Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Spherically Symmetric, Static Solutions in Presence of Matter-Curvature Coupling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Non-minimal curvature-fluid coupling produces static spherical spacetimes that no GR fluid can source, including one supported by a dark-energy-like fluid with ρ_fluid=-p_fluid.

desk verdict Solid exact-solution work in NMC gravity, but the dark-energy interpretation is one of several SET conventions and the paper's own Euler definition gives zero energy density for the same metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02156 v1 pith:MV466G7Y submitted 2025-08-04 gr-qc

Debanjan Debnath , Kaushik Bhattacharya This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C15
keywords non-minimalcouplingcurvature-fluidconformalperfectfluiddarkenergysphericallysymmetricstaticsolutionsJMN-2spacetimeSchwarzschild
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that allowing the Ricci scalar to couple directly to a perfect fluid in the action opens up new static, spherically symmetric spacetime solutions. The central example is a metric $ds^2=-(r/r_b)^4 dt^2+dr^2+r^2 d\Omega^2$ which, in ordinary general relativity, cannot be sourced by any fluid because its Einstein tensor has $G^0{}_0=0$. In the non-minimally coupled theory the authors find a fluid part with $\rho_{\mathrm{fluid}}=-p_{\mathrm{fluid}}$, a pure dark-energy equation of state, that does source it. They also show that two known GR solutions, JMN-2 and Schwarzschild, remain solutions of the modified equations, but with the coupling changing the nature of the sourcing fluid. A major theme is that the stress-energy tensor is not unique under non-minimal coupling, and the physical interpretation of these solutions depends on which definition one chooses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conformal coupling function $F_c(n,s)$ in the action $S_c=\frac{1}{2\kappa}\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}[1+\alpha_c F_c(n,s)]R+S_{\mathrm{fluid}}$. It is chosen as a power law $F_c=k r^\xi$ (with $\xi=2$ for the main new solution), reducing the modified field equations to an ordinary differential equation for $\alpha(r)$ once $\beta$ is taken constant. The second piece of machinery is the dual stress-energy tensor: $T^{(\mathrm{fluid})}_{\mu\nu}$, the ideal-fluid part of the effective SET, and $T^{(\mathrm{Eul})}_{\mu\nu}$, defined by comparing the Euler equations with GR. The argument works by solving compatibility conditions between $F(n)$, $F_c(n)$, and the metric, then reading off $\rho$ and $p$ according to each SET. The paper's strategy runs in two directions: fix $F_c$ and solve for the metric, or fix a known metric (JMN-2, Schwarzschild) and solve for $F_c$.

What would settle it

Adopt the Euler stress-energy tensor as the physical definition of the fluid: for the metric $ds^2=-(r/r_b)^4 dt^2+dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2$ with $e^{-2\beta}=1$ and $\alpha_c k<0$, Eq. (17) gives $\rho_{\mathrm{Eul}}=0$ while $p_{\mathrm{Eul}}$ diverges at $r=0$ (Eq. (56)), which directly contradicts the claim that a positive-energy dark-energy fluid sources the metric. A reader can check this by evaluating $p_{\mathrm{Eul}}$ from Eq. (56) for $e^{-2\beta}=1$ and comparing with the fluid-part density from Eq. (51).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in a theory where the Ricci scalar couples directly to the fluid through a conformal coupling function $F_c(n,s)$, the static spherically symmetric ansatz $ds^2=-e^{2\alpha}dt^2+e^{2\beta}dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2$ admits solutions that minimally coupled GR cannot produce. In the simplest case, choosing $F_c=k r^2$ and $\beta$ constant leads to the metric $ds^2=-(r/r_b)^4 dt^2+dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2$. The authors show that the fluid part of the effective stress-energy tensor has $\rho_{\mathrm{fluid}}=-p_{\mathrm{fluid}}$ with $\alpha_c k<0$, i.e., a pure dark-energy equation of state, while the same metric has $G^0{}_0=0$, so no ordinary GR fluid could source it. They further show that JMN-2 spacetimes and Schwarzschild spacetime emerge as NMC solutions with modified fluid content. Throughout, the paper emphasizes that the non-minimal coupling makes the definition of the stress-energy tensor ambiguous: the fluid-part definition and the Euler-definition give different energy densities and pressures for the same spacetime, and the 'dark energy' interpretation holds only for the first.

Load-bearing premise

The headline result depends on treating one particular, explicitly hypothetical splitting of the stress-energy tensor as physical; under the paper's own alternative fluid-flow definition, the same spacetime has zero energy density and divergent pressure, so the dark-energy sourcing claim does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The metric $ds^2=-(r/r_b)^4 dt^2+dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2$ is a new static spherical solution of the NMC field equations, sourced by $\rho_{\mathrm{fluid}}=-p_{\mathrm{fluid}}=6|\alpha_c k|$ with $\alpha_c k<0$, even though $G^0{}_0=0$ forbids any GR fluid source.
  • For the same solution, the Euler-defined energy density vanishes and the Euler pressure diverges at $r=0$, so the physical interpretation depends on which stress-energy tensor one regards as real.
  • JMN-2 spacetime solves the NMC equations for a suitable coupling function, with the coupling changing the energy density and pressure relative to the GR solution and introducing an additional singularity at finite radius in the Euler picture.
  • Schwarzschild spacetime (the $m=1$ Ricci-flat case) is a solution with a non-minimally coupled fluid whose pressure is everywhere negative and whose equation-of-state parameter approaches $-2/3$ at infinity; for negative $k$, the fluid can occupy the region $|k|<r<3|k|/2$ outside a horizon.
  • In the Schwarzschild-type setup, the fluid satisfies all standard energy conditions except the strong energy condition.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The ambiguity between $T^{(\mathrm{fluid})}_{\mu\nu}$ and $T^{(\mathrm{Eul})}_{\mu\nu}$ means the dark-energy sourcing claim is not observationally settled until the physically relevant stress-energy tensor is identified; measuring fluid flow patterns in a candidate NMC compact object would distinguish the two definitions, since they differ even in static situations.
  • If the $r^4$ metric is realizable as a matched dark-energy blob, its gravitational redshift and lensing would differ sharply from both Schwarzschild and de Sitter spacetimes, offering a possible observational signature that the paper does not compute.
  • The existence of a Schwarzschild solution carrying a negative-pressure fluid outside the horizon suggests a concrete probe of no-hair theorems: a curvature-coupled fluid shell would alter quasinormal-mode or accretion signatures relative to vacuum black holes, though the paper stops short of deriving those signatures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies static, spherically symmetric solutions in a gravitational theory with a conformal non-minimal coupling between the Ricci scalar and perfect-fluid variables. Starting from the Bettoni–Liberati field equation, the authors define several distinct stress-energy tensors (T_fluid, T_Eul, and an effective Tbar_eff). They first assume a power-law conformal coupling and a constant radial metric component, obtaining a new solution ds^2 = -(r/r_b)^4 dt^2 + dr^2 + r^2 dΩ^2 (the C = 0 case), which they interpret as sourced by a dark-energy-like perfect fluid with w = -1, and the JMN-2 spacetime (the C ≠ 0 case), with explicit matching conditions. In the reverse approach, they take a Schwarzschild-type metric and determine the conformal coupling function and fluid variables. The paper then analyzes the weak, null, strong, and dominant energy conditions for the different SET definitions and for the various solutions.

Significance. If the physical interpretation were robust, the paper would be a useful contribution to the study of non-minimally coupled matter in static spacetimes: it provides explicit exact solutions, identifies the JMN-2 spacetime as a solution of the NMC field equations with precise matching conditions, and gives a clear discussion of the multiple stress-energy tensors that arise in such theories. The explicit algebraic steps and the acknowledgment of interpretational limitations are strengths. However, the flagship claim—that a pure dark-energy-like fluid sources the new metric of Section 3.1.1—depends on a convention-dependent split of the field equations; the paper itself shows that an equally natural Euler-based SET gives zero energy density and a divergent pressure for the same spacetime. This weakens the central physical interpretation, although the exact-solution content remains valuable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 2.1 and 3.1.1, Eqs. (10)-(13), (17), (51)-(56)] The central claim that a dark-energy-like perfect fluid sources the metric (50) is convention-dependent. Equation (6) determines only the combination on the right-hand side, and the split into T_fluid and T_non-min in Eqs. (10)-(12) is explicitly called 'hypothetical' by the authors, with the remark that T_non-min is not directly observable. Under the Euler-based SET of Eq. (17), which the authors connect to observable fluid flow, the same solution has rho_Eul = 0 (Eq. (55) with e^{-2β}=1) and a pressure that diverges at r = 0 (Eq. (56)), so the effective equation of state is not w = -1. The paper therefore needs an operational criterion that selects one of the SET definitions as physical, or it should present the dark-energy-fluid sourcing as a convention-dependent interpretation rather than as a unique physical prediction.
  2. [Section 3.1.1, Eqs. (44)-(47) and following paragraph] The particle-density solution and its inversion contain algebraic errors. For the branch αck > 0 with n0 < 0, Eq. (44) gives n(r) = 2|n0|/(4 + 3|αc| r̃²), so n(0) = |n0|/2 and n → 0 as r̃ → ∞; the text's statement that n varies from 8|n0| at the origin and increases to infinity is inconsistent with this expression. The correct inversion is r̃² = (1/(3|αc|))(2|n0|/n - 4), not the expression in Eq. (45). For the branch αck < 0, Eq. (46) gives n → +∞ as r approaches r̃_max, not n = 0 at that radius, and the correct inversion is r̃² = (1/(3|αc|))(4 - 2|n0|/n). These errors propagate to the expressions for F(n) and Fc(n) in Eq. (49) and to the claimed domain of validity of the solution.
  3. [Section 3.1.1, Eqs. (42), (51)-(52)] The derivation switches between opposite sign choices for αck without adequate reconciliation. Equation (42) specializes to the case αck > 0, but the positivity requirement in Eq. (52) imposes αck < 0, which is then used in Eq. (46). If both branches are intended, the paper should state this explicitly and identify which branch is used in the final metric (50) and in the fluid relations of Eq. (49). As written, the parameter choice is confusing and prevents a reader from verifying the consistency of the solution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.2, near Eq. (71)] The text contains a missing reference placeholder 'Eqs. ( ?? ),' which should be replaced with the relevant equation numbers.
  2. [General notation] The notation 'eβ' in Eq. (32) is easily confused with the exponential e^{β(r)}; the paper should use a distinct symbol, such as E, for the constant defined in Eq. (32).
  3. [Section 5, JMN-2 discussion] In the second point of view for the JMN-2 solution, the text says that for negative k one can see from Eq. (64) that ρ_Eul is positive, but Eq. (73) is the expression that was actually used for ρ_Eul and it does not display k; the authors should clarify which general formula is being used and how the sign of k enters.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'FLR W' for FLRW, 'Riessner-Nordstrom' for Reissner-Nordström, and 'alernative' for 'alternative'; these should be corrected in a revised version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central solutions are forward solves of the assumed field equations; the self-citation is non-load-bearing and the dark-energy interpretation is convention-dependent but not circular.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain from Eq. (4) to the field equation Eq. (6), which is cited from Ref. [5] and is not a self-citation, and then through Section 3.1.1: the authors fix beta as constant and Fc=kr^2, solve the second-order differential equation (28) for alpha, and only afterwards specialize to C=0 and e^{-2beta}=1. The metric (50), F(r) in Eq. (35), and n(r) in Eqs. (44)-(47) are solved outputs; no parameter is fitted to the target equation of state. The result wfluid=-1 in Eq. (54) follows because F becomes constant in this special case, so it is an emergent property of the solved equations, not a relabeled input. The alternative Euler stress-energy tensor in Eq. (17) gives rho_Eul=0 for the same solution, but the paper explicitly calls the split into T_fluid and T_non-min a hypothetical one and presents rho_Eul and p_Eul as a different physical interpretation; convention-dependence of the SET is an ambiguity, not a circular reduction. The JMN-2 and Schwarzschild identifications in Sections 3.1.2 and 4 are forward consistency checks of assumed metrics against the field equations, not renamings of known results presented as new. The one substantive self-citation, Ref. [36], is used only in the concluding comparison to state that a previous Minkowski solution has constant particle density and therefore lies outside the n-dependent framework assumed here; this is not load-bearing for any central solution. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The paper also flags missing matching conditions and the absence of a direct observational method for T_non-min; these are stated limitations, not circular steps. I assign 2 rather than 0 because of the minor non-load-bearing self-citation and the prominent SET-convention dependence, but no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central solutions rest on the Bettoni-Liberati field equations plus the static spherical ansatz and the assumption that the fluid functions depend only on particle number density. The paper introduces no new particles or fields, but it does introduce multiple stress-energy tensor definitions whose physical status is the main interpretive burden.

free parameters (9)
  • k = chosen; benchmark values k=1, k=-0.01 used
    Amplitude of Fc(r)=k r^xi; not determined by theory.
  • xi = 2
    Exponent in Fc(r)=k r^xi, set to 2 to simplify Eq. (30).
  • beta (constant) = e^{-2 beta}=1 in main Case I
    Assumed constant radial metric exponent.
  • rb = arbitrary length scale
    Integration constant in the metric solution Eq. (31).
  • C = 0 in Case I, nonzero in Case II
    Integration constant; selects different solution branches.
  • n0 = sign chosen for positive n
    Integration constant for particle number density.
  • alpha_c = benchmark values 1, -0.01 etc.
    Coupling constant; not fixed by theory.
  • lambda, Rb = lambda=1/2, Rb=1 or 1/7 in plots
    Parameters of JMN-2 spacetime; in Eq. (112) Rb is fixed by alpha_c k.
  • fc, efc = fc chosen with alpha_c fc < 0; efc=0 in plots
    Integration constants in Section 4 solution.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The field equations (6) derived by Bettoni-Liberati (Ref. [5]) are taken as correct without rederivation.
    The paper imports Eq. (6) from the cited action (4)-(5).
  • domain assumption The fluid action (5) with constraints is a valid description of a perfect fluid in curved spacetime.
    Used in Eqs. (4)-(6); the paper does not justify this Lagrangian beyond citation.
  • domain assumption The spacetime is static and spherically symmetric, with metric (21).
    All solutions are sought within this ansatz.
  • domain assumption F and Fc are functions of n only, and n(r) is invertible where required.
    Section 3 assumes Fc(n); invertibility is discussed but not proven globally.
  • ad hoc to paper The multiple stress-energy tensor definitions (T_fluid, T_Eul, Tbar_eff) are legitimate physical descriptors.
    The paper introduces these definitions to interpret solutions; physical status is unresolved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spherically Symmetric, Static Solutions in Presence of Matter-Curvature Coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MV466G7Y

@misc{pith2026250802156,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spherically Symmetric, Static Solutions in Presence of Matter-Curvature Coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MV466G7Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02156}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we have proposed some spherically symmetric, static spacetimes in a theory of gravity which permits non-minimal coupling (NMC) between curvature of spacetime and fluid variables. It is shown that these non-minimally coupled theories may admit of new class of metric solutions. Known metric solutions from GR can also be solutions of the non-minimally coupled theories, for these cases the NMC affects the nature of the fluid which sources the spacetime. The paper presents multiple ways in which the modified field equations appearing in non-minimally coupled theories can be solved. The NMC produces multiple definitions of the stress-energy tensor. The paper discusses the complexity related to these sources of curvature as, unlike in minimally coupled general relativity, in the present theory the Ricci curvature itself can affect the stress-energy tensor of the effective fluid which seeds spacetime curvature. The various energy conditions related to various forms of possible stress-energy tensors are presented in the paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.02156 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In the above panel, we show the behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the above panel, we show the relevant behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The above figure shows the variation of the conformal function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity

    Albert Einstein, “Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity” , Sitzungsber.Preuss.Akad.Wiss.Berlin (Math.Phys.) 1917 (1917) 142-152

    work page 1917

  2. [2]

    A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics

    Eric Poisson, “A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics ” , Dec, 2009 by Cambridge University Press; p. 121

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    General Relativity

    Wald, Robert M., “General Relativity”, Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984; Appendix E

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    Extended ΛCDM : generalized non- minimal coupling for dark matter fluids

    Dario Bettoni, Stefano Liberati, Lorenzo Sindoni; “Extended ΛCDM : generalized non- minimal coupling for dark matter fluids” , JCAP11(2011)007

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Dynamics of non-minimally coupled perfect fluids

    Dario Bettoni, Stefano Liberati; “Dynamics of non-minimally coupled perfect fluids” , JCAP08(2015)023

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Theories of gravitation with nonminimal coupling of matter and the gravitational field

    H. F. M. Goenner; “Theories of gravitation with nonminimal coupling of matter and the gravitational field”, BF00737554

    work page

  7. [7]

    The imperfect fluid behind kinetic grav- ity braiding

    Oriol Pujol` as, Ignacy Sawicki, Alexander Vikman;“The imperfect fluid behind kinetic grav- ity braiding”, JHEP11(2011)156

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Consistent perturba- tions in an imperfect fluid

    Ignacy Sawicki, Ippocratis D. Saltas, Luca Amendola, Martin Kunz; “Consistent perturba- tions in an imperfect fluid” , JCAP01(2013)004

    work page 2013

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Relativistic Fluid Dynamics: Physics for Many Different Scales

    N. Andersson, G.L. Comer; “Relativistic Fluid Dynamics: Physics for Many Different Scales”, Living Rev. Relativ. 10, 1 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Observational evidence for selfinteracting cold dark matter

    D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt, “Observational evidence for selfinteracting cold dark matter”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000), 3760-3763

    2000

  3. [11]

    Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure

    S. Tulin and H. B. Yu, “Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure” , Phys. Rept. 730 (2018), 1-57

    2018

  4. [12]

    End equilibrium state of a spherical gravita- tional collapse in the presence of matter and a scalar field

    D. Debnath, D. Dey and K. Bhattacharya, “End equilibrium state of a spherical gravita- tional collapse in the presence of matter and a scalar field” , Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no.2, 2

    2025

  5. [13]

    Gravitational collapse of matter in the presence of nonminimally coupled quintessence and phantomlike scalar fields

    P. Saha, D. Dey and K. Bhattacharya, “Gravitational collapse of matter in the presence of nonminimally coupled quintessence and phantomlike scalar fields” , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.10, 104023

    2024

  6. [14]

    Dynamical stability in models where dark matter and dark energy are nonminimally coupled to curvature

    S. Hussain, A. Chatterjee and K. Bhattacharya, “Dynamical stability in models where dark matter and dark energy are nonminimally coupled to curvature” , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.10, 103502

    2023

  7. [15]

    Dynamical stability in presence of non- minimal derivative dependent coupling of k-essence field with a relativistic fluid

    K. Bhattacharya, A. Chatterjee and S. Hussain, “Dynamical stability in presence of non- minimal derivative dependent coupling of k-essence field with a relativistic fluid” , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.6, 488 31

    2023

  8. [16]

    Phenomenological models of dark energy interacting with dark matter

    N. Tamanini, “Phenomenological models of dark energy interacting with dark matter” , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.4, 043524

    2015

  9. [17]

    Interacting quintessence from a variational approach Part I: algebraic couplings

    C. G. Boehmer, N. Tamanini and M. Wright, “Interacting quintessence from a variational approach Part I: algebraic couplings” , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no.12, 123002

    2015

  10. [18]

    Interacting quintessence from a variational approach Part II: derivative couplings

    C. G. Boehmer, N. Tamanini and M. Wright, “Interacting quintessence from a variational approach Part II: derivative couplings” , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no.12, 123003

    2015

  11. [19]

    Modeling galaxy halos using dark matter with pressure

    S. Bharadwaj and S. Kar, “Modeling galaxy halos using dark matter with pressure” , Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003), 023516

    2003

  12. [20]

    Galactic metrics

    M. D. Roberts, “Galactic metrics” , Gen. Rel. Grav. 36 (2004), 2423-2431

    2004

  13. [21]

    Galactic space-times in modified theories of gravity

    D. Dey, K. Bhattacharya and T. Sarkar, “Galactic space-times in modified theories of gravity”, Gen. Rel. Grav. 47 (2015), 103

    2015

  14. [22]

    Astrophysics of Bertrand Space-times

    D. Dey, K. Bhattacharya and T. Sarkar, “Astrophysics of Bertrand Space-times” , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), 083532

    2013

  15. [23]

    Galactic Dark Matter and Bertrand Space-times

    D. Dey, K. Bhattacharya and T. Sarkar,“Galactic Dark Matter and Bertrand Space-times”, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) no.10, 103505

    2013

  16. [24]

    A new interior Schwarzschild solution

    P. S. Florides, “A new interior Schwarzschild solution” , Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 337, 529-535 (1974)

    1974

  17. [25]

    Energy conditions in f(R)-gravity

    J. Santos, J.S. Alcaniz, M.J. Reboucas, F.C. Carvalho, “Energy conditions in f(R)-gravity”, Phys.Rev.D76:083513,2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    On the construction of a composite model for the galaxy and on the deter- mination of the system of galactic parameters

    Einasto, J., “On the construction of a composite model for the galaxy and on the deter- mination of the system of galactic parameters” , Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Inst. Alma-Ata 5, 87–100 (1965)

    1965

  19. [27]

    Elliptic Mass Distributions versus Elliptic Potentials in Gravitational Lenses

    Kassiola, Aggeliki; Kovner, Israel; “Elliptic Mass Distributions versus Elliptic Potentials in Gravitational Lenses” , Astrophys. J. 417, 450 (1993)

    1993

  20. [28]

    The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos

    Navarro, Julio F.; Frenk, Carlos S.; White, Simon D. M.; “The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos” , Astrophys. J. 462, 563 (1996)

    1996

  21. [29]

    A universal density profile from hierarchical clustering

    Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M; “A universal density profile from hierarchical clustering”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 202, 995–999 (1983)

    1983

  22. [30]

    Cold collapse and the core catas- trophe

    B. Moore, T. Quinn, F. Governato, J. Stadel, G. Lake; “Cold collapse and the core catas- trophe”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 310(4), 1147–1152 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    A simple model for the distribution of light in spherical galaxies

    Jaffe, W.; “A simple model for the distribution of light in spherical galaxies” , Astrophys. J. 490(2), 493–508 (1997)

    1997

  24. [32]

    The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time

    Hawking, Stephen W. and Ellis, George F. R., “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time”, Cambridge University Press, 1973; p. 89

    1973

  25. [33]

    Distinguishing black holes from naked singularities through their accretion disc properties

    Pankaj S Joshi, Daniele Malafarina and Ramesh Narayan, “Distinguishing black holes from naked singularities through their accretion disc properties”, Class. Quantum Grav. 31 015002. 32

  26. [34]

    Energy conditions bounds on f(T) gravity

    Di Liu and M. J. Rebou¸ cas, “Energy conditions bounds on f(T) gravity ” , Phys. Rev. D 86, 083515

  27. [35]

    A Critical Review of Classical Bouncing Cosmologies

    D. Battefeld and P. Peter, “A Critical Review of Classical Bouncing Cosmologies” , Phys. Rept. 571, 1-66 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Non-minimally coupled dark fluid in Schwarzschild spacetime

    Barnali Das, Kaushik Bhattacharya; “Non-minimally coupled dark fluid in Schwarzschild spacetime”, Gen Relativ Gravit (2017) 49:63. 33

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.