Image: Kenn brown Mondolithic Studios
In Brief
- Conventional wisdom has it that a large star eventually collapses to a black hole, but some theoretical models suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what happens is one of the most important unresolved problems in astrophysics.
- The discovery of naked singularities would transform the search for a unified theory of physics, not least by providing direct observational tests of such a theory.
Modern science has introduced the world to plenty of strange ideas, but surely one of the strangest is the fate of a massive star that has reached the end of its life. Having exhausted the fuel that sustained it for millions of years, the star is no longer able to hold itself up under its own weight, and it starts collapsing catastrophically. Modest stars like the sun also collapse, but they stabilize again at a smaller size. Whereas if a star is massive enough, its gravity overwhelms all the forces that might halt the collapse. From a size of millions of kilometers across, the star crumples to a pinprick smaller than the dot on an "i."
Most physicists and astronomers think the result is a black hole, a body with such intense gravity that nothing can escape from its immediate vicinity. A black hole has two parts. At its core is a singularity, the infinitesimal point into which all the matter of the star gets crushed. Surrounding the singularity is the region of space from which escape is impossible, the perimeter of which is called the event horizon. Once something enters the event horizon, it loses all hope of exiting. Whatever light the falling body gives off is trapped, too, so an outside observer never sees it again. It ultimately crashes into the singularity.
This article was originally published with the title Naked Singularities.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
190 Comments
Add CommentJust a thought - Could Singulatories become " wrom Holes" as a gateway for space travel: Instead of crusing all objects as sugested, could they
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" fling" an object light years into the future through a worm hole?
What if a Satalite wasn't crushed, would it be able to travel light years into the furture and then be able to transmit back to Mother Earth where it's location is at ?
Is it possible that internal pressure of the collapsing star is so great that a singualrity can't form?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe naked singularities don't exist, the implications touches every aspect of and fundamental physics. Naked singularities might account for high-energy phenomena that astronomers have seen in an event horizons were supposed to have been the easy part about black holes. and of course there are. Singularities are not clearly mysterious. They are places where the strength of gravity becomes infinite (according to the writer) and the known laws of physics break down, (of course) According to physicists' current understanding of gravity, encapsulated in Einstein's general theory of relativity, singularities inevitably arise during the collapse of a giant star yes, (and the speed of the impact creates the Black Hole, when the material reaches and surpasses the speed of light) General relativity does not account for the quantum effects, no because of total disorder and the total collapse of the atoms, or the building block simplified. We don't have to look in-to the distance to come to the same conclusion, (look at the basic atom of any building matter, when an atom disintegrate the proton collapses the ions flay in any directions, as a matter of fact the ions may join other relative existence, and survive longer than the master proton) so why then make it too complicated, we are getting to be just as practical as the preachers of some of the southern churches, twisting the words of the Bible telling us, that the Planet will last for ever including all of us!!! littlie do they realize that they do not understand the words of the Bible, where they think that the sentence of the Bible "The Mick shall inherit the World" means that we will be the successors in general, of course it is totally wrong, "THE MICK SHALL INHERIT THE WORLD" means in Greco-Latin and Hebrew, that the microscopic life will inherit the World, that includes the Invisible viruses, and all the microscopic life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy Grandfather also said "Man" would never walk on the Moon... I believed him until 1969... Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Only thing I know for sure: We don't know....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly collapse of a star is an intricate process
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto be studied carefully. Can one use naked singularities to understand high energy astrophysical phenomena?
I have a few questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Due to the conservation of angular momentum wouldn't a collapsing star spin faster as it collapsed and as mass approached infinity wouldn't the rate of rotation also approach infinity?
2) And if so, since all objects have some spin, wouldn't it follow that all objects would end up as a spinning disc with centrifugal force balancing gravity and so preventing the final collapse into the infinite?
Or does conservation of angular momentum only apply to solid structures?
3) If time slows as gravity increases wouldn't it prevent the structure from collapsing to the point where anything becomes infinite?
If the collapse of a star is an asymptotic process we would never reach the point where the math breaks down.
I realize these are simplistic questions that must have been covered (or that my understanding of the principles involved are flawed) but I would appreciate a better understanding.
Thank you.
The thing about black holes that confuses me is that they are suppose to have infinite density, thus infinite mass. My question is where does all this extra mass come from? Does a collapsing star suddenly gain a lot of mass at its collapse? Or is this "infinite" density derived relative to the size of the star?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinfinite density does not mean infinite mass. as the density increases the size goes down and the mass could stay the same
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no such force as a centrifugal force and a centripetal force is due to the gravity and in the same directon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinfinity density does not mean infinite mass
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA black hole's 'singularity' cannot possibly be a point of infinite density. Planck length is 1.6160 x 10^-35 meters; a singularity cannot possibly be smaller than that. Because of this limit I do not see why naked singularities shouldn't exist, even if they have very small masses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Einstein' gravity, pressures do not help
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisstopping the singularity. In fact, they help the
collapse!
Stars have some angular momentum to
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbegin with. But they are not rigid structures
and do very much communicate and
dissipate angular momentum to surrounding medium. so it does not have to go to infinity.
But they can certainly rotate faster as they collapse. Then that will favor naked singularity
to form.
In response to Sierra9093: Density equals mass divided by volume. In the case of a black hole, volume equals zero. Even if it started with a mass of 1 kg, when it then occupies a volume of 0 cc, it has infinite density.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---------
It was my understanding that the event horizon was the location at which the gravitational pull of the black hole matched a light particle's ability to escape that gravitational pull. It seems to me that to suggest that there is no event horizon also suggests there is no gravitational pull.
I realize that science does not understand why mass has gravity, but it's hard to escape the observation that it does.
I guess an important question is what a real massive star
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin nature will do when it collapses. Will it become a black hole,
or turn into a naked singularity and explode?
questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. an infinitely dense naked singularity resulting from a collapsing star would have to be squeezed into a truly infinitesimal point, akin to a point in mathematics, not just a pinprick. as you tried to observe it from any arbitrarily close distance, it would subtend zero arc, not 10 to the minus 100 seconds or something, but zero as in nothing, nada, no arcie, so...how would you be able to observe it or even know it was there except for observing its gravitational effects?
2. if gravity is propagated through waves, is it possible that under infinite gravity conditions, the gravity waves themselves might be restrained from leaving the singularity in the same manner as electromagnetic waves are?
3. if the answer to #2 is yes, might not there be dozens of these things floating around our heads this very minute, with no way to detect them whatsoever, and if so, what is the difference between their current state and the state of having vanished without a trace?
4. obviously, massive objects vanishing without a trace offends the notion of mass + energy conservation, but could this notion be saved if the missing mass was somehow transformed into the energy of a vacuum we keep hearing about, i.e., "quantum foam"? i have more questions, but that's enough for now.
Dr Joshi and the editors of Scientitic American deserve our congratulations for an illuminating article on a subject that had always bothered me...singularlities seemed to violate my deepest intuitive and aesthetic ideas yet I held my piece because of what JBS Haldane said about the universe being stranger than what we can suppose. Well I am happy that there's some hope for more grounded versions of reality, as explained by this marvellous article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat would be the outcome of considering stringy corrections? Would it not be important to consider them especially when String theory is more popular than LQG ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSingularity is entirely different concept from Wormholes. And singularity cannot get transformed into wormhole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe role angular momentum would play as far as the collapsing star is concerned would be slightly different in general relativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Classical physics angular momentum would offer repulsive effective potential and would eventually stop the collapse of the star.
In case of the general relativity ,the effective potential due to angular momentum would be repulsive upto certain distance from the center. But later it becomes attractive and hence would accelerate the collapse.
So the angular momentum(i.e.rotation in simple language) cannot prevent the star from collapsing to singularity in General Relativity.
I read somewhere that at the instant the 'Big Bang' began, gravity coexisted with anti-gravity, but the latter was destroyed. What conditions would be necessary for anti-gravity to form in a Black Hole?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have always prescribed to the superforce theories that suggest the four basic forces and our 4 dimensional universe arising from an 11 dimensional proto-universe as the big bang cooled. Under this theory the reverse would happen to matter entering a singularity, i.e. the 4 dimensional matter and the forces within it would coalesce into 11 dimensions without mass or energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf by gravity we mean attractive force, and by anti-gravity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrepulsive, then it would not be possible to form black hole through
anti-gravity. Probably what you meant here was matter and
anti-matter, which is a different concept.
Think of a light bulb or anything , there is nothing there or anti-matter or anything untill you add energy but when U remove it returns to it`s former state. And if you question it ,try it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit`s dark , add energy it becomes light , take away enrgy it becomes dark . So what do you think will happen when the hole takes back the energy its was previously giving out . darkness or the return of nothing .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisABOUT GRAVITY, If gravity is directly proportional to mass, as modern physics tells us, why does a "collapsed star" have so much more gravity? ....Hmmm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGravity is proportional to energy density( not to mass.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the density of the singularity is very high so is the gravity.
Question 1: How does gravity pull in light when light doesn't have mass?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion 2: Wouldn't infinite gravity pull in the entire universe instantaneously?
How does gravity pull light into the black hole when light doesn't have mass to pull on?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not understand just what is meant by _gas pressure_ in the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs stars spin, i think its faulty to asume they are sphere's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a result colapsing of gravity is never a nice colaps.
Its a space fabric twisted colaps (deu to spin), and most like has an up and bottom side, since the earlies spin make the equator size larger then its pole sizes. Not even to mention the magnetic influences (nort and south) poles of a star. (such fields increase, as their size shrinks).
So here you have it i'm not a physican, yet i can simply tell all our asumptions of blackholes made out of perfect round stars must be faulty.
I could go even futher, you know the whole colapsing object, might be of a circular shape (the borders of this flat object with up and down sides). with nothing inside. Such a shape doesnt ever require to violate physics. if all the mass spirals around a circle then the speed of spiraling, can be enough to not colaps futher, spiraling around the circle would be enourmously fast near the speed of light. But this way you dont get an infinite mass problem.
Altough from a distance you might think the point object has an infinite mass, but thats like measuring its central gravitation point.
I hope people can follow it, cause.. its a solution wich doesnt require singularities, still can describe all these behaviours of black holes and of observed naked singularities.
I just want to know how we can detect (and when) a naked singularity. That would be pretty cool. John C.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to know how to detect and measure a naked singularity. That would be quite interesting. john@tesla-coil.com www.tesla-coil.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRotation by itself cannot stop collapse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOtherwise we will not have white dwarfs and
neutron stars in the universe.
This is a great article with wonderful comments posted afterwards, check out my research site at tesla-coil.com. I want photographs, darn it! A naked singularity must and will be detected, if they exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn F C 3
I'm wondering how naked singularities might affect theories of time travel. I wonder what Professor Ronald Mallett would say. I haven't read the whole article yet, so maybe it addresses this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, The angular momentum wouldn't increase to infinity for two reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, you have forgotten gravitational braking would occur as a function of the mass per volume of space increases. Secondly, under these extreme circumstances time itself takes on certain quantum characteristics.
I didn't realize a posted reply to a comment wouldn't occur immediately after the comment to which I was replying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe post # 37 was a reply to Cerebral*Origami.
I also misspoke in comment #37. I meant to say that gravitational braking would increase as an increasing function of mass per volume of space increased while the volume decreased, because as the volume and diameter decreased below certain relativistic limits time dilation would occur simutaneously thereby setting a sort of speed limit on the rate of rotation and time within the incredibly small distances encountered would probably be governed more by quantum mechanical processes rather than following a simple relativistic equation.
As it appears, naked singularities have no direct connection
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto things such as worm holes or time travel. As the article seems to
explain and imply, some thing as simple and physical as a higher
density at center of the star causes a naked singularity as
end product of collapse.
According to the general theory of relativity gravity can be thought as the curvature of spacetime. It`s because light travels in curved spacetime it's trajectory is affected by gravity. Hence gravity bends light although it does not have mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother way to interpret this is to notice the fact that an photons have energy. And anything that has energy would respond to gravity. Because gravity cares about the energy total contents of the object and not the mass alone.
When we say that singularity corresponds to infinite gravity,we mean that gravity is extremely high in the region close to singularity. But if you are far away from singularity the gravity would be finite/small. Hence universe does not get sucked into the singularity.
One way to detect the naked singularity was mentioned in the article itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was explained that based on the assumption that there exists a naked singularity and a particular model of quantum gravity(Loop quantum gravity for example) describes the physics close to the singularity we could explain few High Energy Astrophysics phenomenon such as Gamma ray burst and so on. Named singularity and Quantum gravity would have their signature imprinted on various observable quantities associated with these phenomenon. So we just need to have very good instruments/telescopes to make observations and compare them with predictions of our theory.
If results turn out to be positive then it clearly implies that Naked singularities exist. Not only that. We also know which theory of quantum gravity is correct.
In General Relativity, gravity is equivalent to the spacetime curvature. The light actually travels in a so called straightest line (or geodesic) but if the spacetime is curved then
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis geodesic is actually a curved line. Just think about the longitudes (or the great circles) on earth. Since the earth is curved the shortest line between any two points on this earth is actually a part of these circles. That is why we say light bends due to gravity. It is actually like this, presence of matter curves the spacetime. Since light travels on the curved spacetime it bends. In case of black hole the curvature around it is actually so high that light bends infinitely into the hole. It is similar to how water current is pulled into a whirlpool.
I have never heard a satisfactory answer to this, but I'll ask it again. Since intense gravity slows time down as perceived by an outside observer, can any black holes or naked singularities ever be observed? ANY frame of reference observing the black hole would be an outside observer and would therefore see the stellar collapse gradually slow until it "froze" as it reached a point where light could no longer escape.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Sanyama - General relativity equates gravity to a curve in space-time, more specifically a curve of spatial dimensions into the time dimension around a massive object. Were we able to view this from a higher dimension, a smaller object approaching a massive object would follow a curve through a fourth time dimension; but from our 3-dimensional space we perceive it as an acceleration of the smaller object toward the massive object. In a singularity the distinction between spatial and time dimensions disappears as all the dimensions of a mass point and its related forces coalesce. Both mass and gravity, as we perceive it, only exist outside of the singularity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"what happens to the region of spacetime around the singularity seems as though it should be rather straightforward. Stellar event horizons are many kilometers in size, far larger than the typical scale of quantum effects. Assuming that no new forces of nature intervene, horizons should be governed purely by general relativity"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm missing something here. Isn't Hawking's radiation exactly a quantum effect which occurs at the event horizon?
The light emitted by object very close to event horizon of the blackhole would be highly redshifted and hence unless you have very very very sensitive instrument ,you won`t be able to detect it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo when the star collapses and results into the blackhole the energy received by an faraway observer would go down exponentially when the radius of the star approaches the event horizon.
Consider a man sitting on surface of the star and sending signals out at constant rate in his own reference frame. Now as the time interval between the arrival of two such signals would go on increasing and would soon become infinite as the star radius approaches the event horizon.
So we would be getting signals at successively larger and larger intervals and those would get dimmer and dimmer.
A star cannot obtain "infinite" gravity or density from a limited amount of mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the gravity were truly "infinite", it would attract the entire universe, and everything(all matter and energy) would be drawn to it instantly and the universe would cease to exist.
These people (physicists) throw words like "infinite" around without really understanding the concept of the words they are using.
I recently read an article that argued if spacetime is granular, as loop quantum gravity suggests, singularities cannot form. If spacetime has a smallest unit (probably plank length) then under force of gravity matter gets crushed to a very small but finite distance (again plank length), resulting in an extremely high but finite matter density. Under this scenario, the gravity is still powerful enough to trap light, but the density is not infinite and there is a minimum finite size below which the star cannot collapse. Although the author briefly mentions the loop quantum gravity, he does not mention the possibility of finite size and density. Does anybody have any information about this theory or its ramifications for the laws of nature?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Ron--first comment. That is a very interesting point!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the limit of approach to the singularity, at ultra-high densities
the classical description should in fact break down. It really
depends on the spacetime topology and structure there whether
there could be such pathways. The collapse models investigated
and developed so far can provide a good basic framework to
explore such frontier issues.
To mathman-- The role of pressure has been investigated in great
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdetail in collapse phenomena, both in the context of the occurrence of
singularities, and also towards deciding whether they can be visible
or not.
As for the occurrence of singularities, pressures within the star cannot
stop these, as long as what are called the energy conditions, ensuring the general positivity of mass and energy density are respected. Then the singularity occurrence is a must, however large the internal pressures might be within collapsing cloud. That is because, in general relativity, pressures also contribute to the attractive force of gravity.
Secondly, people thought in later 1980s and early 1990s--after the dust collapse was analyzed in complete detail (as stated in the article) to find naked singularities as collapse endstates--that pressures might help avoid the formation of naked singularities. Dust clouds have zero internal pressure assumed, which is not physically realistic. Real stars have
internal pressures no doubt. It was then conjectured that when collapse with pressure is considered, the outcome must be a black hole only;
i.e. the horizon must form well before the singularity develops, and therefore must cover it. However, subsequent detailed study of collapse models with pressures included in the analysis showed that this is not correct, and collapse with pressure can also go into naked singularity configurations.
Naked singularities, black holes, what happens here stays here. Sounds like Vegas to me!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf photons have a mass, no matter how small, would that mean that t his mass would be infinite as they approached the speed of light? Thus it would take infinite energy for the to get up to the speed of light. Ergo light cannot go at the speed of light. Am I off in my thinking?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf photons have a mass, no matter how small, would that mean that t his mass would be infinite as they approached the speed of light? Thus it would take infinite energy for the to get up to the speed of light. Ergo light cannot go at the speed of light. Am I off in my thinking?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs the electron (and every other fundamental particle) a naked singularity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs the electron, and every other fundamental particle, a naked singularity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Nupur--Yes, if naked singularities exist,
they will be found most probably in the places
where very high energy astrophysical phenomena happen, such as the gamma rays bursts in the universe.
Some scientists have also indicated, such
a singularity may be sitting even at the center
of a galaxy if the rotation there is found to
be high enough. Future high sensitivity telescopes such as SKA may have the required
sensitivity.
As the collapse progresses internal pressure do increase. Therefore
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin cases of when stars do not have sufficient mass and the gravity forces do not become dominant the singularity may not form and star may explode. However in cases of massive stars (mass =10x Solar mass or more) gravitational forces are so dominant that the collapse terminates in a singularity.
As the collapse progresses internal pressures do increase. Therefore
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin cases where stars do not have sufficient mass and the gravity forces do not become dominant the singularity may not form and star may explode. However in cases of massive stars (mass =10x Solar mass or more) gravitational forces are so dominant that the collapse terminates in a singularity.
to drsodak -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhotons have mass proportional to their frequency. And they always travel at the speed of light for the medium through which they travel. If you could slow down a photon to a dead stop, so to speak, it would disappear because photons have no rest mass.
So photons are the opposite of particles with rest mass. Just as you can't accelerate a particle with rest mass to the speed of light, you can't decelerate a photon.
Singularities(Naked or otherwise) are the results of our mathematical modeling of physical theories of nature. They are present in both classical and quantum theories of nature. They represent the regions of space time that produce physical effects. Singularities are the causes of all physical effects. The question appears to me is whether the almighty is willing to reveal its own structure. Clearly Classical theories are afraid to talk about it and Quantum theories want to encapsulate the singularity in region of Planck length where once you enter that region uncertainty starts and things become wild.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, this entire scenario corresponds to the physical situation of a continual collapse, when the mass of the star is high enough, more than the neutron star limit. So the electron or neutron degeneracy pressures cannot stop collapse. Then the spacetime singularity is a must according to general relativity. The question then is, as the article points out, whether these are
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnaked or covered. The physical implications could be most intriguing indeed!
Is big bang a naked singularity? Why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this singularity in the past created the universe, what would the naked singularity of future, arising from collapse of a massive
star would create?
I thought that the acresion disk has been indirectly observed with xrays, thereby giving credence to the event horizon itself. If a singularity can exist, it will cause all matter that exist inside to also exist in its unified form with all the dimensions that may be involved. Therefore I do not think it would not be observable in any direct or indirect way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought that the acresion disk has been indirectly observed with xrays, thereby giving credence to the event horizon itself. If a singularity can exist, it will cause all matter that exist inside to also exist in its unified form with all the dimensions that may be involved. Therefore I do not think it would not be observable in any direct or indirect way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought that the acresion disk has been indirectly observed with xrays, thereby giving credence to the event horizon itself. If a singularity can exist, it will cause all matter that exist inside to also exist in its unified form with all the dimensions that may be involved. Therefore I do not think it would not be observable in any direct or indirect way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought that the acresion disk has been indirectly observed with xrays, thereby giving credence to the event horizon itself. If a singularity can exist, it will cause all matter that exist inside to also exist in its unified form with all the dimensions that may be involved. Therefore I do not think it would not be observable in any direct or indirect way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought that the accretion disk has been indirectly observed via xray so making the event horizon a given? If a singularity does exist with or without an event horizon, the matter inside would exist in its unified form, existing in multiple dimensions. It is unlikely we would ever be able to observe anything at all about what happens inside the singularity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was an article in Sci-am some years back exploring the environment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnear an event horizon that pointed out that centrifugal force turns inward
toward the center of mass as the horizon is approached.
Check the archive.
Accretion discs are no direct proof for event horizons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese can occur for neutron stars also. It is very difficult to
observe or detect event horizons directly in an
astrophysical setting.
Newton's law of gravity states that gravity is force of attraction between two masses, the density of these masses is nowhere in his equation. Perhaps you should posit your new theory on density as it relates to gravity and recieve some kind of credit!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNewton's law states that gravity is force of attraction between two masses, nowhere does is say anything about density. Perhaps you should posit your new theory on density as it relates to gravity and receive some kind of credit!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe preceeding was intented to tag onto comment #27, "Astromandi's" comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe this is obvious, but,if the singularity is shielded from view by an event horizon where gravity becomes so great that even photons cannot escape . Now wait a minute. Photons have no mass so they cant be subjects of gravity, right? They always travel in a straight line, right? I guess what they mean is that gravity becomes so great that spacetime becomes so distorted that the photons become trapped traveling in a straight line on their crushed piece of reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe singularity is shielded from view by an “event horizon” where “gravity becomes so great that even photons cannot escape“ . Now wait a minute. Photons have no mass so they can’t be subjects of gravity, right? They always travel in a straight line, right? I guess what they mean is that gravity becomes so great that spacetime becomes so distorted that the photons become trapped traveling in a straight line on their crushed piece of reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right in the point that photons have no mass. However they travel along null geodesics (the straightest possible lines) in a spacetime. So if the spacetime is infinitely curved near a singularity the photons would be trapped and sucked in to the singularity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion about black holes generally: It is said that a characteristic feature of black holes is that no matter, energy or information is capable of escaping once the event horizon has been crossed. However, diagrams of black holes usually show jets of matter and energy escaping at the antipodes. Wouldn't the existence of such jets constitute an exception to the defining feature of a black hole, namely that it irreversibly"traps" all matter and energy entering it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe jets of matter do not come from "inside the black hole" or inside the event horizon. They are high energy photons produced by acreating matter at a very very high speed near the horizon. A part of these photons indeed can escape to infinity as they are produced outside the event horizon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheories concerning stellar collapse were formulated before the existence of dark energy was theorized. Has dark energy been taken into account in theories concerning singularities?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince dark energy is thought to make up about 70% of the total energy of the universe, I think it should be taken into account in all relevant theories retroactively. Fortunately, I don't have the math background necessary to do this. (O_~)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery well said, Rixart. One should distinguish between a mathematical approach and such in physics when talking about an "infinitesimal point". The first one may "exist" but the latter cannot. Regard p.e. the impossible unlimited increase of electric potential at infinite shrinking like Vasily Yanchilin remarks in his book The Quantum Theory of Gravitation (2003), probably unknown to the author of the present article in SciAm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe latter's reasoning is based on validity of the almost hundred years old general relativity theory, which Yanchilin denies. Einstein maintained that near mass time runs slower (which does not seem in accordance with the tempo at the Big Bang) but the Russian scientist comes to the opposite conclusion as he argues that Mach was right when presuming that the physical laws are connected to the total mass of the universe and thus the speed of light is not constant when the potential of that mass changes due to expansion of the univere or a little bit when nearing mass of stars.
The essential difference in opinion can be grasped in these factors (which please rewrite on paper to get better impression): (1-2GM)exp 0,5 / r(c)exp 2
which means black holes can exist and (1 / (1+2GM)exp-0,5 / r(c)exp 2) which tells that black holes are imaginary. So the first minus changes into plus while the exponent becomes minus a half.
I would like discussion on this in SciAm. Vasily Yanchilin's new theory is in accordance with quantum mechanics but the general theory of relativity disharmonizes with it. In brief: An elementary particle like the electron is seen by Yanchilin as appearing and disappearing discontinuously within a sphere with Heisenberg dimensions. To make it easier I call that appearing an iet and have the word electron remain for the whole. When a photon hits an iet the sphere shrinks to almost a point and expands afterwards again gradually. The sphere p.e. can grow beyond from inside a tunnel with barrier and when an iet is hit outside the whole electron will have passed that barrier, left the tunnel. Within the sphere nearer to mass time runs faster and more iets appear accordingly in the half of the sphere closest to that mass than in the other one, which is more distant. Inside the sphere the distribution of appearances must stay the same in both halves and as a consequence the electron moves towards the mass, is attracted by it "due to a purely quantummechanic effect" like Yanchilin says. Read his book for better explanation!
I thank the readers for several very interesting comments and some very useful questions. Based on that I try and make some remarks here which hopefully may be found useful or may provide more clarity on the questions involved here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this article, my purpose has been to discuss the implications of the Einstein theory of gravity towards understanding the problem of final fate of a collapsing massive star.
What is the key issue here? On exhausting its internal nuclear fuel, such a star cannot be balanced by any other forces of nature, as we understand physics today, because no known forces such as strong or weak nuclear forces etc can create enough pressure within the star to withhold the inwards pull of gravity in such a case. The star must then collapse onto itself and shrink.
What happens to such a star? What is its final
fate? This has been one of the most fundamental issues in astronomy and astrophysics for more than past eight decades. The theory and applications of white dwarfs and neutron stars came up while investigating this question only. Chandrasekhar clearly pointed out, way back in
1930s, that the final fate of a massive star would be radically different from that of a small mass star which can stabilize to a small radius configuration, due to internal quantum pressures
as caused by the fast moving electrons within the star. For massive stars, no such forces can stop the collapse.
These are no doubt the regime of strong gravity fields. The force of gravity, which is otherwise very weak now comes into its own! In this sense, the collapsing massive stars are the true labs to investigate the key physics of gravity.
The Einstein theory describes gravity in terms of the curvature of space and time. Thus, the physics of collapse is now described in terms of the curvature distortions and change in wrapping of the spacetime, which is mathematically taken to be a four dimensional differentiable manifold, or to put it more simply a four dim physical continuum made of space and time. All physical events take place in this arena.
The key difficulty, as already indicated in the
article, is that the Einstein equations are a very
complex system. Either you solve them by putting in special assumptions, which are not always physically realistic, or you must investigate their general properties. It is the later approach that we have adopted in our own work, which has yielded some insights into the final fate of collapse of massive matter clouds.
(continued next)
A few comments here refer to theories other than general relativity. While there is much investigation on the alternate theories of gravity, for the purpose of this article, we have based our considerations on the general theory of relativity only.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason is, as of today, the Einstein theory is considered as the best possible observationally verified theory of gravity. Also, most of the other important theories are metric theories of gravity only, and they are frequently quite similar in spirit and structure to the Einstein theory. So
similar conclusions may hold there also possibly as far as the physical problem of a collapsing massive star is concerned.
In fact, there have been some investigations on gravitational collapse, using some alternative theories of gravity, those with higher derivative terms included in the action for the theories etc, and similar conclusions have been found,
as we have presented here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are spacetime singularities? Many of the comments and questions here are related in one way or other to this basic most intriguing point.
In fact, there was a huge debate in later 1960s and early 1970s, amongst the gravity physics researchers as to how to characterize the same.
You cannot define such an object using just one coordinate system, because one can always ask the question whether the conclusions obtained using one system are valid or not when we shift to another coordinate system. We want coordinate invariance as per the requirement of general relativity.
And in fact, some of the conclusions derived using one system turn out not to hold when other coordinate frame of reference is used. As for example, when Scharzschild solved Einstein
equations for a point mass, when looked in the spherical coordinates there appeared to be a singularity developing at a certain radius away from the center. There was a big and extensive debate on whether this is genuine, but it was only realized much later in early 1960s, that it
was just the break down of the coordinate system used, and it was not a genuine spacetime singularity where physical quantities such as spacetime curvatures etc diverged. Actually, the genuine singularity occurred only at the center, where physical quantities were truely infinite.
Similarly, one can also ask a question, what is the gaurentee that the spacetime singularity seen
at the origin of time in the Friedmann solution in
cosmology is genuine?
The hope of many eminent physicists, including
Einstein, in 1940s and 1950s, was that once special symmetry assumptions made in these solutions such as Schwarzschild or Friedmann models are relaxed, and when better and more general solutions to Einstein equations will be obtained, then these singularities will go away, and we shall recover a regular universe model.
These hopes were, however, not realized, and
the answers to these questions came by work
on principles named singularity theorems which showed that in most important dynamically developing situations such as those of cosmology or gravitationally collapsing massive stars, the spacetime singularities must develop under very general physical conditions. These conditions included positivity of energy density, causality, and some other regularity conditions on the universe model.
Such a singularity is basically the boundary of spacetime. Saying it smaller than a pin-prick or some thing is only analogy; it is really infinitesimal limit where densities and curvatures diverge and blow up.
Few remarks and observations on these interesting discussions on singularities. The singularity in a point mass solution of field equations at Schwarzschild radius does not develop dynamically but it appears as singularity due to the choice of coordinates. Nonetheless it does represent a physically important region.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSingularities are an unavoidable feature of all physical theories of nature.
Physically(relativistically) singularities represent region of space time (with unbounded gravity forces)where any physical object(extended or otherwise) on entering looses its own structure and is crushed completely. In general they represent the region where our theories break down in the sense that nature is no more predictable with the same theory. Even in quantum theories every point within a a sphere of Heisenberg dimensions is a singularity in the sense once a position is fixed
other physical quantities blow up.
The debate, whether such a region is or would be best described by a
quantum theory or general relativity(or perhaps a combination of both), is interesting and important as well. Both of these theories are quite opposite in mathematical structure (one being elegant while the other very loose) as well in their region of influence( macroscopic vs microscopic).
Singularity perhaps represent the regions of our physical world where the domain of both quantum and relativity theory intersect yet none has the reasonable answer.
Light Years = Distance
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypically you cannot travel a distance into the future. You would probably have better luck traveling a certain amount of time into the future instead
There is no such thing as time travel through space, the universe is too unstable, and a satellite would be absolutely annihilated if it even got close to a black hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould creation and annihilation of particles
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistake place in the vicinity of a naked singularity?
Creation and inhalation of particles probably wouldn't happen in a naked singularity due to the fact that it not only sucks things into it, but it also has the ability to spit them out. Therefore if there were particles being created, they wouldn't immediately be annihilated, they would probably have the potential to be spit out into space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought the creation and annihilation
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisof particles is a property of strong energy matter
fields, which are very much there near a
naked singularity.
But I don't see how the creation and annihilation of particles could be there. They would have that split second chance to be thrown out of the naked singularity. And what exactly are these created "particles"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStrong gravity fields, and only difference being
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvisible rather than the horizon. Otherwise the physics
remains the same.
test comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does the physics remain the same if there is outgoing matter?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the key issues is to decide between
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe strings and the loop gravity, which one is more
relevant to apply here.
`Quantum star'? Thats new and exciting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeard of quark stars, but not his...
Very interesting article. Thank You!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery, very interesting! Thank You!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question raised by the article is problematic, philosophically speaking. The theoretical context in which the question is asked is that of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity which presumes a regular spacetime manifold exists from which the Einstein Equations can be derived and hopefully solved. The trouble with singularities is that they do not provide a regular manifold. In a sense then Penrose's Cosmic Censorship conjecture was designed to save GR from itself. It is, after all, a poor theory that predicts its own downfall. This is the basis on which naked singularites are said to be able to spew toasters out into the cosmos. Our laws of physics do break down at a singularity so we best leave them cloaked if we want to keep doing physics. It may well be that singularities as such do not exist, but in GR they do - and apparently naked ones, as well. The lesson to take from this is that GR is a flawed theory NOT that naked singularities exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many possibilities: either GR is a flawed theory,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisor it is not, and the naked singularities really mean we must
invoke quantum gravity in those regimes near to singularity.
I do not agree. It is akin to saying that Newton's theory of gravity is ok except in areas of large gravitational field or over longer periods of time at whihc point we must invoke GR. I suppose it dependson what you think a physical theory does. If the theory is meant to explain the observable universe by means of deeper principles then this waving away of the contradictions between Newton and Einstein is fundamentally flawed. Newton's theory is founded upon very different principles than Einstein's. Indeed some of the difference is seen in people's confusion expressed in these comments about the effect of gravity on light. Because photons are massless they do not participate in the classical Newtonian model of gravity. Hence, the classical prediction disproved by Eddingston in 1919 that stars will maintain their apparent position during an eclipse. (The hybrid theory that photons are affected by gravity but using the Newtonian form for the acceleration of the photon was also disproved, though reading The Golem: What everyone should know about science I question that this was really a valid conclusion at the time.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGR asserts, through the equivalence principle and an argument involving coordinate transformations, that gravity can be perceived as a consequence of the effect of the energy on the strcuture of the spacetime manifold. Such principles are at odds with Newton's conception and not a mere add-on. Similarly, when a complete and consistent theory of quantum gravity that fits the observabel universe is found it will call for (may?) a funadmaental shift in our understanding of the principles underlying gravity. To explain this away is to misunderstand why a clever guy like Penrose would have stuck his neck out by making the Cosmic Censorship conjecture.
Singularities might not even exist in the real universe. Models of stellar collapse were developed before we knew about dark energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould it be possible that the event horizon of a black hole is a discontinuity of spacetime? That the force of gravity has torn a hole in spacetime and the interior of the event horizon is to paraphrase Pauli, "not even empty". Matter and energy impinging on on an event horizon would become imbedded therein in a sort of a two dimensional Flatland with no freedom in the direction normal to the horizon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been thinking about this since the Scientific American article about the "Astronauts Paradox" from several years ago. If true, this conjecture would resolve that paradox.
Could it be possible that the event horizon of a black hole is a discontinuity of spacetime? That the force of gravity has torn a hole in spacetime and the interior of the event horizon is to paraphrase Pauli, "not even empty". Matter and energy impinging on on an event horizon would become imbedded therein in a sort of a two dimensional Flatland with no freedom in the direction normal to the horizon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been thinking about this since the Scientific American article about the "Astronauts Paradox" from several years ago. If true, this conjecture would resolve that paradox.
I enjoyed reading the article "Naked Singularities" (February 2009 issue) but it brought to mind some troubling thoughts about this whole matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStrictly speaking, the concept of "black holes" does not quite make sense
because of the concept of a "hole" itself. The concept of a "hole", in a
"black hole", suggests that (as maintained by "black holes" advocates) the
singularity is not visible because it is hidden by the event horizon at the edge of "the hole". But the lack of visibility may not be due to the idea of
a "hole" but due to the massive attraction that a singularity has. Because otherwise, if it were a "hole" in the middle of space, one could approach the singularity from the back of the hole (without having gone into and through the hole and the event horizon), and be next to the singularity without being affected. But this is absurd since the singularity has such a massive attraction!
It makes more sense to think of a "black hole" not as a "black hole" but as
a "black singularity" having a "critical distance" (call it the "event horizon" if you wish) within which it attracts anything that falls within that distance.
And a naked singularity, lets call it a "brown singularity", might also be a somewhat massive collapsed star which was not massive enough to have become a "black singularity", yet it was massive enough to attract but not strongly enough to prevent escapes.
In other words, as we already know, not all collapsed stars develop into "black holes!!!".
I enjoyed reading the article "Naked Singularities" (February 2009 issue) but it brought to mind some troubling thoughts about this whole matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStrictly speaking, the concept of "black holes" does not quite make sense
because of the concept of a "hole" itself. The concept of a "hole", in a
"black hole", suggests that (as maintained by "black holes" advocates) the
singularity is not visible because it is hidden by the event horizon at the edge of "the hole". But the lack of visibility may not be due to the idea of
a "hole" but due to the massive attraction that a singularity has. Because otherwise, if it were a "hole" in the middle of space, one could approach the singularity from the back of the hole (without having gone into and through the hole and the event horizon), and be next to the singularity without being affected. But this is absurd since the singularity has such a massive attraction!
It makes more sense to think of a "black hole" not as a "black hole" but as
a "black singularity" having a "critical distance" (call it the "event horizon" if you wish) within which it attracts anything that falls within that distance.
And a naked singularity, lets call it a "brown singularity", might also be a somewhat massive collapsed star which was not massive enough to have become a "black singularity", yet it was massive enough to attract but not strongly enough to prevent escapes.
In other words, as we already know, not all collapsed stars develop into "black holes!!!".
I must commend the author on the ability to make plain the ideas in the discussion. Good job.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I think astrophysics is making this way to complex. The explanation of gravity was dr. Einstien's life time project and he never got a real handle on it. Perhaps some of his basic facts were incorrect. He never was satisfied with his own explanations. Maybe black holes leak at their poles due to highly wrapped magnetic field lines confusing mass- inertia and gravity. yielding the search light phenomena of black holes. The smaller they get the faster they spin the more they leak. A black hole that feeds may get larger but if it can no longer feed it evaporates from it's poles. NO worm holes, naked singularities or other complexities. Keep it simple.
Well, do naked singularities, or for that matter singularities
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin general, indicate limitation of general relativity itself? quite
possible. But we have to bear in mind it is experimentally fairly
well-tested theory today; perhaps the best theory of gravity
that we have presently.
http://www.sciam.com//article.cfm?id=naked-singularities&page=6#comment_box
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe present "theory of gravity" does not give us a real handle on the true nature of gravity. It may also be leading us astray in many fields. Too many experiments have a financial need to get the intended answer, computers make data manipulation very easy and complex explanations serve to confuse real thought.
if you can't keep it simple, confuse them with bull shit.
Excellent comment on the state of
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismodern experimental science! We believe,
however, that truth eventually prevail.
If a black hole draws in another, is the resulting black hole dimensionally different than it was prior to the event?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf a black hole draws in another, is the resulting black hole dimensionally different than either was prior to the event?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo dimension changes occur
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen two black holes merge.
Naked Singularity Feb 14, 2009, 15:53 Sugarman
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happens once matter is pulled towards the singularity at ever increasing speeds the matter would appear to slow down to us as time passes more slowly for a fast moving object the closer to the speed of light it gets? Perhaps it's mass becomes infinite as it reaches light speed or some unknown phenomena allows it to pass beyond the speed of light therefore theoretically going back in time, where would this matter end up then? Depending on the speed it attains should define how far back in time it travels. Interesting at least, something to chew on.
Reply Edit Delete Report
2. Re: Naked Singularity Feb 14, 2009, 16:02 Sugarman
Upon further theoretical "crazy" thinking, if said matter were able to travel backward in time if time was relevant to the singularity as to a normal observer the matter pulled towards a black hole could essentially travel backwards in time to a time before the singularity existed at faster than light speeds which would make it undetectable by normal means aka dark matter. I'm sure all this has already been proven wrong tens of times but it sure would be cool.
Reply Edit Delete Report
4. Re: Naked Singularity Feb 14, 2009, 16:04 Sugarman
Also at these theoretical high speeds if said undetectable matter had a gravitational effect on normal detectable matter would it's high velocity explain the ever speeding up "expansion" of the universe.
Excuse the mess, i pulled this from another message board i posted it on.
any single Blackhole or anything like that will not be infinite, Nor will it have an infinate gravitational pull, That would be like sayiing that every Blackhole is it's own Universe. Even with curerent String theory, The Gravitons in a black hole would create a huge amount of Graviton Density but nothing that would exceed the Pre Big Bang Graviton Densety.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime Does not Slow The more dense an object gets, just the perception of time, Just becouse you cannot observe a singularity does not mean the time would change to slow or speed up. Time in dealing with sub atomic particlues is the same as when you are dealing with Large Steller masses. Although the perceved time seems slower the larger you get.
I know for a fact naked singularities exist. I see one everytime my wife takes her close off...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know for a fact that naked singularities exist. I see one everytime my wife disrobes! badda bing
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting online discussions
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIT is certainly possible that if the internal pressure is so high that singularity does not form and collapsing cloud disperses away without formation of singularities. On the other hand if certain "physical conditions" are met, then Singularity Theorems by Hawking and Penrose imply that singularities must form and unavoidable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInfinite density does not mean infinite mass. One can have a black hole of gravitational mass 1 gm for example and such object will have infinite density at the center.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPressures do not matter for the formation of singularities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as positivity of energy is respected, together with other
reasonable conditions such as causality, singularities
must form in gravitational collapse
It actually makes more sense that a "naked singularity" is not a freakish kinda black hole, its more reasonable that it is a star that has collapsed beyond the point of a neutron star, but it is not so massive that it has reached the threshold at which it becomes a black hole. A black hole is an object that is dense enough to have an event horizon; a "naked singularity" is simply in between the densities of a black hole and a neutron star.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif you sample the singularity at a given point in time, you will always measure SOMETHING, just the act of measuring it will give it a value (existence). My take on this is that volume is always approaching 0; If volume = 0, then would time, space, mass not also = 0? My take on the universe and my theories of gravity come into play in this other state, where infinite density and absolute absence of matter/density/heat energy, etc. .... are the same state; but I will not betray those concepts prematurely;) .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think when someone(s) piece together the fuzzy aspects of unification, we are all gonna smack ourselves on the head and go "DUH!". Its likely that it is all so simple and makes perfect sense, we are just missing a piece of the puzzle, that and quantum level physics is somewhat flawed....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem for us is that (the way I suspect things to be) gravity doesn't exist, but it sort of does (huh?). For us to directly detect/measure/identify gravity would be like us trying to measure what is beyond the universe itself.... The way I see it, once we measure it we change it i.e; if, in attempt to measure, we pass an electron through a point where time/space curve is literally at 0, denisity/energy also 0 of course (0 also = ∞ in my view), we then change these samples to something ≠ 0 (<∞ ; >0).... Somewhat discouraging perhaps, but I bet it gets your mind buzzing!
BruceM I think you are on to something.... Its funny how people totally isolated in thinking start to stumble on to the same ideas around the same points in time... Me I am up here in Resolute Bay, NU in the high arctic for YEARS, and I just got internet a little while ago. I don't have TV, don't get any radio, etc. I don't even have any physics books and astrophysics is not my field (I do wx and air traffic)... But I am thinking very much on the same lines as of part of what you mentioned. I think one thing you mentioned is key in all of this, and thus in unification of gravity: throw me an email at oceanthalassa @ hotmail . com if you want to explore this further. Just out of curiosity, can you take a stab at the relationship of mass/gravity? Cheers!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMShastri at 08:59 AM on 01/25/09: Are you able to expand on this? It's an intriguing concept any correlation yet drawn on the relationship of gravity and this "singularity"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBruceM I think you are on to something.... Its funny how people totally isolated in thinking start to stumble on to the same ideas around the same points in time... Me I am up here in Resolute Bay, NU in the high arctic for YEARS, and I just got internet a little while ago. I don't have TV, don't get any radio, etc. I don't even have any physics books and astrophysics is not my field (I do wx and air traffic)... But I am thinking very much on the same lines as of part of what you mentioned. I think one thing you mentioned is key in all of this, and thus in unification of gravity: throw me an email at oceanthalassa @ hotmail . com if you want to explore this further. Just out of curiosity, can you take a stab at the relationship of mass/gravity? Cheers!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the 'size' of the singularity in a black hole will not increase with a merger of two black holes, the total mass will increase, and that will expand the diameter of the event horizon as best I understand all of this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(The event horizon will expand even if the two black holes do not merge within that horizon ... one can envision them orbiting each other, but the overall mass from the "outside" will still reflect the combined mass of the two.)
Consider a moving naked singularity, say at a fair speed. How would it interact with a "solid" object? For example the moon. The singularity has no size (or maybe the Planck distance?) --- it would "miss" most if not all of the particles in the moon, and (ignoring mass for a moment) pass though it without any noticeable impact. ... Add in the mass factor, and you get massive tidal effects - first pulling the particles in the moon towards the approaching singularly, then again pulling the particles after it. However, it seems that some percentage would either be left behind, or go into orbit around the singularity potentially leaving it with a ring -- or in the most perverse configuration, a shell of matter that 'hides' the singularity within.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article does not clearly define why a naked singularity could exist. If there is a singularity then there must be a Schwarzschild radius. Every mass has one. At this radius light cannot escape due to the acceleration or escape velocity required. It is as simple as that. So please tell a humble amateur physicist how a black hole could exist without an event horizon? I have read the article twice and have not seen a clear description of this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmaruq
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do envy you. It sounds like you have time to think. Can I come and visit you?
I remember hearing about black holes as a kid in the 1970's. I would imagine things like the Earth being consumed like a soap bubble circling the drain of a giant cosmic bathtub. I didn't know much about anything then and it seems that science still doesn't know much about black holes either, now. What I want to know is that if these illusive cosmic vacuum cleaners are so mysterious why does science not pursue them as the cause of all this dark energy/dark matter? Physicists see the behaviour of supernovae and the motion of galaxies as evidence of something causing weird gravity and then just respond that it must be something we can't verify because of course, it's "dark." Back when I was a kid, black holes were rare in the universe. Now, they are at the center of most galaxies. Since we don't understand them why not study the link between the forces of the black holes instead of dark energy? Maybe there's something at the outer edges of the universe pulling on the universe like 6 fireman holding a blanket and yelling "jump!" -The universe is expanding cuz something is pulling it. I just hate it when a PHd says we KNOW something when what they should say is we THINK something
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt really is funny and absurd that we cannot "know" what happens at the center of a black hole. Certain things are just so far beyond what the mind perceives yet we still think we can grasp the concepts and translate them using mathematics. Do you really think that the universe and that which is beyond it can be evaluated using our mathematical philosophy? Think about it this way, all we are able to do is observe something and relate it to the observation of something else. This is purely what math does; explains one thing in terms of another. So how can we truly understand the essence of something if all we do is relate it to something else. So really, we don't know anything. What do we think we can achieve? The knowledge of how this universe operates? The purpose of our being? There is something else going on here that we have not yet even considered. I think it is pathetic that we try to simplify something as godlike as the universe into x,y,z's and equal signs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is certainly possible that our observations are
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislimited by our capability to observe. Then how can our theories be complete?
How do we have the confidence of getting a full picture?
what is it about stupidity that makes it so appealing to smart people???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What comes out unambiguously from the theoretical work so far is that censorship does not hold in an unqualified form, as it is sometimes taken to be. Singularities are clothed only if the conditions are suitable. The question remains whether these conditions could ever arise in nature. If they can, then physicists will surely come to love what they once feared"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the meaning of this. Can somebody explain this sentence
What comes out unambiguously from the theoretical work so far is that censorship does not hold in an unqualified form, as it is sometimes taken to be. Singularities are clothed only if the conditions are suitable. The question remains whether these conditions could ever arise in nature. If they can, then physicists will surely come to love what they once feared
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the meaning of this sentence. Thanks
They don't have infinite mass, only infinite density - that is, a given mass divided by a volume approching zero. This is the traditional model for black holes. These Naked Singularity ideas might change that though in addtion to sounding sexy ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes. Then you might get a Neutron Star or White Dwarf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere seems to be a conundrum in that singularities are concluded to exist, based on mathematical extrapolation of the established laws of physics, but a singularity cannot exist under those same laws, i.e., in the conditions of a singularity the established laws of physics break down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering black hole formation simplistically, it would seem possible that matter falling towards a potential singularity at extreme velocity may be converted into fundamental, unified energy. As unified energy, space and time would not apply, allowing the ingested mass-energy to persist as an effective singularity. This would require some explanation for the persistent gravity of a black hole: perhaps the gravitational effect of ingested, converted matter is retained in the frozen spacetime of singularity periphery.
Just a thought…
By the way, precise mathematical representations which contain indeterminable variable factors cannot ensure accurate representations of physical reality, regardless of mathematical correctness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, precise mathematical representations which include estimates or omit unknown or indeterminable essential factors cannot ensure accurate representation of physical reality, regardless of mathematical correctness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps nothing is contained within a singularity: it is merely the focal point of contracted spacetime. In this case all matter 'ingested' at extreme velocity by a black hole is expelled. The velocity of 'ingestion' simply creates an infinite radial contraction of spacetime which persists through the progression of external time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, the supermassive black holes found at the center of galaxies always appears to demonstrate a consistent mass relative to the galactic mass total. I believe this percentage is 0.5%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may be possible that these galactic core supermassive black holes do not represent a specific object, but simply the focal point of space curved by the total galactic mass. In this case no event formed this structure other than the original collection of galactic mass. The constant percentage maqy relate to the distribution of galactic mass for the galaxies in which supermassive black holes have been detected.
Are these objects then black holes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisor not? What would make sure that
they are?
As a gravitational singularity, I would consider it a black hole. My suggestion is only that its creation may not require a collapse of matter and may contain nothing. It exists simply as the focal point of spacetime curved by the collection of disperse massive objects. Just a thought...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm by no means an expert, but as a gravitational singularity I'd consider it to be a black hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis a speculative suggestion of an alternative explanation for the presence of supermassive black holes at galactic cores.
P.S. The common mutliple submissions result from either sever posting delays or browser page management errors, plus submittor uncertainty and/or impatience.
The key thing to verify the existence of
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisblack hole at galaxy center will be the existence
of event horizon. If that cannot be verified,
it can be any thing else.
the infinities in the process of finding the truth are not actual facts...so infinite gravity will the attract towards itself everything as there cannot be greater force to overcome it...so there a greater need for the quantum gravity to play its piece in breaking the infinity at singularity, naked or otherwise
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan one remove the infinities classically as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if the star radiates away lot of matter as it collapses?
Can it do that.
"a moment when collapsing matter reaches the edge and ceases to be, like the big bang in reverse"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like this process to explain the big bang itself and the formation of the multiverse --- sigularity to whitehole or new big bang i.e. new universe being born
The entropy aspect of falling into a BH provides the most interesting insights. Let us define low entropy as being an extremely ordered, homogeneous situation (which can't support information because info takes a variety of "letter" like all the letters typed in this message.) This message is high in entropy because it is just packed with all kinds of info, opinion, cues, and language history, which are orderly only in an abstract sense appreciable to humans, not in a quantum sense that an atom or a bacteria would appreciate. To the latter (and some readers) this is just garbled, disorderly random gibberish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould you be in a spaceship whose trajectory dooms you to fall in a BH, the first thing that happens on close approach is that tidal forces are going to stretch you and your vessel out into a very thin ribbon, tearing apart anything it needs to. The innermost end of the ribbon is actually accelerating away from the middle and opposite end of the ribbon. The lagging end does not do any retrograde stretching which would conflict with other spaceships that may be on your tail.
Effectively, all information in your brain, in your DNA, or in any type of written or electronic info storage on your vessel will be lost in the tidal force destruction as it proceeds almost infinitely smearing you out. All those types of info are not what the conservation laws of the universe are interested in preserving.
Quantum info is what the universe as we understand it holds sacred. It could be that on your spaceship was a captured or standing photon in some type of perfectly silvered container. This photon was entangled before your voyage began with another photon that is far, far away in a safe place. If the BH "reads" what condition the photon is in, it destroys it and instantaneously changes the condition of the twin photon far, far away.
But apparently the BH doesn't do that. It takes all the quantum info in all the particles of the former you and your destroyed spaceship and records it to the surface of event horizon. This is the data that will last forever and it represents a high entropy condition. If a BH can evaporate, that data must emerge unmolested somehow.
The traditional Big Bang view is that all matter emerged out of a tiny singularity that was in a very ordered condition, entropy-wise, before it exploded. Ever since disorder and entropy have been steadily increasing. Driven by dark energy runaway expansion, the universe will end in a very low entropy state where "orderliness" means a lonely, no-history void.
How the above considerations on entropy would
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismodify if the collapse evolves to a naked singularity?
what are singularities for ? are they for inducing and reducing vibrations in any dimnsion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo consider entropy around a black hole (BH) or naked singularity we have to consider the Big Bang (BB,) During the BB a period of inflation of spacetime itself happened. Before this period entropy is considered by all to have been very low, which means that if we imagine one cubic centimeter (cc) in today's yardstick, back then we have to imagine spacetime itself shrunk down, so the yardstick has shrunk down as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words a cc is still a cc (as far as it knows) but whereas today a cc of empty space might have a proton, an electron, ten photons, and maybe a thousand neutrinos zipping through it at any slice of spacetime, before the inflation period of the BB this cc might still have the same amount of junk, but all forces were equal and the proton, well, it was just loose quarks that could be found anywhere in the cc, which was opaque because the photon couldn't go anywhere.
From the point of view of the photon the speed of light is much slower than today and the electron difraction grating constant was different as well. Because convention demands that when entropy is very low, energy is very low (but potential energy is very high) we have to think of this situation as somehow more "ordered" than today.
Now, falling into an NS means that an object of one cc in volume is going to endure the same smearing out due to tidal effects that it would falling into a BH. It is just not going to run into an event horizon. This smearing out means the cc is really being stretched in one dimension.
If Maxwell's Demon is looking at this one cc little box he is going to notice that its entropy is decreasing in the lengthened dimension. The proton in that dimension has less energy, its quarks are less tightly bound in that direction, and instead of being something on average rather spherical it is much more oblate. Looking at it with a photon becomes complicated because the photon will take longer to move in this one dimension and the electron diffraction grating constant will be different as well.
A NS may be able to draw out particles more this way than even a BH may, perhaps so much that the pre-inflationary period of the BB is simulated, at least in one dimension.
Something is wrong with my previous post. It is not the lengthening dimension that feels the decrease in entropy, but the other two spatial dimensions. If the cc is maintaining a constant volume as it gets stretched out, then energy and entropy are decreasing in the two dimensions being attenuated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis makes sense. We have a better chance to "know" where the particle is in each of those two dimensions because they are shrinking, hence things are more "orderly" in those dimensions. We have less chance to "know" its position in the lengthened dimension. The potential energy in the two shrunken dimensions is increased, rather like a taut bow string. The two attenuated dimensions are like the pre-inflationary BB period.
What is going on with respect to time? Special relativity would say that a photon takes as long to travel in each of the three spatial dimensions regardless of the in-falling velocity.
But as a practical matter most photons will be increasingly likely to interact with with the proton and the electron in the narrower channel. The probability wave for this along the lengthened dimension must look different than the waves for the other two dimensions and time. Special relativity may hold, but it is running into QM in a major way in the shrinking dimensions.
Yes. That was done by Chadraksekar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Due to the conservation of angular momentum wouldn't a collapsing star spin faster as it collapsed and as mass approached infinity wouldn't the rate of rotation also approach infinity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the star collapse, mass does not become infinite. Maybe its safe to say that the density does. In fact, if you caculate the orbits outside the event horizon, the gravitational effects of blackhole is just the same as that of a star.
2) And if so, since all objects have some spin, wouldn't it follow that all objects would end up as a spinning disc with centrifugal force balancing gravity and so preventing the final collapse into the infinite?
There are certain initial conditions wherein the spinning star wouldn't collapse and there are also cases where it would producing a Kerr blackhole.
Or does conservation of angular momentum only apply to solid structures?
If you apply conservation of momentum in General relativity, you should also account for the "rotation" of spacetime (dragging of inertial frames) since an objectsrotation has also an effect on spacetime surrounding it.
3) If time slows as gravity increases wouldn't it prevent the structure from collapsing to the point where anything becomes infinite?
This is a very tricky topic that should be handled with proper math and proper understanding of general relativity. First, "gravity slows down time" doesn't make sense in general relativity (though this is a common statement in popular science magazines and books). Gravitational field in flat spacetime is a Newtonian concept. In general relativity, the geometry of spacetime itself produces the phenomenon that we call classically as "gravity". And yes, there is no such thing as "centrifugal force". Thats a bad terminology.
If the collapse of a star is an asymptotic process we would never reach the point where the math breaks down.
Dear khvallegas--time is a subjective experience which depends on the inertial reference frame of the observer. Although General Relativity says that mass increases with velocity and that a space ship nearing the speed of light (C) will expand to a thin disk in the dimensions perpendicular to its direction of travel as an object nears C, we only know the mass expansion for sure to be true of particles in accelerators, where pretty much all the energy going into their acceleration is being stored as mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor bigger objects falling into a BH, we have to remember that the object is NOT being attracted to the BH. In fact, it wants to orbit the BH forever and unless its initial trajectory was pointed exactly at the event horizon that is exactly what it is going to do. However, it will accelerate as it loops deep into the gravity well of the BH and this acceleration will compound through relativistic stretching of the object's physical structure what tidal force stretching is already doing to it.
Some theorists say the in-falling object is going to be "smeared" out on the surface of the BH as a kind of very thin, rapidly rotating band of information.
Now, surrounding most BH are accretion disks of stuff that is happy to stay at a distance, because, please remember, the BH "gravity" is not attractive. It is ONLY a description of perpetual motion. Isaact Asimov once wrote of placing a satellite in orbit around our moon at an altitude of 100 feet, basically a surface satellite. Such an object would orbit the moon forever or until perturbed by outside force, such as photon pressure from the sun or a big hit from cosmic rays.
A surface satellite orbiting an airless moon behaves oppositely of what we would normally think. To get it to move inward and crash into the bigger chunk of mass you have to add energy to it, basically speed it up. Anything that decelerates the satellite tends to move it outward.
In the case of our galaxy, dark matter (DM) outside the most outward fringe of visible matter in the spiral arms actually causes the outer stars to move more rapidly than they should, long a mystery to astronomers. (Some scientists proclaim that DM is contiguous with visible matter so it does not envelope the Milky Way, but permeates it.) Most stars systems are binaries and a fast-moving pair which smacks one into the BH will send the other out at galactic escape velocity at a right angle to the spiral disk.
Can we take what applies to moons and galaxies and apply it in a recursive way to a BH? BHs seem to expel stuff
It is not clear that the rotation could
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishalt the collapse. Actually, lot of angular
momentum could be passed over to surrounding
medium, need not stay confined to collapsing
star only. But I agree it is a tricky subject
and has to be handled with much care.
When General Relativity (GR) started people thinking about spacetime as a kind of unseen, aether-like medium that actually creates the canvas on which all pictures would be painted, the most ominous thing about including time as completely equivalent to the common three dimensions is that doing so suggests that the spacetime continuum is a frozen milieu--basically a frozen track of worldlines in which not only all past events are frozen, but also all present and future events. The only thing in such a universe that has a degree of freedom to move is the eye of the observer and the "slice" of the universe that the observer thinks is contemporaneous with his or her own existence depends on his relative motion (which is also a pre-determined worldline looping through the whole picture.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest objections to this strong interpretation of GR stems from the fact that it knocks the legs out from under Quantum Mechanics (QM) by exposing chance and probability as artifacts of the observer's consciousness and memory. QM and its famous mysteries are not real because in strong GR there is never a "choice" branch for anything. Frozen means frozen. When we mentally sum over histories we create a story about probability theory but it is a fairey tale. World lines do not branch and there are no branching universes. The fairey tale does give us a certain predictive power about the future, so it is surprisingly useful.
The other casualty of strong GR is the religious idea of free will. Heck, nobody ever has free will in anything. The kind of breakfast cereal you eat, the music you listen to, your sexuality, your taste in clothing, all were fixed a long time ago. Even all the apparent agents of your brainwashing (like the advertising industry) had no choice but to do the job.
To save QM and free will, there are schemes afoot to claim that strong GR is faulty because GR is faulty. Pooh! The real main questions that Einstein didn't address are how a mass like a BH communicates to "empty" space that it must deform in a gravity well and how much and how can a spacetime frame know a BH spins so that it may drag?
Hopefully the LHC at CERN will speak to these puzzles. If not, there is always astronomy and the better instruments coming on line on mountain tops and in space itself to give us clues as to whether GR or QM is the horse to bet your money on, intellectually speaking. . .
My money is on strong GR, once we know a little more about how it does its magnificent work.
Many exact solutions of Einstein
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisequations just do not respect such a strong
interpretation of GR, such as for example
the Reisner-Nordstrom or the Kerr models.
To the extent that space on a very small scale is quantized--i.e. not smoothly continuous but coming in little parcels, down around the Planck scale, then all exact solutions become grainy. Recent research news does seem to suggest this and it may lend support or at least parallel thinking about quantum foam. You don't have to assume that particles which borrow energy from somewhere to produce a world line that is basically a short streak really prove the existence of choice or free will in outcomes on the macroscale either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat interests me most is that we can relate this graininess of the micro-micro-micro scale to number theory. For instant, take irrational numbers that are geometrically derived like pi or like phi (aka 1.61800339887. . . the golden ratio that appears so often in nature, Platonic solids, and Fibonacci numbers.) These numbers are defined and derived in perfectly or classically flat space. In curved or warped space both numbers actually change. In fact, this effect may be another mathematical method for describing the quantization of space, because when you get down to really tiny scales space is not flat but has local mountains and valleys. Can either pi or phi ever become rational numbers under local curvature? If not, maybe space quantization is mathmatically driven.
Space isn't always flat. Locally, every gravity well is a distortion of space itself and around a BH or NS a gravity well is a local warping. On an object like a spaceship being rapidly accelerated to the speed of light in a straight line the astronaut would experience a gravity-like crushing of himself into his seat and about 9-g's is all a human can take of that.
But the funny thing is that if his spaceship is elliptically orbiting a black hole at one foci, the gravity well could be so deep that the spaceship accelerates to near-C very quickly. Being in free fall, however, the astronaut is not crushed by this acceleration. He doesn't even feel it! What he does do, however, is get stretched out by tidal and relativistic effects, which can not be avoided.
What I am rambling towards here is the idea that strong GR has to be re-interpreted in extreme situations and on very small scales. Just like physical constants themselves may be different either on very small scales, or very early in time, or in other extreme situations, we have to account for the peculiar geometries of the small, because GR is theory that depends on geometry.
Hmm, only after the last post did I realize that several topological approaches to taking general relativity down to the quantum scale are being studied. One of them is being accused of being numerological, which is where I was headed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGravity is proportional to energy density( not to mass.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgree, but perhaps it would be helpful if we clarify some issues here. Energy density is a component of the energy-momentum-stress tensor.
Maybe you are thinking in terms of Newtonian gravity i.e. that gravity is proportional to mass. In general relativity, gravity is a manifestation of the geometry of spacetime manifold. Objects (including massless "particles") travels ON this manifold. Hence, changing the geometry of this manifold, affects the "trajectory (worldline in GR jargon) of these particles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the statement "time slows down with gravity" is a little tricky and can be a source of misconception. So I will provide some thought experiment to clarify things out (correct me people if you saw some wrong concepts) . Consider a gravitational source (spherically symmetric for simplicity). Consider an observer near this source (but on a vacuum, that is Schwarzchild geometry) and a second observer sufficiently far so that approximately, the geometry is flat for him. Consider the case where the two observers are at rest with respect to each other and are at rest with respect to the gravitational source. Now the worldline of the second is a geodesic (he is on a flat spacetime) while the worldline of the first observer is NOT a geodesic. From this point, we can compare the propertime of the two (it is important that we compare propertime since this is an invariant quantity). Now how and what do we mean by "comparing propertime"? Im tired typing...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishas anyone seen Nasim Haramein s work ...google it ..The Resonance Project...you might be enlightened...Ridgeman
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisu have seen the light here...it is a possibility and is being used as we speak by others...ridgeman
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdont count out what Tesla was working on before the military tore it apart during ww1...he new Einstiens theory had flaws...ridgeman
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisopen your heart to new thought and ideas ...people have dreams for a reason...and they are real...ridgeman..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat did the naked singularity say to the micro-black hole?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Is that Hawking Radiation or are you just happy to see me?"
Brian Malow
www.sciencecomedian.com/blog
Yes, and the same could hold for
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismacro-black holes too!
OK, I googled Nasim Haramein and now it looks like I either have to burn reams of paper downloading or break down and buy some books. There is a lot here to think about so I may have to schedule a year of thought time as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love the idea of quantizing spacetime into tiny little indivisible bits but I hate calling these bits "atoms" of spacetime because non-scientifically literate people are confused enough as it is. Also, any theory needs to explain how spacetime inflated during the Big Bang and whether these tiny little bits inflated or merely multiplied. How do these little bits arrange themselves in the presence of mass into the necessary deformations? How does the amount of mass present get communicated to the spacetime surrounding it? Where do strings and the Higgs field fit in this? I was just starting to be seduced by that triangulation theory and now can't even remember it.
Haramein's tetrahedrons are very appealing to me and I do want to see it tied to number theory, other Platonic solids, all competing theories, and lastly to the macro-universe, particularly to the "beaming" going on by cosmic ray bursters which they now say are tied to stellar nurseries which there are some in the MILKY WAY and if a CRB in a nearby nursery targets us then I won't have my year to think about all this new stuff.....
Can't we all just get along? Can't we all agree that the universe, including all kazillion alternate dimensions, etc., though humongous, has a finite amount of matter in it? As such, no gravity is ever going to reach the point of "infinite". And as such, no matter is ever going to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. These are the rules boys, now go play.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, but quntam gravity must take over
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrom relativity I guess.
Who is "Mick" and what gives him the right to rule the earth?? Makes me never want to vote for anyone named Mick, or Mike. I'd hate to facilitate global domination... ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, let's just say there are maybe 11 dimensions. We entangle two electrons and send them on their merry way until they are far, far apart in our four familiar dimensions (including time, because one of them we have kept relatively still with us and the other we sent zinging off at near-c in the direction of the nearest void.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut we don't really know anything about how "close" these two entangled objects are in the other seven dimensions that some physics requires. They could still be the very same point in those dimensions. So the "hidden variables" that Einstein proposed may have a venue in those dimensions. Lisa Randal at Harvard has proposed that gravity leaks over between dimensions, maybe other information can too.
Since the apparent separation of the two entangled objects is only in three dimensions, quite a lot of info can be instantaneously transferred in the other 7 dimensions if the objects are basically the same point in those dimensions! The mystery of "spooky action at a distance" is only a mystery if the "distance" is measured in our four familiar dimensions and ignoring seven others containing values we do not know.
Thanks Bone_juvi finally someone speaks my mind. If light is the one "constant" as it appears to be in the 4 dimensions we can observe then a star may collapse to the point where its light orbits it infinitely but never crashes in to it. This would make the inside of an event horizon very bright (assuming your eyes still work) but does not require a singularity to be behind the event horizon. Leave the infinite to the religious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it possible the singularity of a or some black holes is there for a limited time. Meaning as it gathers more mass from its surroundings it eventually breakes down the fabric of space-time and mass breaks away into a mini big bang in an alternate universe perhaps?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what exactly is the difference between a naked singularity and a black hole?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRon, light years are a measure of distance, not time. It's the distance light travels in a year. For example, we are about 4.5 light years from Alpha Centauri, so if it stopped shining, we'd know about it in the middle of 2014.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheoretically, however, naked singularities/wormholes could be the key to our teleportation and time travel. Please consider Einstein's model of gravity, a thin rubber sheet representing the Space-Time Continum. if you place an orange on the sheet, it will strech a 'gravity field' for itself in spacetime. In small gravitational fields, such as Earth's and the Sun's, it is nearly indetectible. However, when you take a black hole that masses as much as a million suns, you really feel the effects.
If you took your spaceship and flew out to a black hole, and hovered right outside of the event horizon for a while before returning to Earth, upon your landing you would find that all your friends would have aged much more then you.
Wormholes are supposedly like two connected points on the space-time sheet mentioned above.
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/wormhole_graphic.jpg
Teleportation could be achieved by a naked singularity wormhole. Normal wormholes have gravity fields (that crush and kill), as shown in the graphic, but a singularity wormhole could be represented as a thin cylinder linking the points. You go in one and come out the other, perhaps providing the basis for interstellar travel, or the fabled 'warp drive'.
In the graphic, it shows the wormhole as a straight cylinder with gravity wells on both ends. Time travel has been proposed by taking the entrance and the exit of the black hole, placing them close together in orbit, and twisting the U-shaped cylender formed by this process (via magnetic field). The more times it 'double helixes', the fartherin time you go, thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity. You go in one side, and go backwards, the other and you go forwards.
Tadaa!
Ron, light years are a measure of distance, not time. It's the distance light travels in a year. For example, we are about 4.5 light years from Alpha Centauri, so if it stopped shining, we'd know about it in the middle of 2014.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheoretically, however, naked singularities/wormholes could be the key to our teleportation and time travel. Please consider Einstein's model of gravity, a thin rubber sheet representing the Space-Time Continuum. If you place an orange on the sheet, it will stretch a 'gravity field' for itself in space-time. In small gravitational fields, such as Earth's and the Sun's, it is nearly undetectable. However, when you take a black hole that masses as much as a million suns, you really feel the effects.
If you took your spaceship and flew out to a black hole, and hovered right outside of the event horizon for a while before returning to Earth, upon your landing you would find that all your friends would have aged much more then you.
Wormholes are supposedly like two connected points on the space-time sheet mentioned above.
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/wormhole_graphic.jpg
Teleportation could be achieved by a naked singularity wormhole. Normal wormholes have gravity fields (that crush and kill), as shown in the graphic, but a singularity wormhole could be represented as a thin cylinder linking the points. You go in one and come out the other, perhaps providing the basis for interstellar travel, or the fabled 'warp drive'.
In the graphic, it shows the wormhole as a straight cylinder with gravity wells on both ends. Time travel has been proposed by taking the entrance and the exit of the black hole, placing them close together in orbit, and twisting the U-shaped cylinder formed by this process (via magnetic field). The more times it 'double helixes', the farther in time you go, thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity. You go in one side, and go backwards; the other and you go forwards.
Ron, light years are a measure of distance, not time. It's the distance light travels in a year. For example, we are about 4.5 light years from Alpha Centauri, so if it stopped shining, we'd know about it in the middle of 2014.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheoretically, however, naked singularities/wormholes could be the key to our teleportation and time travel. Please consider Einstein's model of gravity, a thin rubber sheet representing the Space-Time Continuum. If you place an orange on the sheet, it will stretch a 'gravity field' for itself in space-time. In small gravitational fields, such as Earth's and the Sun's, it is nearly undetectable. However, when you take a black hole that masses as much as a million suns, you really feel the effects.
If you took your spaceship and flew out to a black hole, and hovered right outside of the event horizon for a while before returning to Earth, upon your landing you would find that all your friends would have aged much more then you.
Wormholes are supposedly like two connected points on the space-time sheet mentioned above.
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/wormhole_graphic.jpg
Teleportation could be achieved by a naked singularity wormhole. Normal wormholes have gravity fields (that crush and kill), as shown in the graphic, but a singularity wormhole could be represented as a thin cylinder linking the points. You go in one and come out the other, perhaps providing the basis for interstellar travel, or the fabled 'warp drive'.
In the graphic, it shows the wormhole as a straight cylinder with gravity wells on both ends. Time travel has been proposed by taking the entrance and the exit of the black hole, placing them close together in orbit, and twisting the U-shaped cylinder formed by this process (via magnetic field). The more times it 'double helixes', the farther in time you go, thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity. You go in one side, and go backwards; the other and you go forwards.
Light, unlike most forms of radiation, has a minute amount of mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRon, light years are a measure of distance, not time. It's the distance light travels in a year. For example, we are about 4.5 light years from Alpha Centauri, so if it stopped shining, we'd know about it in the middle of 2014.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheoretically, however, naked singularities/wormholes could be the key to our teleportation and time travel. Please consider Einstein's model of gravity, a thin rubber sheet representing the Space-Time Continuum. If you place an orange on the sheet, it will stretch a 'gravity field' for itself in space-time. In small gravitational fields, such as Earth's and the Sun's, it is nearly undetectable. However, when you take a black hole that masses as much as a million suns, you really feel the effects.
If you took your spaceship and flew out to a black hole, and hovered right outside of the event horizon for a while before returning to Earth, upon your landing you would find that all your friends would have aged much more then you.
Wormholes are supposedly like two connected points on the space-time sheet mentioned above.
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/wormhole_graphic.jpg
Teleportation could be achieved by a naked singularity wormhole. Normal wormholes have gravity fields (that crush and kill), as shown in the graphic, but a singularity wormhole could be represented as a thin cylinder linking the points. You go in one and come out the other, perhaps providing the basis for interstellar travel, or the fabled 'warp drive'.
In the graphic, it shows the wormhole as a straight cylinder with gravity wells on both ends. Time travel has been proposed by taking the entrance and the exit of the black hole, placing them close together in orbit, and twisting the U-shaped cylinder formed by this process (via magnetic field). The more times it 'double helixes', the farther in time you go, thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity. You go in one side, and go backwards; the other and you go forwards.
Could a single super massive black hole be responsible for the creation of the Universe? By this I mean is it possible for a black hole to reach a point or state in which it can no longer hold itself together, therefore exploding in a "Blackhole Supernova"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll The Mass Of The Universe Formed At The Pre-Big-Bang Singularity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe is a two-poles entity, an all-mass and an all-energy poles.
The elementary particle of the universe is the graviton. The gravitons are compacted into the universal inert singularity mass only for the smallest fraction of a second, when all the gravitons of the universe are compacted together, with zero distance between all of them. This state is mandated by their small size and by their hence weak force.
The big bang is the shattering of the short-lived singularity mass into fragments that later became galactic clusters. This is inflation. The shattering is the start of movement of the shatters i.e. the start of reconversion of mass into energy, which is mass in motion. This reconversion proceeds at a constant rate since the big bang since the resolution of gravitons, their release from their shatters-clusters, proceeds at constant rate due to their weak specific force due to their small size.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
Theoretically, yes, considering that the laws of time and space break down near a singularity. However, this would require people to go so close that they would be torn apart due to gravitational differences between one side of their body and another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, this pressure, however, comes from the Exclusion principle rather than fusion. Past a certain mass, the exclusion principle no longer functions since the molecules are limited by the speed of light (the theory of special relativity). Essentially, massive stars gravity overcome the exclusion principle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow's the view up there on your soapbox?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this