CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116Black Holes and Theoretical PhysicsNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations

Conformal symmetry breaking and thermodynamics of near-extremal black holes

Open access
Almheiri, Ahmed, Kang, Byungwoo·2016·Journal of High Energy Physics
DOI 10.1007/jhep10(2016)052
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

It has been argued recently by Almheiri and Polchinski that the near-horizon conformal symmetry of extremal black holes must be broken due to gravitational backreaction at an IR scale linear in G N . In this paper, we show that this scale coincides with the so-called ‘thermodynamic mass gap’ of near-extremal black holes, a scale which signals the breakdown of their thermodynamic description. We also develop a method which extends the analysis of Almheiri and Polchinski to more complicated models with extremal throats by studying the bulk linearized quantum field theory. Moreover, we show how their original model correctly captures the universal physics of the near-horizon region of near-extremal black holes at tree level, and conclude that this equivalence of the conformal breaking and mass gap scale is general.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/jhep10(2016)052

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For near-extremal charged black holes in 4d, the boundary condition on the dilaton arises from gluing the AdS throat to the exterior region.

    “For near extremal charged black holes in 4d considered in Sect. 2.1.2, the boundary condition on the dilaton arises from gluing the AdS throat to the exterior region (Almheiri and Kang 2016; Nayak et al. 2018).”

    From Solvable models of quantum black holes: a review on Jackiw–Teitelboim gravity (2023) · cites this paper as Almheiri and Kang 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Almheiri, A., & Kang, B.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Kang, Byungwoo
ORCID
Venue
Journal of High Energy Physics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-10
Volume
2016
Issue
10
ISSN
1029-8479 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/jhep10(2016)052
OpenAlex
W2436562956
Cited by
116
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of High Energy Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (PHY11- 25915, NSF PHY-11-25915, 25915, 0756174)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Keywords
near-extremal black holes, extremal black holes, conformal symmetry breaking, near-horizon region, gravitational backreaction, black hole thermodynamics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review