Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Scalar and Electromagnetic Perturbations around a Black Hole with a Topological Defect: Quasinormal Modes and Quasi-bound States in a Plasma Medium

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Plasma and a topological defect reshape black-hole ringdown and can trap electromagnetic waves only when the plasma is homogeneous and not too dense.

desk verdict Solid incremental gr-qc paper: clean axial EM quasi-bound threshold plus comparative scalar QNM tables for defect + three plasma profiles; scalar coupling is the only real soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07487 v2 pith:ITDWGXJM submitted 2026-07-08 gr-qc

Dilmurod Umarov , Farruh Atamurotov , Ahmadjon Abdujabbarov , Chengxun Yuan , G. Mustafa This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.70.Bw04.30.Nk95.30.Sf
keywords quasinormalmodesblack-holeshadowtopologicaldefectplasmaquasi-boundstatesWKBapproximationglobalmonopole
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

Black holes in real astrophysical settings sit in plasma and can carry topological defects left over from early-universe phase transitions. This paper asks how those two ingredients jointly change three observables: the link between the black-hole shadow and high-frequency ringdown, the quasinormal spectrum of a massive scalar field, and the possibility that electromagnetic waves become temporarily trapped. The authors show that the topological-defect strength k systematically lowers the real part of the scalar frequencies for every plasma model they consider, while the Lyapunov exponent that sets the damping of photon orbits depends only weakly on plasma density. For electromagnetic waves they derive that the axial and polar sectors fully decouple; in the axial sector the plasma frequency acts exactly like an effective mass, so quasi-bound states appear only for a uniform plasma and only when that mass lies below a sharp threshold fixed by k and the multipole number. The concrete claim is therefore that plasma profile and defect parameter leave correlated, distinguishable fingerprints on shadow size, ringdown frequencies, and electromagnetic trapping.

What carries the argument

The axial effective potential V_ax = f(r) [ℓ(ℓ+1)/r^{2} + ω_pl^{2}], in which the plasma frequency supplies an effective mass term; its barrier-well structure exists only for constant ω_pl below the critical threshold derived from the locations of its extrema.

What would settle it

Compute the axial electromagnetic spectrum for a homogeneous plasma with M ω_pl just above and just below (1−k)√[l(l+1)/12] for fixed k and l; the quasi-bound frequencies must disappear exactly when the inequality is violated, and the same calculation for SIS or NSIS density must show no bound states at all.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a black-hole spacetime with topological defect parameter k, a surrounding plasma shifts both the real and imaginary parts of massive-scalar quasinormal frequencies, with larger k monotonically suppressing the oscillation frequency for homogeneous, SIS and NSIS density profiles. Electromagnetic perturbations decouple into independent axial and polar sectors; in the axial sector the plasma frequency enters as an effective mass, permitting quasi-bound states solely for homogeneous plasma and only when M ω_pl ≤ (1−k)√[l(l+1)/12].

Load-bearing premise

The scalar-field calculation treats the plasma as an extra potential term whose strength is a free coupling constant, so the entire scalar spectrum rests on that phenomenological model rather than a derived plasma-scalar interaction.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a Schwarzschild black hole with a global-monopole topological defect (metric function f=1-k-2M/r) immersed in plasma. It first relates the real part of eikonal QNMs to the shadow radius via the plasma refractive index and shows that the photon-sphere Lyapunov exponent depends only weakly on plasma frequency while decreasing with k. It then computes massive scalar QNMs with third- and sixth-order WKB for homogeneous, SIS and NSIS plasma, finding that larger k suppresses Re(ω) and that NSIS yields slightly higher frequencies. Finally it derives the cold-plasma Maxwell system on this background, shows axial/polar decoupling, and demonstrates that axial quasi-bound states exist only for homogeneous plasma when M ω_pl ≤ (1-k)√[l(l+1)/12].

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a concrete, observationally relevant map from the topological-defect parameter k and plasma density profiles onto three classes of observables: shadow radius, scalar QNM spectra, and the existence window for electromagnetic quasi-bound states. The axial critical-frequency inequality is derived algebraically from the Breuer–Ehlers system and is therefore falsifiable; the WKB tables for both scalar and axial sectors give quantitative benchmarks that can be compared with future ringdown or radio-wave data. The systematic comparison of homogeneous, SIS and NSIS profiles is a useful addition to the existing plasma-optics literature.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. IV, Eq. (18): the scalar-plasma interaction is introduced by hand as an extra potential +κ N(r) Φ^{2} with free coupling κ. Unlike the electromagnetic sector, which follows from the cold-plasma Maxwell equations, this term is not derived from a plasma microphysics model. Consequently the entire scalar QNM spectrum (Tables I–III, Figs. 2–5) is only as physical as that phenomenological coupling. The authors should either justify the term from a concrete plasma-scalar interaction or clearly label the scalar results as exploratory and relegate them to secondary status relative to the axial EM claim.
  2. Sec. V.C and Appendix B: the polar-sector effective potential is written down but never solved; the text simply states that WKB fails because of the complicated ω dependence. Given that the abstract and introduction advertise a complete treatment of electromagnetic perturbations, the polar sector should either be integrated numerically (as in the cited works [33,54]) or the claim of a full EM analysis should be narrowed to the axial sector alone.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 1 inset: the vertical scale is too compressed to judge the claimed weak plasma dependence; a relative-difference plot would help.
  2. Tables I–III: several (0,0) entries are blank for Schwarzschild while present for k eq0; a short remark on why the fundamental mode appears only for the defect geometry would improve readability.
  3. Eq. (9) and surrounding text: the eikonal correspondence is stated for homogeneous plasma; a one-sentence caveat that the same simple relation need not hold for SIS/NSIS would avoid over-generalization.
  4. Notation: χ(r)=κ N(r) is used for the scalar plasma term while ω_pl is used for the EM plasma frequency; a brief glossary or consistent subscripting would reduce confusion.
  5. Appendix A: the photon-sphere radius formula (A1) is written with an overall minus sign that makes r_ps negative for small η; a parenthetical check that the physical root is positive would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all load-bearing results follow forward from the metric, a phenomenological scalar-plasma coupling, and the Breuer–Ehlers cold-plasma system via standard WKB or algebraic extremum conditions.

full rationale

The paper’s derivation chains are self-contained and non-circular. The eikonal shadow–QNM link (Eqs. 5–9) is obtained by substituting the plasma refractive index into the standard Cardoso–Ferrari–Mashhoon correspondence and the geometric definition θ = R_S/D; no parameter is fitted and then re-predicted. The Lyapunov exponent (Eq. 10 and Appendix A) is an explicit algebraic function of the metric function f(r) and a constant plasma frequency; its weak plasma dependence and monotonic decrease with k are direct evaluations, not tautologies. Scalar QNMs begin from an explicitly introduced phenomenological term +κ N(r) Φ^{2} in the Klein–Gordon action (Eq. 18), produce the effective potential (Eq. 25), and are evaluated by third- and sixth-order WKB; the resulting tables and figures simply report those numbers for chosen parameter values. Electromagnetic axial quasi-bound states follow from the Breuer–Ehlers system after multipolar decomposition (Eqs. 42–45), reduce to a Schrödinger equation whose potential is V_ax = f(ℓ(ℓ+1)/r^{2} + ω_pl^{2}) (Eq. 47), and admit a double-root condition derived algebraically in Appendix C (M ω_pl ≤ (1−k)√[ℓ(ℓ+1)/12]); the WKB frequencies in Table IV are consistent with the potential-well structure of Fig. 6. Polar-sector equations are left unsolved by design. Self-citations point to standard methods (WKB, plasma optics) or prior calculations by overlapping authors that are not used as uniqueness theorems or to force the present spectra. No fitted constants are relabeled as predictions, no ansatz is smuggled via citation, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The only modeling choice that could be questioned is the ad-hoc scalar-plasma coupling, but that is an assumption of the model, not a circular step inside the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the Barriola–Vilenkin metric, the phenomenological scalar-plasma coupling, the cold unmagnetized plasma model of Breuer–Ehlers, and the validity of WKB for the reported multipoles. Free parameters (k, plasma density scales, scalar mass, coupling κ) are scanned rather than fitted to data; no new particles or forces are invented.

free parameters (4)
  • topological-defect parameter k
    Controls the metric function f(r)=1−k−2M/r; scanned in [0,0.4] while EHT bounds suggest k≲0.005. All QNM and Lyapunov trends depend on it.
  • scalar-plasma coupling κ (or χ=κN)
    Ad-hoc strength of the +κ N(r) Φ² term in the Klein–Gordon action; chosen by hand (e.g. χ=0.1, 0.15, 0.3) and directly shifts the scalar effective potential.
  • plasma density scales (ω_pl, ξ, r_c, κξ)
    Homogeneous plasma frequency and SIS/NSIS amplitude/core radius are free inputs that set the height and shape of effective potentials and the quasi-bound threshold.
  • scalar field mass m
    Free massive-scalar parameter scanned in the QNM tables; changes both real and imaginary parts of the frequencies.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Barriola–Vilenkin metric f(r)=1−k−2M/r correctly describes a black hole with a global-monopole topological defect.
    Sec. II; all geodesics, potentials, and spectra are computed on this background.
  • ad hoc to paper Plasma effects on a test scalar can be captured by adding +κ N(r) Φ² to the Klein–Gordon action while preserving linearity.
    Sec. IV, Eqs. (18)–(19); not derived from a kinetic plasma model.
  • domain assumption Cold, unmagnetized, two-fluid plasma on a static spherical background is adequately described by the Breuer–Ehlers linearized system, with ions frozen and metric back-reaction neglected.
    Sec. V; used to obtain the axial/polar decoupling and the effective-mass interpretation of ω_pl.
  • domain assumption Third- and sixth-order WKB approximations give reliable QNM and quasi-bound frequencies for the multipoles and overtones reported.
    Secs. IV–V and Tables I–IV; known to degrade at low l and for shallow wells.
  • domain assumption Eikonal QNM–shadow correspondence continues to hold after plasma refractive-index corrections for this metric.
    Sec. III; authors themselves note the correspondence can fail in some modified gravities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalar and Electromagnetic Perturbations around a Black Hole with a Topological Defect: Quasinormal Modes and Quasi-bound States in a Plasma Medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITDWGXJM

@misc{pith2026260707487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalar and Electromagnetic Perturbations around a Black Hole with a Topological Defect: Quasinormal Modes and Quasi-bound States in a Plasma Medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITDWGXJM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07487}
}
abstract

We investigated the influence of a plasma environment on the optical and perturbative properties of a black hole with a topological defect, characterized by the parameter \(k\). We first established a straightforward correspondence between the real part of the quasinormal-mode (QNM) frequencies in the eikonal limit and the black-hole shadow radius. We then demonstrated that the Lyapunov exponent associated with the photon sphere exhibits only a weak dependence on the plasma frequency, while it monotonically decreases as the topological-defect parameter \(k\) increases. Subsequently, we analyzed massive scalar-field perturbations by deriving the associated effective potential and computing the QNM spectrum using the third- and sixth-order WKB approximations for both homogeneous and radially inhomogeneous plasma configurations, including the singular isothermal sphere (SIS) and non-singular isothermal sphere (NSIS) density profiles. Our results show that the presence of plasma induces shifts in both the oscillation frequencies and the damping rates of the modes, and that larger values of \(k\) systematically suppress the real part of the QNM frequencies. Among the plasma models considered, the NSIS profile generally yields slightly higher oscillation frequencies than both the SIS and homogeneous cases. Finally, we derived the dynamical equations governing electromagnetic perturbations in a cold, unmagnetized plasma and demonstrated that the axial and polar sectors decouple. In the axial sector, the plasma frequency enters as an effective mass term, thereby permitting the existence of quasi-bound states only in the case of a homogeneous plasma and only when the plasma frequency lies below a critical threshold that depends on the topological-defect parameter \(k\) and the multipole index \(l\).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07487 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Dependence of the Lyapunov exponent of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Effective potentials of scalar perturbations for different plasma profiles. The left panel corresponds to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Left panel: Dependence of the real part of the QNM frequencies on the imaginary part for the scalar field. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Left panel: Dependence of the real part of the QNM frequencies on their imaginary part for a scalar field. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Left panel: Dependence of the real part of scalar QNM frequencies on their imaginary part for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Plot of the effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows a comparison of the effective axial po￾tential of electromagnetic perturbations for the SIS and NSIS plasma profiles. The plot shows that the differ￾ences between the two models are small however, the SIS model leads to a slightly higher potential maximum compare…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The real and imaginary parts of the frequencies of the fundamental quasi-bound states of electromagnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Effective potential for the polar sector in the homogeneous plasma case Vpl =−A −1 4r12ω10 + 4l(1 +l)(2M+ (−1 +k)r) 6ω4 pl l+l 2 + 4r2ω2 pl −4r 9(−2M+r−kr)ω 8 3l(1 +l) + 5r 2ω2 pl + 4r(2M+ (−1 +k)r) 5ω4 pl l2(1 +l) 2(1 +l+l 2) +l(1 +l)(1 + 3l(1 +l))r 2ω2 pl + 3l(1 +l)r 4ω4 pl +r 6ω6 pl +r 4(2M+ (−1 +k)r)ω 6 2l(1 +l)r 3 + 30l(1 +l)r(2M+ (−1 +k)r) 2 + (2M+ ...

  2. [2]

    Effective potential for the polar sector in the inhomogeneous plasma case In the general case of an inhomogeneous plasma, the effective potential for the polar sector was discussed in Ref. [54]. Appendix C: Relative location of maxima and minima for the axial effective potential The effective axial potentialV ax ℓm(r) is given by Eq. (47), which admits bo...

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022), arXiv:2311.08680 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Psaltiset al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Phys

    D. Psaltiset al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 141104 (2020), arXiv:2010.01055 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Vagnozziet al., Class

    S. Vagnozziet al., Class. Quant. Grav.40, 165007 (2023), arXiv:2205.07787 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  2. [10]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rept.121, 263 (1985)

    1985

  3. [11]

    Barriola and A

    M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 341 (1989)

    1989

  4. [12]

    G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and O. Y. Tsupko, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.404, 1790 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Perlick, O

    V. Perlick, O. Y. Tsupko, and G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, Phys. Rev. D92, 104031 (2015), arXiv:1507.04217 [gr- qc]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Perlick and O

    V. Perlick and O. Y. Tsupko, Phys. Rev. D95, 104003 (2017), arXiv:1702.08768 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Atamurotov and B

    F. Atamurotov and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D92, 084005 (2015), arXiv:1507.08131 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    G. Z. Babar, A. Z. Babar, and F. Atamurotov, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 761 (2020), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 82, 403 (2022)], arXiv:2008.05845 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Atamurotov, K

    F. Atamurotov, K. Jusufi, M. Jamil, A. Abdujabbarov, and M. Azreg-A¨ ınou, Phys. Rev. D104, 064053 (2021), arXiv:2109.08150 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Atamurotov, M

    F. Atamurotov, M. Jamil, and K. Jusufi, Chin. Phys. C 47, 035106 (2023), arXiv:2212.12949 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Atamurotov, I

    F. Atamurotov, I. Hussain, G. Mustafa, and K. Jusufi, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 831 (2022), arXiv:2209.01652 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 793 (2011), arXiv:1102.4014 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B823, 136734 (2021), arXiv:2109.01640 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Astrophys. J.933, 166 (2022), arXiv:2202.02205 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cardoso, A

    V. Cardoso, A. S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek, and V. T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D79, 064016 (2009), arXiv:0812.1806 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ferrari and B

    V. Ferrari and B. Mashhoon, Phys. Rev. D30, 295 (1984)

    1984

  17. [25]

    Jusufi, Phys

    K. Jusufi, Phys. Rev. D101, 084055 (2020), arXiv:1912.13320 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jusufi, Phys

    K. Jusufi, Phys. Rev. D101, 124063 (2020), arXiv:2004.04664 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    I. Z. Stefanov, S. S. Yazadjiev, and G. G. Gyulchev, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 251103 (2010), arXiv:1003.1609 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cuadros-Melgar, R

    B. Cuadros-Melgar, R. D. B. Fontana, and J. de Oliveira, Phys. Lett. B811, 135966 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Yang, Phys

    H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D103, 084010 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    P. C. Li, T. C. Lee, M. Guo, and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D104, 084044 (2021), arXiv:2105.14268 [gr-qc]. 16

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Wu and X

    X. Wu and X. Zhang, Universe8, 604 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    M. S. Churilova, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 629 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    R. A. Konoplya and Z. Stuchl´ ık, Phys. Lett. B771, 597 (2017), arXiv:1705.05928 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. G. Rosa and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D85, 044043 (2012), arXiv:1110.4494 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Cannizzaro, A

    E. Cannizzaro, A. Caputo, L. Sberna, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D103, 124018 (2021), arXiv:2012.05114 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hindmarsh, A.-C

    M. Hindmarsh, A.-C. Davis, and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D49, 1944 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9307203

    1944 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D23, 852 (1981)

    1981

  30. [38]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D24, 2082 (1981)

  31. [39]

    Vilenkin, Nucl

    A. Vilenkin, Nucl. Phys. B196, 240 (1982)

    1982

  32. [40]

    A. S. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 2158 (1989)

    1989

  33. [41]

    S. H. Rhie and D. P. Bennett, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 1173 (1991)

    1991

  34. [42]

    Perivolaropoulos, Nucl

    L. Perivolaropoulos, Nucl. Phys. B375, 665 (1992)

    1992

  35. [43]

    Dadhich, K

    N. Dadhich, K. Narayan, and U. A. Yajnik, Pramana 50, 307 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9703034

    1998 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Perlick and O

    V. Perlick and O. Y. Tsupko, Phys. Rept.947, 1 (2022), arXiv:2105.07101 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Wei and Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei and Y.-X. Liu, Chin. Phys. C44, 115103 (2020), arXiv:1909.11911 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Umarov, O

    D. Umarov, O. Yunusov, F. Atamurotov, A. Abdujab- barov, and S. G. Ghosh, Chin. Phys. C49, 055102 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Rogers, Mon

    A. Rogers, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.451, 17 (2015), arXiv:1505.06790 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    G. B. Gelmini, V. Takhistov, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Lett. B809, 135779 (2020), arXiv:2006.13909 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    D. J. Gogoi and U. D. Goswami, JCAP06, 029 (2022), arXiv:2203.07594 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D68, 024018 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0303052

    2003 arXiv

  43. [51]

    B. F. Schutz and C. M. Will, APJL291, L33 (1985)

    1985

  44. [52]

    Iyer and C

    S. Iyer and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D35, 3621 (1987)

    1987

  45. [53]

    M. F. S. Alves, B. P. Pˆ onquio, and L. G. Medeiros, Phys. Rev. D112, 124007 (2025), arXiv:2509.07235 [gr-qc]

    2025

  46. [54]

    R. A. Breuer and J. Ehlers, Astronomy and Astrophysics 96, 293 (1981)

    1981

  47. [55]

    G. F. R. Ellis, Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Fermi47, 104 (1971)

    1971

  48. [56]

    Chowdhury, S

    A. Chowdhury, S. Biswas, and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D110, 064072 (2024), arXiv:2405.04006 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.