4.7 Article

Aspects of the dyonic Kerr-Sen-AdS4 black hole and its ultraspinning version

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 103, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.044014

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11675130, 11275157, 11775077, 12075084, 11690034, 11435006]
  2. Science and Technology Innovation Plan of Hunan province [2017XK2019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the thermodynamical properties of the dyonic Kerr-Sen-AdS(4) black hole and its ultraspinning counterpart, deducing new squared-mass formulas and examining the violation of the reverse isoperimetric inequality. The ultraspinning dyonic Kerr-Sen-AdS(4) black hole is found not always to violate the RII, in contrast to the superentropic dyonic Kerr-Newman-AdS(4) black hole. Despite some similarities, such as horizon geometry and conformal boundary, these two types of black holes exhibit distinct properties regarding the RII.
We explore some (especially, thermodynamical) properties of the dyonic Kerr-Sen-AdS(4) black hole and its ultraspinning counterpart, and check whether or not both black holes satisfy the first law and Bekenstein-Smarr mass formulas. To this end, new Christodoulou-Ruffini-like squared-mass formulas for the usual dyonic Kerr-Sen-AdS(4) solution and its ultraspinning cousin are deduced. Similar to the ultraspinning Kerr-Sen-AdS(4) black hole case, we demonstrate that the ultraspinning dyonic Kerr-Sen-AdS(4) black hole does not always violate the reverse isoperimetric inequality (RII) since the value of the isoperimetric ratio can either be larger/smaller than, or equal to unity, depending upon the range of the solution parameters, as is the case only with an electric charge. This property is apparently distinct from that of the superentropic dyonic Kerr-Newman-AdS(4) black hole, which always strictly violates the RII, although both of them have some similar properties in other aspects, such as the horizon geometry and conformal boundary.

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