4.7 Article

Gravitational tunneling in Lorentz violating gravity

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 106, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.064055

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Education and Scientific Research (MIUR) [PRIN MIUR 2017-MB8AEZ]
  2. Spanish State Research Agency MCIN/AEI
  3. EU NextGenerationEU/PRTR funds [IJC2020-045126-I]
  4. CERCA program of the Generalitat de Catalunya

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Black holes in gravity theories with Lorentz violation, such as Einstein-Aether or Ho.rava-Lifshitz gravity, have significant differences compared to their counterparts in general relativity. While allowing for superluminal motion, they still possess an absolute causal boundary known as a universal horizon. By studying the tunneling picture of a gravitating scalar field, we demonstrate that universal horizons in Lorentz violating theories emit Hawking radiation similar to the standard results in general relativity, with the temperature being determined by the high-energy behavior of the dispersion relation. This result is consistent with alternative derivations found in the literature and strengthens the link between the universal horizon and thermodynamics in Lorentz violating theories.
Black holes in Lorentz violating gravity, such as Einstein-Aether or Ho.rava-Lifshitz gravity, are drastically different from their general relativistic siblings. Although they allow for superluminal motion in their vicinity, they still exhibit an absolute causal boundary in the form of a universal horizon. By working in the tunneling picture for a gravitating scalar field, we show that universal horizons emit Hawking radiation in a manner akin to standard results in general relativity, with a temperature controlled by the high-energy behavior of the dispersion relation of the gravitating field, and in agreement with alternative derivations in the literature. Our results substantiate the link between the universal horizon and thermodynamics in Lorentz violating theories.

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