Electroweak clouds supported by magnetically charged black holes: Analytic treatment along the existence-line

Shahar Hod

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Electroweak clouds supported by magnetically charged black holes: Analytic treatment along the existence-line

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Electroweak clouds around magnetically charged black holes have a closed-form resonance spectrum in the large-charge limit, and its fundamental mode is the critical line between hairy and bald black holes.

desk verdict A competent WKB derivation of an analytic existence line for electroweak clouds on magnetically charged black holes; plausible and useful, but accuracy claims run ahead of the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18702 v1 pith:OVPADU5L submitted 2025-01-30 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Shahar Hod This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-th

keywords electroweakcloudsmagneticallychargedblackholesReissner-NordströmEinstein-Weinberg-SalamtheoryWKBmethodresonancespectrumhairyno-hairconjecture

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 claims that electroweak clouds—bound states of electroweak fields around a magnetically charged Reissner-Nordström black hole—obey a closed-form resonance spectrum in the large-charge regime $n\gg 1$. Working from a second-order WKB quantization condition and a near-horizon expansion of the effective potential, the paper derives $\mu_k(n\gg1)=\sqrt{n/2}\,\left[1-\sqrt{4/n-2R^2/\alpha}\,\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]$, with $R=m_w/M_{\rm Pl}$. The fundamental ($k=0$) member gives the critical existence-line separating hairy magnetic-black-hole–electroweak-field configurations from bald magnetic Reissner-Nordström black holes, $[\mu(n\gg1)]_{\max}=\sqrt{n/2}\,\left(1-\sqrt{1/n-R^2/(2\alpha)}\right)$. The formulas replace a previously numerical boundary with an analytic expression, and the paper reports agreement with the numerical spectrum to better than one percent at $n=100$.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the second-order WKB quantization condition for the Schrödinger-like radial equation obeyed by the linearized field, combined with a near-horizon expansion of the WKB integrand. The two turning points are the outer horizon $r_+$ and $\gamma=\sqrt{n}/(\sqrt{2}m_w)$, where the effective potential vanishes; the key step is the expansion $(\gamma^2/r^2-1)/f(r)=2r_+/(r_+-r_-)\,(\epsilon/x-1)+O(x,\epsilon)$ in the regime $x=(r-r_+)/r_+\ll1$ and $\epsilon=\gamma/r_+-1\ll1$. That reduction turns the quantization integral into $\int_0^1 dz\,\sqrt{1/z-1}=\pi/2$, which yields the closed-form spectrum and the existence-line formula.

What would settle it

Solve Eq. (9) directly, with boundary conditions (12)–(13), for $n=10^3$ and $n=10^4$, and compare the fundamental eigenvalue with Eq. (38); a disagreement larger than the sub-percent accuracy claimed at $n=100$ would falsify the uniform-validity assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the discrete resonant spectrum of static linearized electroweak fields in a magnetic Reissner-Nordström background, previously accessible only numerically, is analytically determined in the dimensionless large-mass regime $\mu=m_w r_+\gg1$. The WKB condition $\int_{r_+}^{\gamma} dr\,\sqrt{-V}/f=(k+\frac{1}{2})\pi$, with turning points at the horizon $r_+$ and at $\gamma=\sqrt{n}/(\sqrt{2}m_w)$, becomes an elementary integral once the integrand is replaced by its near-horizon form, giving the spectrum (36) and, through the $k=0$ mode, the closed-form existence-line (38). The paper states that this existence-line is the boundary between hairy magnetic-black-hole-electroweak-field bound-state configurations and bald magnetic Reissner-Nordström black holes, and that hairy configurations satisfy $\mu(n)\le[\mu(n)]_{\max}$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation stands on the assumption that the near-horizon expansion of the WKB integrand stays accurate across the whole integration range from the horizon to the outer turning point; the paper checks this at one moderately large value ($n=100$, where the small parameter $\epsilon$ is about $0.11$) and gives no explicit error bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the large-charge regime the hairy/bald boundary of the Einstein-Weinberg-Salam theory is fixed by the closed-form expression (38), not by a numerical scan.
For each magnetic charge $n$, the spectrum (36) predicts a countable tower of electroweak-cloud resonances, labeled by $k=0,1,2,\dots$, with the $k=0$ mode the largest.
Hairy magnetic-black-hole–electroweak-field configurations exist precisely when $\mu(n)\le[\mu(n)]_{\max}$; above that value the supporting black hole is bald.
In the intermediate window $1\ll n\ll 2\alpha/R^2\sim10^{33}$, the spectrum simplifies to $\mu_k\simeq\sqrt{n/2}\,\left[1-2n^{-1/2}\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]$, making the charge dependence fully explicit.
The reported sub-percent agreement with the numerical $n=100$ value indicates that the analytic formula can serve as a benchmark for the numerical existence-line.

Reading between the lines

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

If the near-horizon WKB expansion is uniformly valid, then directly solving Eq. (9) at $n=10^3$ and $n=10^4$ would test the claimed accuracy beyond the single reported value.
The same expansion should produce accurate eigenvalues for the higher modes $k\ge1$, which the paper derives but does not compare against numerical data.
The analytic existence-line may sharpen statements of the no-hair conjecture by giving a concrete charge-dependent mass window in which standard electroweak fields can dress a magnetic black hole; whether the window survives in the fully nonlinear Einstein-Weinberg-Salam equations is not addressed here.
Because Eq. (38) depends only on $n$ and known constants, it provides a quick consistency check for future numerical solutions of the full Einstein-Weinberg-Salam system, and the near-horizon-WKB strategy may transfer to other massive-vector or scalar cloud problems with the same turning-point structure.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a short WKB paper that does one useful thing and mostly does it right. The new items are Eq. (36), the analytic resonance spectrum, and Eq. (38), the closed-form critical existence line for electroweak clouds on magnetically charged RN black holes in the large-charge regime. Neither expression appears in Gervalle and Volkov's numerical PRL, so the paper genuinely adds an analytic handle to a known numerical curve.

What it does well: the derivation is textbook WKB, cleanly laid out, and I checked the algebra from Eq. (22) to Eq. (38) — it holds. The single numerical benchmark at n=100 gives 6.364 vs the numerical 6.426, under 1% agreement. That's real evidence, even if it's one point.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the load-bearing approximation in Eq. (25) replaces the integrand with a near-horizon form and drops O(x,ϵ), but no error bound is given. For the n=100 check, ϵ≈0.11, so the good agreement does not establish uniform validity over the claimed regime. The claim that (36) gives the spectrum for k=0..∞ is stronger than the method supports, since ϵ grows linearly with k+1/2 and the expansion fails for all but the lowest few k. The k=0 result behind the existence line (38) is the one that matters, and it's plausibly fine; the overreach is in the general spectrum statement. Second, Eq. (39) has a numerical slip: using the paper's own constants gives R^2/(2α) ≈ 3.1e-33, not 1.27e-33. The identity in (39) is correct, but the number is off by a factor of about 2.4. It doesn't affect Eq. (38) at the n values of interest, but it's an internal inconsistency that should be corrected. Third, the validation is a single point; I'd like to see a few more n values, especially where ϵ is smaller, to actually test the asymptotic regime.

Who this is for: people working on hairy black holes in the Weinberg-Salam theory, and more broadly anyone interested in analytic approximations for black-hole-field resonances. It's a useful, competent addendum to Gervalle-Volkov, not a conceptual breakthrough. The central claim is plausible and the derivation is honest, so I'd send it to peer review. A referee should ask for an error estimate on the WKB truncation, a corrected Eq. (39), and more validation points, but this is not a desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies static linearized electroweak-field clouds around magnetically charged Reissner-Nordström black holes in the Einstein-Weinberg-Salam theory, focusing on the dimensionless large-mass regime μ ≫ 1. Using a textbook WKB quantization condition applied to the linearized potential imported from Gervalle and Volkov [26], the author derives a compact discrete resonance spectrum and identifies the k = 0 eigenvalue as the critical existence-line separating hairy magnetically charged black holes from bald ones. The central claimed result is Eq. (38), the large-n critical existence-line, together with the full spectrum Eq. (36) and several simplified forms. The paper closes with a single numerical comparison at n = 100, reporting agreement to better than 1% with the numerical value of [26].

Significance. If the derivation is correct, the paper replaces part of the numerical existence-line of Gervalle and Volkov with a closed-form expression and gives predictive, parameter-free formulas for the resonance spectrum. The WKB calculation is not circular: it imports the linearized potential and model constants from [26] and applies a standard quantization condition without fitted parameters, and the numerical comparison is an independent benchmark. These are genuine strengths. However, the formulas as printed contain an internal inconsistency between the general spectrum and the k = 0 critical-line formula, the uniform validity of the key expansion is not quantified, and the constant in Eq. (39) is numerically inconsistent with the paper's own input values. These issues must be resolved before the analytical claims can be considered established.

major comments (3)

[§IV, Eqs. (36) and (38)] As printed, Eq. (36) and Eq. (38) are mutually inconsistent. Setting k = 0 in Eq. (36) gives μ0 = sqrt(n/2)[1 - sqrt(4/n - R²/α)], while Eq. (38) gives sqrt(n/2)[1 - sqrt(1/n - R²/(2α))]. For n = 100 these evaluate to approximately 5.657 and 6.364, respectively; only the latter is compatible with the text's quoted analytical value 6.364 and with the numerical value 6.426 from [26]. The factor '4/n' inside the radicals of Eqs. (35) and (36) appears to be a transcription or derivation error and should be '1/n' (or equivalent) if Eq. (38) is to follow from the k = 0 case. Because Eq. (36) is advertised as the full discrete spectrum and Eq. (38) as its fundamental mode, this inconsistency is load-bearing and must be corrected and rederived from Eq. (30) onward.
[§III, Eq. (25) and Eq. (29)] The central approximation (25) replaces the exact WKB integrand by its near-horizon expansion plus O(x, ε) terms and then drops those terms, but no uniform error bound is provided for the integral over x ∈ [0, ε]. Since the approximate integrand is singular at x = 0, the smallness of ε at a single point does not by itself control the integrated remainder. The only numerical validation is the k = 0, n = 100 case, for which ε ≈ 0.11 is only moderately small. Moreover, Eq. (29) shows that ε grows linearly with k + 1/2, so the assumption ε ≪ 1 fails for all but the lowest k; the assertion that Eq. (36) gives the spectrum for k = 0, 1, 2, ... is therefore not justified as it stands. The authors should either supply an error bound for the WKB phase integral, validate the formulas at several values of n and k, or explicitly restrict the claim to the k = 0 existence-line with a quantified accuracy statement.
[§IV, Eq. (39)] The numerical evaluation in Eq. (39) is inconsistent with the constants stated in §II. Using κ = 5.42 × 10⁻³³, m_w = 0.6244, and e = 0.414 gives κ m_w²/(4e²) ≈ 3.1 × 10⁻³³, not 1.27 × 10⁻³³. The algebraic identity κ m_w²/(4e²) = R²/(2α) is exact given m_z² = 1/2, so the discrepancy indicates a convention or arithmetic error in the numerical value of R²/(2α), presumably in the value adopted for M_Pl. Although this term is numerically negligible for n ≪ 10³³ and therefore does not affect the leading-order existence-line, it is part of the stated formula (38), the simplified spectrum (41), and the regime estimate (40); the correct numerical value should be given and its convention specified.

minor comments (5)

[Title and header] The title line contains a typographical error, 'blac k holes', which should be corrected.
[Abstract] The notation for the spectrum, {μ_k(n)}_{k=0}^{k=∞}, appears garbled in the text as 'k=∞ k=0'; this should be typeset properly.
[§III, Eq. (30)] Equation (30) is written as an implicit relation in μ, since μ appears on the right-hand side; the author should state explicitly that it is an implicit equation to be solved in the large-μ limit or give the explicit solution to the order used.
[§II, Eqs. (4)-(6)] The relation between the dimensionless coupling e = g g' ≈ 0.414 and the fine-structure constant α ≈ 1/137 is nonstandard unless a specific unit convention is stated; a brief clarifying remark would prevent confusion in reproducing Eq. (39).
[Reference [26]] Reference [26] is cited as 'Phys. Rev. Lett. (2024)' without volume, page, or article number; the full publication data, including the arXiv identifier, should be supplied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the WKB derivation is self-contained given the externally imported linearized potential, and the numerical comparison is a post-hoc benchmark, not an input.

full rationale

The paper takes the effective radial potential V (Eq. 10), the model constants, and the numerically computed existence-line context from the external work [26]; the target eigenvalues are not among these inputs. The WKB quantization condition (Eqs. 16 and 18) is a standard textbook relation with no fitted parameters. Equations (22)-(29) are analytic manipulations of the resulting phase integral: Eq. (25) is an explicitly stated near-horizon expansion in the small quantities x and epsilon, and Eq. (29) evaluates a standard integral. Equations (30)-(36) follow by algebraic rearrangement using the stated relations r_+ = gamma/(1+epsilon), Q^2 = r_+ r_-, and the model constants. The agreement at n = 100 (6.364 analytical versus 6.426 numerical) is presented as an independent check, not used as a fitting condition. The many self-citations in the references are background/history and are not load-bearing for the derivation. Concerns about the omitted O(x, epsilon) terms and the validity for higher k are accuracy or justification issues, not circularity: the predicted spectrum is not equivalent by construction to any fitted input or to the numerical result it benchmarks. Therefore no circular step is present.

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

The derivation introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. It rests on the linearized field equation and constants imported from the numerical paper [26], on the standard WKB quantization condition, on the boundary conditions for bound-state clouds, and on the paper-specific near-horizon uniform expansion (25).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The effective potential for the linearized W field is V = f(r)(m_w^2 - n/(2r^2)) with f(r) the RN metric function (Eq. 10).
Imported from the numerical paper [26], this potential encodes the coupling of the W-boson mode with angular momentum j = n/2 - 1 to the magnetic RN background. If this potential were not the correct linearized description, the derivation would not apply.
standard math The WKB quantization condition contour integral of sqrt(-V) dy equals (k+1/2)π holds for the bound states with the horizon as the inner turning point (Eq. 16).
Standard Bohr-Sommerfeld/WKB condition, used for the Schrödinger-like radial equation. The paper applies it without a formal uniform asymptotic proof for this particular potential.
domain assumption The boundary conditions at the horizon (finite) and at infinity (exponential decay) select the discrete spectrum (Eqs. 12 and 13).
These are physically motivated conditions for spatially regular bound-state clouds; they define what is meant by a supported cloud.
ad hoc to paper In the large-μ regime the expansion (25) of the integrand in Eq. (22) is uniformly valid over the whole integration range [r_+, γ].
This approximation is the paper's key technical step. It is asserted on the basis of x, ϵ ≪ 1, but no explicit error bound is given; the good match at n=100 is the only numerical support.
domain assumption The critical existence-line corresponds to the fundamental k=0 resonant mode (footnote [37]).
The paper assumes that the largest eigenvalue μ_0(n) marks the boundary between hairy and bald configurations, a standard identification in the cloud literature.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electroweak clouds supported by magnetically charged black holes: Analytic treatment along the existence-line." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OVPADU5L

@misc{pith2026250118702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electroweak clouds supported by magnetically charged black holes: Analytic treatment along the existence-line},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OVPADU5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18702}
}

abstract

It has recently been revealed [R. Gervalle and M. S. Volkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2024)] that magnetically charged black holes of the composed Einstein-Weinberg-Salam field theory can support bound-state hairy configurations of electroweak fields. In the present paper we study, using {\it analytical} techniques, the physical and mathematical properties of the supported linearized electroweak fields (spatially regular electroweak 'clouds') in the dimensionless large-mass $\mu\equiv m_{\text{w}} r_+\gg1$ regime of the composed black-hole-field system (here $m_{\text{w}}$ is the mass of the supported W-boson field and $r_+$ is the outer horizon radius of the central supporting black hole). In particular, we derive a remarkably compact formula for the discrete resonance spectrum $\{\mu_k(n)\}_{k=0}^{k=\infty}$ that characterizes the composed black-hole-linearized-field configurations, where the integer $n\equiv 2Pe\in\mathbb{Z}$ characterizes the discrete charge parameter $P$ of the central magnetic Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole and $e$ is the electron charge. The physical significance of the analytically derived resonant spectrum stems from the fact that, in the dimensionless large-charge $n\gg1$ regime, the fundamental (largest) eigenvalue $\mu_0(n)$ determines the critical existence-line of the composed Einstein-Weinberg-Salam theory, a boundary line that separates hairy magnetic-black-hole-electroweak-field bound-state configurations from bald magnetic Reissner-Nordstr\"om black holes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[26]

Khodadi, A

M. Khodadi, A. Allahyari, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, JC AP 09, 026 (2020) [arXiv:2005.05992]

arXiv 2020
[1]

Ruﬃni and J

R. Ruﬃni and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Today 24, 30 (1971)

work page 1971
[2]

Carter, in Black Holes , Proceedings of 1972 Session of Ecole d’ete de Physique Theo rique, edited by C

B. Carter, in Black Holes , Proceedings of 1972 Session of Ecole d’ete de Physique Theo rique, edited by C. De Witt and B. S. De Witt (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1973)

work page 1972
[3]

J. E. Chase, Commun. Math. Phys. 19, 276 (1970); J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 452 (1972); C. Teitelboim, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 3, 326 (1972); A. E. Mayo and J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5059 (1996); I. Pena and D. Sudarsky, Class. Quant. Grav. 14, 3131 (1997)

work page 1970
[4]

Hartle, Phys

J. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D 3, 2938 (1971); C. Teitelboim, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 3, 397 (1972)

work page 1971
[5]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 5, 1239 (1972); 5, 2403 (1972); M. Heusler, J. Math. Phys. 33, 3497 (1992); D. Sudarsky, Class. Quantum Grav. 12, 579 (1995)

work page 1972
[6]

A. E. Mayo and J. D. Bekenstein and, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5059 (1996)

work page 1996
[7]

C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1542014 (2015)

work page 2015

Show all 39 references

[8]

Hod, Phys

S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B 713, 505 (2012); S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B 718, 1489 (2013) [arXiv:1304.6474]; S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044047 (2015) [arXiv:1504.00009]; S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B 771, 521 (2017); S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D 96, 124037 (2017)

2012 arXiv
[9]

M. S. Volkov and D. V. Galtsov, JETP Lett. 50, 346 (1989), [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 50 ,312 (1989)]; P. Bizo´ n, Phys. Rev. Lett 64, 2844 (1990); M. S. Volkov and D. V. Galtsov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phy s. 51, 1171 (1990)

1989
[10]

for a review and a detailed list of references). Subsequent stu dies have revealed the existence of black-hole spacetimes with a Skyrme hair [11], a Higgs hair [12, 13], stringy hair [14], a stationary scalar hair [15–19], and a scalar hair non-minimally coupled to the Maxwell...
[11]

M. S. Volkov and D. V. Gal’tsov, Phys. Rept. 319, 1 (1999)

1999
[12]

S. Droz, M. Heusler, and N. Straumann, Phys. Lett. B 268, 371 (1991)

1991
[13]

Breitenlohner, P

P. Breitenlohner, P. Forg´ acs, and D. Maison, Nucl. Phy s. B 383, 357 (1992). 7

1992
[14]

B. R. Greene, S. D. Mathur, and C. M. O’Neill, Phys. Rev. D 47, 2242 (1993)

1993
[15]

Kanti, N

P. Kanti, N. E. Mavromatos, J. Rizos, K. Tamvakis, and E. Winstanley, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5049 (1996)

1996
[16]

Hod, Phys

S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104026 (2012) [arXiv:1211.3202]

2012 arXiv
[17]

Hod, The Euro

S. Hod, The Euro. Phys. Journal C 73, 2378 (2013) [arXiv:1311.5298]; S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D 90, 024051 (2014) [arXiv:1406.1179]; S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B 739, 196 (2014) [arXiv:1411.2609]; S. Hod, Class. and Quant. Gr av. 32, 134002 (2015) [arXiv:1607.00003]; S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B ...

2013 arXiv
[18]

C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 221101 (2014); C. L. Benone, L. C. B. Crispino, C. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. D 90, 104024 (2014); C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. D 89, 124018 (2014); C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 23,...

2014
[19]

Brihaye, C

Y. Brihaye, C. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, Phys. Lett. B 739, 1 (2014); J. C. Degollado and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. D 90, 065019 (2014); C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. R´ unarsson, Phy s. Lett. B 739, 302 (2014); C. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Class. Quantum Grav. 32 144001 (2015); C...

2014 arXiv
[20]

Garc ´ ıa and M

G. Garc ´ ıa and M. Salgado, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044036 (2019); G. Garc ´ ıa and M. Salgado, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044040 (2020); G. Garc ´ ıa and M. Salgado, Phys. Rev. D 104, 064054 (2021); G. Garc ´ ıa and M. Salgado, arXiv:2307.15888

2019 arXiv
[21]

C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, N. Sanchis-Gual, and J. A. Fon t, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 101102 (2018)

2018
[22]

P. G. S. Fernandes, C. A. R. Herdeiro, A. M. Pombo, E. Radu , and N. Sanchis-Gual, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 134002 (2019) [arXiv:1902.05079]

2019 arXiv
[23]

Hod, Phys

S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B 798, 135025 (2019) [arXiv:2002.01948]; S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104025 (2020) [arXiv:2005.10268]; S. Hod, The Euro. Phys. Jour. C 80, 1150 (2020); S. Hod, Jour. of High Energy Phys. 09, 140 (2023) [arXiv:2308.12990]

2019 arXiv
[24]

D. C. Zou and Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D 100, 124055 (2019)

2019
[25]

P. G. S. Fernandes, Phys. Dark Univ. 30, 100716 (2020)

2020
[27]

Gervalle and M

R. Gervalle and M. S. Volkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2024) [ar Xiv:2406.14357]

2024 arXiv
[28]

We shall use natural units in which G = c = 1
[29]

We shall assume, without loss of generality, the relati on n ≥ 0 which corresponds to P ≥ 0
[30]

Note that the dimensionless relation (11) maps the semi -inﬁnite regime r ∈ [r+, ∞] to the inﬁnite regime y ∈ [−∞, ∞]
[31]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Liftshitz, Quantum Mechanics , 3rd ed. (Pergamon, New York, 1977), Chap. VII

1977
[32]

Heading, An Introduction to Phase Integral Methods (Wiley, New York, 1962)

J. Heading, An Introduction to Phase Integral Methods (Wiley, New York, 1962)

1962
[33]

C. M. Bender and S. A. Orszag, Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineer s (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978), Chap. 10

1978
[34]

Here we have used the integral relation ∫ 1 0 dx √ 1/x − 1 = π/2
[35]

Here we have used the relation r+ = γ/(1 + ǫ) = γ · [1 − ǫ + O(ǫ2)] [see Eq. (24)]
[36]

Here we have used the relation Q2 = r+r− [see Eq. (7)]
[37]

(5) and (6)]

Here we have used the relation κm2 w/e2 = 2α− 1(mw/mPl)2 [see Eqs. (5) and (6)]
[38]

Note that the critical existence-line of the composed m agnetic-black-hole-electroweak-ﬁeld system correspond s to the fundamental ( k = 0) resonant mode of (36)
[39]

Here we have used the numerically computed value r+(n = 100) = 10 .29 of [26] with the relation mw = gmz ≃ √ 0.78/ √ 2 ≃ 0.6244 [26], which yields the exact (numerically computed) di mensionless value [ mwr+]num(n = 100) = 6 .426

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

Khodadi, A

M. Khodadi, A. Allahyari, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, JC AP 09, 026 (2020) [arXiv:2005.05992]

arXiv 2020

[2] [1]

Ruﬃni and J

R. Ruﬃni and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Today 24, 30 (1971)

work page 1971

[3] [2]

Carter, in Black Holes , Proceedings of 1972 Session of Ecole d’ete de Physique Theo rique, edited by C

B. Carter, in Black Holes , Proceedings of 1972 Session of Ecole d’ete de Physique Theo rique, edited by C. De Witt and B. S. De Witt (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1973)

work page 1972

[4] [3]

J. E. Chase, Commun. Math. Phys. 19, 276 (1970); J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 452 (1972); C. Teitelboim, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 3, 326 (1972); A. E. Mayo and J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5059 (1996); I. Pena and D. Sudarsky, Class. Quant. Grav. 14, 3131 (1997)

work page 1970

[5] [4]

Hartle, Phys

J. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D 3, 2938 (1971); C. Teitelboim, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 3, 397 (1972)

work page 1971

[6] [5]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 5, 1239 (1972); 5, 2403 (1972); M. Heusler, J. Math. Phys. 33, 3497 (1992); D. Sudarsky, Class. Quantum Grav. 12, 579 (1995)

work page 1972

[7] [6]

A. E. Mayo and J. D. Bekenstein and, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5059 (1996)

work page 1996

[8] [7]

C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1542014 (2015)

work page 2015