Paper detail

Statistical analysis of entropy correction from topological defects in Loop Black Holes

In this paper we discuss the entropy of quantum black holes in the LQG formalism when the number of punctures on the horizon is treated as a quantum hair, that is we compute the black hole entropy in the grand canonical (area) ensemble. The entropy is a function of both the average area and the average number of punctures and bears little resemblance to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. In the thermodynamic limit, both the "temperature" and the chemical potential can be shown to be functions only of the average area per puncture. At a fixed temperature, the average number of punctures becomes proportional to the average area and we recover the Bekenstein-Hawking area-entropy law to leading order provided that the Barbero-Immirzi parameter, $γ$, is appropriately fixed. This also relates the chemical potential to $γ$. We obtain a sub-leading correction, which differs in signature from that obtained in the microcanonical and canonical ensembles in its sign but agrees with earlier results in the grand canonical ensemble.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.