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.
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.
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.
Would the Big Bang be a white hole?
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...
You could have spent two minutes to find out the actual arguments from scientists regarding the safety of the LHC, but chose not to.
Here it is: https://home.cern/science/accelerators/large-hadron-collider...
> Although theory predicts that microscopic black holes decay rapidly, even hypothetical stable black holes can be shown to be harmless by studying the consequences of their production by cosmic rays.
Note that the article cites critics as well as technical refutations. Your claim that critics were dismissed is baseless.
I believe a healthy dose of humility would be in order.
Cosmic ray black holes are likely to have a momentum and would probably fly out to outer space. While LHC micro black holes would stay on Earth and the potential LHC black hole could eat it. (Assuming Hawking radiation does not exist)
The crits were dismissed because LHC is working.
> Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth. However, there are much larger and denser astronomical bodies than the Earth in the Universe. Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dwarf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes.
No, the claim was that critics were painted as "anti science" and that Hawking radiation was taken as granted. The link I shared shows that critics were taken seriously and confronted with formal arguments, including the scenario in which black holes are stable.
I made no statements about the safety of the LHC itself.
What logical flaws have you found in the math of the big bang or white holes?
The other commenter wrote that I dont know the math and that "math can be learned from books".
For me quality of comments is even lower than the quality of the article...
Have a nice day
You're implying that people can't handle your brilliant understanding of logical flaws, but you've given no evidence that you even understand the basics.
Since you're writing low quality conspiratorial comments, people are assuming you're just as uninformed as your comments imply. You keep trying to imply that you know more than everybody else and are just unwilling to show it.
So if you have something to say to add to the conversation then now would be the time to do so. Otherwise we'll go on assuming you are just confused.
Where is the math in the article? Barely anything.
Do you even have a Putnam?
It's something that isn't well studied, hasn't been observed extensively and potentially destructive.
People always hand-wave destructive potential from their doomsday devices. They made the nuclear bomb FFS.
If you want to see the actual math, go read textbooks on general relativity and cosmology.
I've got a "WTF!" moment there too. The wording is really bad.