Paper detail

Investigating the gedanken experiment to destroy the event horizon of a regular black hole

Recently, Li and Bambi proposed a hypothesis that the event horizon of a regular black hole can be destroyed because these objects have no gravitational singularity and therefore they are not protected by the weak cosmic censorship conjecture (WCCC). In this paper, to test their hypothesis, we perform the new version of the gedanken experiments proposed by Sorce and Wald to overcharge a near extremal static electrically regular black hole. After introducing the stability condition of the spacetime and the null energy condition of matter fields, we derive the first-order and second-order perturbation inequalities of the perturbation matter fields based on the Iyer-Wald formalism. As a result, we find that these regular black holes cannot be destroyed under the second-order approximation after these two perturbation inequalities are taken into account, even though they are not protected by the WCCC. Our results indicate that there might be some deeper mechanisms to protect the event horizon of the black holes.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 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.