Superradiance of a Global Monopole in Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m(-AdS) Space-time

M. Haluk Se\c{c}uk; \"Ozg\"ur Delice

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Superradiance of a Global Monopole in Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m(-AdS) Space-time

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 A global monopole lowers the superradiance threshold frequency of Reissner-Nordström(-AdS) black holes and shrinks the charged-scalar-field instability window, with the paper's time-scale claims internally inconsistent.

desk verdict A clean threshold-frequency result is buried under a self-contradictory stability argument: the paper's own Eq. (69) shows the instability grows faster when the monopole is present, while the abstract claims it grows slower. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00504 v3 pith:KGWXXWCH submitted 2019-08-01 gr-qc hep-th

M. Haluk Seçuk , Özgür Delice This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th

keywords blackmonopoleholesuperradianceglobalinstabilitybehaviourcase

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

Superradiance happens when a wave hits a rotating or charged black hole and comes back stronger, because it steals rotational or electric energy. The condition is simple: the wave frequency must be below eQ/r₊, where Q is the black hole's charge and r₊ is the horizon radius. If the amplified wave is reflected back by a barrier, such as the boundary of anti-de Sitter space or an artificial mirror, the process can run away and destabilize the black hole.

This paper adds a global monopole, a topological defect from early-universe symmetry breaking, to a Reissner-Nordström (RN) or RN-AdS black hole. In the metric, the monopole only changes the factor b² = 1-8πη² in front of the r² term. A larger monopole charge η means smaller b², which moves the horizon outward. Because the superradiance threshold is eQ/r₊, a larger horizon means a lower threshold. The authors then apply the standard near-far asymptotic matching method to calculate the growth rate of the charged scalar field in two setups: RN-AdS, where the AdS boundary acts as the mirror, and RN with a reflecting sphere, the 'black hole bomb'. They conclude the monopole makes the instability harder to start in both cases.

The qualitative threshold result is simple and robust. The quantitative instability analysis is not: the matching forces the angular eigenvalue to its monopole-free value (λ ≈ ν), dropping a correction of the same order as the kept effect. More seriously, Eq. (69) and the figures show the growth rate rises when b² shrinks (τ = 1/δ falls), while the conclusion says the instability 'will grow slower'. The paper itself concedes that a numerical analysis is needed.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The load-bearing assertion is in the abstract and Sec. IV: 'The existence of global monopole makes these black holes more stable against superradiance instability.' Concretely, with b² = 1-8πη² < 1, the outer horizon r₊ = (M + √(M²-b²Q²))/b² is enlarged, so the electric potential eΦ_h = eQ/r₊ and the superradiance threshold frequency ω < eΦ_h are reduced (Sec. II.F, Eqs. 30-32). The derived instability windows are Re[ω_QM] = (2b/ℓ)(m+σ) < eQ/r₊ for RN-AdS (Eq. 74) and Re[ω_BQN] = (b²/r₀)j_{ν+1/2,s} < eQ/r₊ for the mirror case (Eq. 92). If correct, a swallowed monopole narrows the superradiant window and slows the onset of the charged-scalar instability.

Load-bearing premise

Two load-bearing premises, structurally separate from the claim. First, the near-far matching is made to work by expanding 1/b² = 1+O(η²) and 'neglecting the O(η²) term' to set the angular eigenvalue λ = ν (Sec. III.A, just after Eq. 64), while the same O(η²) monopole effect is kept in the radial sector to produce the b²-dependence of δ_AdS in Eqs. (67)-(69). This selective truncation is unquantified; if the angular correction is of the same order as the retained radial effect, the claimed time-scale scaling τ ∝ ℓ^{2(ν+1)}b^{2ν} is not established. Second, the QNM ansatz ω_QM = (2b/ℓ)(m+σ) + iδ_AdS assumes δ_AdS ≪ 1 (Eq. 60) without verifying it for the plotted parameters, and the case-2 rate δ in Eq. (89) is asserted after 'similar mechanical steps', so its correctness rests on an unshown computation.

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

Two things to know. First, the genuinely new and solid piece is the threshold argument: with b² = 1 − 8πη² < 1, the outer horizon r₊ is enlarged, so eΦ_h = eQ/r₊ and the superradiance threshold fall. That part is simple, correct, and not in the cited literature for this geometry. Second, the headline claim about stability is not supported by the paper's own equations. Eq. (69) gives δ_AdS ∝ b^{−2ν}; as b² decreases, δ_AdS grows and τ_AdS = 1/δ_AdS falls. The text right after Eq. (69) says exactly that, and the figures confirm it. Yet the abstract and conclusion say the monopole makes the black holes 'more stable' and the instability 'grows slower.' A shorter instability timescale means faster exponential growth. This is not a subtle disagreement; it is a direct contradiction between the displayed formula and the stated conclusion. The same issue affects the black-hole-bomb case, where Eq. (89) indicates δ grows as b² decreases and τ decreases, while the conclusion again claims slower growth. So the only stable part of the central claim is the threshold narrowing; the growth-rate part is unestablished and internally inconsistent as written.

The λ ≈ ν truncation is the other real soft spot. The paper expands 1/b² = 1 + O(η²), neglects the O(η²) term to set λ = ν, and then keeps the same O(η²) effect in the radial sector to get the b^{−2ν} factor in δ_AdS. That is an uncontrolled truncation: both corrections are the same order, so the claimed scaling is not established at leading order. The case-2 growth rate in Eq. (89) is also asserted after 'similar mechanical steps,' with no derivation shown; the formula itself looks garbled. Minor but worth noting: the text is typo-ridden in key equations, which makes independent checking harder than it should be.

What the paper does well is honest cataloging: it connects the global-monopole geometry to the known RN(-AdS) superradiance literature and correctly identifies the threshold shift and its physical meaning. The citation pattern is fine; the reductions to Cardoso–Dias and Uchikata–Yoshida in the appropriate limits are there. The authors also admit that numerical analysis is needed, which is fair.

Who is this for? Someone working on charged-scalar superradiance in modified or defect spacetimes would want the threshold result, but they should not rely on the instability-rate claims until the contradiction is resolved and the truncation quantified. My recommendation: this deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject, because the core identification is clean and publishable after major revision. But I would not accept it in current form, and I would not cite the stability conclusion.

Verdict: send to review, expect heavy revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the superradiance of a massive charged scalar field on a Reissner-Nordström(-AdS) spacetime containing a global monopole, parameterized by b^2 = 1 - 8πη^2 < 1. After deriving the Klein-Gordon equation and its asymptotic solutions, the authors obtain the superradiance condition ω < eΦ_h (Sec. II.F) and show that the monopole enlarges the outer horizon r_+ (Eq. (32)), thereby lowering the threshold frequency. The main body (Sec. III) then uses matched asymptotic expansions in two confinement settings: RN-AdS, where the AdS boundary acts as a reflecting box, and the black-hole-bomb case, where a mirror is placed at radius r_0. For the AdS case, the authors derive a discrete spectrum (Eq. (59)), a QNM ansatz with a small imaginary part (Eq. (60)), and a growth rate δ_AdS (Eq. (69)); for the bomb case, they obtain a condition involving Bessel zeros (Eqs. (88)-(92)) and a growth rate δ (Eq. (89)). The paper's abstract and conclusion assert that the presence of a global monopole makes these black holes more stable against superradiance instability by lowering the threshold and slowing the instability growth.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, the paper would provide a concrete physical example of a topological defect modifying black-hole superradiance: the threshold reduction follows cleanly from the horizon equation and is a robust, model-independent effect. The threshold part is indeed sound and correctly identifies the role of b^2 in enlarging r_+. However, the instability-growth results are not reliable in the current form. The paper's own Eq. (69) and Fig. 2 show the time scale τ_AdS decreasing as b^2 decreases, which indicates faster exponential growth, and this sits in direct tension with the stated conclusion that the instability 'grows slower.' In addition, the derivation retains a b^{-2ν} radial effect while dropping the same-order O(η^2) angular eigenvalue correction, and the mirror-case rate in Eq. (89) is asserted without showing the matching computation. The threshold narrowing is a useful result, but the more novel quantitative predictions about instability timescales require substantial revision before they can support the abstract's stability claim.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III A (after Eq. (74)) and Sec. IV] Equation (69) gives δ_AdS proportional to b^{-2ν}, so as b^2 = 1 - 8πη^2 decreases (stronger monopole), δ_AdS increases; the text immediately after Eq. (74) acknowledges this and defines τ_AdS = 1/δ_AdS, and Fig. 2 plots τ_AdS decreasing with decreasing b^2. However, the Conclusion and Abstract state that the instability 'grows slower' in the presence of the global monopole. Since the field amplitude evolves as Φ ∝ e^{δ t} (Eq. (73)), a smaller τ means faster exponential growth. The central 'more stable' claim is thus contradicted by the paper's own formula and figures, and this inconsistency must be resolved before the main conclusion can be stated.
[Sec. III A, Eqs. (64)-(66) and Eq. (69)] The matching procedure sets λ = ν by expanding 1/b^2 = 1 + O(η^2) and 'neglecting the O(η^2) term,' yet the radial sector then retains the O(η^2) monopole effect through the explicit factor b^{-2ν} in Eq. (69). Because b^{-2ν} - 1 is itself O(η^2) for small η, the retained radial scaling in Eq. (69) is of the same order as the angular correction that is dropped. Therefore the claimed τ_AdS ∝ b^{2ν} dependence and the mode-dependent curves in Figs. 2(a)-(d) are not established at leading order. The authors should either solve Eq. (64) exactly for λ in terms of ν and b, or demonstrate that the angular correction does not enter the growth rate at leading order.
[Sec. III A Eq. (60) and Sec. III B Eqs. (88)-(89)] The QNM ansatz (60) assumes δ_AdS ≪ 1 without verifying this for the parameters used in the plots; from Eq. (69), small b^2 and larger ν can make b^{-2ν} large, so the smallness of δ_AdS needs explicit support. In the mirror case, the growth rate δ in Eq. (89) is introduced after 'similar mechanical steps' without presenting the matching computation. Since Eq. (89) is the quantitative input for Fig. 3 and the bomb-case conclusions, the derivation should be shown in full or the result should be clearly traced to a displayed calculation.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (5)] The Hawking temperature expression contains spurious factors of 1/(4π) inside the parentheses; the preceding derivative of Δ_r/r^2 gives T = (1/4π)(b^2/r_+ + 3r_+/ℓ^2 - Q^2/r_+^3), and the displayed formula should be corrected accordingly.
[Eq. (20)] The near-horizon potential is written as V(r_*) → (ω - eΦ_h), but it should be (ω - eΦ_h)^2 to be consistent with the potential in Eq. (19) and with the plane-wave exponents in Eq. (22).
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'wih' in Sec. I, 'deacreases' in the captions of Figs. 2 and 3, and repeated 'eﬀects' in the abstract; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Sec. III A, after Eq. (64)] The text says 'neglecting the O(η^2) term we have λ = ν,' but the exact relation λ(λ+1) = ν(ν+1)/b^2 implies a shift in λ of order η^2, and the notation would be clearer if the authors explicitly distinguish the exact λ from the approximated integer ν.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained; the main consistency defect is an internal contradiction between Eq. (69) and the conclusion, which is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters and then relabel them as predictions, nor does it import a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing result from the authors' prior work. The superradiance threshold condition (30) is derived in Sec. II.F from a Wronskian calculation and is the input of the stability analysis; Eqs. (72), (74), and (92) apply that same condition to the computed quasinormal-mode real parts, which is an application of the input rather than a circular derivation. The growth-rate expressions (69) and (89) are obtained by asymptotic matching of near- and far-region solutions, not by assuming the answer; the sign relation δ ∝ −(Re[ω] − eΦ_h) is a derived consequence of that matching, even though it reproduces the superradiance condition. The λ=ν simplification after Eq. (64), where an O(η²) angular correction is dropped while O(η²) monopole effects are kept in the radial factor b^{−2ν}, is an unquantified approximation that threatens the reliability of the b-dependence of δ, but it is an approximation-consistency problem, not a self-referential reduction. The self-citations [30, 50, 76] are background references and are not load-bearing. The unshown 'similar mechanical steps' behind Eq. (89) and the conclusion's 'grows slower' statement, which conflicts with the displayed τ ∝ b^{2ν} decrease, are correctness/consistency concerns rather than circularity. No step in the paper's chain reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation introduces no fitted constants: M, Q, Λ, η, μ, e, ν, m, r₀ are physical inputs, and the plotted charges and frequencies are chosen only to display the superradiant regime. The one hand-tuned step is the angular truncation λ≈ν. The main axioms are the adopted monopole metric and the standard asymptotic-matching low-frequency assumptions; the scalings quoted in the abstract and conclusion stand or fall on those.

free parameters (1)

Angular eigenvalue truncation λ ≈ ν = λ set to ν, O(η²) correction dropped
Introduced ad hoc to close the near-far matching (Sec. III.A after Eq. 64); the same-order O(η²) monopole effect is retained in the radial sector, so the truncation error is unquantified.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Line element (1)-(2) is the correct RN(-AdS) global monopole spacetime
Adopted from Barriola-Vilenkin (1989) and Guendelman-Rabinowitz (1991); the monopole enters only through b² = 1-8πη² and its core structure is neglected.
domain assumption Low-frequency near/far matching regime: r₊ ≪ ℓ, (r-r₊) ≪ 1/ω, μ²r₊² ≪ 1 in the near region, and M,Q → 0 in the far region
The central instability formulas (67)-(69) and (78)-(89) hold only under these asymptotic-matching assumptions stated in Sec. III.A and III.B.
ad hoc to paper QNM ansatz ω_QM = (2b/ℓ)(m+σ) + iδ_AdS with δ_AdS ≪ 1 (Eq. 60)
The black hole complex frequency is assumed to be the pure monopole-AdS normal mode plus a small imaginary correction; no smallness check is given for the plotted parameters.
standard math Standard hypergeometric transformation formulas and gamma function identities (Abramowitz-Stegun [77])
Used to move between z, x and 1-x neighborhoods in the near (Eqs. 42-43) and far (Eqs. 56-57) solutions.
domain assumption Superradiance condition ω < eΦ_h derived from the Wronskian (Eqs. 28-30)
Assumed to hold with the same form as in RN-AdS since the monopole only rescales the horizon radius; this condition is then used to sign the instability in both cases.
domain assumption Mirror condition Φ = 0 at r = r₀, quantized by Bessel zeros J_{ν+1/2}(r₀ω/b²) = 0 (Eqs. 80-83)
Defines the black hole bomb setup; assumes a perfectly reflecting mirror and takes the mode frequencies from the Bessel root condition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superradiance of a Global Monopole in Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m(-AdS) Space-time." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KGWXXWCH

@misc{pith2026190800504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superradiance of a Global Monopole in Reissner-Nordstr\"om(-AdS) Space-time},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KGWXXWCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00504}
}

read the original abstract

In this article, the behaviour of a charged and massive scalar field around a global monopole swallowed by a Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m-Anti-de Sitter (RN-AdS) black hole is investigated by considering the Klein-Gordon equation in this geometry. The superradiance phenomenon and instability behaviour of the black hole against charged scalar perturbations are studied for both an RN-AdS case and also for an RN black hole surrounded by a reflective mirror, i.e., the black hole bomb case. The effects of the monopole on these cases are discussed analytically and also with the help of several graphs in detail. The monopole charge affects the superradiance threshold frequency and also effects the instability time scale for both cases. The existence of global monopole makes these black holes more stable against superradiance instability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00504 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Figures (2a), (2b), (2c), (2d) corresponds to the different values of particle mass, black hole charge, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Figure (3a) specifies the regime of the superradiant scattering and the variation of the threshold frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

[1]

Nonvanishing Cosmological constant case For nonvanishing cosmological constant, i.e., 𝓁⁄=∞, we have V (r∗)→∞, as r→∞ (for 𝓁⁄=∞) (23) which implies that the boundary condition for the scalar ﬁeld in this case is the following, R→ 0 when r∗→∞, (24) due to the fact that AdS space behaves eﬀectively as a reﬂecting mirror. 7
[2]

Vanishing Cosmological Constant case For the vanishing cosmological constant, however, the behaviour of the scalar ﬁeld is very diﬀerent, since V (r∗)→ω2−b2µ2, as r→∞ (for 𝓁 =∞). (25) Hence, for vanishing cosmological constant, and if the scalar ﬁeld is massive ( µ⁄= 0), then bound states that are decaying at inﬁnity are possible for the scalar ﬁeld if ω2...

work page
[3]

(47) 10 and the following ansatz, R =xβ1(1−x)β2F. (48) Substitution of (48) to (46) yields, (1−x)x∂ 2 rF + [γ′−x(α′ +β′ + 1) ]∂xF−α′β′F = 0, (49) where we have deﬁned, α′ =β1 +β2 + 3 4 + 1 4 √ 9 + 4µ2𝓁2 = ˜ω𝓁 2 + λ 2 + 3 4 + 1 4 √ 9 + 4µ2𝓁2, (50) β′ =β1 +β2 + 3 4− 1 4 √ 9 + 4µ2𝓁2 = ˜ω𝓁 2 + λ 2 + 3 4− 1 4 √ 9 + 4µ2𝓁2, (51) γ′ = ˜ω𝓁 + 1, (52) such that, α′β...

work page
[4]

(54) Taking the limit x→∞ and using F (α,β ;γ; 0) = 1, we see that the solution behaves as, R∼ (−1)β2 [ Cx −1 4 ( 3+ √ 9+µ2𝓁2 ) +D ]

(53) The equation (49) is in the form of hypergeometric diﬀerential equation and this equation admits a solution in the neighbourhood of x =∞ as [77],F (α′,β′;γ′;x) = Cx−α′F (α′,α′−γ′ + 1;α′−β′ + 1; 1 x) +Dx−β′ F (β′,β′−γ′ + 1;β′−α′ + 1; 1 x), hence we can write a solution of (46) via (48) as, R = (1−x)β2xβ1 { Cx−α′F (α′,α′−γ′ + 1;α′−β′ + 1; 1 x) +Dx−β′ F...

work page
[5]

T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A 9, 1387 (1976)

1976
[6]

Vilenkin, Phys

A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rep. 121, 263 (1985)

1985
[7]

Barriola and A

M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 341 (1989)

1989
[8]

Harari and C

D. Harari and C. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 42 2626 (1990)

work page 1990

Show all 81 references

[9]

D. P. Bennett and S. H. Rhie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 1709 (1990)

1990
[10]

Pogosian, S.-H

L. Pogosian, S.-H. H. Tye, I. Wasserman, and M. Wyman, Phys. Rev. D 68, 023506 (2003); 73 089904(E) (2006)

2003
[11]

Bevis, M

N. Bevis, M. Hindmarsh, M. Kunz, and J. Urrestilla, Phys. Rev. D 75 065015 (2007)

2007
[12]

Vilenkin and E

A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard, Cosmic strings and other topological defects, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK 2000)

2000
[13]

Dicke, Phys.Rev

R. Dicke, Phys.Rev. 93 , 99(1954)

1954
[14]

J. D. Bekenstein and M. Schiﬀer, Phys. Rev. D. 58 064014 (1998)

1998
[15]

Brito, V

R. Brito, V. Cardoso, P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys. 906 1 (2015)

2015
[16]

Ya. B. Zel’dovich, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 14 270 (1971) [JETP Lett. 14, 180 (1971)]

1971
[17]

Y. B. Zel’dovich, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 62 2076 (1972),[Sov. Phys. JETP 35, 1085 (1972)]

1972
[18]

J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. 178 347 (1972)

1972
[19]

A. A. Starobinsky, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 64, 48 (1973) [Sov. Phys. JETP 37 28 (1973)]

1973
[20]

A. A. Starobinsky and S. M. Churilov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 65 3 (1973) [Sov. Phys. JETP 38, 1 (1973)]

1973
[21]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D, 7 949 (1973)

1973
[22]

Denardo and R

G. Denardo and R. Ruﬃni, Phys. Lett. B 45 259 (1973)

1973
[23]

Furuhashi, and Y

H. Furuhashi, and Y. Nambu, Prog. Theor. Phys. 112 983 (2004)

2004
[24]

Regge, and J

T. Regge, and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 108, 1063 (1957)

1957
[25]

C. V. Vishveshwara, Phys. Rev. D 1, 2870 (1970)

1970
[26]

W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Nature 238, 211 (1972)

1972
[27]

Cardoso, O

V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, J. P. S. Lemos, and S. Yoshida, Phys.Rev. D 70 044039 (2004)

2004
[28]

M. J. Strafuss, and G. Khanna, Phys. Rev. D 71, 024034 (2005)

2005
[29]

Hod, and O

S. Hod, and O. Hod, Phys. Rev. D 81, 061502 (2010)

2010
[30]

J. G. Rosa, JHEP 06 (2010) 015

2010
[31]

Witek, V

H. Witek, V. Cardoso, C. Herdeiro, A. Nerozzi, U. Sperhake, and M. Zilhao, Phys. Rev. D 82 104037 (2010)

2010
[32]

J. P. Lee, JHEP 01 (2012) 091

2012
[33]

S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D 87 124026 (2013)

2013
[34]

Delice and T

O. Delice and T. Dur˘ gut, Phys. Rev. D92 024053 (2015)

2015
[35]

C. A. R. Herdeiro, J. C. Degollado and H. F. R´ unarsson, Phys. Rev. D 88 063003 (2013)

2013
[36]

J. C. Degollado and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. D 89 063005 (2014)

2014
[37]

Sanchis-Gual, J

N. Sanchis-Gual, J. C. Degollado, P. J. Montero, J. A. Font, and C. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 141101 (2016)

2016
[38]

Sanchis-Gual, J

N. Sanchis-Gual, J. C. Degollado, C. Herdeiro, J. A. Font, and P. J. Montero, Phys. Rev. D 94 044061 (2016)

2016
[39]

Hod, Phys

S. Hod, Phys. Lett.B 761, 326 (2016)

2016
[40]

H. R. C. Ferreira and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Phys Rev. D 97 084003 (2018)

2018
[41]

O. J. C. Dias and R. Masachs, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 184001 (2018)

2018
[42]

O. J. C. Dias and R. Masachs, Phys. Rev. D 97 124030 (2018)

2018
[43]

Damour, N

T. Damour, N. Deruelle, and R. Ruﬃni, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 15, 257 (1976)

1976
[44]

T. J. M. Zouros and D. M. Eardley, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 118 139 (1979)

1979
[45]

S. L. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D 22 2323 (1980)

1980
[46]

S. W. Hawking, and H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D. 61 024014 (1999)

1999
[47]

Cardoso and O

V. Cardoso and O. J. C. Dias, Phys.Rev. D 70 084011 (2004)

2004
[48]

Uchikata, S

N. Uchikata, S. Yoshida and T. Futamase, Phys. Rev. D 80 084020 (2009)

2009
[49]

Bosch, S

P. Bosch, S. R. Green and L. Lehner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 141102 (2016)

2016
[50]

P. A. Gonzalez, E. Papantonopoulos, J. Saavedra, and Y. Vasquez, Phys. Rev. D 95 064046 (2017)

2017
[51]

S. S. Gubser, Phys. Rev. D 78, 065034, (2008)

2008
[52]

Uchikata and S

N. Uchikata and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 83, 064020 (2011)

2011
[53]

Kodama, Prog

H. Kodama, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 172, 11 (2008)

2008
[54]

A. N. Aliev and O. Delice, Phys. Rev. D 79 024013 (2009)

2009
[55]

Wang and C

M. Wang and C. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. D 89 084062 (2014)

2014
[56]

R. Li, H. Zhang and J. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 758 359 (2016)

2016
[57]

Cardoso, O

V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 74 044008 (2006)

2006
[58]

Cardoso, O

V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, G. S. Hartnett, L. Lehner and J. E. Santos, JHEP 14 (2014) 183 19

2014
[59]

Wang and C

M. Wang and C. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. D 93 064066 (2016)

2016
[60]

P. Basu, J. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharyya, R. Loganayagam, S. Minwalla and V. Umesh, JHEP 10 (2010) 045

2010
[61]

O. J. C. Dias, G. T. Horowitz and J. E. Santos, JHEP 07 (2011) 115

2011
[62]

O. J. C. Dias, J. E. Santos and B. Way, JHEP 12(2015) 171

2015
[63]

S. R. Green, S. Hollands, A. Ishibashi and R. M Wald, Class. Quantum Grav. 33 125022 (2016)

2016
[64]

Moncrief, Phys

V. Moncrief, Phys. Rev. D 9 2707 (1974)

1974
[65]

Moncrief, Phys

V. Moncrief, Phys. Rev. D 10 1057 (1974)

1974
[66]

Hod, Phys

S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B 713, 505 (2012)

2012
[67]

Hod, Phys

S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B 718, 1489 (2013)

2013
[68]

L. D. Menza and J.-P. Nicolas, Class. Quantum Grav. 32 145013 (2015)

2015
[69]

Baake and O

O. Baake and O. Rinne, Phys. Rev. D 94 124016 (2016)

2016
[70]

R. Li, Y. Zhao, T. Zi and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 99 084045 (2019)

2019
[71]

O. J. C. Dias, P. Figueras, S. Minwalla, P. Mitra, R. Monteiro and J. E. Santos, JHEP 08 (2012) 117

2012
[72]

S. A. Gentle, M. Rangamani and B. Withers, JHEP 05 (2012) 106

2012
[73]

O. J. C. Dias and R. Masachs, JHEP 02 (2017) 128

2017
[74]

R. M. Teixeira Filho and V. B. Bezerra, Phys. Rev. D 64 084009 (2001)

2001
[75]

Chuang, R

I. Chuang, R. Durrer, N. Turok and B. Yurke, Science 251 1336 (1991)

1991
[76]

Y Zhang, E Li and J Geng, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 46 1728 (2014)

2014
[77]

E. I. Guendelman, A. Rabinowitz, Phys. Rev. D 44 3152 (1991)

1991
[78]

Berti and K

E. Berti and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. D 67 064020 (2003)

2003
[79]

Letelier, P.S.: Phys. Rev. D 20 1294 (1979)

1979
[80]

Delice, JHEP 11 (2003) 058

O. Delice, JHEP 11 (2003) 058

2003
[81]

Abramowitz and A

M. Abramowitz and A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions (Dover Publications, NewYork, 1970)

1970

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Nonvanishing Cosmological constant case For nonvanishing cosmological constant, i.e., 𝓁⁄=∞, we have V (r∗)→∞, as r→∞ (for 𝓁⁄=∞) (23) which implies that the boundary condition for the scalar ﬁeld in this case is the following, R→ 0 when r∗→∞, (24) due to the fact that AdS space behaves eﬀectively as a reﬂecting mirror. 7

[2] [2]

Vanishing Cosmological Constant case For the vanishing cosmological constant, however, the behaviour of the scalar ﬁeld is very diﬀerent, since V (r∗)→ω2−b2µ2, as r→∞ (for 𝓁 =∞). (25) Hence, for vanishing cosmological constant, and if the scalar ﬁeld is massive ( µ⁄= 0), then bound states that are decaying at inﬁnity are possible for the scalar ﬁeld if ω2...

work page

[3] [3]

(47) 10 and the following ansatz, R =xβ1(1−x)β2F. (48) Substitution of (48) to (46) yields, (1−x)x∂ 2 rF + [γ′−x(α′ +β′ + 1) ]∂xF−α′β′F = 0, (49) where we have deﬁned, α′ =β1 +β2 + 3 4 + 1 4 √ 9 + 4µ2𝓁2 = ˜ω𝓁 2 + λ 2 + 3 4 + 1 4 √ 9 + 4µ2𝓁2, (50) β′ =β1 +β2 + 3 4− 1 4 √ 9 + 4µ2𝓁2 = ˜ω𝓁 2 + λ 2 + 3 4− 1 4 √ 9 + 4µ2𝓁2, (51) γ′ = ˜ω𝓁 + 1, (52) such that, α′β...

work page

[4] [4]

(54) Taking the limit x→∞ and using F (α,β ;γ; 0) = 1, we see that the solution behaves as, R∼ (−1)β2 [ Cx −1 4 ( 3+ √ 9+µ2𝓁2 ) +D ]

(53) The equation (49) is in the form of hypergeometric diﬀerential equation and this equation admits a solution in the neighbourhood of x =∞ as [77],F (α′,β′;γ′;x) = Cx−α′F (α′,α′−γ′ + 1;α′−β′ + 1; 1 x) +Dx−β′ F (β′,β′−γ′ + 1;β′−α′ + 1; 1 x), hence we can write a solution of (46) via (48) as, R = (1−x)β2xβ1 { Cx−α′F (α′,α′−γ′ + 1;α′−β′ + 1; 1 x) +Dx−β′ F...

work page

[5] [5]

T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A 9, 1387 (1976)

1976

[6] [6]

Vilenkin, Phys

A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rep. 121, 263 (1985)

1985

[7] [7]

Barriola and A

M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 341 (1989)

1989

[8] [8]

Harari and C

D. Harari and C. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 42 2626 (1990)

work page 1990