4.7 Article

Evaporation of two-dimensional black holes

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 83, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.044040

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [PHY-0745779, PHY-0854743]
  2. Eberly research funds of Penn State
  3. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a detailed analysis of results from a new study of the quantum evaporation of Callan-Giddings-Harvey-Strominger black holes within the mean-field approximation. This semiclassical theory incorporates backreaction. Our analytical and numerical calculations show that, while some of the assumptions underlying the standard evaporation paradigm are borne out, several are not. One of the anticipated properties we confirm is that the semiclassical space-time is asymptotically flat at right future null infinity I-R(+) yet incomplete in the sense that null observers reach a future Cauchy horizon in finite affine time. Unexpected behavior includes that the Bondi mass traditionally used in the literature can become negative even when the area of the horizon is macroscopic; an improved Bondi mass remains positive until the end of semiclassical evaporation, yet the final value can be arbitrarily large relative to the Planck mass; and the flux of the quantum radiation at I-R(+) is nonthermal even when the horizon area is large compared to the Planck scale. Furthermore, if the black hole is initially macroscopic, the evaporation process exhibits remarkable universal properties. Although the literature on Callan-Giddings-Harvey-Strominger black holes is quite rich, these features had escaped previous analyses, in part because of the lack of required numerical precision and in part due to misinterpretation of certain properties and symmetries of the model. Finally, our results provide support for the full quantum scenario recently developed by Ashtekar, Taveras, and Varadarajan and also offer a number of interesting problems to the mathematical relativity and geometric analysis communities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据