MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Can a false vacuum bubble remove the singularity inside a black hole?

2020· article· en· W2950635629 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Physical Journal C · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill Space InstituteMinistry of Education, Science and TechnologyMcGill UniversityNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsSingularityBlack hole (networking)EvaporationRing singularityNaked singularityCore (optical fiber)HorizonEvent horizon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate a regular black hole model with a de Sitter-like core at its center. This type of a black hole model with a false vacuum core was introduced with the hope of singularity-resolution and is a common feature shared by many regular black holes. In this paper, we examine this claim of a singularity-free black hole by employing the thin-shell formalism, and exploring its dynamics, within the Vaidya approximation. We find that during gravitational collapse, the shell necessarily moves along a space-like direction. More interestingly, during the evaporation phase, the shell and the outer apparent horizon approach each other but, unless the evaporation takes place very rapidly, the approaching tendency is too slow to avoid singularity-formation. This shows that albeit a false vacuum core may remove the singularity along the ingoing null direction, there still exists a singularity along the outgoing null direction, unless the evaporation is very strong.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe European Physical Journal CSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207