Loading [MathJax]/extensions/Safe.js
SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Higher spin swampland conjecture for massive AdS$_{3}$ gravity

by R. Sammani, E. H Saidi

This is not the latest submitted version.

This Submission thread is now published as

Submission summary

Authors (as registered SciPost users): Rajae Sammani
Submission information
Preprint Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09151v2  (pdf)
Date submitted: Dec. 16, 2024, 3:14 p.m.
Submitted by: Sammani, Rajae
Submitted to: SciPost Physics
Ontological classification
Academic field: Physics
Specialties:
  • High-Energy Physics - Theory
  • Mathematical Physics
Approach: Theoretical

Abstract

In this paper, we show that a possible version of the swampland weak gravity conjecture for higher spin (HS) massive topological AdS$_{3}$ gravity can be expressed in terms of mass $M_{hs}$, charge $Q_{hs}$ and coupling constant $g_{hs}$ of 3D gravity coupled to higher spin fields as $M_{hs} \leq \sqrt{2}$ $Q_{hs}$ $g_{hs}$ $M_{Pl}$. The higher spin charge is given by the $SO(1,2)$ quadratic Casimir $Q_{hs}^{2}=s\left (s-1\right) $ and the HS coupling constant by ${\large g}_{hs} ^{2}=2/\left (M_{Pl}^{2} l_{AdS_{3}}^{2}\right )$ while the mass expressed like $\left( l_{AdS_{3}} \text{M}_{hs}\right) ^{2}$ is defined as $ \left (1+\mu l_{AdS_{3}} \right ) ^{2} s \left ( s-1 \right ) +[1- \left ( \mu l_{AdS_{3}} \right ) ^{2} \left ( s-1 \right ) ]$.

Author indications on fulfilling journal expectations

  • Provide a novel and synergetic link between different research areas.
  • Open a new pathway in an existing or a new research direction, with clear potential for multi-pronged follow-up work
  • Detail a groundbreaking theoretical/experimental/computational discovery
  • Present a breakthrough on a previously-identified and long-standing research stumbling block
Current status:
Has been resubmitted

Reports on this Submission

Report #2 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2025-1-24 (Invited Report)

Report

I thank the authors for thoroughly addressing the points raised in my previous report and for their detailed reply. I am happy with all the changes they implemented regarding those points.

As a final request, I agree with the comment made by the other referee that it would be beneficial to expand on the analogy relating the angular momentum of the Kerr-Newman solution to the spin of particles in higher-spin theory.

Recommendation

Ask for minor revision

  • validity: -
  • significance: -
  • originality: -
  • clarity: -
  • formatting: -
  • grammar: -

Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 2) on 2025-1-1 (Invited Report)

  • Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2406.09151v2, delivered 2025-01-01, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.10407

Strengths

1- addressed almost all points raised by referees

Weaknesses

1- one crucial point remains a little weak

Report

In this new version, the authors did add a review about (4.4), as also asked by the other referee.

Below (4.23), the authors also tried addressing my other question, about why $s(s-1)$ can be interpreted as a charge. I thank them for their effort. But I have to confess that I am not sure I follow the logic here: in the last line of p. 16, "an extremal higher spin BTZ black hole is then a black hole with mass equal to $M_{\rm hs}^2 = \left(\frac1{l_{\rm AdS_3}}+\mu \right)^2 j(j+1)$", where does this formula come from? Is this a circular argument?
I think the idea is roughly speaking to compare the extremality bound for Kerr–Newman to the expected WGC bound; for them to coincide, the $a^2$ term has somehow to coincide with $Q^2$.

My response to this is that $a$ here is the _angular momentum_ of the black hole, not quite the spin of the particles in the theory. I can see that probably the extremal Kerr–Newman in the higher spin theory might be similar to this one. But I think it might be possible to make this a lot sharper by comparing with existing literature. There is for example 1404.3305 (see for example the comment below (3.40) there), but a lot more has probably been done since then.

So as a final request I would urge the authors to rewrite the part below (4.23) a little more clearly, and to try to look whether this feature persists in actual higher spin theories. If this is hard, I would ask them to justify why.

Recommendation

Ask for minor revision

  • validity: ok
  • significance: high
  • originality: high
  • clarity: good
  • formatting: excellent
  • grammar: excellent

Login to report or comment