Slashdot Mirror
No Naked Black Holes
Science News reports on a paper to be published in Physical Review Letters in which an international team of researchers describes their computer simulation of the most violent collision imaginable: two black holes colliding head-on at nearly light-speed. Even in this extreme scenario, Roger Penrose's weak cosmic censorship hypothesis seems to hold — the resulting black hole (after the gravitational waves have died down) retains its event horizon. "Mathematically, 'naked' singularities, or those without event horizons, can exist, but physicists wouldn't know what to make of them. All known mechanisms for the formation of singularities also create an event horizon, and Penrose conjectured that there must be some physical principle — a 'cosmic censor' — that forbids singularity nakedness ..."
In 3,2,1...
I'm gonna need a spec.
Oh jeez.
Unfortunately, physicists have also discovered that yo momma, an entity with similar mass to a gigantic black hole, is in fact quite capable of being naked. As a result, physicists are working furiously to implement a cosmic censor to prevent this, or, failing that, a cosmic paper bag.
They're all Greek to me.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
""Mathematically, 'naked' singularities, or those without event horizons, can exist, but physicists wouldn't know what to make of them. All known mechanisms for the formation of singularities also create an event horizon, and Penrose conjectured that there must be some physical principle â" a 'cosmic censor' â" that forbids singularity nakedness...""
Basically because there's two extreme conditions. Out here and in there. One can't help but have a boundary.
Does anyone else get sad at the thought that there are so many weird things in the universe you may not learn the answers to in your lifetime? What if everyone posting here never finds out the reason for the cosmic censor? Sort of depressing.
Penrose conjectured that there must be some physical principle â" a 'cosmic censor' â" that forbids singularity nakedness...
God, is that you?
A play on the tree falling in the forest question: If two black holes collide and it makes a hell of a loud "boom" but the sound gets pulled into the black hole and, consequently, nobody hears it, did it make a sound?
Something is a bit unclear to me from the article. What do they mean when they speak of the black hole "retaining" its event horizon? This black hole is the result of two black holes which have collided. Is the "retained" event horizon larger because of the increased mass? Or are the event horizons of all black holes of equal diameter and thus the "retained" event horizon remains of this size? Confusing. It sure would be cool to see such a collision as described here, though. :-)
Seems to me, most people on Slashdot likely *only* experience singularity nakedness.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Roger Penrose is a smart guy, I wonder why he isn't as famous as other academics like Richard Dawkins. I just can't put my finger on it.
If photonst have weight, they can be effected by gravity, and a black hole can form around any object with sufficient mass to trap light. That's all there is to it. There is no magical singularity where the laws of physics break down. There doesn't need to be.
...the maximal Cauchy development of generic compact or asymptotically flat initial data is locally inextendible as a regular Lorentzian manifold.
Right?
Lemmings are silly; dinosaurs are extinct.
This isn't exactly my field, but I thought the no-hair theorem guaranteed this result. I guess the tricky part is in the transient phase.
Quantum physics was baffling to me (still is, actually), but I eventually came to see it as a way that nature avoided some inherent paradoxes and contradictions that were present when you took classic physics down to the level of fundamental particles. I have no doubt that, on a larger scale, the same principle applies: Somehow, someway, the laws of physics will always resolve with no singularities, no contradictions, no divide-by-zero-error, no infinities. If our formulas seem to indicate that one will be found, I suspect our understanding is incomplete.
Naked God.
That's heavy, Doc.
They are a figment of physicists' imagination. Multiple universes, black holes, wormholes, quantum computing, time travel, etc. It's all superstition. Chicken shit Star-Trek physics, all of it. No better than voodoo dolls. LOL.
Friends,
The other day a friend asked me to comment about Apple computers. Itâ(TM)s funny that I had only recently been thinking and praying about these queerest of computers. It certainly is true that Apple computers are very popular amongst the homosexual communities, the fact that these computers are so popular indicates the depths to which our great nation has sunk to.
The Apple corporation logo is naturally an apple with a bite taken out of it. Is it not a coincidence that Eve tempted Adam with an Apple? The apple is a symbol of defiance against God, and was an obvious choice for a company whose primary objectives include the liberalisation of all media, and which activly finances the political party that hates God.
When I first saw an apple computer (called a Mac, after the popular fast food product) with itâ(TM)s âoefruityâ design, I had assumed that it was some kind of obsolete product aimed at latte sipping east-coast homosexual designers. This initial observation turned out to be only half true:
The apple computers are not as obsolete as their gaudy designs suggest - the Apple computer company, based in that Sodomite Central, Cupertino CA, have invested a great deal of money in keeping up with more mainstream American PC brands like Dell or IBM, however rather than compete on computing power, practicality or ease of use the Apple company prefer to emphasize âoeeye-candyâ. If you are the sort of person who loves nothing more than gazing for hours at an aquarium full of brightly colored fish, then the feeling of using an Apple desktop will be most familiar.
Note the oddly-shaped apple-mouse. Unike modern computer mice, the Apple product has only one button. This is because historically Apple computer failed to license the patent for including buttons on mice. Since most apple computers are used as childrenâ(TM)s toys, their homosexual owners have barely noticed this deficiency, they are too busy thinking about sodomy worry about their computerâ(TM)s obvious deficiencies.
Windows appear to swim around, distorting and melding into the âoedockâ, with almost psychedellic fluidity. Parts of the desktop become inexplicably transparant, and then return to normal or else swirl into oblivion. Control over windows is achived not through familiar buttons (like Windowâ(TM)s âoeXâ), but candy colored blobs, which are designed to remind the user of âoeExtasyâ tablets. I suspect that the Apple design team must have been doing more drugs than the average touring funk-band.
The Apple OSX platform is missing a large number of common and esential productivity tools commonly used on the Windows platform. For example the endearing BonziBuddy can only be found on Windows, and therefore will only run on a Mac that has been upgraded to Boot-Camp and Windows. I suspect that this is exactly what most Mac-owners will feel forced to do.
Naturally, the big question is, does the âoealternative lifestyleâ approach to computer design really pay-off for the people who count: The Users?
I think the answer is no. Having used computers all my life, I consider myself an expert in the day to day tasks of computing. The Microsoft Windows operating system makes installing, uninstalling, defragmenting, and removal of viruses and spyware trivially easy. Itâ(TM)s a shame that the Apple company (who unbelievably are much praised for their interface design) had not thought to make these everyday tasks simpler.
As I have pointed out on a number of occasions both Linux and AppleMac fail to unclude a disk-defragmentor, a personal firewall, a standard method for installing or removing software or even a system repair utility. Microsoft introduced all of this in their epoch-making âoeWindows Meâ edition. Linux users have had to get used to the lack of these essential productivity tools, however Linux is universally acknowledged as a cheap immitation of Windows. Mac on the other-hand is marketed as a fu
Which is why the DVDs "Physicists Gone Wild" were never really successful. Although the LHC did turn up as the hottest collider in Europe, so far still no naked singularities.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Sorry, but what exactly is a value or point of such a huge amount of absolute speculation?! The weak cosmic censorship hypothesis holds, ummm was there any surprise that it held within our limited understanding of the phenomenas parameters in a computer enviroment built on the same assumptions, we made the result fit our hypothesis of the way things are. This is just a purely speculative mathematical spankfest with no real tangible result. Two black holes colliding head-on at nearly light-speed... WTF?!?! At nearly light speed?! Golly, was it in 3D?! Does anyone else see the absurdity of this pseudoscintific masturbation? Not to make light of this but it would have been more quantifiable and practical if the "two black holes colliding head-on" were in a porno movie at slightly above average body temperature with a Bowchikawowwow backbeat?
Confucius say "Physicist who say there is no naked singularity should examine their equations through a peep hole."
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
You had me at naked...
Saw the video. Can we call it the Eye of Harmony effect? lol.
This means that not only are we living in a simulation, but we're being run on a digital computer.
The Bush administration would never stand for allowing naked black holes up there in the sky where little kids could see them, and Jesus would never allow them in His heavens anyways.
I can't get over this sort of story. "We programmed our INCOMPLETE understanding of the cosmos into this simulation, which tells us X, therefore X is more likely."
Anything based on a computer simulation is based on our arbitrarily incomplete knowledge. To base even the least significant conclusions upon it seems laughably irresponsible and unscientific.
But hey, I was a music major, so what do I know.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
Touching is Transitive. Pay attention.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't understand the relevance of this article. The authors themselves say that counterexamples have no way of coming into existence. Is someone implying that LHC can do this? What nonsense... The whole point of the LHC is to provide the data where the standard model might seem a little shaky. It is then and only then that we should let the theorists out of their cages!
...the most violent collision imaginable: two black holes colliding head-on at nearly light-speed.
What about 3 black holes colliding head-on at nearly light-speed?
for stuff like this if scientists are still figuring out the physics of black holes?
During this file sure that I've conti8ues in a more grandiose Market share. Red WOOT! ho0se... pathetic. Join GNAA (GAY of an admittedly it attempts to
Because there aren't three black hole colliding - there are two black holes colliding and then a third one colliding into the result. Remember they are travelling at the almost speed of light so the collision won't take very long.
Eh, Penrose is an idiot. And no, this is not intended as flamebait; but he's basically doing the exact opposite of what science actually should work like.
When faced with something that current theories can't explain satisfactorily, instead of either trying to gather more data to see whether it really is true or trying to expand those theories to provide the missing explanation, he simply conjures a deus ex machina to provide the missing explanation.
There don't seem to be any naked singularities? Well, obviously, that's because nature doesn't like naked singularities. But that's worthless, just as it would've been worthless if Newton had said "things fall down because nature likes it that way". It's essentially just a restating of the fact itself, with an additional is->ought fallacy slapped on.
Fixing that Coolant leak, I think you guys are just trying to install a Black hole collider. Since you heard of this, no more tiny weenie protons. Black holes are hot now.
Since the most common model for the creation of a naked singularity involves a rapidly spinning black hole, I fail to understand why there should be any expectation that colliding two black holes head-on would have that effect. This sounds like pseudo-science... "look, something that wasn't expected to create a naked singularity doesn't seem to do that in a simulation, so they can't exist!"
Perhaps someone could educate me here but how accurate is this because surely we've never done any study into the effects of gravity at the speed of light. Doesn't gravity act differently at this speed?
Dude, that's so lame. For jokes about black holes, look no farther than the uncyclopedia.
Black hole
Event Horizon
Albert Einstein
Stephen Hawking
And of course we can't forget YOUR MOM!
No go away or I shall taunt you again.
Free Martian Whores!
According to TFA, the collision releases a massive shockwave of gravitational waves and x-rays equal in some simulations to 14% of the mass of the black hole(s). Isn't this information from behind/beyond the event horizon? I've never quite understood how x-rays could 'escape' the event horizon if there is such a thing as an event horizon. Or am I misunderstanding TFA and black holes/x-rays. Cheers.
The article overviews two scenarios: a head-on collision and a collision that was not head-on. If black holes are singularities how can any collision between two black holes be anything other than head-on?
So...how long before CBS bitches that the black holes are using their logo without permission?
Okay, so, I think I kinda understand singularity and event horizon. So, lets say we're observing a black hole from a point *inside* the event horizon.
Would then the singularity be seen as a naked singularity?
Or would there be another event horizon that applies to that internal point of reference?
Since when did Ashcroft get involved with astrophysics?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
What confuses me about this is that the spin rate of the black hole does not affect its mass, and the gravity is a function of the mass and your distance to that mass. So how does this work? I'm familiar with something called "frame dragging" where a spinning mass distorts spacetime in a way that a non-spinning mass doesn't. Is this involved here?
And along what axis is it naked? Let me reason this out: Along the plane of the spin, the frame dragging is (I'm guessing) counteracting the effects of gravity. Spin fast enough, and the singularity is visible along that plane. As you move around the black hole to observe it from along the axis of spin, the lack of frame dragging makes the black hole no longer observable. Is this on track?
It's not really like many (if any) of us is doing anything to change that outcome :-/
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
This wasn't a good test for cosmic censorship, and wasn't intended as such, from my reading of TFA. A better test would have been two counter rotating holes striking slightly off center.
Anyway, it says nothing about unrelated simulations that have shown that naked singularities are likely.
Sorry about the new scientist link, but all the other references I found were unhelpful journal articles.
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
Whatever happened to the naked singularities from a football theory?
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Ah yes, Uncyclopedia: The unfunny version of Encylopedia Dramatica.
ED of course has an article on Uncyclopedia that pretty much shows how stupid the latter is... whereas Uncyclopedia just links ED to their Goatse article because they can't think of what to say.
-1, Unfalsifiable
+1, Simple
For example, assuming digital physics would handily explain Heisenberg uncertainty as an effect of dither noise.
Will you cut the innuendo, please? Christian creationists have a hard time following already, using repelling sexual imagery is not going to help!
Do not trust this signature.
n/t
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I clickled your link and who did I see? OJ Simpson and and an NSFW popup. I looked up "black hole" and came up dry.I looked up Stephen Hawking and saw nothing funny at all, just lame insults.
That popup is extremely unfunny. Uncyclopedia has me laughing out loud at times (the article about kitten huffing is priceless), and NSFW articles are noted at the top of NSFW pages.
Your dramatica is LAME. Uber lame. Commercially lame. I can certainly see why you posted anonymously.
Free Martian Whores!
I'm just curiouse what the event horizon for a black hole must really look like. Most of the images I have seen portray it as a 2D object in space, makes sense seeing as we will preceive it as a 2D object but of course it must be a 3D object. So the event horizon shouldn't be exactly flat as most pictures have to show it. I was wondering if there is a 3D picture that has been simulated to show the event horizon as I think it would be interesting to see how everything is sucked in if they have poles that pull harder than other areas it seems like something interesting.
What if you use a large mass of magnetic monopole instead of another blackhole?
That has to be one of the finest examples of gangsta-geek humor since the dawn of Mc Hawking.
The object in the middle won't be travelling at (almost) the speed of light - at least not in any direction which is head on to any of the other two objects
Just because math and physics don't match up perfectly, doesn't mean we have to call the result "God," nor to allude to such as "cosmic censorship." That just confuses all those idiots who already are inclined to point at anything we don't know and call that magic/god. Perhaps it would be better to call it the "we don't know yet" principle, since anything cleverer is lost on the massless.
If we shot enough stars across the event horizon, would that give the singularity enough momentum to partthe veil?
How many times must the LHC fail to get started before we see the guiding hand of God telling us not to destroy the universe?
The newsletter of the Virginia Tech chapter of the Society of Physics Students is (or was) called "The Naked Singularity."
I suppose we could call this the cosmic emergency restraining order hypothesis? ;^)
Well even if there's all atoms or all energy. There's still one issue. A black hole should grow since matter nor energy is destroyed.
Do you ever get the feeling that they choose stories and phrase summaries a certain way JUST so we'll have plenty of ways to make jokes about it?
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
not in Ohio: you still sign up a few times if you want. Wait to see what happens in November; mark my words.
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
Wasn't this settled, oh, a DECADE ago, when some simulations showed that yes, there could be naked singularities formed? It doesn't matter how many scenarios don't create one, if one scenario does, then the theory allows for it (whether the real universe does or not).
NYT story on naked singularity bet
(Research on this comment consisted of one query to google, keywords "naked singularity")
BTW, "naked black hole" is a contradiction in terms. A naked singularity is, by definition, not a black hole.
Isn't the definition of "black hole" something that is so heavy and small that even light cannot escape from it?
And isn't the definition of "event horizon" the boundary beyond which we cannot observe anything, because no light can escape from it?
Wouldn't it follow from those definitions that black holes must have an event horizon? I mean, if they didn't, that would mean there was no boundary beyond which we could not see. Ergo, light would escape from them. Therefore, they wouldn't be black holes.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.