# Charged Particle Production Rate from Cosmic Censorship in Dilaton Black Hole Spacetimes

## TL;DR

This paper extends the analysis of black hole evaporation and cosmic censorship to dilaton black holes, demonstrating that cosmic censorship constrains particle production rates and that attractor behavior is independent of specific heat.

## Contribution

It applies the Hiscock and Weems evaporation scheme to dilaton black holes, showing how cosmic censorship influences particle production and clarifying the role of specific heat in attractor behavior.

## Key findings

- Cosmic censorship constrains charged particle production rates.
- Attractor behavior is not necessarily related to specific heat.
- Modified production rates agree with direct spacetime calculations.

## Abstract

Hiscock and Weems showed that under Hawking evaporation, an isolated asymptotically flat Reissner-Nordstrom (RN) black hole evolves in a surprising manner: if it starts with a relatively small value of charge-to-mass ratio Q/M, then said value will temporarily increase along its evolutionary path, before finally decreases towards zero. This contrasts with highly charged ones that simply radiate away its charge steadily. The combination of these two effects is the cosmic censor at work: there exists an attractor that flows towards the Schwazschild limit, which ensures that extremality -- and hence naked singularity -- can never be reached under Hawking evaporation. We apply the scheme of Hiscock and Weems to model the evaporation of an asymptotically flat dilatonic charge black hole known as the Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger (GHS) black hole. We found that upholding the cosmic censorship requires us to modify the charged particle production rate, which remarkably agrees with the expression obtained independently via direct computation of charged particle production rate on curved spacetime background. This not only strengthens the case for cosmic censorship, but also provides an example in which cosmic censorship can be a useful principle to deduce other physics. We also found that the attractor behavior is not necessarily related to the specific heat, contrary to the claim by Hiscock and Weems.