4.7 Article

On the Kalb-Ramond modified Lorentz violating hairy black holes and Thorne's hoop conjecture

Journal

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
Volume 83, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12172-9

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, a class of LV corrected Schwarzschild black holes are studied, and their horizon patterns are numerically explored. The energy conditions are relaxed and it is found that three types of black holes satisfy Thorne's hoop conjecture, while the remaining type does not. Additionally, the existence of braneworld tidal charge black holes shows a qualitative difference in the LV correction to planetary perihelion advance compared to ordinary black holes.
Recently, a class of static spherically symmetric power law corrected Lorentz violating (LV) Schwarzschild black holes in the Kalb-Ramond model have been derived and studied in the specific range of LV parameters (0 < lambda <= 2, Upsilon >= 0) that correspond to energy condition preserving (rho>0) source. On the other hand, there exist well known black holes that do not preserve the energy conditions. In this paper, we shall therefore relax energy conditions and numerically explore the horizon patterns of the enlarged class of LSMA black holes. Four generic types of LV corrected black holes emerge, which interestingly include the analogue of the braneworld black hole (rho<0) lending to Upsilon a new interpretation of tidal charge known as an imprint from the 5d bulk in the Randall-Sundrum scenario. We shall then show that Thorne's hoop conjecture, H <= 1, where H is the Hod function, consistently holds for three types and their generalizations. However, intriguingly, it turns out that, for the remaining type (viz., Schwarzschild-de Sitter and its generalizations), the hoop conjecture does not hold. It is also shown that braneworld tidal charge black holes increases the LV correction to planetary perihelion advance in contrast to the decrease due to ordinary black holes thereby providing a qualitative distinction between them.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available