4 ms·

It's nonsense. See this comment on their previous paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.07628 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.07628 The authors of the comment show tha

It's nonsense. See this comment on their previous paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.07628 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.07628 The authors of the comment show that the "gravitational pair-production" rate used in the work in OP comes from truncating the covariant heat-kernel (proper-time) expansion of the one-loop effective action at second order in curvature, an approximation that is valid only in weak-field regions where all curvature invariants satisfy |R| · ℓ² ≪ 1 (where ℓ is the Compton wavelength). When that same expression is pushed into the high-curvature interior of a neutron star -- where the inequalities fail by many orders of magnitude -- the series is no longer asymptotic and its early terms generate a spurious imaginary part. Because the paper's entire mass-loss mechanism and lifetime bound follow from that uncontrolled imaginary term, its conclusions collapse. Simply put, it doesn't even correspond to known experiments. It's entirely driven by a narrow artefact and has no physical basis.

PaulHoule 1y ago
The authors wrote a reply to that comment https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.12326 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.12326 I think about how some relativists think you could see a Hawking Radiation like effect if you're accelerating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect although the idealized case of endless acceleration implies a certain kind of horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates maybe the horizon doesn't matter much,.
- A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
  There's a lot wrong with that reply -- it mostly just shifts the goalposts without answering the central objections raised in the comment. Much of the reply revolves around whether the mixed invariant G=E⋅B appears at leading or higher order in the QED Schwinger result. But the comment's critique used the constant-field Schwinger problem only as a check that the authors' master formula fails against a case with an exact answer; the real complaint is that the same failure occurs for curved-spacetime examples where the exact result is known to vanish. Debating G is fine, but you can't ignore the gravitational case either. The reply repeatedly says the comment is "outside the realm of applicability" of the formula -- as though that were the comment's fault! But if the formula cannot survive the very checks the authors themselves hold up (Schwinger with B≠0, Ricci-flat space), the burden is on the authors to (severely) restrict their own claims, not on critics to ignore the failure modes.
LegionMammal978 1y ago
Naively speaking, these predictions seem like they should be very sensitive to all sorts of effects, some better understood than others. It's odd how many commenters here treat headlines like these as settled fact, instead of one team's calculations based on assumptions that may be wildly off.
zero_bias 1y ago
Very strange prediction indeed, the object need an event horizon for hawking radiation to occur

PaulHoule 1y ago

The authors wrote a reply to that comment https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.12326 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.12326 I think about how some relativists think you could see a Hawking Radiation like effect if you're accelerating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect although the idealized case of endless acceleration implies a certain kind of horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates maybe the horizon doesn't matter much,.

A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
There's a lot wrong with that reply -- it mostly just shifts the goalposts without answering the central objections raised in the comment. Much of the reply revolves around whether the mixed invariant G=E⋅B appears at leading or higher order in the QED Schwinger result. But the comment's critique used the constant-field Schwinger problem only as a check that the authors' master formula fails against a case with an exact answer; the real complaint is that the same failure occurs for curved-spacetime examples where the exact result is known to vanish. Debating G is fine, but you can't ignore the gravitational case either. The reply repeatedly says the comment is "outside the realm of applicability" of the formula -- as though that were the comment's fault! But if the formula cannot survive the very checks the authors themselves hold up (Schwinger with B≠0, Ricci-flat space), the burden is on the authors to (severely) restrict their own claims, not on critics to ignore the failure modes.

LegionMammal978 1y ago

Naively speaking, these predictions seem like they should be very sensitive to all sorts of effects, some better understood than others. It's odd how many commenters here treat headlines like these as settled fact, instead of one team's calculations based on assumptions that may be wildly off.

zero_bias 1y ago

Very strange prediction indeed, the object need an event horizon for hawking radiation to occur