Cosmic censorship hypothesis: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
en>Xiao-yuz
mNo edit summary
 
en>JorisvS
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
<br><br>It is very common to have a dental emergency -- a fractured tooth, an abscess, or severe pain when chewing. Over-the-counter pain medication is just masking the problem. Seeing an emergency dentist is critical to getting the source of the problem diagnosed and corrected as soon as possible.<br><br>Here are some common dental emergencies:<br>Toothache: The most common dental emergency. This generally means a badly decayed tooth. As the pain affects the tooth's nerve, treatment involves gently removing any debris lodged in the cavity being careful not to poke deep as this will cause severe pain if the nerve is touched. Next rinse vigorously with warm water. Then soak a small piece of cotton in oil of cloves and insert it in the cavity. This will give temporary relief until a dentist can be reached.<br><br>At times the pain may have a more obscure location such as decay under an old filling. As this can be only corrected by a dentist there are two things you can do to help the pain. Administer a pain pill (aspirin or some other analgesic) internally or dissolve a tablet in a half glass (4 oz) of warm water holding it in the mouth for several minutes before spitting it out. DO NOT PLACE A WHOLE TABLET OR ANY PART OF IT IN THE TOOTH OR AGAINST THE SOFT GUM TISSUE AS IT WILL RESULT IN A NASTY BURN.<br><br>Swollen Jaw: This may be caused by several conditions the most probable being an abscessed tooth. In any case the treatment should be to reduce pain and swelling. An ice pack held on the outside of the jaw, (ten minutes on and ten minutes off) will take care of both. If this does not control the pain, an analgesic tablet can be given every four hours.<br><br>Other Oral Injuries: Broken teeth, cut lips, bitten tongue or lips if severe means a trip to a dentist as soon as possible. In the mean time rinse the mouth with warm water and place cold compression the face opposite the injury. If there is a lot of bleeding, apply direct pressure to the bleeding area. If bleeding does not stop get patient to the emergency room of a hospital as stitches may be necessary.<br><br>Prolonged Bleeding Following Extraction: Place a gauze pad or better still a moistened tea bag over the socket and have the patient bite down gently on it for 30 to 45 minutes. The tannic acid in the tea seeps into the tissues and often helps stop the bleeding. If bleeding continues after two hours, call the dentist or take patient to the emergency room of the nearest hospital.<br><br>Broken Jaw: If you suspect the patient's jaw is broken, bring the upper and lower teeth together. Put a necktie, handkerchief or towel under the chin, tying it over the head to immobilize the jaw until you can get the patient to a dentist or the emergency room of a hospital.<br><br>Painful Erupting Tooth: In young children teething pain can come from a loose baby tooth or from an erupting permanent tooth. Some relief can be given by crushing a little ice and wrapping it in gauze or a clean piece of cloth and putting it directly on the tooth or gum tissue where it hurts. The numbing effect of the cold, along with an appropriate dose of aspirin, usually provides temporary relief.<br><br>In young adults, an erupting 3rd molar (Wisdom tooth), especially if it is impacted, can cause the jaw to swell and be quite painful. Often the gum around the tooth will show signs of infection. Temporary relief can be had by giving aspirin or some other painkiller and by dissolving an aspirin in half a glass of warm water and holding this solution in the mouth over the sore gum. AGAIN DO NOT PLACE A TABLET DIRECTLY OVER THE GUM OR CHEEK OR USE THE ASPIRIN SOLUTION ANY STRONGER THAN RECOMMENDED TO PREVENT BURNING THE TISSUE. The swelling of the jaw can be reduced by using an ice pack on the outside of the face at intervals of ten minutes on and ten minutes off.<br><br>If you have any concerns about where by and how to use [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90z1mmiwNS8 Washington DC Dentist], you can contact us at the site.
{{multiple issues|
{{more footnotes|date=February 2008}}
{{expert-subject|Science|date=November 2008}}
}}
 
The weak and the strong '''cosmic censorship hypotheses''' are two mathematical conjectures about the structure of [[gravitational singularity|singularities]] arising in [[general relativity]].
 
Singularities that arise in the [[Solutions of the Einstein field equations|solutions]] of [[Einstein's field equation|Einstein's equations]] are typically hidden within [[event horizon]]s, and therefore cannot be seen from the rest of [[spacetime]]. Singularities that are not so hidden are called ''[[naked singularity|naked]]''. The '''weak cosmic censorship hypothesis''' was conceived by [[Roger Penrose]] in 1969 and posits that no naked singularities, other than the [[Big Bang]] singularity, exist in the [[universe]].
 
==Basics==
Since the physical behavior of singularities is unknown, if singularities can be observed from the rest of spacetime, [[causality]] may break down, and [[physics]] may lose its predictive power. The issue cannot be avoided, since according to the [[Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems]], singularities are inevitable in physically reasonable situations. Still, in the absence of naked singularities, the universe is [[determinism|deterministic]] {{Citation needed|date=February 2013}} &mdash;it is possible to predict the entire evolution of the universe (possibly excluding some finite regions of space hidden inside event horizons of singularities), knowing only its condition at a certain moment of time (more precisely, everywhere on a [[spacelike]] three-dimensional hypersurface, called the [[Cauchy surface]]). Failure of the cosmic censorship hypothesis leads to the failure of determinism, because it is yet impossible to predict the behavior of spacetime in the causal future of a singularity. Cosmic censorship is not merely a problem of formal interest; some form of it is assumed whenever [[black hole]] event horizons are mentioned.
 
The hypothesis was first formulated by [[Roger Penrose]] in 1969, and it is not stated in a completely formal way. In a sense it is more of a research program proposal: part of the research is to find a proper formal statement that is physically reasonable and that can be proved to be true or false (and that is sufficiently general to be interesting).<ref>[http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/nyt_bet_story.html A Bet on a Cosmic Scale, And a Concession, Sort Of (New York Times, February 12, 1997)]</ref>  Because the statement is not a strictly formal one, there is sufficient lattitude for (at least) two independent formulations, a weak form, and a strong form.
 
== Weak and strong cosmic censorship hypothesis ==
 
The weak and the strong cosmic censorship hypothesis are two conjectures concerned with the global geometry of spacetimes.
* The '''weak cosmic censorship hypothesis''' asserts there can be no singularity visible from [[future null infinity]]. In other words, singularities need to be hidden from an observer at infinity by the event horizon of a [[black hole]].
Mathematically, the conjecture states that, for generic initial data, the maximal Cauchy development possesses a complete future null infinity.
 
* The '''strong cosmic censorship hypothesis''' asserts that, generically, general relativity is a deterministic theory, in the same sense that classical mechanics is a deterministic theory. In other words, the classical fate of all observers should be predictable from the initial data. Mathematically, the conjecture states that the maximal Cauchy development of generic compact or asymptotically flat initial data is locally inextendible as a regular [[Lorentzian manifold]].
 
The two conjectures are mathematically independent, as there exist spacetimes for which the weak cosmic censorship is valid but the strong cosmic censorship is violated and, conversely, there exist spacetimes for which the weak cosmic censorship is violated but the strong cosmic censorship is valid.
 
==Example==
The [[Kerr Metric]], corresponding to a black hole of mass <math>M</math> and angular momentum <math>J</math>, can be used to derive the [[effective potential]] for particle [[orbits]] restricted to the equator (as defined by rotation). This potential looks like:<ref name="hartle_gravity">James B Hartle, ''Gravity'' in chapter 15: Rotating Black Holes. (2003. ISBN 0-8053-8662-9)</ref>
:<math> V_{\rm{eff}}(r,e,l)=-\frac{M}{r}+\frac{l^2-a^2(e^2-1)}{2r^2}-\frac{M(l-ae^2)}{r^3},~~~
a\equiv \frac{J}{M} </math>
where <math>r</math> is the coordinate radius, <math>e</math> and <math>l</math> are the test-particle's conserved energy and angular momentum respectively (constructed from the [[killing vectors]]).
 
To preserve ''cosmic censorship'', the black hole is restricted to the case of <math>a < 1</math>.  For there to exist an [[event horizon]] around the singularity, the requirement: <math>a < 1</math> must be satisfied:.<ref name="hartle_gravity" />  This amounts to the [[angular momentum]] of the black hole being constrained to below a critical value, outside of which the horizon would disappear. 
 
The following thought experiment is reproduced from Hartle's ''Gravity'':
 
Imagine specifically trying to violate the censorship conjecture.  This could be done by somehow imparting an angular momentum upon the black hole, making it exceed the critical value (assume it starts infinitesimally below it). This could be done by sending a particle of angular momentum <math>l = 2Me</math>.  Because this particle has angular momentum, it can only be captured by the black hole if the maximum potential of the black hole is less than <math>(e^2-1)/2</math>.
 
Solving the above effective potential equation for the maximum under the given conditions results in a maximum potential of exactly <math>(e^2-1)/2</math>!  Testing other values shows that no particle with enough angular momentum to violate the censorship conjecture would be able to enter the black hole, '''because''' they have too much angular momentum to fall in.
 
==Problems with the concept==
There are a number of difficulties in formalizing the hypothesis:
 
* There are technical difficulties with properly formalizing the notion of a singularity.
* It is not difficult to construct spacetimes which have naked singularities, but which are not "physically reasonable;" the canonical example of such a spacetime is perhaps the "superextremal" <math>M<|Q|</math> [[Reissner-Nordstrom]] solution, which contains a singularity at <math>r=0</math> that is not surrounded by a horizon. A formal statement needs some set of hypotheses which exclude these situations.
* [[Caustic (mathematics)|Caustic]]s may occur in simple models of [[gravitational collapse]], and can appear to lead to singularities. These have more to do with the simplified models of bulk matter used, and in any case have nothing to do with general relativity, and need to be excluded.
* Computer models of gravitational collapse have shown that naked singularities can arise, but these models rely on very special circumstances (such as spherical symmetry). These special circumstances need to be excluded by some hypothesis.
 
In 1991, [[John Preskill]] and [[Kip Thorne]] [[scientific wager|bet against]] [[Stephen Hawking]] that the hypothesis was false.  Hawking conceded the bet in 1997, due to the discovery of the special situations just mentioned, which he characterized as "technicalities". Hawking later reformulated the bet to exclude those technicalities. The revised bet is still open, the prize being "clothing to cover the winner's nakedness".[http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/new_naked_bet.html]
 
== Counter-example ==
 
An exact solution to the scalar-Einstein equations <math>R_{ab}=2\phi_a\phi_b</math> which forms a counter example to many formulations of the  
cosmic censorship hypothesis was found by Mark D. Roberts in 1985:
:<math>ds^2=-(1+2\sigma)dv^2+2dv\,dr+r(r-2\sigma v)\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta \,d\phi^2\right),\quad
\phi = \frac{1}{2} \ln\left(1 - \frac{2\sigma v}{r}\right),</math>
where <math>\sigma</math> is a constant.
 
==See also==
*[[Black hole information paradox]]
*[[Chronology protection conjecture]]
 
==References==
{{reflist}}
 
==Bibliography==
*Earman, John: ''Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes'' (1995), see especially chapter 2 (ISBN 0-19-509591-X)
*Roberts,  Mark D. : ''Scalar Field Counter-Examples to the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis. Gen.Rel.Grav.21(1989)907-939.
*Penrose, Roger: "The Question of Cosmic Censorship", Chapter 5 in ''Black Holes and Relativistic Stars'', Robert Wald (editor), (1994) (ISBN 0-226-87034-0)
*Penrose, Roger: "Singularities and time-asymmetry", Chapter 12 in ''General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey'' (Hawking and Israel, editors), (1979), see especially section 12.3.2, pp.&nbsp;617–629 (ISBN 0-521-22285-0)
*Shapiro, S. L., and Teukolsky, S. A.: "Formation of Naked Singularities: The Violation of Cosmic Censorship", Physical Review Letters '''66''', 994-997 (1991)
*Wald, Robert, ''General Relativity'', 299-308 (1984) (ISBN 0-226-87033-2)
 
==External links==
*[http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/old_naked_bet.html The old bet] (conceded in 1997)
*[http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/new_naked_bet.html The new bet]
 
{{black holes}}
 
{{DEFAULTSORT:Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis}}
[[Category:Black holes]]
[[Category:General relativity]]

Revision as of 15:33, 11 January 2014

Template:Multiple issues

The weak and the strong cosmic censorship hypotheses are two mathematical conjectures about the structure of singularities arising in general relativity.

Singularities that arise in the solutions of Einstein's equations are typically hidden within event horizons, and therefore cannot be seen from the rest of spacetime. Singularities that are not so hidden are called naked. The weak cosmic censorship hypothesis was conceived by Roger Penrose in 1969 and posits that no naked singularities, other than the Big Bang singularity, exist in the universe.

Basics

Since the physical behavior of singularities is unknown, if singularities can be observed from the rest of spacetime, causality may break down, and physics may lose its predictive power. The issue cannot be avoided, since according to the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems, singularities are inevitable in physically reasonable situations. Still, in the absence of naked singularities, the universe is deterministic Potter or Ceramic Artist Truman Bedell from Rexton, has interests which include ceramics, best property developers in singapore developers in singapore and scrabble. Was especially enthused after visiting Alejandro de Humboldt National Park. —it is possible to predict the entire evolution of the universe (possibly excluding some finite regions of space hidden inside event horizons of singularities), knowing only its condition at a certain moment of time (more precisely, everywhere on a spacelike three-dimensional hypersurface, called the Cauchy surface). Failure of the cosmic censorship hypothesis leads to the failure of determinism, because it is yet impossible to predict the behavior of spacetime in the causal future of a singularity. Cosmic censorship is not merely a problem of formal interest; some form of it is assumed whenever black hole event horizons are mentioned.

The hypothesis was first formulated by Roger Penrose in 1969, and it is not stated in a completely formal way. In a sense it is more of a research program proposal: part of the research is to find a proper formal statement that is physically reasonable and that can be proved to be true or false (and that is sufficiently general to be interesting).[1] Because the statement is not a strictly formal one, there is sufficient lattitude for (at least) two independent formulations, a weak form, and a strong form.

Weak and strong cosmic censorship hypothesis

The weak and the strong cosmic censorship hypothesis are two conjectures concerned with the global geometry of spacetimes.

  • The weak cosmic censorship hypothesis asserts there can be no singularity visible from future null infinity. In other words, singularities need to be hidden from an observer at infinity by the event horizon of a black hole.

Mathematically, the conjecture states that, for generic initial data, the maximal Cauchy development possesses a complete future null infinity.

  • The strong cosmic censorship hypothesis asserts that, generically, general relativity is a deterministic theory, in the same sense that classical mechanics is a deterministic theory. In other words, the classical fate of all observers should be predictable from the initial data. Mathematically, the conjecture states that the maximal Cauchy development of generic compact or asymptotically flat initial data is locally inextendible as a regular Lorentzian manifold.

The two conjectures are mathematically independent, as there exist spacetimes for which the weak cosmic censorship is valid but the strong cosmic censorship is violated and, conversely, there exist spacetimes for which the weak cosmic censorship is violated but the strong cosmic censorship is valid.

Example

The Kerr Metric, corresponding to a black hole of mass and angular momentum , can be used to derive the effective potential for particle orbits restricted to the equator (as defined by rotation). This potential looks like:[2]

where is the coordinate radius, and are the test-particle's conserved energy and angular momentum respectively (constructed from the killing vectors).

To preserve cosmic censorship, the black hole is restricted to the case of . For there to exist an event horizon around the singularity, the requirement: must be satisfied:.[2] This amounts to the angular momentum of the black hole being constrained to below a critical value, outside of which the horizon would disappear.

The following thought experiment is reproduced from Hartle's Gravity:

Imagine specifically trying to violate the censorship conjecture. This could be done by somehow imparting an angular momentum upon the black hole, making it exceed the critical value (assume it starts infinitesimally below it). This could be done by sending a particle of angular momentum . Because this particle has angular momentum, it can only be captured by the black hole if the maximum potential of the black hole is less than .

Solving the above effective potential equation for the maximum under the given conditions results in a maximum potential of exactly ! Testing other values shows that no particle with enough angular momentum to violate the censorship conjecture would be able to enter the black hole, because they have too much angular momentum to fall in.

Problems with the concept

There are a number of difficulties in formalizing the hypothesis:

  • There are technical difficulties with properly formalizing the notion of a singularity.
  • It is not difficult to construct spacetimes which have naked singularities, but which are not "physically reasonable;" the canonical example of such a spacetime is perhaps the "superextremal" Reissner-Nordstrom solution, which contains a singularity at that is not surrounded by a horizon. A formal statement needs some set of hypotheses which exclude these situations.
  • Caustics may occur in simple models of gravitational collapse, and can appear to lead to singularities. These have more to do with the simplified models of bulk matter used, and in any case have nothing to do with general relativity, and need to be excluded.
  • Computer models of gravitational collapse have shown that naked singularities can arise, but these models rely on very special circumstances (such as spherical symmetry). These special circumstances need to be excluded by some hypothesis.

In 1991, John Preskill and Kip Thorne bet against Stephen Hawking that the hypothesis was false. Hawking conceded the bet in 1997, due to the discovery of the special situations just mentioned, which he characterized as "technicalities". Hawking later reformulated the bet to exclude those technicalities. The revised bet is still open, the prize being "clothing to cover the winner's nakedness".[1]

Counter-example

An exact solution to the scalar-Einstein equations which forms a counter example to many formulations of the cosmic censorship hypothesis was found by Mark D. Roberts in 1985:

where is a constant.

See also

References

43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.

Bibliography

  • Earman, John: Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes (1995), see especially chapter 2 (ISBN 0-19-509591-X)
  • Roberts, Mark D. : Scalar Field Counter-Examples to the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis. Gen.Rel.Grav.21(1989)907-939.
  • Penrose, Roger: "The Question of Cosmic Censorship", Chapter 5 in Black Holes and Relativistic Stars, Robert Wald (editor), (1994) (ISBN 0-226-87034-0)
  • Penrose, Roger: "Singularities and time-asymmetry", Chapter 12 in General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey (Hawking and Israel, editors), (1979), see especially section 12.3.2, pp. 617–629 (ISBN 0-521-22285-0)
  • Shapiro, S. L., and Teukolsky, S. A.: "Formation of Naked Singularities: The Violation of Cosmic Censorship", Physical Review Letters 66, 994-997 (1991)
  • Wald, Robert, General Relativity, 299-308 (1984) (ISBN 0-226-87033-2)

External links

Template:Black holes

  1. A Bet on a Cosmic Scale, And a Concession, Sort Of (New York Times, February 12, 1997)
  2. 2.0 2.1 James B Hartle, Gravity in chapter 15: Rotating Black Holes. (2003. ISBN 0-8053-8662-9)