AG-2026.04-1845·gr-qc
Near--extremal gravitational collapse in 4+1 dimensions: Schwarzschild--de--Sitter space
Authors
- Maciej Dunajski
- Sebastian J. Szybka
Abstract
We numerically study a formation of near extremal horizons from a gravitational collapse of radially symmetric gravitational waves in $4+1$ dimensions within the framework of pure Einstein gravity with positive cosmological constant. Evolution of a regular initial data with cosmological horizon leads to a formation of a black hole with mass exceeding $99\%$ of the extremal value corresponding to the black hole and cosmological horizons coinciding. We demonstrate how our results fit within the framework of characteristic gluing, and present some evidence that the third law of black hole thermodynamics may not hold in the cosmological context, where the extremality corresponds to the maximal mass of the Schwarzschild black hole in de--Sitter space.
Submitted
30 April 20262 weeks ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2604.27976
Summary
Researchers simulated gravitational waves collapsing in five-dimensional space with a cosmological constant, showing that black holes can form at nearly their maximum possible mass—where the black hole's boundary nearly merges with the universe's cosmic horizon.
- The simulation achieves black holes at 99% of extremal mass, pushing closer to the theoretical limit where black hole and cosmological horizons coincide.
- The work validates a mathematical framework called 'characteristic gluing' for stitching together solutions in curved spacetime, providing a consistency check for the numerical methods.
- The results hint that the third law of black hole thermodynamics—which typically forbids reaching maximum entropy—might not apply when a cosmic horizon is present, challenging a foundational principle.
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.