MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intrinsic and extrinsic geometries of a tidally deformed black hole

2011· article· en· W1981074710 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Vega, Eric Poisson, Ryan Massey

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsEvent horizonBlack hole (networking)SpacetimeSchwarzschild radiusRotating black holePenrose processClassical mechanicsGauge theoryWhite holeHypersurfaceNull (SQL)Invariant (physics)Theoretical physicsMathematical physicsCharged black holeQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisAngular momentumGravitational collapse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A description of the event horizon of a perturbed Schwarzschild black hole is provided in terms of the intrinsic and extrinsic geometries of the null hypersurface. This description relies on a Gauss-Codazzi theory of null hypersurfaces embedded in spacetime, which extends the standard theory of spacelike and timelike hypersurfaces involving the first and second fundamental forms. We show that the intrinsic geometry of the event horizon is invariant under a reparameterization of the null generators, and that the extrinsic geometry depends on the parameterization. Stated differently, we show that while the extrinsic geometry depends on the choice of gauge, the intrinsic geometry is gauge invariant. We apply the formalism to solutions to the vacuum field equations that describe a tidally deformed black hole. In a first instance we consider a slowly-varying, quadrupolar tidal field imposed on the black hole, and in a second instance we examine the tide raised during a close parabolic encounter between the black hole and a small orbiting body. PACS numbers: 04.20.-q, 04.25.Nx,04.70.-s, 04.70.Bw, 97.60.Lf 1.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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