'Saddle-shaped' universe could undermine general relativity

May 22, 2017 by Sarah Collins, University of Cambridge
‘Saddle-shaped’ universe could undermine general relativity
Artist's concept of a supermassive black hole. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Researchers have shown how singularities – which are normally only found at the centre of black holes and hidden from view – could exist in highly curved three-dimensional space.

The researchers, from the University of Cambridge, have used computer simulations to predict the existence of a so-called naked singularity, which interferes with Einstein's general of relativity. This is the first time that a naked singularity, which causes the laws of physics to break down, has been predicted in three-dimensional . The findings are reported in the journal Physical Review Letters.

Einstein's general theory of relativity underpins our current understanding of gravity: everything from the estimation of the age of the stars in the universe, to the GPS signals we rely on to help us navigate, is based on his 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.

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 event horizon – 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.

For more than 40 years, mathematicians have proposed that whenever singularities form, they will always be hidden from view in this way – this is known as the 'cosmic censorship conjecture.' If true, cosmic censorship means that outside of , these singularities have no measurable effect on anything, and the predictions of general relativity remain valid.

‘Saddle-shaped’ universe could undermine general relativity
 Image of (1 + 1)-dimensional anti-de Sitter space embedded in flat (1 + 2)-dimensional space. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

In recent years, researchers have used computer simulations to predict the existence of 'naked singularities' – that is, singularities which exist outside an . Naked singularities would invalidate the cosmic censorship conjecture and, by extension, general relativity's ability to explain the universe as a standalone theory. However, all of these predictions have been modelled on universes which exist in higher dimensions. For example, in 2016, two Cambridge Ph.D. students predicted the existence of a naked singularity, but their predictions were based on a five-dimensional universe.

The new research, by Toby Crisford and Jorge Santos from Cambridge's Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, has predicted the existence of a naked singularity in a four-dimensional universe—three spatial dimensions, plus time—for the first time.

Their predictions show that a naked singularity can form in a special kind of curved space known as anti-de Sitter space, in which the universe has a distinctive 'saddle' shape. According to , universes can have various shapes, and anti-de Sitter space is one of these possible shapes.

Anti-de Sitter space has a very different structure to flat space. In particular it has a boundary which light can reach, at which point it is reflected back. "It's a bit like having a spacetime in a box," said Crisford. "At the boundary, the walls of the box, we have the freedom to specify what the various fields are doing, and we use this freedom to add energy to the system and eventually force the formation of a singularity."

While the results are not directly applicable to our universe, as 'forcing' a singularity is not a procedure which is possible to simulate in flat space, they do open up new opportunities to study other theories to understand the . One such theory could involve , which provides new equations close to a singularity.

"The naked we see is likely to disappear if we were to include charged particles in our simulation – this is something we are currently investigating," said Santos. "If true, it could imply a connection between the cosmic censorship conjecture and the weak gravity conjecture, which says that any consistent theory of quantum gravity must contain sufficiently charged particles. In anti-de Sitter space, the cosmic censorship conjecture might be saved by the weak conjecture."

Explore further: Five-dimensional black hole could 'break' general relativity

More information: Toby Crisford et al. Violating the Weak Cosmic Censorship Conjecture in Four-Dimensional Anti–de Sitter Space, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.181101

Related Stories

Five-dimensional black hole could 'break' general relativity

February 18, 2016

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

52 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2017
General relativity predicts that singularities exist at the centre of black holes, and that they are surrounded by an event horizon
......Is this what Einstein really predicted in GR? Following is what Einstein really had to say about SINGULARITIES:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that most general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

Continued...........

Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2017
..........cont'd:

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL: http://www.jstor..../1968902

Einstein obviously disagrees with the Author about BHs & the probability that GR predicts the existence of BHs.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) May 22, 2017
.Is this what Einstein really predicted in GR?

It is what GR (the math) predicts. Not what Einstein predicts. Just that Einstein didn't like the results of his theory (and thought therefore that it was incomplete) doesn't invalidate the theory.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) May 22, 2017
This will also have implications for the AdS-CFT correspondence.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2017
Is this what Einstein really predicted in GR?


It is what GR (the math) predicts.
OK smart guy, where in GR does GR math predict BHs?

Not what Einstein predicts. Just that Einstein didn't like the results of his theory (and thought therefore that it was incomplete) doesn't invalidate the theory.


No, you've got it backwards, Einstein wrote his 1939 paper to dispel the flagrantly false claims that General Relativity could be used as a basis for claiming infinite density & infinite gravity can exist at the center of a FINITE stellar mass.

antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) May 22, 2017
OK smart guy, where in GR does GR math predict BHs?

Schwartschild worked than one out in 1915
https://en.wikipe...d_metric
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (7) May 22, 2017
OK, but I only see an infinite set of diametrical fields within an infinite space; or, since space is "nothing"; Ta Da! Our space, only the fields. Wonder why this? Is it because, without it, we don't exist, juz say'n
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (7) May 22, 2017
Looking at infinite density, simple; place all the centers at the same point in space and time. Then nothing. Problem is, the assembly is tricky.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (7) May 22, 2017
Funny thang, "nothing". is it an infinite volume or no volume. Well, I see nothing as nothing, so nothing does not have a set of attributes, it null. way i see it
Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2017
OK smart guy, where in GR does GR math predict BHs?


Schwartschild worked than one out in 1915
https://en.wikipe...d_metric
..........uh, huh, and Einstein proved he was wrong, which was Einstein's purpose in his 1939 paper part of which I quoted directly from, so here it is again just in case you'd actually like to learn how to read a quote from the paper:

"This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity."

What a hoot, antialias_physorg, a biologist who imagines he knows more about General Relativity than the guy who wrote it. Maybe if you'd learn to do Differential Equations........

Dingbone
May 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2017
Saddle shape is not the way ENTROPY works, here below is Einstein's quote for the shape of the Universe, he is describing how ENTROPY functions & why ENTROPY determines the shape of the Universe:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole - General Relativity

Albert Einstein 97

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

swordsman
1 / 5 (9) May 22, 2017
The hydrogen atom has just two electronic particles: and electron and a proton. There are gravitational forces between these atoms. The conclusion is that gravity is an electronic effect (see Planck's original quantum theory). Entropy is an energy state effect that defines the amount of energy states. Therefore, in the universe the number of energy states is so enormous that calculations become impossible. Gravity is the determining factor, and densities vary over a wide range, distances between forms of matter vary over a wide range, as do sizes of matter formations. Quantum Mechanics is not sufficient to answer these questions.
Spaced out Engineer
2.3 / 5 (3) May 23, 2017
Could de Sitter and Anti de Sitter exhibit hermicity?

Maybe the naked singularity is undecidable?

What is strange is that the some trivial features are easier with loops and others with strings, given specific conditions. Perhaps it's apt to exit either or says something of typographically limitations and not those of the universe.

Ontologically indeterminate, epistemically holomorphic. Both and neither.
Spaced out Engineer
2 / 5 (4) May 23, 2017
Low dimensiality mirrored, yet for it to evolve and exit with virtual particulate, would it have to be networked?

Incomplete if you ask me. We will go back and make it consistent.
sevensixtwo
1 / 5 (4) May 23, 2017
Cosmic censorship is what you call it when your research shows something really strange, and then the government says that you can't mention it, and that you have to teach your students the wrong thing in the hopes that they wont ever figure it out for themselves.
Dingbone
May 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) May 23, 2017
The primary question is, why the shape of Universe should affect the shape of singularities and make them "naked". It implies, all singularities should get naked in the same way - according to their parent Universe. Many off-topic twaddlers are here - but can someone address this logical step?


The SHAPE of the universe is not hard to discover, it's a simple matter of ENERGY DISTRIBUTION within the boundary of a system in which energy is being generated. This ENERGY DISTRIBUTION is more simply labeled ENTROPY & is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & is what Einstein discussed in Part3 of General Relativity which I copied part of that text a few posts above this.

Just so you know, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not one of those "twaddling" around issues, it is a precise science, I took the courses in Engineering School.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2017
The SHAPE of the universe is not hard to discover, it's a simple matter of ENERGY DISTRIBUTION within the boundary of a system in which energy is being generated. This ENERGY DISTRIBUTION is more simply labeled ENTROPY & is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & is what Einstein discussed in Part3 of General Relativity which I copied part of that text a few posts above this.

How does distributed energy tell the shape of the Universe?
Aren't you just stating that energy distribution "determines" the shape of the U?
Wouldn't it be the other way round?
sedakamix
1 / 5 (1) May 24, 2017
This could work !
A 2 stage black hole

1. Stage positive particle dies rejected by dark energy , causing 2 positive particles to fall in and spin rapidly tying up Dark energy and particles together. mass gets so heavy kills one of the 2 positive particles matter is freed and dark energy flexes back throwing out all matter/particles
( supernova )

2nd Stage: As the dark energy stretches back it cant return to normal state as its been twisted so it sags , this sagging becomes " Dark Matter " which then creates stars as matter falls into peeks and valleys of the sagging Space time. As Dark Energy tries to stretch back to normal it can look like expansion of universe but its just dark energy stretching back from the twist but is forever damaged and that damage is Dark Matter fabric that creates gravity pockets.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) May 24, 2017
OK, but I only see an infinite set of diametrical fields within an infinite space; or, since space is "nothing"; Ta Da! Our space, only the fields. Wonder why this? Is it because, without it, we don't exist, juz say'n

I've been "questioned" on my use of diametrical, I intend to keep it; but will acknowledge I refer to the sense of opposites as in mirror images while being 2 different things. So I like the term diametrical, juz say'n.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 24, 2017
The SHAPE of the universe is not hard to discover, it's a simple matter of ENERGY DISTRIBUTION within the boundary of a system in which energy is being generated. This ENERGY DISTRIBUTION is more simply labeled ENTROPY & is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & is what Einstein discussed in Part3 of General Relativity.


How does distributed energy tell the shape of the Universe?
Aren't you just stating that energy distribution "determines" the shape of the U?
Wouldn't it be the other way round?


Energy Distribution (ENTROPY) takes the shape of the pathway of least resistance, such a pathway results in a pattern that is always spherical unless there is a boundary forcing it to take a shape that is different than spherical, Look at the explosive forces of fireworks in the sky, always spherical or semi-spherical, never cubic, never triangular, etc.

Saddle shaped Universe? What's the boundary forcing that pattern?
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) May 25, 2017
Saddle shaped Universe? What's the boundary forcing that pattern?

That's the question I'm asking.
The only thing I can think of is - time...

Spaced out Engineer
3 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
"Saddle shaped Universe? What's the boundary forcing that pattern?"
The fish eye lense needed for either of a wholism or a reduction of the Cauchy horizon in thesis's with degrees of freedom limited to traversibility and going from QM to special relativity.
It is not a physical boundary, but a debate of when information becomes nondeterministic and if special relativity with compactification can still capture enough to make objective predictions. Who needs singularities if we can choose to ignore background independence? And yet if they happen why not as in rain drops, yet shared across the entire occurrence of storming but in the mirroring. What is more probable when introducing such an absurdity in Nature?
The constraint is conformal field theory and QM's. Yet who can say if points are more probable rather than cauchy horizon tiling? Yet we can still work with compactifcation without points, but only if its for certain not all relative, and a perfect distribution of the uncertain.
Spaced out Engineer
3 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
Space folded and not squeezed, yet if you ask me with constructs like D9 branes they could have isomorphicity. Information conserved theories can make bigger constructs, but are their base assumptions and dualities enough to ignore independence?
Spaced out Engineer
3 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
You still need faith in symmetry, yet closed form returns for such faith. The future will tell as more of the metrics become computationally feasible, even we are left with only the stronger duality of proofs and art. Either way the potential is unimaginably beautiful and debatably far simpler.
Dingbone
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
Saddle shaped Universe? What's the boundary forcing that pattern?

That's the question I'm asking.
The only thing I can think of is - time...


How can TIME form a boundary forcing particles of matter into a form or shape? Energy distribution (ENTROPY) can only come about within the confines of an enclosed space.

An example of what I'm talking about would be the shape of cylinders walls of an internal combustion engine. Upon combustion the energy distribution (ENTROPY) of particles inside the cylinder conforms to the shape of the cylinder walls as those particles hit the walls of the cylinder. Until the expanding particles hit the cylinder walls, the forces of expansion will be randomly spherical in shape, this is what Einstein discusses in Part 3 of GR.

The greatest topic for conjecture in my mind is what happens when the effects of ENTROPY bump up against the boundary of the Universe? And there must be such a boundary or there is no ENTROPY.
Homebrook
not rated yet May 26, 2017
Again, the "Artist's concept of a supermassive black hole." has nothing to do with the article and is not remotely close to what an actual black hole would look like for a lot of reasons. Can we just retire these, so called "Artists?" Their work has no redeeming value, they are pseudoscience fiction.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet May 26, 2017
Saddle shaped Universe? What's the boundary forcing that pattern?

That's the question I'm asking.
The only thing I can think of is - time...


How can TIME form a boundary forcing particles of matter into a form or shape? Energy distribution (ENTROPY) can only come about within the confines of an enclosed space.

Time is what it takes to make it spherical in the first place, right?
In an infinite space, what confines energy? What allows energy to find (or perhaps even create) physical boundaries to exhibit entropic behaviour?
Other energy, yes... but it is all limited by a master boundary - Time.

The greatest topic for conjecture in my mind is what happens when the effects of ENTROPY bump up against the boundary of the Universe? And there must be such a boundary or there is no ENTROPY.

Infinite Universe. No boundary - by definition.
Ergo, the time it takes to generate other values to interact with itself is a boundary.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 26, 2017
Again, the "Artist's concept of a supermassive black hole." has nothing to do with the article and is not remotely close to what an actual black hole would look like for a lot of reasons. Can we just retire these, so called "Artists?" Their work has no redeeming value, they are pseudoscience fiction.

Sorry, HB, but "Artists" in science articles only conceptualize with what they have been given by scientists - who have final say as to whether it is a reasonable conceptualization or not and therefore gets used.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet May 26, 2017
According to Laura Mersini the Universe looks like giant quantum wave moving from place to place. IMO this perspective is merely result of random character of Universe. The random universe would have (waves on water vid). hyperbolicaly shaped - no matter how large piece of it we would take. ...

Unfortunately for that statement, it ACTs in (and results in) parabolic character (collapse of hyperbolic exhibits)
OrangeHorse
5 / 5 (2) May 28, 2017
" The researchers, from the University of Cambridge, have used computer simulations to predict the existence of a so-called naked singularity, which interferes with Einstein's general theory of relativity."

There is an obvious question as a result of the above statement. What equations are they using in the computer simulation? It evidently is not Einstein's general theory of relativity equations. If there are using Newton's equation then it is obvious why they are getting a solution that doesn't corresponds with General Relativity.
Dingbone
May 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) May 28, 2017
the existence of a so-called naked singularity, which interferes with Einstein's general theory of relativity
In Einsteins own words you can read his conclusions about such "singularities". Click the link below to get the entire 1939 paper:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that most general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Benni
1 / 5 (1) May 28, 2017
How can TIME form a boundary forcing particles of matter into a form or shape? Energy distribution (ENTROPY) can only come about within the confines of an enclosed space.


Time is what it takes to make it spherical in the first place, right?
.......if you think so, then you be the one to explain it, I sure can't figure out how "time" creates a physically formed "shape" of anything. The "shape" of anything is a forced fit, like when you're bending heated metal with your blowtorch.

Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 29, 2017
Didn't I explain it, space or empty space is only conceptual, the only thing that exist is an infinite set of charges within an infinite universe. Charge, defined empirically as an axiom: within all matter, and the field defined by the charge and the charge are the same thing, updated apparently at the speed of light. Apparently questions our universal constants, i.e. charge has no mass. The motion of the field center creates these wrinkles, that shimer, i.e. let there be light! You may crash them into each other forever, but you can mentally visualize, juz say'n transparent, juz maxwell
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 29, 2017
Indestructible, and an infinite set, an infinite time, an infinite space; therefore, the probability of us and intelligent?

Shape?

Gosh, we have not learned how to see!

The speed of light may be from 0 to infinity; therefore, do we test for direction. Collectively, this tells us what field we are within.

Speed of a wavelet is initwavelength/measured period, Michelson and Morley were looking at their reflections! Dr. E. did not pay attention in class.
juz say'n
Hyperfuzzy
May 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet May 29, 2017
How can TIME form a boundary forcing particles of matter into a form or shape? Energy distribution (ENTROPY) can only come about within the confines of an enclosed space.


Time is what it takes to make it spherical in the first place, right?
.......if you think so, then you be the one to explain it, I sure can't figure out how "time" creates a physically formed "shape" of anything. The "shape" of anything is a forced fit, like when you're bending heated metal with your blowtorch.

I'm prob'ly not going to say this in a way that suits you (I'm not a trained professional, schooled in the science Arts), but I'll try -
It doesn't force it, it ALLOWS it to happen. Since it is surrounded by other energies (in a variety of forms/frequencies), energy develops a "shape" that is entropic in nature. Because energy has an infinite number of "frequencies" (that interact with OTHER frequencies, I think you might be limiting the definition of Entropy...
Dingbone
May 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 29, 2017
What equations are they using in the computer simulation?


From the linked abstract
We consider time-dependent solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations using anti–de Sitter (AdS) boundary conditions

I.e. they are using a negative cosmological constant.

Note that current observations do not support that our universe has a negative cosmological constant with respect to gravity (which the authors acknowledge in the article).

What they are showing is - I think - that if you could create a local Anti-de Sitter space and screw around with the boundary fields you could create a region of space where a naked singularity could exist. These are a lot of 'ifs' and 'coulds' but the point here is that the cosmic censorship hypothesis may not be true (which in turn means that determinism from a Relativity point of view would go out the window).
Da Schneib
not rated yet May 29, 2017
It's actually very advanced string physics. The use of the terminology, "Einstein-Maxwell equations," makes it clear. Kaluza-Klein theory makes it clear that the Maxwell Equations are derived from GRT in five dimensions.

And this conjecture also involves the AdS-CFT duality, which is an outgrowth of string physics.

Your conjecture, @antialias, is more-or-less correct. The point, however, was made when relativity predicted a singularity at the center of a black hole.
Dingbone
May 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
May 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 29, 2017
The point, however, was made when relativity predicted a singularity at the center of a black hole.

True, but from what I gather the weak and strong censorship hypotheses were meant to sorta circumvent this. While any singularity kills determinism a singularity that is effectively cut off from the rest of the universe would, technically, not.
It would be *the* future null point, but not *a* future null point. Determinism would technically not be violated if it breaks down at the 'last' point in the universe.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2017
IMHO, and I share it with a lot of physicists, relativity breaks down in the strong gravity regime, and at very short distances. We will not be able to probe these areas even mathematically until we have a quantum gravity theory, and when we have a quantum gravity theory it will turn out that there are no singularities.

By "breaks down," I mean that at very strong gravity and very short distances (and times), relativity turns out to be an approximate solution rather than an exact one, and quantum gravity is needed to form a consistent and physical theory.

The censorship hypotheses then become extraneous.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 29, 2017
IMHO, and I share it with a lot of physicists, relativity breaks down in the strong gravity regime, and at very short distances. We will not be able to probe these areas even mathematically until we have a quantum gravity theory, and when we have a quantum gravity theory it will turn out that there are no singularities.

By "breaks down," I mean that at very strong gravity and very short distances (and times), relativity turns out to be an approximate solution rather than an exact one, and quantum gravity is needed to form a consistent and physical theory.

The censorship hypotheses then become extraneous.

Ignoring Einstein is OK. There is only charge, charge has no mass, no boundary conditions, its transparent, the centers move as described by Maxwell's collection. So everything your theory states can be rigidly disproven with only algebra and common sense.

The mystery is how the universe as only these; however, without these, there is no universe or us. juz say'n
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) May 30, 2017
IMHO, and I share it with a lot of physicists, relativity breaks down in the strong gravity regime, and at very short distances.

Hopefully. It would be so depressing if there were no new physics to be found.

and when we have a quantum gravity theory it will turn out that there are no singularities

Just going totally off the rails here: It may turn out to be something really simple (like an uncertainty relation between two complementary variables) that prevents a collapse beyond a certain density?
Or it might be that the space stretching effect by gravity waves proposed in another recent article causes stretching to start to occur effectively at c (or larger) close to where a singularity would form - i.e. infalling matter would fall in forever without reaching a center and the regional density would be capped 'naturally'.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 30, 2017
IMHO, and I share it with a lot of physicists, relativity breaks down in the strong gravity regime, and at very short distances.

Hopefully. It would be so depressing if there were no new physics to be found.

and when we have a quantum gravity theory it will turn out that there are no singularities

Just going totally off the rails here: It may turn out to be something really simple (like an uncertainty relation between two complementary variables) that prevents a collapse beyond a certain density?
Or it might be that the space stretching effect by gravity waves proposed in another recent article causes stretching to start to occur effectively at c (or larger) close to where a singularity would form - i.e. infalling matter would fall in forever without reaching a center and the regional density would be capped 'naturally'.

Or som'n som'n between your ears
Dingbone
May 30, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) May 30, 2017
relativity breaks down in the strong gravity regime, and at very short distances
Relativity breaks with quantum mechanics into something, which we call http://i.imgur.com/bOuI1uL.gif.

Relativity? The speed of light is a constant only to the center of the motion of the charge that caused the wrinkle in the charge's field. The speed of light as measured by any external observer is the original wavelength divided by the measured period. May be from 0 to infinity. Modern physics requires an update. Einstein is wrong! Also QM has no axiomatic structure and is not a theory but a Gerry Rigged wave equation, does anyone actually use logic or think for them selves?

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.