Fundamental Forces and Scalar Field Dynamics in the Early Universe

Alexander Kusenko; Masahito Yamazaki; Masaki Yamada; Volodymyr Takhistov

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 66 references

Fundamental Forces and Scalar Field Dynamics in the Early Universe

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum-gravity-motivated conjecture implies scalar fields in the early universe fragment into Q-balls and oscillons.

desk verdict The Q-ball argument is right, but the claimed implication to oscillon formation fails the coefficient check for the standard SSWGC constants; the abstract overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10930 v2 pith:47KJD7VH submitted 2019-08-28 hep-th astro-ph.COhep-ph

Alexander Kusenko , Volodymyr Takhistov , Masaki Yamada , Masahito Yamazaki This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thastro-ph.COhep-ph

keywords scalarweakgravityconjectureswamplandQ-ballsoscillonsfieldfragmentationearlyuniversecosmologyprimordialblackholesdarkmatter

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

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

The paper tries to establish that a family of quantum-gravity-inspired constraints known as scalar weak gravity conjectures has a generic, observable cosmological consequence: a scalar field with a cubic-plus-quartic potential cannot relax smoothly after inflation. Its homogeneous condensate is unstable and fragments into localized lumps—Q-balls (stable lumps carrying a conserved charge) for complex fields, and oscillons (long-lived localized oscillating lumps) for real fields. The reason is that the conjectures say scalar-mediated forces are attractive and stronger than gravity, and the same inequality that expresses that force balance also makes the fastest-growing fluctuation of the condensate beat cosmic expansion. If this is right, early-universe scalar dynamics is tied to the swampland program: the lumps could be dark matter, seeds for primordial black holes, sources of gravitational waves, and agents in baryogenesis.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized scalar weak gravity conjecture (GSWGC), the inequality $2c(V''')^2 - c' V''V'''' \ge (V'')^2/M_{\rm Pl}^2$ (with $c,c'$ of order one), interpreted as the statement that the net attractive force mediated by the scalar field beats the gravitational force: attraction $\sim (V''')^2$ must exceed repulsion $\sim V''V''''$ plus gravity. Applied to the cubic-quartic potential, this inequality reduces to a competition among $m$, $A$, and $\lambda$; the resulting conditions feed into the fastest-growing-mode exponent $\alpha_{\max} = \phi(A-2\lambda\phi)/(4\sqrt{m^2 - A\phi + \lambda\phi^2})$ for the homogeneous condensate and into the non-relativistic effective potential that governs oscillons (long-lived, localized, oscillating lumps of a real scalar field). The conjecture's force-balance statement does the work: it is exactly the condition that attraction dominates repulsion and gravity, which is also the condition for fragmentation to beat cosmic expansion, $\alpha_{\max}/H \sim A M_{\rm Pl}/m^2 \gtrsim 1$, and for localized lumps to be energetically favored.

What would settle it

Run a lattice simulation of the potential $V=\frac12 m^2\phi^2-\frac A3\phi^3+\frac\lambda4\phi^4$ with parameters satisfying the GSWGC bounds but with the initial condensate energy density set to a small fraction of critical, for example $f=10^{-4}$; if the field remains nearly homogeneous for several Hubble times rather than fragmenting into lumps, the claim that GSWGC forces cosmological formation is refuted. A complementary check is to measure the instability-to-expansion ratio for such dilute initial conditions and compare it with the order-one threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Applying the generalized scalar weak gravity conjecture to the potential $V(\phi)=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2-\frac{A}{3}\phi^3+\frac{\lambda}{4}\phi^4$, the paper derives three inequalities among $m$, $A$, and $\lambda$: the conjecture forces $A>0$, which by the usual Q-ball existence criterion guarantees Q-ball solutions of any charge; it forces $A \gtrsim m^2/(\sqrt{8c}\,M_{\rm Pl})$, which via the fastest-growing-mode exponent makes the condensate's instability outrun Hubble expansion and reach the nonlinear regime; and it forces $4cA^2/(3m^2) \gtrsim c'\lambda$, which is precisely the condition for oscillons to exist. Hence the conjecture implies not only that solitonic lumps exist as static solutions but that they actually form dynamically in the early universe, with energy per unit charge low enough in the thin-wall regime to make stable Q-balls a viable dark-matter candidate and unstable lumps a possible source of primordial black holes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scalar field carries a non-negligible fraction of the universe's energy density ($f \lesssim 1$); the paper motivates the scenario with a spectator field whose density is only $\sim H_I^4$, which can be far smaller, in which case Hubble expansion may dominate and prevent formation even though Q-balls would still exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Stable Q-balls from GSWGC-driven fragmentation are a dark-matter candidate: the bound can make the energy per unit charge smaller than the mass of any decay product, so the lumps are absolutely stable.
Unstable Q-balls and oscillons can collapse into primordial black holes; because the perturbations come from the field's own instability, they are independent of inflationary perturbations and evade swampland-based constraints on inflation.
Baryogenesis via scalar condensates generically involves Q-balls, so the conjecture connects to the origin of matter as well as to dark matter.
Formation of Q-balls or oscillons can source gravitational waves within reach of upcoming experiments, giving an observational probe of the conjecture.
For any model satisfying the generalized inequality, a condensate set up during inflation will not remain homogeneous, making fragmentation a generic prediction rather than a fine-tuned one.

Reading between the lines

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

Sharpen the formation condition by computing the instability-to-expansion ratio for a dilute spectator with energy density $\sim H_I^4$; the paper's order-one estimate assumes the field is not far from dominating the energy density, so a precise $f$-dependent calculation would show whether fragmentation is prompt or delayed.
Treat the cosmological signatures as a modular test: even if GSWGC holds only in one corner of the quantum-gravity landscape, the same lump formation should occur there, so PBH, gravitational-wave, and dark-matter searches probe that corner directly.
Extend the force-comparison logic to other potentials with attractive self-interactions, such as flat-direction potentials with running masses; linearized stability and lattice simulations would reveal whether the GSWGC edge cases leave a distinctive imprint on the lump mass spectrum.
A stochastic gravitational-wave background peaked at the Q-ball/oscillon formation frequency would be a distinctive fingerprint: detecting it would indirectly support the conjecture even without direct scalar-force experiments.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper connects scalar weak gravity conjectures to early-universe soliton formation. The Q-ball existence piece works: for the potential (1), GSWGC forces A>0, which guarantees Q-balls. That is a clean, honest result, and the framing of scalar-mediated attraction vs. gravity is a useful way to think about swampland constraints in cosmology.

The oscillon claim, however, does not survive contact with the inequalities. The paper says Eq. (15) implies Eq. (6), but for the standard SSWGC constants c=c'=1, Eq. (15) is 4A²/(3m²) ≥ λ, i.e., λ ≤ 1.333 A²/m². The oscillon condition Eq. (6) requires λ < 10/9 A²/m² ≈ 1.111 A²/m². Since 1.333 > 1.111, there are GSWGC-allowed parameter points where no oscillons exist. The inference only holds if c/c' ≤ 5/6, which the paper never states and which is false for the canonical SSWGC. This is not a nitpick; it kills the abstract's claim that GSWGC implies oscillon existence.

There is a second soft spot, acknowledged but not reconciled. The formation estimate Eq. (4) assumes the scalar's energy fraction f is not much smaller than one, while the spectator-field motivation gives f ∼ H_I²/M_Pl², which can be minuscule. For such a spectator, the Hubble rate is larger than assumed, and the instability may not overcome expansion. So the formation claim is conditional on the field being a significant fraction of the energy density, which is not the generic early-universe setting.

The paper is well organized, the literature coverage is fine, and the authors are clear that the conjectures are on uncertain footing. But the headline result needs to be qualified. The Q-ball existence argument is worth publishing; the oscillon implication should be either corrected (e.g., by specifying c/c' ≤ 5/6) or softened to consistency rather than implication. I would send this to a referee, but with a clear request to fix these two points before acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the generalized scalar weak gravity conjecture (GSWGC), Eq. (11), has a generic cosmological consequence: a scalar field described by V = (1/2)m^2 phi^2 - (A/3)phi^3 + (lambda/4)phi^4 that satisfies GSWGC cannot remain homogeneous; attractive self-interactions dominate and cause fragmentation into Q-balls (for a complex field) and oscillons (for a real field). It derives the GSWGC constraint, Eq. (13), and its limiting forms, Eqs. (14) and (15), and connects them with the Q-ball existence condition, Eq. (2), the Floquet/Hubble comparison, Eq. (4), and the oscillon effective-potential condition, Eq. (6). The paper then discusses consequences for dark matter, primordial black holes, Affleck-Dine baryogenesis, and gravitational waves.

Significance. If the central claim held as stated, the paper would establish a novel, model-independent link between quantum-gravity constraints and early-universe scalar dynamics, with potentially observable implications. The derivation from Eq. (11) to Eq. (13) is straightforward algebra, no parameters are fitted to force the result, and the Q-ball existence argument is robust for the polynomial potential. The paper also explicitly flags some limitations, including the f dependence in Eq. (4) and the running-mass example. However, the claimed implication from GSWGC to oscillon existence fails for the default constants c=c'=1, and the formation claim depends on an energy-fraction assumption that is not guaranteed by the spectator-field motivation. The result is therefore best viewed as a conditional and partial connection between swampland conjectures and soliton formation, rather than the unconditional theorem advertised in the abstract.

major comments (3)

[After Eq. (15)] The statement that 'From Eq. (6), this condition implies that oscillons exist' does not follow for the original SSWGC constants c=c'=1. Equation (15) gives lambda <= 4cA^2/(3c' m^2), whereas the oscillon condition Eq. (6) is lambda < 10A^2/(9m^2). Since 4/3 > 10/9, the GSWGC upper bound is weaker than the oscillon upper bound. Concretely, with m=1, A=1, lambda=6/5 and M_Pl >> m, Eq. (13) is satisfied (0.8 >= 1/M_Pl^2) and Eq. (15) is satisfied, but Eq. (6) is violated; by the paper's own criterion no oscillon exists at that allowed point. The implication would hold only for c/c' < 5/6, a condition that is not stated and is false for the c=c'=1 SSWGC case. The abstract and the concluding claim that GSWGC implies existence and formation of oscillons therefore overreach; either impose the coefficient condition explicitly or weaken the claim to a subset of the parameter space.
[Eq. (4) and spectator-field motivation] The formation claim relies on Eq. (4), which is derived under the assumption V(phi)=f rho_c with f not much smaller than one; the paper states this assumption after Eq. (4) but does not reconcile it with the spectator-field scenario introduced earlier, where the field energy density is initially U(<phi>) ~ H_I^4. At the epoch H ~ m relevant for fragmentation, f can be much smaller than O(1) depending on H_I/m; in that case the comparison becomes alpha_max/H ~ sqrt(f) A M_Pl/m^2, and the instability need not overcome expansion. Thus GSWGC alone does not establish formation of Q-balls or oscillons; it establishes formation only in the subset of parameter space where f is sufficiently close to unity. The authors should quantify the required minimum f (or the corresponding condition on H_I/m) and adjust the formation-related claims accordingly.
[Running-mass paragraph] The running-mass example is honest but exposes an additional qualification to the main claim: with V = (1/2)m^2 phi^2 (1 + k log(phi/M_Pl)) and k > 0, the GSWGC can be satisfied while no Q-ball exists, and the escape used in the text is that this potential has no stable vacuum at the origin. The final sentence then says that after modifying the potential near the origin to be of the form Eq. (1), GSWGC implies Q-ball existence. This is a reasonable resolution, but it means the headline statement 'GSWGC implies existence of Q-balls' holds only for potentials that are sufficiently close to the polynomial form Eq. (1) near the origin and that have a stable vacuum at phi=0; this qualification should appear where the claim is first made, not only in this final paragraph.

minor comments (3)

[Eq. (12)] The displayed inequality in Eq. (12) appears algebraically incorrect. Direct substitution of V''=m^2-2A phi+3 lambda phi^2, V'''=-2A+6 lambda phi, and V''''=6 lambda into Eq. (11) gives 8cA^2-6c' lambda m^2-(48c-12c')A lambda phi+(72c-18c')lambda^2 phi^2 on the left-hand side, not 8cA^2-6c'lambda m^2-12cA lambda phi+54c'lambda^2 phi^2. The reduction to Eq. (13) is unaffected, but the exact statement should be corrected.
[Around Eq. (6)] The sentence 'where their condition lambda>0 is identical to our Eq. (6)' is confusing, because Eq. (6) is an upper bound on lambda rather than the statement lambda>0. Please clarify which combination of parameters in the cited epsilon-expansion method corresponds to Eq. (6).
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption says that only the 'OK' region is consistent with GSWGC and that scalar field fragmentation is allowed in the same region; this should carry the caveats discussed in the major comments, namely the f dependence in Eq. (4) and the coefficient-ratio condition needed for the oscillon conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GSWGC is an external input, and the Q-ball/oscillon conclusions are ordinary implications from stated inequalities.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The generalized scalar weak gravity conjecture (GSWGC) is imported from external proposals (Palti, Gonzalo-Ibanez) and then parameterized with O(1) constants c,c'; it is not defined in terms of Q-balls or oscillons, and no parameter is fitted to the target phenomena. The Q-ball existence conclusion follows from the known Coleman criterion (Eq. 2) plus the fact that GSWGC forces A>0, which is a straightforward logical implication, not a restatement of the conjecture. The oscillon condition (Eq. 6) is taken from an independently derivable nonrelativistic effective Lagrangian, with the paper noting it can also be obtained by the epsilon-expansion method of Ref. [26]; the cited effective-Lagrangian work is not used as an exclusive uniqueness claim. The formation estimate (Eq. 4) is a previously established Floquet/instability result applied to the potential of Eq. (1), and the paper explicitly states the f <~ 1 assumption and limits the formation conclusion to regions of parameter space. The paper's own conclusion is conditional on the external conjecture, not on a self-citation chain. I note a separate correctness concern: the step from Eq. (15) to Eq. (6) is numerically invalid for the standard c=c'=1 case, since 4/3 is weaker than the oscillon bound 10/9; however, that is a logical overreach in an inequality comparison, not a circular reduction of the kind defined by the analysis instructions. Self-citations in the paper (e.g., Refs. [13,15,21,25,55]) support standard prior results and are not load-bearing in a way that makes the argument reduce to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the scalar weak gravity conjecture (an unproven domain assumption), the specific cubic-quartic potential form, the standard Floquet/Q-ball results from prior literature, the spectator-field initial condition, and the approximation A*phi, lambda*phi^2 <~ m^2. The free parameters c, c' and f are introduced by hand but not fitted; the conclusions are intended to be robust to O(1) variations.

free parameters (2)

c, c' = O(1) positive constants, unspecified
Generalized SWGC coefficients in Eq. (11); the paper claims conclusions are insensitive to O(1) values, so they are not fitted to data but are input assumptions of the conjecture.
f = assumed <~ 1 (not much smaller than one)
Energy-density fraction of the scalar field in Eq. (4); the derivation of the instability condition depends on this assumption; not fitted, but a modeling choice.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption GSWGC inequality (2c(V''')^2 - c' V'' V'''' >= (V'')^2/M_Pl^2) holds for the scalar field
The paper's central result is conditional on this conjecture; the paper notes evidence is sparse and it may hold only in part of the landscape. Invoked in Eqs. (12)-(15).
domain assumption The scalar potential is of the form V = 1/2 m^2 phi^2 - A/3 phi^3 + lambda/4 phi^4 with a stable vacuum at phi=0 (A^2 < 9*lambda*m^2/2)
Used to evaluate the SWGC derivatives and the Q-ball/oscillon conditions; motivated by MSSM flat directions. Introduced in Eq. (1).
standard math Scalar field fluctuations grow according to the Floquet exponent of Eq. (3) and fragment into Q-balls/oscillons when alpha_max > H
Taken from previous literature (Kusenko-Shaposhnikov, Coleman, etc.); the paper does not re-derive these results.
domain assumption A light spectator scalar acquires a non-zero VEV during inflation with U(<phi>) ~ H_I^4
Standard inflationary dynamics cited to Refs [9-12]; sets the initial condition for the fragmentation analysis.
ad hoc to paper The approximation A*phi, lambda*phi^2 <~ m^2 in reducing Eq. (12) to Eq. (13)
Needed to simplify the GSWGC inequality to a three-term form; the paper claims this is valid to O(1) uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fundamental Forces and Scalar Field Dynamics in the Early Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/47KJD7VH

@misc{pith2026190810930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fundamental Forces and Scalar Field Dynamics in the Early Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/47KJD7VH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10930}
}

read the original abstract

Scalar weak gravity conjectures (SWGCs) attempt to pinpoint the ranges of couplings consistent with a fundamental theory of all interactions. We identify a generic dynamical consequence of these conjectures for cosmology and show that SWGCs imply a particular behavior of the scalar fields in the early universe. A scalar field that develops a large expectation value during inflation must relax to the minimum of effective potential at a later time. SWGCs imply that a homogeneous distribution of the field is unstable with respect to fragmentation into localized lumps, which could potentially lead to significant consequences for cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10930 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

In this case, Q-balls exist for any charge Q

In the following analysis, we assume A2 < 9λm2/2 so that φ= 0 is the global minimum. In this case, Q-balls exist for any charge Q. In the false vacuum there is a maximal charge beyond which the Q-ball expands and causes a phase transition [21]. The condition of Eq. (2) can be generalized to the case of multiple ﬁelds [15]. Instability of a homogeneous sol...

work page
[2]

gauge WGC

The dispersion relations [15, 22] imply that the fastest growing mode for the potential ((1)) has the Floquet ex- ponent αmax = φ(A−2λφ) 4 √ m2−Aφ+λφ2 . (3) Assuming the energy density in the φﬁeld is smaller but not signiﬁcantly less than the critical density, V (φ) = fρc, where f < 1, the Hubble parameter is H ∼ 3 mφ/√6fMPl. The instability has time to ...

work page
[3]

Vafa, (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0509212 [hep-th]

C. Vafa, (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0509212 [hep-th]

arXiv 2005
[4]

Ooguri and C

H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B766, 21 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0605264 [hep-th]

arXiv 2007
[5]

T. D. Brennan, F. Carta, and C. Vafa, (2017), arXiv:1711.00864 [hep-th]

arXiv 2017
[6]

Palti (2019) arXiv:1903.06239 [hep-th]

E. Palti (2019) arXiv:1903.06239 [hep-th]

arXiv 2019
[7]

From Swampland to Phenomenology and Back

M. Yamazaki (2019) arXiv:1904.05357 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[8]

Arkani-Hamed, L

N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, JHEP 06, 060 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0601001 [hep-th]

arXiv 2007

Show all 66 references

[9]

Palti, JHEP 08, 034 (2017), arXiv:1705.04328 [hep- th]

E. Palti, JHEP 08, 034 (2017), arXiv:1705.04328 [hep- th]

2017 arXiv
[10]

Gonzalo and L

E. Gonzalo and L. E. Ibanez, (2019), arXiv:1903.08878 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[11]

T. S. Bunch and P. C. W. Davies, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A360, 117 (1978)

1978
[12]

A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. 116B, 335 (1982)

1982
[13]

Lee and E

K.-M. Lee and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D36, 1088 (1987)

1987
[14]

A. A. Starobinsky and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D50, 6357 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9407016 [astro-ph]

1994 arXiv
[15]

Dine and A

M. Dine and A. Kusenko, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303065 [hep-ph]

2003 arXiv
[16]

Cotner, A

E. Cotner, A. Kusenko, M. Sasaki, and V. Takhistov, (2019), arXiv:1907.10613 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[17]

Kusenko and M

A. Kusenko and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B418, 46 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709492 [hep-ph]

1998 arXiv
[18]

A. H. Guth, M. P. Hertzberg, and C. Prescod-Weinstein, Phys. Rev. D92, 103513 (2015), arXiv:1412.5930 [astro- ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[19]

S. R. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B262, 263 (1985), [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B269,744(1986)]

1985
[20]

M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D28, 1243 (1983)

1983
[21]

McDonald, Phys

J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D48, 2573 (1993), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D49,3066(1994)]

1993
[22]

Enqvist and J

K. Enqvist and J. McDonald, Phys. Lett. B425, 309 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711514 [hep-ph]

1998 arXiv
[23]

Kusenko, Phys

A. Kusenko, Phys. Lett. B406, 26 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9705361 [hep-ph]

1997
[24]

Doddato and J

F. Doddato and J. McDonald, JCAP 1106, 008 (2011), arXiv:1101.5328 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[25]

Kasuya and M

S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D62, 023512 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0002285 [hep-ph]

2000 arXiv
[26]

Multamaki and I

T. Multamaki and I. Vilja, Phys. Lett. B535, 170 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0203195 [hep-ph]

2002 arXiv
[27]

Mukaida, M

K. Mukaida, M. Takimoto, and M. Yamada, JHEP 03, 122 (2017), arXiv:1612.07750 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[28]

Fodor, P

G. Fodor, P. Forgacs, Z. Horvath, and A. Lukacs, Phys. Rev. D78, 025003 (2008), arXiv:0802.3525 [hep-th]

2008 arXiv
[29]

M. A. Amin, (2010), arXiv:1006.3075 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[30]

Cheung and G

C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, JHEP 12, 087 (2014), arXiv:1407.7865 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[31]

Harlow, JHEP 01, 122 (2016), arXiv:1510.07911 [hep- th]

D. Harlow, JHEP 01, 122 (2016), arXiv:1510.07911 [hep- th]

2016 arXiv
[32]

G. Shiu, P. Soler, and W. Cottrell, (2016), arXiv:1611.06270 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[33]

Hod, Int

S. Hod, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D26, 1742004 (2017), arXiv:1705.06287 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[34]

Fisher and C

Z. Fisher and C. J. Mogni, (2017), arXiv:1706.08257 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[35]

Crisford, G

T. Crisford, G. T. Horowitz, and J. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. D97, 066005 (2018), arXiv:1709.07880 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[36]

Cheung, J

C. Cheung, J. Liu, and G. N. Remmen, JHEP 10, 004 (2018), arXiv:1801.08546 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[37]

Hamada, T

Y. Hamada, T. Noumi, and G. Shiu, (2018), arXiv:1810.03637 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[38]

Urbano, (2018), arXiv:1810.05621 [hep-th]

A. Urbano, (2018), arXiv:1810.05621 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[39]

Bellazzini, M

B. Bellazzini, M. Lewandowski, and J. Serra, (2019), arXiv:1902.03250 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[40]

Lust and E

D. Lust and E. Palti, JHEP 02, 040 (2018), arXiv:1709.01790 [hep-th]. 6

2018 arXiv
[41]

S.-J. Lee, W. Lerche, and T. Weigand, Nucl. Phys. B938, 321 (2019), arXiv:1810.05169 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[42]

Heidenreich, M

B. Heidenreich, M. Reece, and T. Rudelius, (2019), arXiv:1906.02206 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[43]

K.-M. Lee, J. A. Stein-Schabes, R. Watkins, and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D39, 1665 (1989)

1989
[44]

Shirai and M

S. Shirai and M. Yamazaki, (2019), arXiv:1904.10577 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[45]

Obied, H

G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko, and C. Vafa, (2018), arXiv:1806.08362 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[46]

Dvali and C

G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Fortsch. Phys. 67, 1800092 (2019), arXiv:1806.10877 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[47]

Andriot, Phys

D. Andriot, Phys. Lett. B785, 570 (2018), arXiv:1806.10999 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[48]

S. K. Garg and C. Krishnan, (2018), arXiv:1807.05193 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[49]

Murayama, M

H. Murayama, M. Yamazaki, and T. T. Yanagida, JHEP 12, 032 (2018), arXiv:1809.00478 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[50]

Ooguri, E

H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu, and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B788, 180 (2019), arXiv:1810.05506 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[51]

S. K. Garg, C. Krishnan, and M. Zaid Zaz, JHEP 03, 029 (2019), arXiv:1810.09406 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Andriot and C

D. Andriot and C. Roupec, Fortsch. Phys. 67, 1800105 (2019), arXiv:1811.08889 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[53]

Bertotti, L

B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora, Nature 425, 374 (2003)

2003
[54]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 9, 3 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0510072 [gr-qc]

2006
[55]

A. D. Linde, Nucl. Phys. B216, 421 (1983), [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B223,544(1983)]

1983
[56]

Brezin and G

E. Brezin and G. Parisi, Journal of Statistical Physics 19, 269 (1978)

1978
[57]

Kusenko, Phys

A. Kusenko, Phys. Lett. B404, 285 (1997), arXiv:hep- th/9704073 [hep-th]

1997
[58]

Kasuya and M

S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2677 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0006128 [hep-ph]

2000 arXiv
[59]

Cotner and A

E. Cotner and A. Kusenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 031103 (2017), arXiv:1612.02529 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[60]

Cotner and A

E. Cotner and A. Kusenko, Phys. Rev. D96, 103002 (2017), arXiv:1706.09003 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[61]

Cotner, A

E. Cotner, A. Kusenko, and V. Takhistov, Phys. Rev. D98, 083513 (2018), arXiv:1801.03321 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[62]

Kawasaki and V

M. Kawasaki and V. Takhistov, Phys. Rev. D98, 123514 (2018), arXiv:1810.02547 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[63]

Aﬄeck and M

I. Aﬄeck and M. Dine, Nucl. Phys. B249, 361 (1985)

1985
[64]

Kusenko and A

A. Kusenko and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 211301 (2008), arXiv:0807.4554 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[65]

Kusenko, A

A. Kusenko, A. Mazumdar, and T. Multamaki, Phys. Rev. D79, 124034 (2009), arXiv:0902.2197 [astro- ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[66]

Antusch, F

S. Antusch, F. Cefala, and S. Orani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 011303 (2017), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.120,no.21,219901(2018)], arXiv:1607.01314 [astro- ph.CO]

2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In this case, Q-balls exist for any charge Q

In the following analysis, we assume A2 < 9λm2/2 so that φ= 0 is the global minimum. In this case, Q-balls exist for any charge Q. In the false vacuum there is a maximal charge beyond which the Q-ball expands and causes a phase transition [21]. The condition of Eq. (2) can be generalized to the case of multiple ﬁelds [15]. Instability of a homogeneous sol...

work page

[2] [2]

gauge WGC

The dispersion relations [15, 22] imply that the fastest growing mode for the potential ((1)) has the Floquet ex- ponent αmax = φ(A−2λφ) 4 √ m2−Aφ+λφ2 . (3) Assuming the energy density in the φﬁeld is smaller but not signiﬁcantly less than the critical density, V (φ) = fρc, where f < 1, the Hubble parameter is H ∼ 3 mφ/√6fMPl. The instability has time to ...

work page

[3] [3]

Vafa, (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0509212 [hep-th]

C. Vafa, (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0509212 [hep-th]

arXiv 2005

[4] [4]

Ooguri and C

H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B766, 21 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0605264 [hep-th]

arXiv 2007

[5] [5]

T. D. Brennan, F. Carta, and C. Vafa, (2017), arXiv:1711.00864 [hep-th]

arXiv 2017

[6] [6]

Palti (2019) arXiv:1903.06239 [hep-th]

E. Palti (2019) arXiv:1903.06239 [hep-th]

arXiv 2019

[7] [7]

From Swampland to Phenomenology and Back

M. Yamazaki (2019) arXiv:1904.05357 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

Arkani-Hamed, L

N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, JHEP 06, 060 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0601001 [hep-th]

arXiv 2007