MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ultrahigh-Energy Debris from the Collisional Penrose Process

2015· article· en· W1826838044 on OpenAlexafffund
Emanuele Berti, Richard Brito, Vítor Cardoso

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaEuropean Research CouncilFundação Calouste GulbenkianGovernment of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPenrose processPhysicsContext (archaeology)Energy (signal processing)Negative energyParticle (ecology)Rotating black holeAstrophysicsQuantum mechanicsAccretion (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soon after the discovery of the Kerr metric, Penrose realized that superradiance can be exploited to extract energy from black holes. The original idea (involving the breakup of a single particle) yields only modest energy gains. A variant of the Penrose process consists of particle collisions in the ergoregion. The collisional Penrose process has been explored recently in the context of dark matter searches, with the conclusion that the ratio η between the energy of postcollision particles detected at infinity and the energy of the colliding particles should be modest (η≲1.5). Schnittman [Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 261102 (2014)] has shown that these studies underestimated the maximum efficiency by about 1 order of magnitude (i.e., η≲15). In this work we show that particle collisions in the vicinity of rapidly rotating black holes can produce high-energy ejecta and result in high efficiencies under much more generic conditions. The astrophysical likelihood of these events deserves further scrutiny, but our study hints at the tantalizing possibility that the collisional Penrose process may power gamma rays and ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations73
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207