SciPost Submission Page
Towards traversable wormholes from forcefree plasmas
by Nabil Iqbal, Simon F. Ross
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
As Contributors:  Nabil Iqbal · Simon Ross 
Arxiv Link:  https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.01920v3 (pdf) 
Date accepted:  20220204 
Date submitted:  20211007 15:49 
Submitted by:  Iqbal, Nabil 
Submitted to:  SciPost Physics 
Academic field:  Physics 
Specialties: 

Approach:  Theoretical 
Abstract
The nearhorizon region of magnetically charged black holes can have very strong magnetic fields. A useful lowenergy effective theory for fluctuations of the fields, coupled to electrically charged particles, is forcefree electrodynamics. The low energy collective excitations include a large number of Alfven wave modes, which have a massless dispersion relation along the field worldlines. We attempt to construct traversable wormhole solutions using the negative Casimir energy of the Alfven wave modes, analogously to the recent construction using charged massless fermions. The behaviour of massless scalars in the nearhorizon region implies that the size of the wormholes is strongly restricted and cannot be made large, even though the force free description is valid in a larger regime.
Published as SciPost Phys. 12, 086 (2022)
Author comments upon resubmission
List of changes
Before equations (63) and (66) we correct the modenumbering of the frequencies in the inline formula for \omega.
We add footnote 7 on page 6 to explain a potential subtlety in the lowest mode.
Submission & Refereeing History
You are currently on this page
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 20211022 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2103.01920v3, delivered 20211022, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.3725
Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for answering my questions. The result about the Casimir energy in AdS is very important and can have a big significance for the field of wormhole study in general. This is why I want to make sure it is indeed determined by $m^2 R l$ as you claim.
Now I completely agree with your results for the even spectrum of periodic BC.
However, I noticed that that the Dirichlet spectrum, eqns. (63), (64) have a problem: for large $r$, the corrections $\delta \omega$ behave as $r^{12 \alpha_}$, so it grows faster than the original, linear in $r$, answer. So the approximation breaks down. How does it affect the final answer for the Casimir energy?
Also it would be useful to check if the same happens with the odd spectrum for periodic BC.
I appreciate your patience.
Author: Nabil Iqbal on 20211205 [id 2010]
(in reply to Report 1 on 20211022)Dear referee,
We thank you for the detailed reading.
Actually, the larger growth of $\delta\omega$ seen in Eq (63) is not physical, and is an artifact of assuming that the frequency shift $\delta\omega$ is *small*; for a fixed value of $\epsilon$, this ceases to be a good assumption for sufficiently large $r$, and thus one should not linearize the Gamma functions in Eq (62) when finding the frequency shift.
There is of course no issue with numerically solving the original defining equation Eq. (62) numerically. We have done this below for the first 100 zeros with ($\epsilon^{2\Delta1} = 0.01$,$ m^2R^2 = 0.05$). These parameters have been picked to show both that the two expressions agree for small $r$, (where the domain of validity increases as $\epsilon$ is made smaller), but also that for large $r$ the growth of the *exact* answer saturates to be much slower than linear and there is no breakdown of the Casimir energy calculation. (See Figure in file "pic.pdf", which should be attached to this comment).
We stress that this has no impact on our answers, which do not require the precise $r$dependence in (63) and really use only the overall scaling with $\epsilon$ in Eq (63). As $\epsilon$ goes to zero, the approximation used to obtain (63) remains valid for larger and larger $r$, and the leading nonanalytic dependence on \epsilon indeed arises from Eq (63).
As this is all rather technical (and the considerations are only important if one takes the particular order of limits where $\epsilon$ is held fixed, UV cutoff on r is taken to infinity), we do not think that this requires a revision in the paper.
Attachment:
pic.pdf
Anonymous on 20220206 [id 2162]
(in reply to Nabil Iqbal on 20211205 [id 2010])The fact that the correction (63) grows with $r$ stems from a simple fact that the authors expanded the hypergeometric function in eq. (61). Taking $m=0$ in eq. (62) produces $\sin(\pi \omega/2) \epsilon \omega \cos(\pi \omega/2)=0$ instead of $\sin((\pi/2\epsilon) \omega)=0$. For large $\omega$ the difference becomes important. Using the full hypergeometric function, one can easily check numerically that the proper set of eigenenergies is $\omega = (2r + 1 + \alpha_+)/(12 \epsilon/\pi)$ instead of $(2r + 1 + \alpha_+)$.
So I agree that it is enough to require $m^2 R l$ to be small, as the Authors have claimed.
One simple way to derive this requirement is to apply standard quantummechanical firstorder perturbation theory to the eigenproblem (41), treating $m^2 R^2/\cos(\sigma)^2$ as a perturbation(previously I suggested comparing this term to $1$, but this is obviously too crude).
I do not have any further questions and I recommend the paper for publication.
Anonymous on 20220123 [id 2118]
(in reply to Nabil Iqbal on 20211205 [id 2010])Dear Authors,
Thank you for a detailed reply.
Your graph indicates that for large $r$ the correction becomes finite even for small $\epsilon$. I did the same calculation for smaller $\epsilon$ and got a similar result(please see the attached plot). It means that for large $r$ the approximation does break down: the shift $\delta \omega$ becomes a constant(my numerical experiments suggest this constant is 1)
This shifts Casimir energy by an order 1 amount, as the sum $\sum_{r=0}^\infty r$ and $\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}(r+c)$ are different. So I disagree with your claim that it does not affect your result: Casimir energy is sensitive to precise $r$ dependence.
Attachment:
ads_periodic_correction.pdf