MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405834037 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.124066

Tidal forces in collapsing compact objects

2024· article· en· W4405834037 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashok B. Joshi, Dipanjan Dey, Pankaj S. Joshi, Vivekkumar R. Tank

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersAtlantic Association for Research in the Mathematical SciencesAhmedabad University
KeywordsTidal forceComputer scienceClassical mechanicsGeologyAeronauticsAerospace engineeringPhysicsEngineeringAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we investigate tidal forces in the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) metric, focusing on both hidden and locally visible singularities. We discuss the strength of these singularities in terms of deformationally strong singularities. Specifically, we analyze tidal forces in LTB spacetime, calculating radial and angular tidal forces and Jacobi fields for the radially comoving shell. To provide a comparative study, we consider both homogeneous and inhomogeneous cases. The matter field distribution at one-time slice can differ significantly from another, highlighting the potential for time-dependent tidal deformation as a distinct observational signature. We focus on a specific feature: the time-varying maximum of stretching in the radial tidal force, which we term the ``critical tidal boundary.'' In the inhomogeneous case, close to singularity time ($t<{t}_{s}$), the magnitudes of tidal forces vary substantially, with significant differences in compressive and stretching forces within a small physical radius $R(t,r)$. The resulting singularity in the LTB metrics at the end state of gravitational collapse appears to be an Ori-strong singularity, characterized by infinite tidal deformation.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.389 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207