CERN-TH-2018-035

Light Primordial Exotic Compact Objects as All Dark Matter

Martti Raidal,1, 2, ∗ Sergey Solodukhin,1, 3, † Ville Vaskonen,2, ‡ and Hardi Veermäe1, 2, §

1
Theoretical Physics Department, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
2
NICPB, Rävala 10, 10143 Tallinn, Estonia
3
Institut Denis Poisson, UMR CNRS 7013, Université de Tours,
Université d’Orléans, Parc de Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France
The radiation emitted by horizonless exotic compact objects (ECOs), such as wormholes, 2-2-
holes, fuzzballs, gravastars, boson stars, collapsed polymers, superspinars etc., is expected to be
arXiv:1802.07728v1 [astro-ph.CO] 21 Feb 2018

strongly suppressed when compared to the radiation of black holes. If large primordial curvature
fluctuations collapse into such objects instead of black holes, they do not evaporate or evaporate
much slower than black holes and could thus constitute all of the dark matter with masses below
M < 10−16 M . We re-evaluate the relevant experimental constraints for light ECOs in this mass
range and show that very large new parameter space down to ECO masses M ∼ 10 TeV opens up
for light primordial dark matter. A new dedicated experimental program is needed to test this mass
range of primordial dark matter.

Introduction the events observed by LIGO [45, 46], include late in-
spiral tidal effects and post-merge ring-down tests. In
the case of the latter, the key point is that the absence
According to the original idea by Hawking [1], large
of horizon of ECOs generates new effects [47, 48]. For
primordial fluctuation could collapse into primordial
example, if these coalescing objects are ECOs instead of
black holes (PBHs) when entering into the horizon dur-
black holes, gravitational wave echoes [37] following the
ing radiation dominated era. Consequently, the Universe
ringdown phase should be present.
could be filled with light PBHs with mass M > −5
∼ 10 g
(corresponding to the Schwarzschild radius of one Planck The aim of this work is to argue that in the absence of
length) which could constitute the cosmological dark a horizon it is expected that the radiation rate of those
matter (DM) [2–5]. However, the proposal of Hawk- objects changes drastically. This opens a new, wide mass
ing radiation [6, 7] changed this reasoning dramati- window in which all the DM could consist of primordial
cally. The light PBHs should evaporate and inject ECOs. Indeed, if large primordial curvature fluctuations
extra photons into the Universe that have not been collapse directly into primordial ECOs, which in theo-
observed [8, 9]. Combining all existing experimen- ries beyond GR are as fundamental as the black holes,
tal constraints [8], no PBHs with masses smaller than those light primordial objects do not evaporate during
M< −16 17 the Hubble time and should be present today. Thus the
∼ 10 M ∼ 10 g should exist today in any rel-
evant cosmological abundance. Above this limit, in the light primordial ECOs are perfect candidates for the cold
mass range 10−16 < < 5 collisionless DM of the Universe.
∼ M/M ∼ 10 , the lensing limits [10–
13], various astrophysical and Cosmic Microwave Back- To achieve this goal, and to cover a wide range of dif-
ground constraints [14–19] as well as the PBH merger ferent ECOs, we first present a model independent phe-
rate estimates [20, 21] imply that the PBHs cannot be nomenological parametrisation of the effectiveness of the
the dominant DM component [22]. radiation in the case of ECOs. After that we revise the
constraints of Ref. [8] and show that the astrophysical
Those considerations are based on predictions of Gen-
bounds on light primordial ECOs are lifted. This opens
eral Relativity (GR). However, theories beyond the GR
up an entirely new mass window for the primordial DM.
that attempt ultraviolet completion of gravity contain
Dedicated observations and experiments are needed to
new solutions for exotic compact objects (ECOs), such as
test the new mass window for primordial ECOs.
the wormholes [23–25], 2-2-holes [26], fuzzballs [27, 28],
gravastars [29, 30], boson stars [31, 32], black stars [33,
34], superspinars [35], collapsed polymers [36] etc. (see
General considerations for ECOs evaporation rate
Ref. [37] for the complete list of known proposals), which
properties mimic the ones of black holes if only long-
distance gravitational effects are considered. Studying The unknown quantum gravity effects are expected to
how to distinguish the ECOs from the black holes is cur- modify the Hawking radiation of light black holes by a
rently one of the most active research fields [38–44]. The factor of few [49]. At the same time, the possible emitted
new physics signatures that allow one to discriminate the radiation rate for wormholes is exponentially suppressed
ECOs from black holes in the binary coalescence, such as because of the absence of a horizon [23, 24]. Notice that
 2

logarithm of Eq. (4), and dropping the logarithmic term

Hawking radiation has never been measured. In order to ln(M/MP ), we arrive at a bound
describe the radiation of as wide range of ECO candidates
as possible, we first present completely model indepen- M > Λ 1371/n . (5)
dent parametrization of the modified radiation effects.
Assuming thermal radiation, the mass dissipation of a i) The case Λ = MP and n = 2 corresponds to the
spherical object of radius r is given by wormhole solution found in [24]. In this case the lower
bound is of order of few dozens Planck masses,
dM
' −456T 4 r2 . (1) M > 68MP ' 10−38 M . (6)
dt
We assume that the radius r of an ECO is related to ii) In a general case, unless n is extremely small, the
its mass M in the same way as in GR1 , r = 2M/MP2 , numerical factor in Eq. (5) is between 1 and 102 , and the
where MP is the Planck mass, and only their tempera- ECO mass bound is basically set by the value of Λ. For
ture is different from the Hawking temperature by a mass Λ = 10 TeV we find
dependent factor F (M/Λ) as
M > 10−53 M , (7)
MP2 − 14
T = F (M/Λ) . (2) consistently with our estimates after Eq. (10).
8πM
Here Λ is the characteristic energy scale of the modified Power law. To describe ECOs whose evaporation is
theory of gravity beyond GR which can vary from 10 TeV modified less drastically than for the exponential sup-
up to the Planck scale, and the function F (M/Λ) is to pression, a natural choice for F is the power law depen-
be specified later. The usual black holes correspond to dence, F (M/Λ) = (M/Λ)α , with α > 0. In this case
F (M/Λ) = 1. In our numerical examples we shall con- Eq. (4) implies
sider two limiting cases, Λ = MP and Λ = 10 TeV. The  α
 3+α
latter case corresponds to a situation when the funda- −β(α) Λ 55 + 38α
M > 10 M , β(α) = . (8)
mental gravity scale is as low as allowed by the current MP 3+α
experimental bounds.
Considering the two limiting cases for the fundamental
Integration of Eq. (1) gives the evaporation time of an
scale of gravity we obtain:
object with mass M to be
i) If Λ = MP then
M
128π 4 m2
Z
t(M ) = dm F (m/Λ) M > 10−β(α) M . (9)
0 57 MP4
(3)
128π 4 M 3 M3 The parameter α may vary from α = 0 (the case of
≤ 4 F (M/Λ) ' 1065 3 F (M/Λ) yr. usual Hawking temperature with the usual bound M >
171 MP M
10−18.3 M ) to α = ∞ for which the bound is much
We shall use this last inequality in our numerical esti- weaker, M > 10−38 M ' MP . For α of order unity
mates. The lower bound on the ECO mass comes from one has β ≈ 23.
the requirement that the evaporation time should be less ii) If the scale Λ is much lower than the Planck scale,
that the age of the Universe, t(M ) < 1010 yr, which im- the ECO mass bound can be even weaker. For instance,
plies if Λ = 10 TeV = 10−15 MP , one finds

M3 55 + 53α
−55 M > 10−γ(α) M , γ(α) = . (10)
3 F (M/Λ) > 10
M
. (4) 3+α
In this case the allowed mass of primordial ECOs can be
Now we are ready to consider some possible forms for the
as low as M > 10−53 M ' 10 TeV, consistently with the
function F.
cut-off scale Λ.
Exponential law. For ECOs without a horizon, the
natural expectation is that the emitted radiation rate is
exponentially suppressed compared to the Hawking radi- Re-evaluation of experimental bounds
n
ation of black holes, F (M/Λ) = e(M/Λ) −1 . Taking the
The ECO mass bounds derived in the previous sec-
tion present rough but robust estimates for the primor-
dial ECO DM mass limits. More rigorously, experi-
1 This is a very good approximation for most of the ECO candi- mental constraints on the evaporating ECOs arise from
dates that mimic black holes [37]. the big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), distortions of the
 3

Cosmic Microwave Background, reionization of the Uni- 7% of this value [57]. Therefore, to a good approxima-
verse, injection of extra entropy, possible modifications tion, the rescaling of the temperature of radiation ac-
of baryogenesis, generation of large positron and an- cording to Eq. (2) will also rescale the predicted γ-ray
tiproton fractions in the cosmic ray fluxes and, above flux.
all, from the galactic and extragalactic γ-ray background The relevant data on the extragalactic γ-ray back-
measurements. Among the many observables, in prac- ground starts at MeV and extends to several hundreds of
tice, only two of them turned out to be relevant for GeV. To quantify how the bounds depend on the func-
constraining the light, M < −16
∼ 10 M , PBH and ECO tion F (M/Λ) in Eq. (2) we express the flux in terms
abundance. For the PBHs and ECOs that have com- of the extragalactic γ-ray flux for PBHs. Applying the
pletely evaporated by now, the most stringent bounds temperature rescaling for ECOs, T = TPBH F (M/Λ)−1/4 ,
arise from secondary γ-ray flux from their evaporation, together with TPBH ∝ M −1 to Eqs. (11-13) we obtain the
and, at even smaller masses, from BBN [8]. These bounds relation
constrain the primordial power spectrum at very small 1
scales [50–52]. However, so light ECOs cannot constitute IPBH (Eγ , M F (M/Λ) 4 )
IECO (Eγ , M ) = 1 . (14)
the present DM abundance, and are not of interest for us. F (M/Λ) 4
For the light ECO DM that exists today, the most strin-
gent bounds arise from the measurements of extragalactic The amplitude of the flux is directly proportional to
γ-ray background. In fact, the primary γ-ray flux from fECO . So, the experimental bounds on the γ-ray flux,
their evaporation turns out to be the only relevant pro- I(Eγ , M ) < Imax (Eγ ), constrain the fraction of DM
cess to consider [8]. The extragalactic γ-ray flux plays in ECOs, fECO (M ) < minEγ [Imax (Eγ )/I(Eγ , M )] ≡
max
a very important role also in constraining properties of fECO (M ). The minimum is attained at the peak en-
annihilating or decaying weakly interacting massive par- ergy which is proportional to the temperature. By using
ticles [53, 54] (for a review see [55]). Here we re-evaluate Eq. (14) we can then relate the maximal allowed fraction
the extragalactic γ-ray constraints for generic ECOs with of DM in ECOs at given mass M to the maximal PBH
a modified radiation rate. We assume that the ECOs DM fraction,
have a single mass. The constraints derived here can be  
1 1
generalised to wider mass distributions e.g. using the max max
fECO (M ) = F (M/Λ) 4 fPBH F (M/Λ) 4 M . (15)
methods of Ref. [22].
The present-day primary photon flux produced by We use fPBHmax
= 3.5 × 1055 (MPBH /M )3.4 up to arbi-
evaporating ECOs is a superposition of the instantaneous trary small masses, though in particular above Eγ ∼
emissions from all previous epochs. The emission rate per 100 GeV the constraints on the γ-ray flux get significantly
volume at cosmological time t is given by weaker [58]. However, in the region where this happens
dnγ dṄ the γ-ray constraint is practically negligible, as we will
= nECO (t)Eγ (Eγ , M ) , (11) see in the next section.
dt dEγ
where nECO (t) is the ECO number density which de-
termines the fraction of DM in ECOs today at t = t0 , Results
fECO ≡ M nECO (t0 )/ρDM (t0 ), Eγ is the emitted photon
energy and dṄ /dEγ is the rate of photons emitted by an Using the results above, we plot in Fig. 1 the upper
ECO in the energy interval (Eγ , Eγ + dE). The form of bounds on the fraction of DM in ECOs, fECO , aris-
this rate is determined by the usual black body radiation ing from the extragalactic γ-ray measurements as func-
to be tions of ECO mass M assuming the power-law function
dṄ 1 Γ(Eγ , M ) F (M/Λ) = (M/Λ)α , where the values of α are presented
(Eγ , M ) = , (12) in the figure. For the values of fECO ≈ 1 that we are
dEγ 2π eEγ /T − 1
interested in this paper, the bounds from extragalactic
where Γ is the absorption coefficient which can be ap- γ-ray measurements are up to two orders of magnitude
proximated in the high-energy limit, Eγ  T , as [56] more stringent than the ones derived from the ECO life-
time, also presented in Fig. 1. The main result is that
already for small values of α > 0, a new parameter space
Γ(Eγ , M ) = 27Eγ2 G2 M 2 . (13)
opens up where there is no experimental constraints for
The observable primary photon flux IECO (Eγ , M ) ≡ the ECO DM abundance. Therefore, all of the DM can
nγ (Eγ , M )/(4π) is obtained by the integrating Eq. (11) be in the form of objects that radiate less effectively than
over the time. It is crucial to notice that the average en- the classical PBHs, either in ECOs or, for small values
ergy of the emitted photons is determined by the temper- of α, in PBHs which Hawking radiation is modified by
ature alone, Eγav = 5.7T , and the peak energy is within unknown quantum gravity effects.
 4
0
FL

.4

.2
NS

α=0
α=0

α=0
FL WD
-1 20
HSC

n=2
-2
10

log10 (Mmin /MP )

-3
log10 fECO

-4 Λ = MP
0
-5
Λ = 10-7.5 MP
-6 -10
Λ = 10-15 MP
-7
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
log10 (M/M⊙ ) log10 n

FIG. 1. Constraints on a fraction of DM in ECOs, fECO , FIG. 2. The purple lines show the smallest allowed ECO n
as a function of ECO mass M . The dotted, dotdashed, and DM mass, Mmin , for fECO = 1 and F (M/Λ) = e(M/Λ) −1
dashed purple lines show upper bounds on fECO from ex- as a function of n for tree different values of Λ. The gray
tragalactic γ-ray measurements for F (M/Λ) = (M/Λ)α with lines depict the corresponding bounds from ECOs lifetime,
Λ = MP and values of α as indicated in figure. The vertical and the red region is excluded by the femtolensing (FL) con-
gray lines show the corresponding bounds arising from the straint [10]. The vertical line highlights the case n = 2 corre-
ECOs lifetime alone. The colored regions show constraints sponding to the wormhole solution [24].
from femtolensing (FL) [10], white dwarfs (WD) [15], neu-
tron stars (NS) [14] and microlensing (HSC) [11]. For ECOs
whose radiation is exponentially suppressed, the mass bounds
are lowered by another 30 orders of magnitude. 10−16 M can constitute 100% of the DM of Universe
without contradicting any experimental bound. The key
point that allowed us to reach this result is the absence of
a horizon for ECOs, which drastically modifies the emit-
ted radiation rate of those objects compared to PBHs.
Fig. 1 illustrates bounds on ECO DM for small devi- As a result, the ECO lifetime is significantly prolonged
ations from the Hawking radiation. If the emitted radi- allowing for the existence of very light primordial objects.
ation is exponentially suppressed, as is expected for the We showed that, similarly to the PBHs, the most strin-
horizonless ECOs such as wormholes, the mass bounds gent lower bounds on primordial ECO masses arise from
are further lowered by 30 orders of magnitude. the extragalactic γ-ray measurements. As is evident from
To study which range of ECO masses are reachable Figs. 1 and 2, a new, very large mass window is opened
by our considerations, we plot in Fig. 2 lower bounds on for the primordial ECO DM that mimics the PBH DM.
the smallest allowed ECO mass Mmin for which all DM In the extreme cases, when the fundamental cut-off scale
can be in ECOs, fECO = 1, as functions of n for the ex- of gravity is much below the Planck scale, the primordial
ponentially suppressed ECO radiation rate F (M/Λ) = ECOs can be as light as 10 TeV, resembling particles
n
e(M/Λ) −1 . This case is motivated by the wormhole solu- rather than macroscopic objects. The most important
tion [24] that is highlighted in the figure. We see that the conclusion, therefore, is that new dedicated observations
results depend strongly on the cut-off scale Λ. Because and experiments are needed to test this mass region of
the scale of the UV theory of gravity is unknown, stable primordial DM.
ECO masses as low as 10 TeV are possible. Therefore,
the stable ECOs that constitute 100% of the DM of the Acknowledgements M.R. thanks the organizers of
Universe need not to be macroscopic objects like PBHs. COST action CA16104 meeting in Malta where part of
Instead, they can be more exotic solutions with masses the ideas presented in this paper were developed. This
just above the present reach of the LHC and other par- work was supported by the grants IUT23-6 and by EU
ticle physics experiments. through the ERDF CoE program grant TK133 and by
the Estonian Research Council via the Mobilitas Plus
grant MOBTT5.
Discussion and Conclusions

We demonstrated that light primordial ECOs or ∗

[email protected]
†
PBHs with modified Hawking radiation at masses below [email protected]
 5

[32] R. Ruffini and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev. 187, 1767 (1969).

‡
[email protected] [33] C. Barceló, S. Liberati, S. Sonego, and M. Visser, Sci.
§
[email protected]
[1] S. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152, 75 (1971). Am. 301, 38 (2009).
[2] B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. [34] C. Barcelo, S. Liberati, S. Sonego, and M. Visser, Phys.
Soc. 168, 399 (1974). Rev. D77, 044032 (2008), arXiv:0712.1130 [gr-qc].
[3] B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J. 201, 1 (1975). [35] E. G. Gimon and P. Horava, Phys. Lett. B672, 299
[4] P. Meszaros, Astron. Astrophys. 38, 5 (1975). (2009), arXiv:0706.2873 [hep-th].
[5] G. F. Chapline, Nature 253, 251 (1975). [36] R. Brustein and A. J. M. Medved, Fortsch. Phys. 65,
[6] S. W. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974). 1600114 (2017), arXiv:1602.07706 [hep-th].
[7] S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975). [37] V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Nat. Astron. 1, 586 (2017),
[8] B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, arXiv:1709.01525 [gr-qc].
Phys. Rev. D81, 104019 (2010), arXiv:0912.5297 [astro- [38] E. Berti and V. Cardoso, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 2209
ph.CO]. (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0605101 [gr-qc].
[9] V. Poulin, J. Lesgourgues, and P. D. Serpico, JCAP [39] C. F. B. Macedo, P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. C. B.
1703, 043 (2017), arXiv:1610.10051 [astro-ph.CO]. Crispino, Astrophys. J. 774, 48 (2013), arXiv:1302.2646
[10] A. Barnacka, J. F. Glicenstein, and R. Moderski, [gr-qc].
Phys. Rev. D86, 043001 (2012), arXiv:1204.2056 [astro- [40] R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, JCAP 1612, 043
ph.CO]. (2016), arXiv:1606.00517 [gr-qc].
[11] H. Niikura, M. Takada, N. Yasuda, R. H. Lupton, [41] K. K. Nandi, R. N. Izmailov, A. A. Yanbekov, and
T. Sumi, S. More, A. More, M. Oguri, and M. Chiba, A. A. Shayakhmetov, Phys. Rev. D95, 104011 (2017),
(2017), arXiv:1701.02151 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:1611.03479 [gr-qc].
[12] P. Tisserand et al. (EROS-2), Astron. Astrophys. 469, [42] C. Chirenti and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D94, 084016
387 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0607207 [astro-ph]. (2016), arXiv:1602.08759 [gr-qc].
[13] R. A. Allsman et al. (Macho), Astrophys. J. 550, L169 [43] C. Barceló, R. Carballo-Rubio, and L. J. Garay, JHEP
(2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0011506 [astro-ph]. 05, 054 (2017), arXiv:1701.09156 [gr-qc].
[14] F. Capela, M. Pshirkov, and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. [44] R. Brustein, A. J. M. Medved, and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev.
D87, 123524 (2013), arXiv:1301.4984 [astro-ph.CO]. D96, 064033 (2017), arXiv:1704.05789 [gr-qc].
[15] P. W. Graham, S. Rajendran, and J. Varela, Phys. Rev. [45] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev.
D92, 063007 (2015), arXiv:1505.04444 [hep-ph]. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc].
[16] S. M. Koushiappas and A. Loeb, (2017), [46] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev.
arXiv:1704.01668 [astro-ph.GA]. Lett. 116, 241103 (2016), arXiv:1606.04855 [gr-qc].
[17] T. D. Brandt, Astrophys. J. 824, L31 (2016), [47] V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev.
arXiv:1605.03665 [astro-ph.GA]. Lett. 116, 171101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.
[18] M. A. Monroy-Rodrı́guez and C. Allen, Astrophys. J. Lett.117,no.8,089902(2016)], arXiv:1602.07309 [gr-qc].
790, 159 (2014), arXiv:1406.5169 [astro-ph.GA]. [48] V. Cardoso, S. Hopper, C. F. B. Macedo, C. Palen-
[19] Y. Ali-Haı̈moud and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D95, zuela, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D94, 084031 (2016),
043534 (2017), arXiv:1612.05644 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:1608.08637 [gr-qc].
[20] M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veermäe, JCAP 1709, [49] A. D. Helfer, Rept. Prog. Phys. 66, 943 (2003), arXiv:gr-
037 (2017), arXiv:1707.01480 [astro-ph.CO]. qc/0304042 [gr-qc].
[21] Y. Ali-Haı̈moud, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, [50] A. S. Josan, A. M. Green, and K. A. Malik, Phys. Rev.
Phys. Rev. D96, 123523 (2017), arXiv:1709.06576 [astro- D79, 103520 (2009), arXiv:0903.3184 [astro-ph.CO].
ph.CO]. [51] B. Carr, T. Tenkanen, and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev.
[22] B. Carr, M. Raidal, T. Tenkanen, V. Vaskonen, D96, 063507 (2017), arXiv:1706.03746 [astro-ph.CO].
and H. Veermäe, Phys. Rev. D96, 023514 (2017), [52] P. S. Cole and C. T. Byrnes, JCAP 1802, 019 (2018),
arXiv:1705.05567 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:1706.10288 [astro-ph.CO].
[23] T. Damour and S. N. Solodukhin, Phys. Rev. D76, [53] G. Hutsi, A. Hektor, and M. Raidal, JCAP 1007, 008
024016 (2007), arXiv:0704.2667 [gr-qc]. (2010), arXiv:1004.2036 [astro-ph.HE].
[24] C. Berthiere, D. Sarkar, and S. N. Solodukhin, (2017), [54] D. P. Finkbeiner, L. Goodenough, T. R. Slatyer, M. Vo-
arXiv:1712.09914 [hep-th]. gelsberger, and N. Weiner, JCAP 1105, 002 (2011),
[25] M. Hohmann, C. Pfeifer, M. Raidal, and H. Veermäe, arXiv:1011.3082 [hep-ph].
(2018), arXiv:1802.02184 [gr-qc]. [55] M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hutsi, M. Kadastik,
[26] B. Holdom and J. Ren, Phys. Rev. D95, 084034 (2017), P. Panci, M. Raidal, F. Sala, and A. Strumia, JCAP
arXiv:1612.04889 [gr-qc]. 1103, 051 (2011), [Erratum: JCAP1210,E01(2012)],
[27] S. D. Mathur, Fortsch. Phys. 53, 793 (2005), arXiv:hep- arXiv:1012.4515 [hep-ph].
th/0502050 [hep-th]. [56] D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D13, 198 (1976).
[28] S. D. Mathur, (2008), arXiv:0810.4525 [hep-th]. [57] J. H. MacGibbon and B. R. Webber, Phys. Rev. D41,
[29] P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 101, 3052 (1990).
9545 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407075 [gr-qc]. [58] R. Hill, K. W. Masui, and D. Scott, (2018),
[30] E. Mottola and R. Vaulin, Phys. Rev. D74, 064004 arXiv:1802.03694 [astro-ph.CO].
(2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0604051 [gr-qc].
[31] D. J. Kaup, Phys. Rev. 172, 1331 (1968).