Naked Singularities?

Question

Ok if there were to be a naked singularity there would have to be somthing that can travel faster than light right? This term "cosmic censorship" for event horizons to me seems to be written like the horizons were put there to keep everything from being sucked in. But all it is, is the disance that nothing can escape from. So there would have to be an event horizon unless a singularity was powerfull enough to engulf the whole universe right? I hope that makes sense.

Answer 1

Keep in mind that as you approach a black hole, its apparent schwarzschild radius will contract. Light that doesn't escape still does make it a finite distance before it is infinitely redshifted. The "official" schwarzschild radius means that as seen from an infinite distance, nothing that passes that point can escape.

The universe could well be inside of its own Schwarzschild radius; this is the very definition of a closed universe! (It looks like it isn't closed, but who knows for sure?). Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, all that is guaranteed is that all paths will eventually lead to the singularity (the eventual "big crunch" in a closed universe).

Remember, a singularity inside of a black hole is really only a mathematical construct that exists when you apply only general relativity. . . and our incomplete knowledge of particle physics. We don't really know if there are more forms of degeneracy that support matter at a finite size. Even more fundamentally, we can reasonably talk about distances and time (and consequently, gravity as described by general relativity) once you reach sizes of order the Planck length. This is a finite spatial scale (larger than a singularity).

Asserting that certain mass densities smaller than certain sizes become singularities is reckless. The singularity in black holes is merely the extrapolation of a very accurate theory (General Relativity) to an extreme condition where it probably breaks down. This is the kind of question that quantum gravity theories can address, but not pure gravity theory.

Answer 2

Cosmic censorship is actually just the principle that it is impossible to observe a singluarity. The event horizon is a byproduct of that. The reason physicists don't think it's possible to observe a singularity is because a singularity is a point in the universe where gravity goes to infinity. Since physicists don't like that kind of infinity, they came up with cosmic censorship as a way around it. Cosmic censorship also has a basis in the general theory of relativity due to time dilation. As you fall closer and closer to the singularity, time slows down, so you never really make it there. (I'm not entirely sure I got that last bit right, so don't quote me on it.) In any case, cosmic censorship has not been rigorously proven, and I think that some physicists know ways to get around it, but I don't know what they are.

Answer 3

it does no longer be the first time that Hawking has retraced statements. All of technology concurs that a singularity existed on the starting up of the enormous bang, they're unable to detrmine what the singularity became made from throughout the time of that is 10-40 3 of a second. i'm of the opinion that this era of time represented the existence span of the singularity previously it began to enhance into time and area.

Answer 4

Naked Singularities are theoretically possible but like the mythical worm holes and white holes, haven't been yet observed and may not ever be observed. A singularity is so dense that light cannot escape from a certain horizon (Called the event or apparent horizon) Hence, since we need y'know, light to see things, it's KINDA hard to see and observe them. Honestly, the things we don't about the universe is enough to fill in well, a universe.

Answer 5

NO. It doesn't make sense to me or 99.999% of the population. Call Steven Hawking. He might be able to explain.