I discovered a paper by, Figueras, Kunesch, and Tunyasuvunakool, "End Point of Black Ring Instabilities and the Weak Cosmic Censorship Conjecture." A Cambridge University press release is here.
The press release says that this theory would 'break' laws of physics. But why between quotation marks? Would this theory really/literally break laws of physics? Even the most fundamental ones? Even invariances? Wouldn't the universe be destroyed if such naked singularity existed?
How can this theory really break laws of physics with a singularity by just taking GR to 5D, if the general consensus is that singularities that do break laws of physics cannot really exist and they do not make the equations of GR useless? What has this theory that allows it to do that if the other theories, when they predict such singularities, are considered to be wrong or incomplete? Why would this theory not be wrong?
At first I thought that to do so, the authors used some exotic theory of physics. But surprisingly, they used General Relativity but with the simple condition of being used in 5 Dimensions. If real singularities are thought to not exist in GR in our number of dimensions (3-4D), why would they really exist by simply going up to 5D?
It is not obvious that GR predicting singularities would be a problem because it is generally considered that singularities do not exist. Why would this theory claim that naked singularities exist? Is it that depending on the conditions of the universe where the black hole would exist, it would actually generate a singularity or not?
Last and most important question: If that singularity could actually exist and it actually broke GR, although we cannot predict what would happen in the universe after that, can we know whether, depending on the conditions of the black hole and the singularity, the singularity could break literally ALL fundamental conditions and laws (even invariances) allowing literally/really impossible things to happen (like time travel or a method to find a mathematical solution for factorizing number 181, which obviously cannot be factorized)?