Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 452

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of the Noether charge and Euclidean methods for computing the entropy of stationary black holes

Open access
Iyer, Vivek, Wald, Robert M.·1995·Physical Review D

Abstract

The entropy of stationary black holes has recently been calculated by a number of different approaches. Here we compare the Noether charge approach (defined for any diffeomorphism invariant Lagrangian theory) with various Euclidean methods, specifically, (i) the microcanonical ensemble approach of Brown and York, (ii) the closely related approach of Ba\~nados, Teitelboim, and Zanelli which ultimately expresses black hole entropy in terms of the Hilbert action surface term, (iii) another formula of Ba\~nados, Tetelboim, and Zanelli (also used by Susskind and Uglum) which views black hole entropy as conjugate to a conical deficit angle, and (iv) the pair creation approach of Garfinkle, Giddings, and Strominger. All of these approaches have a more restrictive domain of applicability than the Noether charge approach. Specifically, approaches (i) and (ii) appear to be restricted to a class of theories satisfying certain properties litsed in Sec. II; approach (iii) appears to require the choice of a ``regularizing'' scheme to deal with curvature singularities (except in the case of Lovelock gravity theories), and approach (iv) requires the existence of suitable instanton solutions. However, we show that within their domains of applicability, all of these approaches yield results in agreement with the Noether charge approach. In the course of our analysis we generalize the definition of the Brown-York quasilocal energy to a much more general class of diffeomorphism invariant, Lagrangian theories of gravity. In an appendix we show that in an arbitrary diffeomorphism invariant theory of gravity the ``volume term'' in the ``off-shell'' Hamiltonian associated with a time evolution vector field ${\mathit{t}}^{\mathit{a}}$ always can be expressed as the spatial integral of ${\mathit{t}}^{\mathit{a}}$${\mathit{scrC}}_{\mathit{a}}$, where ${\mathit{scrC}}_{\mathit{a}}$=0 are the constraints associated with the diffeomorphism invariance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.52.4430

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 452

Metadata

Authors
Iyer, V., & Wald, R. M.
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
1995-10-15
Volume
52
Issue
8
Pages
4430-4439
ISSN
0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026040877
Cited by
452
References
3
FWCI
4.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.