AG-2026.03-327·gr-qc·cross-listed: astro-ph.HEhep-phhep-th
Challenging the Weak Cosmic Censorship with Phantom Fields
Authors
- Giovanni Caridi
- Fabrizio Corelli
- Paolo Pani
Abstract
Penrose's weak cosmic censorship conjecture asserts that spacetime singularities produced by gravitational collapse are generically hidden behind event horizons, thus preventing them from causally influencing distant observers and preserving the predictability of the exterior region. In this work, we probe this conjecture in a setup that deliberately violates one of its central assumptions - the dominant energy condition - by considering the spherical collapse of a phantom scalar field with negative energy density. In principle, such a field could produce a Schwarzschild geometry with negative mass and therefore no event horizon. Our aim is to assess whether, once the dominant energy condition is abandoned, the fully coupled evolution of matter and geometry can dynamically generate or expose naked singularities, thereby probing the robustness of cosmic censorship. To this end, we perform high-accuracy numerical relativity simulations based on fourth-order finite-difference schemes. Starting from smooth, asymptotically flat initial data representing regular phantom scalar wave packets, we follow their fully nonlinear evolution through collapse or dispersion. While an ordinary (positive-energy) scalar field exhibits the standard Choptuik critical behavior at the threshold of black-hole formation, the phantom field displays qualitatively different dynamics. For all amplitudes considered, we find no evidence for trapped surfaces, naked singularities, or alternative stationary end states. Instead, the phantom scalar field always disperses, suggesting that cosmic censorship remains dynamically preserved even in the presence of negative-energy matter.
Submitted
13 March 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2603.13210
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.