Symmetries of Love: Ladder Structure of Static and Rotating Black Holes

Chanchal Sharma,1, ∗ Rajes Ghosh,1, † and Sudipta Sarkar1, ‡

1
Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382055, India
Black hole solutions of general relativity exhibit a symmetry for the static perturbations around
these spacetimes, known as “ladder symmetry”. This symmetry proves useful in constructing a tower
of solutions for perturbations and elucidating their general properties. Specifically, the presence of
this symmetry leads to vanishing of the tidal love number associated with black holes. In this work,
we find the most general spherical symmetric and static black hole spacetime that accommodates
this ladder symmetry for scalar perturbation. Furthermore, we extend our calculations beyond
spherical symmetry to find the class of stationary Konoplya-Rezzola-Zhidenko black holes, which
also possess a similar ladder structure.
arXiv:2401.00703v1 [gr-qc] 1 Jan 2024

INTRODUCTION the integer ℓ ≥ 0 represents the multipole order of the

The concept of symmetry is arguably the most
profound principle in physics. Symmetry principles
often bear important theoretical consequences, which is
greatly exemplified in the construction of both standard
model of particle physics and theory of relativity. The
notion of symmetry may also play further important
role to find physics beyond these established theories.
In the present era of gravitational wave astronomy,
when we are equipped with unprecedented technology to
explore the features of extreme gravity, the implications
of various symmetry principles might lead to far-reaching
observational and theoretical consequences. A prime
illustration of this is to understand the response of black
holes (BHs) in an external tidal environment. The pres-
ence of a horizon imparts distinct characteristics to BHs
in comparison to other astrophysical objects without
horizons. Unlike such a horizonless compact object, both
Reissner-Nordström and Kerr BH solutions in general
relativity (GR) are known to have zero Love number
[1–7], quantifying the vanishing tidal deformation under
an external perturbation. This intriguing result can be
interpreted as a manifestation of the celebrated no-hair
theorems for BHs in GR [8–10], establishing a natural
connection between the presence of BH hairs and their
tidal response.
In the conventional method for computing the tidal
Love number (TLN), we study the linear perturbations
around an asymptotically flat BH spacetime. The radial
component of such a perturbation obeys a second-order
differential equation, yielding two linearly independent
solutions. At large distances away from the central BH,
these solutions manifest as the tidal field growing as
rℓ , and the static response decaying as r−ℓ−1 . Here,
∗ 21510042@iitgn.ac.in
† rajes.ghosh@iitgn.ac.in
‡ sudiptas@iitgn.ac.in
perturbing field. Then, motivated by an analogous
Newtonian calculation [1, 2, 11, 12], the TLN is defined
as the ratio of the coefficient of the decaying tail to that
of the tidal field. Utilizing this definition and considering
the divergence of the static response at the horizon, it
becomes evident that a Reissner-Nordström/Kerr BH
have zero Love number.
Apart from the aforesaid standard calculation, it has
been recently demonstrated that the vanishing of TLN of
BHs in GR can be attributed to a fundamental symmetry,
known as the ladder symmetry [13–17]. As a consequence
of this symmetry, the Hamiltonian corresponding to
the scalar/vector/gravitational perturbations in both
Reissner-Nordström and Kerr background enjoys a
decomposition in terms of the so-called raising and
lowering operators analogous to that of a quantum
harmonic oscillator. Then, vanishing of TLN follows di-
rectly by repeated application of the raising operator on
the “ground state” solution, which has zero Love number.
Inspired by these interesting ideas, our aim is to con-
duct a comprehensive study of the ladder symmetries as-
sociated with general static and stationary BH space-
times. In particular, we try to answer the following ques-
tion: How the existence of such a ladder structure con-
straints the background BH spacetime? For this purpose,
we start with an arbitrary spherically symmetric static
metric and find the form of the metric components from
the imposition of generic ladder symmetry. To keep our
analysis theory-agnostic, we focus solely on the scalar
perturbations. This allows us to construct the most gen-
eral static and spherically symmetric BH spacetime pos-
sessing a ladder structure for such scalar perturbations.
It turns out such a metric must have a form given by,
∆b (r) 2 h(r)
ds2 = − dt + dr2 + h(r) dΩ2(2) , (1)
h(r) ∆b (r)
where ∆b (r) = r2 − c2 r + c3 with (c2 , c3 ) being some
constants and h(r) is an arbitrary radial function. We
also extend our analysis to find the most general metric
 2

within the so-called Konoplya-Rezzola-Zhidenko class this translates into two commutation relations with the
that has a similar ladder structure. Hamiltonian,

It is intriguing that the imposition of the ladder sym- Hℓ+1 Dℓ+ = Dℓ+ Hℓ ; Hℓ−1 Dℓ− = Dℓ− Hℓ . (5)
metry leads to such severe constraints on the form of
the BH metric. Moreover, because of ladder symmetry, Also, the Hamiltonian is related to the two ladder oper-
these BHs will have vanishing TLN for scalar perturba- ators as
tions. Considering that astrophysical BHs are rarely iso-
lated and are under constant external influence, our ex- + ℓ2 2 2
Hℓ = Dℓ−1 Dℓ− − (r − 4rQ )
plorations may enhance the understanding of how BHs 4 s (6)
behave in the presence of perturbations—an aspect of (ℓ + 1)2 2
−
= Dℓ+1 Dℓ+ − 2
(rs − 4rQ ).
central observational importance [18–28]. 4

REVIEW OF LADDER SYMMETRIES IN
REISSNER-NORDSTRÖM AND KERR CASE
Before we move on to a more general calculation, it is
useful to recall the computation of ladder symmetry in
the Reissner-Nordström and Kerr BH spacetimes. For
our purpose, we shall only focus on the tidal response of
these BHs in a scalar environment.
In the presence of a massless, static scalar field, the rel-
evant perturbation equation takes the well-known Klein-
Gordon form:  Φ(r, θ, φ) = 0. Here, the d’Alembertian
operator is defined with respect to the background met-
ric, which for a Reissner-Nordström BH with mass M
and electric charge Q (M ≥ |Q|) is given by
dr2
ds2 = −fRN (r) dt2 + + r2 dΩ2(2) ,
fRN (r)
2
where fRN (r) = 1 − rs /r + rQ /r2 with rs = 2M and
rQ = Q. Hence, the horizons are located at r± =
rs /2 ± [(rs /2)2 − rQ
2 1/2
] . Then, using a mode decompo-
sition of the static scalar field in terms of spherical har-
monics Φℓm (r, θ, φ) = φℓ (r)Yℓm (θ, φ), the Klein-Gordon
equation can be reduced to a second-order radial dif-
ferential equation: ∂r (∆ ∂r φℓ ) − ℓ(ℓ + 1)φℓ = 0, where
∆(r) = r2 fRN (r). This can be rewritten in a very sug-
gestive form as Hℓ φℓ = 0, with the following definition
of the Hamiltonian,
h 
i
Hℓ = −∆(r) ∂r ∆(r)∂r − ℓ ℓ + 1 . (3)
In analogy to quantum harmonic oscillator, the above
Hamiltonian then supports factorization in terms of two
first-order operators [13, 16],
ℓ+1 ′ ℓ (7)
Dℓ+ = −∆(r) ∂r − ∆ (r) ; Dℓ− = ∆(r) ∂r − ∆′ (r) ,
2 2
(4)
which are coined as the raising and lowering opera-
tors, respectively. As their names suggest, Dℓ± connects
the radial solution φℓ to φℓ±1 . In mathematical terms,
The above set of relations in Eq. (5) and Eq. (6) define
a ladder structure, which plays a key role in showing
the vanishing of Love numbers for Reissner-Nordström
BHs. For this purpose, let us first observe that for
ℓ = 0, φ0 = constant represents an allowed solution to
the radial equation Hℓ φℓ = 0. Then, any other solution
with higher ℓ > 0 values can be constructed from φ0
by a repeated application of the raising operator as
+ +
φℓ ∝ Dℓ−1 Dℓ−2 ...D1+ D0+ φ0 . Note that such a solution
yields a growing rℓ branch at infinity, which represents
the tidal field in Newtonian terminology. Moreover, the
ladder symmetry  leads to a Noether
 current defined as
Pℓ (r) = ∆ ∂r D1− D2− · · · Dℓ− φℓ , which is conserved
∂r Pℓ (r) = 0 on-shell. The utility of this conserved
quantity lies in understanding how the asymptotic
solutions with particular behaviors get connected to
the near horizon ones without explicitly solving the
differential equation.
(2)
For example, it is easy to see that φℓ ∝
+
Dℓ−1 +
Dℓ−2 ...D1+ D0+ φ0 for φ0 = constant yields Pℓ = 0
and hence, the corresponding φℓ must be regular on the
horizon. Apart from this regular solution, there is an
independent decaying response proportional to r−ℓ−1
at infinity, which leads to a non-zero Pℓ at infinity.
Then, the conservation of Pℓ implies that this decaying


solution at infinity must diverge as ln r/rs − 1 near
the horizon, which must be discarded. Hence, the Love
number, specified by the ratio of the decaying tail to the
growing one, should vanish identically.
A similar line of reasoning follows in the case of a ro-
tating Kerr BH as well. For mass M and spin angular
momentum a (M ≥ |a|), the Kerr metric is given by
∆  2 ρ2
2
ds2 = − dt − a sin θ dϕ + dr2 + ρ2 dθ2
ρ2 ∆
2 
sin θ 
2 2
 2
+ a dt − r + a dϕ
ρ2
where ρ = r2 + a2 cos2 θ and ∆ = r2 − rrs + a2 . Thus,
the inner/outer horizons are located at r± = rs /2 ±

p
(rs /2)2 − a2 . In such a spacetime, the scalar pertur-
bation equation boils down to
a 2 m2
∂r (∆ ∂r φℓ ) + φℓ − ℓ(ℓ + 1)φℓ = 0. (8)
∆
Then, following Ref. [13], we can rewrite the above equa-
tion in a form analogous to the Reissner-Nordström case:
h  a 2 m2 i We shall now shift our attention to study the tidal
Hℓ φℓ = 0, Hℓ = −∆ ∂r ∆(r)∂r + − ℓ(ℓ + 1) .
∆
(9)
A ladder structure resembling the one described for the
static spherically symmetric BH is present in Kerr case
too, which becomes apparent by defining the ladder op-
erators as
ℓ+1
Dℓ+ = −∆ ∂r + (rs − 2r) , (10)
2 g(r)
ℓ
Dℓ− = ∆ ∂r + (rs − 2r).
2
These operators follow relations similar to Eq. (5).
The behavior of Eq. (9) at the two asymptotes can be
examined here as well. At large r, the two independent
solutions for φℓ are rℓ and r−ℓ−1 . Whereas in the
near-horizon limit z → zk , φℓ goes as either constant or
as e−2iq ln(z/zk −1) , where q = a m/zk with z = r − r− and
zk = r+ − r− . Among them, the former is regular at the
horizon and can be raised to the solution with multipole
+ +
ℓ using φℓ = Dℓ−1 Dℓ−2 ...D1+ D0+ φ0 . This implies,
ℓ tonian nicely factorizable, and all the subsequent
φℓ ∼ 1 + z + ... + z manifests itself as a polynomial with
no decaying behavior. Moreover, following Ref. [13],
one may construct an analogous Noether current Pℓ (r)
in the Kerr case also, which implies the other decaying
solution at infinity must diverge at r+ . Combining these
two facts, it is evident that scalar TLN vanishes for Kerr
BHs as well.
In Refs. [13, 17, 29, 30], the authors have further
shown the presence of a ladder symmetry among differ-
ent spin-perturbations, namely the scalar (s = 0), vector
(s = 1), and gravitational (s = 2) ones. We encourage
our readers to follow this nice construction, which
demonstrates why the Reissner-Nordström/Kerr BHs
have vanishing Love numbers even for static higher-spin
perturbations. However, for the purpose of this paper,
we shall skip those computations.
It is important to note that the structure of the ladder
operators Dℓ± and the ladder symmetry are closely tied
to the particular form of the Hamiltonian operator Hℓ ,
which in turn depends on the background metric. Thus,
such ladder structure is not generally expected to hold
for an arbitrarily spacetime. As an example, suppose we
consider a theory of gravity with higher curvature terms,
then its solution may deviate from Reissner-Nordström
and Kerr metrics in such a way that does not support
3
ladder structure for scalar perturbations. This motivates
us to find the most general class of static and stationary
spacetimes which admit such ladder symmetry.
GENERALIZATION FOR STATIC SPHERICALLY
SYMMETRIC BH
response of a general static and spherically symmetric
metric under the influence of a static and massless scalar
field. Our goal is to derive the constraints on the form
of such a metric by demanding the existence of a ladder
structure. A generic static, spherically symmetric metric
is given by
dr2
ds2 = −f (r)dt2 + + h(r)dΩ2(2) . (11)
In such a spacetime, the massless Klein-Gordon equa-
tion can always be reduced to the form: ∆b (r) φ′′ℓ (r) +
∆c (r) φ′ℓ (r)−ℓ(ℓ+1)φℓ (r) = 0. Here, the explicit forms of
{∆b , ∆c } depend on the components of the background
metric. Motivated by the Reissner-Nordström case pre-
sented earlier, it is suggestive to multiply the above equa-
tion by ∆b and define the general Hamiltonian as
h i
Hℓ = −∆b (r) ∆b (r) ∂r2 + ∆c (r) ∂r − ℓ(ℓ + 1) . (12)
As before, this multiplicative factor makes the Hamil-
expressions look cleaner.
We want to derive conditions on {∆b , ∆c } so that the
quadratic Hamiltonian given by Eq. (12) supports a lad-
der structure similar to Eq. (5) and Eq. (6). For this pur-
pose, our first step is to decompose this Hℓ into two first-
order raising and lowering operators. Taking inspiration
from the structure of ladder operators for the Reissner-
Nordström case, we define them as
ℓ+1
Dℓ+ = −∆1 (r)∂r + ∆2 (r) ;
2 (13)
ℓ
Dℓ− = ∆3 (r)∂r + ∆4 (r) .
2
So far these ∆’s are some unknown functions of r only,
independent of ℓ. To determine their functional forms,
we now employ the fundamental commutation relations
given by Eq. (5), which they must satisfy with the Hamil-
tonian for an arbitrary choice of φℓ . Therefore, we get
the following conditions,
s′ (r)
∆1 (r) = ∆b (r) , ∆′2 (r) = −2 − ;
ℓ+1
s′ (r)
∆3 (r) = ∆b (r) , ∆′4 (r) = −2 + ; (14)
ℓ
s(r) s(r)
∆′b (r) = −∆2 (r) − = −∆4 (r) + ,
ℓ+1 ℓ
 4

where s(r) = ∆c (r) − ∆′b (r). Using the fact that ∆2 and [31], i.e., Tµν k µ k ν = 0 with k µ being the radial
∆4 do not depend on ℓ, we must set s(r) = c1 with c1 null vector. For example, it is easy to check that this
being an ℓ-independent constant. Then, using the last condition is satisfied both in vacuum and electro-vacuum.
relation along with the fact that ∆b is ℓ-independent, we
get c1 = 0. As a result, ∆2 (r) = ∆4 (r) = −2 r + c2 , and (ii) Since the function h(r) remains unconstrained,
we can maintain the ladder structure by choosing it
∆b (r) = r2 − c2 r + c3 , (15) at our will (as long as it does not produce any sin-
gularity in the domain of outer communication). For
where (c2 , c3 ) are again some ℓ-independent constants. It example, the choice of h(r) = r2 leads to a Reissner-
is remarkable that the imposition of the ladder symme- Nordström-type metric. Had we fixed f (r) = r2 from the
tries led to such a simple forms of various functions like beginning, we would have missed this additional freedom.
∆b (r). Moreover, the Hamiltonian takes the form similar
to Eq. (3), (iii) However, for generic choices of h(r), the metric will
h 
i not (in general) be diffeomorphic to Reissner-Nordström,
Hℓ = −∆b (r) ∂r ∆b (r)∂r − ℓ ℓ + 1 . (16) which can be readily checked by calculating various
curvature scalars. For the purpose of illustration, let us
Let us now summarize the ladder structure we have ob- consider the Ricci scalar,
tained so far,
h i ∆ (r)
b
ℓ+1 ′ R = h′ (r)2 − 2 h(r) h′′ (r) .
Dℓ+ = −∆b (r) ∂r − ∆b (r) , 2 h3 (r)
2
ℓ
Dℓ− = ∆b (r) ∂r − ∆′b (r) , In contrast to the 4-dimensional Reissner-Nordström
2 metric, R does not vanish unless h(r) = (a r + b)2 with
(17)
(ℓ + 1)2  2 
(a, b) being some constants.
−
Hℓ = Dℓ+1 Dℓ+ − c2 − 4c3
4
+ − ℓ2  2 
(iv) The ladder structure does not determine the
= Dℓ−1 Dℓ − c2 − 4c3 .
4 sign of the constants (c2 , c3 ) appearing in the metric
Additionally, the form of the Hamiltonian given by in Eq. (19). Though if we further require that the
Eq. (16) along with Eq. (15) also requires that the metric associated spacetime is that of a BH, then we must
components in Eq. (11) must satisfy the relation impose c22 ≥ 4 c3 . This would ensure the existence
p of a
positive real root of ∆b (r) = 0 at r = c2 /2+ c22 /4 − c3 .
∆b (r)
f (r) = g(r) = . (18) (v) Moreover, since the metric in Eq. (19) gives
h(r)
rise to a scalar Hamiltonian similar to the Reissner-
We obtain this relation by comparing the Klein-Gordon Nordtröm BH (assuming c22 ≥ 4 c3 ), one can easily follow
Hamiltonian obtained from Eq. (11) with that in the Love number calculation presented earlier to show
Eq. (16). that these BHs also have zero TLN.

Therefore, the most general static and spherically sym-

metric metric that supports the ladder symmetry can be Generalization for Rotating BH:
written as Konoplya-Rezzola-Zhidenko Class
∆b (r) 2 h(r)
ds2 = − dt + dr2 + h(r) dΩ2(2) , (19) In this section, we aim to extend our previous result
h(r) ∆b (r)
beyond spherical symmetry. Ideally, one would like to
where ∆b (r) is given by Eq. (15). The above metric is find the most general stationary BH solution which ad-
spatially conformal to Reissner-Nordström metric with mits the ladder symmetry for static massless scalar per-
a conformal factor h(r)/r2 , provided we identify c2 → rs turbations. However, in such a background, the Klein-
2
and c3 → rQ . Some comments on the above construction Gordon equation will not in general be separable in a ra-
are in order: dial and angular parts. To avoid this difficulty, we instead
start with a well-motivated generalization of the Kerr-
(i) Note that the metric in Eq. (11) did not have like spacetimes, namely the Konoplya-Rezzola-Zhidenko
the property gtt grr = −1 to begin with. However, (KRZ) class of metrics [32, 33]. These BH spacetimes
the imposition of the ladder symmetry has forced this represent the most general stationary, axisymmetric and
structure in Eq. (18). Hence, if we insist that the metric asymptotically flat Kerr-like spacetimes which admits the
in Eq. (19) is a solution of GR with some matter Tµν , separation of the scalar wave equation into radial and an-
then it must have vanishing radial null-null component gular parts in Boyer-Lindquist type coordinates. Such a
 5

metric can be written as [33], Comparing with Eq. (25), one further gets e4 = a2 m2 ,
! and
2 N2 a2 RM
2
(1 − y 2 )
ds = − 2
− dt2 + K 2 r2 (1 − y 2 )dϕ2 ∆(r) = r2 − e2 r + e3 . (26)
K r Σ2 K 2
4
!
2
2aRM RB r2 dy 2 Hence, the constants (e2 , e3 , e4 ) are also independent of ℓ.
− (1 − y 2 ) dtdϕ + Σ dr 2
+ , Similarly, for the lowering operator Dℓ− , the fundamental
rΣ N2 1 − y2
commutation relation in Eq. (5) gives
(20)

with y = cos θ as one of the coordinates, and the sep- ∆3 (r, ℓ) = ∆(r) , ∆4 (r, ℓ) = −2r + e5 ,
arability requires that the functions has following forms (2ℓ + 1)r2 − e2 (ℓ + 1)2 r + e5 ℓ2 r (27)
∆(r) = e6 + .
(where a is the rotation parameter) 2ℓ + 1
a2 y 2 RM a2 Comparing this form of ∆ with that given in Eq. (26),
Σ(r, y) = RΣ + 2 , N 2 (r) = RΣ − + 2, we obtain e5 = e2 and e6 = e3 . Then, it is easy to check
" r #r r
(21)
1 a 2 2
a RM 2 2 2
a y N that Hℓ can be factorized as
K 2 (r, y) = 2
RΣ + RΣ 2 + + .
Σ r r3 r2 Σ (ℓ + 1)2  2 
−
Hℓ = Dℓ+1 Dℓ+ − e2 − 4e3 − a2 m2
4 (28)
The location of the event horizon (which is also the ℓ2  2 
+
Killing horizon) is given by N (r) = 0. Thus, the −
= Dℓ−1 Dℓ − e2 − 4e3 − a2 m2 .
4
metric solely depends on the three functions of radial
coordinates RΣ (r), RM (r), and RB (r), out of which Lastly, it remains to find the form of RΣ (r) and RM (r)
one can be fixed as per the gauge freedom. We choose appearing in the metric given by Eq. (20). This can be
RB (r) = 1 and the other two are independent functions achieved by comparing the functional form of ∆(r) in
of r [33]. Moreover, the asymptotic flatness is assured, Eq. (23) and Eq. (26). Specifically, the coefficients of r2 ,
if RΣ (r) approaches unity and RMr2(r) vanishes in r → ∞ r, and the constant term in Eq. (23) should be 1, −e2 ,
limit. and e3 , respectively.

Then, in the background of such a metric, the radial
part of the Klein-Gordon equation for a static scalar field
Φℓm = φℓ (r)Yℓm (y, ϕ) simplifies to
h  i would get the second function as,
Hℓ φℓ = −∆ ∂r ∆(r)∂r + δ(r) − ℓ(ℓ + 1) φℓ = 0 ,
(22)
where Hℓ is the Hamiltonian, ∆ and δ are given by
a 2 m2
∆(r) = r2 N 2 (r) = r2 RΣ (r)−rRM (r)+a2 , δ(r) = ,
∆(r)
(23)
with m being the azimuthal number. We aim to study
this scalar field equation in the KRZ class of BH space-
times and investigate the existence of the ladder struc-
ture. We shall show that the requirement of the ladder
symmetry would fix the functional form of ∆. For this
purpose, we define the raising and lowering operators as
ℓ+1 ℓ a scalar Hamiltonian similar to the Kerr BH (assuming
Dℓ+ = −∆1 ∂r + ∆2 ; Dℓ− = ∆3 ∂r + ∆4 . (24)
2 2
where ∆’s could in principle depend on not only r but ℓ
due to the absence of spherical symmetry. Substituting
Dℓ+ in the fundamental commutation relation given by
Eq. (5), we obtain
A simpler illustration could be to choose one of the
radial functions as a constant, and find the corresponding
class of metrics. If we set RM (r) = e0 (constant), we
b d
RΣ (r) = 1 + + 2, (29)
r r
with b = e0 − e2 , and d = e3 − a2 . Note that both Kerr
and Kerr-Sen spacetimes are members of this class [33].
Also, it is easy to check that in the limit of a → 0, the
metric in Eq. (20) (along with Eq. (26)) reduces to the
spherically symmetric spacetime given by Eq. (19), pro-
vided we make the identification ∆b (r) = r2 N 2 = ∆(r)
and h(r) = r2 Σ(r).
Moreover, since the metric in Eq. (20) gives rise to
e22 ≥ 4 e3 ), one can easily follow the Love number calcu-
lation presented earlier to show that these BHs also have
zero TLN.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSIONS

∆1 (r, ℓ) = ∆(r) , ∆2 (r, ℓ) = −2r + e2 , Unlike horizonless compact objects, the Reissner-
e4 (ℓ + 1)2 (r2 − ∆ − e2 r + e3 ) (25) Nordström and Kerr BHs exhibit zero TLN, quantifying
δ(r) = − .
∆(r) ∆(r) the vanishing tidal deformation under an external
 6

perturbation. Consequently, any nonzero values of

TLN would indicate deviation from such spacetime
geometries [20–23] and/or departure from the classical
REFERENCES
BH paradigm [12, 27, 28]. Both of these possibilities
are well-studied in literature as they provide us with
[1] T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D
a powerful observational tool to probe such possibili- 80 (2009), 084018 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.084018
ties [24–26]. [arXiv:0906.1366 [gr-qc]].
[2] T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 80
However, one faces two major difficulties in the (2009), 084035 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.084035
traditional way of calculating TLN. Firstly, apart [arXiv:0906.0096 [gr-qc]].
from GR, the Teukolsky-like equation for gravitational [3] B. Kol and M. Smolkin, JHEP 02 (2012), 010
doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2012)010 [arXiv:1110.3764 [hep-
perturbations in most of the modified theories is not
th]].
known. Secondly, even for scalar perturbations that [4] P. Pani, L. Gualtieri, A. Maselli and V. Fer-
does not require any field equations, a case-by-case rari, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.2, 024010
study of TLN for all possible metrics is highly tedious doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.024010 [arXiv:1503.07365
and inefficient. In this context, other tools such as the [gr-qc]].
notion of ladder symmetry provide us with a unified and [5] P. Landry and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 91
efficient way to infer the Love number. Interestingly, (2015), 104018 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.104018
both the Reissner-Nordström and Kerr BHs support [arXiv:1503.07366 [gr-qc]].
[6] A. Le Tiec and M. Casals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021)
such ladder structure for static scalar (also vector and no.13, 131102 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.131102
gravitational) perturbations, indicating vanishing of [arXiv:2007.00214 [gr-qc]].
TLN. [7] H. S. Chia Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.2, 024013
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.024013 [arXiv:2010.07300
Motivated by this important result, we have presented [gr-qc]].
the most general static and stationary (in KRZ class) [8] J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 5 (1972), 1239-1246
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.5.1239
BH metrics having ladder symmetry for static (with
[9] J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 5, 2403-2412 (1972)
frequency ω = 0) scalar perturbations. This in turn doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.5.2403
implies that the corresponding BHs have zero TLN [10] N. Gürlebeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) no.15, 151102
for ω = 0, i.e., Λ = O(M ω). Actually, for the case of doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.151102 [arXiv:1503.03240
static BHs, our result is even stronger. In particular, [gr-qc]].
since Hℓ φℓ ∝ ω 2 for non-static perturbations, the [11] Poisson, E. and Will, C.M. (2014) Grav-
corresponding TLN must be O(M 2 ω 2 ). However, a ity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativis-
tic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
similar assertion does not hold for the rotating case,
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507486
because Hℓ φℓ ∝ ω for non-static perturbations. These [12] V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, A. Maselli, P. Pani and
conclusions match with the recent claim reported in G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.8, 084014
Ref. [34]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.084014 [arXiv:1701.01116 [gr-
qc]].
Given the immense theoretical and observational sig- [13] L. Hui, A. Joyce, R. Penco, L. Santoni and
nificance, it will be interesting to extend our work for A. R. Solomon, JCAP 01 (2022) no.01, 032,
doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/032 [arXiv:2105.01069
gravitational perturbations. Another important prospect
[hep-th]].
would be studying various properties like geodesic struc- [14] J. Ben Achour, E. R. Livine, S. Muko-
ture, shadow, and stability of the general class of BH hyama and J. P. Uzan, JHEP 07 (2022), 112
spacetimes given by Eq. (19) and Eq. (20). We leave doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2022)112 [arXiv:2202.12828 [gr-
these analyses for a future attempt. qc]].
[15] L. Hui, A. Joyce, R. Penco, L. Santoni
and A. R. Solomon, JHEP 09 (2022), 049
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)049 [arXiv:2203.08832 [hep-
th]].
[16] R. Berens, L. Hui and Z. Sun, JCAP 06 (2023), 056
CS acknowledges the support from the Sabar- doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/056 [arXiv:2212.09367
mati Bridge Fellowship (Project ID: MIS/IITGN- [hep-th]].
SBF/PHY/SS/2023-24/025) from IIT Gandhinagar. [17] T. Katagiri, M. Kimura, H. Nakano and
The research of R.G. is supported by the Prime Minister K. Omukai, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.12, 124030
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.124030 [arXiv:2209.10469
Research Fellowship (PMRF ID: 1700531), Government
[gr-qc]].
of India. S. S. acknowledges support from the Depart- [18] H. Fang and G. Lovelace Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005), 124016
ment of Science and Technology, Government of India doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.124016 [arXiv:gr-qc/0505156
under the SERB CRG Grant (CRG/2020/004562).
 7

[gr-qc]]. [27] S. Nair, S. Chakraborty and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 107

[19] G. Creci, T. Hinderer and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. D (2023) no.12, 124041 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.124041
104 (2021) no.12, 124061 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 105 [arXiv:2208.06235 [gr-qc]].
(2022) no.10, 109902] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.124061 [28] S. Chakraborty, E. Maggio, M. Silvestrini and P. Pani,
[arXiv:2108.03385 [gr-qc]]. [arXiv:2310.06023 [gr-qc]].
[20] S. Cai and K. D. Wang, [arXiv:1906.06850 [hep-th]]. [29] P. Charalambous, S. Dubovsky and M. M. Ivanov,
[21] H. S. Tan, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.4, 044061 (2020) JHEP 05 (2021), 038 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)038
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.044061 [arXiv:2001.00403 [arXiv:2102.08917 [hep-th]].
[gr-qc]]. [30] L. Hui, A. Joyce, R. Penco, L. Santoni and
[22] P. Charalambous and M. M. Ivanov, JHEP 07, 222 A. R. Solomon, JCAP 04 (2021), 052 doi:10.1088/1475-
(2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)222 [arXiv:2303.16036 7516/2021/04/052 [arXiv:2010.00593 [hep-th]].
[hep-th]]. [31] T. Jacobson, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 5717-5719 (2007)
[23] T. Katagiri, T. Ikeda and V. Cardoso, [arXiv:2310.19705 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/22/N02 [arXiv:0707.3222 [gr-
[gr-qc]]. qc]].
[24] V. De Luca, A. Maselli and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 107, [32] R. Konoplya, L. Rezzolla and A. Zhidenko,
no.4, 044058 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.044058 Phys. Rev. D 93, no.6, 064015 (2016)
[arXiv:2212.03343 [gr-qc]]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.064015 [arXiv:1602.02378
[25] T. Katagiri, H. Nakano and K. Omukai, [gr-qc]].
Phys. Rev. D 108, no.8, 084049 (2023) [33] R. A. Konoplya, Z. Stuchlík and A. Zhi-
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.084049 [arXiv:2304.04551 denko, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.8, 084044
[gr-qc]]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.084044 [arXiv:1801.07195
[26] T. Zi and P. C. Li, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.2, 024018 (2023) [gr-qc]].
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.024018 [arXiv:2303.16610 [34] M. Perry and M. J. Rodriguez, [arXiv:2310.03660 [gr-qc]].
[gr-qc]].