- #1
JustinLevy
- 895
- 1
"generic" naked singularity
I don't understand the arguments/discussion against naked singularities. The reason is that it seems obvious to me that given a black hole, there is a generic procedure to form a naked singularity. This reasoning is probably flawed (otherwise there wouldn't be debate about naked singularities), so if someone could point out the error, that would be quite helpful.
So the suggested procedure goes like this:
1) start with a black hole surrounded by vacuum
2) continue adding spin polarized electrons and protons until J/M > M in the black hole, yielding a naked singularity
This is possible because for an electron or proton, J/M > M. So if you continue adding spin polarized material into the black hole, one can exceed the "nakedness criteria".
The procedure is simple enough, that I can't see where there is a flaw. Any help?Very short discussion on Hawking's stance on naked singularities:
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/nyt_bet_story.html
I don't understand the arguments/discussion against naked singularities. The reason is that it seems obvious to me that given a black hole, there is a generic procedure to form a naked singularity. This reasoning is probably flawed (otherwise there wouldn't be debate about naked singularities), so if someone could point out the error, that would be quite helpful.
So the suggested procedure goes like this:
1) start with a black hole surrounded by vacuum
2) continue adding spin polarized electrons and protons until J/M > M in the black hole, yielding a naked singularity
This is possible because for an electron or proton, J/M > M. So if you continue adding spin polarized material into the black hole, one can exceed the "nakedness criteria".
The procedure is simple enough, that I can't see where there is a flaw. Any help?Very short discussion on Hawking's stance on naked singularities:
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/nyt_bet_story.html
Last edited: