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.

Common sense cannot be trusted on matters like these. Common sense is calibrated for reasoning over matters encountered in daily life. The further away we get from that, into more and more exotic phenomena, the less common sense can apply. Black holes are very far from the domain of common sense.

The question of "what holds it up?" is where that leads to. There's an interesting history of answering that question again and again - and the discovery of new types of stars each time.

History of the Universe : What Is Hidden In The Core Of A Neutron Star? - https://youtu.be/YoYjkNQ27T8

That video goes into it... without getting mathy at any point.

One of the bits that you're having trouble with is the compression of matter to a point. There's a theoretical type of black hole known as a kugelblitz - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)

    A kugelblitz is a theoretical astrophysical object predicted by general relativity. It is a concentration of heat, light, or radiation so intense that its energy forms an event horizon and becomes self-trapped. In other words, if enough radiation is aimed into a region of space, the concentration of energy can warp spacetime so much that it creates a black hole. This would be a black hole the original mass–energy of which was in the form of radiant energy rather than matter

A particle is a region of space where it's probable that a certain kind of interaction will happen. I don't see any reason why they can't overlap infinitely and then squeeze to the Dirac delta function: certain to be here, no error bars. That is, apart from the Pauli exclusion principle. But you have to leave that one behind if you're dealing with masses beyond the TOV limit.

Of course I'm missing something here. I've taken QM and not GR so I would have this interpretation.

Yeah, wouldn't this cause trouble with Pauli exclusion principle?

My rather pop-sci understanding is that when you start playing around with relativity math, trying various masses and densities you hit something rather worrisome. As you approach some great, but still possible, value the plot goes infinite, the singularity. This is bad for the theory because going asymptotic like that usually indicates a fundamental problem in the math. But relativity does so well everywhere else... What if it could? And thus the black hole was born.

The easy thing to miss, and blew my mind when I read it. is that general relativity is the concept of space-time, emphasis on the time, and this is also compressed by the mass, so if this singularity can actually occur it would also take an infinite amount of time to fall into it. So nothing can actually enter it. From the point of view of an astronaut(deliberately ignoring all the other relativistic implications) flying directly toward the event horizon. As you approach you will quickly see the rest of the universe age and die. and if hawking radiation is real the black hole will evaporate in front of you before you can reach it.

Common sense - the experience gained from your common everyday experience of reality - does not apply in black holes.

Common sense would tell you they can't exist at all because you can't compress atoms - you have lived your entire life with atoms being entirely incompressible for the practical purpose of anything you do.

Leaning on common sense to discuss fundamental physics has been wrong since round about the start of the practice of physics.

> … you cannot compress particles to an absolute point.

What do you mean by “particle” here? This kind of handwaving is fundamentally classical, and breaks down in the presence of quantum physics.

Aren't fundamental particles like electrons and quarks treated as points?

[flagged]