Black hole singularities break physics - fortunately,
the universe seems to conspire to protect itself from their causality-destroying madness. At least, so says the cosmic censorship hypothesis. Only problem is many physicists think it might
be wrong, and that naked singularities may exist after all. Strange things happen inside black holes. Space and time switch roles, pathways open
up to other universes, and in some cases time travel becomes possible. Causality breaks down, and so the supreme
sensibleness of physics is badly threatened. And surrounding all of this weirdness is the
event horizon: the surface around the central singularity where the inward flow of space
reaches the speed of light, and time freezes from the perspective of the outside universe. In the most real possible sense, the interior
of the black hole is its own separate spacetime, excised from our universe. The event horizon sounds dire, but it’s
a blessing. Without it, the infinitely dense singularity
and its surrounding madness is exposed to the outside universe. We would have what we call a naked singularity. This would wreak havoc on our understanding
of causality, and our precious laws of physics would become unhinged. Given the dire consequences, Roger Penrose
proposed the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis - which basically states that every gravitational
singularity must be surrounded by an event horizon. In an upcoming episode we’re going to look
deeper at why many physicists believe the cosmic censorship hypothesis must be true
- even without knowing exactly WHY it’s true. And we’ll see why other physicists have
begun to doubt it’s validity. But today we’re going to look at the astrophysics
and see how exactly a naked singularity might be formed in the first place, and how the
universe seems to work very hard to protect itself from them. So let’s talk about how to dissolve an event
horizon, although I would ask you to please not try this at home, for the sake of all
of physics. According to the so-called no-hair theorem,
black holes can have only three properties - mass, electric charge, and spin. Mass is what makes a black hole a black hole,
and so the simplest black holes have only this property. These are Schwarzschild black holes, and with
only mass that means they also only have inward-pulling gravity. With nothing to counter the inward flow of
space, an event horizon is inevitable. In recent episodes we also explored the rotating,
or Kerr black hole. Inside, we found that the rapid rotation has
spun the point-like singularity into a ring of infinite density. The time machine is on the other side of that
ring, by the way. The same rotation that f orms the ring also
drags the fabric of space into a vortex which counters the inward pull due to the singularity’s
mass. The result is that we get this region around
the singularity where the faster-than-light inward flow of space is halted. It’s like the eye of the storm, and it’s
separated from the surrounding cascade by the inner event horizon. As the spin of a Kerr black hole increases,
the spacetime waterfall is beaten back, and so the inner horizon grows. At a certain very high rotation rate, the
inner and outer horizons merge - which means they both vanish. There’s no longer a region where the inward
flow of space exceeds light speed. Instead, there’s a smooth run of normal
- albeit rapidly spinning space all the way down to the singularity ring. The NAKED singularity ring. There’s a similar situation with the charged
black hole - which, absent rotation, is described by the Reisner-Nordstrom metric. The presence of electric charge at the central
singularity - which point-like in this case - results in a negative pressure that again
resists the inward pull of gravity. Reisner-Nordstrom black holes also have an
inner horizon, interior to which space and time seem normal-ish. The more electric charge you drop into a black
hole, the larger its inner horizon becomes. And just as with the rotating black hole,
at some point the inner and outer horizons become one and vanish and you’re left with
a naked singularity. At the tipping point - when the inner and
outer horizons are right next to each other - you have what we call an extremal black
hole - a black hole with the maximum amount of spin or charge while still having an event
horizon. In both cases, the amount of angular momentum
or charge you can fit into a black hole before it becomes extremal depends on the mass. More mass means more inward gravity, and so
the black hole can hold more spin and charge before going extremal. So that’s how you make an extremal black
hole - or even a naked singularity. Just add enough spin or charge to an existing
black hole. And actually there’s another way to do it
in the case of the charged black hole. Normal black holes leak their mass away by
emitting Hawking radiation. That radiation cian be any type of elementary
particle - but in the case of the most massive black holes, it’s mostly just photons. That’s because the more massive the black
hole the lower the temperature of the radiation. In very massive black holes the Hawking radiation
has trouble mustering the energy for anything but weak photons. So that means a massive CHARGED black hole
will slowly leak away its mass while retaining its charge. The outer event horizon will shrink until
it meets the inner horizon, and again you have an extremal black hole. This can’t happen with rotating black holes
because they leak away their angular momentum as well as their mass. Once you have an extremal black hole by whatever
method, it lasts for a very, very long time - if not forever. Hawking radiation is a direct result of there
being an event horizon. So naked singularities don’t Hawking-radiate,
and extremal black holes radiate only very slowly. That leaves us with a strange situation - in
the far distant future, even if all particles in the universe decay, we may be left with
only radiation and these naked, charged singularities. So, there we have a few recipes for theoretical
disaster. At first glance, it appears that extremal
black holes are certainly possible. So why shouldn’t it be possible to add a
little more spin or charge to produce true naked singularities? The cosmic censorship hypothesis tells us
that something will always stop a gravitational singularity being stripped of its event horizon
- but it doesn’t tell us the physical mechanism. Let’s look at what we know. Rotating black holes gain their angular momentum
from things they swallow. Stuff doesn’t normally fall straight into
a black hole - it spirals in as its orbit decays. It’s that orbital angular momentum that
is fed to the black hole. But in order for an object orbiting a black
hole to fall into it, it actually has to lose at least some of that angular momentum. Otherwise it would just keep orbiting forever. For example, if there’s a disk of gas surrounding
the black hole like in a quasar, then the gas only spirals inwards because angular momentum
is carried outwards by friction. By the time the gas reaches the black hole
it has lost much of the angular momentum it started with. The faster a black hole is rotating, the more
angular momentum that gas has to lose in order to fall in. That’s because space gets dragged around
the rotating black hole, giving the gas a sort of boost so it can still orbit even with
very little of its own angular momentum. In the case of an extremal Kerr black hole
- one that’s rotating nearly fast enough to lose its event horizon - the gas near the
event horizon orbits entirely riding on the carousel of frame-dragged state, and has no
angular momentum of its own. Therefore just on the verge of becoming extremal,
the black hole can’t gain spin from accretion anymore. More generally, there is no trajectory into
an extremal black hole that can add angular momentum from the trajectory or the “orbit”
itself. An alternative is to throw in something that’s
actually spinning itself - so it has intrinsic angular momentum. It’s not yet clear whether we can avoid
the naked singularity in this case. At any rate, our observations of gravitational
waves from colliding black holes and various other methods for estimate black hole spin
has not yet reveals a single black hole with a spin high enough to be super-extremal. For charged black holes the situation is in
some ways easier, but has its own weirdness. We don’t actually expect real, astrophysical
black holes to retain any significant change. A charged black hole in the vicinity of any
matter would repel like charges and attract and swallow opposite charges, and so quickly
neutralize. But imagine we create a charged black hole
and isolate it from all other matter. Then surely we can just throw charged particles
into the black hole. We have to be careful, because those particles
increase the mass of the black hole as well as the charge - and if the mass increases
too much it won’t go extremal. But electrons have very tiny masses for comparatively
large charge - just factoring the electrons mass, it should be easy to send a black hole
over the extremal limit by feeding it a stream of electrons. But here we get to something that seems like
a bit too neat to be a coincidence. As Einstein taught us, mass and energy are
equivalent. And there’s an enormous amount of energy
in the electric field of all those electrons that you smooshed together into the black
hole. In fact the field itself will always generate
enough mass to prevent the black hole from losing its event horizon. Once again, the universe appears to have a
mechanism to avoid the naked singularity. But there still isn’t an underlying understanding
of why - or even if - cosmic censorship must be maintained. In fact, if you define the cosmic censorship
hypothesis in more technical terms, it seems that physics should allow its violation. And that would be a big problem for physics. To really understand that problem, and the
implications of the cosmic censorship hypothesis being true or not, you’ll have to wait for
an upcoming deeper dive to witness the horrors of the cosmicly uncensored spacetime. We missed comment responses last week, so
today we’re covering two episodes - building black holes in the lab with analog event horizons,
and Roger Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology. Moksha Prasunadh and k Fitz have related questions
on representing black hles. In representations of black holes as funnels,
or wormholes as tubes, what does that funnel or tube really represent? Is it, for example, some extra dimension that
the black hole leads into? Actually, in those representations take a
3-dimensional space and take a two dimensional slice out of it, so the black hole or wormhole
ends are circular instead of spherical. Then the third dimension is just a way to
represent the strength of the spatial curvature and the connections between different regions. In the case of the black hole funnel - moving
towards the bottom means moving towards the central singularity, and the narrowing of
the funnel represents extremely curved spacetime. Each ring you pass as you go down that funnel
represents crossing 3-D spherical shell. As you approach the singularity you end up
being wrapped entirely around that shell In the case of the tube between wormhole ends,
traveling arong the wall of the tube would feel like traveling through a 3-D space, but
travel around the tube and you’d get back to where you started. These representations are called embedding
diagrams, and we went through them in detial in our recent episode on Wormholes. OK, on to conformal cyclic cosmology, in which
the big bang is hypothesized to be the rescaled infinite late-time forever of a previous universe,
leading to a potentially endless chain of universes, or aeons. BenoHourglass asks for confirmation of this
interpretation of conformal cyclic cosmology: the space between atoms in one aeon would
be infinite from the point of view of observers from the previous aeon. Essentially yes - Each new infinitessimally
small Big Bang corresponds not to just the very, very large late time of the previous
universe, but actually to the “conformal infinity” of the previous - so all the future
infinite time of the previous added together. Inyobill asks if we’re assuming that the
lightest particles are without dimension, so they have an undefined size relative to
the universe. Yes - I think that’s the idea. A pointlike particle has size zero - that’s
zero volume, zero radius. It has the same relative size compared to
the universe whether that universe is trillions of light years across or a millimeter across. But that’s not enough to make the universe
scale invariant. Electrons, for example, supposedly have “zero
size”, but they also have something called an interaction crosssection, which defines
the probability of another particle interacting with the electron as a function of distance. That’s like another type of size, and it
makes a big difference if you’re a millimeter from an electron versus a trillion light years. In the case of a universe full of photons
- I THINK the idea is that when you rescale both space and time by the same factor, you
also rescale the interaction probabilities to that the interaction rate scales in the
same way ... So a pair of photons one light-second apart have the same probability of interacting
over one second as do a pair of photons a billion light years apart over a billion years. But I’m going to have to dig deeper on that
one. If anyone knows, please shout out in the comments. I mentioned that in conformal cyclic cosmology,
photons and gravitational waves can pass the boundary from universe end to new big bang,
and so there may be a way to send messages between these universes. MANY of you had a guess at what we might read
imprinted on the cosmic microwave background from the previous aeon. Some of my favorites: “We have been trying to reach you about
your car’s expiring warranty” “Smedjip was here" "Hey folks, Enjoy your entropy while it's
low." And a gratifying number of Hitchhikers Guide
to the Galaxy references: "The answer is 42." "Goodbye and thanks for all the fish." "We apologize for the inconvenience".
I guess I'll ask the obvious question. What if you took an extremal spinning black hole, and then added some charge? Or vice versa (adding spin to a charged extremal black hole)? Could that push it over the edge to become a naked singularity, or is there something in the math that still prevents that?
If you have a black hole with no event horizon then what happens to the quantum information of whatever falls in? It's truly lost isn't it? So then why did Hawking concede that bet to Leonard Suskind?
If a black hole loses its even horizon, what happens to all the quantum information stored there? Is it lost, violating the conversation of information (covered in an earlier PBS Spacetime)