Bibliographic record
Abstract
Álvarez-Domínguez et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 041401 (2024)PRLTAO0031-900710.1103/PhysRevLett.133.041401] have suggested that "it is not possible to concentrate enough light to precipitate the formation of an event horizon. We argue that the dissipative quantum effects coming from the self-interaction of light (such as vacuum polarization) are enough to prevent any meaningful buildup of energy that could create a black hole in any realistic scenario," and "the dissipation of energy via Schwinger effect alone is enough to prevent the formation of kugelblitze with radii ranging from 10^{-29} to 10^{8} m." I agree that, with the very restrictive assumption of Álvarez-Domínguez et al. of an adiabatic influx of electromagnetic energy, it is indeed highly implausible that black holes will form mainly from light in our actual Universe, either naturally or by any foreseeable human activity. However, if instead a rapidly changing influx is allowed, there are many idealized theoretical processes (though probably not occurring naturally or possible for humans to engineer) for forming black holes of any size down to near the Planck length (about 10^{-35} m) purely from photons, such as from colliding approximately plane-wave pulses, with only a small fraction of the energy escaping the black hole as scattered light or electron-positron pairs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".