MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311328744 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-35.4.364

Neutron star event horizons

2022· article· en· W4311328744 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martin T. Cole

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNeutron starEvent horizonSchwarzschild radiusApparent horizonRADIUSAstrophysicsSchwarzschild metricHorizonGeneral relativityBlack hole (networking)GravitationClassical mechanicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New physical evidence of the compressibility of neutrons has supported a reappraisal of how neutron stars transition into black holes, taken from the perspective of an internal observer. After comparing observational evidence with relativistic models, it is concluded that, at least nonrotating isolated black holes are better termed as black stars, which fit a continuum of increasingly massive neutron stars that become invisible once they exceed a critical mass, suggested as 5 M⊙. Beyond this mass, two event horizons develop concurrently, separating to form a photon trap that exists between the inner horizon and the outer horizon. This inner horizon (below the surface) avoids the formation of a real singularity and is apparently ≤ 6.75 km radius, while the outer horizon is ≥ 6.75 km radius, confirmed as 50% of the Schwarzschild radius. The mathematical singularity that is apparent to an external observer in general relativity may be an illusion. Our methodology also shows how gravitational redshift may inform the mass and surface radius of a neutron star.

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)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207