Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

The Structure of Quantum Singularities on a Cauchy Horizon

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that robust quantum singularities on any Killing Cauchy horizon obey a universal mildness bound set by the operator's tensor structure, rather than by the spacetime dimension.

desk verdict A well-written proposal that derives a mildness bound for Cauchy horizon singularities from a defect-operator construction, with the key factorization step explicitly assumed rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11948 v1 pith:VSFFXK3U submitted 2024-11-18 hep-th gr-qc

Arvin Shahbazi-Moghaddam This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc PACS 04.62.+v04.70.Dy
keywords Cauchyhorizonquantumfieldtheoryoncurvedspacetimestress-energytensordivergencepastRindlerwedgedefectoperatorsmicrolocalspectrumconditionrobustsingularitysemiclassicalgravity
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

Quantum field theory on a smooth black hole background can develop divergences on Cauchy horizons—for example $\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle$ blows up—and the paper's question is which divergences are allowed. It claims that robust singularities, whose leading divergent behavior is the same for every state in the quantum sector, obey a universal mildness bound: they can be no stronger than $1/V^k$ when the operator has $k$ more $V$-indices than $U$-indices, and no power law at all when $k\le 0$. The argument is made in the past Rindler wedge $W_P$, the universal near-horizon geometry of every black hole Cauchy horizon, using a construction in which all horizon singularities are generated by operator insertions in the causal complement of the wedge. This reproduces the known mild $\langle T_{VV}\rangle\sim V^{-2}$ and $\langle T_{VA}\rangle\sim V^{-1}$ behaviors and forbids the stronger singularities that symmetry and dimensional analysis alone would permit. If correct, the paper turns the numerical "mildness puzzle" into a prediction for all Hartle-Hawking and Unruh sector Cauchy horizons.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the class of "defect constructible" states defined by Eq. (4.16): states of the past Rindler wedge obtained by taking a smooth state of Minkowski space, inserting an operator-valued distribution $D(W^c_\lambda)$ supported in the causal complement of a growing family of wedges $W_\lambda$, and sending $\lambda\to\infty$. The microlocal spectrum condition forces the defect into the causal complement so that its singularities cannot leak into the wedge improperly. The decisive step is the factorization assumption (4.29): robustness of a singularity implies that its leading term is controlled by $\langle \Gamma(W^-_\infty)\rangle\,\langle \Gamma(W^+_\infty)\Phi(x)\rangle$, with the defect on the $W^+$ branch alone; because that branch is spacelike separated from $V<0$, the leading term extends smoothly to $U=0$, and the mildness ansatz follows once $k_\mu$-symmetry is imposed.

What would settle it

A direct numerical computation of $\langle T_{VV}\rangle$ in the Hartle-Hawking state of a free scalar on a four-dimensional Reissner-Nordström spacetime would settle the prediction: if the leading divergence at the Cauchy horizon has the dimensional-analysis form $1/(U V^3)$ rather than the mild $1/V^2$, the ansatz (4.33) is false. A second, more internal test is to perturb the defect state (3.46) by arbitrary smeared fields and check whether its $\langle\phi^2\rangle\sim 1/(UV)$ leading singularity is unstable; if it were stable, the robustness criterion would fail to exclude the forbidden power law.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mildness of Cauchy horizon singularities is not an accident of free-field numerics but a structural consequence of where the singularity lives in the spacetime. The author proposes that every horizon singularity of a wedge state is produced by defect operators inserted in the causal complement, and that in the past Rindler wedge these defects collapse onto two asymptotic generators $W^\pm_\infty$ of past null infinity. Under the assumption that a robust singularity—one whose leading divergence is the same for every state in the GNS sector—forces the factorized structure (4.29), the leading term has a smooth extension to the $U=0$ portion of the horizon. Combining that smooth-extension property with $k_\mu = V\partial_V - U\partial_U$ symmetry yields the ansatz (4.33)-(4.34): an operator with $k$ more $V$-indices than $U$-indices can diverge at most as $V^{-k}$ for $k>0$, and must be milder than any power law for $k\le 0$. The stress-tensor consequence is that the dimensional-analysis blow-up $\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle \sim (U^{(d-k)/2}V^{(d+k)/2})^{-1}$ is forbidden for robust singularities.

Load-bearing premise

The whole bound rests on assuming that a robust singularity is controlled by just one of the two asymptotic operator insertions, so that its leading term factorizes into a product of a one-point and a two-point function; this extends the operator product expansion, proven for local operators, to operators sitting at infinity, and the paper assumes it rather than proves it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any robust Cauchy horizon singularity that survives the strict near-horizon limit in the Hartle-Hawking or Unruh sector must satisfy the ansatz (4.33)-(4.34), including the prohibition of the dimensional-analysis stress-tensor form (1.14).
  • The known numerical results—$\langle T_{VV}\rangle\sim V^{-2}$, $\langle T_{VA}\rangle\sim V^{-1}$, and finite $\langle \phi^2\rangle$ in $d=4$—become special cases of a single bound rather than separate coincidences.
  • Outer-horizon singularities in wrong-temperature states (such as the Boulware state) are also reproduced by the defect construction, but they are not mild; the construction therefore explains the physical difference between outer and Cauchy horizons.
  • Robustness is a property of the quantum sector, not of a particular state: a singularity can evade the bound only if its leading term changes when the state is perturbed within the sector.
  • The same construction can be applied directly to a black hole interior by extending the metric smoothly below the inner horizon, which would extend the mildness analysis beyond the strict $W_P$ limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if, as the author conjectures, every state of $W_P$ is defect constructible, then the mildness bound would hold for all $k_\mu$-symmetric QFT states in the past Rindler wedge, not only for robust singularities; the paper only proves it for the defect-constructible class.
  • Beyond the paper: the same defect-operator logic may constrain subleading terms and higher-point functions, since the factorization (4.29) applies to any operator satisfying the smooth-extension condition even when the singularity is not robust; computing these subleading terms could yield testable predictions for the rate at which semiclassical gravity breaks down.
  • Beyond the paper: the bound allows logarithmic divergences (any $o(1/V^\epsilon)$ behavior) for operators with $k\le 0$; identifying which defect operators produce logarithms and whether black hole states select them would sharpen the mildness puzzle.
  • Beyond the paper: the construction could be carried out directly for Kerr-Newman interiors by choosing the smooth extension of the metric below $r=r_-$, as sketched in Sec. 5; a numerical implementation would test the ansatz beyond the strict $W_P$ limit.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript addresses the 'mildness puzzle' of quantum Cauchy horizon singularities: in d>2 the known divergences of ⟨T_μν⟩ at black hole Cauchy horizons are much weaker than symmetry and dimensional analysis would allow. After reviewing the d=2 Birrell-Davies result and contrasting with outer-horizon 'wrong-temperature' singularities, the paper proposes a general QFT construction of wedge states: new n-point functions in a wedge W are obtained from correlation functions in a larger spacetime W0 with a defect operator D(W^c) inserted in the causal complement; for W_P, the past Rindler wedge, a limiting version with a family of wedges W_λ is used. The paper then restricts to 'defect constructible' states and, assuming an extension of the OPE to asymptotic defect operators Γ(W^±_∞) (Eq. (4.29)), derives the smooth-extension property (4.30). Combined with k_μ-symmetry, this yields the mild singularity ansatz (4.33)-(4.34): robust singularities of rank-r operators are O(1/V^k) for k>0 and o(1/V^ε) for k≤0, where k is the number of V indices minus the number of U indices. The ansatz is checked against explicit free-field examples and is applied to black hole Cauchy horizons, ruling out robust singularities of the form (1.14). The author is transparent that the defect construction is a proposal, that the asymptotic OPE statement is assumed, and that defect constructibility of Hartle-Hawking and Unruh states is not proven.

Significance. If the mildness ansatz is correct, it provides a universal, state-independent bound on quantum Cauchy horizon singularities, matches existing numerical results in RN, Kerr, and de-Sitter black holes, and gives falsifiable predictions for spacetimes and QFTs that have not been analyzed numerically. The paper's strengths are the clean derivation of (4.33)-(4.34) from (4.29) plus k_μ-symmetry, the explicit and internally consistent free-field examples in Sec. 3.3, the consistency check in Appendix C showing that the counterexample (3.45) is non-robust, and the generally honest presentation of assumptions. The construction is very broad, and the CFT state-operator argument in Sec. 4.1 provides a nontrivial class of defect-constructible states. However, the central factorization (4.29) is currently an assumption rather than a theorem, and the black-hole application requires an additional unproven identification; the paper therefore establishes a conditional result and a research programme rather than a fully general proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.29)] The derivation's pivotal step is Eq. (4.29), where robustness is claimed to imply the factorization ⟨Γ^{(m1)}(W^+_∞)Γ^{(m2)}(W^-_∞)Φ(x)⟩ → ⟨Γ^{(m2)}(W^-_∞)⟩⟨Γ^{(m1)}(W^+_∞)Φ(x)⟩. This is introduced with the statement that the analogous result is 'simply assumed' after Eq. (4.28), because the relevant light-ray or defect OPE for the non-local asymptotic operators Γ(W^±_∞) is not part of the axiomatic framework [28] used in Sec. 3.1. This is load-bearing: the smooth-extension property (4.30), the ansatz (4.33)-(4.34), and the black-hole prediction (1.14) all follow from (4.29) plus k_μ-symmetry. If leading robust singularities receive comparable non-factorized m1,m2 contributions, the derivation collapses even for defect-constructible states. The free-field examples in Sec. 3.3 and Appendix C test individual states and do not establish the general factorization; in fact, the bilocal example (3.45)-(3.47) shows that non-factorized couplings produce k_μ-symmetric singularities that must be excluded by hand through the robustness criterion. The paper should either prove (4.29) in a well-defined framework for asymptotic defect operators, or state the main theorem explicitly as conditional on this assumption and provide independent evidence that (4.29) holds in the relevant sectors.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Definition 1 and Sec. 5] The main theorem is stated for 'defect constructible' states, but the paper does not prove that generic W_P states, and in particular the near-horizon limits of black hole Hartle-Hawking and Unruh states, belong to this class. The text explicitly leaves this open ('we do not wish to make this claim without further investigation'). The CFT argument in Sec. 4.1 covers only CFT states that extend to the Weyl cylinder C, not arbitrary QFTs, and itself assumes a bilocal defect representation of the Euclidean state. Because the abstract and introduction state the black-hole prediction (1.14) without prominently displaying this condition, the scope of the result is currently overstated. I recommend either proving that the relevant states are defect constructible in a well-defined class of theories, or restating the predictions as conditional and moving the identification to the status of a conjecture.
  3. [Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.3)-(5.5)] Equation (1.14) is derived via the strict ℓ→∞ W_P limit, but Eq. (5.4) shows that this limit erases any singularity suppressed by powers of ℓ. Therefore (1.14) applies only to robust singularities that survive the strict near-Cauchy-horizon limit; the paper does not provide a criterion guaranteeing that the leading Hartle-Hawking or Unruh singularities satisfy this survival condition in arbitrary dimension. The domain of validity of the central prediction should be stated precisely in the abstract and introduction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 4.1] There are typos: 'mildnesss puzzle' in Sec. 2 and 'the two points the the λ→∞ limit' in Sec. 4.1 should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (4.18)-(4.20)] The definition of the asymptotic expansion (4.18) should specify an ordering of the terms by decreasing degree of divergence and the sense in which the leading coefficient (P^{(i)}_ω)^{(0)} is unique; otherwise the robustness condition (4.20) is ambiguous.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.23)] The notation Γ^{(m)}(W^±_∞) denotes a λ→∞ limit of operator-valued distributions, but no convergence topology or statement about the resulting object as a W0 correlation function is given; a short clarifying paragraph would improve rigor.
  4. [Sec. 5, Eq. (5.3)] The notation O(((UV/ℓ²)^p, (y^A/ℓ)^q)) conflates two different small parameters; please split the two remainder estimates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mildness ansatz is derived from a transparently stated factorization assumption plus k_mu-symmetry, with independent numerical checks; the sole self-citation is motivational rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim, Eqs. (4.33)-(4.34), is not equivalent to the paper's inputs by construction. The derivation works within the explicitly defined class of 'defect constructible' states (Definition 1) and then assumes, in Eq. (4.29), the factorization of the leading singularity, with the paper's own caveat: 'Since neither of these well-studied objects are part of the axiomatic structure of [28], here we will simply assume the analogous statement.' This is an unproven assumption, not a hidden circularity: the assumed factorization is strictly stronger than the final mildness bound, so the bound does not reduce to the assumption by definition. The k_mu-symmetry constraint (4.31) and the smooth-extension property (4.30) are then derived from (4.29) together with the spacelike separation of W_+^infty from the V<0 region. No parameter is fitted to the target predictions: the free-field examples in Sec. 3.3 and Appendix C are consistency checks, and the previous numerical results such as Eq. (1.3) are compared rather than used as inputs. The only self-citation, ref. [10], appears in the introduction as motivation ('a breakdown of semiclassical physics near Cauchy horizons is predicted from a quantum singularity theorem proposed in [10]') and is not used in the derivation of Eqs. (4.33)-(4.34). The paper also repeatedly and explicitly flags its genuine limitations: that black-hole HH/Unruh states are assumed defect constructible, and that robustness of actual black-hole singularities is not established a priori. These are stated assumptions and open questions, not circular reductions of the claimed result to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central ansatz is derived within a stated framework; the ledger records the QFT axioms, the two explicitly assumed steps (defect constructibility of black hole states and the OPE-to-defect factorization), plus the asymptotic-expansion and k_mu-symmetry assumptions. No parameters are fitted to data; the only adjustable scale L drops out of the universal bound. No new physical entities such as particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • L (length scale in W_lambda and Weyl compactification) = arbitrary length scale
    Defines the family of wedges W_lambda in Eq. (3.24) and the cylinder radius R in Eq. (4.2). The universal singularity bound is independent of L, but example defect singularities depend on it, so it is a bookkeeping scale rather than a fitted parameter.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Wightman-type QFT axioms: positivity, *-algebra structure, OPE relations as in [28].
    Sec. 3.1; this is the axiomatic framework on which the entire construction is built.
  • domain assumption The microlocal spectrum condition (MSC) constrains the wavefront sets of n-point functions.
    Sec. 3.1 and Appendix A; used to justify placing defect operators in the causal complement.
  • ad hoc to paper Defect operators D(W^c) can be arbitrary operator-valued distributions supported in W^c, beyond the local definition (3.12).
    Sec. 3.2, paragraph after Eq. (3.12): 'implicitly in what follows we allow arbitrary defect operators.' This is needed for the generality of the construction.
  • ad hoc to paper Robustness of a singularity implies the factorization (4.29).
    Sec. 4.2: 'we will simply assume the analogous statement' extending the OPE argument to asymptotic defect operators Gamma(W_+infty) and Gamma(W_-infty).
  • ad hoc to paper Black hole Cauchy horizon states in the HH and Unruh sectors are defect constructible in the strict W_P limit.
    Intro and Sec. 5: 'to fully explain the mildness puzzle, we need to prove that the black hole Cauchy horizon states in the Unruh and HH states, in the strict W_P limit, are indeed defect constructible.'
  • domain assumption One-point functions admit an asymptotic expansion of the form (4.18) near the horizon.
    Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.18); assumed to define the leading singularity behavior used in the ansatz.
  • domain assumption The state is k_mu-symmetric, k_mu = V d_V - U d_U, as in the HH and Unruh states.
    Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2; used to convert the smooth-extension property into the index-based bound on f(rho).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Structure of Quantum Singularities on a Cauchy Horizon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VSFFXK3U

@misc{pith2026241111948,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Structure of Quantum Singularities on a Cauchy Horizon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VSFFXK3U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11948}
}
abstract

Spacetime singularities pose a long-standing puzzle in quantum gravity. Unlike Schwarzschild, a generic family of black holes gives rise to a Cauchy horizon on which, even in the Hartle-Hawking state, quantum observables such as $\langle T_{\mu\nu} \rangle$ -- the expectation value of the stress-energy tensor -- can diverge, causing a breakdown of semiclassical gravity. Because they are diagnosed within quantum field theory (QFT) on a smooth background, these singularities may provide a better-controlled version of the spacetime singularity problem, and merit further study. Here, I highlight a mildness puzzle of Cauchy horizon singularities: the $\langle T_{\mu\nu} \rangle$ singularity is significantly milder than expected from symmetry and dimensional analysis. I address the puzzle in a simple spacetime $W_P$, which arises universally near all black hole Cauchy horizons: the past of a codimension-two spacelike plane in flat spacetime. Specifically, I propose an extremely broad QFT construction in which, roughly speaking, Cauchy horizon singularities originate from operator insertions in the causal complement of the spacetime. The construction reproduces well-known outer horizon singularities (e.g., in the Boulware state), and remarkably, when applied to $W_P$, gives rise to a universal mild singularity structure for robust singularities, ones whose leading singular behavior is state-independent. I make non-trivial predictions for all black hole Cauchy horizon singularities using this, and discuss extending the results beyond robust singularities and the strict near Cauchy horizon limit.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Hollands and R

    S. Hollands and R. M. Wald, Axiomatic quantum field theory in curved spacetime , Commun. Math. Phys. 293 (2010) 85–125, [ arXiv:0803.2003]

    arXiv 2010

  2. [1]

    Dafermos, The interior of charged black holes and the problem of uniqueness in general relativity, Commun

    M. Dafermos, The interior of charged black holes and the problem of uniqueness in general relativity, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 58 (2005), no. 4 0445–0504, [gr-qc/0307013]

    arXiv 2005

  3. [2]

    Dafermos, Black holes without spacelike singularities , Commun

    M. Dafermos, Black holes without spacelike singularities , Commun. Math. Phys. 332 (2014) 729–757, [ arXiv:1201.1797]

    arXiv 2014

  4. [3]

    Dafermos and J

    M. Dafermos and J. Luk, The interior of dynamical vacuum black holes I: The C0-stability of the Kerr Cauchy horizon , arXiv:1710.01722

    arXiv

  5. [4]

    Zilberman, M

    N. Zilberman, M. Casals, A. Ori, and A. C. Ottewill, Quantum Fluxes at the Inner Horizon of a Spinning Black Hole , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022), no. 26 261102, [arXiv:2203.08502]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    J. M. Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity , Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38 (1999) 1113–1133, [ hep-th/9711200]. [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2,231(1998)]

    arXiv 1999

  7. [6]

    Witten, Anti-de Sitter space and holography , Adv

    E. Witten, Anti-de Sitter space and holography , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253–291, [hep-th/9802150]

    arXiv 1998

  8. [7]

    Fidkowski, V

    L. Fidkowski, V. Hubeny, M. Kleban, and S. Shenker, The Black hole singularity in AdS / CFT , JHEP 02 (2004) 014, [ hep-th/0306170]

    arXiv 2004

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Festuccia and H

    G. Festuccia and H. Liu, Excursions beyond the horizon: Black hole singularities in Yang-Mills theories. I. , JHEP 04 (2006) 044, [ hep-th/0506202]

    2006 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Dodelson, C

    M. Dodelson, C. Iossa, R. Karlsson, and A. Zhiboedov, A thermal product formula , JHEP 01 (2024) 036, [ arXiv:2304.12339]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Bousso and A

    R. Bousso and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam, Quantum singularities , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 6 066002, [ arXiv:2206.07001]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Candelas, Vacuum Polarization in Schwarzschild Space-Time , Phys

    P. Candelas, Vacuum Polarization in Schwarzschild Space-Time , Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 2185–2202

    1980

  5. [12]

    Kubo, Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes

    R. Kubo, Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. i. general theory and simple applications to magnetic and conduction problems , Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 12 (1957), no. 6 570–586, [ https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.12.570]. – 42 –

    1957 doi

  6. [13]

    P. C. Martin and J. Schwinger, Theory of many-particle systems. i , Phys. Rev. 115 (Sep, 1959) 1342–1373

    1959

  7. [14]

    Haag, Local Quantum Physics

    R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. Springer, Berlin, 1996

    1996

  8. [15]

    N. D. BIRRELL and P. C. W. DA VIES, On falling through a black hole into another universe, Nature 272 (1978), no. 5648 35–37

    1978

  9. [16]

    Lanir, A

    A. Lanir, A. Levi, A. Ori, and O. Sela, Two-point function of a quantum scalar field in the interior region of a Reissner-Nordstrom black hole , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018), no. 2 024033, [arXiv:1710.07267]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Lanir, A

    A. Lanir, A. Ori, N. Zilberman, O. Sela, A. Maline, and A. Levi, Analysis of quantum effects inside spherical charged black holes , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 6 061502, [arXiv:1811.03672]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Zilberman, A

    N. Zilberman, A. Levi, and A. Ori, Quantum fluxes at the inner horizon of a spherical charged black hole , Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020), no. 17 171302, [ arXiv:1906.11303]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Zilberman, M

    N. Zilberman, M. Casals, A. Ori, and A. C. Ottewill, Two-point function of a quantum scalar field in the interior region of a Kerr black hole , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 12 125011, [arXiv:2203.07780]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Zilberman, M

    N. Zilberman, M. Casals, A. Levi, A. Ori, and A. C. Ottewill, Computation of ⟨Φ2⟩ and quantum fluxes at the polar interior of a spinning black hole , arXiv:2409.17464

  14. [21]

    Klein, M

    C. Klein, M. Soltani, M. Casals, and S. Hollands, Infinite Quantum Twisting at the Cauchy Horizon of Rotating Black Holes , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024), no. 12 121501, [arXiv:2402.14171]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Hollands, R

    S. Hollands, R. M. Wald, and J. Zahn, Quantum instability of the Cauchy horizon in Reissner–Nordstr¨ om–deSitter spacetime, Class. Quant. Grav. 37 (2020), no. 11 115009, [arXiv:1912.06047]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Hollands, C

    S. Hollands, C. Klein, and J. Zahn, Quantum stress tensor at the Cauchy horizon of the Reissner–Nordstr¨ om–de Sitter spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), no. 8 085004, [arXiv:2006.10991]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    O. J. C. Dias, H. S. Reall, and J. E. Santos, The BTZ black hole violates strong cosmic censorship, JHEP 12 (2019) 097, [ arXiv:1906.08265]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Emparan and M

    R. Emparan and M. Tomaˇ sevi´ c,Strong cosmic censorship in the BTZ black hole , JHEP 06 (2020) 038, [ arXiv:2002.02083]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Kolanowski and M

    M. Kolanowski and M. Tomaˇ sevi´ c,Singularities in 2D and 3D quantum black holes , JHEP 12 (2023) 102, [ arXiv:2310.06014]. – 43 –

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Sela, Quantum effects near the Cauchy horizon of a Reissner-Nordstr¨ om black hole, Phys

    O. Sela, Quantum effects near the Cauchy horizon of a Reissner-Nordstr¨ om black hole, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018), no. 2 024025, [ arXiv:1803.06747]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hintz and C

    P. Hintz and C. K. M. Klein, Universality of the quantum energy flux at the inner horizon of asymptotically de Sitter black holes , Class. Quant. Grav. 41 (2024), no. 7 075006, [arXiv:2310.19655]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. L. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory , J. Stat. Mech. 0406 (2004) P06002, [ hep-th/0405152]

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Balasubramanian, A

    V. Balasubramanian, A. Kar, and G. S´ arosi, Holographic Probes of Inner Horizons , JHEP 06 (2020) 054, [ arXiv:1911.12413]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Papadodimas, S

    K. Papadodimas, S. Raju, and P. Shrivastava, A simple quantum test for smooth horizons, JHEP 12 (2020) 003, [ arXiv:1910.02992]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H. Z. Chen, Disentanglement as a strong cosmic censor , arXiv:2404.10810

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Candelas and B

    P. Candelas and B. P. Jensen, The Feynman Green Function Inside a Schwarzschild Black Hole , Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986) 1596

    1986

  27. [35]

    Kontsevich and G

    M. Kontsevich and G. Segal, Wick Rotation and the Positivity of Energy in Quantum Field Theory, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. 72 (2021), no. 1-2 673–699, [arXiv:2105.10161]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Witten, A Note On Complex Spacetime Metrics , arXiv:2111.06514

    E. Witten, A Note On Complex Spacetime Metrics , arXiv:2111.06514

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. J. Radzikowski, Micro-local approach to the Hadamard condition in quantum field theory on curved space-time , Commun. Math. Phys. 179 (1996) 529–553

    1996

  30. [38]

    Brunetti, K

    R. Brunetti, K. Fredenhagen, and M. Kohler, The Microlocal spectrum condition and Wick polynomials of free fields on curved space-times , Commun. Math. Phys. 180 (1996) 633–652, [ gr-qc/9510056]

    1996 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Brunetti and K

    R. Brunetti and K. Fredenhagen, Microlocal analysis and interacting quantum field theories: Renormalization on physical backgrounds , Commun. Math. Phys. 208 (2000) 623–661, [math-ph/9903028]

    2000 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Strohmaier, R

    A. Strohmaier, R. Verch, and M. Wollenberg, Microlocal analysis of quantum fields on curved space-times: Analytic wavefront sets and Reeh-Schlieder theorems , J. Math. Phys. 43 (2002) 5514–5530, [ math-ph/0202003]

    2002 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bill` o, V

    M. Bill` o, V. Goncalves, E. Lauria, and M. Meineri, Defects in conformal field theory , JHEP 04 (2016) 091, [ arXiv:1601.02883]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Meineri, Defects in Conformal Field Theories

    M. Meineri, Defects in Conformal Field Theories . PhD thesis, Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore, 2016. – 44 –

    2016

  35. [43]

    Balakrishnan, T

    S. Balakrishnan, T. Faulkner, Z. U. Khandker, and H. Wang, A general proof of the quantum null energy condition , arXiv:1706.09432

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bousso, H

    R. Bousso, H. Casini, Z. Fisher, and J. Maldacena, Entropy on a null surface for interacting quantum field theories and the Bousso bound , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015), no. 8 084030, [arXiv:1406.4545]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    D. M. McAvity and H. Osborn, Conformal field theories near a boundary in general dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B 455 (1995) 522–576, [ cond-mat/9505127]

    1995 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Cuomo, Z

    G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, and A. Raviv-Moshe, Renormalization Group Flows on Line Defects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022), no. 2 021603, [ arXiv:2108.01117]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity. Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984

    1984

  40. [48]

    M. J. Radzikowski and R. Verch, A local-to-global singularity theorem for quantum field theory on curved space-time , Communications in Mathematical Physics 180 (1996), no. 1 1–22

    1996

  41. [49]

    Hollands and R

    S. Hollands and R. M. Wald, Quantum fields in curved spacetime , Phys. Rept. 574 (2015) 1–35, [ arXiv:1401.2026]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    B. S. Kay and R. M. Wald, Theorems on the Uniqueness and Thermal Properties of Stationary, Nonsingular, Quasifree States on Space-Times with a Bifurcate Killing Horizon, Phys. Rept. 207 (1991) 49–136

    1991

  43. [51]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. Senechal, Conformal Field Theory . Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997

    1997

  44. [52]

    Simmons-Duffin, The Conformal Bootstrap , in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings , pp

    D. Simmons-Duffin, The Conformal Bootstrap , in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings , pp. 1–74, 2017. arXiv:1602.07982

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Farnsworth, M

    K. Farnsworth, M. A. Luty, and V. Prilepina, Weyl versus Conformal Invariance in Quantum Field Theory , JHEP 10 (2017) 170, [ arXiv:1702.07079]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kravchuk and D

    P. Kravchuk and D. Simmons-Duffin, Light-ray operators in conformal field theory , JHEP 11 (2018) 102, [ arXiv:1805.00098]. [,236(2018)]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hartman, S

    T. Hartman, S. Kundu, and A. Tajdini, Averaged Null Energy Condition from Causality, JHEP 07 (2017) 066, [ arXiv:1610.05308]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Hintz and A

    P. Hintz and A. Vasy, Analysis of linear waves near the Cauchy horizon of cosmological black holes , J. Math. Phys. 58 (2017), no. 8 081509, [ arXiv:1512.08004]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Polchinski, String theory

    J. Polchinski, String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 12, 2007. – 45 –

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.