Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No Naked Black Holes

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the also-no-hair dept.

Space 317

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 ..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Here come the goatse jokes (-1, Offtopic)

Bob Gelumph (715872) | about 6 years ago | (#25269753)

In 3,2,1...

Re:Here come the goatse jokes (5, Funny)

Legion_SB (1300215) | about 6 years ago | (#25269823)

It's already asking a lot for nerdlings to not snicker at any reference to a "hole".

Adding in nakedness just goes beyond any reasonable expectation of restraint.

Re:Here come the goatse jokes (1)

iwein (561027) | about 6 years ago | (#25270407)

Don't worry, there is a a 'cosmic censor' (that's probably that guy that doesn't mod you up if you talk evolution theory).

Re:Here come the goatse jokes (1)

iamapizza (1312801) | about 6 years ago | (#25270599)

All objects in the universe have the right to be naked. I for one plan to fight this illegal and Machiavellian cosmic censorship, especially for all the heavenly bodies right here on Earth.

from the also-no-hair dept. (4, Funny)

suso (153703) | about 6 years ago | (#25269755)

Oh jeez.

Apple Computer, The Homosexual's Favorite (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269965)

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 full-price premium product.

Apple computers come preloaded with iTunes which only works with Appleâ(TM)s oddly-coloured iPod. The Apple Mac cannot run the more popular âoeWindows Media Playerâ, and is therefore incompatible with Microsoft DRM or the wildly popular Microsoft Zune. This seems quite unfair to me, and is most probably an illegal monopoly.

Finally, we should also ask ourselves - is the Apple Mac good value for money? Superficially this may seem to be the case - Apple try to match price-points with Dell on a range of products, however the clues are in the small-print. All Dell products include the industry standard Windows Vista as standard. Dell ensure that each computer comes with an operating system, without which the computer could not function. Apple computers are still bundled with OSX, an attractive but aging operating system based on the very old UNIX, a technology developed by SCO group in the early 70s. This is the the same technology which Linux developers were recently accused of stealing.

Are apple aware of thier obvious limitations? We think they must be - A couple of years ago they released a product that most shrill-voiced liberal Apple pundits believed was impossible: Itâ(TM)s called âoeBoot Campâ - a utility that upgrades any recent Apple computer to be compatible with the industry standard Microsoft Windows. Industry insiders now believe that this release heralds Apple Computer Corporationâ(TM)s exit from the software business. For once, we at STR.com agree with Apple - this would be a sensible way to preserve shareholder value.

Apple computer make a big deal out of the claim that their absurdly lurid products are âoeDesigned in Californiaâ, however a close inspection reveals that just like Linux, they are made in the Republic of China. Christians and Patriots should rather invest in an IBM ThinkPad, which is both designed and made in the USA.

Customers should also consider the moral aspects of buying an Apple computer. One reason for the queerness of Appleâ(TM)s products is that the companyâ(TM)s board of directors includes Albert Gore - yes, the same Al Gore whose doom and gloom environmental cassandra-complex is intended to distract America from itâ(TM)s real foes (the Islamofascists and Homosexuals). Apple has historically been a major backer of the Democratic party, and both Bill and Hillary Clinton, not to mention Osama Bin Laden are avid Apple Mac users.

The simple and sad fact is that if you buy a Mac or an iPod you are funding immorality. You are helping to finance the secularists who are ruining America.

Re:Apple Computer, The Homosexual's Favorite (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270187)

Anything that starts with

"Friends,"

is likely homosexual in itself. What a schmuck.

Re:from the also-no-hair dept. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270889)

you could actually see such collisions on various pr0n sites; two black holes collidig (dildo may be involved)

Physicists... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269763)

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.

Re:Physicists... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269977)

In other words, yo momma's so fat, her Schwarzchild radius is visible to the naked eye?

Thats a lot of equations. (2, Funny)

MrKaos (858439) | about 6 years ago | (#25269779)

They're all Greek to me.

Firing line. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269781)

""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.

Emmett Brown (3, Funny)

Kagura (843695) | about 6 years ago | (#25269927)

That's heavy, Doc.

Re:Emmett Brown (2, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 6 years ago | (#25271111)

There's that word again; "heavy". Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?

Re:Firing line. (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | about 6 years ago | (#25270005)

you make it sound like something made up. It's the point at which no matter can escape, not just some "okay, let's mark it here" thing that scientists make up. And if it has none then that means at the center, there's not enough gravity to hold the highest energy level particles and it would disintigrate or not even form in the first place really. There's some theory I heard that since the radius is infinitely small, if it stands perfectly still and takes in a bunch of high energy matter from the same direction, it would spin faster and faster and eventually be rotating faster than the speed of light. How does something with no radius rotate at a measurable speed? I dunno, I didn't write the book. But they say in theory that at that exact point, it would stop emitting gravity completely and have no event horizon. So that's one theory I heard at least for how one would exist without one. Of course, we wouldn't be able to detect it so it could be anywhere. That must be what flips hard drive bits. BTW, isn't it funny that a galactic "censor" that they say the event horizon is technically takes the form of a big, black circle just like the FCC uses :p

Does anyone else get sad? (4, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | about 6 years ago | (#25269821)

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.

Re:Does anyone else get sad? (1)

religious freak (1005821) | about 6 years ago | (#25269961)

Or you could look at the bright side and celebrate all the things we know, instead of living in the darkness of 3,000 years ago.

Or, if you want to go new age, just have "faith" in the singularity, life extension, cryonics and postulate that the probability is that you'll be immortal.

Re:Does anyone else get sad? (5, Insightful)

fortunato (106228) | about 6 years ago | (#25270225)

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?

I would submit that this is the lament of every intelligent being since the dawn of time (assuming there is a dawn of time).

Re:Does anyone else get sad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270249)

You could always try and hope for an alternative.

Cryonics for example. Oh wait you have to do something actively. My bad.

Re:Does anyone else get sad? (1)

SL Baur (19540) | about 6 years ago | (#25270449)

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?

Which lifetime? I believe in reincarnation.

I get sadder at the fact that most people simply do not care.

Cosmic Censor (5, Funny)

aussie_a (778472) | about 6 years ago | (#25269827)

Penrose conjectured that there must be some physical principle â" a 'cosmic censor' â" that forbids singularity nakedness...

God, is that you?

Re:Cosmic Censor (5, Funny)

NuclearError (1256172) | about 6 years ago | (#25269969)

Sure is - black holes have mass and are therefore Catholic.

Re:Cosmic Censor (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270171)

Sure is - black holes have mass and are therefore Catholic.

For some reason your reference reminds me of Hotel California. [lyrics007.com]

Mirrors on the ceiling,
The pink champagne on ice
And she said we are all just prisoners here, of our own device
And in the master's chambers,
They gathered for the feast
The stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast

Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
relax, said the night man,
We are programmed to receive.
You can checkout any time you like,
But you can never leave!

The bolded portion bears the strongest relationship to black holes, but possible Christianity references abound. Maybe scientists should name some of them: Hotel California, purgatory, hell and call the one that gets us "the beast".

Re:Cosmic Censor (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270197)

the really funny thing about that, is that the word mass we use to refer to how much of an object there is, originates from the Christian meaning of it.

Re:Cosmic Censor (5, Funny)

retsil (763798) | about 6 years ago | (#25270415)

Every positron is sacred, every charge is great. If thy don't annihilate then thou must gyrate. Let the singularities spill them, let them loose their mass. ...

Re:Cosmic Censor (3, Funny)

ozbird (127571) | about 6 years ago | (#25270471)

Only if they eat wafers and sacrimental wine. Eating stars, solar systems etc. is gluttony - one of the seven deadly sins (collect them all!)

Re:Cosmic Censor (4, Funny)

Bieeanda (961632) | about 6 years ago | (#25270059)

Yes, it is.

Now stop touching yourself.

Black hole collision (1)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | about 6 years ago | (#25269829)

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. :-)

Re:Black hole collision (4, Informative)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | about 6 years ago | (#25269877)

The surface area of a black hole increases with its mass. And we expect the total area of all event horizons [wikipedia.org] to increase over time (apart from a small amount of leakage from Hawing radiation).

And the boom from a black hole is usually in the form of X-rays or gamma rays radiation and, in energetic terms, it's very loud.

Re:Black hole collision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270065)

Why doesn't a black hole collapse onto itself and disappear since it attracts everything in its vicinity? IOW, why do black holes have sizes? Assuming a black hole is not a figment of nerds' imagination, that is. LOL.

Re:Black hole collision (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 6 years ago | (#25270221)

Maybe you could look up "event horizon" and see that it has nothing to do with the physical size of stuff. It's just the distance from some item of mass where the escape velocity from its gravity is equal to the speed of light.

And of course the "collapse into itself and disappear" is the entire singularity problem (except it doesn't disappear - there's that silly law of thermodynamics and matter/energy equivalence to get in the way)...

Re:Black hole collision (5, Informative)

meringuoid (568297) | about 6 years ago | (#25270487)

Why doesn't a black hole collapse onto itself and disappear since it attracts everything in its vicinity? IOW, why do black holes have sizes?

All the mass of a black hole is compacted into an extremely small region at the centre - possibly infinitely small, but at the very least as small as physics allows matter to get. This is the singularity.

When we speak of the size of a black hole, we're actually referring to the region around that central object from which nothing can escape. As you approach the black hole, the gravitational field gets stronger and stronger, and there's a point of no return at which the escape velocity reaches c, the speed of light. Nothing nearer the hole than this can ever escape. This we call the event horizon - because no events beyond the horizon can ever be observed from outside. The more massive the hole, the further out the event horizon: look up 'Schwarzschild radius' for the equation.

The result of this is that any singularities in the universe are expected to be hidden behind event horizons, and cannot be seen. It's occasionally suggested that a naked singularity might form - for instance, a black hole might be spinning so fast as to counteract the effect of gravity and allow the singularity to be viewed from outside. This could have extremely bizarre results for the universe as a whole, so most physicists expect there to be some kind of 'cosmic censorship' principle that ensures that this does not happen. What we're looking at here is one way in which that might happen.

Re:Black hole collision (1)

JustKidding (591117) | about 6 years ago | (#25270641)

I get a sad feeling thinking about the poor photons on the event horizons, desperately trying to escape, but suspended in space for all eternity.

Re:Black hole collision (1)

weicco (645927) | about 6 years ago | (#25270739)

Well, their time slows down because of the massive gravity. So eternity here could be only couple of seconds there :)

Re:Black hole collision (4, Interesting)

paul248 (536459) | about 6 years ago | (#25270837)

But if time is moving infinitely slow, then how does matter ever get to the center? Shouldn't all the matter be concentrated at the event horizon?

Re:Black hole collision (3, Informative)

Diamo (1364811) | about 6 years ago | (#25270977)

Time appears slow to the outside observer, for the object crossing the horizon it's business as usual, super fast acceleration, stretched out and sucked into oblivion. Lovely :)

Re:Black hole collision (3, Interesting)

paul248 (536459) | about 6 years ago | (#25271083)

But black holes exist within the universe. If time inside a black hole is stopped relative to the rest of the universe, then shouldn't a black hole take infinitely long to form?

As a corollary, shouldn't you be able to look behind you and watch the end of the universe?

Singularity nakedness on Slashdot (4, Funny)

unassimilatible (225662) | about 6 years ago | (#25269837)

Seems to me, most people on Slashdot likely *only* experience singularity nakedness.

Penrose is smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269843)

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.

Re:Penrose is smart (4, Insightful)

DirtySouthAfrican (984664) | about 6 years ago | (#25269871)

Heh... I knew who Roger Penrose was long before I heard of Richard Dawkins, and I suspect that I'll forget who Richard Dawkins soon enough. But I'm biased for being a physicist.

Re:Penrose is smart (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 6 years ago | (#25270031)

Who is Dawkins?* I never heard of that guy. Or at least I can't remember.

But Penrose... of course everybody knows him, if only from the books of Hawking. ...What do you mean, nobody reads those books??? How can they even survive that way??
Oh... the bible.... right... ;)

* Yeah, alright. I'll look it up on Wikipedia!

Re:Penrose is smart (1)

Angostura (703910) | about 6 years ago | (#25270707)

He's a bloke, who, unable to come up with a a coherent explanation for consciousness decided "it must be a quantum thing". He's also great if you want someone to tile your bathroom. Am I right?

Re:Penrose is smart (2, Interesting)

digitig (1056110) | about 6 years ago | (#25270875)

That's him. Unfortunately, his quantum consciousness idea doesn't give an explanation of consciousness, it just gives a means for Descartes "ghost in the machine" to interact with the physical -- in other words it just moves the problem. On the other hand, I've not heard any other coherent explanation of consciousness either. And he's made more contributions to mathematics than any other philosophers of the mind that I can think of. So tempted to do my bathrooom in Penrose tiles!

There is no singularity (3, Insightful)

Flentil (765056) | about 6 years ago | (#25269847)

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.

Re:There is no singularity (2, Funny)

DirtySouthAfrican (984664) | about 6 years ago | (#25269881)

There is no magical singularity where the laws of physics break down. There doesn't need to be.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude.

Re:There is no singularity (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 6 years ago | (#25270113)

He's right tough.

Just because we can't look inside, doesn't mean that everything breaks down inside.

People often see a black hole as something magical, and think, the Schwarzschild radius is some magical wall.
It's just the distance, at which gravitation is stronger than everything else, so we can't get useful information from the inside. Although maybe with entangled particle-pairs we could get information out!)

About the inside we know nothing. It's not the physics that break down. It's the formulas and theories, because they result in infinite numbers, which is a typical symptom of formulas being applied outside their useful range.

So we have to fix our theories, but we don't know how, because we can't look inside.
And if nobody especially lucky comes around and finds a method to get that information anyway, it's going to stay that way for a loong time.

And: Yeah, that's kinda sad.

Re:There is no singularity (4, Interesting)

Kandenshi (832555) | about 6 years ago | (#25270203)

If I'm recalling correctly Hawking addressed that issue in Brief(Briefer?) History of Time. He explained that for small black holes the difference in how strongly gravity is pulling one end of you(feet) compared to the other end(head) would tear you apart before you could reach the event horizon. Large black holes (on the order of millions of stellar masses, like the ones at the center of galaxies) would be a much more gentle ride intially. In fact he said, you could pass right through the event horizon and not notice anything particularly weird happening. You wouldn't even notice. Nevertheless as you get closer to the singularity at the center you'd still get ripped apart.

Re:There is no singularity (1)

paul248 (536459) | about 6 years ago | (#25270851)

But time is moving slower inside the black hole than outside. Wouldn't you get a helluva sunburn from all the radiation ever to hit the black hole over the remaining life of the universe?

Re:There is no singularity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270879)

IIRC, you never cross the event horizon in your local timeframe, so you sure as hell wouldn't notice it. Experiencing the inside of a black hole is therefore impossible.

Re:There is no singularity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270141)

it helped einstein sleep at night too, he admitted his theory was imperfect and wasn't true to nature on the scale of the very small (singularity)--that at that point it is only abstract math, but it turned out to be really cool abstract math (it makes time travel possible for gods stake!) so science became science fiction and millions were made in the way of books and media, and much was lost in the field of rigorous testable theorizing.

Re:There is no singularity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270053)

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. If you mean the horizon isn't singular, that is correct.

However, once you have a horizon, what happens to things inside it? They must be falling farther in (otherwise they could escape, and there wouldn't really be a horizon). In a finite amount of time, there is a non-zero amount of mass, all exactly at the center. That is a singularity.

Of course, the "laws of physics" don't break down, just the laws of relativity. String theory has no trouble with them (as must any potential quantum gravity theory).

Re:There is no singularity (1)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | about 6 years ago | (#25270303)

I wonder what the benefit of a computer simulation is if the underlying math is wrong/untested/unverified.

we could create a computer simulation using copernican physics with added phlogiston and luminiferous aether and the simulation would prove that the resulting interaction indeed works under the given assumption.

Re:There is no singularity (3, Insightful)

nusuth (520833) | about 6 years ago | (#25270409)

I get your point but I don't agree. You could build a simulation model by using any physics we might care to simulate, and ask a question to the model. The answer may be what you expect or it may be something unexpected. The former case is not terribly useful, it just says your assumptions about the universe is consistent with your expectations about the universe. That is nice to know. In the latter case, the physics of the model or your expectation is wrong. You wouldn't know which by just looking at the model, but knowing that at least one of them is wrong is *very* valuable information. So the experiment is worth doing.

Re:There is no singularity (3, Informative)

earlymon (1116185) | about 6 years ago | (#25270403)

Photons have no mass but do have momentum.

The Lorentz transform causes a breakdown for E in E=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where v=c. And when you have enough gravity to bend space such that it folds in on itself - light cannot escape, despite being massless but gaining momentum from the gravity well - you have a singularity.

One can't just say that equations break down, but physics do not. The equations are the language used to express the known physics.

So, there is a singularity, there needs to be, and it isn't magical - unless you mean magical in the sense of wonderful.

Re:There is no singularity (2, Funny)

iwein (561027) | about 6 years ago | (#25270441)

If photonst have weight

That would cause some other hairy problems, spelling being the least of them.

Just as I suspected... (5, Funny)

Tau Neutrino (76206) | about 6 years ago | (#25269853)

...the maximal Cauchy development of generic compact or asymptotically flat initial data is locally inextendible as a regular Lorentzian manifold.

Right?

Re:Just as I suspected... (4, Funny)

Anpheus (908711) | about 6 years ago | (#25269873)

What if you reverse the polarity?

Re:Just as I suspected... (2, Funny)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | about 6 years ago | (#25270009)

(Just make sure you don't cross the streams)

Re:Just as I suspected... (1)

Korbeau (913903) | about 6 years ago | (#25270045)

If the polarity gets reversed, please DO cross the beams!!!

Re:Just as I suspected... (4, Funny)

Filbertish (1086451) | about 6 years ago | (#25270077)

Or maybe we could match the event horizon harmonics with an inverse tachyon pulse.

Re:Just as I suspected... (1)

OctaviusIII (969957) | about 6 years ago | (#25270205)

Like putting too much air in a balloon!

Re:Just as I suspected... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270043)

Or cross the streams?

Re:Just as I suspected... (1)

supernova_hq (1014429) | about 6 years ago | (#25270089)

But that could rip the mothership in half!

Re:Just as I suspected... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270091)

Re:Just as I suspected... (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | about 6 years ago | (#25270215)

...the maximal Cauchy development of generic compact or asymptotically flat initial data is locally inextendible as a regular Lorentzian manifold.

That's what she said!

Re:Just as I suspected... (1)

porpnorber (851345) | about 6 years ago | (#25270269)

That's interesting. I understand that, and I still don't understand it. Maybe some brain cells died since I was at school.

No hair theorem (1)

DirtySouthAfrican (984664) | about 6 years ago | (#25269855)

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.

Non-Condradiction (4, Interesting)

Toonol (1057698) | about 6 years ago | (#25269879)

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.

Re:Non-Condradiction (2, Interesting)

DerWulf (782458) | about 6 years ago | (#25269907)

I'm sure the real laws of physics are consistent. The crude approximation we have though, I'm not so sure. To me as a layman it seems that the existence of blackholes are a huge problem in the "divide by zero/infinity" dept and the only "solution" is "well, I guess as long as we can't see impossible stuff happening it'll be alright". Physics the ostrich way ... please enlighten me if any physicists are reading this.

Re:Non-Condradiction (4, Interesting)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | about 6 years ago | (#25269959)

I believe that some solutions have space being discrete at the Planck length, rather than continuous, and this discreteness also removes singluarities.

Re:Non-Condradiction (3, Interesting)

Pervaricator General (1364535) | about 6 years ago | (#25270131)

Quantum loop gravity, the REPUTABLE string theory

Discrete; you know what this means? (3, Interesting)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | about 6 years ago | (#25270163)

This means that not only are we living in a simulation [simulation-argument.com] , but we're being run on a digital computer.

Re:Discrete; you know what this means? (3, Insightful)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#25270315)

-1, Unfalsifiable

Dare I elaborate, if you wanted to make up a generic unfalsifiable claim on purpose that's probably what you would come up with.

Re:Non-Condradiction (4, Funny)

bitrex (859228) | about 6 years ago | (#25270629)

I believe that some solutions have space being discrete at the Planck length, rather than continuous, and this discreteness also removes singluarities.

I spent $82,000 on tube amplifiers and vintage vinyl, and now you tell me God's system is digital? Auuuugghh...

Peter F. Hamilton (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269909)

Naked God.

Re:Peter F. Hamilton (1)

Zoolander (590897) | about 6 years ago | (#25270601)

Crap trilogy, that. Read one and a half book before i gave up.
Iain M. Banks FTW! :)

Black Holes Are Modern Superstition (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269963)

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.

Penrose is a kill-joy. (4, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 6 years ago | (#25270021)

Penrose conjectured that there must be some physical principle -- a 'cosmic censor' -- that forbids singularity nakedness...

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.

Re:Penrose is a kill-joy. (5, Funny)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 6 years ago | (#25270049)

They're fixing that coolant leak. Calling them hot is just uncalled for.

Re:Penrose is a kill-joy. (2, Funny)

illumastorm (172101) | about 6 years ago | (#25270233)

Collider? I barely know her!

No Naked Black Holes?! Giggidy! (0)

GlobalColding (1239712) | about 6 years ago | (#25270071)

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?

Re:No Naked Black Holes?! Giggidy! (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 6 years ago | (#25270173)

Because if their simulation had created a naked singularity it would be interesting. That it doesn't isn't, since that's the expected result - but just because they "failed" as such doesn't mean they should pretend they didn't try anything.

And yes, it may have nothing to do with the actual universe. Seeing what the current theories produce is an important part of science.

Re:No Naked Black Holes?! Giggidy! (3, Informative)

The Master Control P (655590) | about 6 years ago | (#25270289)

You appear to have no idea what's going on here. Okay, first of all, the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis in question (short version): All singularities other than the one from the Big Bang are hidden behind event horizons.

The equations of relativity, which were used to run the simulation, say nothing about cosmic censorship. The C.S.H. wasn't formulated until 50-odd years after general relativity because of a problem - relativity actually readily admits (physically-implausible) solutions that do have naked singularities, hence the censorship. Apparently, something always conspires to hide them.

This simulation confirmed the hypothesis' prediction: Even in the most violent circumstances physically realizable, the singularity ended up behind an event horizon.

Frankly, it's time we admitted it... the only way we're going to find a naked singularity is to go for a joyride in the direction of the Great Attractor in a sycamore-seed-shaped ship.

Confucius say (2, Funny)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 6 years ago | (#25270087)

Confucius say "Physicist who say there is no naked singularity should examine their equations through a peep hole."

Shhh (4, Funny)

caspy7 (117545) | about 6 years ago | (#25270139)

You had me at naked...

Dr. Who injection. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270147)

Saw the video. Can we call it the Eye of Harmony effect? lol.

Of course not (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270195)

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.

Computer simulation, eh. (1, Insightful)

75th Trombone (581309) | about 6 years ago | (#25270231)

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.

Re:Computer simulation, eh. (4, Informative)

D.A. Zollinger (549301) | about 6 years ago | (#25270335)

A few years ago, I might have agreed with you. After all, on a basic level you are correct, if we program what we know into a simulation, the simulation will be based on what we know!

Last semester I took a class in complex system, and it really opened my eyes about what computer simulations can do for us in providing unexpected behavior. Most of this is because we have a pretty good grasp on simple systems, and can take those simple systems and program them into a computer with rules of interaction to see how they will interact without human guidance.

Let me give you an example: Most everyone here at one point of time or another have programed "Life [wikipedia.org] " into a computer. We understand the rules, we understand the program itself, and we understand how everything is going to work, but until you actually run the program, you would never have expected the results! How could you have predicted the formations that would develop? The stable formations, the chaotic formations, the moving formations? Much less how these formations would interact when they collide?

I think in a way this is what was being simulated in the program mentioned above. We think we have a pretty good idea about the simple systems which make up a complex entity like a black hole. But how do these simple systems interact when they encroach upon another black hole? Assuming we really do understand these simple systems, and that they stay constant, I think this simulation gives us a reasonable expectation as to how black holes will react to a collision.

Re:Computer simulation, eh. (4, Insightful)

Ihlosi (895663) | about 6 years ago | (#25270547)

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.

We eagerly await your analytical solution to the n-body-problem. I mean, it's really simple stuff, right?

Until you're finished, we'll have to calculate all those spacecraft trajectories with computer simulations.

Re:Computer simulation, eh. (1)

OneMadMuppet (1329291) | about 6 years ago | (#25270797)

To base even the least significant conclusions upon it seems laughably irresponsible and unscientific.

Like meteorology? Computer simulation of weather systems is at best incomplete, but I wouldn't say it's irresponsible to say there's a 99% chance it'll rain tomorrow in the UK (a safe bet without even checking ;) I don't think it unscientific either to develop a hypothesis, design and run experimental studies (as is happening here) to create, prove or disprove a Theory. Darwin had no knowledge of DNA - was he laughably irresponsible and unscientific?

Ask Spinoza (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270285)

Touching is Transitive. Pay attention.

So what? (1)

retsil (763798) | about 6 years ago | (#25270305)

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!

Move Violent?... (5, Funny)

supernova_hq (1014429) | about 6 years ago | (#25270353)

...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?

Re:Move Violent?... (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | about 6 years ago | (#25270583)

The author just lacks imagination.

one at a time (1)

krischik (781389) | about 6 years ago | (#25270661)

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.

Re:Move Violent?... (2, Insightful)

Loibisch (964797) | about 6 years ago | (#25270663)

You probably need to get yourself an extra few dimensions to make 3 particles collide exactly head-on.

how can they make a correct mathematic model ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270367)

for stuff like this if scientists are still figuring out the physics of black holes?

Penrose = idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25270863)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?