MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092091766 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/abbf31

Persistence in black hole lattice cosmological models

2020· article· en· W3092091766 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBlack hole (networking)CurvatureBlack braneScalar fieldBinary black holeCosmologyMerge (version control)Cosmological constant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dynamical solutions for an evolving multiple network of black holes near a cosmological bounce dominated by a scalar field are investigated. In particular, we consider the class of black hole lattice models in a hyperspherical cosmology, and we focus on the special case of eight regularly-spaced black holes with equal masses when the model parameter κ > 1. We first derive exact time evolving solutions of instantaneously-static models, by utilizing perturbative solutions of the constraint equations that can then be used to develop exact 4D dynamical solutions of the Einstein field equations. We use the notion of a geometric horizon, which can be characterized by curvature invariants, to determine the black hole horizon. We explicitly compute the invariants for the exact dynamical models obtained. As an application, we discuss whether black holes can persist in such a Universe that collapses and then subsequently bounces into a new expansionary phase. We find evidence that in the physical models under investigation (and particularly for κ > 1) the individual black holes do not merge before nor at the bounce, so that consequently black holes can indeed persist through the bounce.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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