View Full Version : Naked Singularities

2009-Feb-28, 04:54 AM
Anyone else read that article, "Naked Singularities" by Pankaj S. Joshi in the February 2009, Scientific American?

I must be getting conservative in my old age but it all just seems so WRONG! Am I just far too comfortable with Penrose's Cosmic Censorship principle?

It seems that he does play a bit of a semantic game when he talks about objects with more diffuse density that end up with an event horizon inside them - I mean how is THAT a singluarity? But as usual, I am Close to the Edge (down by the corner) of my understanding (well, okay, beyond)....but he never mentions quark stars either. It seems that there could be an object that is more dense than a neutron star but that does not have to mean it plops to a point, right?

If only if Asimov were alive to explain this....

2009-Feb-28, 06:39 AM
You are not the only one to bet that Penrose was right...

No matter how hard you try to push their boundaries, black holes always seem to preserve their modesty. Indiscreet astrophysicists have simulated the most violent collisions of black holes yet, and found that the resulting black hole still has an event horizon — the surface through which even light cannot escape and that hide black holes’ interiors.....

The simulations also showed that the resulting black hole conformed to a long-standing conjecture, often attributed to Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford in England and called the cosmic censorship hypothesis....

Coauthor Ulrich Sperhake, now at Caltech, says that his and other teams will keep trying to produce naked singularities, but that he doubts that they really exist. “If you ask me, ‘What am I going to put my next two salaries on?’ That Penrose was right.”
source: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37200/title/No_naked_black_holes