MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580836038 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa6dbb

Persistent black holes in bouncing cosmologies

2017· article· en· W2580836038 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsScalar fieldBlack hole (networking)Big CrunchPhase spaceComputationWhite holeSpacetimeUniverse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper we explore the idea that black holes can persist in a universe that collapses to a big crunch and then bounces into a new phase of expansion. We use a scalar field to model the matter content of such a universe near the time of the bounce, and look for solutions that represent a network of black holes within a dynamical cosmology. We find exact solutions to Einstein’s constraint equations that provide the geometry of space at the minimum of expansion and that can be used as initial data for the evolution of hyperspherical cosmologies. These solutions illustrate that there exist models in which multiple distinct black holes can persist through a bounce, and allow for concrete computations of quantities such as the black hole filling factor. We then consider solutions in flat cosmologies, as well as in higher-dimensional spaces (with up to nine spatial dimensions). We derive conditions for the black holes to remain distinct (i.e. avoid merging) and hence persist into the new expansion phase. Some potentially interesting consequences of these models are also discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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