MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2065681388 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.026006

Testing the membrane paradigm with holography

2015· article· en· W2065681388 on OpenAlexafffund
Jan de Boer, Michał P. Heller, Natalia Pinzani-Fokeeva

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekStichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der MaterieGovernment of Canada
KeywordsEvent horizonPhysicsHorizonSchwarzschild metricScalar (mathematics)Black hole (networking)Boundary value problemClassical mechanicsDissipative systemSpurious relationshipTheoretical physicsEvent (particle physics)Quantum mechanicsGeneral relativityGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One version of the membrane paradigm states that, as far as outside observers are concerned, black holes can be replaced by a dissipative membrane with simple physical properties located at the stretched horizon. We demonstrate that such a membrane paradigm is incomplete in several aspects. We argue that it generically fails to capture the massive quasinormal modes, unless we replace the stretched horizon by the exact event horizon, and illustrate this with a scalar field in a Banados-Teitelboim-Zanelli (BTZ) black hole background. We also consider as a concrete example linearized metric perturbations of a five-dimensional AdS-Schwarzschild black brane and show that a spurious excitation appears in the long-wavelength response that is only removed from the spectrum when the membrane paradigm is replaced by ingoing boundary conditions at the event horizon. We interpret this excitation in terms of an additional Goldstone boson that appears due to symmetry breaking by the classical solution ending on the stretched horizon rather than the event 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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