Paper detail

Ghost condensate and generalized second law

Dubovsky and Sibiryakov recently proposed a scenario in which particles of different species propagate with different speeds due to their direct couplings to ghost condensate. It was argued that this extended version of ghost condensate allows a gedanken experiment leading to violation of the generalized second law. However, in the original ghost condensate scenario, difference in propagation speeds is suppressed by M^2/M_{Pl}^2, where M is the order parameter of spontaneous Lorentz breaking and M_{Pl} is the Planck scale. In this case the energy transfer necessary for the gedanken experiment is so slow that the timescale of decrease of entropy, if any, is always longer than the Jeans timescale of ghost condensate. Hence the generalized second law is not violated by the gedanken experiment in the original ghost condensate scenario. This conclusion trivially extends to gauged ghost condensation by taking into account accretion of gauged ghost condensate into a black hole.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.