Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 59 references

The paper derives black-hole thermal emission entirely from the S-matrix of a scattered scalar field, and identifies the radiating region as an antibound-state atmosphere at about 2.77 times the horizon radius.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:01 UTC pith:HCC6RPY3

load-bearing objection Interesting atmosphere idea, but the scattering derivation has a sign error and an unjustified potential truncation, so the central results don't stand. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29028 v1 pith:HCC6RPY3 submitted 2026-07-31 hep-th gr-qc

Quantum Scattering in Schwarzschild Spacetime: Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Atmospheres

Victor H. Alencar , Gabriel Pican\c{c}o , Carlos A.D. Zarro This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc PACS 04.70.Dy04.62.+v
keywords black hole scatteringS-matrixantibound statesquantum atmosphereSchwarzschild spacetimethermal radiationBose–Einstein distributionJost functions
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 aims to show that black-hole radiation and the size of the region that emits it can be obtained from a single quantum scattering calculation. Working with a simplified radial potential for a massless scalar field in a spherically symmetric black-hole spacetime, the authors compute an S-matrix whose poles are antibound states. They find that the emission probability is a Bose–Einstein distribution at the black-hole temperature, 1/(8πGM), after a unitarity-preserving shift by the first gap of the pole spectrum. Summing the inverse pole positions (with zeta-function regularization) gives an atmosphere radius of 4 ln2 times the Schwarzschild radius, about 2.77 r_s, and an energy density proportional to T^4. The paper argues that the antibound states are the microscopic constituents of the quantum atmosphere, whose macroscopic behavior matches an ordinary thermal gas.

Core claim

The central claim is that the S-matrix of a massless scalar field in Schwarzschild spacetime — after reduction to a solvable potential and analytic continuation in angular momentum to ℓ = -1/2 — encodes both the thermal radiation spectrum and the spatial location of its source. The modulus squared of the S-matrix gives, after shifting the frequency by the first antibound gap, a Bose–Einstein emission factor with temperature T = 1/(8πGM). The poles of the S-matrix lie at ω_n = -i/(2r_s)(n+1/2), a ladder of equally spaced antibound states. The regularized sum of their inverse distances yields r_Atm = 4 r_s ln 2 ≈ 2.77 r_s, which the authors identify with the radius of a quantum atmosphere; its

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the S-matrix built from Jost functions for the Whittaker solutions of the approximated radial Schrödinger equation with potential V_l(x) = -2κ²/x - κ²/x² + l(l+1)/x². At the maximally attractive angular momentum ℓ = -1/2, the Jost functions reduce to ratios of Gamma functions, whose poles define the antibound ladder. The unitarity argument relies on shifting the frequency by the first pole gap, ω → ω + i/(4r_s), which converts the initial Fermi–Dirac-like emission factor into the Bose–Einstein factor. Zeta-function regularization of the divergent sums over pole positions produces both the atmosphere radius and its energy density.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing step is the replacement of the exact radial potential by the approximate 1/x and 1/x² potential; the neglected terms are the same order as the kept ones at large distances, so if this approximation changes the pole structure, the derived temperature, spectrum, and atmosphere radius collapse.

What would settle it

Compute the exact S-matrix of the full radial equation (9) numerically, using the same boundary conditions, and compare the pole locations and the emission probability with the paper's analytic expressions. If the poles are not at ω_n = -i/(2r_s)(n+1/2) or the emission factor is not Bose–Einstein at T = 1/(8πGM), the central claim is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, the thermal spectrum of black-hole radiation follows from scattering data alone, independent of Bogoliubov transformations or path-integral methods.
  • The antibound states at ω_n = -i/(2r_s)(n+1/2) provide a discrete set of threshold excitations whose transition to the continuum can be driven by the mass loss of the evaporating black hole.
  • The regularized atmosphere radius, 4 r_s ln 2, predicts that the emission region is a shell about 1.77 r_s thick outside the horizon, a scale comparable to published estimates.
  • The atmosphere's energy density scaling as T_H^4 means it behaves as a thermal gas of massless bosons with positive heat capacity, in contrast to the black hole's negative heat capacity.
  • The authors state the method extends naturally to other spherically symmetric black holes, such as Reissner–Nordström, where the same Jost-function machinery applies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the entire derivation rests on the approximate potential, one could test whether the pole ladder and thermal factor survive in the exact radial equation; if they do, the result would suggest a general orthogonality between near-horizon scattering and far-field thermalization.
  • The unitarity-preserving shift by the first antibound gap is a step that, if understood more deeply, might connect scattering-theoretic statistics to the analytic properties of the second Riemann sheet in other resonant systems.
  • The zeta-regularized identity r_Atm = 4 r_s ln 2 hints at a general relation between pole spacing and effective interaction radius that could be checked in tabletop analogues of black holes, such as those with absorbing boundaries mimicking horizons.
  • One could extend the method to massive scalar fields: the appearance of a mass breaks the scale invariance and may move the poles off the imaginary axis, offering a direct way to test the relation between the antibound ladder and the thermal temperature.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to derive the Hawking radiation and a quantum-atmosphere radius for a Schwarzschild black hole from the S-matrix of a massless scalar field. The authors replace the exact radial equation (9) by a solvable Whittaker potential (11)-(12), compute Jost functions and the S-matrix for ℓ* = -1/2, and claim that the modulus squared gives a Fermi-Dirac distribution with the Hawking temperature. They then introduce a frequency shift ω → ω + i/(4r_s) to convert this into a Bose-Einstein distribution. The antibound poles of the S-matrix are interpreted as constituents of a quantum atmosphere, and a zeta-regularized sum over these poles yields r_Atm ≈ 2.77 r_s and an energy density scaling as T_H^4. The central claims are the novel S-matrix derivation of Hawking radiation and the identification of the atmosphere radius from the antibound spectrum.

Significance. If the derivation were valid, the paper would provide an attractively simple scattering-theory route to black-hole thermodynamics and a microscopic picture of the quantum atmosphere. The authors cite and compare with existing estimates of the atmosphere radius, and the ambition to connect S-matrix analytic structure to Hawking radiation is a worthwhile direction. However, the significance is not realized in the present manuscript. The reduction from the exact Schwarzschild radial equation to the model potential is not an asymptotic approximation (the sign of the leading 1/x coefficient is opposite), the calculation of |S|² in Eq. (29) is algebraically wrong, the frequency shift in Sec. IV is ad hoc, and the atmosphere radius is obtained by discarding a divergent part of a zeta-regularized sum. These are load-bearing technical failures, not presentation issues. The paper does not provide a machine-checked derivation or a parameter-free prediction that survives scrutiny.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II] The passage from the exact radial equation to the solvable model is not justified as a large-x approximation. Expanding the potential in Eq. (9) for x ≫ 1, the total coefficient of 1/x is +2κ² (the contributions from the −2κ²/x term, the ℓ(ℓ+1)+1/2 over x+1 term, and the first correction of the 1/(4(x+1)²) term add to 2κ²). The model potential in Eq. (12) has −2κ²/x, i.e. the opposite sign. The discarded terms are therefore of the same order as the retained ones, and the model is not an asymptotic approximation to the Schwarzschild radial problem. All subsequent Whittaker solutions, Jost functions, S-matrix (21), poles (24), and emission formulas inherit this replacement and describe a different potential.
  2. [Eq. (29)] The stated modulus squared is algebraically inconsistent with the preceding equations. From Eq. (23), |S|² = e^{-2πκ} |Γ(1/2−2iκ)|² / |Γ(1/2)|². With |Γ(1/2)|² = π and the reflection identity (30) for y = 2κ, this gives e^{-2πκ}/cosh(2πκ) = 2e^{-4πκ}/(1+e^{-4πκ}), not e^{-4πκ}/(1+e^{-4πκ}). The missing factor of 2 changes the numerical coefficient of the claimed emission rate. Since Eq. (29) is the central formula from which the Hawking temperature is read off, this is a substantive error.
  3. [Sec. IV] The transformation from a Fermi-Dirac to a Bose-Einstein distribution by the replacement ω → ω + i/(4r_s) is introduced ad hoc. No physical argument from the scattering problem is given for shifting the frequency into the complex plane by exactly the first antibound gap. This choice is made to convert the statistics, and it is not derived from unitarity, causality, or the S-matrix itself. The procedure selects the desired answer rather than testing it. The claim that this shift 'takes the antibound state into the physical sheet' is not supported by any detailed analysis of the Riemann-sheet structure.
  4. [Sec. V] The definition of r_Atm via the sum over 1/ω_n diverges logarithmically. Equation (38) uses lim_{s→1+} ζ(s,1/2), which is divergent; Eq. (39) then states r_Atm = 4r_s ln 2 + 'Divergent Part' and discards the divergent part to quote r_Atm ≈ 2.77 r_s. The discarded contribution is not a negligible constant; all terms in the sum are positive and the divergence is a genuine feature of the definition. Thus the quoted radius is an artifact of a particular regularisation choice, not a prediction of the model. The same issue propagates to the volume and energy density in Eqs. (42)-(43).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (35)] The equation is garbled in the manuscript ('⌟⟨rro⟪⟪⟩r⟪...') and must be corrected; it is not readable as printed.
  2. [Appendix A] U(·) is described as a 'confluent hypergeometric function of the first kind'; it should be the second kind (Kummer function of the second kind).
  3. [General] Spelling and reference inconsistencies: 'Peiels' should be 'Peierls'; 'Sanchez' should be 'Sánchez' where used as a name; Refs. [39]-[40] lack complete publication data (volume/page/year). The notation ℓ vs l is used inconsistently between the main text and Appendix B.
  4. [Sec. IV] The sentence 'Notice that the emission diverges in the IR limit, ω→0' refers to the regularized expression (34), not to the original S-matrix modulus; this distinction should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

The claimed derivation of Hawking radiation and the atmosphere radius are not independent predictions: the ℓ=-1/2 potential is adopted because it was prescribed to reproduce T_H, the Fermi→Bose shift is inserted by hand, and r_Atm is the finite part of a divergent zeta sum.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II, after Eq. (12), p. 3]
    "Indeed, the potential Vℓ∗ is exactly the approximate potential that Sanchez prescribed in [24] to reproduce the correct behaviours both for r→rS and r→+∞ and to compute an absorption coefficient with the correct Hawking temperature."

    The paper’s central output, T_H = 1/(8πGM), is obtained from the S-matrix of the effective potential (12). But that potential is adopted explicitly because Sanchez prescribed it to reproduce the correct Hawking temperature. The subsequent Whittaker solutions, Jost functions, poles, and Eq. (29) inherit that choice; the 'derivation' therefore restates the input (a potential designed to give T_H) rather than deriving T_H from Schwarzschild scattering. Additionally, the reduction from Eq. (9) to Eq. (12) changes the sign of the 1/x coefficient, so the model is not even the large-r limit of the stated problem.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, Eqs. (31)-(34)]
    "Here, we simply shift the spectrum upwards by the value of the first gap, in this case, ω→ω+ i/(4rs). ... Therefore, shifting the S-matrix by the gap of the first antibound state transformed the distribution from a Fermi–Dirac into a Bose–Einstein distribution with temperature TH=1/(8πGM), which is now compatible with the spin-statistics theorem for a bosonic field."

    The Bose–Einstein spectrum (34) is produced by manually substituting ω → ω + i/(4rs), where the shift is chosen to be the first antibound gap of the same S-matrix. No independent principle fixes this shift; it is inserted precisely to convert the Fermi–Dirac form (29) into the expected Bose–Einstein form. The 'prediction' of Bose–Einstein statistics is thus imposed by construction, and the temperature is carried over from the already-cherry-picked model.

  3. other [Sec. V, Eqs. (36)-(39)]
    "However, we can still find a finite value for the atmosphere radius from zeta function regularisation [49]. ... Thus, we obtain, for the radius of the quantum atmosphere, rAtm =4rs ln2+Divergent Part=2.77259rs+Divergent Part."

    Equation (36) defines r_Atm as the sum of 1/ω_n, which diverges logarithmically. The reported value 4rs ln2 is simply the finite part of the Hurwitz zeta analytic continuation after the pole 1/(s-1) is discarded; this is a regularization convention, not a consequence of the antibound spectrum. Choosing to keep the finite part and drop the divergent part selects the number that matches earlier estimates, so the 'prediction' r_Atm ≈ 2.77rs is by construction.

full rationale

Score 7: the central outputs—Hawking temperature/Bose–Einstein spectrum and the atmospheric radius—are substantially imposed by choices made before the calculation. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation (its references are to Newton, Sanchez, etc., not to the authors' own prior work), so the self-citation patterns do not apply. The main circularity is in the input model: Sec. II replaces the exact radial equation (9) with the Whittaker-solvable potential (12), and then explicitly justifies the choice ℓ*=-1/2 by saying that this is 'exactly the approximate potential that Sanchez prescribed ... to compute an absorption coefficient with the correct Hawking temperature.' Any S-matrix derived from that potential will return a thermal scale T_H; calling that a 'novel derivation' reduces the output to an input. The conversion from Fermi–Dirac to Bose–Einstein in Sec. IV is likewise an ad hoc shift by i/(4rs)—the first antibound gap of the same model—inserted 'simply' to obtain the expected statistics. Finally, r_Atm is defined via a logarithmically divergent sum; the quoted 2.77rs is the finite part of a zeta-regularized analytic continuation, a convention rather than a physical derivation. These are construction-level choices, not independent predictions. Some additional algebraic inconsistencies (e.g., Eq. (29) does not match Eq. (23) plus Eq. (30)) are correctness concerns independent of circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

All central results rest on a small set of hand-picked mathematical choices: the complex angular momentum ℓ=-1/2, the branch of γ(κ), the frequency shift by the first pole gap, and the regularization of divergent sums. These choices, not data or independent principles, enforce the Hawking temperature, Bose-Einstein statistics, and atmosphere radius.

free parameters (5)
  • Complex angular momentum ℓ* = -1/2 = -1/2
    Chosen to maximize the attractive potential and reproduce Sanchez's potential; all results are evaluated at this unphysical complex angular momentum.
  • Branch of γ(κ) at ℓ=-1/2 = γ = -iκ (negative imaginary branch)
    The branch of sqrt(-κ²) is chosen so that |S| decays exponentially and yields the thermal factor; the opposite branch gives an unphysical growing S.
  • Frequency shift Δω = i/(4rs)
    Introduced by hand to move the first antibound pole to threshold and convert the Fermi-Dirac factor in Eq. (29) into a Bose-Einstein factor.
  • Zeta-regularization of ∑ 1/ω_n = constant term 4rs ln2
    The divergent sum is defined via Hurwitz ζ(s,1/2) and the pole is discarded; the finite constant 4rs ln2 is not a unique regularized value.
  • IR cutoff ϵ > T_H = not specified
    Invoked at the end of Sec. IV to regulate the IR divergence of P(ω); no derivation of the bound ϵ>T_H, and it affects the total emission but not the spectral shape.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Whittaker connection formula and Gamma reflection identities are valid and can be used with the chosen branches.
    Used in Eqs. (17)-(21), (29)-(33); standard results, but the branch selections are ambiguous and are resolved by hand.
  • domain assumption Analytic continuation of angular momentum ℓ to complex values is physically meaningful for extracting emission probabilities.
    Invoked in Sec. II to justify ℓ=-1/2; a known technique but it must be justified for this black-hole emission context.
  • domain assumption |S|² gives the emission probability (Gamow/Sommerfeld factor).
    Eq. (28); standard in nonrelativistic scattering, applied here to black-hole radiation without derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper The first antibound state can be shifted into the physical sheet by ω→ω+i/(4rs).
    Sec. IV; this is the mechanism that converts FD statistics to BE statistics, but no derivation is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Zeta-function regularized sums can define physical radius and energy, with the divergent part discarded.
    Secs. V-VI; the divergent part of ζ(s,1/2) at s=1 is dropped and the finite constant is identified with rAtm.
  • domain assumption The atmosphere volume is computed with the proper spatial metric factor sqrt(1-rs/r).
    Eq. (42); a natural geometric choice, but the integration limits and the physical boundary of the atmosphere are not independently defined.
invented entities (1)
  • Antibound states as physical constituents of the quantum atmosphere no independent evidence
    purpose: Microscopic origin of the thermal atmosphere and of Hawking radiation
    Antibound poles lie on the unphysical sheet with non-normalizable wavefunctions; interpreting them as a real thermal gas is an interpretive claim with no independent handle. The radius agreement is produced by the same regularized sum, so it is not independent evidence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 13908 in / 20752 out tokens · 179282 ms · 2026-08-03T15:01:36.779241+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we investigate scattering of a scalar field near a Schwarzschild black hole through its $S$-matrix. Within this framework, we obtain a novel derivation of Hawking radiation by computing the emission rate, which yields a Bose--Einstein distribution with temperature $T_H=(8\pi GM)^{-1}$, the Hawking temperature. In addition to Hawking radiation, the S-matrix exhibits antibound states, corresponding to excitations at the threshold of becoming scattering (bound) states if the potential is decreased (increased). We interpret these excitations as constituents of the black-hole quantum atmosphere: a thermalised region outside of the event horizon, which is the source of the Hawking radiation. Using the spectrum of antibound states, we found the atmospheric radius, $r_{\text{Atm}} \approx 2.77 r_{s}$, which is in good agreement with previous results in the literature obtained through other methods. Our results indicate that, at the macroscopic level, the quantum atmosphere behaves like an ordinary thermalised gas at the Hawking temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29028 by Carlos A.D. Zarro, Gabriel Pican\c{c}o, Victor H. Alencar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The blue dots denote the antibound poles located on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.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

59 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    is supported by the Conselho Nacional de De- senvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) under the grant no

    G.P. is supported by the Conselho Nacional de De- senvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) under the grant no. 446877/2024-7. C.A.D.Z. is partially supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) under the grant no. 305610/2025-

    2024

  2. [2]

    (22) It is interesting to remark that, in the limitℓ=−1 2, only the outgoing Jost function,F + − 1 2 (κ), has zeros

    e+iκπ. (22) It is interesting to remark that, in the limitℓ=−1 2, only the outgoing Jost function,F + − 1 2 (κ), has zeros. As the zeros of the Jost functions are signatures of excitations (such as bound and antibound states, which will be dis- cussed in the next section), this is an indication that the black hole only emits radiation. With these Jost fun...

  3. [3]

    (23) In the above, we already chose the correct branch on the connection formula between the Whittaker functions, which will be indicated in equation (29). III. SINGULARITIES OF THESMA TRIX: ANTIBOUND ST A TES AND BLACK-HOLE EV APORA TION The analytic structure of theS-matrix encodes infor- mation about all types of states, including scattered, res- onant...

  4. [4]

    have a finite value, leading to, EAtm = 1 48rs ,(41) the energy of the black-hole quantum atmosphere. To compute the energy density, we must use the radius of the quantum atmosphere (39) to compute its volume, VAtm =4π ∫ rAtm rs dr r2 √ 1− rs r ≈30V BH .(42) Then, uAtm = EAtm VAtm ≈ 1 r4s ∝+T 4 H ,(43) which shows that the energy density of the quantum at...

  5. [5]

    is also funded by Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Faperj) under Grant no

    C.A.D.Z. is also funded by Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Faperj) under Grant no. E-26/201.447/2021 (Programa Jovem Cientista do Nosso Estado). Appendix A: Some Properties of Whittaker F unctions The so-called Whittaker functions,Mκ,µ andW κ,µ, are the two linearly independent solutions of the linear ordi- n...

    2021

  6. [6]

    M. D. Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model(Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. Theor. A20, 69 (1974)

    1974

  8. [8]

    Deser and P

    S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D10, 411 (1974)

    1974

  9. [9]

    Deser and P

    S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D10, 401 (1974)

    1974

  10. [10]

    Deser, H.-S

    S. Deser, H.-S. Tsao, and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D10, 3337 (1974)

    1974

  11. [11]

    M. H. Goroff and A. Sagnotti, Nucl. Phys. B266, 709 (1986)

    1986

  12. [12]

    Percacci,An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety,100YearsofGeneralRel- 10 ativity, Vol

    R. Percacci,An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety,100YearsofGeneralRel- 10 ativity, Vol. 3 (World Scientific, 2017)

    2017

  13. [13]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982)

    1982

  14. [14]

    R. M. Wald,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space- Time and Black Hole Thermodynamics,ChicagoLectures in Physics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1995)

    1995

  15. [15]

    Witten, Eur

    E. Witten, Eur. Phys. J. Plus140, 430 (2025), arXiv:2412.16795 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975), [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  17. [17]

    M. K. Parikh and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 5042 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9907001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  18. [18]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Lett. B754, 39 (2016), arXiv:1511.08221 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Hod, Phys

    S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B757, 121 (2016), arXiv:1607.02510 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    R. Dey, S. Liberati, and D. Pranzetti, Phys. Lett. B774, 308 (2017), arXiv:1701.06161 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    R.Dey, S.Liberati, Z.Mirzaiyan,andD.Pranzetti,Phys. Lett. B797, 134828 (2019), arXiv:1906.02958 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Y. C. Ong and M. R. R. Good, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033322 (2020), arXiv:2003.10429 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    D. M. Gingrich, Gen. Rel. Grav.55, 80 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    A. Z. Kaczmarek and D. Szczkesniak, Phys. Lett. B848, 138364 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    S.ZhangandD.Wang,Phys.Lett.B875,140354(2026)

    2026

  26. [26]

    X. Liu, C. Wen, and J. Wang, Phys. Lett. B873, 140185 (2026), arXiv:2601.06741 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    T.ReggeandJ.A.Wheeler,Phys.Rev.108,1063(1957)

    1957

  28. [28]

    Tiomno, Lett

    J. Tiomno, Lett. Nuovo Cim.5S2, 851 (1972)

    1972

  29. [29]

    N. G. Sanchez, J. Math. Phys.17, 688 (1976)

    1976

  30. [30]

    J. A. H. Futterman, F. A. Handler, and R. A. Matzner, Scattering From Black Holes, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  31. [31]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D73, 064030 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0512160

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  32. [32]

    R. G. Newton,Scattering Theory of Waves and Particles, 2nd ed., Texts and Monographs in Physics (Springer- Verlag, New York, 1982)

    1982

  33. [33]

    S. A. Rakityansky,Jost Functions in Quantum Mechan- ics(Springer, Cham, 2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Lett. Nuovo Cim.4, 737 (1972)

    1972

  35. [35]

    t Hooft, Nucl

    G. t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B256, 727 (1985)

    1985

  36. [36]

    V. F. Mukhanov, JETP Lett.44, 63 (1986)

    1986

  37. [37]

    J. D. Bekenstein, in8th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experi- mental General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories (MG 8)(1997) pp. 92–111, arXiv:gr- qc/9710076

    arXiv 1997

  38. [38]

    Hod, Phys

    S. Hod, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 4293 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9812002

    arXiv 1998

  39. [39]

    S. M. Carroll,Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduc- tion to General Relativity(Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    F. G. Friedlander,The Wave Equation on a Curved Space-Time(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  41. [41]

    Poisson, A

    E. Poisson, A. Pound, and I. Vega, Living Rev. Rel.14, 7 (2011), arXiv:1102.0529 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshits,Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory, Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. v.3 (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1991)

    1991

  43. [43]

    E. T. Whittaker and G. N. Watson,A Course of Mod- ern Analysis, 5th ed., edited by V. H. Moll (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Angheben, M

    M. Angheben, M. Nadalini, L. Vanzo, and S. Zerbini, JHEP05, 014, arXiv:hep-th/0503081

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Arzano, A

    M. Arzano, A. J. M. Medved, and E. C. Vagenas, JHEP 09, 037, arXiv:hep-th/0505266

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    L. D. Faddeev and O. A. Yakubovskiˇ ı,Lectures on Quantum Mechanics for Mathematics Students, edited by L. A. Takhtajan, Student Mathematical Library, Vol. 47 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2009) with an appendix by Leon Takhtajan

    2009

  47. [47]

    R. G. Newton, Journal of Mathematical Physics3, 867 (1962)

    1962

  48. [48]

    E. J. Squires,Complex Angular Momenta and Particle Physics: A Lecture Note and Reprint Volume, Frontiers in Physics, Vol. 15 (W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1963) p. 161

    1963

  49. [49]

    V. N. Gribov and I. Y. Pomeranchuk, Physical Review Letters9, 238 (1962)

    1962

  50. [50]

    H. A. Bethe and R. Peierls, Proc. R. Soc. A149, 176 (1935)

    1935

  51. [51]

    H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev.76, 38 (1949)

    1949

  52. [52]

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

    1976

  53. [53]

    DLMF,NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.6 of 2026-03-15 (2026), 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

    2026

  54. [54]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.55, 133 (1977)

    1977

  55. [55]

    Biggs and J

    A. Biggs and J. Maldacena, arXiv (2024), 2405.02227 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Jiang, S.-Q

    Q.-Q. Jiang, S.-Q. Wu, and X. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 73, 064003 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 73, 069902 (2006)], arXiv:hep-th/0512351

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  57. [57]

    Beals and R

    R. Beals and R. Wong,Special Functions: A Graduate Text, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Vol. 126 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    2010

  58. [58]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun,Handbook of Mathe- matical Functions: With Formulas, Graphs, and Mathe- matical Tables(Dover Publications, New York, 1965)

    1965

  59. [59]

    Tong,Quantum Mechanics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol

    D. Tong,Quantum Mechanics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2025)

    2025