Skip to main content

Naked Singularities Have Permanent Clothes

The center of a black hole is a mysterious place - a singularity where matter is concentrated into an infinitesimally small point and the laws of physics break down making anything possible. A year ago, a couple physicists said that we might be able to see into a black hole, to see a "naked singularity." Today, three physicists say that's not possible.

In October 2009, Ted Jacobson and Thomas Sotiriou published a paper theorizing that under the right circumstances it could be possible to see the center of a black hole. Now, in a new paper due to appear in Physical Review Letters, three physicists argue the Jacobson/Sotiriou theory, saying that no real-life circumstances would ever allow a singularity to be revealed.

To understand what we're talking about, we first have to understand a black hole's anatomy. A black hole's outer edge - called the event horizon - is defined as the "point of no return" where gravity is strong enough to trap objects traveling at the speed of light, not to mention any passersby going slower.

At the center of the black hole is a singularity, the area where matter is densely packed. We can't see beyond the event horizon, though, because everything inside is gravity-bound. No light can escape. That makes the singularity invisible to us.

But what if there was a way to destroy the event horizon, Jacobson and Sotiriou asked? Then we could see a naked singularity.

The duo said that if a spinning object collided with a black hole spinning in the same direction their combined momentum would allow the spinning force to counteract gravity enough to overcome the event horizon. No more trapping of light. We could see inside a black hole.

What would happen then is anybody's guess. It could mean the destruction of the universe. Because of that, scientists like Stephen Hawking believe in a cosmic censorship conjecture that requires singularities to be shielded by indestructible event horizons.

To come to their conclusion that an event horizon could be destroyed, Jacobson and Sotiriou used a mathematical simulation of a black hole. To do the difficult calculations, though, they had to discard some of the variables.

To understand what Jacobson and Sotiriou did, imagine that instead of simulating a black hole, they were simulating the Earth. To make the math easier, they effectively said the Earth was round, even though we know it is not. In reality, it is covered with small bumps like mountains and trees that, though small relative to the size of the Earth, do affect its gravity. Jacobson and Sotiriou ignored those bumps and their results told them that an object colliding with a black hole could disrupt the event horizon.

Enrico Barausse, Vitor Cardoso and Gaurav Khanna - the physicists with the latest paper - spent the last year adding some of those bumps back into the equation. Their results showed that as the object approached the black hole, the object's gravity would be enough to cause it to be deflected away from the black hole, keeping the event horizon intact.

Their research confirms the cosmic censorship conjecture, keeping any would-be naked singularities under wraps.


  1. Inventing a phony cosmic censorship for black holes to be indestructible, is denying the real existence of naked singularities. Naked singularities do not require gravity, to give galaxies their flat pancake shapes. Vortices of cosmic filaments intersect to form holographic structures. Visit my Holographic Galaxy model of the universe at :

  2. If the event horizon of a black hole is the point where the escape velocity equals that of the speed of light (which is why black holes are black - light cannot escape - and holes - since if light cannot escape then nothing else can, then how would we be able to see naked singularities? Wouldn't their gravity prevent all radiation from escaping, rendering them invisible to us? To see them presupposes that the escape velocity of a naked singularity does not exceed the speed of light which seems nonsensical if the gravity of a singularity is effectively infinite. Or have I misunderstood the mechanism of how - hypothetically - we can actually see a naked singularity?


Post a Comment

Popular Posts

How 4,000 Physicists Gave a Vegas Casino its Worst Week Ever

What happens when several thousand distinguished physicists, researchers, and students descend on the nation’s gambling capital for a conference? The answer is "a bad week for the casino"—but you'd never guess why.

Ask a Physicist: Phone Flash Sharpie Shock!

Lexie and Xavier, from Orlando, FL want to know: "What's going on in this video ? Our science teacher claims that the pain comes from a small electrical shock, but we believe that this is due to the absorption of light. Please help us resolve this dispute!"

The Science of Ice Cream: Part One

Even though it's been a warm couple of months already, it's officially summer. A delicious, science-filled way to beat the heat? Making homemade ice cream. (We've since updated this article to include the science behind vegan ice cream. To learn more about ice cream science, check out The Science of Ice Cream, Redux ) Image Credit: St0rmz via Flickr Over at Physics@Home there's an easy recipe for homemade ice cream. But what kind of milk should you use to make ice cream? And do you really need to chill the ice cream base before making it? Why do ice cream recipes always call for salt on ice?