Naked Singularities Can Actually Exist in a Three-Dimensional Universe, Physicists Predict

For the first time, physicists have demonstrated that a universe like ours with three spatial dimensions could actually host a naked singularity – an event so intense, the laws of physics would fall apart.

more…

Could light escape from a naked singularity?

How would different shaped universes effect us?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Naked Singularities Can Actually Exist in a Three-Dimensional Universe, Physicists Predict

For the first time, physicists have demonstrated that a universe like ours with three spatial dimensions could actually host a naked singularity – an event so intense, the laws of physics would fall apart.

more…

Naked Singularities Can Actually Exist in a Three-Dimensional Universe, Physicists Predict

For the first time, physicists have demonstrated that a universe like ours with three spatial dimensions could actually host a naked singularity – an event so intense, the laws of physics would fall apart.

more…

Could light escape from a naked singularity?

How would different shaped universes effect us?

First post here before following link.

Yes. Light could escape from a naked singularity. To put it another way, a naked singularity is a black hole that isn’t black.

What’s so special about three spacial dimensions? GR allows a naked singularity and it has three spacial dimensions. On the other hand, a naked singularity has to be formed by the collapse of a prolate object rotating about its long axis, which IMHO is extremely rare if not impossible because centrifugal action changes the prolate into oblate.

“falling apart” is a bit harsh, more about that in next post.

As for different shaped universes, perhaps they’re talking about a variation of string theory with large extra dimensions. With large extra dimensions, micro-black holes form at very much lower energies, much more easily, than with extra dimensions all of the Planck scale.

Now reading link.

“Until now, researchers have only been able to place naked singularities in five-dimensional universes”. By “five dimensional universe” they mean a universe with at least one large extra dimension from string theory.

“No one’s ever detected a naked singularity in our Universe, but these hypothetical regions in space are predicted to form when huge stars collapse at the end of their lives”. No, they’re not, because huge stars are oblate. Although, thinking about it, massive amounts of turbulence in the core of a collapsing star could have an effect on that. Unlikely though.

The article writer doesn’t fully understand that naked singularities are entirely consistent with General Relativity is our bog standard universe with three spacial dimensions.

Does a naked singularity have an ergosphere? – check wikipedia – “From concepts drawn from rotating black holes, it is shown that a singularity, spinning rapidly, can become a ring-shaped object. This results in two event horizons, as well as an ergosphere, which draw closer together as the spin of the singularity increases. When the outer and inner event horizons merge, they shrink toward the rotating singularity and eventually expose it to the rest of the universe.” – what! That’s not my understanding at all. Oh wait, yes it is, sort of, I’m just looking at it from a different perspective. It doesn’t answer the question of whether a naked singularity has an ergosphere, though.

“Demetrios Christodoulou has shown that naked singularities are unstable.”

Interesting, I wonder if that’s that the linked article is all about. Naked singularities are unstable in our universe but not in a 4-D universe with a different topology.

I can start to see how such an instability can occur. It’s the same sort of behaviour that creates the shape of Haumea. If you rotate an oblate ellipsoid in hydrostatic equilibrium fast enough then the oblate shape becomes unstable and becomes a squashed dumbbell shape.

OK. To summarise the summary – naked singularities don’t occur in our universe.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Naked Singularities Can Actually Exist in a Three-Dimensional Universe, Physicists Predict

For the first time, physicists have demonstrated that a universe like ours with three spatial dimensions could actually host a naked singularity – an event so intense, the laws of physics would fall apart.

more…

I haven’t read the link, but the most they could possibly do is show that the mathematical model of the universe that they used allows a naked singularity (whatever that is). Since it is physically impossible to investigate the behaviour of a singularity, even if they are physically possible, no scientific hypothesis about singularities can be verified.

Still haven’t read it, but have read Moll’s quotes:

“For the first time, physicists have demonstrated that a universe like ours with three spatial dimensions could actually host a naked singularity – an event so intense, the laws of physics would fall apart.”

So they are using the “laws of physics” to investigate what happens when the “laws of physics” fall apart.

So we have a paradox.

Where “paradox” means a conclusion with no validity.

I think they’re just interested in further developing the theoretical physics that may eventually enable them to fully describe such extreme objects.

Bubblecar said:

I think they’re just interested in further developing the theoretical physics that may eventually enable them to fully describe such extreme objects.

If it can be fully described, it isn’t a singularity.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I think they’re just interested in further developing the theoretical physics that may eventually enable them to fully describe such extreme objects.

If it can be fully described, it isn’t a singularity.

I think most physicists still hope to get rid of these singularities :)

But they don’t have the theoretical tools to do so.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I think they’re just interested in further developing the theoretical physics that may eventually enable them to fully describe such extreme objects.

If it can be fully described, it isn’t a singularity.

I think most physicists still hope to get rid of these singularities :)

But they don’t have the theoretical tools to do so.

yes. They cause endless argument.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I think they’re just interested in further developing the theoretical physics that may eventually enable them to fully describe such extreme objects.

If it can be fully described, it isn’t a singularity.

I think most physicists still hope to get rid of these singularities :)

But they don’t have the theoretical tools to do so.

Of course they do.

Engineers use these theoretical tools all day every day. Every time they analyse any structure with a corner for instance.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If it can be fully described, it isn’t a singularity.

I think most physicists still hope to get rid of these singularities :)

But they don’t have the theoretical tools to do so.

Of course they do.

Engineers use these theoretical tools all day every day. Every time they analyse any structure with a corner for instance.

It’s a bit more complicated than that.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I think most physicists still hope to get rid of these singularities :)

But they don’t have the theoretical tools to do so.

Of course they do.

Engineers use these theoretical tools all day every day. Every time they analyse any structure with a corner for instance.

It’s a bit more complicated than that.

No, the level of complication is identical.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Of course they do.

Engineers use these theoretical tools all day every day. Every time they analyse any structure with a corner for instance.

It’s a bit more complicated than that.

No, the level of complication is identical.

Well you maybe you can help them out then. They seem to think they need a workable theory of quantum gravity.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

It’s a bit more complicated than that.

No, the level of complication is identical.

Well you maybe you can help them out then. They seem to think they need a workable theory of quantum gravity.

You would need a workable theory of quantum gravity to exactly analyse what happens at any corner as well. That’s why engineers use an approximation, which is what physicists use as well of course.

What I object to is people talking about “singularities” as if they were real when there is no evidence for that, and can be no evidence for that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, the level of complication is identical.

Well you maybe you can help them out then. They seem to think they need a workable theory of quantum gravity.

You would need a workable theory of quantum gravity to exactly analyse what happens at any corner as well. That’s why engineers use an approximation, which is what physicists use as well of course.

What I object to is people talking about “singularities” as if they were real when there is no evidence for that, and can be no evidence for that.

This is what I mean about this work really being intended to help them progress beyond the theoretical limitations that produce singularities, which is what I gathered from the article.

Bubblecar said:

This is what I mean about this work really being intended to help them progress beyond the theoretical limitations that produce singularities, which is what I gathered from the article.

Hmmmph. I suppose you’ll be expecting me to read things before dismissing them next.

Perhaps that is where all good Catholics go to when they die.