Cosmic censorship in Lorentz-violating theories of gravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is cosmic censorship special to general relativity, or can it survive a violation of local Lorentz invariance? Recent studies have shown that singularities in Lorentz -violating Einstein-Aether (or Horava-Lifshitz) theories can lie behind a universal horizon in simple black hole spacetimes. Even infinitely fast signals cannot escape these universal horizons. We extend this result, for an incompressible aether, to $3+1\mathrm{d}$ dynamical or spinning spacetimes which possess inner Killing horizons, and show that a universal horizon always forms in between the outer and (would-be) inner horizons. This finding suggests a notion of cosmic censorship, given that geometry in these theories never evolves beyond the universal horizon (avoiding potentially singular inner Killing horizons). A surprising result is that there are 3 distinct possible stationary universal horizons for a spinning black hole, only one of which matches the dynamical spherical solution. This motivates dynamical studies of collapse in Einstein-Aether theories beyond spherical symmetry, which may reveal instabilities around the spherical solution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".