Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 409

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Echoes from the abyss: Tentative evidence for Planck-scale structure at black hole horizons

Open access
Abedi, Jahed, Dykaar, Hannah, Afshordi, Niayesh·2017·Physical Review D
DOI 10.1103/physrevd.96.082004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In classical general relativity (GR), an observer falling into an astrophysical black hole is not expected to experience anything dramatic as she crosses the event horizon. However, tentative resolutions to problems in quantum gravity, such as the cosmological constant problem, or the black hole information paradox, invoke significant departures from classicality in the vicinity of the horizon. It was recently pointed out that such near-horizon structures can lead to late-time echoes in the black hole merger gravitational wave signals that are otherwise indistinguishable from GR. We search for observational signatures of these echoes in the gravitational wave data released by the advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), following the three black hole merger events GW150914, GW151226, and LVT151012. In particular, we look for repeating damped echoes with time delays of $8M\mathrm{log}M$ ($+\text{spin}$ corrections, in Planck units), corresponding to Planck-scale departures from GR near their respective horizons. Accounting for the ``look elsewhere'' effect due to uncertainty in the echo template, we find tentative evidence for Planck-scale structure near black hole horizons at false detection probability of 1% (corresponding to $2.5\ensuremath{\sigma}$. significance level). Future observations from interferometric detectors at higher sensitivity, along with more physical echo templates, will be able to confirm (or rule out) this finding, providing possible empirical evidence for alternatives to classical black holes, such as in ``firewall'' or ``fuzzball'' paradigms.In this paper, we use 2-tailed Gaussian probability to assign a significance to a p-value, e.g., $1\ensuremath{-}\mathrm{p}\text{-value}=68%$ and 95% correspond to $1\ensuremath{\sigma}$ and $2\ensuremath{\sigma}$, respectively.

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.96.082004

Cites

35 of 35 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 409

Metadata

Authors
Abedi, J., Dykaar, H., & Afshordi, N.
Venue
Physical Review D
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2017-10-26
Volume
96
Issue
8
ISSN
  • 2470-0010 (ISSN-L)
  • 2470-0029
DOI
10.1103/physrevd.96.082004
OpenAlex
W2763764038
Cited by
409
References
35
FWCI
30.06
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.