10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Singularities, black holes, and cosmic censorship: A tribute to Roger Penrose

      Preprint

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In the light of his recent (and fully deserved) Nobel Prize, this pedagogical paper draws attention to a fundamental tension that drove Penrose's work on general relativity. His 1965 singularity theorem (for which he got the prize) does not in fact imply the existence of black holes (even if its assumptions are met). Similarly, his versatile definition of a singular space-time does not match the generally accepted definition of a black hole (derived from his concept of null infinity). To overcome this, Penrose launched his cosmic censorship conjecture(s), whose evolution we discuss. In particular, we review both his own (mature) formulation and its later, inequivalent reformulation in the PDE literature. As a compromise, one might say that in "generic" or "physically reasonable" space-times, weak cosmic censorship postulates the appearance and stability of event horizons, whereas strong cosmic censorship asks for the instability and ensuing disappearance of Cauchy horizons. As an encore, an appendix by Erik Curiel reviews the early history of the definition of a black hole.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          07 January 2021
          Article
          2101.02687
          a69ec8e4-739b-4881-905a-48c3c5c13536

          http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

          History
          Custom metadata
          83C57, 82-03
          26 pages
          gr-qc

          General relativity & Quantum cosmology
          General relativity & Quantum cosmology

          Comments

          Comment on this article