MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1567010712 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.084013

Black rings, boosted strings, and Gregory-Laflamme instability

2006· article· en· W1567010712 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan Hovdebo, Robert C. Myers

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueKavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa BarbaraNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInstabilityPhysicsBlack stringSimple (philosophy)Dimension (graph theory)Space (punctuation)SpacetimeRing (chemistry)Classical mechanicsMathematical physicsTheoretical physicsPure mathematicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsExtremal black holeBlack branePhilosophyEntropy (arrow of time)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the Gregory-Laflamme instability for black strings carrying KK momentum along the internal direction. We demonstrate a simple kinematical relation between the thresholds of the classical instability for the boosted and static black strings. We also find that Sorkin's critical dimension depends on the internal velocity and in fact disappears for sufficiently large boosts. Our analysis implies the existence of an analogous instability for the five-dimensional black ring of Emparan and Reall. We also use our results for boosted black strings to construct a simple model of the black ring and argue that such rings exist in any number of space-time dimensions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations78
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207