Five-dimensional black hole could 'break' general relativity

February 18, 2016
Five-dimensional black hole could 'break' general relativity

Researchers have shown how a bizarrely shaped black hole could cause Einstein's general theory of relativity, a foundation of modern physics, to break down. However, such an object could only exist in a universe with five or more dimensions.

The researchers, from the University of Cambridge and Queen Mary University of London, have successfully simulated a black hole shaped like a very thin ring, which gives rise to a series of 'bulges' connected by strings that become thinner over time. These strings eventually become so thin that they pinch off into a series of miniature , similar to how a thin stream of water from a tap breaks up into droplets.

Ring-shaped black holes were 'discovered' by in 2002, but this is the first time that their dynamics have been successfully simulated using supercomputers. Should this type of black hole form, it would lead to the appearance of a 'naked singularity', which would cause the equations behind general relativity to break down. The results are published in the journal Physical Review Letters.

General relativity underpins our current understanding of gravity: everything from the estimation of the age of the stars in the , to the GPS signals we rely on to help us navigate, is based on Einstein's equations. In part, the theory tells us that matter warps its surrounding spacetime, and what we call gravity is the effect of that warp. In the 100 years since it was published, general relativity has passed every test that has been thrown at it, but one of its limitations is the existence of singularities.

The video will load shortly
A video of a very thin black ring. Now, there is clear evidence of the black ring starting to break up into little droplets. In this process a naked singularity is created and weak cosmic censorship is violated. Credit: Pau Figueras, Markus Kunesch, and Saran Tunyasuvunakool

A singularity is a point where gravity is so intense that space, time, and the laws of physics, break down. General relativity predicts that singularities exist at the centre of black holes, and that they are surrounded by an - the 'point of no return', where the gravitational pull becomes so strong that escape is impossible, meaning that they cannot be observed from the outside.

"As long as singularities stay hidden behind an event horizon, they do not cause trouble and general relativity holds - the 'cosmic censorship conjecture' says that this is always the case," said study co-author Markus Kunesch, a PhD student at Cambridge's Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP). "As long as the cosmic censorship conjecture is valid, we can safely predict the future outside of black holes. Because ultimately, what we're trying to do in physics is to predict the future given knowledge about the state of the universe now."

But what if a singularity existed outside of an event horizon? If it did, not only would it be visible from the outside, but it would represent an object that has collapsed to an infinite density, a state which causes the laws of physics to break down. Theoretical physicists have hypothesised that such a thing, called a naked singularity, might exist in higher dimensions.

"If naked singularities exist, general relativity breaks down," said co-author Saran Tunyasuvunakool, also a PhD student from DAMTP. "And if general relativity breaks down, it would throw everything upside down, because it would no longer have any predictive power - it could no longer be considered as a standalone theory to explain the universe."

We think of the universe as existing in three dimensions, plus the fourth dimension of time, which together are referred to as spacetime. But, in branches of theoretical physics such as string theory, the universe could be made up of as many as 11 dimensions. Additional dimensions could be large and expansive, or they could be curled up, tiny, and hard to detect. Since humans can only directly perceive three dimensions, the existence of extra dimensions can only be inferred through very high energy experiments, such as those conducted at the Large Hadron Collider.

Einstein's theory itself does not state how many dimensions there are in the universe, so theoretical physicists have been studying in higher dimensions to see if cosmic censorship still holds. The discovery of ring-shaped black holes in five dimensions led researchers to hypothesise that they could break up and give rise to a naked singularity.

What the Cambridge researchers, along with their co-author Pau Figueras from Queen Mary University of London, have found is that if the ring is thin enough, it can lead to the formation of naked singularities.

Using the COSMOS supercomputer, the researchers were able to perform a full simulation of Einstein's complete theory in higher dimensions, allowing them to not only confirm that these 'black rings' are unstable, but to also identify their eventual fate. Most of the time, a black ring collapses back into a sphere, so that the singularity would stay contained within the event horizon. Only a very thin black ring becomes sufficiently unstable as to form bulges connected by thinner and thinner strings, eventually breaking off and forming a naked singularity. New simulation techniques and computer code were required to handle these extreme shapes.

"The better we get at simulating Einstein's theory of gravity in higher dimensions, the easier it will be for us to help with advancing new computational techniques - we're pushing the limits of what you can do on a computer when it comes to Einstein's theory," said Tunyasuvunakool. "But if cosmic censorship doesn't hold in higher dimensions, then maybe we need to look at what's so special about a four-dimensional universe that means it does hold."

The cosmic censorship conjecture is widely expected to be true in our four-dimensional universe, but should it be disproved, an alternative way of explaining the universe would then need to be identified. One possibility is quantum gravity, which approximates Einstein's equations far away from a singularity, but also provides a description of new physics close to the singularity.

The COSMOS supercomputer at the University of Cambridge is part of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) DiRAC HPC Facility.

Explore further: The golden anniversary of black-hole singularity

More information: "End Point of Black Ring Instabilities and the Weak Cosmic Censorship Conjecture, Physical Review Letters, dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.071102 , arxiv.org/abs/1512.04532

Related Stories

The golden anniversary of black-hole singularity

October 1, 2015

When a star collapses forming a black hole, a space-time singularity is created wherein the laws of Physics no longer work. In 1965 Sir Roger Penrose presented a theorem where he associated that singularity with so-called ...

Was the Big Bang just a black hole?

February 15, 2016

Fraser Cain "Asks a Spaceman" Dr. Paul Matt Sutter – why do we call the Big Bang a singularity, when we also call black holes singularities?

Physicists investigate fate of five-dimensional black strings

September 10, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- While black holes in four-dimensional space-time are stable and can persist for a long time, their higher-dimensional analogues are usually unstable. One such theoretical analogue is a five-dimensional black ...

Theorists apply loop quantum gravity theory to black hole

May 31, 2013

(Phys.org) —Physicists Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin of University of the Republic in Montevideo, Uruguay, and Louisiana State University respectively, have applied the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) to a simplified ...

Recommended for you

Uncovering the secrets of water and ice as materials

December 7, 2016

Water is vital to life on Earth and its importance simply can't be overstated—it's also deeply rooted within our conscience that there's something extremely special about it. Yet, from a scientific point of view, much remains ...

Blocks of ice demonstrate levitated and directed motion

December 7, 2016

Resembling the Leidenfrost effect seen in rapidly boiling water droplets, a disk of ice becomes highly mobile due to a levitating layer of water between it and the smooth surface on which it rests and melts. The otherwise ...

The case for co-decaying dark matter

December 5, 2016

(Phys.org)—There isn't as much dark matter around today as there used to be. According to one of the most popular models of dark matter, the universe contained much more dark matter early on when the temperature was hotter. ...

73 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jeffhans1
1 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2016
We could use shadows to study it. A shadow of an object shows all but 1 dimension so a 5 dimensional object would have 4 dimensions.
shavera
5 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2016
Well, the thing they showed above *is* a shadow. A shadow 2-ish dimensions removed (and a third smashed flat and represented with perspective in a 2-d plane).
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HannesAlfven
3 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2016
Re: "Once the dark matter becomes higher-dimensional, this fluid-like behavior gets broken again. So you shouldn't expect very much from fluid dark matter models. BTW Their conceptual similarity with plasma behavior is also source of neverending confusion of Plasma Universe proponents, who misinterpret them regularly."

I don't think plasma universe proponents are confused at all: Plasmas are the universe's preferred state for matter, and higher-dimensional dark matter remains pure conjecture. Thus, the resistance to exploring those ideas is plainly not proportional to an honest evaluation of which will prove to be correct.

It perhaps takes somebody who has invested an inordinate amount of time into dark matter to fail to see this obvious fact. When you also add in the historical details, of which there is an enormous amount of detail that can and has been provided, the situation is yet clearer.
vlaaing peerd
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2016
Erhm, aren't the physics from relativity not already breaking down at a simple 3 dimensional black hole in our own trusty little universe? At least that's what the trillion Einstein docus are trying to tell me...So I'm not quite sure what's so special with adding a few dimensions to it.
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HannesAlfven
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2016
@vlaaing, honestly, I get the impression that people who like to talk about these things are actually bored by real physics and the crucial process of questioning speculative models. But, what they do not understand is that once the door is opened to "stoner science," everybody at some point will reach their fill of what they find acceptable.

The plasma universe folks are considered villains for their desire to return physics to the classical. It's possibly just not sufficiently "exciting" for people once you question the black hole mathematics, once you position the CMB as a local EM fog (all laboratory plasma beams emit microwaves, btw), and once you suggest that the gravitational wave signal just as likely originated from the Earth's core.

Even if it's not yet been all figured out, what is sad is that classical science is not apparently considered an ideal anymore worth pursuing.
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2016
"A singularity is a point where gravity is so intense that space, time, and the laws of physics, break down."

A singularity is mathematical artifact where is more likely the theory of general relativity to brakes down instead the physical laws, the vacuum of space and the time can not brake down.

According to GR metaphysicist GR is more rigid and reliable than the physical laws and constants that suport the originaly established order in the universe.
The GR is theory of chaos created in the spirit of liberalism.

ogg_ogg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
Rubbish. First what the dimensionality of the Universe is (so far as we know it is 3-1; brane theory has yet to justify the addition of more space-like dimensions) is the correct dimensionality. It is not arbitrary. There is no "physics" in any other set of dimensions (ignoring the pseudo 1-1 or 2-1 dimensiona "reduced" systems). Work with other d-sets is math, and IS NOT REAL. Second: "THE" Laws of Physics DO NOT BREAK DOWN anywhere in our Universe. "Our" (known) Laws of Physics may or may not be inconsistent with "THE" Laws. We haven't found anywhere they are inconsistent, but that statement requires us to agree that anything past any event horizon is not part of our Universe. Third, article is so sloppy, it doesn't even specify whether this 5D universe is 4-1 or 3-2 or what. Fourth article is so sloppy that it claims that "everything" is explained by GR. Risible. Almost nothing is explained by GR in our everyday experience. Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics?
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2016
I think this is great, when I postulated that black holes of certain sized might form toroids I was laughed at roundly in these forums. The funny thing is that this form ALSO fits with the entire Soliton Knot construction of galaxies theory that I have put forth.

I will put forth the conjecture, again, that they will find that between the gravitational pull of the rest of the torus and the magnetic fields that such a structure would inherently create, it would rip mass in the form of highly charged particles that would jet in opposite directions, as we already see in nature, and thus pull the mass and some of the energy back Out from the black hole. Again, this is projected by a fractal scaling of the soliton knot phenomenon. he Mass/energy expelled is then recycled back through the entire galactic medium, and feeds the black hole again, and again to be re-radiated out as energy and base particles.

The Electromagnetic nature of it all is the key to the understanding of it.
guinsoo
5 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2016
This article feels like it lacks information. It makes an absolutely bold faced prediction (wait so if we found higher dimensional space and oddly-configured black holes, we'd have to rethink general relativity, which provides for neither? Shocking) and is utterly lacking in reasons and whys. My biggest question is, why does a ring-shaped black hole that collapses this way create a singularity(s) but not an event horizon? Maybe it's too mathematical, but that feels like a critical point that is omitted from this article.
HannesAlfven
3 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2016
Re: "But the problem is, they're both behaving similarly to fluid in certain regime. So that many high-distance dark matter fluid behavior can be confused with plasma behavior easily"

No, it's not a problem at all, because plasma is a natural phenomenon observed in the laboratory, whereas dark matter's properties are reconstructed and hypothesized based upon observations. Inferring the behavior of cosmic plasmas based upon observations of laboratory plasmas is an empirical approach; constructing dark matter based upon observations is an ad hoc modeling approach.

It is only in astrophysics & cosmology where the construct is considered more popular than the laboratory observation, and the situation can be traced in extreme detail backwards in time to the historical causes.
Burnerjack
4.8 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2016
When one says "the laws of physics breaks down" to me, that's like saying "something magical happens".The laws of physics don't break down, rather our understanding of them is exceeded. It just may be that a singularity is a kernel of dimensionless energy surrounded by the most dense matter possible. No magic.
Mimath224
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2016
Well, the thing they showed above *is* a shadow. A shadow 2-ish dimensions removed (and a third smashed flat and represented with perspective in a 2-d plane).

Has anyone found 5D yet...I can't wait to see if our thoughts on 4D cubes etc are correct. Poor old flat lander will have real problem then?
thingumbobesquire
4 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2016
"Because ultimately, what we're trying to do in physics is to predict the future given knowledge about the state of the universe now."

Humanity uniquely determines a future willy-nilly for good or ill. Human creativity provides a degree of freedom incommensurate with ordinary concepts of dimensionality. So one doesn't "predict the future" one creates it by willful intervention into the intelligible realms of our universe.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2016
When one says "the laws of physics breaks down" to me, that's like saying "something magical happens

It just means that there is some unknown here (i.e. something we haven't yet written up in the laws of physisc).

There may well be something (e.g. another force that works at thoise scale) that steps in to keep the densities in black holes from going to infinity. But since this is such incredibly high energy physics there's currently no way to observe whether such a balancing force exists or not.

It just may be that a singularity is a kernel of dimensionless energy surrounded by the most dense matter possible

The problem is that once you are inside the event horizon (much less close to the singularity) there is no place where you can have a 'stable distance' from the singularity. Not even for something trying to move directly away from it at the speed of light. All future paths lead 'downward'.
promile
Feb 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Stevepidge
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2016
When one says "the laws of physics breaks down" to me, that's like saying "something magical happens

It just means that there is some unknown here (i.e. something we haven't yet written up in the laws of physisc).

It just may be that a singularity is a kernel of dimensionless energy surrounded by the most dense matter possible

The problem is that once you are inside the event horizon (much less close to the singularity) there is no place where you can have a 'stable distance' from the singularity. Not even for something trying to move directly away from it at the speed of light. All future paths lead 'downward'.


Now.. considering that a law breaking force may be involved in the creation and sustaining of "black holes", do you not think it unwise to presume your extrapolations of what it exactly is may be....off the mark?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2016
I don't see how matter can be stable at anywhere inside the event horizon (since the known forces rely on exchange of force carriers that move at or below the speed of light) we're not dealing with a 'dense form of matter' in any case.

Currently we have no indication of a new force. So by that state of affairs there can't be a static "ball of something" (whatever that 'something' may be in this case).

I was just saying that there is nothing that says there can only be the forces we know of (this is not the same as saying there must be more). But going from "unicorns may exist" to "there must therefore be a finite denisty ball at the center" is not a logical argument.
promile
Feb 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2016
I don't see how matter can be stable at anywhere inside the event horizon (since the known forces rely on exchange of force carriers that move at or below the speed of light) we're not dealing with a 'dense form of matter' in any case.


It depends on the relative forces involved. The Coulomb force and certainly the strong and weak nuclear forces, are much stronger than the gravitational force just inside the BH horizon for a sufficiently large BH.

When one says "the laws of physics breaks down" to me, that's like saying "something magical happens


Already explained by AA,... but by "laws of physics", one only means "predictive explanation", a theory. "Laws of physics" only exist to the extent that one is able to ascertain such a description. They are not "things unto themselves".

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2016
The Coulomb force and certainly the strong and weak nuclear forces, are much stronger than the gravitational force just inside the BH horizon

But how do the forces interchange?

The definition of the event horizon is that anything that is further in cannot reach anything that is further out - even travelling at light speed.

This same argument goes also for ANY point inside the event horizon (any point further in than this point cannot communicate with any point further out than this point)

So given that in a molecule, a nucleus, (and even for the quarks within a nucleus) any part that is further in cannot exchange any force carrier with any part that is even a tiny bit further out: How can they remain stable? The binding forces just don't work anymore.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2016
I see what you're saying now. I think if you're talking about submolecular scales then that is out of the realm in which GR applies ,.... so it is an interesting question. Keep in mind though that it is also time that is effected near the BH, not just space,.... also the molecules are in free-fall.

Noumenon
5 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2016
.... you may be imagining that there is a massive gravitational force on the molecule, so that interactions can't reach through the molecule to allow it to be stable. In free fall there is no such force though. This is Einstein's equivalence principle. There are tidal forces however,... but just past the event horizon should be significantly less that molecular binding forces.

The truth is no one really knows what occurs inside the horizon,... and GR breaks down eventually.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2016
so it is an interesting question.

Well...I went ahead and posted it to the guys at the Hayden Planetarium (where that Neil deGrasse Tyson works...they have an "ask us stuff" site...though they don't guarantee an answer)

you may be imagining that there is a massive gravitational force on the molecule

Not really. Since the only relevant force is the gravity *gradient* accross the molecule (which can be quite small at the event horizon if the BH is large). But even if the gradient were zero - an electron would not be attracted to the positively charged nucleus it moves around (see my last post)...so it would just fly off. If all electrons (and protons, and neutrons) do that then matter isn't going to remain intact.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2016
Well...I went ahead and posted it to the guys at the Hayden Planetarium (where that Neil deGrasse Tyson works...they have an "ask us stuff" site...though they don't guarantee an answer)
@AA_P
might i also suggest posting said questions to Sean Carroll here: http://prepostero...rse.com/

he may answer quicker AND he might actually have answers on his page

promile
Feb 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2016
you may be imagining that there is a massive gravitational force on the molecule

Not really. Since the only relevant force is the gravity *gradient* accross the molecule (which can be quite small at the event horizon if the BH is large).


There are two tidal forces (Weyl and Ricci).

But even if the gradient were zero - an electron would not be attracted to the positively charged nucleus it moves around (see my last post)...so it would just fly off. If all electrons (and protons, and neutrons) do that then matter isn't going to remain intact.


Why? It is in free fall. In its own reference frame all it experiences are tidal forces.,.... its traveling along a geodesic,... so only if the Weyl tensor is such that exceeds the Coulomb force (closer to the singularity), then it becomes unstable. If it's in free-fall the intermolecular forces are unaffected by being near a massively gravitating object (beside tidal forces).

Noumenon
5 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2016
.... if you could somehow hold the molecule in place, to prevent it from falling along a geodesic (as we experience gravity held in place by the earth),... then yea, it would be unstable for the reasons you stated. But how to hold it in place inside the event horizon is begging the question.

Am I not understanding your point?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2016
When one says "the laws of physics breaks down" to me, that's like saying "something magical happens

No magic - just a "technological advancement" we haven't seen before. (See Arthur Clarke's statement on this subject...)
It just means that there is some unknown here (i.e. something we haven't yet written up in the laws of physics).

Exactly right, AA.
If I may add - laws of physics are just as subject to relativity as everything else in our universe...
gulfcoastfella
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2016
Sometimes it feels like Physics has become a Church of Einstein. He even had a halo, if only because he disliked haircuts. I have no doubt that the younger, more arrogant Einstein would absolutely bathe in that kind of adoration while taking breaks from writing the theories of relativity.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2016
Why? It is in free fall.

Because the protons in the nucleus and the surrounding electrons cannot interchange force carriers (the force carriers cannot reach because they can only go towards the singularity, but never away from it. For the latter they would have to move faster than the speed of light.)

Same goes for the interchange particles of the strong and weak nuclear forces. At any point beyond the event horizon they only work one way (in the direction of the singularity) but not the other. Any solid object (even a molecule or an atomic nucleus or a nucleon) has a finite extent. Some parts of it will be closer to the singularity than others. The parts further away from the singularity have no way to feel any force (EM, weak, strong nuclear force) from the parts that are closer to the singularity.
Without those forces matter, as we know it, isn't stable.

Even though the gravity gradient may be low, we aren't dealing with a locally flat space, here.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2016
Because the protons in the nucleus and the surrounding electrons cannot interchange force carriers (the force carriers cannot reach because they can only go towards the singularity, but never away from it. For the latter they would have to move faster than the speed of light.)


You seem to be assuming that the molecule is held-in-place so that atomic force-carriers have to 'work against the gravity' of the BH. I don't think that is correct, because the molecule is under free fall. If you were under free fall towards the earth, you would feel zero gravity.

Of course, in a BH the molecule would be effected by tidal forces and would at least distort and eventually become unstable.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2016
You seem to be assuming that the molecule is held-in-place so that atomic force-carriers have to 'work against the gravity' of the BH. I don't think that is correct, because the molecule is under free fall. If you were under free fall towards the earth, you would feel zero gravity.

They still need to work against the curved space. Force carriers at the very least have to follow the geodesics of that space (even if they can move at c). And there is no geodesic whatsoever that moves further from a singularity once you are past the event horizon.
The object itself cannot move at c (since it has mass) - so there's no way for the force carrier to reach.

To any point inside the event horizon any point closer to the singularity is effectively beyond another event horizon.

This is completely independent of whether the BH is large and the local gravity gradient is small or the BH is small and the local gravity gradient is large.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2016
It is not tidal forces that pull the matter apart. It is just that matter gets transformed into a cloud of subatomic particles once it passes the event horizon (and probably already a little ways before) that drift apart because there are no longer any forces connecting them since no force carriers can reach the parts.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2016
You seem to be assuming that the molecule is held-in-place so that atomic force-carriers have to 'work against the gravity' of the BH. I don't think that is correct, because the molecule is under free fall. If you were under free fall towards the earth, you would feel zero gravity.

Until... I started bumping into the huge amount of all the other stuff in free fall along with me...
or I hit the ground...:-)
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2016
It is not tidal forces that pull the matter apart. It is just that matter gets transformed into a cloud of subatomic particles once it passes the event horizon.....


Well I can't agree,..... I believe it is ONLY the tidal forces that matter here, tearing extended objects apart, even individual atoms, then eventually the energy of subatomic particles into the geometry of spacetime itself [?loss of info?]. Because molecules under free-fall day don't experience gravity,.... only tidal forces.

The molecule inside the BH horizon, has its own inertia frame (locally in time and space), in which the speed of light is constant in all directions. This means that from the molecules perspective, the event horizon is expanding away at light speed.

As I said it is an interesting idea. It could be that my understanding is wrong. This wouldn't really surprise me given we are talking about BHs. Update the thread if you receive an answer.

Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2016
They still need to work against the curved space.


A geodesic follows curved space-time so that the gravitational "force" is transformed away, given its definition, so there is nothing to work against.

Force carriers at the very least have to follow the geodesics of that space (even if they can move at c). And there is no geodesic whatsoever that moves further from a singularity once you are past the event horizon.


Correct [for non-rotating BH], but your hypothesis does not follow necessarily from that. Each component subatomic particle / force carrier, has its own inertia reference frame and geodesic. That two such geodesics diverge is the definition of tidal forces. So that it is ONLY tidal forces that disintegrate extended objects.

EDIT: "molecules under free-fall [ ] don't experience gravity"
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2016
I think the key here is this,.... if inertia reference frames (geodesics) are relevant inside the event horizon, that is, if GR still applies,... then the force-carriers maintaining the integrity of the molecule CAN do so as normal (since c is constant in all directions by definition in these inertia frames)....

[This assumes that the divergences of the geodesics of the components in question don't over come the intermolecular forces.]

....This must mean, that from the molecules perspective, the event-horizon is expanding away at light speed.

promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
OttJ
5 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2016
Sorry, I am confused. I thought that an event horizon was a consequence of asymptotic gravitation. The singularity is cloaked because its gravity is so powerful that light cannot scape, so it cannot be observed. So if the singularity is outside of its event horizon, how is it observed?
Noumenon
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2016
A naked-singularity is not a black hole. All black holes have an event horizon. Roger Penrose put forth a hypothesis called 'cosmic censorship' that proposed that all collapsing stars of appropriate mass form singularities with event horizons,.... black holes. But later it was found that this is not necessarily so, at least mathematically, given proposed particular and perhaps convoluted conditions and dynamics of the collapse.

As the above article is speaking of what may happen given 5 dimensions,.... it seems like speculation in mathematical idealism.

.
promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jaymondo
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2016
Very interesting conversation between Noumenon and Anti... now I ask, if you were riding in a car and you drive past the black holes event horizon at the speed of light and turned on the headlights what would happen..??
promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2016
Black holes; singularities; five dimensional realities..

Let's clear the air. What we're doing, which is that we're about to explore the deeper space around us, is what other life that comes from other Earth-like worlds elsewhere has been doing for hundreds, thousands, even millions of years before us, and will continue to do.

There's a lot of strange pseudo-sciences out there, not the least strange of which are the idea that there are multi-dimensional realities where things like 5-dimensional black holes exist, or that there are other dimensions of reality where our black holes are their stars, and vice-versa. All of these are nonsense.

"Black holes" are actually objects, like interstellar craft, traveling at light speeds and beyond. They accelerate, decelerate (and "evaporate") and so on. We see the relativistic effects on their environment from our static frame of reference. That stuff happens. Life is everywhere.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2016
@zeph
Such a question has no good meaning
unless, of course, you are a steven wright fan

since i know english is not your first language...

https://www.brain...ght.html

.

.

"Black holes" are actually objects, like interstellar craft, traveling at light speeds and beyond
@baud
WTF?
i gotta see the evidence you have for that one!
LMFAO
IronhorseA
5 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2016
Why? It is in free fall.

Because the protons in the nucleus and the surrounding electrons cannot interchange force carriers (the force carriers cannot reach because they can only go towards the singularity, but never away from it. For the latter they would have to move faster than the speed of light.)

Same goes for the interchange particles of the strong and weak nuclear forces. ....


I wonder if quantum tunneling would allow carriers to still be exchanged, just a thought.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2016
I wonder if quantum tunneling would allow carriers to still be exchanged, just a thought.

Tunneling is a probability of overcoming an energy barrier (e.g. a potential well) - and that probability is dependent on the magnitude of the energy barrier. In this case the energy barrier is infinitely high, so your tunneling probability drops to near zero.

Even if it were not quite infinite then you'd still get an imbalance between the one direction and the other and stuff would become unstable/fall apart (This is why I think that the proposed effect happens not just after you pass the black hole horizon but even shortly before)
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2016
Since AA and myself disagree on this I will add my response ....

I wonder if quantum tunneling would allow carriers to still be exchanged, just a thought.


Good idea (albeit relies on low probability) ,.... but it is unnecessary as there is no such potential energy wall preventing the atom from remaining stable as normal. Not only is the potential gravitational energy barrier NOT infinite, ... it is in fact non-existent for the molecules in free fall.

The molecule in free-fall would have its own momentary inertia reference frame,.... which by definition in relativity theory implies that the speed of light is constant and isotropic [in every direction, even directed away from the center of the BH].

This is logically consistent within GR because from the molecules inertia reference frame perspective inside the BH, the BH-horizon is expanding away at light speed,..... or from an inertia frame perspective approaching the BH-horizon, the horizon is approaching at c.

Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2016
It is tidal forces that rips apart molecules and atoms, not a supposed problem with force carriers not traveling isotropically, as this is counter to the core principle of GR.

"For an ideal Schwarzschild hole [...] horizon lasts forever, so the light can stay there without escaping. (If you wonder how this is reconciled with the fact that light has to travel at the constant speed c—well, the horizon is traveling at c! " - John Baez website

Now there is a hypothesis known as BH horizon firewall, which does disintegrate matter at the horizon,.... but this has to do with https://en.wikipe...ics),... and is different from the effect discussed by AA.

QM has been reconciled with SR, but not with GR,.... so again what "actually" occurs INSIDE BHs especially at quantum scales, borders on hypothetical or even speculation.
promile
Feb 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2016

EDIT: "this has to do with entangled Hawking radiation,...."
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2016
It's worth to note, that from intrinsic perspective of observer falling into black hole the "driving past the black holes event horizon" has no good meaning anyway even at the case, if he (or she) wouldn't get disintegrated long time ago, as he would perceive himself http://www.busine...2014-12.


One could just make the point as well, that most supermassive BHs have accretion disks and one would disintegrate on account if that long before still,... or already before many years at the water surface.... if it wasn't a discussion about what is the proper physics inside event horizons.

Theoretically, even under Newtonian gravitational laws, such a horizon could exist for "dark stars". So that horizons preventing light from escaping almost certainly exists in fact.

promile
Feb 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2016
... now I ask, if you were riding in a car and you drive past the black holes event horizon at the speed of light and turned on the headlights what would happen..??


You would become one with the black hole.

Since you would asymptotically increase in mass-energy, you would eventually become a black hole yourself, ....and as you approach c ever more closely, your mass would exceed that of the other BH, and would likely either gravitationally sling the other black hole into space, or absorb it into yourself. :)

ceel0s
not rated yet Feb 21, 2016
what if dark matter is a naked singularity's shadow.
promile
Feb 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2016
Promile, this:

- it's just driven with gravitomagnetic charge instead of electromagnetic one.


I am pretty sure, SHOULD have others pointing out that if you have electromagnetic and Gravitomagnetic effects that there must also be Gravito-Electric systems, something which tends to get hushed and ridiculed because it would make certain energy companies superfluous, along with majorly changing how we transport ourselves. And Yes, GravitoElectrics, electrical control of gravity, was seen, tested and then swallowed by the Airplane Manufacturers and the Military, but it does not mean that they do not exist or do not work, just areas where NOBODY (Except DARPA Related groups) can get Funding for these types of project.

However, there are enough smart people rebuilding this stuff anyhow, reverse engineering once they know it can be done, same as the so-called zero-point energy. Energy companies have killed over this tech. Their profit rides on it Not being produced.
promile
Feb 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
baudrunner
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2016
WTF?
i gotta see the evidence you have for that one!
LMFAO
@Cap'nStumpy; someday you'll eat your hat..!

You keep wanting empirical evidence. It's all over the place.

I never ask for empirical evidence of alternate universes; bubble universes; black holes; for that matter, five-dimensional black holes; gravity waves (they still haven't actually found any); gravitons; but all that pseudo scientific nonsense seems to pass your scrutiny with ease. None of these reflect practical common sense.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2016
@AntiAlias_PhysOrg,.... have you found anymore information about your question?
DanV
not rated yet Mar 14, 2016
'Naked singularities' in a 5D universe were simulated by supercomputers in December 2015, after string-theorists described black-hole-rings mathematically in 2002. However, I described 'naked singularities' as an energy-distribution of 'duo-particles in 5D' as a torus, which is also equivalent to a dynamical black-hole-ring. I already predicted these in November 2013 (2 years earlier) without supercomputers and by standard physics-mathematics. The article-references are to be found in the overview of my vixra-articles vixra.org/author/dan_visser, numbers: 1311.0121, 1311.0152 and 1311.0189. I have been abandoned by the institutional archives, because of my descriptions tell about a universe different than the currently conservative Big Bang Universe, due to a lot of resistance in the American and conservative physics and cosmology. My website is: darkfieldnavigator.com.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2016
@AntiAlias_PhysOrg,.... have you found anymore information about your question?


??

Are you capitulating from under your desk? :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.