Slowly rotating black holes in Hořava-Lifshitz gravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent paper we claimed that there are no slowly rotating, stationary, axisymmetric black holes in the infrared limit of Ho\ifmmode \check{r}\else \v{r}\fi{}ava-Lifshitz gravity, provided that they are regular everywhere apart from the central singularity. Here we point out a subtlety in the relation between Einstein-\ae{}ther theory and the infrared limit of Ho\ifmmode \check{r}\else \v{r}\fi{}ava-Lifshitz gravity which was missed in our earlier derivation and drastically modifies our conclusion: our earlier calculations (which are otherwise technically correct) do not really imply that there are no slowly rotating black holes in Ho\ifmmode \check{r}\else \v{r}\fi{}ava-Lifshitz gravity, but that there are no slowly rotating black holes in the latter that are also solutions of Einstein-\ae{}ther theory and vice versa. That is, even though the two theories share the static, spherically symmetric solutions, there are no slowly rotating black holes that are solutions to both theories. We proceed to generate slowly rotating black-hole solutions in the infrared limit of Ho\ifmmode \check{r}\else \v{r}\fi{}ava-Lifshitz gravity, and we show that the configuration of the foliation-defining scalar remains the same as in spherical symmetry, thus these black holes are expected to possess a universal 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".