Talk:Ring singularity

Problems
To mention just one: through or missing the ring singularity: should clarify that one is discussing a level of structure underlying Lorentzian metric structure.---CH 09:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Consequences
I have long wondered (since before gaining a PhD in cosmology based on studying large-scale structure using quasars as mass tracers, if I might appeal to authority 8-) what would happen to matter falling through the ring. Could this explain quasar jets? My work was largely observational, and I would not claim to have the mathematical background necessary to work the theory through. --Pete Newman p.r.newman@lineone.net

Ring singularities & deletions
Having noted that there is some question about what form ring singularities actually take in realistic collapse, I added the info to the appropriate section, along with references. (The web references could probably use a formal entry in the references section, but I haven't done that yet).

Noticing claims that ring singularities "must" exist, I removed these claims as confusing.

Along the way I ran into this unsupported quote. I removed it to the talk page under the guideline of doubtful quotes without a source.


 * This problem is serious, since it suggests that perhaps the fieldline paradigm needs modification, or perhaps a particle entering a topological wormhole is unable to interact with anything on the far side, and sees itself to be in a single-ended cavity.

Looking even further, I found a whole BUNCH of stuff to fix. :-(, too much to list. See the edit logs.

Pervect 22:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Angular Momentum of Point Mass
The current page text reads, "Since a point cannot support rotation or angular momentum...".

Such a statement is awkward in light of the fact that quantum field theories all seem to insist that pointlike particles do, in fact, carry angular momentum.

While the geometrical arguments for the ring as the minimal shape that can support angular momentum are sensible, the widespread acceptance of the concept of point angular momentum seems to leave the above statement on less than firm footing. Mseslacker 05:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed this to specifically exclude quantum effects. General relativity is a classical theory, and the lame description offered still holds within a classical framework. Plus I think it lends a little more insight as to the incomplete nature of the theory. - Bitset Aug 4 07

A particle can have a size (radius) that is too small to measure, and still support rotation and angular momentum. John Wheeler has suggested the electron may be gravitationally collapsed. Theoristt Alexander Burinskii has determined that electron angular momentum is so great that the electron cannot collapse to its Schwarzschild radius. The gravitationally collapsed electron proposed by Burinskii is a naked ring singularity. With gravitational collapse, angular momentum is a conserved property and so the electron could be as small as its photon orbit radius, 3Gm divided by c squared, and still support its known angular momentum. This is far too small to measure but the unrealistic problem of infinite density is avoided with this radius.DonJStevens (talk)         —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

Article conveys wrong ideas about the "wormhole"
There are a number of problems with this article as it currently stands: I hesitate to call it "wrong", because it is generally too imprecise to be unambiguously wrong. But essentially, it conveys the idea that the Kerr spacetime singularity having a ring structure is essential for it to act as a wormhole, and event that "to go through the wormhole, one must go through the ring". This is very wrong, as I can argue in two different ways: (1) by pointing out that the Reissner-Nordstrøm solution can also work as a wormhole, yet it has a point (timelike) singularity, and (2) by referring to fig 1(a) on page 1244 of Carter's 1966 *Phys. Rev.* article, &ldquo;Complete Analytic Extension of the Symmetry Axis of Kerr's Solution of Einstein's Equations&rdquo; (available here), in which it is quite apparent that one can navigate from one region I (aka "universe") to another while keeping r&gt;0 at all times (compare with fig. 2 of the same article, which shows that going through the ring singularity means going to the region r&lt;0); in fact, geodesic (2) in fig 3(a) does exactly that: it "goes through the wormhole" (and emerges in a different universe) without going through the ring.

In a slightly handwaving way, I would say that there are two different phenomena associated with the Kerr spacetime: one is the "eternal wormhole" spanning an infinite number of universes, separated by double pairs of horizons (to go from one region I to another, one must cross four horizons: an ingoing external horizon, an ingoing internal one, an outgoing internal one and an outgoing external one); the ring singularity is another feature, which leads to a different kind of world, one where the black hole is repulsive (and there are no horizons there, as witnessed by fig. 2 in the aforementioned article). Confusion between the two is magnified by the fact that both phenomena (a black hole seen from the outgoing point of view and with its outgoing horizons; or a different kind of object with an apparently negative mass) have been called "white hole".

I would like to clarify this, but I'm not sure exactly how to proceed, and I'd like to test whether anyone has comments to make before slashing the article. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Improper sentence.
This appeard on the main page, exactly as I relate it here, minus quotes: "[Layman's opinion: the MINIMAL shape is two points circling each other, isn't it?]."

This is an inappropriate statement in an article. Commentary should be reserved for the Talk page. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitting the ring is actually quite hard
The article gives the wrong impression (in the section "Traversability and nakedness") that in order to avoid hitting the ring singularity one must carefully navigate through the relevant region. This idea probably comes from mentally grafting the Schwarzschild "look and feel" onto the Kerr case. But in fact a particle free-falling towards the Kerr black hole will almost NEVER hit the ring. I know that this is almost total opposite of the Schwarzschild black hole, nevertheless that's how it is with Kerr (and that's how the thing ought to be popularised in pop-sci presentations instead of the obligatory unavoidable singularity).

Specifically, for a particle falling into the Kerr black hole to hit the ring, its trajectory must be 100% equatorial. Even a slightest deviation or wobble will cause the ring to repulse the particle off itself. Rigid bodies are more complicated because their constituent particles do not follow paths of free fall. But it's still extremely difficult to hit the ring.

(Of course I'm leaving aside the tidal forces near the ring which FAPP would be equally nasty.)

On top of that there is the issue mentioned above by user Gro-Tsen: there are different "extra universes" such free-falling particle can go to: (1) if it's falling fast enough, it will go through the ring into the "Region III" universe in which the ring acts as a naked white hole singularity. (2) if it's falling slower (perhaps it was thrown in with less force), it will not reach the area around the ring but instead, having passed both horizons, it will turn back and cross two other horizons into another universe in which the two horizons surround a white hole.

It's all best seen on the Penrose diagram or something similar, with all the universes laid out "flat". JanBielawski (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. In fact, I think the article should be largely rewritten (although, to be honest, I'm not sure the ring singularity deserves its own page as opposed to a section of some article on the Kerr solution).  I don't have the time to do it, but if you do I will applaud.  (Also, may I insert a shameful plug to a page of mine as a suggestion for certain things that might be said here?) --Gro-Tsen (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Only ringularities exist
Even a puny fluctiation, even hawking radiation can initiate the ringularity. The singularity demands an absolute eternal balance. There are zero black hole singularities in nature. That's a fact!

Ultra compressed uroborous ringularity cannot remain mathematically a boson loop as a whole

 * 1) No non-rotating black hole exists. Even if it existed it would have becomed immediately a rotating black hole, because space-time around it (even without particles, but always some particle emerge even from the void - if they have to - by reassigning energy) whirls in orbits. No black hole singularity is possible.
 * 2) Ringularities are possible, but no actual ringularity exists because they have some uncertainty. Maximum energy should be compressed on the same point. Only bosons can do that. Theoretically the ringularity is constituted of bosons, a huge amount of bosons which are at the same state. "Constituted of" doesn't mean "are as a whole". These bosons loop on themselves. There are many looping patterns (excitation levels). These patterns of lopping bosons, as a whole are fermions! We have inversion of identity because they loop and we account them as entire objects and not as a wavefront of a probabilistic motion (that is wrong, because being an overall fermionic particle, create harmonic chambers, manny 3D possible probabilistic energy state geometric arrangements exist. Ringularity isn't allowed to exist, because if bosons become ouroboros (Googletype: ouroboros, the looping self-eater of its tail) or uroborous (here as an adjective) and extremely compressed, they change in nature; we call that a fundamental interaction in physics. If an interaction is strictly restricted, the result is one single particle but due to quantum tunneling we have Hawking radiation (which has many causes). So why black holes don't evaporate immediately? Because black holes are conveyor mechanisms which tunnel back almost all the evaporated Hawking radiation... almost all!

Orbitality in black holes and before the Big Bang explosion

 * punctuality, point singularity: is impossible in black holes. Physical black holes necessarily acquire a spin bias, even without external force, just by quantum fluctuations alone. Non-rotating black holes are naturally impossible.
 * ringularity, ring singularity: is impossible in black holes because it is compatible with Newtonian gravity and general relativity, but not quantum theory at the specific energy levels. The Newtonian theory of gravity is proven wrong at extreme energy levels. General relativity also is wrong at extreme energy levels, and it doesn't elaborate at all on the mechanism of field interactions that yield its results. Black hole ringularity is impossible.
 * orbitality, degenerate chromodynamic orbitals: describes the core black hole concentration. No black hole is perfectly degenerate like the pre Big Bang virtual particle, thus these orbitals last for puny fractions of time, and do form irregular clusters of perfectly symmetrical component orbitalities, which constantly change energy levels and formations. A perfectly degenerate black hole would have a single symmetrical orbitality, but no black hole is ideal; thus clusters of orbitalities form. A quiet black hole is near perfect and nearly has a single centralized orbitality (but this is approximate, because the actual formations constantly change). A turbulent quazar active black hole is impossible to maintain a well controlled symmetrical core degeneracy, thus it forms clusters of orbitalities, and huge amounts of energy are lost in black hole flares and boosted polar jet ejections.

The virtual particle before the Big Bang was a near perfect orbitality. The omniorbitality. Not a point singularity, but an ubiquitous symmetrical patchwork. The omniorbitality is quantum and correct. The singularity is generorelative; thus out of that theoretical range and necessarily wrong. Omniorbitality can explain: 1. homogeneity, 2. isotopy, 3. quantum fluctuations.

Orbitals of what? Of degenerate energy levels of chromodymsmic interactions (we need Frank Wilczek's papers)
Ringularity is generorelative thus of erroneous energy levels for that theory. On the other hand, orbitality (degenerate chromodynamic orbitals) IS a quantum theory of the strong force, at strong force degenerate levels.

All Spinning Galaxies at their Center have Spinning Supermassive Black Holes which have Ring Singularities at their Core
Inside a spinning supermassive black hole, can a point singularity handle its infinite curvature of spacetime and the angular momentum imposed on it by its surrounding galaxy? This is a hot topic. The answer depends on who you ask although it appears most cosmologists go with ring singularity. 2607:FB91:1993:15C9:D0C2:4F69:1B88:C5F (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)