Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 68 references

Quantum vacuum outside near-black-hole shells mimics true black holes

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 06:04 UTC pith:V6FX65RG

load-bearing objection Solid paper on Boulware vacuum RSET for thin shells; the load-bearing concern about distributional curvature is real but well-mitigated by cross-checks. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07583 v1 pith:V6FX65RG submitted 2026-07-08 gr-qc hep-thquant-ph

Vacuum polarization and renormalized stress-energy tensor of spherical thin shells

Julio Arrechea , Cormac Breen , Adrian Ottewill , Lorenzo Pisani , Peter Taylor This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-thquant-ph
keywords shellvacuumblackholerenormalizedlimitpolarizationstress-energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper computes the renormalized vacuum polarization and stress-energy tensor of a massless scalar field in the Boulware vacuum around a static, spherical thin shell that matches a flat (Minkowski) interior to a Schwarzschild exterior. The central methodological object is the extended-coordinate prescription, a mode-sum renormalization scheme that re-expresses the purely geometric Hadamard subtraction terms in the same modal basis as the physical Green's function, enabling mode-by-mode cancellation of ultraviolet divergences even when the background curvature is distributional (a delta-function Ricci scalar at the shell). Using this machinery, the authors obtain three principal results. First, they derive the leading-order near-surface divergences of both the vacuum polarization and the stress-energy tensor via two independent routes, a WKB expansion of the Euclidean modes and a weak-field perturbative approximation, finding mutual agreement and consistency with prior flat-spacetime boundary-divergence results. Second, at the center of the shell, they isolate purely non-local (Casimir-like) contributions to the stress-energy that remain finite as the shell radius approaches the Schwarzschild radius, yielding fully analytical expressions for all stress-energy components in the black-hole limit. Third, their numerical results show that, outside a shell placed very close to its gravitational radius, the vacuum polarization and stress-energy tensor rapidly converge to the corresponding Schwarzschild black-hole Boulware-vacuum values, suggesting that the exterior quantum vacuum may be insensitive to whether the compact object has a horizon or a material surface, at least for minimally coupled fields. The paper also computes first-order backreaction on the interior metric via the semiclassical Einstein equations, showing that near-surface divergences generate a curvature singularity (breaking perturbative semiclassical gravity at the shell) while the center remains regular with finite, anisotropic quantum corrections.

Core claim

The paper's load-bearing finding is that the Boulware-vacuum renormalized stress-energy tensor and vacuum polarization outside a spherical thin shell, when the shell is arbitrarily close to its black-hole limit, rapidly approach the corresponding quantities outside a Schwarzschild black hole. This convergence is demonstrated numerically for shells with radii as close as r_0 = 2.001M and is shown to be fast: for minimally coupled fields the vacuum polarization becomes indistinguishable from the black-hole case within a short distance from the shell surface. A complementary analytical result is that at the shell's center, the stress-energy components remain finite in the black-hole limit and,b

What carries the argument

The extended-coordinate prescription: a renormalization method that expands the Hadamard parametrix (the universal geometric subtraction kernel) in a set of adapted coordinates, converts it into a mode-sum over the same angular and frequency quantum numbers as the physical Euclidean Green's function, and subtracts mode-by-mode. The thin-shell spacetime is constructed by matching Minkowski interior modes (modified spherical Bessel functions) to Schwarzschild exterior modes (confluent Heun functions) across a distributional surface, with discontinuous radial derivatives proportional to the shell's stress-energy trace. Near-surface divergences are extracted via WKB approximation of the boundary

Load-bearing premise

The extended-coordinate prescription, which subtracts a Hadamard parametrix derived for smooth spacetimes mode-by-mode from the Green's function, remains valid when the Ricci scalar is a delta distribution at the shell. The mode-sum is shown to diverge exactly at the shell surface and to converge slowly nearby, so the numerical results in the bulk depend on the prescription being correctly applicable to non-smooth metrics, which is assumed but not independently benchmarked.

What would settle it

If the extended-coordinate subtraction fails for distributional curvature, the numerical RVP and RSET values in the bulk would be unreliable. A direct test would be to compare the thin-shell results against a finite-thickness shell calculation in the limit where the thickness goes to zero, verifying that the mode-by-mode subtraction converges to the same values away from the surface.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the exterior vacuum of near-extremal horizonless objects universally matches the black-hole Boulware vacuum, then semiclassical observables (vacuum polarization, stress-energy) cannot distinguish a black hole from a sufficiently compact shell by external quantum measurements alone, at least for minimally coupled fields.
  • The finiteness of the central stress-energy in the black-hole limit implies that the Boulware-state divergences associated with horizon formation originate in the exterior region and do not propagate inward, constraining how vacuum polarization might affect the interior structure of compact horizonless objects.
  • The breakdown of perturbative semiclassical gravity at the shell surface (where the RSET diverges as a power law in proper distance) indicates that static, infinitely thin shells are inconsistent with semiclassical gravity, motivating the study of finite-thickness or fluctuating boundaries.
  • The differing far-field behavior for non-minimally coupled fields (where the shell's RSET decays more slowly toward the black-hole value) suggests that the universality of the exterior vacuum depends on the field's curvature coupling, with potential observational consequences for distinguishing compact objects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The rapid convergence of exterior vacuum quantities to black-hole values suggests a possible topological or causal explanation: the Boulware vacuum may be determined primarily by the asymptotic structure and the near-horizon geometry, with the global interior (Minkowski vs. black-hole interior) entering only as a perturbative correction that vanishes as the surface approaches the would-be horizon.
  • If the extended-coordinate prescription is valid for distributional curvature, it could be applied to other sharp-boundary spacetimes (e.g., constant-density stars, gravastars) to test whether the near-black-hole universality extends beyond the thin-shell model, which would strengthen or constrain the 'black-hole mimicker' program.
  • The analytical finiteness of the central RSET in the black-hole limit could be tested against a full numerical relativity simulation of gravitational collapse: if the central stress-energy remains bounded as a horizon forms, this would support the paper's suggestion that Boulware divergences are exterior-driven.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a comprehensive study of the renormalized vacuum polarization (RVP) and renormalized stress-energy tensor (RSET) for a massless scalar field in the Boulware vacuum on a static, spherical thin-shell spacetime with a Minkowski interior and Schwarzschild exterior. The computation employs the extended-coordinate prescription, a mode-sum renormalization scheme in which the Hadamard parametrix is expanded in adapted coordinates and subtracted mode-by-mode from the Euclidean Green's function. The authors derive the near-surface divergence structure via two independent methods (WKB and weak-field approximation), obtain semi-analytical expressions at the shell center (r=0) that become fully analytical in the black-hole limit, and present extensive numerical results across a range of shell compactnesses and field couplings. A key physical finding is that the exterior RVP and RSET rapidly approach their Schwarzschild-Boulware values as the shell approaches the black-hole limit, suggesting a degree of universality for the vacuum outside highly compact horizonless objects.

Significance. The paper addresses a technically challenging problem—renormalized expectation values in spacetimes with distributional curvature—using a well-developed mode-sum framework. The strengths include: (i) two independent analytical cross-checks of the near-surface divergence structure (WKB in Sec. V.A and weak-field covariant perturbation theory in Sec. V.C), which agree with each other and with the classical Deutsch-Candelas results; (ii) fully analytical, parameter-free expressions for the RVP and RSET at r=0 in the black-hole limit (Eq. 119); (iii) numerical verification of RSET conservation to 3-6 orders of magnitude below individual components (Sec. VI); and (iv) a concrete, falsifiable prediction regarding the universality (or lack thereof, depending on coupling) of the Boulware vacuum outside compact horizonless objects (Figs. 9-10). The extended-coordinate prescription itself is parameter-free in the sense that the regularization parameters are derived in closed form from the Hadamard parametrix (Appendix B), not fitted to data. The main methodological assumption—the applicability of the Hadamard parametrix to distributional curvature—is not independently benchmarked against a非自

major comments (1)
  1. The central methodological assumption—that the Hadamard parametrix, derived for smooth spacetimes, can be meaningfully expanded in extended coordinates and subtracted mode-by-mode when the Ricci scalar is a delta distribution at the shell (Eq. 49)—is the load-bearing concern. The regularization parameters k^(m)_ωl(r) involve derivatives of f(r) and h(r) through the Hadamard coefficients (Appendix A), which are discontinuous at r=r₀. The paper evaluates these on each side separately, which is natural but not rigorously justified for distributional curvature. The cross-checks (WKB/weak-field agreement, conservation, r=0 analytical results) partially mitigate this concern, but they do not directly test the prescription's validity at the shell surface itself, where the mode-sum is known to diverge (Sec. IV.E). The authors should explicitly discuss this limitation: what is the status of the R
minor comments (7)
  1. Sec. IV.E, Figs. 3-4: The convergence analysis shows the mode-sum diverges exactly at r=r₀ and degrades near the surface. The text states that 'an unreasonable amount of modes could be required' near the shell. It would help to quantify this: for a given target accuracy (e.g., 1%), how close to r₀ can one reliably compute, and how many modes are needed as a function of (r₀-r)?
  2. Sec. VI.D, Figs. 9-10: The universality claim is based on a single shell radius (r₀=2.001M). While suggestive, showing results for 2-3 additional radii (e.g., r₀=2.01M, 2.1M) would strengthen the claim that the approach to Schwarzschild values is 'quick' and systematic. Currently, the reader cannot assess the scaling of the deviation with (r₀-2M).
  3. Eq. (119): The argument that the numerical integrals in Eqs. (110)-(117) vanish as r₀→2M relies on the integrand tending to zero pointwise and exponential decay at large ω. A dominated convergence argument or an explicit bound on the integral would make this more rigorous. The statement that the second integral in Eq. (118) is O(√(r₀-2M) log(r₀-2M)) should be verified or referenced.
  4. Sec. VI.C, Eqs. (152)-(154): The backreaction calculation near the shell surface yields R ∝ (r₀-r)^(-4), which the authors correctly note signals breakdown of the perturbative expansion. This is fine as a consistency check, but the statement that 'static thin shells break down the perturbative character of the semiclassical expansion' could be more precisely framed: it is the pointlike (zero-thickness) idealization that produces the divergence, and a finite-thickness regularization would presumably tame it.
  5. The notation is generally clear, but the use of τ for both proper time (Sec. III.A) and Euclidean time (Sec. II) could confuse readers. A distinct symbol for one of these would help.
  6. References [56] and [51] appear to be the same paper (Satz, Mazzitelli, Alvarez, Phys. Rev. D 71, 064001).
  7. Eq. (91): The expansion in ε is stated to be sufficient for the RVP but higher-order terms are needed for the RSET. It would help to indicate which terms in Eq. (91) contribute to the ε^(-1) RVP divergence and which to the ε^(-3) RSET divergence, to make the derivation more transparent.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee raises a single major concern regarding the applicability of the Hadamard parametrix to distributional curvature at the shell. We address this below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central methodological assumption—that the Hadamard parametrix, derived for smooth spacetimes, can be meaningfully expanded in extended coordinates and subtracted mode-by-mode when the Ricci scalar is a delta distribution at the shell (Eq. 49)—is the load-bearing concern. The regularization parameters k^(m)_ωl(r) involve derivatives of f(r) and h(r) through the Hadamard coefficients (Appendix A), which are discontinuous at r=r₀. The paper evaluates these on each side separately, which is natural but not rigorously justified for distributional curvature. The cross-checks (WKB/weak-field agreement, conservation, r=0 analytical results) partially mitigate this concern, but they do not directly test the prescription's validity at the shell surface itself, where the mode-sum is known to diverge (Sec. IV.E). The authors should explicitly discuss this limitation: what is the status of the R

    Authors: We agree with the referee that this is the most important methodological point and that the manuscript should explicitly discuss the status of the Hadamard parametrix at the shell surface. We will add a dedicated discussion in the revised manuscript. Our response is as follows:revision_made: 'yes'The key observation is that the extended-coordinate prescription is never applied *at* the shell surface r = r₀ itself. As shown in Sec. IV.E, the renormalized mode-sum diverges at r = r₀: the l-sum fails to converge there (scaling as l⁻¹ for fixed ω), while the ω-integral remains convergent. This divergence is physical—it corresponds to the Deutsch–Candelas surface divergence that we recover analytically in Sec. V.A via two independent methods. The prescription is applied only at points r ≠ r₀, where the geometry is locally smooth (either Minkowski or Schwarzschild) and the Hadamard parametrix is rigorously valid.At any point r ≠ r₀, the Hadamard parametrix depends only on the local geometry in a neighborhood of that point. For r in the interior (r < r₀), the local geometry is Minkowski, and all curvature invariants vanish; the regularization parameters reduce to their Minkowski values. For r in the exterior (r > r₀), the local geometry is Schwarzschild, and the regularization parameters take their Schwarzschild values. In neither case does the parametrix 'see' the delta-function curvature at r = r₀, because the parametrix is constructed from the smooth local geometry at the evaluation point. The distributional character of the curvature at the shell enters only through the *modes* g_ωl(r)—specifically, through the matching conditions (Eqs. 79, 81) that encode the discontinuity in the radial derivatives of the modes—but not through the regularization parameters k^(m)_ωl(r), at revision: no

  2. Referee: what is the status of the R

    Authors: The referee's comment appears to have been truncated. We interpret the question as asking: what is the status of the renormalized quantities at the shell surface itself, and what is the rigorous justification for the prescription in the presence of distributional curvature? We address both points.As stated above, the renormalized quantities ⟨ϕ²⟩_ren and ⟨T_αβ⟩_ren are not evaluated at r = r₀ by the extended-coordinate prescription; they diverge there. This is a physical divergence (the Deutsch–Candelas divergence), not an artifact of the regularization. The prescription yields finite, well-defined results at all r ≠ r₀, and the approach to the divergence as r → r₀ is captured analytically by the WKB and weak-field approximations of Sec. V.Regarding rigorous justification: we acknowledge in the revised manuscript that a fully rigorous mathematical proof of the extended-coordinate prescription for distributional curvature is not currently available. The Hadamard parametrix is rigorously established for smooth spacetimes. However, the strength of our approach lies in the multiple independent consistency checks:(1) The WKB approximation (Sec. V.A) derives the near-surface divergence structure directly from the mode equation, without invoking the Hadamard parametrix at all. It yields divergences that match the Deutsch–Candelas results for boundaries.(2) The weak-field covariant perturbation theory (Sec. V.C) is an entirely independent framework—based on the one-loop effective action of Barvinsky–Vilkovisky—that makes no use of the Hadamard parametrix or mode-sum renormalization. It agrees with the WKB results at leading order in M/r₀.(3) The r = 0 analytical results (Sec. V.B) are derived by radial point-splitting and can be verified against the numerical mode-sum results,提供 revision: no

  3. Referee: The cross-checks (WKB/weak-field agreement, conservation, r=0 analytical results) partially mitigate this concern, but they do not directly test the prescription's validity at the shell surface itself, where the mode-sum is known to diverge (Sec. IV.E).

    Authors: This is correct, and we will state it explicitly in the revised manuscript. The cross-checks validate the prescription at r ≠ r₀ (including points arbitrarily close to, but not at, the shell). They do not and cannot validate the prescription at r = r₀, because the renormalized quantities genuinely diverge there. This is not a limitation of the prescription but a physical feature: the surface divergence is expected on general grounds (Deutsch–Candelas) and is recovered by our analytic approximations. The prescription correctly identifies *where* the divergence occurs (Sec. IV.E) and *what its leading behavior is* (Sec. V.A), which is the most one can ask of a renormalization scheme at a distributional source.revision_made: 'yes'In the revised manuscript, we will add a paragraph in Sec. IV.E or Sec. V.A explicitly stating:(a) The Hadamard parametrix is rigorously valid at all r ≠ r₀, where the geometry is smooth.(b) The regularization parameters k^(m)_ωl(r) are evaluated using the smooth local geometry (Minkowski or Schwarzschild) and do not involve the distributional curvature at r = r₀.(c) The distributional curvature enters only through the modes g_ωl(r) via the matching conditions, not through the parametrix.(d) The mode-sum diverges at r = r₀, corresponding to the physical Deutsch–Candelas surface divergence.(e) A fully rigorous proof of the prescription for distributional curvature is not available, but the multiple independent cross-checks provide strong evidence for its correctness at all r ≠ r₀. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation for the renormalization method; central results are not forced by construction

full rationale

The extended-coordinate prescription is cited from prior work by overlapping authors [21, 22, 35, 36], but this self-citation is not circular: (1) the regularization parameters k^(m)_ωl(r) are derived in closed form (Appendix B) by inverting mode-sum ansätze via completeness relations — no parameters are fitted to data; (2) the Hadamard parametrix itself is the standard one from Wald [41], an external reference; (3) the thin shell spacetime is an exact classical GR solution (Israel formalism); (4) the Euclidean modes are computed independently via junction conditions. The paper's central results are validated against multiple independent benchmarks: near-surface WKB divergences agree with Deutsch-Candelas [49], the weak-field approximation uses an entirely separate framework (covariant perturbation theory [50-52]) and agrees with WKB at leading order, r=0 results are derived via radial point-splitting semi-independent of the full machinery, and numerical RSET conservation is verified to 3-6 orders of magnitude. No 'prediction' reduces to its inputs by construction. The concern about applying the Hadamard parametrix to distributional curvature is a correctness risk, not a circularity issue. Score 1 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation for the method.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions. All objects (thin shell, scalar field, Boulware vacuum, Hadamard parametrix) are standard in the literature. The free parameters are physical or arbitrary-but-irrelevant (ell, lambda, m). The key axiom — Hadamard renormalization validity for distributional metrics — is a domain assumption inherited from prior work by overlapping authors.

free parameters (6)
  • Shell mass M
    Physical parameter of the spacetime, not fitted to data. Sets the scale.
  • Shell radius r_0
    Physical parameter of the spacetime, not fitted to data. Controls compactness.
  • Field coupling xi
    Physical parameter of the scalar field (minimal xi=0, conformal xi=1/6, etc.). Not fitted.
  • Renormalization lengthscale ell
    Arbitrary lengthscale in the Hadamard parametrix (Eq. 11). The RVP and RSET are independent of this choice for massless fields in Ricci-flat regions, as stated in Sec. II.
  • IR cutoff lambda
    Arbitrary inverse lengthscale in frequency integrals (Eq. 22). Stated to not affect final results.
  • Expansion order m
    Order of Hadamard parametrix expansion controlling convergence rate. Not a physical parameter; higher m gives faster convergence at computational cost.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The Hadamard parametrix provides the correct renormalization counterterm for quantum fields on spacetimes with distributional curvature (thin shells with delta-function Ricci scalar).
    Sec. II, Eq. (11)-(22). The Hadamard form is established for smooth spacetimes [41]; its extension to distributional curvature at the shell is assumed. The mode-sum representation of the parametrix in extended coordinates is from [21, 22].
  • domain assumption The Boulware vacuum can be defined as a zero-temperature Euclidean state with continuous frequency spectrum on the Wick-rotated manifold.
    Sec. II, paragraph after Eq. (6). This is a standard definition of the Boulware state, but the Euclidean formulation for non-black-hole spacetimes is a specific technical choice.
  • standard math The semiclassical Einstein equations (Eq. 1) provide a valid first-order approximation to quantum backreaction, with higher-order terms suppressed by powers of hbar.
    Sec. I, Eq. (1); Sec. VI.C, Eq. (142). Standard assumption in semiclassical gravity. The paper explicitly notes the breakdown of this approximation near the shell surface (Sec. VI.C).
  • domain assumption The WKB approximation for Euclidean modes captures the correct leading-order divergence structure of the RVP and RSET near the shell surface.
    Sec. V.A, Eqs. (86)-(96). The WKB approximation is a standard asymptotic method, but its applicability near a distributional curvature source requires justification. The cross-check with the weak-field approximation (Sec. V.C) provides partial validation.
  • standard math The Israel-Darmois junction conditions correctly describe the classical thin shell spacetime.
    Sec. III, Eqs. (38)-(47). Standard result in general relativity [42, 43].

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 47343 in / 3153 out tokens · 339850 ms · 2026-07-09T06:04:28.059917+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We provide a thorough study of the properties of the Boulware vacuum in the spacetime of a spherical, static thin shell with a Minkowski interior. To this end, we calculate the renormalized vacuum polarization and stress-energy tensor of massless scalar fields via the extended-coordinate prescription, paying particular attention to their scaling as the shell approaches the black hole limit. Near the surface of the thin shell, we obtain the expected leading-order singular behavior of both quantities via two independent methods: a high-frequency approximation for the modes, and a weak-field approximation. At the center of the shell we find non-local, Casimir-like contributions that remain finite in the black hole limit, and whose backreaction effects we compute via the semiclassical Einstein equations. Away from these regions amenable to analytic treatment, we obtain numerical results for a wide range of shell compactnesses and field couplings. In the black hole limit, we show that the vacuum polarization and renormalized stress-energy tensor outside the shell quickly approach the ones generated by a Schwarzschild black hole, suggesting a possible universality in the vacuum outside highly compact horizonless objects. This work addresses the conceptual and technical aspects necessary for computing renormalized expectation values in matter configurations, laying the foundations for future explorations on the subject.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07583 by Adrian Ottewill, Cormac Breen, Julio Arrechea, Lorenzo Pisani, Peter Taylor.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Analysis of the convergence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Analysis of the convergence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Analysis of the convergence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Renormalized vacuum polarization and renormalized stress-energy tensor of a massless, minimally coupled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Renormalized vacuum polarization and renormalized stress-energy tensor of a massless, minimally coupled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Renormalized vacuum polarization and renormalized stress-energy tensor of a massless, minimally coupled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Renormalized vacuum polarization and renormalized stress-energy tensor of a massless, minimally coupled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Renormalized vacuum polarization and renormalized stress-tensor of a massless, minimally coupled scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Renormalized vacuum polarization and renormalized stress-tensor of a massless scalar field with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 17 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    + 2 log(2ρ λ ) (a−k−b)!(2a−2k)!Γ(k−a+ 1 2)(k+l+ 1)!(k−l)!(2ρ 2)k −2 aX k=0 (a−k)!k! (a−k−b)!Γ(k−a+ 1 2)(k+l+ 1)!(k−l)!(2ρ 2)k ∞X p=0 p̸=a−k δ(2p)(ω)λ2p−2a+2k (2p)!(2p−2a+ 2k) ) ,(B2) whereI ωl(a, b|r) andJ ωl(a, b|r) are given by Iωl(a, b|r) = (2r2)a−1/2 f a+b+1/2 2a−2√ 2π(−1)a+l Γ(b+ 1) ( Γ(a+ 1 2)Γ(a+b+ 1 2)2 ˆF3 {a+ 1 2 , a+b+ 1 2 } {a+l+ 3 2 , a−l+ 1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Parker, Phys

    L. Parker, Phys. Rev. Lett.21, 562 (1968)

    work page 1968

  3. [3]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975)

    work page 1975

  4. [4]

    S. M. Christensen and S. A. Fulling, Phys. Rev. D15, 2088 (1977)

    work page 2088

  5. [5]

    S. A. Fulling, Phys. Rev. D15, 2411 (1977)

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Candelas, Phys

    P. Candelas, Phys. Rev. D21, 2185 (1980)

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    K. W. Howard and P. Candelas, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 403 (1984)

    work page 1984

  8. [8]

    P. R. Anderson, W. A. Hiscock, and D. A. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D51, 4337 (1995)

    work page 1995

  9. [9]

    A. Levi, E. Eilon, A. Ori, and M. van de Meent, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 141102 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D13, 2188 (1976)

    work page 1976

  11. [11]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    work page 1976

  12. [12]

    D. G. Boulware, Phys. Rev. D11, 1404 (1975)

    work page 1975

  13. [13]

    J. W. York, Phys. Rev. D31, 775 (1985)

    work page 1985

  14. [14]

    W. A. Hiscock, Phys. Rev. D37, 2142 (1988)

    work page 1988

  15. [15]

    Boulware Vacuum vs. Regularity: Thoughts on Anomaly-Induced Effective Action

    K. Numajiri, K. Okabayashi, and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D111, 085024 (2025), arXiv:2411.12617 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    P. M. Saffin and Q.-X. Xie, Phys. Rev. D113, 125025 (2026)

    work page 2026

  17. [17]

    Visser, Phys

    M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D54, 5116 (1996), arXiv:gr- qc/9604008

    work page arXiv 1996

  18. [18]

    Barcel´ o, S

    C. Barcel´ o, S. Liberati, S. Sonego, and M. Visser, Sci. Am.301, 38 (2009)

    work page 2009

  19. [19]

    Stellar equilibrium on a physical vacuum soil

    J. Arrechea and C. Barcel´ o, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D32, 2342006 (2023), arXiv:2305.07939 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Ultracompact horizonless objects in order-reduced semiclassical gravity

    J. Arrechea, C. Barcel´ o, R. Carballo-Rubio, and L. J. Garay, Phys. Rev. D109, 104056 (2024), arXiv:2310.12668 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    I. A. Reyes and G. M. Tomaselli, Phys. Rev. D108, 065006 (2023), arXiv:2301.00826 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Taylor and C

    P. Taylor and C. Breen, Phys. Rev. D96, 105020 (2017)

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Arrechea, C

    J. Arrechea, C. Breen, A. Ottewill, L. Pisani, and P. Tay- lor, Phys. Rev. D111, 085009 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [25]

    Kennedy, R

    G. Kennedy, R. Critchley, and J. S. Dowker, Annals Phys.125, 346 (1980)

    work page 1980

  25. [26]

    S. M. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D14, 2490 (1976)

    work page 1976

  26. [27]

    On the gravitational field of a sphere of incompressible fluid according to Einstein's theory

    K. Schwarzschild, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. )1916, 424 (1916), arXiv:physics/9912033

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1916

  27. [28]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder, Phys. Rev.56, 455 (1939)

    work page 1939

  28. [29]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Universe9, 88 (2023), arXiv:gr-qc/0109035

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [30]

    Calmet and M

    X. Calmet and M. Sebastianutti, The European Physical Journal C86, 512 (2026)

    work page 2026

  30. [31]

    L. H. Ford and N. F. Svaiter, Phys. Rev. D58, 065007 (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9804056

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  31. [32]

    M. R. Brown and A. C. Ottewill, Phys. Rev. D34, 1776 (1986)

    work page 1986

  32. [33]

    New Developments in the Casimir Effect

    M. Bordag, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepanenko, Phys. Rept.353, 1 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0106045

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  33. [34]

    S. A. Fulling, J. Phys. A36, 6857 (2003), arXiv:quant- ph/0302117

    work page arXiv 2003

  34. [35]

    Casimir densities for a spherical boundary in de Sitter spacetime

    K. Milton and A. A. Saharian, Phys. Rev. D85, 064005 (2012), arXiv:1109.1497 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [36]

    Taylor and C

    P. Taylor and C. Breen, Phys. Rev. D94, 125024 (2016)

    work page 2016

  36. [37]

    Taylor, C

    P. Taylor, C. Breen, and A. Ottewill, Phys. Rev. D106, 065023 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [38]

    Candelas and D

    P. Candelas and D. J. Raine, Phys. Rev. D15, 1494 (1977)

    work page 1977

  38. [39]

    B. S. Kay and R. M. Wald, Physics Reports207, 49 (1991)

    work page 1991

  39. [40]

    Kubo, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan12, 570 (1957), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.12.570

    R. Kubo, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan12, 570 (1957), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.12.570

    work page doi:10.1143/jpsj.12.570 1957

  40. [41]

    P. C. Martin and J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.115, 1342 (1959)

    work page 1959

  41. [42]

    Quantum field theory in curved space- time and black hole thermodynamics,

    R. M. Wald, “Quantum field theory in curved space- time and black hole thermodynamics,” (The University of Chicago Press, 1994)

    work page 1994

  42. [43]

    Israel, Nuovo Cim

    W. Israel, Nuovo Cim. B44S10, 1 (1966), [Erratum: Nuovo Cim.B 48, 463 (1967)]

    work page 1966

  43. [44]

    A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics,

    E. Poisson, “A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics,” (Cambridge University Press,

    work page

  44. [45]

    Les ´ equations de la gravitation ein- steinienne,

    G. Darmois, “Les ´ equations de la gravitation ein- steinienne,” M´ emorial des sciences math´ ematiques, No. 25 (Gauthier-Villars,1927)https://www.numdam. org/item/MSM_1927__25__1_0/(1927)

    work page 1927

  45. [46]

    Sen, Annalen der Physik378, 365 (1924)

    N. Sen, Annalen der Physik378, 365 (1924)

    work page 1924

  46. [47]

    Lanczos, Annalen der Physik379, 518 (1924)

    K. Lanczos, Annalen der Physik379, 518 (1924)

    work page 1924

  47. [48]

    On gravitational echoes from ultracompact exotic stars

    A. Urbano and H. Veerm¨ ae, JCAP04, 011 (2019), arXiv:1810.07137 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [49]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Phys. Rev.116, 1027 (1959)

    work page 1959

  49. [50]

    Deutsch and P

    D. Deutsch and P. Candelas, Phys. Rev. D20, 3063 (1979)

    work page 1979

  50. [51]

    D. A. R. Dalvit and F. D. Mazzitelli, Phys. Rev. D50, 1001 (1994)

    work page 1994

  51. [52]

    A. Satz, F. D. Mazzitelli, and E. Alvarez, Phys. Rev. D 71, 064001 (2005). 32

    work page 2005

  52. [53]

    Boasso and F

    A. Boasso and F. D. Mazzitelli, Phys. Rev. D112, 105016 (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [54]

    Barvinsky and G

    A. Barvinsky and G. Vilkovisky, Nuclear Physics B282, 163 (1987)

    work page 1987

  54. [55]

    Barvinsky and G

    A. Barvinsky and G. Vilkovisky, Nuclear Physics B333, 471 (1990)

    work page 1990

  55. [56]

    I. G. Avramidi, Nuclear Physics B355, 712 (1991)

    work page 1991

  56. [57]

    A. Satz, F. D. Mazzitelli, and E. Alvarez, Phys. Rev. D 71, 064001 (2005)

    work page 2005

  57. [58]

    Static symmetric solutions of the semi-classical Einstein-Klein-Gordon system

    K. Sanders, Annales Henri Poincare23, 1321 (2022), arXiv:2007.14311 [math-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [59]

    J. T. Jebsen, General Relativity and Gravitation37, 2253 (2005)

    work page 2005

  59. [60]

    Quantum Hair from Gravity

    X. Calmet, R. Casadio, S. D. H. Hsu, and F. Kuipers, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 111301 (2022), arXiv:2110.09386 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [61]

    Quantum Gravitational Hair in Gravastars and Observational Tests

    I. Perrucci, F. Kuipers, and R. Casadio, JCAP03, 005 (2025), arXiv:2412.04886 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [62]

    P. R. Anderson and A. Fabbri, Phys. Rev. D75, 044015 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  62. [63]

    Classical and quantum bosonic fields on the spacetimes of black holes and stars,

    J. Percival, “Classical and quantum bosonic fields on the spacetimes of black holes and stars,” PhD thesis, Univer- sity of Sheffield (2022)

    work page 2022

  63. [64]

    E. D. Carlson, P. R. Anderson, A. Fabbri, S. Fagnocchi, W. H. Hirsch, and S. Klyap, Phys. Rev. D82, 124070 (2010), arXiv:1008.1433 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  64. [65]

    Arrechea, C

    J. Arrechea, C. Barcel´ o, G. Garc´ ıa-Moreno, and J. Polo- G´ omez, Phys. Rev. D111, 124017 (2025)

    work page 2025

  65. [66]

    Gravastars must have anisotropic pressures

    C. Cattoen, T. Faber, and M. Visser, Class. Quant. Grav.22, 4189 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0505137

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  66. [67]

    P. R. Anderson, W. A. Hiscock, and D. J. Loranz, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 4365 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9504019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  67. [68]

    Matsuo, (2026), arXiv:2603.25683 [hep-th]

    Y. Matsuo, (2026), arXiv:2603.25683 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2026

  68. [69]

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Func- tions,

    DLMF, “NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Func- tions,”https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.2 of 2024- 09-15, f. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

    work page 2024