MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416968726 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.01898

On extremal black holes

2025· preprint· W4416968726 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chiara Coviello, Ruth Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueAspen Center for PhysicsKing's College London
KeywordsHawking radiationBlack hole (networking)Angular momentumInstantonBinary black holeGravitational waveGravitationCharge (physics)Primordial black hole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We take a fresh look at the viability of physically realistic extremal black holes within our (non-supersymmetric) low energy physics. By incorporating prefactors and volume effects, we show that Schwinger discharge in charge neutral environments is far more efficient than commonly assumed. Using ionization estimates for neutral hydrogen, we obtain a new and robust lower bound on the mass of an extremal electrically charged black hole, exceeding $10^{14} M_\odot$. For magnetic black holes, we compute the Lee-Nair-Weinberg instability and revisit early universe pair creation rates, including singular instantons that substantially enhance production, to demonstrate that the extreme charges required for stability are cosmologically implausible. Finally, we suggest that an extremal Kerr black hole could shed angular momentum via superradiant scattering from the stochastic gravitational wave background. Taken together, our results provide a unified picture that extremal black holes of any type are unlikely to persist in our universe.

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), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.006

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.239 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 venueArXiv.orgSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207