Sterile Neutrinos, Black Hole Vacuum and Holographic Principle

Christopher T. Hill; Gabriela Barenboim

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Sterile Neutrinos, Black Hole Vacuum and Holographic Principle

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 The paper claims that the black-hole vacuum itself generates a Planck-scale Majorana mass for sterile neutrinos by making the holographic-information spurion condense.

desk verdict Novel holographic-information EFT with a real qualitative idea, but the headline 0.651 M_P rests on an uncomputed loop constant; with the standard one-loop determinant the minimum disappears. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01956 v4 pith:CL7GSR7R submitted 2019-09-04 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Gabriela Barenboim , Christopher T. Hill This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph PACS 04.60.-m11.30.Qc14.60.Pq

keywords sterileneutrinosvirtualblackholesholographicinformationeffectivefieldtheoryspurionspontaneoussymmetrybreakingMajoronscompositescalars

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 show that the black-hole information paradox has an experimentally thinkable vacuum side: when the vacuum is a condensate of virtual mini black holes, the information a hole carries about absorbed fermions can be described by a complex 'spurion' field, and sterile-neutrino loops make that field condense at the Planck scale. The claimed consequence is that N sterile neutrinos receive a common Majorana mass of about 0.651 times the Planck mass, and the global symmetry SU(N)xU(1) breaks to SO(N), producing N mass-degenerate heavy neutrinos and a large set of massless Majorons. A sympathetic reader would care because the model derives a concrete mass scale, with no free parameters, from combining Hawking's virtual-black-hole vacuum with the holographic principle, and because the same gravity-bound-spurion mechanism suggests that composite scalar bosons, possibly including the Higgs, are generic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the information spurion $\theta_{ij}$, a complex field in the symmetric representation of $SU(N)$ (so $\frac12 N(N+1)$ complex components) that sits at the neutrino–black-hole vertex and records which flavor pair fell in; in the holographic case (III) it is conjoined with the black-hole field $B_0$ through a kinetic term $\partial(\theta^\dagger B_0)\partial(\theta B_0)$, so $\theta$ can only move with the hole. The mechanism that drives the result is the block-spin renormalization-group treatment of the resulting four-fermion theory: integrating out the sterile-neutrino loop from $M_P$ down to $\mu$ induces a kinetic term, a negative mass-squared, and a quartic term for $\theta_{ij}$, and the negative mass-squared is what forces the symmetry-breaking VEV.

What would settle it

Compute the full one-loop effective potential for $\theta_{ij}$ in this EFT including all finite terms; if the coefficient inside the logarithm in eq. (27) is not $+2$ (or if the graph of $V(m_\nu)$ has no stationary point below $M_P$), then the predicted Planck-scale neutrino mass is not a consequence of the mechanism. Alternatively, any observation of a sterile neutrino with mass much below $0.651\,M_P$ in direct searches or cosmology would contradict the specific prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 'holographic information' is not just a bookkeeping concept: in the effective field theory of a Schwarzschild mini black hole, the spurion $\theta_{ij}$ that couples a neutrino pair to the black hole becomes a propagating field in the virtual-black-hole vacuum $\langle B_0\rangle=V$. Since no mass term for $\theta_{ij}$ can be written down (gravity has no hair and no flavor), the integration of sterile-neutrino loops down from the cutoff $M_P$ generates a negative mass-squared, so $\theta_{ij}$ necessarily acquires a vacuum expectation value of order the Planck mass. In terms of the physical neutrino mass the renormalized potential takes the form $V = -\frac{N}{16\pi^2} M_P^2 m_\nu^2 + \frac{N m_\nu^4}{32\pi^2}\bigl(\ln(M_P^2/m_\nu^2)+2\bigr)$, whose interior minimum sits at $m_\nu=0.651\,M_P$. With $N$ sterile neutrinos the vacuum breaks $SU(N)\times U(1)$ to $SO(N)$, giving $N$ degenerate Majorana masses and $\frac12 N(N+1)$ Nambu-Goldstone neutrino-Majorons; the same loop mechanism, the authors argue, can bind any fermion bilinear into a composite scalar.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prediction hangs on one uncomputed number inside a logarithm in the loop potential; if nature supplies a different number, the advertised minimum vanishes and the neutrino mass runs away to the cutoff.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the mechanism is right, three sterile neutrinos acquire a common Majorana mass of $0.651\,M_P$; they are far too heavy to be produced in any foreseeable experiment and act as a decoupled seesaw sector.
The induced light neutrino masses from the seesaw are of order $v^2/M_P \sim 3\times 10^{-6}$ eV for order-one Yukawas, about three orders of magnitude below the observed atmospheric scale, so reproducing neutrino data would require either large Yukawa couplings or a lower high-energy Planck mass.
The symmetry breaking pattern $SU(N)\times U(1)\to SO(N)$ predicts $\frac12 N(N+1)$ massless Majorons (6 for $N=3$) with decay constant $f\sim M_P$; their explicit-symmetry-breaking potential opens cosmological roles as dark energy, late-time phase transitions, or an inflaton.
The same gravity-induced binding generalizes to every fermion bilinear: there may be a large 'scalar democracy' of composite scalars, with the standard-model Higgs as a top-antitop bound state and a bottom-bottom bound state near $5.5$ TeV within reach of a high-energy collider.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the '+2' inside the logarithm is asserted rather than derived, I would not take $0.651\,M_P$ as a sharp number until the finite parts of the one-loop integrals are computed; a natural next step is a two-loop calculation that would either stabilize the minimum or shift it.
The mechanism is environment-sensitive: in a cosmology where the black-hole condensate $V$ changes (e.g., during inflation), the induced $\theta$ mass changes, so sterile-neutrino masses would be time-dependent; this gives an observational handle through early-universe structure or gravitational-wave signatures.
If the gravity-binding picture is correct, the composite scalar spectrum is calculable in principle; the sharpest test is not at the Planck scale but in the TeV sector, where a near-critical $\bar b b$ resonance at roughly $5.5$ TeV would distinguish this from an elementary-Higgs scenario.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here is the short version. The paper is a serious speculative EFT and the construction is genuinely new: a spurion theta_ij encoding holographic information, a conjoined kinetic term that makes theta piggyback on the black-hole field B0, and a VBH Higgs phase in which neutrino loops drive theta to a VEV, breaking SU(N) x U(1) to SO(N). Sterile neutrinos get common Planck-scale Majorana masses and there are N(N+1)/2 Majorons. The qualitative mechanism is clever, and the authors are candid that the EFT ingredients are modeling choices. I think the qualitative instability can survive for some range of finite parts, so the paper is worth reading.

The soft spot is Section IV.D, and it is not minor. The headline number, m_nu = 0.651 M_P, comes from the plus-two inside the logarithm in eq. (27). That plus-two is not an independently computed subleading constant. It is produced by substituting mu^2 = m_nu^2 = 4 theta^2 into the -mu^2 theta^2 term of eq. (26), i.e., by using the dynamical neutrino mass as a hard IR cutoff in the loop integrals of eq. (22). That is not the same as evaluating the full massive-fermion determinant. For one Weyl fermion with mass m and hard UV cutoff M_P, the exact one-loop Euclidean potential is -M_P^2 m^2/(16 pi^2) + m^4/(32 pi^2)[ln(M_P^2/m^2)+1/2]. With that constant, the extremum condition has no interior solution: the equation y ln(1/y) - y/2 = 1 has no root because y ln(1/y) <= 1/e < 1. The potential runs away to the cutoff. So the interior minimum and the 0.651 M_P value survive only if an independent calculation supplies a constant alpha >= 3/2 in m^4[ln(M_P^2/m^2)+alpha]. The authors explicitly say the result is sensitive to subleading loop constants, but they never compute them. That is a load-bearing gap in the central quantitative claim.

Elsewhere the paper is honest. The seesaw estimate gives observable neutrino masses too small by roughly 3x10^-3, and they flag it, pointing to possible running of M_P. Reliance on the BHL/HLP loop coefficients is normal use of standard results, not a citation problem. The ad hoc EFT assumptions are acknowledged as such.

Who should read it: people working on quantum-gravity EFT, composite scalars, and Planck-scale neutrino mass. It deserves a serious referee because the mechanism is new and the failure mode is instructive. But I would not accept the current numerical result. Send it to peer review with a specific request: either derive the subleading constant in eq. (27) from a defined regularization scheme, or reframe 0.651 M_P as a schematic illustration rather than a prediction.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs an effective field theory in which Schwarzschild mini-black holes are represented by a real scalar field B0(x), and the interaction of a sterile-neutrino pair with such a black hole requires a complex spurion field theta_ij(x), interpreted as holographic information. In the Hawking virtual-black-hole vacuum with <B0>=V, the spurion acquires a kinetic term through a 'conjoined' kinetic term and becomes dynamical. Integrating out sterile-neutrino loops yields an effective potential with a negative quadratic term; the authors extremize this potential and find a Planck-scale VEV for theta, N degenerate Majorana masses m_nu = 0.651 M_P, breaking SU(N) x U(1) to SO(N) and producing (1/2)N(N+1) Majorons. The paper then discusses phenomenological consequences, including a seesaw estimate for light neutrino masses that is numerically too small, and a speculative 'scalar democracy' picture with many composite scalars.

Significance. If the mechanism were correct, the paper would provide a concrete, falsifiable prediction connecting black-hole information to neutrino masses and would extend the holographic principle into a calculable EFT. The paper should be credited for formulating a specific dynamical model rather than remaining at the level of no-hair paradoxes, and for identifying a gap-equation structure that could produce Planck-scale Majorana masses. However, the central result is not presently robust: the predicted mass and even the existence of the symmetry-breaking minimum depend on an uncomputed finite loop constant. The paper's own caveat in Section IV.D acknowledges this sensitivity. As it stands, the calculation is a model-building proposal with a plausible but unproven central quantitative claim.

major comments (3)

[Section IV.D, Eqs. (27)-(31)] The central numerical result, m_nu = 0.651 M_P, is controlled by the '+2' term in Eq. (27), which is not computed from the loop integrals in Eq. (22). It follows algebraically from replacing the IR cutoff mu by the dynamical mass m_nu = 2theta in Eq. (26), but the paper does not justify this substitution as an evaluation of the effective potential. For a Weyl fermion of mass m with UV cutoff M_P, the exact Euclidean one-loop determinant gives V = -M_P^2 m^2/(16 pi^2) + m^4/(32 pi^2)[ln(M_P^2/m^2) + 1/2]. With that constant the extremum condition Eq. (30) becomes x ln(1/x) = 1, where x = m^2/M_P^2, which has no solution because x ln(1/x) <= 1/e < 1; the potential is monotonically decreasing and its minimum is at the cutoff. The paper itself states in Section IV.D that the result is sensitive to subleading log constants, but it does not compute them. The existence of the interior minimum and the value 0.651 M_P are therefore not established by the present calculation.
[Section IV.D, Eq. (26)] The derivation identifies the IR cutoff mu of the loop integrals with the physical neutrino mass m_nu. This is a nontrivial physical assumption. In a Wilsonian block-spin RG, the effective potential at scale mu contains additional finite threshold terms when the fermion mass is comparable to mu, and these are not included in Eqs. (24)-(26). The '+2' term in Eq. (27) is precisely such a finite contribution. The paper should either compute the full effective potential from the massive-fermion determinant or show explicitly that the block-spin procedure reproduces that determinant; without this, the gap equation is not a controlled one-loop result.
[Abstract; Section IV.D] The abstract and the conclusions state that the spurion 'necessarily' develops a tachyonic instability and a VEV of order the Planck scale. The negative quadratic coefficient at the origin is robust, but the existence of a symmetry-breaking minimum is not automatic: with the alternative finite constant identified in the first major comment, the potential has no stationary point. The word 'necessarily' is therefore too strong unless the finite part of the loop calculation is computed.

minor comments (4)

[Section III, Eq. (7)] The text below Eq. (7) says the source can cancel a cosmological constant Lambda = J^2/(2M); from the shift B0 = B + J/M^2 the constant term is J^2/(2M^2) + Lambda, so the displayed denominator appears to be a typo.
[Section IV.E, after Eq. (33)] The statement that the predicted light-neutrino scale is 'small by roughly a factor of ~3e-3' does not match the numbers given: 3e-6 eV divided by 0.8e-2 eV is about 4e-4, not 3e-3.
[Section IV.A, Eq. (13)] The dimension of theta is stated inconsistently: Eq. (8) treats theta as dimensionless, while the text after Eq. (13) says theta has dimensions of mass; later Eq. (20) uses a canonical kinetic term that implies a dimension-one field. Please clarify the normalization conventions.
[General] The paper relies for its loop coefficients on Refs. [20] and [21], and Ref. [21] shares an author with the present manuscript. This is not improper, but given the sensitivity of the result to constant terms, an independent derivation of the coefficients in the present scheme would strengthen the argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: m_nu = 0.651 M_P comes from a self-consistent gap equation with loop coefficients from an independent (if coauthored) one-loop calculation; the '+2' is algebraically derived, not fitted.

full rationale

The claimed central prediction, m_nu = 0.651 M_P, is obtained by a self-consistent extremization of the loop-induced potential, not by fitting to data. The loop coefficients in Eq. (24) are quoted from [21]; although one author of the present paper coauthored [21], the cited calculation is a parameter-free one-loop Weyl-fermion result with stated assumptions that do not include the target mass value, so under the review rules it counts as independent support rather than circular self-citation. The '+2' in Eq. (27) is not an unexplained fitted constant: it follows algebraically from substituting mu^2 = m_nu^2 = 4 theta^2 into the mu^2 theta^2 term of Eq. (26). The extremum condition Eq. (30) has a nontrivial solution, and Eq. (31) follows by solving it. The paper explicitly flags that the result is sensitive to subleading logarithmic constants and that the calculation differs from [20]; that is a genuine limitation on the robustness of the numerical value, and a possible correctness risk, but it is not a circular reduction of the kind where the prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. The symmetry-breaking pattern and Majoron counting follow from the assumed SU(N)xU(1) structure and the symmetric VEV ansatz, again not from any fitted input. No circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central claim rests on several ad hoc model-building choices: an elementary scalar field for black holes, a conjoined kinetic term for holographic information, the absence of a bare theta mass term, and an underived '+2' constant in the loop potential. These are assumptions the reader accepts on the authors' authority. The most fragile is the '+2' constant, because it determines whether an interior symmetry-breaking minimum exists at all.

free parameters (2)

Subleading loop constant '+2' in quartic effective potential = +2
Inserted into the quartic term of the effective potential (eq 27) without derivation. It controls the location of the SSB minimum (eq 30-31); without it the claimed interior minimum disappears, and the potential runs to the cutoff.
Information-conservation parameter eta = 1 (chosen by hand)
The paper selects eta=1 (information conserved) to give theta a canonical kinetic term in the VBH; eta=0 would correspond to information loss and a different Landau-pole behavior. The central neutrino-mass result is derived in the eta=1 scenario.

assumptions (7)

standard math Standard quantum field theory, renormalization group, and Nambu-Jona-Lasinio gap equation remain valid at the Planck scale.
The block-spin RG loop computation in Section IV.D assumes standard QFT loop integrals and RG running from M_P down to mu.
domain assumption A Schwarzschild mini-black hole can be described as a local real scalar field B0(x) of mass M_P, and Hawking radiation can be neglected.
Section III, eq (6) and the surrounding text introduce B0(x) as a free scalar field for mini black holes of mass M_P and state 'we will neglect Hawking radiation'.
domain assumption The black hole vacuum is a Higgs phase with <B0>=V, realized by a source term J, following Hawking's virtual black hole proposal.
Section III, eqs (6)-(7): source J shifts the VEV to V=J/M^2, giving a Higgs phase for B0.
domain assumption Holographic information is described by the conjoined kinetic term (1/M_P^2) partial(theta* B0) partial(theta B0), with no stand-alone theta kinetic or mass term.
Section III, eqs (9)-(10), and Section IV.C. The model identifies this conjoined kinetic structure with the holographic principle.
domain assumption Sterile neutrinos have an unbroken global SU(N)xU(1) symmetry at the Planck scale, carry no gauge charges, and couple to B0 through the theta spurion vertex of eq (13).
Section IV, eq (13) and the opening of Section IV.A. This is the main application of the EFT to a real-world field.
ad hoc to paper The neutrino-loop induced effective potential has the exact analytic form of eq (27), including the '+2' subleading constant inside the logarithm.
The quoted potential is the key input to the gap equation; it is not derived in the text, and the paper only remarks that it is sensitive to subleading loop constants.
domain assumption The infrared cutoff of the neutrino loop integrals is the neutrino mass m_nu = 2 theta, and the ultraviolet cutoff is M_P.
Section IV.D, paragraph before eq (26) and eq (27): 'the infrared cut-off on our loops is determined by the neutrino mass'.

invented entities (4)

B0(x), scalar field for Schwarzschild mini-black holes
purpose: To describe SBHs as pointlike quantum fields that can be created or destroyed and can form a condensate
Model device; no independent evidence that black holes are described by an elementary scalar field of mass M_P.
theta_ij(x), complex spurion (holographic information field)
purpose: To store flavor information on the black hole horizon and couple neutrino pairs to B0 in an SU(N)-invariant way
No independent handle; the paper defines it as an EFT description of holographic information.
B_ij(x) = theta_ij B0(x), composite SBH with information hair
purpose: To represent a black hole that carries quantum flavor information
A derived composite field; no independent evidence beyond the model definition.
Neutrino-Majorons (Nambu-Goldstone bosons), (1/2)N(N+1) massless scalars
purpose: Result of SU(N)xU(1) breaking to SO(N); suggested as dark energy or inflaton candidates
Predicted but with no specific mass or coupling predictions beyond f ~ M_P; not observable in current data.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sterile Neutrinos, Black Hole Vacuum and Holographic Principle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CL7GSR7R

@misc{pith2026190901956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sterile Neutrinos, Black Hole Vacuum and Holographic Principle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CL7GSR7R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01956}
}

abstract

We construct an effective field theory (EFT) model that describes matter field interactions with Schwarzschild mini-black-holes (SBH's), treated as a scalar field, $B_0(x)$. Fermion interactions with SBH's require a random complex spurion field, $\theta_{ij}$, which we interpret as the EFT description of "holographic information," which is correlated with the SBH as a composite system. We consider Hawking's virtual black hole vacuum (VBH) as a Higgs phase, $\langle B_0 \rangle =V$. Integrating sterile neutrino loops, the field $\theta_{ij}$ is promoted to a dynamical field, necessarily developing a tachyonic instability and acquiring a VEV of order the Planck scale. For $N$ sterile neutrinos this breaks the vacuum to $SU(N)\times U(1)/SO(N)$ with $N$ degenerate Majorana masses, and $(1/2)N(N+1)$ Nambu-Goldstone neutrino-Majorons. The model suggests many scalars fields, corresponding to all fermion bilinears, may exist bound nonperturbatively by gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01956 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: The infrared theory is controlled by the neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

L. K. Wong, A. Davis and R. Gregory, Phys. Rev. D100, no.2, 024010 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024010 [arXiv:1903.07080 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2019
[2]

Dvali and C

G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Fortsch. Phys. 61, 742 (2013); Phys. Lett. B 719, 419 (2013); JCAP 1401, 023 (2014)

work page 2013
[3]

S. F. Edwards, P. W. Anderson, ”Theory of spin glasses”, Journal of Physics F, (5): 965974 (1975); D. Sherrington, S. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev, Letters, 35 (26): 17921796, (1975)

work page 1975
[4]

’t Hooft, Conf

G. ’t Hooft, Conf. Proc. C 930308, 284 (1993); L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36, 6377 (1995); R. Bousso, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 825 (2002)

work page 1993
[5]

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. A View on the Quantum Na- ture of our Universe, Compulsory or Impossible?,

G. ’t Hooft, “The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. A View on the Quantum Na- ture of our Universe, Compulsory or Impossible?,” [arXiv:1405.1548 [quant-ph]]; Found. Phys. 43, 597-614 (2013) doi:10.1007/s10701-013-9702-z [arXiv:1205.4107 [quant-ph]]

arXiv 2013
[6]

S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 53, 3099 (1996)

work page 1996
[7]

Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev

G. Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev. Rel. 16, 5 (2013)

work page 2013
[8]

Chamblin, R

A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson and R. C. My- ers, Phys. Rev. D 59, 064010 (1999)

work page 1999

Show all 26 references

[9]

L. J. Garay, Phys. Rev. D 58, 124015 (1998); Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2508 (1998)

1998
[10]

G. W. Gibbons, M. B. Green and M. J. Perry, Phys. Lett. B 370, 37 (1996)

1996
[11]

C. J. Isham, gr-qc/9510063

arXiv
[12]

Dvali and L

G. Dvali and L. Funcke, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 11, 113002 (2016)

2016
[13]

Barenboim, JHEP 0903 (2009) 102; Phys

G. Barenboim, JHEP 0903 (2009) 102; Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 093014

2009
[14]

Benatti and R

F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Phys. Rev. D 64, 085015 (2001); JHEP 0002, 032 (2000)

2001
[15]

D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 13, 198 (1976) and Phys. Rev. D 14, 3260 (1976)

1976
[16]

F. C. Adams, G. L. Kane, M. Mbonye and M. J. Perry, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16, 2399 (2001)

2001
[17]

Stojkovic, F

D. Stojkovic, F. C. Adams and G. D. Starkman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14, 2293 (2005)

2005
[18]

A Model for high-energy scattering in quantum gravity,

T. Banks and W. Fischler, “A Model for high-energy scattering in quantum gravity,” hep-th/9906038. D. M. Eardley and S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 66, 044011 (2002)

2002 arXiv
[19]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961)

1961
[20]

W. A. Bardeen, C. T. Hill and M. Lindner, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 1647; W. A. Bardeen and C. T. Hill, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 10, 649 (1992); For references to Higgs as¯tt see: C. T. Hill and E. H. Sim- mons, Phys. Rept. 381, 235 (2003); Erratum: [Phys. Rept. 390, 5...

1990
[21]

C. T. Hill, M. A. Luty and E. A. Paschos, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3011 (1991)

1991
[22]

Tanabashi, et al.,(Particle Data Group), Phys

M. Tanabashi, et al.,(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018)

2018
[23]

D. F. Litim, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 369, 2759 (2011); D. F. Litim, R. Percacci and L. Rachwal, Phys. Lett. B 710, 472 (2012); I. Antoniadis and S. P. Patil, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 182 (2015)

2011
[24]

C. T. Hill, D. N. Schramm and J. N. Fry, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 19, no. 1, 25 (1989); J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, A. Stebbins and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2077 (1995)

1989
[25]

C. T. Hill, P. A. N. Machado, A. E. Thomsen and J. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 1, 015015 (2019); Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 1, 015051 (2019)

2019
[26]

Composite Higgs Bosons and Mini Black Holes,

C. T. Hill, “Composite Higgs Bosons and Mini Black Holes,” [arXiv:2002.11547 [hep-ph]]

2002 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

L. K. Wong, A. Davis and R. Gregory, Phys. Rev. D100, no.2, 024010 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024010 [arXiv:1903.07080 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2019

[2] [2]

Dvali and C

G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Fortsch. Phys. 61, 742 (2013); Phys. Lett. B 719, 419 (2013); JCAP 1401, 023 (2014)

work page 2013

[3] [3]

S. F. Edwards, P. W. Anderson, ”Theory of spin glasses”, Journal of Physics F, (5): 965974 (1975); D. Sherrington, S. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev, Letters, 35 (26): 17921796, (1975)

work page 1975

[4] [4]

’t Hooft, Conf

G. ’t Hooft, Conf. Proc. C 930308, 284 (1993); L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36, 6377 (1995); R. Bousso, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 825 (2002)

work page 1993

[5] [5]

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. A View on the Quantum Na- ture of our Universe, Compulsory or Impossible?,

G. ’t Hooft, “The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. A View on the Quantum Na- ture of our Universe, Compulsory or Impossible?,” [arXiv:1405.1548 [quant-ph]]; Found. Phys. 43, 597-614 (2013) doi:10.1007/s10701-013-9702-z [arXiv:1205.4107 [quant-ph]]

arXiv 2013

[6] [6]

S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 53, 3099 (1996)

work page 1996

[7] [7]

Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev

G. Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev. Rel. 16, 5 (2013)

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Chamblin, R

A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson and R. C. My- ers, Phys. Rev. D 59, 064010 (1999)

work page 1999