AG-2024.04-151·gr-qc·cross-listed: astro-ph.HEhep-phhep-th
Black holes, multiple propagation speeds, and energy extraction
Authors
- Vitor Cardoso
- Shinji Mukohyama
- Naritaka Oshita
- Kazufumi Takahashi
Abstract
The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the speed of light to be a universal speed of propagation of massless carriers. However, other possibilities exist -- including Lorentz-violating theories -- where different fundamental fields travel at different speeds. Black holes are interesting probes of such physics, as distinct fields would probe different horizons. Here, we build an exact spacetime for two interacting scalar fields which have different propagation speeds. One of these fields is able to probe the black hole interior of the other, giving rise to energy extraction from the black hole and a characteristic late-time relaxation. Our results provide further stimulus to the search for extra degrees of freedom, black hole instability, and extra ringdown modes in gravitational-wave events.
Submitted
8 April 20242 years ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2404.05790
Summary
Physicists constructed a black hole spacetime where two scalar fields travel at different speeds, allowing one field to penetrate the other's event horizon and extract energy—a signature that gravitational-wave detectors might spot.
- The model extends beyond Einstein's relativity by allowing different fields to propagate at different speeds, testing whether light speed is truly universal.
- One field can cross into the region where the other field's horizon lies, creating a mechanism for energy extraction that violates classical black hole thermodynamics.
- The framework predicts distinctive 'ringdown' signatures in gravitational waves that future detectors could use to search for these exotic field interactions.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.