arxiv: 2605.13901 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

On the impossibility of observational confirmation of black holes

Thiago T. Bergamaschi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 04:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

keywords black holesobservational confirmationgeneral relativityevent horizoncompact objectsgravitational wavesEvent Horizon Telescope

0 comments

The pith

No observational data suffices to confirm the existence of black holes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that data from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, the Event Horizon Telescope, and GRAVITY only support objects that qualify as black hole candidates. These observations match predictions for Kerr black holes but can at best rule out particular alternative models of compact objects. General relativity itself imposes limits on what can be established observationally, so that no amount of data can deliver positive confirmation of black holes, because their defining features remain inaccessible.

Core claim

General relativity imposes fundamental limits on what can be observationally established about black holes. Data may rule out specific alternatives but cannot provide conclusive proof of black hole existence, since alternatives can always be adjusted to match any possible observations.

What carries the argument

The event horizon and other defining features of black holes as unobservable quantities that allow alternative compact-object models to reproduce all data.

Load-bearing premise

Alternative models of compact objects can always be adjusted to reproduce every possible observational outcome without internal contradiction.

What would settle it

An observation that no non-black-hole model can reproduce while remaining consistent with general relativity.

read the original abstract

General relativity has achieved remarkable experimental and observational success. Critically, recent data from the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, Event Horizon Telescope, and GRAVITY collaborations are often credited with \textit{demonstrating} the existence of black holes, but in fact they only provide evidence for objects that should be regarded as black hole candidates. While current data are in striking agreement with the predictions for Kerr black holes, they can only rule out specific alternative models of compact objects rather than provide conclusive proof of black holes. More fundamentally, and independent of whether or not black holes exist, general relativity itself imposes limits on what can be observationally established. Essentially, no observational data is sufficient to confirm the existence of black holes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper claims no observations can confirm black holes, only rule out alternatives, but it does not address how no-hair uniqueness might allow positive identification.

read the letter

The core point here is that recent LIGO, EHT, and GRAVITY data only support black hole candidates rather than confirmed black holes, since GR itself limits what can be observed and alternatives can be tuned to fit. The paper makes this case cleanly from standard GR principles without adding free parameters or circular definitions. It correctly notes that agreement with Kerr predictions does not automatically prove the presence of an event horizon or the full black hole structure. That distinction is worth stating plainly when results get presented as demonstrations rather than consistency checks. The logic holds up as far as it goes and draws on the collaborations' own papers without obvious self-referential issues. The main gap is that the manuscript does not engage the no-hair theorems. Those results fix the exterior vacuum solution uniquely by mass and angular momentum for stationary axisymmetric cases. If a set of independent observables, such as shadow size and shape plus ringdown modes, all line up with Kerr and exclude other stationary solutions, that matching supplies a positive route rather than mere non-falsification. The paper treats alternatives as always adjustable without showing why uniqueness fails to close the loophole. This leaves the impossibility claim resting on an interpretive step that needs explicit defense. The argument is coherent on its own terms but interpretive rather than a new derivation. It is aimed at readers who care about how strong-field observations are interpreted and what counts as confirmation in GR. A serious referee should examine whether the uniqueness theorems block or support the central claim. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that while LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, EHT, and GRAVITY data are consistent with Kerr black-hole predictions, these observations only rule out specific alternative compact-object models rather than providing conclusive confirmation of black holes. It claims that general relativity itself imposes fundamental limits on what can be observationally established, concluding that no data set is sufficient to confirm black-hole existence.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result would reframe the interpretation of current gravitational-wave and imaging observations, shifting emphasis from confirmation to consistency testing and affecting how the community discusses black-hole candidates. The paper draws on standard GR principles without introducing free parameters or self-referential definitions, which strengthens its logical structure, but the absence of a detailed derivation of the claimed observational limits leaves the strength of the conclusion difficult to assess.

major comments (2)

[§2] The central argument (abstract and §2) that alternatives can always be tuned to match any data does not address the no-hair theorems for stationary axisymmetric vacuum spacetimes. These theorems imply that a sufficiently rich set of observables (EHT shadow diameter/asymmetry, LIGO ringdown frequencies and damping times, GRAVITY orbital precession) could in principle be simultaneously consistent only with the Kerr metric, supplying a positive identification rather than mere non-falsification.
[§3] §3 (theoretical limits): the claim that GR imposes an absolute barrier to confirmation rests on the assertion that any finite data set leaves room for non-black-hole alternatives, but no explicit construction or theorem is given showing why the uniqueness results of the no-hair theorems cannot close this gap for realistic observational precision.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that data 'can only rule out specific alternative models'; this phrasing should be sharpened to distinguish between ruling out a finite list of models versus ruling out the entire class of non-Kerr stationary solutions.
[Introduction] Notation for 'black hole candidates' versus 'confirmed black holes' is used inconsistently in the introduction; a single explicit definition early in the text would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the discussion of the no-hair theorems and the theoretical limits in GR.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central argument (abstract and §2) that alternatives can always be tuned to match any data does not address the no-hair theorems for stationary axisymmetric vacuum spacetimes. These theorems imply that a sufficiently rich set of observables (EHT shadow diameter/asymmetry, LIGO ringdown frequencies and damping times, GRAVITY orbital precession) could in principle be simultaneously consistent only with the Kerr metric, supplying a positive identification rather than mere non-falsification.

Authors: We agree that the no-hair theorems constrain the exterior geometry for stationary axisymmetric vacuum spacetimes. However, these results do not establish the existence of an event horizon, which defines a black hole. Horizonless configurations can be constructed that match the Kerr exterior to within any finite observational precision by placing non-vacuum matter or a surface inside a radius inaccessible to external observers. We will revise §2 to explicitly reference the no-hair theorems and clarify this distinction between metric identification and horizon confirmation. revision: yes
Referee: §3 (theoretical limits): the claim that GR imposes an absolute barrier to confirmation rests on the assertion that any finite data set leaves room for non-black-hole alternatives, but no explicit construction or theorem is given showing why the uniqueness results of the no-hair theorems cannot close this gap for realistic observational precision.

Authors: The referee is correct that §3 would benefit from greater explicitness. The fundamental limit follows from the fact that all observations probe only the exterior; one can always match a Kerr exterior to a horizonless interior via standard junction conditions while keeping deviations below observational thresholds. We will add a brief sketch of such a construction in §3, drawing on existing GR matching results, to make the argument more rigorous without claiming a new uniqueness theorem. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: central claim rests on standard GR reasoning without self-referential reduction or fitted inputs

full rationale

The manuscript's argument proceeds from the general property that any finite set of exterior observables is compatible with both Kerr black holes and suitably tuned non-black-hole alternatives, without invoking any equation, parameter fit, or uniqueness theorem derived from the author's prior work. No self-citation is load-bearing, no ansatz is smuggled, and no prediction is redefined as an input. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (standard GR vacuum solutions and the logical structure of falsification versus confirmation) and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the domain assumption that GR fundamentally restricts observational confirmation of black holes, with no free parameters or invented entities introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption General relativity imposes limits on what can be observationally established about black holes
Invoked directly in the abstract as the basis for the impossibility result.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5412 in / 1159 out tokens · 38066 ms · 2026-05-15T04:51:43.829440+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 14 internal anchors

[1]

R. M. Wald,General Relativity(The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984)

work page 1984
[2]

Heusler,Black hole uniqueness theorems(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996)

M. Heusler,Black hole uniqueness theorems(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996)

work page 1996
[3]

P. T. Chru´ scielet al.,Stationary Black Holes: Uniqueness and Beyond, Living Rev. Relativ. 15, 7 (2012), arXiv:1205.6112 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[4]

K. S. Thorne, R. H. Price, and D. A. Macdonald (eds.),Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986)

work page 1986
[5]

V. P. Frolov,Do Black Holes Exist?, arXiv:1411.6981 [gr-qc] (2014)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[6]

T. T. Bergamaschi,A pedagogical approach to the black hole information issue, Rev. Bras. Ens. F´ ıs.48, e20250192 (2026), arXiv:2505.17164 [gr-qc]. 8

work page arXiv 2026
[7]

Parker and D

L. Parker and D. Toms,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Fields and Gravity(Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009)

work page 2009
[8]

R. M. Wald,The Thermodynamics of Black Holes, Living Rev. Relativ. 4, 6 (2001), arXiv:gr- qc/9912119 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2001
[9]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration),Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[10]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration),GW170104: Observation of a 50-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence at Redshift 0.2, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 221101 (2017), arXiv:1706.01812 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[11]

A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, KAGRA Collabora- tion),Black Hole Spectroscopy and Tests of General Relativity with GW250114, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 041403 (2026) arXiv:2509.08099 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[12]

First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole

K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration),First M87 Event Horizon Tele- scope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole, ApJL, 875, L1, (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[13]

R. Abuteret al.(GRAVITY Collaboration),Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole, A&A615, L15 (2018), arXiv:1807.09409 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[14]

The observational evidence for horizons: from echoes to precision gravitational-wave physics

V. Cardoso and P. Pani,Tests for the existence of black holes through gravitational wave echoes, Nature Astronomy1, 586–591 (2017), arXiv:1707.03021 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[15]

K. R. Popper,The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Routledge, London (1959)

work page 1959
[16]

Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes

E. Bertiet al.,Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes, Class. Quantum Grav.26, 163001 (2009), arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[17]

Black hole spectroscopy: from theory to experiment

E. Bertiet al.,Black hole spectroscopy: from theory to experiment, arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc] (2025). 9

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[18]

Is the gravitational-wave ringdown a probe of the event horizon?

V. Cardosoet al.,Is the Gravitational-Wave Ringdown a Probe of the Event Horizon?Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 171101 (2016), arXiv:1602.07309 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[19]

Light rings as observational evidence for event horizons: long-lived modes, ergoregions and nonlinear instabilities of ultracompact objects

V. Cardosoet al.,Light rings as observational evidence for event horizons: Long-lived modes, ergoregions and nonlinear instabilities of ultracompact objects, Phys. Rev. D90, 044069 (2014), arXiv:1406.5510 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[20]

S. E. Gralla,Can the EHT M87 results be used to test general relativity?, Phys. Rev. D103, 024023 (2021), arXiv:2010.08557 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[21]

W. G. Unruh, R. Sch¨ utzhold,On the Universality of the Hawking Effect, Phys. Rev. D71, 024028 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0408009v2

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[22]

Particle creation in gravitational collapse to a horizonless compact object

T. Haradaet al.,Particle creation in gravitational collapse to a horizonless compact object, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044039 (2019), arXiv:1811.05179 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[23]

Hawking-like radiation from evolving black holes and compact horizonless objects

C. Barcel´ oet al.,Hawking-like radiation from evolving black holes and compact horizonless objects.J. High Energ. Phys. 2011, 3 (2011), arXiv:1011.5911 [gr-qc]. 10

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011