Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Instability of regular black holes in non-minimally coupled scalar field theories: an analytical approach

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives closed-form critical coupling constants beyond which regular black holes become unstable under non-minimal scalar-field perturbations, identifying the threshold with an extremum of the near-horizon effective potential loca

desk verdict Useful analytic formulas for instability thresholds in regular black holes, but the central threshold criterion is asserted rather than proven, and the QNM/area-quantization section contains a factor-of-two error. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19755 v1 pith:4OAL2KH7 submitted 2026-07-22 gr-qc

Majid Karimabadi , Davood Mahdavian Yekta , S. A. Alavi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords regularblackholesnon-minimalscalar-tensorcouplingtachyonicinstabilityRegge-Wheelerequationnear-horizonapproximationquasinormalmodesareaquantizationcriticalconstant
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 tries to establish that regularity does not protect black holes from instability once a scalar field is allowed to couple to the spacetime curvature. The authors study four families of regular black holes — non-commutative Schwarzschild, Bardeen, Hayward, and ABG — under two non-minimal couplings: the field coupled directly to the Ricci scalar, and its derivatives coupled to the Einstein tensor. They derive closed-form expressions for the critical coupling at which the black hole becomes unstable, essentially by demanding that the effective potential of the Regge-Wheeler equation have an extremum exactly at the horizon. If the derivation holds, the threshold is computable from horizon data alone: horizon radius, surface gravity, and the second derivative of the metric function. At the threshold, the quasinormal ringing gives way to a purely imaginary mode, and the area spectrum A = 8πn follows without the usual highly-damped approximation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the near-horizon expansion of the effective potential in the Regge-Wheeler equation for a static spherically symmetric metric with f(r_h) = 0. Writing f(r) ≈ 2κ x + (1/2) f''(r_h) x² with x = r − r_h, and expanding the potential as V(x) ≈ a x² + b x, the paper identifies the instability threshold with b = 0, i.e. V'(r_h) = 0. Solving b = 0 for the coupling ζ gives the critical values. In the Ricci-coupled model this is a direct equation; in the Einstein-tensor-coupled model the coefficients a and b themselves come from the near-horizon expansion of the more complicated kinetic coupling, which is an additional approximation the paper notes.

What would settle it

For the NC Schwarzschild tensor model with θ = 0.2, ℓ = 2, μ = 0.5, the paper predicts ζ_c = 5.673. Numerically integrate the exact Regge-Wheeler equation for ζ = 5.6 (just below) and search for a negative well outside r_h or late-time growth in the time-domain profile; finding either would contradict the claim that the threshold sits exactly at b = 0. Alternatively, check directly whether the exact first derivative V'(r_h) vanishes at the predicted ζ_c for the tensor model using the full potential, not the near-horizon approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the critical value of the non-minimal coupling, the near-horizon effective potential of the Regge-Wheeler equation, V(x) ≈ a x² + b x, has its extremum exactly at the event horizon; the condition is b = 0. For the Ricci-coupled scalar model this condition is exact and yields ζ_c(Ricci) = [r_h² μ² + 2 r_h κ + ℓ(ℓ+1)] / [r_h² f''(r_h) + 8 r_h κ − 2]. For the Einstein-tensor-coupled model, after a near-horizon expansion, it yields ζ_c(Einstein) = 2 r_h [r_h(r_h μ² + 2κ) + ℓ(ℓ+1)] / [(2 r_h κ + ℓ(ℓ+1))(r_h f''(r_h) + 4κ)]. At this threshold the perturbations neither ring nor decay — the late-time tail is a straight line — and the real part of the near-horizon quasi-normal frequency vanishes,

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, asserted and supported by one plotted numerical example rather than proved, is that the onset of instability is exactly the condition b = 0, i.e. an extremum of the near-horizon effective potential located on the horizon; if a negative potential well could already exist for smaller coupling without touching the horizon, the derived critical values would be wrong, and the tensor-model formula further inherits the near-horizon approximation the paper i

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any spherically symmetric black hole whose metric function has a Taylor expansion near the horizon, Eqs. (3.8) and (3.9) give a direct algebraic prediction of the coupling at which scalar perturbations become unstable, without solving the full perturbation equations.
  • In the Schwarzschild limit both formulas diverge, recovering the known linear stability of Schwarzschild against these scalar perturbations for any finite coupling.
  • In the tensor model, the critical coupling becomes independent of the multipole ℓ in both the massless (μ = 0) and eikonal (ℓ → ∞) limits, while in the Ricci model ℓ → ∞ removes the instability entirely; these are testable predictions.
  • At ζ = ζ_c the near-horizon QNM frequencies become purely imaginary, so the onset of instability is accompanied by a mode that neither oscillates nor decays.
  • The spacing of near-horizon QNM frequencies at criticality is Δω = κ = 2πT_H, reproducing the area spectrum A = 8πn without invoking highly damped modes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Because the two closed-form formulas depend only on r_h, κ, f''(r_h), μ, and ℓ, they should be directly testable against full numerical integration of the Regge-Wheeler equation for any metric in the same class, including the singular Reissner-Nordström geometry; the paper does not carry out that check.
  • Inference: The paper's b = 0 criterion, if true, implies a geometric picture of the onset of instability: the negative well is born exactly on the horizon and then migrates outward; this could be checked by tracking the location of the minimum of V(r) as ζ is swept through ζ_c for all four families.
  • Inference: The area-quantization result at ζ_c suggests that critical coupling could serve as a proxy for highly damped modes in other contexts, such as computing grey-body factors or entropy spectra, though the authors do not explore those.
  • Inference: A gap in the argument is that absence of instability for ζ < ζ_c is not proven analytically; a full proof would need to show the exact potential has no negative well outside the horizon whenever ζ is below the b = 0 value.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyses linear scalar perturbations of spherically symmetric regular black holes (non-commutative Schwarzschild and Bardeen/Hayward/ABG) in two non-minimally coupled models: Ricci coupling and Einstein-tensor coupling. Expanding the metric near the horizon as f ≈ 2κx + ..., the effective potential is approximated by V(x) ≈ a x² + b x. The instability threshold is identified with V'(r_h) = 0, which yields closed-form critical couplings, Eqs. (3.8) and (3.9). The authors further derive near-horizon QNM frequencies, argue that at the critical coupling the modes become purely imaginary, and use the spacing of these modes to reproduce an equidistant area spectrum A = 8πn without the highly-damped approximation. Numerical verification is based on time-domain profiles reported in the authors' earlier work.

Significance. If correct, Eqs. (3.8)-(3.9) would be remarkably simple horizon-data formulas for the onset of instability, with no fitted parameters. The paper performs several sensible consistency checks (Schwarzschild limit, eikonal limits, mass dependence) and the qualitative trends in ℓ, θ, q match the authors' earlier numerics. The derivation of the threshold, however, rests on an unproved equivalence between V'(r_h) = 0 and the appearance of an unstable mode, and the QNM section contains a factor-of-two algebraic error. The manuscript is therefore a promising but incomplete treatment; its main claims need additional spectral justification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.3)] The identification of the instability threshold with b = 0 is the load-bearing step, but it is not proved. b = 0 is only the condition that the near-horizon effective potential has an extremum at the horizon. For a Schrödinger operator with potential a x² + b x (or any generic potential with a negative well), the onset of a zero-energy bound state is controlled by the lowest eigenvalue crossing zero, which generally occurs at a finite negative b, not at b = 0. The evidence offered, Fig. 1 for a single NC-Schwarzschild configuration and a sentence that other plots behave similarly, is heuristic. Please prove the equivalence or provide a controlled numerical test (e.g., compute the fundamental QNM frequency as a function of ζ and show that Im ω → 0 exactly at b = 0), or Eqs. (3.8)-(3.9) remain unjustified.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.14)] The Gamma-pole algebra is incorrect. Solving the displayed condition gives ω = -b/(2√-a) - iκ(2n+1), not ω = -b/(2√-a) - iκ(n+1/2). Consequently the spacing of near-horizon modes is Δω = 2κ rather than κ, so the area quantization in Sec. 3.3 becomes A = 4πn, not A = 8πn. The qualitative result Re ω = 0 at b = 0 survives, but Eq. (3.17), the area-spectrum claim, and the comparison with the highly-damped literature must be revised.
  3. [Abstract, Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3.8)-(3.9)] The abstract describes Eqs. (3.8) and (3.9) as 'exact expressions', but the text states that the near-horizon recipe gives the exact result only for the scalar model and that the tensor case requires the near-horizon expansion. Eq. (3.9) is therefore approximate, and no error estimate is given. Please either limit the exactness claim to the scalar-model formula or quantify the accuracy of Eq. (3.9) by comparing with higher-order terms or with direct numerical solution of the full potential.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1] The term 'the so-called RGB' should be 'RBH'.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, footnote 1] The d-dimensional redefinition A = ψ/r^{(d-2)/2} is stated only for the Ricci-coupled model; clarify whether the tensor-model reduction in Sec. 2.2 has an analogous form.
  3. [Eqs. (3.12)-(3.13)] The generalized Laguerre function notation is incomplete (missing script L) and parentheses are unbalanced; please rewrite these equations for readability.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] 'Comparying' should be 'Comparing'.
  5. [Sec. 3.3] 'General area quantization' overstates the result; the derivation applies to the near-horizon sector of spherically symmetric backgrounds and should be phrased accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the critical-coupling formulas follow from the stated near-horizon condition b=0, and the threshold identification is an external numerical premise, not a fitted input or self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The paper starts from the full effective potentials (2.6) and (2.11), expands f(r) near the horizon as f(x)=2κx+..., substitutes into those potentials to obtain the near-horizon form V(x)≈ax²+bx with the explicit coefficients (3.4)-(3.7), and then imposes V'(0)=0, i.e. b=0, to solve for ζ_c in Eqs. (3.8) and (3.9). No constant in these formulas is fitted to instability data; the formulas are algebraic solutions of a stated horizon-locality condition. The identification of b=0 with the onset of tachyonic instability is an assumption supported by the authors' earlier numerical time-domain work [31,32] and by the plotted example in Fig. 1, but that is an evidential/conjectural link rather than a circular definition: the instability threshold is not inserted into the derivation, and the derivation does not presuppose the value of ζ_c. The purely imaginary mode result follows from the derived formula ω=-b/(2√-a)-iκ(n+1/2) evaluated at b=0, and the area-quantization result follows from Δω=κ; both are consequences, not inputs. The self-citations [31,32] provide prior numerical support and do not constitute a load-bearing self-citation chain, since the analytic expressions would stand or fall on the independent numerical check of the threshold criterion. Any deficiency in the threshold criterion is a correctness risk, not circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; μ, ℓ, θ, q, and M are model inputs. The load-bearing assumptions are the horizon-extremum threshold criterion and the correctness of the tensor-model effective potential. No new particles or entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Test-field approximation: the non-minimally coupled scalar field does not backreact on the RBH background.
    The actions (2.1) and (2.7) are solved on fixed black-hole metrics; no backreaction or self-consistency condition is imposed.
  • ad hoc to paper The instability threshold coincides with an extremum of the effective potential located exactly on the event horizon.
    This is the central identification used to set b=0 in Eq. (3.3). It is supported by one numerical example but not proven as an exact condition for all cases.
  • domain assumption The near-horizon expansion f(x) = 2κx + (1/2)f''(r_h)x² + ... is sufficient to determine the threshold.
    Used in Eq. (3.2) for all RBH; assumes the leading terms capture the relevant instability dynamics.
  • domain assumption The Regge-Wheeler effective potentials (2.6) and (2.11) are correct reductions of the scalar field equations.
    Long calculations are omitted, especially for the tensor model, so the reader must accept the potential and auxiliary functions as correct.
  • domain assumption Maggiore's quantization relation Δω = |ω_I|_n - |ω_I|_{n-1} applies to the near-horizon modes.
    Used in Sec. 3.3 to convert the QNM imaginary spacing into an area spectrum; this is an external result being imported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Instability of regular black holes in non-minimally coupled scalar field theories: an analytical approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4OAL2KH7

@misc{pith2026260719755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Instability of regular black holes in non-minimally coupled scalar field theories: an analytical approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4OAL2KH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19755}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we show that the robustness of black hole stability is not preserved when the perturbations are disposed on some critical values of the coupling constant in two non-minimally coupled scalar-tensor models, in particular for a number of regular black holes. Using an analytical demonstration in the near-horizon approximation, we obtain exact expressions for the critical coupling constant in two models for which the instability will occur. The numerical analysis show that these critical values are consistent with the threshold points in time-domain profiles of field perturbations. At that threshold value, the effective potential of the Regge-Wheeler equation exhibits an extremum exactly on the location of event horizon. We also show that the real part of the quasi-normal frequencies vanish in the near-horizon regime at critical coupling constant -- recently addressed as purely imaginary modes. Finally, we recover the general area quantization of the spherical black holes at that critical coupling without invoking to highly-damped mode approximation and the result is independent of a specific coupling model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19755 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effective potentials and ringdown profiles for NC Schwarzschild black holes in tensor model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effective potentials of NC black holes in two models for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Behavior of ζc for NC Schwarzschild black hole vs. ℓ when θ = 0.2 and µ = 0.8. Ricci coupled Einstein Tensor coupled 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 5 10 50 100 500 1000 5000 θ ζc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparying the critical couplings of two schemes vs. NC parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Behavior of ζc for RBH in NLED vs. ℓ when q = 0.45 and µ = 0.8. Since RBH of NLED are charged solutions, it is also of interest to determine the changes of ζc versus q. We have carried out this consideration in the tensor coupled model in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing ζc of RBH in NLED vs. q in Einstein coupled model when ℓ = 2 and µ = 0.8. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ζc vs. q for Bardeen RBH in both coupling models when ℓ = 2 and µ = 0.8. 3.2 Near-horizon QNM In general, QNM can be classified into three distinct categories: the modes near the event horizon of black hole, ones near the cosmological horizon and all-region modes [46].…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], “Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no.6, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 22-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence,

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], “GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 22-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no.24, 241103 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,

    K. Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration], “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,” Astrophys. J.875, no. 1, L1 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes,

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso and A. O. Starinets, “Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes,” Class. Quant. Grav.26, 163001 (2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

    Quasinormal modes of black holes: From astrophysics to string theory,

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, “Quasinormal modes of black holes: From astrophysics to string theory,” Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 793-836 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    Occurrence of singularities in open universes,

    S. Hawking, “Occurrence of singularities in open universes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.15, 689-690 (1965)

    1965

  7. [7]

    Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities,

    R. Penrose, “Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities,” Phys. Rev. Lett.14, 57-59 (1965)

    1965

  8. [8]

    J. M. Bardeen, in Proceedings of GR5, Tbilisi, USSR, 1968 (unpublished), p. 174

    1968

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Open and closed universes, initial singularities and inflation,

    A. Borde, “Open and closed universes, initial singularities and inflation,” Phys. Rev. D50, 3692-3702 (1994)

    1994

  2. [10]

    Regular black holes and topology change,

    A. Borde, “Regular black holes and topology change,” Phys. Rev. D55, 7615-7617 (1997). 15

    1997

  3. [11]

    Regular black hole in general relativity coupled to nonlinear elec- trodynamics,

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, “Regular black hole in general relativity coupled to nonlinear elec- trodynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5056 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    Nonsingular charged black hole solution for nonlinear source,

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, “Nonsingular charged black hole solution for nonlinear source,” Gen. Rel. Grav.31, 629 (1999)

    1999

  5. [13]

    The Bardeen model as a nonlinear magnetic monopole,

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, “The Bardeen model as a nonlinear magnetic monopole,” Phys. Lett. B493, 149 (2000)

    2000

  6. [14]

    Comment on ‘Regular black hole in general relativity coupled to nonlinear elec- trodynamics’,

    K. A. Bronnikov, “Comment on ‘Regular black hole in general relativity coupled to nonlinear elec- trodynamics’,” Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4641 (2000)

    2000

  7. [15]

    Regular electrically charged structures in nonlinear electrodynamics coupled to gen- eral relativity,

    I. Dymnikova, “Regular electrically charged structures in nonlinear electrodynamics coupled to gen- eral relativity,” Class. Quant. Grav.21, 4417 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    Formation and evaporation of regular black holes,

    S. A. Hayward, “Formation and evaporation of regular black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 031103 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Noncommutative geometry inspired Schwarzschild black hole,

    P. Nicolini, A. Smailagic and E. Spallucci, “Noncommutative geometry inspired Schwarzschild black hole,” Phys. Lett. B632, 547 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Noncommutative geometry inspired charged black holes,

    S. Ansoldi, P. Nicolini, A. Smailagic and E. Spallucci, “Noncommutative geometry inspired charged black holes,” Phys. Lett. B645, 261 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    Noncommutative Black Holes, The Final Appeal To Quantum Gravity: A Review,

    P. Nicolini, “Noncommutative Black Holes, The Final Appeal To Quantum Gravity: A Review,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 1229 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Real Part Emergence in Purely Imaginary Quasi- normal Modes in Perturbed de Sitter Braneworlds,

    H. L. Jia, W. D. Guo, Y. T. Gu and Y. X. Liu, “Real Part Emergence in Purely Imaginary Quasi- normal Modes in Perturbed de Sitter Braneworlds,” [arXiv:2606.04424 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Near-Horizon Deformation of Metric and the Black Hole Instability,

    S. J. Ma, Z. F. Mai and R. Q. Yang, “Near-Horizon Deformation of Metric and the Black Hole Instability,” [arXiv:2606.02066 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    When the Ringing Stops: Purely Imaginary Modes in the Ringdown Spectrum of Dynamical Black Holes,

    L. Capuano, T. Lovo, G. Prieto-Varela, S. Sarkar, A. Kuntz, E. Barausse and D. Kothawala, “When the Ringing Stops: Purely Imaginary Modes in the Ringdown Spectrum of Dynamical Black Holes,” [arXiv:2605.28951 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Extending Phenomenological Crystal-Field Methods toC 1 Point-Group Symmetry: Characteriza- tion of the Optically-Excited Hyperfine Structure of 167Er3+:Y2SiO5,

    S. P. Horvath, J. V. Rakonjac, Y. H. Chen, J. J. Longdell, P. Goldner, J. P. R. Wells and M. F. Reid, “Extending Phenomenological Crystal-Field Methods toC 1 Point-Group Symmetry: Characteriza- tion of the Optically-Excited Hyperfine Structure of 167Er3+:Y2SiO5,” Phys. Rev. Le...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Scaling and Universality in Extremal Black Hole Perturbations,

    S. E. Gralla and P. Zimmerman, “Scaling and Universality in Extremal Black Hole Perturbations,” JHEP06, 061 (2018). 16

    2018

  17. [25]

    Holography of the photon ring,

    S. Hadar, D. Kapec, A. Lupsasca and A. Strominger, “Holography of the photon ring,” Class. Quant. Grav.39, no.21, 215001 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Near Horizon Geometries and Black Hole Holograph,

    J. Lewandowski, I. Racz and A. Szereszewski, “Near Horizon Geometries and Black Hole Holograph,” Phys. Rev. D96, no.4, 044001 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Brick wall in an AdS-Schwarzschild black hole: Normal modes and emerging thermality,

    S. Das, S. Porey and B. Roy, “Brick wall in an AdS-Schwarzschild black hole: Normal modes and emerging thermality,” Phys. Rev. D112, no.10, 106013 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Feynman path integral on the noncommutative plane,

    A. Smailagic and E. Spallucci, “Feynman path integral on the noncommutative plane,” J. Phys. A 36, L467 (2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    Non-commutative effects on gravitational measure- ments,

    M. Karimabadi, S. A. Alavi and D. M. Yekta, “Non-commutative effects on gravitational measure- ments,” Class. Quant. Grav.37, no.8, 8 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Gravitational Measurements in Higher Dimensions,

    D. M. Yekta, S. A. Alavi and M. Karimabadi, “Gravitational Measurements in Higher Dimensions,” Galaxies9, no.1, 4 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Quasinormal modes for non-minimally coupled scalar fields in regular black hole spacetimes: Grey-body factors, area spectrum and shadow radius,

    D. Mahdavian Yekta, M. Karimabadi and S. A. Alavi, “Quasinormal modes for non-minimally coupled scalar fields in regular black hole spacetimes: Grey-body factors, area spectrum and shadow radius,” Annals Phys.434, 168603 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Scalar field perturbations in Non-commutative Schwarzschild spacetime: Comparative analysis and Upper bound on non-commutativity,

    M. Karimabadi, D. M. Yekta and S. A. Alavi, “Scalar field perturbations in Non-commutative Schwarzschild spacetime: Comparative analysis and Upper bound on non-commutativity,” [arXiv:2508.13820 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Introductory Notes on Non-linear Electrodynamics and its Applications,

    D. P. Sorokin, “Introductory Notes on Non-linear Electrodynamics and its Applications,” Fortsch. Phys.70, no.7-8, 2200092 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,

    G. W. Horndeski, “Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.10, 363-384 (1974)

    1974

  27. [35]

    Late time behavior of stellar collapse and explosions: 2. Nonlinear evolution,

    C. Gundlach, R. H. Price and J. Pullin, “Late time behavior of stellar collapse and explosions: 2. Nonlinear evolution,” Phys. Rev. D49, 890-899 (1994)

    1994

  28. [36]

    Quasinormal modes of test fields around regular black holes,

    B. Toshmatov, A. Abdujabbarov, Z. Stuchl ´ ık and B. Ahmedov, “Quasinormal modes of test fields around regular black holes,” Phys. Rev. D91, no. 8, 083008 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Modified Gravity and Cosmology,

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis, “Modified Gravity and Cosmology,” Phys. Rept.513, 1-189 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Stability of a Schwarzschild singularity,

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, “Stability of a Schwarzschild singularity,” Phys. Rev.108, 1063 (1957). 17

    1957

  31. [39]

    Exact cosmological solutions with nonminimal derivative coupling,

    S. V. Sushkov, “Exact cosmological solutions with nonminimal derivative coupling,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 103505 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Note on the stability of the Schwarzschild metric,

    R. M. Wald, “Note on the stability of the Schwarzschild metric,” J. Math. Phys.20(1979) no.6, 1056

    1979

  33. [41]

    The linear stability of the Schwarzschild solution to gravitational perturbations,

    M. Dafermos, G. Holzegel and I. Rodnianski, “The linear stability of the Schwarzschild solution to gravitational perturbations,” Acta Mat.222(2019) no.1, 1-214

    2019

  34. [42]

    Quasinormal modes of scalar field coupled to Einstein’s tensor in the non-commutative geometry inspired black hole,

    Z. Yan, C. Wu and W. Guo, “Quasinormal modes of scalar field coupled to Einstein’s tensor in the non-commutative geometry inspired black hole,” Nucl. Phys. B973(2021), 115595

    2021

  35. [43]

    Shadows and quasinormal modes of a charged non- commutative black hole by different methods,

    Z. Yan, X. Zhang, M. Wan and C. Wu, “Shadows and quasinormal modes of a charged non- commutative black hole by different methods,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus138(2023) no.5, 377

    2023

  36. [44]

    Massive nonminimally coupled scalar field in Reissner- Nordstr¨ om spacetime: Long-lived quasinormal modes and instability,

    R. A. Konoplya, Z. Stuchl ´ ık and A. Zhidenko, “Massive nonminimally coupled scalar field in Reissner- Nordstr¨ om spacetime: Long-lived quasinormal modes and instability,” Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.10, 104033

    2018

  37. [45]

    (In)stability of D-dimensional black holes in Gauss-Bonnet the- ory,

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, “(In)stability of D-dimensional black holes in Gauss-Bonnet the- ory,” Phys. Rev. D77(2008), 104004

    2008

  38. [46]

    Charged scalar perturbations on charged black holes in de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley massive gravity,

    P. Burikham, S. Ponglertsakul and L. Tannukij, “Charged scalar perturbations on charged black holes in de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley massive gravity,” Phys. Rev. D96, no.12, 124001 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    The quantum mass spectrum of the Kerr black hole,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “The quantum mass spectrum of the Kerr black hole,” Lett. Nuovo Cim.11, 467 (1974)

    1974

  40. [48]

    Spectroscopy of the quantum black hole,

    J. D. Bekenstein and V. F. Mukhanov, “Spectroscopy of the quantum black hole,” Phys. Lett. B 360, 7-12 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    Bohr’s correspondence principle and the area spectrum of quantum black holes,

    S. Hod, “Bohr’s correspondence principle and the area spectrum of quantum black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 4293 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    d-dimensional black hole entropy spectrum from quasinormal modes,

    G. Kunstatter, “d-dimensional black hole entropy spectrum from quasinormal modes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 161301 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    Quasinormal modes, the area spectrum, and black hole entropy,

    O. Dreyer, “Quasinormal modes, the area spectrum, and black hole entropy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 081301 (2003)

    2003

  44. [52]

    The Physical interpretation of the spectrum of black hole quasinormal modes,

    M. Maggiore, “The Physical interpretation of the spectrum of black hole quasinormal modes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 141301 (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    Black holes and entropy,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Black holes and entropy,” Phys. Rev. D7, 2333-2346 (1973). 18

    1973

  46. [54]

    Particle Creation by Black Holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes,” Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199-220 (1975) [erratum: Commun. Math. Phys.46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  47. [55]

    Is gravitational entropy quantized?,

    D. Kothawala, T. Padmanabhan and S. Sarkar, “Is gravitational entropy quantized?,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 104018 (2008). 19

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.