Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Conformal Invariance and Phase Transitions: Implications for Stable Black Hole Horizons?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a rotating black hole's loss of angular momentum—the balding phase—is not gradual but a topological reorganization of the horizon driven by conformal symmetry breaking, with entropy corrections diverging universally…

desk verdict A speculative analogy paper whose central topology claim is wrong and whose scaling exponents are read off from assumed terms, so it fails on its own terms. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07007 v1 pith:5DMRE43C submitted 2025-09-06 gr-qc

Pradosh Keshav MV , Arun Kenath (Christ University , Bangalore) This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords conformalinvariancephasetransitionssofthairWaldentropyAretakisinstabilityblackholehorizonsquantumcriticalitybalding
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 claims that a black hole shedding its rotation—the balding phase—undergoes a discontinuous topological reorganization of its horizon, driven by the breakdown of conformal symmetry. The reorganization produces entropy corrections and pressure terms that diverge as the mass-change parameter $dM^{(1)}$ tends to zero, with a universal scaling law $dS \sim |dM^{(1)}|^{-\nu}$, $\nu=1$, and a dynamic exponent $z=2$. Extremal black holes therefore function as quantum critical points, analogous to phase transitions in condensed matter. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a mechanism for stabilizing horizon dynamics during spin-down without adding ad hoc higher-derivative corrections, and it limits where conformal invariance can be trusted in black hole physics.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a set of quasi-equilibrium boundary conditions imposed on a three-surface near the apparent horizon: the expansion scalar $R$ and the shear tensor $\sigma_{\mu\nu}$ vanish (equations 1–2), modelling a marginally trapped surface that is losing its rotational distortion. Around this, the paper builds a conformal mapping of boundary data, a deformed Cauchy ensemble acting as a control parameter analogous to temperature in Landau-Ginzburg theory, and a Lyapunov functional that ties horizon curvature flow to quasi-equilibrium data. These ingredients combine to produce the scaling law $dS \sim |dM^{(1)}|^{-\nu}$ with $\nu=1$ and $z=2$, and to identify the extremal limit as the critical point where the transition saturates.

What would settle it

Run a full numerical-relativity evolution of a spinning black hole losing angular momentum (for example, a Kerr hole perturbed by an incoming scalar field) and track the apparent-horizon expansion scalar and shear tensor. If $R$ or $\sigma_{\mu\nu}$ remains visibly nonzero while $J$ decreases smoothly, or if the entropy correction does not diverge as the mass-change parameter $dM^{(1)}$ goes to zero, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that conformal symmetry breaking in the balding phase forces a topological change in the horizon: the axisymmetric, spinning configuration transitions to spherical symmetry, and this transition carries divergent thermodynamic responses. The divergence is captured by $dS \sim |dM^{(1)}|^{-\nu}$ with mean-field exponent $\nu=1$ and dynamic exponent $z=2$, so extremal limits play the role of quantum critical points. Soft-hair/BMS charges act as topological invariants that distinguish the two phases and vanish once the black hole stops spinning. The authors propose that stable horizon dynamics during this phase can be achieved through quasi-equilibrium boundary conditions—vanishing expansion and shear on the horizon surface—instead of explicit higher-order curvature corrections.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that during the balding phase the horizon can be described by quasi-equilibrium boundary data with vanishing expansion and shear, and that the shearless limit is tied to a topological change in the horizon.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, horizon stability during spin-down can be modelled with quasi-equilibrium boundary data alone, without adding higher-curvature terms to the action.
  • Extremal black holes should display diverging entropy and pressure corrections as the mass-change parameter approaches zero, with $\nu=1$ and $z=2$ universality.
  • Soft-hair charges act as order parameters: they vanish in the post-balding spherical phase, marking the topological transition.
  • Conformal invariance is not universal for black hole horizons; it holds only away from the extremal critical region, where Aretakis-type instabilities appear.
  • The scaling relation gives a concrete target for quantum gravity: any complete theory should reproduce the same critical exponents in the near-extremal limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A numerical relativity simulation of a perturbed spinning black hole could test the assumption directly: if apparent-horizon shear stays nonzero while $J$ decreases smoothly, the topological-transition picture would not hold.
  • The analogy suggests a 'critical slowing down' near extremality—perturbations should relax with a timescale set by $z=2$; ringdown or binary-merger waveforms might show this as a distinctive late-time tail.
  • If the topological phase picture is right, black hole remnants could be classified by which phase they end in, not just by mass and charge, giving Planck relics a natural identity.
  • The Landau-Ginzburg analogy predicts that including the next-order mass corrections ($dM^{(2)}$) will shift the critical point and round the divergence; computing that shift would be a direct test of universality.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the breakdown of conformal symmetry during the balding phase of a spinning black hole induces a topological reorganization of the event horizon from S^1×S^2 to S^2, and that this reorganization leads to divergent entropy corrections, emergent pressure terms, and universal scaling laws near extremality. The authors model quasi-equilibrium horizon boundary data with vanishing expansion and shear, introduce a deformed Cauchy random matrix ensemble as a stability functional, and claim that extremal black hole limits behave as quantum critical points with a critical exponent ν=1 and dynamic exponent z=2. The paper concludes that conformal invariance is not universally applicable to black hole horizon dynamics. The manuscript is written in a speculative, exploratory style, with many equations that are not derived from the stated physical assumptions.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, it would propose a new connection between black hole horizon dynamics, topological phase transitions, and quantum criticality, with potentially universal thermodynamic scaling laws. However, the paper contains no machine-checked proofs, reproducible numerical results, or parameter-free derivations. The advertised topological reorganization is based on an incorrect description of Kerr horizon topology, and the central scaling law is effectively assumed rather than derived. The paper also contains an explicit, unresolved contradiction in its extremal boundary data. These issues are load-bearing for the main claims, so the significance of the work as it stands is very limited.

major comments (4)
  1. [II.B, Eq. (8)] The claim that the balding phase involves a topological transition from S^1×S^2 to S^2 is not supported by standard black hole topology. For a Kerr black hole with 0 ≤ a < M, the event horizon cross-section is diffeomorphic to S^2 with Euler characteristic 2; the axial Killing field ∂_φ foliates this S^2 by S^1 orbits with fixed points at the poles, but the manifold is not a product S^1×S^2. The final Schwarzschild horizon also has Euler characteristic 2, so no change in horizon topology occurs during spin-down. Since this purported topological reorganization anchors the soft-hair invariants and the subsequent quantum-critical scaling arguments, the central premise of the paper is unsupported.
  2. [IV, Eq. (34)] The universal scaling law S ~ |dM(1)|^{-ν} with ν=1 is not derived from a physical model. Equation (34) is a formal series with unbalanced brackets and undefined quantities λ^(n) and dt(n), and the divergence as dM(1)→0 is asserted by assuming a linear dependence on dM(1). The statement that 'ν=1 corresponds to mean-field universality, consistent with the linear dependence on dM(1)' confirms that the exponent is read off from the assumed term rather than independently computed. This makes the claimed universality circular.
  3. [III, Eq. (39)] The authors explicitly state that Eq. (39) contradicts the extremal boundary data dM=0, and they do not resolve this contradiction. Since Eq. (39) is used to deduce the Aretakis scalar potential and to connect the balding phase to the entropy and work relations, the internal inconsistency undermines the thermodynamic conclusions in Section IV. An acknowledged, unresolved contradiction in a central equation is not a valid basis for the paper's main claims.
  4. [II.A, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The quasi-equilibrium boundary conditions R|_{Σ(3)}=0 and σ_{μν}|_{Σ(3)}=0 are asserted rather than derived from Einstein's equations or from a controlled approximation to the balding phase. All subsequent results, including the shearless limit and the topological transition, inherit this assumption. If these conditions are not justified for realistic horizon dynamics, the central conclusions of the paper lose their foundation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References, [5]] Reference [5] is listed as 2012, but the cited Calmet and Kuipers paper in Physical Review D 104, 066012 was published in 2021; the year should be corrected.
  2. [I and III] The text refers to 'Calmers and Kuipers' in Section III, but the correct name is Calmet and Kuipers.
  3. [II.A, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is the Lemos cylindrical black hole solution, not the Kerr metric; using it to model an axisymmetric-to-spherical transition requires explicit justification that the cylindrical solution is relevant to the stated physical system.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and consistency issues, including 'thinsandwich' for 'thin sandwich', 'V on-Neumann' for 'von Neumann', and inconsistent use of singular and plural in the abstract's title phrase.
  5. [II.B, Eq. (8)] The symbol σ(x,y) is introduced as a shear term in Eq. (8) while σ_{μν} is already used for the shear tensor in Eq. (2); the overloaded notation makes the equations difficult to parse.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The universal critical exponent ν=1 is read off from the hand-written 1/dM(1) term; the quantum-critical divergence is an input, not a prediction.

  1. self definitional [Section IV, Eq. (34) and following paragraph]
    "TdSl≡1 + [λ (1) 16π GM2dM(1)]r<<rs −[λ (2)dt(0) 16π GM2dM(2)]r=rs + (λ(3)dt(1) 16π GM2dM(3)]r>>rs −[λ (4)dt(0) 16π GM2dM(4)]r>>rs... throughout the boundary and tends to infinity for all tµ = [0,1] while exhibiting a singular behaviour as dM (1) →0, signalling a quantum critical point."

    Eq. (34) is presented as the expression for T dS_l with an explicit pole in dM(1). The paper then declares the singular behavior 'signals a quantum critical point' and states 'ν=1 corresponds to mean-field universality, consistent with the linear dependence on dM(1).' No independent derivation of the exponent is given; the 'universal scaling law' is simply the reciprocal dM(1) term that was written into Eq. (34) by hand. The prediction S ~ |dM(1)|^{-ν} with ν=1 is therefore equivalent to the input expression, not a consequence of conformal symmetry breaking.

full rationale

Most of the paper is model-building under asserted quasi-equilibrium assumptions (R=0, σ=0) and analogies; those are unsupported derivation steps but not circular. The one clear circularity is the critical scaling claim: Eq. (34) defines T dS_l with terms of order 1/dM(1), and the paper reads off a diverging entropy with exponent ν=1 from exactly that pole, presenting it as a predicted quantum-critical universal law. The dynamic exponent z=2 is asserted from conformal symmetry of Eq. (4) rather than derived, but because it too is not obtained from independent data, it is a gap, not a fit-to-input. The topological 'S1×S2 to S2' transition is an asserted premise (and in fact inconsistent with the S^2 topology of Kerr horizons), but that is a correctness issue, not a circularity. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: references to Pfeiffer-York, Aretakis, Calmet-Kuipers, and Hawking-Perry-Strominger are external literature. The α in Eq. (23) is admittedly fixed by matching semiclassical entropy corrections, but it is not the source of the claimed scaling exponents. Overall, because the paper's headline prediction—universal entropy divergence at dM(1)→0—reduces by construction to the hand-written reciprocal term, the circularity score is 6 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unproved inputs: a free-parameter cylindrical metric, an asserted topology change, a random matrix ensemble analogy, and a hand-written scaling law. The effective action coefficients are fitted to known entropy corrections. Together these mean the paper contributes a heuristic analogy rather than a derivation from established physics.

free parameters (6)
  • λ (conformal scaling / control / correction coefficient) = unspecified, except λ^(1) = ħc^5/G^2
    λ appears in Eq (4) as a free parameter in the cylindrical metric, in Eq (10) as a temperature-like control parameter, and in Eq (34) as quantum correction coefficients. Its multiple roles are not separated.
  • ω (angular momentum parameter) = unspecified
    Appears in the cylindrical metric (4) and in the extremality condition r = M ± sqrt(M^2 - ω^2), but no value or physical meaning is given for the Schwarzschild balding setup.
  • b (integration constant in Einstein equations) = unspecified
    Enters the cylindrical metric (4); its relation to the black hole mass M is not established.
  • P_i(μ) (effective action curvature couplings) = P_1(μ) = α μ^2, with α fixed by matching semiclassical entropy corrections; P_2 and P_3 unspecified
    Introduced in Eq (23); because α is fitted, subsequent entropy and pressure results inherit this fit.
  • σ(x,y) (shear term in entropy) = unspecified
    Appears in Eqs (8) and (33) in the Wald entropy formula; no expression in terms of metric or matter fields is provided.
  • λ^(n) (quantum correction coefficients in Eq (34)) = λ^(1) = ħc^5/G^2; other orders unspecified
    The T dS_l expansion (34) assumes a hierarchy of λ^(n) terms with no derivation; the assignment for λ^(1) is stated without justification.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math General relativity and the Einstein field equations are valid, including the Lemos cylindrical black hole solution (Eq 4) and the Einstein constraint equations (13).
    The paper uses these as background without proof; they are standard but still unproved inputs in this paper.
  • domain assumption Quasi-equilibrium horizon data satisfy vanishing expansion and shear (R|_{Σ(3)}=0 and σ_{μν}|_{Σ(3)}=0, Eqs (1)-(2)).
    This is stated as the first approximation and is not derived from dynamics; it underpins all boundary data used later.
  • domain assumption The horizon topology changes discontinuously from S^1×S^2 to S^2 during balding, with a change in Euler characteristic (Section II B).
    The 'topological reorganization' central claim requires this transition, but no topology-changing mechanism is derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Extremal black holes behave as quantum critical points with scale-invariant fluctuations (Eq (8) and Section IV).
    The condensed matter quantum criticality analogy is imported without a derivation from black hole microstates.
  • ad hoc to paper The deformed Cauchy random matrix ensemble (10) with λ as control parameter describes the horizon membrane's stability.
    No mapping from horizon data to the matrix ensemble is shown; the identification is asserted.
  • ad hoc to paper The entropy divergence near the critical point has the scaling form S ~ |dM(1)|^{-ν} (Eq (34)).
    The scaling form is written down by hand and the exponent is read off from the same equation, so it is an input rather than a result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conformal Invariance and Phase Transitions: Implications for Stable Black Hole Horizons?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DMRE43C

@misc{pith2026250907007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conformal Invariance and Phase Transitions: Implications for Stable Black Hole Horizons?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DMRE43C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07007}
}
read the original abstract

The behavior of black hole horizons under extreme conditions-such as near collapse or phase transitions-remains less understood, particularly in the context of soft hair and Aretakis instabilities. We show that the breakdown of conformal symmetry during the balding phase induces a topological reorganization of the horizon, leading to divergent entropy corrections and emergent pressure terms. These corrections exhibit universal scaling laws, analogous to quantum phase transitions in condensed matter systems, with extremal limits functioning as quantum critical points. Interestingly, by employing quasi-equilibrium boundary conditions, one could stabilize horizon dynamics without explicitly introducing ad hoc higher-order corrections, further limiting the universal applicability of conformal invariance in black hole physics.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse,

    S. Hawking, “Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 14, no. 10, p. 2460, 1976

    work page 1976

  2. [2]

    The string landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, “The string landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,”J. High Energy Phys., vol. 2007, no. 06, p. 060, 2007. 8

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Universal relation between corrections to entropy and extremality,

    G. Goon and R. Penco, “Universal relation between corrections to entropy and extremality,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 124, no. 10, p. 101103, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Micro black holes in the laboratory,

    M. Bleicher, P. Nicolini, M. Sprenger, and E. Winstanley, “Micro black holes in the laboratory,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. E, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 7–14, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Quantum gravitational corrections to the entropy of a schwarzschild black hole,

    X. Calmet and F. Kuipers, “Quantum gravitational corrections to the entropy of a schwarzschild black hole,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 104, no. 6, p. 066012, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Three new roads to the planck scale,

    V . Faraoni, “Three new roads to the planck scale,”Am. J. Phys., vol. 85, no. 11, pp. 865–869, Nov 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Spacetime structure near generic horizons and soft hair,

    D. Grumiller, A. P ´erez, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, R. Troncoso, and C. Zwikel, “Spacetime structure near generic horizons and soft hair,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 124, p. 041601, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Thermodynamic studies with higher-order quantum corrected entropy: Higher dimensional gauss-bonnet black holes,

    A. Haldar and A. Haldar, “Thermodynamic studies with higher-order quantum corrected entropy: Higher dimensional gauss-bonnet black holes,”Int. J. Theor . Phys., vol. 62, no. 10, p. 223, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Horizon instability of extremal black holes,

    S. A, “Horizon instability of extremal black holes,”Adv. Theor . Math. Phys., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 507–530, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Nonlinear instability of scalar fields on extremal black holes,

    S. Aretakis, “Nonlinear instability of scalar fields on extremal black holes,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 87, no. 8, p. 084052, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Soft hair on black holes,

    S. Hawking, M. Perry, and A. Strominger, “Soft hair on black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 116, no. 23, p. 231301, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    The black hole information problem: past, present, and future,

    D. Marolf, “The black hole information problem: past, present, and future,”Rep. Prog. Phys., vol. 80, no. 9, p. 092001, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Glimpses on the micro black hole planck phase,

    F. Scardigli, “Glimpses on the micro black hole planck phase,”Symme- try, vol. 12, no. 9, p. 1519, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Self-similar evaporation and collapse in the quantum portrait of black holes,

    V . F. Foit and N. Wintergerst, “Self-similar evaporation and collapse in the quantum portrait of black holes,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 92, no. 6, p. 064043, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Critical behavior for the dilaton black holes,

    R.-G. Cai and Y . S. Myung, “Critical behavior for the dilaton black holes,”Nucl. Phys. B, no. 1-2, pp. 339–362, 1997

    1997

  8. [16]

    Spacetime instability and the problems with low energy quantum gravity,

    H. Matsui, “Spacetime instability and the problems with low energy quantum gravity,”arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv–1901, 2019

    1901

  9. [17]

    Symmetries, horizons, and black hole entropy,

    S. Carlip, “Symmetries, horizons, and black hole entropy,”Gen. Relativ. Gravit., vol. 39, pp. 1519–1523, 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    Conformal symmetry breaking and ther- modynamics of near-extremal black holes,

    A. Almheiri and B. Kang, “Conformal symmetry breaking and ther- modynamics of near-extremal black holes,”J. High Energy Phys., vol. 2016, no. 10, pp. 1–29, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Einstein constraints: Uniqueness and nonuniqueness in the conformal thin sandwich ap- proach,

    T. Baumgarte, N. Murchadha, and H. Pfeiffer, “Einstein constraints: Uniqueness and nonuniqueness in the conformal thin sandwich ap- proach,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 75, no. 4, p. 044009, 2007

    2007

  12. [20]

    Excision boundary conditions for the conformal metric,

    G. B. Cook and T. W. Baumgarte, “Excision boundary conditions for the conformal metric,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 78, no. 10, p. 104016, 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    Inner boundary conditions for advection- dominated accretion onto black holes,

    P. A. Becker and T. Le, “Inner boundary conditions for advection- dominated accretion onto black holes,”Astrophys. J., vol. 588, pp. 408– 424, 2003

    2003

  14. [22]

    Dynamical origin of black-hole radiance,

    J. W. York Jr, “Dynamical origin of black-hole radiance,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 28, no. 12, p. 2929, 1983

    1983

  15. [23]

    Cylindrical black hole in general relativity,

    J. P. S. Lemos, “Cylindrical black hole in general relativity,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 353, no. 1, pp. 46–51, 1995

    1995

  16. [24]

    Maximal efficiency of the collisional penrose process with spinning particles in kerr-sen black hole,

    Y . Liu and X. Zhang, “Maximal efficiency of the collisional penrose process with spinning particles in kerr-sen black hole,”Eur . Phys. J. C, vol. 80, no. 1, p. 31, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    On the entropy of closed hypersurfaces and singular self- shrinkers,

    J. Zhu, “On the entropy of closed hypersurfaces and singular self- shrinkers,”J. Differ . Geom., vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 551–593, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Deformed cauchy random matrix ensembles and large n phase transitions,

    J. G. Russo, “Deformed cauchy random matrix ensembles and large n phase transitions,”J. High Energy Phys., vol. 2020, no. 11, p. 14, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Dark matter as planck relics without too exotic hypotheses,

    A. Barrau, K. Martineau, F. Moulin, and J. Ngono, “Dark matter as planck relics without too exotic hypotheses,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 100, no. 12, p. 123505, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Can planck-mass relics of evaporating black holes close the universe?

    J. MacGibbon, “Can planck-mass relics of evaporating black holes close the universe?”Nature, vol. 329, pp. 308–309, 1987

    1987

  21. [29]

    Solutions of the einstein constraint equations with appar- ent horizon boundaries,

    D. Maxwell, “Solutions of the einstein constraint equations with appar- ent horizon boundaries,”Commun. Math. Phys., vol. 253, pp. 561–583, 2005

    2005

  22. [30]

    Effective lagrangian for quantum black holes,

    A. Buonanno, M. Gattobigio, M. Maggiore, L. Pilo, and C. Ungarelli, “Effective lagrangian for quantum black holes,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 451, no. 3, pp. 677–695, 1995

    1995

  23. [31]

    Regular quantum interiors for black holes,

    E. Elizalde and S. R. Hildebrandt, “Regular quantum interiors for black holes,” inThe Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Develop- ments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories (In 3 V olumes). World Scientific, 200...

    2002

  24. [32]

    Quantum criticality and black holes,

    S. Sachdev and M. M ¨uller, “Quantum criticality and black holes,”J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, vol. 21, no. 16, p. 164216, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Quantum thermodynamics of the charged ads black hole with nonlinear electrodynamics field,

    R. H. Ali, B. Pourhassan, and G. Mustafa, “Quantum thermodynamics of the charged ads black hole with nonlinear electrodynamics field,” Chin. J. Phys., vol. 88, pp. 768–785, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    The concept of entropy. relation between action and entropy,

    J. P. Badiali, “The concept of entropy. relation between action and entropy,”Condens. Matter Phys., vol. 8, 2005

    2005

  27. [35]

    Scaling and universality in the two-dimensional ising model with a magnetic field,

    V . V . Mangazeev, M. Y . Dudalev, V . V . Bazhanov, and M. T. Batchelor, “Scaling and universality in the two-dimensional ising model with a magnetic field,”Phys. Rev. E, vol. 81, no. 6, p. 060103, 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    Exact solu- tions to the time-dependent landau-ginzburg model of phase transitions,

    J. A. Tuszy ´nski, R. Paul, R. Chatterjee, and A. Doelman, “Exact solu- tions to the time-dependent landau-ginzburg model of phase transitions,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 380, 1984

    1984

  29. [37]

    Breaking the hidden symmetry in the ginzburg-landau equation,

    A. Doelman, “Breaking the hidden symmetry in the ginzburg-landau equation,”Physica D, vol. 97, pp. 398–428, 1996

    1996

  30. [38]

    Conformal phase transition in gauge theories,

    V . A. Miransky and K. Yamawaki, “Conformal phase transition in gauge theories,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 55, no. 8, p. 5051, 1997

    1997

  31. [39]

    Conformal phase transition, beta-function, and infrared dynamics in qcd,

    V . A. Miransky, “Conformal phase transition, beta-function, and infrared dynamics in qcd,”arXiv:hep-ph/0003137, 2000

    2000 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Rotational invariance in critical planar lattice models,

    H. Duminil-Copin, K. Kozlowski, D. Krachun, I. Manolescu, and M. Oulamara, “Rotational invariance in critical planar lattice models,” arXiv:2012.11672 [math.PR], 2020

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.