0
$\begingroup$

This is just a thought experiment before someone mentions the cosmic censorship conjecture. If physicists are discussing it in papers and scholarship, I wanna see some of those theoretical angles too lol.

So, If you took a black hole and turned it into a naked singularity, would the naked singularity have the same gravitational properties as the black hole like the ability to spaghettify?

There's limited information on YouTube that I can understand but I'm guessing based on the vids I watched that the answer is no because I'm assuming a naked singularity is basically just a singularity with no gravity which would explain not having an event horizon and not having to adhere to the CCC. Of course, I have a limited understanding and likely to be wrong, so if anyone actually knows, please let me know.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ @G.Smith the last time I asked, it was subjective: are naked singularities as dangerous as regular black holes? which someone good humorously replied hat they are for physicists (because their existence would violate the cosmic censorship conjecture). that wasn't the answer i was looking for but it was a solid answer lol. i updated this to be more specific. $\endgroup$ – ashy May 12 '20 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ ashy, please don't delete and repost your question. Instead, edit the original to change it and it can be reviewed for reopening. $\endgroup$ – David Z May 12 '20 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ @G.Smith something being dangerous IS subjective. My last question was literally like asking "are guns dangerous?" Thats not a yes or no question. And neither is "are naked singularities as dangerous as regular black holes?" because how are we defining dangerous? If I'm on the other side of the galaxy, it's not dangerous but if I'm within spaghettifying range yeah, sure its dangerous. This updated question can be answered yes or no because it is specific. Hopefully you'll allow it to go up again $\endgroup$ – ashy May 12 '20 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ and again, there was already an answer to that question that was technically correct without addressing what I wanted addressed. Theres no room for interpretation in this question $\endgroup$ – ashy May 12 '20 at 19:42
  • $\begingroup$ Two points : (1) It says ask a new question, not ask the same question slightly reworded but materially the same and (2) just because you can ask a new question does not mean it won't be closed again for the same reasons if it's not sufficiently different or improved significantly. $\endgroup$ – StephenG May 12 '20 at 23:34