MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1986495536 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.044003

Can black holes have Euclidean cores?

2003· article· en· W1986495536 on OpenAlexaff
Takayuki Hirayama, Bob Holdom

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuclidean geometryGeneral relativityBlack hole (networking)Euclidean spaceHorizonEuclidean domainBoundary (topology)PhysicsNonsingular black hole modelsTheoretical physicsMathematicsClassical mechanicsMathematical analysisEuclidean distance matrixGeometryExtremal black holeComputer scienceCharged black hole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The search for regular black hole solutions in classical gravity leads us to consider a core of Euclidean signature in the interior of a black hole. Solutions of Lorentzian and Euclidean general relativity match in such a way that energy densities and pressures of an isotropic perfect fluid form are everywhere finite and continuous. Although the weak energy condition cannot be satisfied for these solutions in general relativity, it can be when higher derivative terms are added. A numerical study shows how the transition becomes smoother in theories with more derivatives. As an alternative to the Euclidean core, we also discuss a closely related time dependent orbifold construction with a smooth space-like boundary inside the horizon.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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