MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics of gravitational screens

2015· article· en· W1545756185 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent Freidel, Yuki Yokokura

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsClassical mechanicsSurface tensionGravitationViscous liquidMarangoni effectEntropy productionFirst law of thermodynamicsApparent horizonMechanicsThermodynamicsEvent horizonQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the Einstein gravity equations projected on a timelike surface, which represents the time evolution of what we call a gravitational screen . We show that such a screen behaves like a viscous bubble with a surface tension and an internal energy, and that the Einstein equations take the same forms as non-equilibrium thermodynamic equations for a viscous bubble. We provide a consistent dictionary between gravitational and thermodynamic variables. In the non-viscous cases there are three thermodynamic equations that characterize a bubble dynamics: these are the first law, the Marangoni flow equation and the Young–Laplace equation. In all three equations the surface tension plays a central role: in the first law it appears as a work term per unit area, in the Marangoni flow its gradient drives a force, and in the Young–Laplace equation it contributes to a pressure proportional to the surface curvature. The gravity equations appear as a natural generalization of these bubble equations when the bubble itself is viscous and dynamical. In particular, this approach shows that the mechanism of entropy production for the viscous bubble is mapped onto the production of gravitational waves. We also review the relationship between surface tension and temperature, and discuss black-hole thermodynamics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207