Research PapersNo Access

Cosmic censorship in overcharging the Reissner–Nordström anti-de-Sitter black hole with Global Monopole charge

Department of Mathematics, School of Natural Sciences (SNS), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), H-12, Islamabad, Pakistan

E-mail Address: ayyesha.kanwal@sns.nust.edu.pk

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732320501400Cited by:3 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

We investigate the cosmic censorship hypothesis for the Reissner–Nordström anti-de-Sitter black holes with global monopole charge. Considering the motion of the particle, we find that the overcharging is possible only for the anti-de-Sitter black hole showing violation of the cosmic censorship hypothesis. However, for the de-Sitter black hole, overcharging is not possible and hence there is no violation of the cosmic censorship hypothesis.

Keywords:

PACS: 04.40.Dg, 95.30.Sf, 04.50.Gh

References

1. R. Penrose, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 1, 252 (1969). ADS, Google Scholar
2. R. M. Wald, Ann. Phys. 82, 548 (1974). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
3. V. E. Hubney, Phys. Rev. D 59, 061013 (1999). Google Scholar
4. K. Duztas and M. Jamil, arXiv:1812.06966. Google Scholar
5. S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D 66, 024016 (2002). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
6. M. Richartz and A. Saa, Phys. Rev. D 78, 081503 (2008). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
7. T. Jacobson and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 141101 (2009). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
8. J. V. Rocha and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104037 (2011). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
9. S. Gao and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 87, 044028 (2013). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
10. F. D. Felice and Y. Q. Yu, Class. Quantum Grav. 18, 1235 (2001). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
11. M. Bouhmadi, V. Cardoso, A. Nerozzi and J. V. Rocha, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084051 (2010). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
12. J. V. Rocha and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104037 (2011). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
13. J. M. Cohen and R. Gautreau, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2273 (1979). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
14. T. Needham, Phys. Rev. D 22, 791 (1980). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
15. I. Semiz, Class. Quantum Grav. 7, 353 (1990). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
16. J. D. Bekenstein and C. Rosenzweig, Phys. Rev. D 50, 7239 (1994). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
17. S. Hod, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 121101 (2008). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
18. E. Barausse, V. Cardoso and G. Khanna, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 261102 (2010). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
19. E. Barausse, V. Cardoso and G. Khanna, Phys. Rev. D 84, 104006 (2011). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
20. M. Colleoni and L. Barack, Phys. Rev. D 91, 104024 (2015). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
21. M. Colleoni, L. Barack, Abhay G. Shah and M. V. Meent, Phys. Rev. D 92, 084044 (2015). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
22. S. Isoyama, N. Sago and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124024 (2011). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
23. A. K. Ahmed, U. Camci and M. Jamil, Class. Quantum Grav. 33, 215012 (2016). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
24. Y. Zhang and S. Gao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 23, 1450044 (2014). Link, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar