Nigel Denning

There is an assertion that General Relativity predicts that black holes have zero volume, so by extension that their density is infinite. However, my understanding is that this line of thought violates the Compressability level theory of matter, so cannot be correct. Clearly, the density of neutron stars, for example, is the result of the matter within them having been compressed to the level that there is virtually no space between the nucleii of the atoms themselves. However, the subatomic particles that make up the protons/neutrons of those nucleii, and the forces between those particles, remain essentially unaffected. Accordingly, neutron stars are an example of matter having attained the first compressibility level - they have huge density and leave a very "deep dent" in spacetime. Within Black holes, however,higher compression levels have been achieved, whereby the sub-atomic (and sub-sub-atomic particles etc.) have been crushed together in the same way as the nucleic within a neutron star. They have achieved compression level n, and therefore by examination, the number of levels of matter that have ben collapsed can be inferred. We know that General Relativity does not align with Quantum theory, and scientists have been focusing on what might be wrong with Quantum theory as a result. However, I believe they are looking in the wrong place, which is why they have not yet found the answers. If General Relativity is right and the density of a singularity is infinite, the size of the event horizon of the Black hole would also be infinite. Since this is patently false it warns of the naivity of throwing the term "infinite" around in cosmology. Furthermore of course, an infinite force would be required to compress matter into an infinity small space. Ergo, singularities cannot have zero volume. So how does General Relativity predict zero volume, when the volume predicted should be incredibly small, but clearly not zero?