such entities are always cloaked by event horizons - so if one were to meet a new singularity, one (in principle) cannot know what caused it to appear.

One can make a black hole from *anything* but the singularity is a mathematical concept and does not have a physical component. Or so I think - I might be wrong.

Spencer,

I think that there's a matter of nomenclature at stake here.

Indeed, if I take a star, add another star, and keep on going, there will at some point be sufficient mass in a small enough location for an event horizon to come into being. The object that causes that event horizon to appear is indeed simple H/He plasma.

But I equally could have used sofas, melons, or cannon balls to make the singularity appear.

The singularity is *merely* a point in space-time where the gradients are infinite. It's a property of spacetime, much like a gravitational wave, and is not per se a thing.

Singularity is made up of energy. Neutrons, bosons, quarks, electrons, all are different forms of energy.

In my opinion, Singularity is not formed.

*The concept of gravitational self-energy is the total of gravitational potential energy possessed by a certain object M itself. Since a certain object M itself is a binding state of infinitesimal mass dM, it involves the existence of gravitational potential energy among these dMs and is the value of adding up these.

In the generality of cases, the value of gravitational self-energy is small enough to be negligible, compared to mass energy mc^2. Therefore, in usual cases, |U_gs|

4. Waiting for quantum gravity theory to be completed to solve the singularity issue in a black hole is wrong as it was made by our stereotypes.

When there occurred a problem in singular “point”, one dimensional idea that problems should be solved from lambda, wavelength that has a little bigger than “point” was partially acted. Of course, we should try to establish a quantum gravity theory for other reasons.

We can think of a black hole of big size and approach this problem by reducing the mass of this black hole. In other words, we should form a certain internal structure of usual size and apply the experience that we had applied the limit.

Think about a black hole with the size 10 billion times bigger than the solar mass. Schwarzschild radius of this black hole is R_B = 3x10^10km and R_{gs} of this black hole 1 x10^10km. Average density of this black hole is about 1.81kg/m^3

Is it a size that requires quantum mechanics?

Is it a high density state that requires quantum mechanics?

Black hole of this size is Newtonian mechanics' object and therefore, gravitational potential energy must be considered.

Let’s reduce the mass of this black hole gradually and approach three times the solar mass, the smallest size of black hole where stars can be formed!

In case of the smallest black hole with three times the solar mass, R_B = 9km. R_{gs} of this object is as far as 3km. In other words, even in a black hole with smallest size that is made by the contraction of a star, the distribution of internal energy can't be reduced to at least radius 3km(R_{gs}).

2.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313314666_Solution_of_the_Singularity_Problem_of_Black_Hole

Article Solution of the Singularity Problem of Black Hole

 Hyoyoung Choi,

You are talking in terms of Newtonian gravity while at a fundamental level we should be using GTR. but your idea I appreciate.

The singularity should not be confused with the event horizon. The problems arise at approximately a radius of a Plank Length.

Dear Spencer Alexander,

There is only one answer: the singularity is produced by the theory.

Hence, either the singularity (in fact, two singularities, at the origin and at the event horizon) really exists, or the theory is wrong.

The best way to figure it out is to test another theory, which has excellent results (even better) in describing gravity events in theory and in the daily, cosmic observation.

Such a theory exists and it says that in addition to Newton's gravity, the motion of masses (and the angular velocities) are transmitted by gravity as well.

That theory has been thoroughly developed for any speed below “c” and any acceleration, and it found many applications in cosmic systems. However, the mainstream cult of relativity forbids any publication of non-relativity based theories, even if they describe gravity much more, and much more accurately.

The transmission of masses' velocities by gravity is the crux of the “relativistic” motion, and the one who developed this theory used electromagnetism as an analogy to get the motion settled in gravity.

Hence, a sort of magnetic field, due to motion causes other paths to be bent.

Wrt black holes, it is found that they must rotate, and that they have the form of a donut, without singularities...

I annex very useful links to the books about that gravity. The second one can be downloaded for free.

Cheers!

https://www.amazon.com/Causality-Electromagnetic-Induction-Gravitation-Gravitational/dp/0917406230/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8

http://gsjournal.net/books/De-Mees-Gravitomagnetism-and-Coriolis-Gravity-2011-A4.pdf

Dear Rajat Pradhan,

Please view to my paper.

In the chapter III. Expansion of the general relativity and cosmology

1. We can solve the problem of singularity by separating the term(- M_{gs}) of gravitational self-energy from mass and including it in the solutions of field equation.

If r ≥ R_B (Schwarzschild radius or event horizon), we get the Schwarzschild solution.

But, if  0 ≤ r < 0.3R_B(R_gs), we get other solution.

~~~~~~ 

Therefore, there is no singularity.

2. Kretschmann scalar

~~~~~~

It does not diverse.

Therefore, black hole doesn’t have singularity.

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Article Solution of the Singularity Problem of Black Hole

It can be argued that for the case of Black holes, singularity encountered at the event horizon Rs is a removable singularity. This is because it is possible to frame coordinate systems in which no singularity appears at a distance Rs from the origin. For example in the rest frame of a free falling observer, one does not encounter a physical singularity. 

On the other hand observations made by a free falling observer cannot be used to show that indeed a singularity is physically removed. The reason for this is that it is not possible to do any communication with a free falling observer who has crossed the event horizon. 

1.Think about a black hole with the size 10 billion times bigger than the solar mass. Schwarzschild radius of this black hole is R_B = 3x10^10km and R_gs of this black hole 1 x10^10km. Average density of this black hole is about 1.81kg/m^3

2.Even in a black hole with smallest size that is made by the contraction of a star, the distribution of internal energy can't be reduced to at least radius 3km(R_gs).

In my opinion,

In singularity problem, quantum gravity and string theory are not needed.

A singularity is an event-so the question doesn't make sense. And it's just a name for the statement that the theory requires additional degrees of freedom, that resolve it.