MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408108537 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.064013

Zero-mass limit of a Kerr-MOG black hole equals wormhole

2025· article· en· W4408108537 on OpenAlexaff
Parthapratim Pradhan, J. W. Moffat

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMinisterul Cercetării şi Inovării
KeywordsWormholeZero (linguistics)Limit (mathematics)PhysicsBlack hole (networking)Mathematical physicsQuantum electrodynamicsTheoretical physicsMathematicsMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been argued in existing literature that the zero mass limit of Kerr spacetime corresponds to either flat Minkowski spacetime or a wormhole exhibiting a locally flat geometry. In this study, we examine that the zero mass limit of the Kerr--modified gravity (MOG) black hole is equivalent to a wormhole. Moreover, we derive the Kerr-Schild form of the Kerr-MOG black hole through specific coordinate transformations. We further investigate the physical and topological characteristics of the Kerr-MOG black hole within the framework of modified gravity. Our analysis also includes a discussion of the wormhole using cylindrical coordinates, which comprises two distinct coordinate patches. Furthermore, we extend our analysis to the Kerr-Newman black hole and show that the zero mass limit of the Kerr-Newman black hole does not yield a wormhole. However, if we impose an additional criterion such that both the mass parameter and the charge parameters are equal to zero, then the Kerr-Newman black hole will be a wormhole.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→