Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 5Black Holes and Theoretical PhysicsParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 22 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Neutralizing topological obstructions to bubbles of nothing

Open access
Draper, Patrick, Lillard, Benjamin, Skye, Carissa·2023·Journal of High Energy Physics

Abstract

A bstract: Theories with compact extra dimensions can exhibit a vacuum instability known as a bubble of nothing. These decay modes can be obstructed if the internal manifold is stabilized by fluxes, or if it carries Wilson lines for background gauge fields, or if the instanton is incompatible with the spin structure. In each of these cases the decay can proceed by adding dynamical charged membranes or gauge fields. We give a general, bottom-up procedure for constructing approximate bubble of nothing solutions in models with internal spheres stabilized by flux and study the influence of the brane tension on the tunneling exponent, finding two branches of solutions that merge at a minimal superextremal value of the tension. In the case of Wilson operators and incompatible fermions, the relevant bubble is shown to be the Euclidean Reissner-Nordstrom black hole, and the ordinary decay exponent is modified by 1/ g 2 effects. We examine the Dirac operator on this background and comment on the relevance for models of supergravity with gauged R -symmetry.

Checked 2026-11-13 · 1 reference not checked yet

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

The paper gives bottom-up constructions of bubble-of-nothing decays that are topologically obstructed by flux, Wilson lines, or incompatible fermion spin structures, showing how dynamical membranes or gauge fields can neutralize the obstruction. It finds new branch structure and a lower bound on brane tension in flux-stabilized models, and identifies Euclidean Reissner-Nordström as the relevant instanton for Wilson-line/fermion obstructions.

Key findings

  • For flux-stabilized internal spheres, BON decay requires co-nucleation with a charged membrane; the authors find two branches of solutions that merge at a minimal superextremal tension \(T_{\min}\), below which no viable solutions were found.
  • The on-shell action grows faster than linearly with brane tension \(T\). For \(n=2\), \(\mu=0\), they report \(S(T=0.5)\approx 3\) and \(S(T=1.25)\approx 52\), and universe-lifetime bounds \(|Q|\gtrsim 20 g_0\) at \(T\simeq0.5\) and \(|Q|\gtrsim 10 g_0\) at \(T\simeq1.25\); for \(n=6\), \(|Q|\gtrsim150 g_0\) at \(T\simeq0.65\) and \(|Q|\gtrsim96 g_0\) at \(T\simeq0.95\).
  • For Wilson operators and incompatible fermions, the relevant bubble is the Euclidean Reissner-Nordström black hole, and the ordinary decay exponent is modified by \(1/g^2\) effects; the Euclidean action is \(S_E \approx \frac{\pi^2 R_0^2}{\kappa_4}+\frac{2\pi^2 A_{5,0}^2}{g_4^2}\) for \(1/g_4^2\ll R_0^2/\kappa_4\).
  • A numerical Dirac spectrum on this background shows no isolated zero mode; eigenvalues converge to zero like \(1/r_{\max}\) as the cutoff grows. The mechanism can operate in softly broken gauged 5D supergravity, but the paper says only in rather exotic circumstances.

Methods

  • Flux case: dimensionally reduce \(4+n\)-dimensional Einstein gravity with an \(n\)-sphere, flux, and a thin charged brane; formulate a Coleman-De Luccia problem with nonstandard boundary conditions, derive jump conditions, and solve numerically by shooting for \(n=2\) and \(n=6\) with potentials including \(\mu^2\).
  • Wilson/fermion case: study 5D Kaluza-Klein theory with a background Wilson line or massive fermions, make the gauge field dynamical, and use the Euclidean Reissner-Nordström solution to Einstein-Maxwell equations.
  • Dirac spectrum: solve the Dirac equation on the Euclidean Reissner-Nordström background numerically, using conformal transformation to a product manifold and point-and-shoot with Dirichlet boundary conditions.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the flux analysis uses a thin-brane, full-screening approximation where all flux is screened inside the brane radius, treating the brane as smeared rather than localized; it says a more physically accurate treatment could alter the properties found.
  • The paper states numerical difficulties: the upper branch for \(n=2\) is only found for restricted \(T\), the shooting method becomes unreliable near \(T_{\min}\) and \(T_{\max}\), and for \(n=6\) no second solution branch was found before numerical precision limits.
  • The paper states that in the Wilson-line section it ignores the stabilizing radial modulus and the holonomy potential \(V(A_5)\), assuming a relevant minimum away from the origin; it also notes the Dirac spectrum discussion is “somewhat tangential.”

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/jhep10(2023)049

Cites

30 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 Examples of the potential defined in (2.53), with and without the flux term. This figure is drawn for n = 2 and various u other = 1 2 µ 2 φ 2 . The potential 'seen' by the instanton is shown as a solid line: the trajectory starts at small ¯ ξ and large negative φ with the flux 'off. ' At some boundary point φ ( ¯ ξ b ) , the brane nucleates and the flux is switched on. (This boundary point occurs at different values of φ for different solutions; a representative φ b ≈ -0 . 25 is used here for illustration.) Stability at the origin bounds µ 2 ≥ -2 .
Figure 1 Examples of the potential defined in (2.53), with and without the flux term. This figure is drawn for n = 2 and various u other = 1 2 µ 2 φ 2 . The potential 'seen' by the instanton is shown as a solid line: the trajectory starts at small ¯ ξ and large negative φ with the flux 'off. ' At some boundary point φ ( ¯ ξ b ) , the brane nucleates and the flux is switched on. (This boundary point occurs at different values of φ for different solutions; a representative φ b ≈ -0 . 25 is used here for illustration.) Stability at the origin bounds µ 2 ≥ -2 .CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 The behavior of φ and ¯ ρ for two values of ¯ T , with n = 2 and µ 2 = 0 . A discontinuity occurs in the derivative at the brane boundary ¯ ξ b , just above ¯ ξ ∼ 0 . 3 in both cases shown, after which φ exponentially approaches 0 and ¯ ρ increases linearly. The dotted lines represent the small-¯ ξ approximations given in (2.56).
Figure 2 The behavior of φ and ¯ ρ for two values of ¯ T , with n = 2 and µ 2 = 0 . A discontinuity occurs in the derivative at the brane boundary ¯ ξ b , just above ¯ ξ ∼ 0 . 3 in both cases shown, after which φ exponentially approaches 0 and ¯ ρ increases linearly. The dotted lines represent the small-¯ ξ approximations given in (2.56).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 The value of the shooting parameter η as defined in (2.56). It decreases rapidly close to T min , but is approximately linear for larger values of T .
Figure 3 The value of the shooting parameter η as defined in (2.56). It decreases rapidly close to T min , but is approximately linear for larger values of T .CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 The membrane nucleation radius ¯ ξ b as a function of the tension. Left: n = 2 . Here ¯ ξ b reaches a shallow minimum near T ∼ 1 , then increases steeply for T ∼ 0 . 5 where it converges with an upper branch of solutions. Right: n = 6 . Here no minimum T was found before the shooting code reached limits of numerical precision, but the trend is suggestive of similar behavior. The extremality bound on T from eq. (2.54) is marked on each graph.
Figure 4 The membrane nucleation radius ¯ ξ b as a function of the tension. Left: n = 2 . Here ¯ ξ b reaches a shallow minimum near T ∼ 1 , then increases steeply for T ∼ 0 . 5 where it converges with an upper branch of solutions. Right: n = 6 . Here no minimum T was found before the shooting code reached limits of numerical precision, but the trend is suggestive of similar behavior. The extremality bound on T from eq. (2.54) is marked on each graph.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 5 Values of the scaled action ¯ S as a function of brane tension for various mass parameters µ . Top left: n = 2 . Results for the upper branch of ¯ ξ b solutions are difficult to see on this plot, so in the top right we show a zoom-in of the corner where these solutions appear. The two branches converge at some T min , below which no solutions were found. Lower plot: n = 6 . We did not find a second solution branch for the n = 6 case. The vertical line at T max indicates the extremality bound (2.54). 5(c) shows ¯ ρ B in the n = 2 case, which is useful in understanding the behavior of the action.
Figure 5 Values of the scaled action ¯ S as a function of brane tension for various mass parameters µ . Top left: n = 2 . Results for the upper branch of ¯ ξ b solutions are difficult to see on this plot, so in the top right we show a zoom-in of the corner where these solutions appear. The two branches converge at some T min , below which no solutions were found. Lower plot: n = 6 . We did not find a second solution branch for the n = 6 case. The vertical line at T max indicates the extremality bound (2.54). 5(c) shows ¯ ρ B in the n = 2 case, which is useful in understanding the behavior of the action.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 6 A comparison of the total on-shell action (solid lines) with the brane contribution (dotted lines). Because the action contains negative terms, the brane contribution is larger than the total action. The brane contribution, however, does not show a sharp cusp at low T .
Figure 6 A comparison of the total on-shell action (solid lines) with the brane contribution (dotted lines). Because the action contains negative terms, the brane contribution is larger than the total action. The brane contribution, however, does not show a sharp cusp at low T .CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Eigenvalues, λ ( r max ) F ± n ( r ) , G ± n ( r ) : λ n > 0 F ± n ( r ) , G ± n ( r ) : λ n < 0 Figure 7. Here we plot the values of the first five positive and negative ℓ = 0 eigenvalues as a function of r max , for F + and G + (top) and F -and G -(bottom). In this example we take g 2 = 9 κ 1 / 3 and R 0 = 15 κ 1 / 3 . In the ϕ + case, the positive λ n are smaller in magnitude than the corresponding negative eigenvalues; for ϕ -, it is the negative eigenvalues that have the smaller magnitudes. In the r max ≫ R 0 limit, λ scales as λ ∝ 1 /r max .
Figure 2 Eigenvalues, λ ( r max ) F ± n ( r ) , G ± n ( r ) : λ n > 0 F ± n ( r ) , G ± n ( r ) : λ n < 0 Figure 7. Here we plot the values of the first five positive and negative ℓ = 0 eigenvalues as a function of r max , for F + and G + (top) and F -and G -(bottom). In this example we take g 2 = 9 κ 1 / 3 and R 0 = 15 κ 1 / 3 . In the ϕ + case, the positive λ n are smaller in magnitude than the corresponding negative eigenvalues; for ϕ -, it is the negative eigenvalues that have the smaller magnitudes. In the r max ≫ R 0 limit, λ scales as λ ∝ 1 /r max .CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Eigenfunctions, r max = 50 R 0 . 2 Figure 8. In this example we show the first three ℓ = 0 eigenfunctions F ± n ( r ) and G ± n ( r ) , n = 1 , 2 , 3 , for a specific value of r max = 50 R 0 . The number of nodes increases with the value of n . Each panel shows F ± n as a solid line, and G ± n as dashed. The top and bottom rows show ϕ + and ϕ -, while the left and right columns correspond to positive and negative eigenvalues, respectively. Note that F ± n ( r ) = G ∓ -n ( r ) , where ± n indicates the n th positive or negative eigenvalue.
Figure 3 Eigenfunctions, r max = 50 R 0 . 2 Figure 8. In this example we show the first three ℓ = 0 eigenfunctions F ± n ( r ) and G ± n ( r ) , n = 1 , 2 , 3 , for a specific value of r max = 50 R 0 . The number of nodes increases with the value of n . Each panel shows F ± n as a solid line, and G ± n as dashed. The top and bottom rows show ϕ + and ϕ -, while the left and right columns correspond to positive and negative eigenvalues, respectively. Note that F ± n ( r ) = G ∓ -n ( r ) , where ± n indicates the n th positive or negative eigenvalue.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 Alternate. Varying ` , λ ( r max ) Figure 9. Left: We plot the F ± and G ± eigenfunctions for n = 1 and ℓ = 0 , 1 , 2 , for an example with r max = 50 R 0 . The upper and lower panels show ϕ + and ϕ -respectively, with positive λ ℓ > 0 in both cases. As demonstrated in figure 8, the λ < 0 solutions can be obtained from the positive eigenvalue solutions by the transformation F ± ↔ G ± , λ n ↔± λ -n . In each case we have normalized the eigenfunctions to F ± ( r max ) = G ± ( r max ) = ± 1 for visual clarity. Right: Here we show the eigenvalues λ n,ℓ as a function of r max for the F + , G + type solutions. The solid lines show ℓ = 0 , 1 , 2 for n = 1 ; these solutions have the smallest magnitudes | λ n,ℓ | . The gray dashed lines show the n = 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 eigenvalues with ℓ = 0 . As in figure 7, the eigenvalues for ϕ -can be obtained from the values above by applying the transformation λ n ↔± λ -n .
Figure 4 Alternate. Varying ` , λ ( r max ) Figure 9. Left: We plot the F ± and G ± eigenfunctions for n = 1 and ℓ = 0 , 1 , 2 , for an example with r max = 50 R 0 . The upper and lower panels show ϕ + and ϕ -respectively, with positive λ ℓ > 0 in both cases. As demonstrated in figure 8, the λ < 0 solutions can be obtained from the positive eigenvalue solutions by the transformation F ± ↔ G ± , λ n ↔± λ -n . In each case we have normalized the eigenfunctions to F ± ( r max ) = G ± ( r max ) = ± 1 for visual clarity. Right: Here we show the eigenvalues λ n,ℓ as a function of r max for the F + , G + type solutions. The solid lines show ℓ = 0 , 1 , 2 for n = 1 ; these solutions have the smallest magnitudes | λ n,ℓ | . The gray dashed lines show the n = 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 eigenvalues with ℓ = 0 . As in figure 7, the eigenvalues for ϕ -can be obtained from the values above by applying the transformation λ n ↔± λ -n .CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 9 Not valid · 15 Not checked · 126 Own results and interpretations

70 more claims

Create a free account to see all 150 claims and to verify the 15 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 46
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 40
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

Create a free account to see these claims.

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 5

Metadata

Authors
Draper, P., Lillard, B., & Skye, C.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Lillard, Benjamin
Venue
Journal of High Energy Physics
Published
2023-10-06
Volume
2023
Issue
10
ISSN
1029-8479 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387429263
Cited by
5
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3
FWCI
0.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of High Energy Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DESC0011640, DESC0015655)
  • Office of Science (DESC0015655)
  • High Energy Physics (DESC0015655)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Particle physics theoretical and experimental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Keywords
bubble of nothing, vacuum decay, compactified extra dimensions, flux stabilization, Wilson lines, instantons, spin structure, charged membranes, brane tension, Dirac operator, supergravity, topological obstructions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.