Quote:
Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet
|
Not necessarily. It just means that we might be slightly wrong about the singularity aspect of a black hole, just as we were about the event horizon. Mainly that the center of a black hole might not be an actual singularity, but something that asymptotically approaches a singularity.
Media outlets did the same thing when Hawking made his now famous statement that event horizons don't actually exist the way we thought. Headlines all read "Black holes don't exist, says Hawking." Which completely misrepresents what Hawking meant. Similarly, the scientist here readily admits that something exists there and it gives off Hawking radiation.
The objects we currently call black holes absolutely exist. That's not really in question. This just means that we could have much more to learn about their formation. Particularly the idea that information is destroyed by a black hole and not eventually returned to the universe. If this is true, then it will definitely change the way we define black holes. But they're still there.