4 ms·

I thought a naked singularity was a white hole, one without an event horizon. And physicists hate that idea, but expect to never find one anyway.

by a3w 1y ago

tsimionescu 1y ago
A white hole is a completely different object, the opposite of a black hole, not a baked singularity. A white hole is an area of spacetime that no mass/energy (even light) can ever reach - versus a black hole which no mass/energy can escape. However, my understanding of what a naked singularity means is still in conflict with the article. I understood a naked singularity to be a black hole that is larger than its event horizon, such that it's possible to reach the singularity and then come back from it.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > A white hole is an area of spacetime that no mass/energy (even light) can ever reach Would the Big Bang be a white hole?
  - andrewflnr 1y ago
    IIRC the math is in fact very similar if not identical between a white hole and the Big Bang. But I don't actually know the math, so...
    - rvba 1y ago
      No one ever shows the math anywhere. They just write that it is hard, or that it doesnt work. It became basically some sort of a pseudo religion. On a side note Lard Hadron Collider is safe from micro black holes due to Hawking radiation. Issue is, that there does not seem to be any proof for Hawking radiation. It's just a model. Probably correct, but perhaps not. So the argument about LHC safety is flawed from the start and apparently anyone who points this out is "anti science". Sadly as I wrote science in some parts is a bizarre parody of itself, more like some cult. You cannot point out logical flaws anymore. Expecting mass downvotes for this post, with no rebuttal. Because scientists are never wrong. What about (yes - what-aboutism) the reproductivity problem...
      - andrewflnr 1y ago
        The hell are you even talking about? You won't get a rebuttal because you haven't even said anything to rebut. If you want to see the actual math, go read textbooks on general relativity and cosmology.
      - adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
        the math is written out all the time, pick up decent grad level GR and QM textbooks and the tensor equations will be right there for you. the fact you don't understand the math isn't the fault of the evil physicists
        rvba 1y ago
        Ah right personal attacks because I wrote that the quality of those articles is low. Apparently I dont understand the math... Where is the math in the article? Barely anything. Do you even have a Putnam?
        andrewflnr 1y ago
        The math relevant to OP is accessible via the second link in the text: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.21748 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.21748 I guess you might have to follow some citations too. But we were on a tangent about white holes, which would be unreasonable to expect in the article. I and the other reply have already told you where to find that math.
      - noduerme 1y ago
        I definitely feel like the timeline we're in has gotten worse and worse since the LHC fired up. Pretty soon all the ones that aren't apocalyptic are gonna be eaten up by black holes.
        catigula 1y ago
        "Science-loving" people would be furious at this comment even though it's clearly just speculative and humorous.
- somat 1y ago
  Being charged and or rotating changes the dynamics of where the event horizon is in interesting ways, If I understand it correctly it forms a sort of shell where you have two event horizons one inside the other. and the theory being that if enough energy(charge and/or rotational) is present the two event horizons will meet leaving your naked singularity. Nice and neat, the main problem being the absurd amount of energy required. My personal area of fascination is the time dilation around a black hole. One of those things I assume them who actually study the things(astrophysicists) take into consideration but I almost never see in the popular press. If I understand it correctly, as you fly into a black hole, nice and neat right, will see the rest of the universe quickly age and die before you reach the event horizon. If Hawking radiation is a thing you may see the black hole evaporate in front of you before you can reach it.
  - marcus_holmes 1y ago
    That's fascinating. So how does a black hole "feed" and grow if matter never enters it because of the time dilation? Or is it that weird perspective thing, where from an outsider's perspective the matter enters the black hole and the hole grows, but from the matter's perspective time dilates and it never gets to the hole?
marcosdumay 1y ago
Note that the article doesn't call it a naked singularity. I've got a "WTF!" moment there too. The wording is really bad.
zero_bias 1y ago
The only white hole we know of is the universe itself

I thought a naked singularity was a white hole, one without an event horizon. And physicists hate that idea, but expect to never find one anyway.

by a3w 1y ago

I thought a naked singularity was a white hole, one without an event horizon. And physicists hate that idea, but expect to never find one anyway.

tsimionescu 1y ago

A white hole is a completely different object, the opposite of a black hole, not a baked singularity. A white hole is an area of spacetime that no mass/energy (even light) can ever reach - versus a black hole which no mass/energy can escape. However, my understanding of what a naked singularity means is still in conflict with the article. I understood a naked singularity to be a black hole that is larger than its event horizon, such that it's possible to reach the singularity and then come back from it.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> A white hole is an area of spacetime that no mass/energy (even light) can ever reach Would the Big Bang be a white hole?
- andrewflnr 1y ago
  IIRC the math is in fact very similar if not identical between a white hole and the Big Bang. But I don't actually know the math, so...
  - rvba 1y ago
    No one ever shows the math anywhere. They just write that it is hard, or that it doesnt work. It became basically some sort of a pseudo religion. On a side note Lard Hadron Collider is safe from micro black holes due to Hawking radiation. Issue is, that there does not seem to be any proof for Hawking radiation. It's just a model. Probably correct, but perhaps not. So the argument about LHC safety is flawed from the start and apparently anyone who points this out is "anti science". Sadly as I wrote science in some parts is a bizarre parody of itself, more like some cult. You cannot point out logical flaws anymore. Expecting mass downvotes for this post, with no rebuttal. Because scientists are never wrong. What about (yes - what-aboutism) the reproductivity problem...
    - andrewflnr 1y ago
      The hell are you even talking about? You won't get a rebuttal because you haven't even said anything to rebut. If you want to see the actual math, go read textbooks on general relativity and cosmology.
    - adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
      the math is written out all the time, pick up decent grad level GR and QM textbooks and the tensor equations will be right there for you. the fact you don't understand the math isn't the fault of the evil physicists
      - rvba 1y ago
        Ah right personal attacks because I wrote that the quality of those articles is low. Apparently I dont understand the math... Where is the math in the article? Barely anything. Do you even have a Putnam?
        andrewflnr 1y ago
        The math relevant to OP is accessible via the second link in the text: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.21748 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.21748 I guess you might have to follow some citations too. But we were on a tangent about white holes, which would be unreasonable to expect in the article. I and the other reply have already told you where to find that math.
    - noduerme 1y ago
      I definitely feel like the timeline we're in has gotten worse and worse since the LHC fired up. Pretty soon all the ones that aren't apocalyptic are gonna be eaten up by black holes.
      - catigula 1y ago
        "Science-loving" people would be furious at this comment even though it's clearly just speculative and humorous.
somat 1y ago
Being charged and or rotating changes the dynamics of where the event horizon is in interesting ways, If I understand it correctly it forms a sort of shell where you have two event horizons one inside the other. and the theory being that if enough energy(charge and/or rotational) is present the two event horizons will meet leaving your naked singularity. Nice and neat, the main problem being the absurd amount of energy required. My personal area of fascination is the time dilation around a black hole. One of those things I assume them who actually study the things(astrophysicists) take into consideration but I almost never see in the popular press. If I understand it correctly, as you fly into a black hole, nice and neat right, will see the rest of the universe quickly age and die before you reach the event horizon. If Hawking radiation is a thing you may see the black hole evaporate in front of you before you can reach it.
- marcus_holmes 1y ago
  That's fascinating. So how does a black hole "feed" and grow if matter never enters it because of the time dilation? Or is it that weird perspective thing, where from an outsider's perspective the matter enters the black hole and the hole grows, but from the matter's perspective time dilates and it never gets to the hole?

marcosdumay 1y ago

Note that the article doesn't call it a naked singularity. I've got a "WTF!" moment there too. The wording is really bad.

zero_bias 1y ago

The only white hole we know of is the universe itself