MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046612202 · doi:10.1139/p05-058

Radial fall of a test particle onto an evaporating black hole

2005· article· en· W2046612202 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andreas Aste, D. Trautmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Electrodynamics and Casimir Effect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack hole (networking)Event horizonPhysicsExtremal black holeWhite holeNonsingular black hole modelsNaked singularityTheoretical physicsRing singularityClassical mechanicsSingularityObserver (physics)Sonic black holeHorizonRotating black holeCharged black holeQuantum mechanicsGravitational singularityGravitational collapseGeometryComputer scienceMathematicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A test particle falling onto a classical black hole crosses the event horizon and ends up in the singularity within finite eigentime. In the "more realistic" case of a "classical" evaporating black hole, an observer falling onto a black hole observes a sudden evaporation of the hole. This illustrates the fact that the discussion of the classical process, commonly found in the literature, may become obsolete when the black hole has a finite lifetime. The situation is basically the same for more complex cases, for example, where a particle collides with two merging black holes. It should be pointed out that the model used in this paper is mainly of academic interest, since the description of the physics near a black-hole horizon still presents a difficult problem that is not yet fully understood, but our model provides a valuable possibility for students to enter the interesting field of black-hole physics and to perform numerical calculations of their own that are not very involved from the computational point of view.PACS Nos.: 04.25.–g, 04.70.–s, 04.70.Dy

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum Electrodynamics and Casimir EffectFrench-language works237,207