MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412489587 · doi:10.1098/rsta.2023.0288

From Newton to Hawking and back: Newtonian analogies in spherical spacetimes, gravitoelectromagnetism and Hawking mass

2025· article· en· W4412489587 on OpenAlexafffund
Valerio Faraoni

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHawkingPhysicsHawking radiationMathematical physicsNewtonian fluidClassical mechanicsTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsUniverseEntropy (arrow of time)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Analogies occurring in the literature between spherically symmetric General Relativity and Newtonian physics are discussed, focusing on gravito­electromagne­tism (which contains Newtonian gravity as its ‘electrostatics’). In spherical symmetry, the gravitoelectric potential contains the Misner–Sharp–Hernandez mass, to which the Hawking quasilocal mass reduces in this situation. It is shown that, according to observers defined rather naturally, the Hawking energy receives contributions from the electric part of the Weyl curvature but not from its magnetic part, making it ‘Newtonian’ in a well-defined sense. The gravitoelectric potential in spherical symmetry then becomes completely Newtonian. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Newton, Principia, Newton Geneva Edition (17th–19th) and modern Newtonian mechanics: heritage, past & present’.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicRelativity and Gravitational TheoryFrench-language works237,207