Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Gravitational Vacuum Condensate Stars in the Effective Theory of Gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Gravitational collapse may end in a horizonless gravastar.

desk verdict A well-built EFT scaffold and an honest but overclaimed abstract; the variational evidence is a hint, not a solution. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02519 v1 pith:TJVKWOKF submitted 2025-02-04 gr-qc hep-th

Emil Mottola This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th
keywords gravitationalvacuumcondensatestargravastarconformalanomaly4-formgaugefieldChern-Simons3-formtorsionenergyblackholealternatives
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes that the endpoint of gravitational collapse need not be a black hole with an event horizon and a singularity. Instead it can be a gravitational vacuum condensate star (gravastar): a cold, compact, horizonless object whose interior is a de Sitter phase with $p_V=-\rho_V$ and zero entropy, separated from a Schwarzschild exterior by a thin quantum boundary layer at the Schwarzschild radius. The construction combines two quantum elements with classical general relativity: the conformal anomaly of massless fields, whose stress tensor grows without bound on null horizons, and a formulation of vacuum energy as $\Lambda_{\rm eff}\propto F^2$ for an exact 4-form abelian gauge field strength $F=dA$. When $A$ is identified with the Chern-Simons 3-form of the Euler class built from the spin connection, the near-horizon blueshift makes the lightest fermions effectively massless, generating a 3-current that sources $\Lambda_{\rm eff}$ to change in a thin layer. If the proposal is right, gravitational collapse produces no singularity, no trapped surface, and no information paradox.

What carries the argument

Three objects carry the argument. The first is the conformal anomaly effective action in its local form, with a scalar conformalon field $\varphi$ whose Green's function has light-cone singularities; the associated stress tensor diverges like $f^{-2}$ on a null horizon for a generic state. The second is the exact 4-form field strength $F=dA$ with the Maxwell-type action of Eq. (4.3): in empty space its dual $\tilde F$ is constant and its stress tensor is that of a vacuum energy $\Lambda_{\rm eff}=4\pi G\,\tilde F^2/\kappa^4$. The third is the identification of $A$ with the Chern-Simons 3-form of the topological Euler class, expressed through the spin connection; this turns the conformal anomaly of massless fermions into a source current $J$ for $\partial_\mu\tilde F$, allowing the vacuum energy to change only inside the boundary layer. Boundary-layer theory then rescales the radial coordinate by $\epsilon=L_{\rm Pl}/r_M$, where the geometry becomes effectively two-dimensional, and a two-parameter variational ansatz for the metric and fields gives a minimum of the rescaled action, smoothing the classical singularity into a layer of physical width $\ell\simeq 2\sqrt{r_M L_{\rm Pl}}$.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the boundary-layer equations with the Standard Model anomaly coefficients and the stated boundary conditions for a realistic value of $\gamma$; if no globally regular solution connecting de Sitter to Schwarzschild exists, the proposed endpoint is not realized in this effective theory. Observationally, detecting gravitational-wave echoes with a delay set by the layer width $\ell\simeq 10^{-4}$ cm would support the layer, while their absence in a high-significance merger event would put pressure on it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Schwarzschild event horizon is replaced by a quantum phase boundary of worldtube topology $\mathbb{R}\otimes\mathbb{S}^2$ located at the Schwarzschild radius $r_M=2GM/c^2$. On the interior side the vacuum energy is positive, $\Lambda_{\rm eff}=3/r_M^2$, with $p_V=-\rho_V$; on the exterior side $\Lambda_{\rm eff}=0$ and the geometry is Schwarzschild. The paper derives this from an effective action containing the Einstein-Hilbert term, the 4-form Maxwell term for $F$, and the anomaly action for a scalar 'conformalon' field $\varphi$. With $A$ identified as the Chern-Simons 3-form of the Euler class, the conformal anomaly of massless fermions produces a conserved 3-current $J_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ and the equation $\partial_\mu\tilde F = (\kappa_4 a_F/2)\,\partial_\mu\varphi$, so $\Lambda_{\rm eff}$ changes wherever $\varphi$ does. This happens in a layer whose physical width is of order the Compton wavelength of the lightest neutrino, independent of the mass $M$; torsion is activated there and the topological susceptibility is screened. A rescaled boundary-layer action admits a variational extremum at finite parameters, replacing the classical cusp and $\delta$-function curvature of the compact Schwarzschild star by a smooth layer with the same positive surface tension.

Load-bearing premise

All of the paper's physics hangs on assuming that the 4-form field carrying vacuum energy can be identified with a topological object built from the spin connection, which requires spacetime torsion to be switched on in the near-horizon layer; without that identification there is no source current and the vacuum energy cannot change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The horizon becomes a physical boundary layer of finite surface tension, so the spacetime has no trapped surface and the Killing time is global; unitary evolution is not interrupted by an information-loss surface.
  • The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, $S_{\rm BH}\sim 10^{77}(M/M_\odot)^2\,k_B$, is not formed, since the interior condensate has zero entropy; the conflict with statistical entropy bounds for stellar collapse disappears.
  • Vacuum energy is no longer a fixed constant: $\Lambda_{\rm eff}$ is tied to the 4-form field strength and is fixed by boundary conditions, so the cosmological constant fine-tuning problem is sidestepped.
  • For any mass $M$, the exterior geometry is Schwarzschild and the interior is de Sitter with $\Lambda_{\rm eff}=3/r_M^2$, so a distant observer sees a compact object very much like a black hole but with a layer at $r_M$ instead of a horizon.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The predicted layer thickness, set by the lightest neutrino mass, is of order $10^{-4}$ cm independent of the object's mass; this is a concrete scale one could look for in gravitational-wave echoes or tidal signatures from compact mergers, a calculation the paper leaves to future work.
  • The mechanism depends on torsion being activated at the horizon; a precision test of fermion spin-gravity couplings or a measurement bounding torsion would directly probe this assumption, since without it the current $J$ vanishes.
  • The same 4-form/anomaly effective action, applied to cosmological horizons, suggests that vacuum energy could change at the Hubble scale in an analogous boundary layer; the paper's formalism is not limited to stellar-mass collapse.
  • The variational minimum yields a specific regularized metric; computing its quasinormal modes would turn the smooth-layer geometry into concrete ringdown predictions that distinguish it from a black hole in interferometer data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a low-energy effective field theory of gravity that combines the quantum conformal anomaly with a 4-form abelian gauge field F=dA, whose potential A is identified with the Chern-Simons 3-form of the Euler class defined from the spin connection. In this framework the author argues that a near-horizon boundary layer forms in which massless fermions generate a 3-current source J, torsion is activated, and the effective cosmological constant Lambda_eff changes rapidly. The claimed result is that the Schwarzschild horizon is replaced by a thin, horizonless de Sitter/Schwarzschild phase boundary, i.e. a gravitational vacuum condensate star. Sections II-VII develop the classical star solution, the anomaly effective action, the 4-form vacuum energy, the Chern-Simons identification, and the coupled field equations. Section VIII derives a rescaled boundary-layer action, and Section IX introduces a variational ansatz (Eqs. 9.6, 9.15, 9.16) whose extremization at specific parameter values is presented as evidence for a solution. Section X summarizes the claims and explicitly states that the accurate numerical solution will be presented in a forthcoming paper.

Significance. If the central existence claim were established, this would be a substantial contribution: it would provide a first-principles effective-action derivation of horizonless condensate stars, with potential implications for the information paradox, black-hole entropy, and gravitational-wave signatures. The paper contains genuinely useful technical material, including the construction of the anomaly effective action in local form, the 4-form/Chern-Simons correspondence, the identification of the conformalon field, and the boundary-layer rescaling analysis in Section VIII. The author is also transparent about the provisional nature of the variational step. However, the significance is conditional because the paper does not actually solve the boundary-layer equations; it presents a variational extremum at nonphysical parameter values, so the central claim remains a conjecture rather than a demonstrated result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IX, Eqs. (8.17)-(8.21) and (9.6), (9.15)-(9.16)] The paper does not demonstrate that the effective theory admits a gravastar solution. The evidence is a variational extremum of the rescaled action (8.14) using a trial ansatz, not a solution of the Euler-Lagrange equations (8.17)-(8.21). The author states explicitly in Sec. IX that 'A numerical solution of the boundary layer eqs. (8.17)-(8.21) satisfying these boundary conditions is necessary', and in Sec. X that 'The accurate numerical solution ... will be presented in a forthcoming paper.' The abstract's claim that the result is a condensate star therefore goes beyond what the manuscript establishes; at best it is a conjecture supported by a variational hint.
  2. [Sec. IX, parameter values in Figs. 4-8] The variational extremum is obtained for alpha=1, beta=0, zeta=1, epsilon=10^-4, |x_+/-|=10^2, and gamma=0.1 or 1. These parameters are not representative of the astrophysical regime. For a solar-mass object epsilon=L_Pl/r_M ~ 5e-39 and |x_+/-| = Delta r_F/(epsilon r_M) ~ 10^18, not 10^2; the Standard Model coefficients in Eqs. (8.15)-(8.16) give beta non-zero and alpha of order 0.17, not alpha=1, beta=0. Moreover, the trial ansatz is derived in the small-gamma approximation (Eq. 9.8) but is applied at gamma=1, where that approximation is not valid. The existence of a minimum for this toy parameter set does not establish the existence of a condensate star solution for realistic masses and Standard Model content.
  3. [Sec. IX, Eq. (9.13) and Sec. III, Eq. (3.18)] The motivation for a phase transition is the divergent anomaly stress tensor (3.18), which is proportional to c_S^2. The boundary-layer ansatz (9.13) imposes c_S=0, thereby removing this leading divergence at the outer edge of the layer. The author notes in Sec. III that subleading logarithmic divergences remain, but their magnitude and their role in driving the transition are not quantified. Since the layer is supposed to be a consequence of the divergence, the imposition c_S=0 weakens the causal link between the anomaly divergence and the phase boundary; the manuscript should demonstrate that the subleading terms are sufficient for the effect.
  4. [Sec. V, Eqs. (5.4), (5.12)-(5.13)] The central mechanism for changing Lambda_eff depends on identifying the 4-form potential A with the Chern-Simons 3-form (5.4) and on treating the spin connection as independent of the metric, so that torsion can be activated and the current J in (5.12) is nonzero. This identification is assumed rather than derived from a deeper principle. If the identification fails, or if the spin connection remains tied to the metric in the relevant regime, the source J vanishes and Lambda_eff cannot change. The paper should provide a derivation or at least a concrete consistency test for this identification before the existence claim can be considered robust; this is a correctness-risk concern rather than a claim of internal inconsistency.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IX, Fig. 5 caption] The text states that the subfigures show the action 'as functions of eta' but also quotes 'fixed eta = 2.96653'; since the horizontal axis is eta, the fixed value must be a typo, likely for lambda. Please correct the caption and the surrounding sentence.
  2. [Sec. IX, Eq. (9.11)] The line introducing phi(x) contains an extraneous 'and 2 phi(x) =' where the '2' appears to be a typographical artifact; the intended expression is likely 'phi(x) ='.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eq. (6.3)] The definition of L_F as the physical distance and its use in Eq. (6.2) is clear, but the sentence preceding Eq. (6.3) refers to 'the radial coordinate distance' while Eq. (6.3) gives the physical distance; please make the distinction between Delta r_F and L_F explicit in the text.
  4. [Sec. X, item (9)] The summary lists 'a rescaled effective action (8.14) and eqs. (8.17)-(8.21) derived by rescaling of r and the metric functions' but does not mention that the Euler class term is dropped at leading order in the boundary layer; this omission could confuse readers about the role of the Riemannian Euler term in the layer.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central horizonless-gravastar property is inserted via the trial metric (9.6), so the headline 'result' is partly an ansatz artifact; the actual numerical solution of the EFT boundary-layer equations is explicitly deferred.

  1. self definitional [Sec. IX, Eq. (9.6), Fig. 7, and Sec. X summary item (10)]
    "The parameter η > 0 regularizes the classical metric cusp singularity of Fig. 2 at x = 0, r = rM, so that if η→ 0 and λ→∞, (9.6) coincides with the rescaled values of the classical Schwarzschild star metric functions (2.2)... Since both f and h attain minima at x≈ 0 in the central region of the boundary layer, but remain strictly positive throughout, the line element (2.1) with (8.2) describes an horizonless, static and non-singular compact object, a gravastar, rather than a black hole."

    Equation (9.6) defines f and h as sums of strictly positive terms, sqrt(x^2+η^2) times positive step-like functions Θ±(λx), so f,h > 0 for all x whenever η>0. The action extremization over η and λ only selects finite numerical values such as (η=2.55737, λ=0.231628); it does not solve the Euler-Lagrange equations (8.17)-(8.21) and does not test any trial function with a horizon. The 'horizonless, non-singular' conclusion is therefore an input of the variational ansatz, not an output of the EFT. The paper itself states 'A numerical solution of the boundary layer eqs. (8.17)-(8.21) ... is necessary' and defers 'The accurate numerical solution ... will be presented in a forthcoming paper.'

full rationale

Most of the formal EFT machinery — the conformal anomaly effective action, the 4-form vacuum-energy formulation, and the identification of A with the Chern-Simons 3-form of the Euler class — is presented with explicitly stated assumptions. Those assumptions are not derived in this paper, but an unproved postulate is not by itself a circular reduction. The numerous self-citations to [25]-[31], [33], [38] and [44] are relevant background, and the cited anomaly stress-tensor and junction-condition results are independently checkable; they do not by themselves force the gravastar conclusion. The one clear circularity is in Sec. IX: the trial metric (9.6) is constructed to be positive and regular, and the paper then reads the positivity/regularity off the same ansatz after extremizing the action in variational parameters. Since those parameters only smooth the already-known classical Schwarzschild star of Sec. II, the 'prediction' of a horizonless non-singular object reduces by construction. The demonstration is also performed with toy parameter values (α=1, β=0, ζ=1, ϵ=10^-4, |x±|=10^2, γ=0.1 or 1), far from the astrophysical values of ϵ≈10^-39 and |x±|≈10^18, and the author explicitly defers the actual numerical solution. This supports a partial-circularity score of 6: the EFT equations and boundary-layer rescaling have independent content, but the central claimed result is substantially an artifact of a purpose-built ansatz rather than a derived solution.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central mechanism relies on several postulates: the anomaly effective action, the 4-form condensate, the identification of A with the Chern-Simons form, the activation of torsion, and the sharp massless threshold. The paper also introduces a new constant κ and free variational parameters (ζ, η, λ, α, β, ε, x±) that are chosen for the numerical demonstration. These inputs, not derived within the paper, carry much of the load of the existence argument.

free parameters (8)
  • κ (4-form coupling) = undetermined
    Introduced in Eq. (4.3); controls the topological susceptibility and the boundary layer parameter γ (8.7). Its value is not predicted, and the existence of the minimum for particular γ values does not fix it.
  • ζ (conformalon amplitude) = 1
    Free parameter in the variational ansatz for φ and ψ (Eqs. 9.11-9.12, 9.15); fixed by hand to 1 without a variational or physical justification.
  • η (regularization width) = 2.55737 (γ=0.1), 2.96653 (γ=1)
    Variational parameter in the metric ansatz (9.6), determined by minimizing the action for the chosen γ; it is fitted to the trial function, not derived from the equations.
  • λ (transition steepness) = 0.231628 (γ=0.1), 0.678154 (γ=1)
    Variational parameter in the metric ansatz (9.6); fitted by minimization, so the smooth transition is an input to the ansatz.
  • α (anomaly coefficient) = 1
    Chosen for the numerical minimization; the physical value for SM particle content differs (Eq. 8.15). Not derived from the theory in the numerics.
  • β (Weyl squared coefficient) = 0
    Set to zero in the numerical minimization, omitting the C^2 term; the physical β for SM is non-zero, so the test excludes a potentially important term.
  • ε (boundary layer expansion parameter) = 10^{-4}
    Chosen for the figures; for a solar-mass object ε approximately 10^{-38} (Eq. 3.19), so the numerical demonstration does not probe the astrophysical regime.
  • x± (boundary layer edges) = ±10^2
    Chosen for the variational calculation; the physical edges are at |x±| about 10^{-20} (Sec. IX), so the illustration uses a much thicker layer than the stated physics requires.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The conformal anomaly effective action (3.8) with the conformalon field φ is the correct low-energy description of massless quantum field correlations in curved spacetime.
    Adopted from the author's prior work [28,37,38]; the paper does not re-derive it, and its use at the horizon relies on the anomaly being unsuppressed at macroscopic scales.
  • ad hoc to paper The 4-form vacuum energy field F is exact, F=dA, and its potential A is identified with the Chern-Simons 3-form of the Euler class, defined by the spin connection (Eq. 5.4).
    This identification is the crucial postulate that generates the J·A interaction and allows Λ_eff to vary; it is stated in Sec. V but not derived from any deeper principle, and it requires torsion to be active.
  • domain assumption Near the horizon the spin connection is independent of the metric, i.e., torsion is activated, and massless fermions couple to it (Eq. 5.8).
    Einstein-Cartan geometry is assumed in the boundary layer; this is a model choice that goes beyond standard Riemannian general relativity.
  • ad hoc to paper The lightest Standard Model fermions can be treated as massless when their blueshifted local energy exceeds their mass, with a sharp threshold at ℏω_loc = m_F c^2 (Sec. VI).
    The paper adopts a discontinuous step in a_F at the threshold (Sec. VII), an approximation acknowledged to be oversimplified.
  • standard math The boundary layer is dominated by the leading terms in ε ≪ 1, so the geometry is effectively two-dimensional and the higher-curvature terms scale as given in Appendix B.
    This is a matched asymptotic expansion; the scaling of curvature components in the layer is computed in Appendix B, but the assumption that subleading terms are negligible is not rigorously controlled.
invented entities (1)
  • ψ auxiliary scalar field
    purpose: Localizes the non-local topological susceptibility term in the effective action (Eqs. 6.11-6.12) and participates in the Maxwell equation (7.5) and field equations (8.19).
    Introduced in this paper as a mathematical auxiliary to render the action local; it has no direct observable or independent experimental handle, and its boundary conditions are fixed by requiring the classical action to reduce to the prior form outside the layer.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Vacuum Condensate Stars in the Effective Theory of Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TJVKWOKF

@misc{pith2026250202519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Vacuum Condensate Stars in the Effective Theory of Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TJVKWOKF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02519}
}
abstract

The low energy effective theory of gravity comprises two elements of quantum theory joined to classical general relativity. The first is the quantum conformal anomaly, which is responsible for macroscopic correlations on light cones and a stress tensor that can strongly modify the classical geometry at black hole horizons. The second is the formulation of vacuum energy as $\Lambda_{\rm eff}\!\propto\! F^2$ in terms of an exact $4$-form abelian gauge field strength $F\!=\!dA$. When $A$ is identified with the Chern-Simons $3$-form of the Euler class, defined in terms of the spin connection, a $J\cdot A$ interaction is generated by the conformal anomaly of massless fermions. Due to the extreme blueshifting of local frequencies in the near-horizon region of a `black hole,' the lightest fermions of the Standard Model can be treated as massless there, contributing to the anomaly and providing a $3$-current source $J$ for the `Maxwell' equation $d\ast F = \ast J$. In this phase boundary region, torsion is activated, and $F$ can change rapidly. The Schwarzschild black hole horizon is thereby replaced by a surface, with a positive surface tension and $\mathbb{R}\otimes \mathbb{S}^2$ worldtube topology, separating regions of differing vacuum energy. The result is a gravitational vacuum condensate star, a cold, compact, horizonless object with a $p_{_V}\!=\! - \rho_{_V}$ zero entropy, non-singular de Sitter interior and thin quantum phase boundary layer at the Schwarzschild radius $2GM/c^2$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the rescaled metric functions f , h for (9.6) at the values (η = 2.55737, λ = 0.231628). of the variational parameters at the minimum of the effective action of the boundary layer illustrated in Fig. 4a for γ = 0.1, due to the balance of classical and quantum ano…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Formation of gravastars

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A fine-tuned Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse with a zero-size initial de-Sitter bubble can end as a static gravastar, with a maximum initial compactness of 3/8.

  2. Conformally Invariant Corrections to the Anomaly-Induced Effective Action and Black Hole Evaporation in Four Dimensions

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Conformally invariant corrections to the anomaly-induced effective action produce a one-parameter family of quantum hair for Schwarzschild black holes that modifies the near-horizon stress tensor in a static approximation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973)

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A: Math. Phys. Sci. 314, 529 (1970)

    work page 1970

  3. [3]

    Barceló and M

    C. Barceló and M. Visser, Int. J. Mod. Phys. 11, 1553 (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astron. Jour. 116, 1009 (1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys. Jour. 517, 565 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Penrose, Phys

    R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 57 (1965)

    1965

  7. [7]

    S. W. Hawking, Comm. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  8. [8]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2460 (1976)

    1976

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Preskill, in Black Holes, Membranes, Wormholes and Superstrings , edited by S

    J. Preskill, in Black Holes, Membranes, Wormholes and Superstrings , edited by S. Kalara and D. V . Nanopoulos (World Scientific, 1992) pp. 22–39

    1992

  2. [10]

    S. B. Giddings and W. M. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2486 (1992)

    1992

  3. [11]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3743 (1993)

    1993

  4. [12]

    S. D. Mathur, Class. Quan. Grav. 26, 224001 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Almheiri, D

    A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, and J. Sully, Jour. High Ener. Phys. 2013, 62 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Today 66 no. 4, 30 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Mottola and R

    E. Mottola and R. Vaulin, Phys. Today 66 no. 11, 9 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Marolf, Rep

    D. Marolf, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 092001 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 092002 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Almheiri et al., Jour

    A. Almheiri et al., Jour. High Ener. Phys. 2020, 013 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Gravitational vacuum condensate stars,

    E. Mottola, “Gravitational vacuum condensate stars,” in Regular Black Holes: Towards a New Paradigm of Gravitational Collapse , edited by C. Bambi (Springer Nature, Singapore, 2023) pp. 283–352, arXiv:2302.09690

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  13. [21]

    I. B. Zel’dovich and I. Novikov, Relativistic astrophysics: Stars and Relativity , V ol. 1 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971)

    1971

  14. [22]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 35, 904 (1930)

    1930

  15. [23]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 14, 870 (1976). 46

    1976

  16. [24]

    S. M. Christensen and S. A. Fulling, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2088 (1977)

    1977

  17. [25]

    Mottola and R

    E. Mottola and R. Vaulin, Phys. Rev. D 74, 064004 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    P. R. Anderson, E. Mottola, and R. Vaulin, Phys. Rev. D 76, 124028 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    Mottola, Acta Phys

    E. Mottola, Acta Phys. Polon. B 41, 2031 (2010), www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/R/41/9/2031/pdf

    2010

  20. [28]

    Mottola, Jour

    E. Mottola, Jour. High Ener. Phys. 2022, 37 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Gravitational condensate stars: An alternative to black holes,

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, “Gravitational condensate stars: An alternative to black holes,” (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (U.S.) 101, 9545 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Universe 9 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Schwarzschild, Sitz

    K. Schwarzschild, Sitz. Kön. Preuß. Akad. Wiss., 424 (1916), Eng. trans. arXiv:physics/9912033

    1916 arXiv

  25. [33]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 215024 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Giannotti and E

    M. Giannotti and E. Mottola, Phys. Rev. D 79, 045014 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Armillis, C

    R. Armillis, C. Corianò, and L. Delle Rose, Phys. Lett. B682, 322 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Corianò, M

    C. Corianò, M. M. Maglio, and E. Mottola, Nucl. Phys. B 942, 303 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Phys. Rev. D 64, 104022 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Mottola, Jour

    E. Mottola, Jour. High Ener. Phys. 2017, 43 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  32. [40]

    I. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rep. 357, 113 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Cartan, Comptes Rendus, Ac

    É. Cartan, Comptes Rendus, Ac. Sc. Paris 174, 593 (1922)

    1922

  34. [42]

    F. W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G. D. Kerlick, and J. M. Nester, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 393 (1976)

    1976

  35. [43]

    Chapline, E

    G. Chapline, E. Hohlfeld, R. B. Laughlin, and D. I. Santiago, Phil. Mag. B 81, 235 (2001)

    2001

  36. [44]

    Beltracchi, P

    P. Beltracchi, P. Gondolo, and E. Mottola, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024001 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Appelquist and J

    T. Appelquist and J. Carazzone, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2856 (1975)

    1975

  38. [46]

    A. V . Manohar, in Effective Field Theory in Particle Physics and Cosmology , Lecture Notes of the Les Houches Summer School 2017 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020) pp. 47–136, https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05863

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3874 (1994)

    1994

  40. [48]

    C. P. Burgess, Living Rev. Rel. 7, 1 (2004)

    2004

  41. [49]

    ’t Hooft, NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft, NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 135 (1980)

    1980

  42. [50]

    Wess and B

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B 37, 95 (1971)

    1971

  43. [51]

    Leutwyler, Ann

    H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. 235, 165 (1994)

    1994

  44. [52]

    Weinberg, in The Quantum Theory of Fields , V ol

    S. Weinberg, in The Quantum Theory of Fields , V ol. 2 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996) pp. 359–420

    1996

  45. [53]

    Treiman, R

    S. Treiman, R. Jackiw, and D. J. Gross, Lectures on Current Algebra and Its Applications (Princeton 47 Univ. Press, 2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    R. A. Bertlmann, Anomalies in Quantum Field Theory (Oxford Univ. Press, 2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    D. N. Blaschke, R. Carballo-Rubio, and E. Mottola, Jour. High Ener. Phys. 2014, 153 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Mottola, Chandra, G

    E. Mottola, Chandra, G. M., Manca, and E. Sorkin, J. High Energ. Phys. 2023, 223 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    D. M. Capper and M. J. Du ff, N. Cimento A 23, 173 (1974)

    1974

  50. [58]

    B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rep. 19, 295 (1975)

    1975

  51. [59]

    M. J. Du ff, Nucl. Phys. B 125, 334 (1977)

    1977

  52. [60]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982)

    1982

  53. [61]

    S. M. Paneitz et al., SIGMA 4, 036 (2008), arXiv:0803.4331

    2008 arXiv

  54. [62]

    R. J. Riegert, Phys. Lett. B 134, 56 (1984)

    1984

  55. [63]

    Fradkin and A

    E. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, Phys. Lett. B 134, 187 (1984)

    1984

  56. [64]

    Antoniadis, P

    I. Antoniadis, P. O. Mazur, and E. Mottola, Nucl. Phys. B 388, 627 (1992)

    1992

  57. [65]

    I. L. Buchbinder, S. D. Odintsov, and I. L. Shapiro, Effective Action in Quantum Gravity (Routledge, 2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Sachs and S

    I. Sachs and S. N. Solodukhin, Phys. Rev. D 64, 124023 (2001)

    2001

  59. [67]

    Aurilia, D

    A. Aurilia, D. Christodoulou, and F. Legovini, Phys. Lett. B 73, 429 (1978)

    1978

  60. [68]

    Du ff and P

    M. Du ff and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Lett. B 94, 179 (1980)

    1980

  61. [69]

    Aurilia, H

    A. Aurilia, H. Nicolai, and P. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B 176, 509 (1980)

    1980

  62. [70]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B 143, 415 (1984)

    1984

  63. [71]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Found. Phys. 16, 593 (1986)

    1986

  64. [72]

    Eguchi, P

    T. Eguchi, P. B. Gilkey, and A. J. Hanson, Phys. Rep. 66, 213 (1980)

    1980

  65. [73]

    Yale and T

    A. Yale and T. Padmanabhan, Gen. Rel. Grav. 43, 1549 (2011)

    2011

  66. [74]

    Stöcker et al

    P. Stöcker et al. (The GAMBIT Cosmology Workgroup), Phys. Rev. D103, 123508 (2021)

    2021

  67. [75]

    Di Vecchia and G

    P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 171, 253 (1980)

    1980

  68. [76]

    Seiler, Phys

    E. Seiler, Phys. Lett. B 525, 355 (2002)

    2002

  69. [77]

    Antoniadis, P

    I. Antoniadis, P. O. Mazur, and E. Mottola, New Jour. Phys. 9, 11 (2007)

    2007

  70. [78]

    C. M. Bender and S. A. Orszag, Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers I (Springer New York, 1999)

    1999

  71. [79]

    J. W. York, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1082 (1972)

    1972

  72. [80]

    J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 128, 2425 (1962). 48

    1962

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.