MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128186428 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/005

Lifshitz scaling, ringing black holes, and superradiance

2021· article· en· W3128186428 on OpenAlexaff
Naritaka Oshita, Niayesh Afshordi, Shinji Mukohyama

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPenrose processSuperradianceQuantum electrodynamicsSchwarzschild radiusRotating black holeBlack hole (networking)Scalar fieldSpacetimeQuantum mechanicsClassical mechanicsCharged black holeAngular momentum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate the ringdown waveform and reflectivity of a Lifshitz scalar field around a fixed Schwarzschild black hole. The radial wave equation is modified due to the Lorentz breaking terms, which leads to a diversity of ringdown waveforms. Also, it turns out that Lifshitz waves scattered by the Schwarzschild black hole exhibit superradiance. The Lorentz breaking terms lead to superluminal propagation and high-frequency modes can enter and leave the interior of the Killing horizon where negativity of energy is not prohibited. This allows the Lifshitz waves to carry out additional positive energy to infinity while leaving negative energy inside the Killing horizon, similar to the Penrose process in the ergosphere of a Kerr spacetime. Another interesting phenomenon is emergence of long-lived quasinormal modes, associated with roton-type dispersion relations. These effects drastically modify the greybody factor of a microscopic black hole, whose Hawking temperature is comparable with or higher than the Lifshitz energy scale.

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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207