MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024190519 · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/6/065010

Observer-dependent horizon temperatures: a coordinate-free formulation of Hawking radiation as tunneling

2009· article· en· W2024190519 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Stotyn, Kristin Schleich, Donald Witt

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSchwarzschild radiusSpacetimeObserver (physics)Classical mechanicsSchwarzschild metricUnruh effectKilling vector fieldGeodesicMathematical physicsHawking radiationEvent horizonHorizonGravitationQuantum mechanicsGeneral relativityMathematical analysisEntropy (arrow of time)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reformulate the Hamilton-Jacobi tunneling method for calculating Hawking radiation in static, spherically-symmetric spacetimes by explicitly incorporating a preferred family of frames. These frames correspond to a family of observers tied to a locally static timelike Killing vector of the spacetime. This formulation separates the role of the coordinates from the choice of vacuum and thus provides a coordinate-independent formulation of the tunneling method. In addition, it clarifies the nature of certain constants and their relation to these preferred observers in the calculation of horizon temperatures. We first use this formalism to obtain the expected temperature for a static observer at finite radius in the Schwarzschild spacetime. We then apply this formalism to the Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime, where there is no static observer with 4-velocity equal to the static timelike Killing vector. It is shown that a preferred static observer, one whose trajectory is geodesic, measures the lowest temperature from each horizon. Furthermore, this observer measures horizon temperatures corresponding to the well-known Bousso-Hawking normalization.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207