Paper detail

Split Flows in Bubbled Geometries

We propose a procedure to clarify part of the physical sector in the five dimensional bubble geometries based on ideas similar to the split attractor flow conjecture proposed by Denef. This procedure involves building some simple tree-like graphs that we call skeletons without referring to the moduli space. The skeleton (tree) exists if and only if it passes the existence conditions which are purely based on some local CTC's (closed timelike curves) checking. Then, we propose the conjecture similar to Denef's version which states that every existing skeleton (tree) should correspond to some solution in which the global absence of CTC's is ensured. Furthermore, we propose two pictures to identify this correspondence explicitly and use some numerical examples to show how this procedure works. We also analyze the physical sector of the simplest bubbled supertube and see how the existence conditions constrain the charge parameter space.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 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.