Can you give me some pointers where you read this?
I mean, at the end they even write "It's only once you got close would you realize that you are not looking at a black hole." I take from that that they are aware that black holes are different from topological solitons. And I read at no place that they consider black holes actually being topologial solitons.
So, when the authors think that those two things are different and they classify solitons as "defects in spacetime", wouldn't this directly contradict the headline "Black holes might be defects in spacetime"?
I would be glad if you showed me where my reasoning is wrong.
Maybe the disconnect is that there's an implicit "[What we see as] Black holes might be defects in spacetime" in front of the headline.
We can't get close to black holes, maybe ever but certainly not currently, so the difference between what the article is saying and how you're reading it is a bit philosophical IMO.
The article glossed over it a bit, but from the sounds of it, every observation we know of from our position (and current technology level) would match.
I see. My reading was that black holes don't exist. That there is an alternative, topological explanation for the phenomena we've observed and so far classified as black holes.
I mean, at the end they even write "It's only once you got close would you realize that you are not looking at a black hole." I take from that that they are aware that black holes are different from topological solitons. And I read at no place that they consider black holes actually being topologial solitons.
So, when the authors think that those two things are different and they classify solitons as "defects in spacetime", wouldn't this directly contradict the headline "Black holes might be defects in spacetime"?
I would be glad if you showed me where my reasoning is wrong.