AG-2024.03-382·gr-qc·cross-listed: astro-ph.CO
The cosmic trimmer: Black-hole hair in scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity is altered by cosmology
Authors
- Eugeny Babichev
- Ignacy Sawicki
- Leonardo G. Trombetta
Abstract
Static black holes in general relativity modified by a linear scalar coupling to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant always carry hair. We show that the same mechanism that creates the hair makes it incompatible with a cosmological horizon. Other scalar-tensor models do not have this problem when time dependence of the scalar provides a natural matching to cosmology. Scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity is particularly rigid, and such a scenario does not help. An extra operator makes the theory behave like the other models, and the cosmological horizon can be accommodated. The hair, however, is drastically altered.
Submitted
22 March 20242 years ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2403.15537
Summary
In a modified theory of gravity involving black holes and scalar fields, the same physics that gives black holes an extra layer of complexity prevents them from coexisting with a cosmological horizon—unless you add an extra term that fundamentally changes the black hole's properties.
- Black holes in scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity naturally develop 'hair' (extra structure beyond mass and spin), but this hair becomes incompatible with a cosmological horizon that describes an expanding universe.
- Other modified gravity theories avoid this problem by letting their scalar field evolve with time, but scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity is too rigid for this workaround to help.
- Adding an extra operator to the theory allows it to accommodate cosmology, but the cost is substantial: it dramatically reshapes the black hole's hair, suggesting fundamental constraints on modifying gravity simultaneously at black-hole and cosmic scales.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.