SciPost Submission Page
Cosmic Censorship of Trans-Planckian Field Ranges in Gravitational Collapse
by Himanshu Chaudhary, Chethan Krishnan
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Chethan Krishnan |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.05488v3 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | 2020-08-25 |
| Date submitted: | 2020-08-11 11:39 |
| Submitted by: | Krishnan, Chethan |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
A classical solution where the (scalar) field value moves by an ${\cal O}(1)$ range in Planck units is believed to signal the breakdown of Effective Field Theory (EFT). One heuristic argument for this is that such a field will have enough energy to be inside its own Schwarzschild radius, and will result in collapse. In this paper, we consider an inverse problem: what kind of field ranges arise during the gravitational collapse of a classical field? Despite the fact that collapse has been studied for almost a hundred years, most of the discussion is phrased in terms of fluid stress tensors, and not fields. An exception is the scalar collapse made famous by Choptuik. We re-consider Choptuik-like systems, but with the emphasis now on the evolution of the scalar. We give strong evidence that generic spherically symmetric collapse of a massless scalar field leads to super-Planckian field movement. But we also note that in every such supercritical collapse scenario, the large field range is hidden behind an apparent horizon. We also discuss how the familiar perfect fluid models for collapse like Oppenheimer-Snyder and Vaidya should be viewed in light of our results.
Author comments upon resubmission
List of changes
1. In the earlier version, we had alluded to the case of multiple fields and non-canonical kinetic terms as a part of one of the final paragraphs of the paper. Now we have added a couple of more sentences, to emphasize the point referee makes. See the third last paragraph on p.14.
2. (a) We have added the references that the referee pointed out regarding the "heuristic black hole argument" (HBHA), and edited footnote 3.
(b) We have mentioned [8] and the other three references pointed out by the referee, separately at the end of the paragraph that discussed the HBHA. The three references are now also mentioned as part of the conclusion, in the relevant paragraph.
3. We have added the name of author and title to reference [27] (previously ref [21]).
Published as SciPost Phys. 9, 036 (2020)