REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 47 references
What happens to topological invariants (and black holes) in singularity-free theories?
T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read In singularity-free linear field theories, topological invariants such as electric charge, magnetization, and angular momentum lose their topological character and become radius-dependent quantities of the form $Q(r)=Q\Delta_d(r)$; in…
desk verdict The linear-theory half is a clean and useful unification showing that UV-regularized Green functions demote topological invariants to radius-dependent quantities; the GR half, however, misinterprets a coordinate shift as a singularity resolver, and its claims about higher-curvature divergences and geodesic completeness are wrong. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The paper's central object is the deviation function $\Delta_d(r)$, defined by $\bar G_d(r)=\Delta_d(r)G_d(r)$ for the regularized and standard static Green functions; it encodes how a UV-smoothing form factor $f(\ell^2\nabla^2)$ spreads a point source into a nascent delta function and supplies the multiplicative factor in every demoted invariant $Q(r)=Q\Delta_d(r)$. In general relativity, the load-bearing ansatz is $g=-B(r)dt^2+C(r)dr^2+F^{-1}(r)d\Omega^2$ with field strength $F=\frac{Q}{4\pi\epsilon_0}F(r)dt\wedge dr$, which makes the enclosed charge independent of the sphere's area; the field equations then force $BC=1$ and $F(r)=(r+\ell)^{-2}$, yielding the shifted Reissner–Nordström metric.
What would settle it
Measure the Aharonov–Bohm phase around a solenoid as a function of loop radius in a candidate singularity-free electrodynamics: the paper predicts a local phase proportional to $\mu[1-\exp(-\rho^2/4\ell^2)]$, so a phase exactly independent of loop radius would contradict the linear-theory claim. Alternatively, compute a concrete higher-order invariant such as $R\Box R$ or $R^2$ at $r=0$ for the metric $ds^2=-Bdt^2+dr^2/B+(r+\ell)^2d\Omega^2$ with $B=1-2GM/(r+\ell)+q^2/(r+\ell)^2$; finding all such invariants finite for all $p,q,n\ge0$ would falsify the predicted conical or solid-angle defects.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is that regularity and topology need not conflict; they are traded against the geometry of 2-spheres. In flat space, a regularized point source spreads a delta function into a nascent delta, so surface integrals no longer cancel the field's radial falloff, and every topological charge becomes a running quantity $Q(r)=Q\Delta_d(r)$. The same demotion occurs for the Komar mass, angle deficit, and angular momentum in linearized gravity. In Einstein–Maxwell theory, however, one can preserve a truly constant charge by an ansatz in which the area of each 2-sphere scales as $1/F(r)$, the inverse of the field-strength profile; Maxwell's equations force $BC=1$, and the Einstein equations give $F(r)=1/(r+\ell)^2$ and $B(r)=1-2GM/(r+\ell)+q^2/(r+\ell)^2$, i.e. Reissner–Nordström with a shifted radial coordinate. The residual price is that $r=0$ is not a smooth point: depending on $\ell$, the geometry carries a solid-angle defect or an inner horizon, and invariants such as $R^p\Box^n R^q$ can diverge there.
Load-bearing premise
The conclusion that the electric charge remains a true topological invariant in general relativity rests on the assumption that the angular areas of 2-spheres are set to the inverse of the field-strength profile, a choice imposed by hand; without that assumption, a regular Maxwell field on an ordinary background would not preserve a constant charge.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- In linear singularity-free theories, electric charge, solenoid magnetization, angular momentum, and Komar mass all become radius-dependent quantities $Q(r)=Q\Delta_d(r)$, recovering their usual values only for $r\gg\ell$.
- Aharonov–Bohm phases become loop-radius dependent, with a relative deviation $1-\exp(-\rho^2/4\ell^2)$ for the exponential form factor, and measurements with many winding numbers can sharpen bounds on the regulator scale $\ell$.
- In general relativity, a non-singular Maxwell field can keep an exactly constant charge if the 2-sphere areas are rescaled to the inverse field-strength profile, and the unique spherically symmetric solution is Reissner–Nordström with $r\to r+\ell$.
- The resulting geometry has finite $\mathcal{R}$ and $\mathcal{R}^2$ curvature invariants for $r>0$, but invariants involving derivatives of the curvature, $R^p\Box^nR^q$, can diverge at $r=0$, reflecting conical or solid-angle defects.
- Choosing $\ell=q^2/(GM)$ removes the inner horizon and restores geodesic completeness at the cost of $B(0)<0$, while choosing $\ell=q^2/(2GM)$ gives $B(0)=1$ but reintroduces an inner horizon and leaves the metric non-differentiable at the origin.
Reading between the lines
- If the linear-theory claim is correct, the radius dependence of the Aharonov–Bohm phase is a generic smoking-gun signature of UV smoothing, but its precise functional form is model-dependent: the exponential deviation follows from the specific form factor $\exp(-\ell^2\nabla^2)$, and other UV completions would give different shapes.
- The same coordinate shift $r\to r+\ell$ applied to Kerr–Newman with a cosmological constant, which the paper mentions, suggests that rotating charged compact objects are a natural arena for testing whether nature deforms sphere areas rather than field strengths.
- If the predicted divergence of $R^p\Box^nR^q$ at $r=0$ holds, then gravitational actions containing higher-order curvature terms would reject this metric as a regular black hole, so the notion of regularity depends on which curvature invariants an action is designed to control.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript studies the fate of topological invariants (electric charge, magnetization, angular momentum, Komar mass, angle deficit) in classical field theories regularized by a form factor exp(-ℓ²∇²). In flat spacetime and linearized gravity, the author shows that such invariants become radius-dependent quantities Q(r)=Q Δ_d(r), with explicit deviation functions for d=3,4,5, and he discusses possible observable constraints from the Aharonov–Bohm effect. The paper also analyzes the shell theorem for smeared sources and then constructs a 'Q-preserving' metric ansatz in general relativity, which yields a spacetime equivalent to Reissner–Nordström with r replaced by r+ℓ. The paper claims that this geometry has finite R and R² invariants but may have divergent higher-order invariants, and that a specific choice of ℓ reinstates geodesic completeness, motivating modified gravity.
Significance. If the linear-theory results stand, they provide a concrete and interesting UV-IR connection: smoothness of the Green function deforms cohomological charges into distance-dependent observables, and the explicit formulas make the effect quantitative and falsifiable in principle. The GR section, however, is not a new singularity-free solution; it is a coordinate translation of Reissner–Nordström on a truncated radial domain. The paper's claims about remaining higher-order curvature divergences and about geodesic completeness are coordinate artifacts. The algebraic derivations are transparent, and the paper supplies explicit Green functions and recursion relations, which is a strength; the interpretation of the GR results is the main weakness.
major comments (2)
- [Sec. V (Eqs. (109)–(115), V.B, V.C, VI.C)] The metric (109) is exactly the Reissner–Nordström metric in the radial coordinate R=r+ℓ, restricted to R≥ℓ. Since r=0 corresponds to R=ℓ>0, every curvature invariant—including invariants of the form R^p□^nR^q—is finite at r=0 for ℓ>0; the only singularity is at R=0, i.e., r=-ℓ, which lies outside the stated domain. Therefore the repeated claim that such invariants 'may still diverge at r=0' (Secs. V.B, V.C, and VI.C) is incorrect, and the abstract's statement that the geometry 'does not resolve singularities' in those invariants is unsupported. The solid-angle 'defect' is a coordinate artifact of treating r=0 as an origin when r=0 is actually a regular 2-sphere of areal radius ℓ.
- [Sec. V.C (Eqs. (115)–(118))] The claim that the choice α=1 (ℓ=q²/GM) 'reinstates the geodesic completeness' is not supported. The maximal analytic extension of (109) is the Reissner–Nordström manifold, and radial geodesics continue from R=ℓ to R=0, where the curvature diverges. Truncating the spacetime at r=0 produces an artificial boundary; the fact that B(r) has no linear term at r=0 does not eliminate the singularity at R=0. Hence the spacetime is geodesically incomplete for every ℓ>0, as the paper itself states for generic ℓ.
minor comments (3)
- [Sec. V and Sec. VI.C] The phrase 'Q-perserving' appears twice and should read 'Q-preserving'.
- [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that 'in the first case there exists an inner horizon, like in the Reissner–Nordström metric, but in the second case the inner horizon is absent.' This is reversed relative to the text: Sec. V.A shows that the α=1 case has no inner horizon, while Sec. V.B shows that the α=2 case does have an inner horizon.
- [Sec. IV (Eqs. (88)–(98))] The normalization c(r0,ℓ) makes the one-dimensional radial delta integrate to unity, but it does not preserve the three-dimensional total mass of the shell; the asymptotic force corresponds to a dressed mass M_eff = M(1+2ℓ²/r0²). The discussion should state explicitly that the regularization changes the total mass, rather than presenting the result as a failure of the shell theorem.
Circularity Check
The constant GR charge is built into the explicitly labeled Q-preserving ansatz, but this is an acknowledged construction and the rest of the derivation is self-contained; score 2.
-
self definitional
[Sec. V, Eq. (99)-(102)]
"Then, we make the following “ Q-preserving” ansatz: g = −B(r)dt2 + C(r)dr2 + 1/F (r) dΩ2 ... F = Q/(4πϵ0) F (r) dt ∧ dr. ... This ansatz guarantees sure that the charge contained in a 2-sphere of radius r is independent of F ... ϵ0 ∮ S2r ⋆F = Q√(BC)."
The ansatz defines the angular part of the metric as 1/F(r) while the field strength is proportional to F(r) dt∧dr, so the flux integral over a 2-sphere is Q√(BC) by algebraic cancellation; Maxwell's equation then fixes BC=1 and the charge is exactly Q. Hence the 'topological invariant' preserved in GR is an input of the ansatz, not a consequence of the Einstein-Maxwell dynamics. The paper explicitly labels this a 'Q-preserving ansatz' and even notes its strength lies in demonstrating that a regular Maxwell field requires deformed 2-spheres, so this is a transparent construction rather than a hidden fit; the shifted Reissner-Nordström metric and its curvature invariants still follow from solving the field equations.
full rationale
Apart from the explicitly Q-preserving ansatz, the paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the flat-space radius-dependent charges Qreg(r)=QΔd(r) are computed from the assumed form-factor Green functions (not fitted to data), the Aharonov-Bohm constraint is an inequality derived from the chosen model, and the GR metric (109) is obtained by solving Einstein-Maxwell equations with the stated ansatz, giving a coordinate shift of Reissner-Nordström. The paper does not invoke a load-bearing uniqueness theorem from self-citations; references to the author's prior work supply notation and supporting Green-function identities, but the central results are re-derived. The main circularity concern is that the constant GR charge is built into the ansatz by construction; because this is openly labeled and the remaining metric solution is nontrivial, it is a mild, non-load-bearing issue rather than a fitted input disguised as a prediction. Claims about higher invariants R^p□^nR^q diverging at r=0 are conditional and depend on extending the coordinate domain, which is a correctness matter, not circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (2)
- ℓ (regulator length) =
model parameter; ℓ ≈ 0.21 μm for a 1% Aharonov-Bohm phase deviation; ℓ = q²/(GM) or q²/(2GM) for the black hole cases
- α (normalization choice for ℓ) =
α = 1 or α = 2
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption UV-complete field theories can be modeled by the linear substitution ∇² → f(ℓ²∇²)∇² with f(0)=1 and f=exp(-ℓ²∇²).
- domain assumption The notion of charge and winding number as topological invariants applies to the regularized fields via surface and line integrals, and their radius dependence is interpreted as a loss of topological character.
- ad hoc to paper The metric ansatz (99) imposes g_{ΩΩ}=1/F(r) and BC=1, tying the sphere area to the field strength profile.
- ad hoc to paper The spacetime is described only for r ≥ 0, discarding the r < 0 region of the Reissner-Nordström manifold; regularity is assessed through curvature invariants at r = 0.
- domain assumption Higher-order curvature invariants R^p □^n R^q are taken as the relevant regularity criterion beyond quadratic invariants.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of What happens to topological invariants (and black holes) in singularity-free theories?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AK4Y6CU2
@misc{pith2026241111450,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: What happens to topological invariants (and black holes) in singularity-free theories?},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AK4Y6CU2}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11450}
}
abstract
Potentials arising in ultraviolet-completed field theories can be devoid of singularities, and hence render spacetimes simply connected. This challenges the notion of topological invariants considered in such scenarios. We explore the classical implications for (i) electrodynamics in flat spacetime, (ii) ultrarelativistic gyratonic solutions of weak-field gravity, and (iii)the Reissner--Nordstr\"om black hole in general relativity. In linear theories, regularity spoils the character of topological invariants and leads to radius-dependent Aharonov--Bohm phases, which are potentially observable for large winding numbers. In general relativity, the physics is richer: The electromagnetic field can be regular and maintain its usual topological invariants, and the resulting geometry can be interpreted as a Reissner--Nordstr\"om black hole with a spacetime region of coordinate radius $\sim q^2/(GM)$ cut out. This guarantees the regularity of linear and quadratic curvature invariants ($\mathcal{R}$ and $\mathcal{R}^2$), but does not resolve singularities in invariants such as $\mathcal{R}^p\Box^n \mathcal{R}^q$, reflected by conical or solid angle defects. This motivates that gravitational models beyond general relativity need to be considered. These connections between regularity (= UV properties of field theories) and topological invariants (= IR observables) may hence present an intriguing avenue to search for traces of new physics and identify promising modified gravity theories.
Figures
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Behav- ior of the Newtonian potential for ghost-free gravity and singularity-free gravity,
J. Edholm, A. S. Koshelev and A. Mazumdar, “Behav- ior of the Newtonian potential for ghost-free gravity and singularity-free gravity,” Phys. Rev. D94, 104033 (2016), 1604.01989 [gr-qc]
arXiv 2016
-
[2]
On the cancellation of Newtonian singu- larities in higher-derivative gravity,
B. L. Giacchini, “On the cancellation of Newtonian singu- larities in higher-derivative gravity,” Phys. Lett. B 766, 306 (2017), 1609.05432 [hep-th]
arXiv 2017
-
[3]
Classical properties of nonlocal, ghost- and singularity-free gravity,
L. Buoninfante, A. S. Koshelev, G. Lambiase and A. Mazumdar, “Classical properties of nonlocal, ghost- and singularity-free gravity,” JCAP 09, 034 (2018), 1802.00399 [gr-qc]
arXiv 2018
-
[4]
Gravitational field of static p-branes in linearized ghost-free gravity,
J. Boos, V. P. Frolov and A. Zelnikov, “Gravitational field of static p-branes in linearized ghost-free gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 084021 (2018), 1802.09573 [gr-qc]
arXiv 2018
-
[5]
Effective delta sources and regularity in higher-derivative and ghost-free gravity,
B. L. Giacchini and T. de Paula Netto, “Effective delta sources and regularity in higher-derivative and ghost-free gravity,” JCAP 07, 013 (2019), 1809.05907 [gr-qc]
arXiv 2019
-
[6]
Angle deficit & non-local gravitoelectromagnetism around a slowly spinning cosmic string
J. Boos, “Angle deficit and nonlocal gravitoelectromag- netism around a slowly spinning cosmic string,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 29, 2043027 (2020), 2003.13847 [gr-qc]
work page Pith review arXiv 2020
-
[7]
NUT charge in linearized infinite-derivative gravity,
I. Kol´ aˇ r and A. Mazumdar, “NUT charge in linearized infinite-derivative gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 124005 (2020), 2004.07613 [gr-qc]
arXiv 2020
-
[8]
Ultrarelativistic spinning objects in non-local ghost-free gravity
J. Boos, J. Pinedo Soto and V. P. Frolov, “Ultrarelativis- tic spinning objects in nonlocal ghost-free gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 124065 (2020), 2004.07420 [gr-qc]
work page Pith review arXiv 2020
Show all 47 references
-
[9]
Effects of Nonlocality in Gravity and Quan- tum Theory,
J. Boos, “Effects of Nonlocality in Gravity and Quan- tum Theory,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta, 2020, 2009.10856 [gr-qc], Springer Theses 2021
2020 arXiv
-
[10]
Nonlocality and gravitoelectro- magnetic duality,
J. Boos and I. Kol´ aˇ r, “Nonlocality and gravitoelectro- magnetic duality,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 024018 (2021), 2103.10555 [gr-qc]
2021 arXiv
-
[11]
On the gravitational field of a massless particle,
P. C. Aichelburg and R. U. Sexl, “On the gravitational field of a massless particle,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 2, 303 (1971)
1971
-
[12]
Q-preserving
and we define it as λ(u) = lim γ→∞ √ 2γ2¯λ(− √ 2γu) , (72) jij(u) = lim γ→∞ √ 2γ¯jij(− √ 2γu) . (73) This limit guarantees the following relations: ∞Z −∞ d ¯ξ ¯λ( ¯ξ) = ∞Z −∞ du λ(u) , (74) ∞Z −∞ d ¯ξ ¯jij( ¯ξ) = ∞Z −∞ du jij(u) . (75) In this scaling limit we make use of the ...
-
[13]
Any space-time has a plane wave as a limit,
R. Penrose, “Any space-time has a plane wave as a limit,” in: M. Cahen and M. Flato (eds), Differential geometry and relativity: A volume in honour of Andr´ e Lichnerow- icz on his 60th birthday , (Springer Netherlands, Dor- drecht, 1976), p. 271
1976
-
[14]
Inner-horizon instability and mass inflation in black holes,
E. Poisson and W. Israel, “Inner-horizon instability and mass inflation in black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1663 (1989)
1989
-
[15]
Geodesically complete black holes,
R. Carballo-Rubio, F. Di Filippo, S. Liberati and M. Visser, “Geodesically complete black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 084047 (2020), 1911.11200 [gr-qc]
2020 arXiv
-
[16]
Geodesic incompleteness of some popular regular black holes,
T. Zhou and L. Modesto, “Geodesic incompleteness of some popular regular black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 044016 (2023), 2208.02557 [gr-qc]
2023 arXiv
-
[17]
Mass gap for black hole formation in higher-derivative and ghost-free gravity,
V. P. Frolov, “Mass gap for black hole formation in higher-derivative and ghost-free gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 051102 (2015), 1505.00492 [hep-th]
2015 arXiv
-
[18]
Horizon-scale tests of gravity theories and fundamental physics from the Event Horizon Tele- scope image of Sagittarius A,
S. Vagnozzi, R. Roy, Y. D. Tsai, L. Visinelli, M. Afrin, A. Allahyari, P. Bambhaniya, D. Dey, S. G. Ghosh and P. S. Joshi, et al. “Horizon-scale tests of gravity theories and fundamental physics from the Event Horizon Tele- scope image of Sagittarius A,” Class. Quant. Grav. 40...
2023 arXiv
-
[19]
Non-singular general relativistic grav- itational collapse,
J. M. Bardeen, “Non-singular general relativistic grav- itational collapse,” in: Proceedings of the International Conference GR5 (Tbilisi, U.S.S.R., 1968)
1968
-
[20]
Vacuum non-singular black hole,
I. Dymnikova, “Vacuum non-singular black hole,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 24, 235 (1992)
1992
-
[21]
Formation and evaporation of regular black holes,
S. A. Hayward, “Formation and evaporation of regular black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 031103 (2006); gr- qc/0506126
2006
-
[22]
Notes on non-singular models of black holes,
V. P. Frolov, “Notes on non-singular models of black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 94, 104056 (2016), 1609.01758 [gr- qc]
2016 arXiv
-
[23]
Note on black holes with kilometer-scale ultraviolet regulators,
J. Boos and C. D. Carone, “Note on black holes with kilometer-scale ultraviolet regulators,” Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 157003 (2024), 2311.16319 [gr-qc]
2024 arXiv
-
[24]
Regular black hole in general relativity coupled to nonlinear electrodynamics,
E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, “Regular black hole in general relativity coupled to nonlinear electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5056 (1998), gr-qc/9911046
1998 arXiv
-
[25]
New regular black hole solution from nonlinear electrodynamics,
E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, “New regular black hole solution from nonlinear electrodynamics,” Phys. Lett. B 464, 25 (1999), hep-th/9911174
1999 arXiv
-
[26]
Regular electrically charged structures in nonlinear electrodynamics coupled to general relativity,
I. Dymnikova, “Regular electrically charged structures in nonlinear electrodynamics coupled to general relativity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 4417 (2004), gr-qc/0407072
2004 arXiv
-
[27]
Regular magnetic black holes and monopoles from nonlinear electrodynamics,
K. A. Bronnikov, “Regular magnetic black holes and monopoles from nonlinear electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 63, 044005 (2001), gr-qc/0006014
2001 arXiv
-
[28]
Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity,
M. Reuter, “Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 57, 971-985 (1998) hep- th/9605030
1998
-
[29]
Renormalization group im- proved black hole spacetimes,
A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, “Renormalization group im- proved black hole spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 043008 (2000), hep-th/0002196
2000 arXiv
-
[30]
Dynamical renormalization of black hole spacetimes,
A. Platania, “Dynamical renormalization of black hole spacetimes,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 470 (2019), 1903.10411 [gr-qc]
2019 arXiv
-
[31]
Resolving space- time singularities within asymptotic safety,
L. Bosma, B. Knorr and F. Saueressig, “Resolving space- time singularities within asymptotic safety,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 101301 (2019), 1904.04845 [hep-th]
2019 arXiv
-
[32]
Regular black hole from a confined spin con- nection in Poincar´ e gauge gravity,
J. Boos, “Regular black hole from a confined spin con- nection in Poincar´ e gauge gravity,” Phys. Lett. B 848, 138403 (2024), 2308.13017 [gr-qc]
2024 arXiv
-
[33]
A new type of nonsingular black- hole solution in general relativity,
F. R. Klinkhamer, “A new type of nonsingular black- hole solution in general relativity,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1430018 (2014), 1309.7011 [gr-qc]
2014 arXiv
-
[34]
Black-bounce to traversable wormhole,
A. Simpson and M. Visser, “Black-bounce to traversable wormhole,” JCAP 02, 042 (2019), 1812.07114 [gr-qc]
2019 arXiv
-
[35]
Non-singular ‘Gauss’ black hole from non- locality,
J. Boos, “Non-singular ‘Gauss’ black hole from non- locality,” 2104.00555 [gr-qc]
-
[36]
Diffeomorphism- invariant observables and their nonlocal algebra,
W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, “Diffeomorphism- invariant observables and their nonlocal algebra,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 024030 (2016) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 94, 029903 (2016)], 1507.07921 [hep-th]
2016 arXiv
-
[37]
Quantum scat- tering on a delta potential in ghost-free theory,
J. Boos, V. P. Frolov and A. Zelnikov, “Quantum scat- tering on a delta potential in ghost-free theory,” Phys. Lett. B 782, 688 (2018), 1805.01875 [hep-th]
2018 arXiv
-
[38]
Probing the vacuum fluctuations in scalar ghost-free theories,
J. Boos, V. P. Frolov and A. Zelnikov, “Probing the vacuum fluctuations in scalar ghost-free theories,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 076014 (2019), 1901.07096 [hep-th]
2019 arXiv
-
[39]
Action principle selection of regular black holes,
B. L. Giacchini, T. d. Netto and L. Modesto, “Action principle selection of regular black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.8, 084072 (2021) 2105.00300 [gr-qc]
2021 arXiv
-
[40]
Sifting quantum black holes through the principle of least action,
B. Knorr and A. Platania, “Sifting quantum black holes through the principle of least action,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 2 (2022), 2202.01216 [hep-th]. 15
2022 arXiv
-
[41]
Suppression of spacetime singularities in quantum gravity,
J. Borissova, “Suppression of spacetime singularities in quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 127002 (2024), 2309.05695 [gr-qc]
2024 arXiv
-
[42]
A nonlocal way around the no-global-symmetries conjecture in quantum gravity?,
J. Borissova, A. Eichhorn and S. Ray, “A nonlocal way around the no-global-symmetries conjecture in quantum gravity?,” 2407.09595 [hep-th]
-
[43]
Regular black holes from pure gravity,
P. Bueno, P. A. Cano and R. A. Hennigar, “Regular black holes from pure gravity,” 2403.04827 [gr-qc]
-
[44]
Shift of an electron interference pat- tern by enclosed magnetic flux,
R. G. Chambers, “Shift of an electron interference pat- tern by enclosed magnetic flux,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 3 (1960)
1960
-
[45]
Observation of Aharonov–Bohm ef- fect by electron holography,
A. Tonomura et al., “Observation of Aharonov–Bohm ef- fect by electron holography,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1443 (1982)
1982
-
[46]
Synthesis and observation of non-Abelian gauge fields in real space,
Y. Yang, C. Peng, D. Zhu, H. Buljan, J. D. Joannopou- los, B. Zhen and M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, “Synthesis and observation of non-Abelian gauge fields in real space,” Science 365, 1021 (2019), 1906.03369 [physics.optics]
2019 arXiv
-
[47]
Observation of a gravitational Aharonov–Bohm effect,
C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, J. Curti, M. Kim and M. A. Kasevich, “Observation of a gravitational Aharonov–Bohm effect,” Science 375, 226 (2021)
2021
Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.