Paper detail

Phantom energy accretion and primordial black holes evolution in Brans-Dicke theory

In this work, we study the evolution of primordial black holes within the context of Brans-Dicke theory by considering the presence of a dark energy component with a super-negative equation of state called phantom energy as a background. Besides Hawking evaporation, here we consider two type of accretions - radiation accretion and phantom energy accretion. We found that radiation accretion increases the lifetime of primordial black holes whereas phantom accretion decreases the lifespan of primordial black holes. Investigating the competition between the radiation accretion and phantom accretion, we got that there is an instant during the matter-dominated era beyond which phantom accretion dominates radiation accretion. So the primordial black holes which are formed in the later part of radiation dominated era and in matter dominated era are evaporated at a quicker rate than the Hawking evaporation. But for presently evaporating primordial black holes, radiation accretion and Hawking evaporation terms are dominant over phantom accretion term and hence presently evaporating primordial black holes are not much affected by phantom accretion.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

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.