MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978900550 · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/7/305

Capture and critical scattering of a long cosmic string by a rotating black hole

2003· article· en· W1978900550 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Snajdr, Valeri P. Frolov

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmic stringString (physics)Impact parameterBlack hole (networking)Rotation (mathematics)ScatteringRotating black holeClassical mechanicsTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsGeometryAngular momentum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capture of a straight, infinitely long cosmic string by a rotating black hole with rotation parameter a is considered. We assume that a string is moving with velocity v and that initially the string is parallel to the axis of rotation of the black hole and has the impact parameter b. The string can be either scattered or captured by the black hole. We demonstrate that there exists a critical value of the impact parameter bc(v,a) which separates these two regimes. Using numerical simulations we obtain the critical impact parameter curve for different values of the rotation parameter a. We show that for the prograde motion of the string this curve lies below the curve for the retrograde motion. Moreover, for ultrarelativistic strings moving in the prograde direction and nearly extremal black holes the critical impact parameter curve is found to be a multiply valued function of v. We obtain real time profiles of the scattered strings in the regime close to the critical. We also study critical scattering and capture of strings by the rotating black hole in the relativistic and ultrarelativistic regime and especially such relativistic effects as coil formation and wrapping effect.

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 score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207