Nomen non est omen: Why it is too soon to identify ultra-compact objects as black holes

2023/06/29 by Sebastian Murk · 1 voice
Physics and Astronomy · #Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations #Pulsars and Gravitational Waves Research #Cosmology and Gravitation Theories

paper · doi:10.1142/s0218271823420129

openalex publication_date 2023/06/29 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/31

Abstract

Black holes play a pivotal role in the foundations of physics, but there is an alarming discrepancy between what is considered to be a black hole in observational astronomy and theoretical studies. Despite claims to the contrary, we argue that identifying the observed astrophysical black hole candidates as genuine black holes is not justified based on the currently available observational data, and elaborate on the necessary evidence required to support such a remarkable claim. In addition, we investigate whether the predictions of semiclassical gravity are equally compatible with competing theoretical models, and find that semiclassical arguments favor horizonless configurations.

Citations

• Singularity Theorems and Their Consequences
• Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger
• First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way

Discussions

• Selected as an Editor's Pick by the International Journal of Modern Physics D: "Nomen non est omen: Why it is too soon to identify ultra-compact objects as black holes" DOI: doi.org/10.1142/S021... [bsky, 1 points, 0 comments]

Related

• Trust but verify: The case for astrophysical black holes
• On the question of trapped surfaces and black holes
• Black holes: on the universality of the Kerr hypothesis
• The many definitions of a black hole
• Do Black Holes Exist?