MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394756577 · doi:10.22323/1.455.0018

On thermal false vacuum decay around black holes

2024· article· en· W4394756577 on OpenAlexaff
Andrey Shkerin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalse vacuumPhysicsBlack hole (networking)Hawking radiationScalar fieldThermalSpacetimeVacuum stateQuantum field theory in curved spacetimeEuclidean geometryWhite holeBlack hole thermodynamicsScalar (mathematics)Quantum tunnellingQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanicsClassical mechanicsThermodynamicsQuantum gravityGravitational collapseMathematicsGeometryQuantumPlanckEntropy (arrow of time)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study false vacuum decay in scalar field theories in the presence of black holes and a heat bath. We assume that a black hole is in thermal equilibrium with the heat bath (the Hartle-Hawking state). Combining analytical and numerical methods, we show that there are no regular Euclidean time-dependent and spherically-symmetric solutions around many types of black holes in this state. This is in contrast with the flat spacetime where such solutions describe tunneling at low temperature. We conclude that, for many black hole metrics in various dimensions, the Euclidean solution that is relevant for the decay of the Hartle-Hawking vacuum is always static.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→