Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 78 references

How black hole mimickers and Shapiro-free lenses signal effective dark matter

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports exact black-hole mimickers and Shapiro-free lenses as solutions of ÆST gravity.

desk verdict Exact-solution work is solid and new; the 'mimicker/lens' astrophysical framing runs ahead of what the boundary conditions actually support. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20144 v2 pith:Q4TRRXB3 submitted 2025-04-28 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Lirui Yang , Will Barker , Tobias Mistele , Amel Durakovic This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE MSC 83C5783C1583D05 PACS 04.20.Jb04.70.-s95.35.+d
keywords æther-scalar-tensortheoryblackholemimickerShapiro-freelensEling–Jacobsonwormholeanti-Ellis–BronnikovspacetimeMONDexactsolutionsgravitationallensing
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

Æther-scalar-tensor theory is a leading relativistic version of modified Newtonian dynamics, already intended to supply the role of dark matter. This paper claims that its field equations admit two new exact compact objects: a black-hole mimicker whose exterior approaches Schwarzschild to arbitrary precision as an effective coupling tends to zero, and a massless ultrastatic lens that deflects light without the usual logarithmic Shapiro delay. The authors verify by direct substitution that the proposed line elements satisfy the full ÆST equations, and they spell out observational signatures in gravitational-wave ringdown, horizon-scale imaging, and time-domain lensing. A sympathetic reader should care because these objects would be direct smoking guns for ÆST itself, not for dark matter particles.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through a reduction of ÆST to an Einstein-æther-like system with an effective coupling $K_{\rm eff}^B$. When the static scalar's gradient is aligned with the æther acceleration, $\nabla_\mu\psi=q J_\mu$, the action collapses to EÆ form with $K_{\rm eff}^B=K_B+(2-K_B)q[2-(1+\lambda_s)q]$, so the Eling–Jacobson wormhole of Einstein-æther theory lifts to an exact ÆST solution; the no-current-at-infinity case gives the special value $\bar K_{\rm eff}^B=(\lambda_s K_B+2)/(1+\lambda_s)$. The second branch sets the æther acceleration to zero, $J_\mu=0$, which forces the anti-Ellis–Bronnikov metric $R(r)=\sqrt{r^2-\ell^2}$ and produces lensing with no logarithmic Shapiro delay. The conservation law $\nabla_\mu J^\mu=0$, shown for static æther in static spacetimes, is what makes the lifting procedure consistent.

What would settle it

A direct check would be a one-loop calculation of the shift-symmetric scalar's effective potential in the near-throat and near-singularity geometry of each solution; if it cannot produce the required charge $q$ for the mimicker, or cannot cap the lens's naked singularity without destroying its ultrastatic character, then the astrophysical interpretation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the æther-scalar-tensor field equations contain two new families of exact, spherically symmetric, static solutions. The first is an Eling–Jacobson-type wormhole whose exterior side is given by Eqs. (2)–(4); as $K_{\rm eff}^B\to 0$ this geometry approaches the Schwarzschild line element to arbitrary precision, so it mimics a black hole observationally while actually possessing a throat and a null singularity instead of an event horizon. The second is the `(−)' configuration of Eq. (5), the ultrastatic line element $ds^2=-dt^2+dr^2+(r^2-\ell^2)d\Omega^2$, which has zero mass at infinity, zero gravitational redshift, a Weyl potential $\ell^2/(8r^2)$, repulsive deflection, and a Shapiro time delay that is negative and lacks the logarithmic divergence of the GR result. The paper verifies these solutions satisfy the full ÆST equations and notes that the mimicker geometry persists when the scalar has arbitrary time dependence, while the lens is the analytic continuation of the Ellis–Bronnikov wormhole. The authors are explicit that these solutions carry scalar hair with a conserved current at infinity; they argue the source could be one-loop quantum symmetry breaking or exotic matter near the singular regions, and they leave that matching problem open.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, flagged by the paper itself, is that the extra scalar-field charge carried by these solutions can be supplied by quantum corrections or by exotic matter at the singular cores; without such a source the exact solutions exist but describe no real object.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The mimicker's exterior is Schwarzschild to arbitrary precision as $K_{\rm eff}^B\to 0$, so current radio, astrometric, X-ray, and gravitational-wave tests that establish horizons cannot rule it out; deviations would first appear as subtle changes in the photon-ring and ISCO radii.
  • The throat lies inside the ISCO, so matter cannot stably loiter there; static observers at the throat need outwards acceleration of order $1/G_N M$, which makes a glowing mimicker surface unlikely for most of the parameter space.
  • Mergers of black-hole mimickers could produce non-standard ringdown with echoes or anti-chirps instead of the usual Kerr quasinormal modes, and horizon-scale images could show slight differences inside the photon ring.
  • Shapiro-free lenses have no mass at infinity, no gravitational redshift, and lensing potentials that scale as $\ell^2/r^2$; their Shapiro delay is negative and does not diverge with source or observer distance, so distant sources produce only tiny, time-advanced signals.
  • In the GR interpretation, the lens's effective mass profile would be $M(r)\approx -\ell^2/(4G_N r)$, a compact negative mass cancelled by a diffuse positive $1/r^4$ envelope; in ÆST this arises without any exotic matter.
  • These objects are not presented as dark matter candidates; observing either one would be a direct signature of æther-scalar-tensor theory itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, a fraction of the observed black-hole population could consist of horizonless mimickers, which would make gravitational-wave echo searches and photon-ring imaging direct probes of the scalar-current parameter $q$ and hence of the MOND sector of ÆST.
  • A testable extension is to search time-domain lensing surveys for `advanced' or anti-delayed events, where the signal arrives slightly early and the deflection is repulsive; such events would be qualitatively different from any cold-dark-matter lens prediction.
  • The existence of the same mimicker geometry for arbitrary time dependence of the scalar suggests dynamical formation may be easier than the static branch alone would indicate, so abundance and stability studies could be the next decisive step.
  • If precise measurements of photon-ring or ISCO dilation became available, they would effectively measure $K_{\rm eff}^B$ and therefore the scalar charge, connecting strong-field observations to the theory's galaxy-scale phenomenology.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports exact static, spherically symmetric solutions of æther-scalar-tensor (ÆST) theory in the Skordis–Zlosnik formulation, with the MOND sector approximated by a linear V(Y) and the CDM sector switched off via F20Q0=0. Section III constructs three asymptotically flat branches: an Eling–Jacobson-type wormhole with an effective æther coupling K_eff^B that reduces to Schwarzschild as K_eff^B→0 (the 'black hole mimicker'); an ultrastatic anti-Ellis–Bronnikov spacetime with scalar profile ψ∼tanh^{-1}(ℓ/r) (the 'Shapiro-free lens'); and a time-dependent-scalar branch yielding the earlier 'stealth' Eling–Jacobson metric. Section IV adds an Einstein static universe when the CDM sector is restored and V(Y)=2κΛ. Appendices A–E contain the field equations, component reductions, the exact-solution derivations, and a proof that radial null geodesics cannot be extended past the mimicker's interior Killing horizon. The paper also gives lensing time-delay and deflection formulas and discusses observational prospects.

Significance. The exact-solution content is a useful contribution to a relatively unexplored strong-field regime of a MOND-compatible theory, and the paper is unusually explicit in providing component-level verification in Appendices B and D. If the boundary conditions are physically admissible, the mimicker and lens are novel and testable: Eqs. (61a)-(62) and (63)-(68) give concrete predictions for photon radii, ISCOs, time delays, and deflections. The formal EÆ results, namely non-extendibility of the Eling–Jacobson horizon and conservation of the static æther acceleration, are also of interest. The significance is tempered by an admitted gap: the scalar hair that makes the solutions work is not sourced by a physical model, and the paper explicitly defers formation, stability, and abundance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III A ('Scalar hair'); Sec. V ('Why scalar hair is allowed')] The step from exact solution to astrophysical compact object is not complete. For every q≠(1+λ_s)^{-1} the solution carries a non-vanishing scalar current at spatial infinity, and K_eff^B→0, the limit in which the exterior mimics Schwarzschild to arbitrary precision, requires exactly such q. The paper acknowledges that the balancing current often comes from singular regions whose origin remains 'somewhat mysterious,' and Section V justifies the hair only by a generic one-loop symmetry-breaking expectation. The lens is more severe: ψ diverges at r=ℓ (Eq. (50)), and the naked singularity is to be replaced by a matter source that is never constructed. Since the abstract's claims of 'black hole mimickers' and 'Shapiro-free lenses' presuppose physical realizability, the authors should either construct an explicit source or boundary completion, or reframe the claims as existence of exact solutions with singular boundary data.
  2. [Sec. II C, Eq. (30) and footnote 13; Sec. III] The reduction from Eq. (17) to the 'heuristic action' Eq. (30) is asserted rather than demonstrated. Footnote 13 concedes that the Lagrange multiplier differs by a constant factor and that the metric variations of the two relevant terms are not identical off shell, but the promised explicit verification is not shown. Because Eq. (31) is used to organize the scalar-field branch structure, the paper should either present the full verification or derive Eq. (31) directly from the component equations in Appendix B.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'Eiling–Jacobson' in Sections III.B and V and Appendices B and D, 'soluton' in Section III.B, and 'ib terms' in Appendix E; a careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Sec. I, Eqs. (2)-(4)] Equations (2)-(4) are advertised as the exterior line element, but Eq. (4) defines r as a function of M(r) and leaves the inversion implicit; please add a sentence explaining how a reader should evaluate Eq. (4) in practice and whether it is used elsewhere in the paper.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 captions] The captions should state the precise parameter values used in the embeddings, including the mass normalization and the values of K_eff^B for Fig. 1, and the value of ℓ and coordinate range for Fig. 2.
  4. [Sec. V, Eqs. (63)-(65)] The time-delay formulas should specify the domain b>ℓ and define how r_s and r_o are taken to infinity; the order of limits matters for a convergent Shapiro delay.
  5. [Secs. I and V] The phrases 'massless' and 'no gravity' for the Shapiro-free lens are misleading because the spacetime has nonzero spatial curvature and deflects light; 'zero ADM mass' or 'no gravitational acceleration' would be more precise.
  6. [Sec. V, after Eq. (67)] The interpretation of Eq. (67) as a negative mass surrounded by a positive 1/r^4 density profile is only a Newtonian lensing analogue; please state explicitly that it is not a proposal for a physical matter distribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: exact solutions are derived and verified against the ÆST field equations; free parameters are not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are self-contained derivations. The line elements in Eqs. (2)-(4), (45a,b), (49) and (50) are obtained by solving the component field equations in Appendix B subject to stated ansätze (static æther, Eq. (22), gauge Eq. (24), and the linear-V/neglected-CDM conditions Eqs. (26) and (28)). Appendix D shows the reduction to the Eling-Jacobson system and the anti-Ellis-Bronnikov branch, and Appendices D and E check the solutions against the original field equations. The parameter K_eff^B is defined by Eq. (35) in terms of the free scalar-hair ratio q and model parameters; it is not fitted to the quantities later 'predicted' (photon sphere, ISCO, throat acceleration), so no Eq. (61) is used to define Eq. (35). The claim that K_eff^B -> 0 approaches Schwarzschild is a direct limit of Eq. (45), not an imposed fit. The Shapiro-free lens results, Eqs. (63)-(68), are computed from the anti-Ellis-Bronnikov line element, not assumed. Self-citations to co-author papers ([3], [11], [58]) appear only as contextual consistency/constraint references and do not carry the derivation; the load-bearing prior result [15] is by non-overlapping authors and is used for comparison, not as a uniqueness theorem. The admitted limitations in Section III A ('origin of these currents remains somewhat mysterious') and Section V ('production, stability and detection ... left for future work') are physical-admissibility caveats, not circular reductions. The only serious gap is whether the scalar hair can be sourced consistently, but that is a correctness/physical-realizability concern external to the derivation chain, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on the ÆST action plus strong-field truncations, and on two free hair/scale parameters (q and ℓ). No new particles or forces are introduced; the two new entities are spacetime solution branches of the existing theory, and both lack independent evidence of physical existence.

free parameters (2)
  • q scalar hair ratio = unconstrained real number; defines K_eff^B via Eq. (35)
    Parameterizes the proportionality between the scalar gradient and æther acceleration, dψ/dr = q dN/dr (Eq. 36). Determines the mimicker geometry through K_eff^B; no observational fit is performed.
  • ℓ lens scale = unconstrained integration constant
    Sets the size of the anti-Ellis-Bronnikov lens: R(r) = sqrt(r^2 - ℓ^2) (Eq. 49). Controls the magnitude of the negative lensing potential and time delay; not determined by the theory.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ÆST action (Eq. 9) with the Skordis-Zlosnik form (Eq. 11) is the correct relativistic completion of MOND.
    All results are solutions of this chosen theory; the theory's validity relative to GR and ΛCDM is outside the paper's scope.
  • domain assumption Stability bounds 0 < K_B < 2 and 0 < λ_s hold (Eqs. 8 and 14).
    The physical parameter range is taken from prior literature [10,57]; solutions are only sought in this range.
  • ad hoc to paper The MOND and effective-CDM sectors can be neglected in the strong-field regime (V linear, Eq. 26, and F20Q0 = 0, Eq. 28).
    This truncation is needed to find the exact solutions; the paper admits the matching between strong-field and MOND regimes is not well understood (Sections I and V).
  • ad hoc to paper A non-zero scalar current at spatial infinity is an admissible boundary condition.
    Needed to allow q ≠ (1 + λ_s)^(-1) and K_eff^B < 0 branches; justified only by speculative one-loop symmetry breaking (Section V).
  • domain assumption Static æther ansatz α(r)=0 (Eq. 22) selects the solution branches without loss of relevant generality.
    Relaxing this condition is deferred to reference [68]; the paper's claims are restricted to static-æther configurations.
invented entities (2)
  • Black hole mimicker (asymmetric Eling-Jacobson-type wormhole)
    purpose: Acts as a nearly-Schwarzschild compact object with a throat instead of a horizon, producing altered ringdown and photon-sphere signatures.
    Exact solution of ÆST, but no production mechanism, stability analysis, or abundance estimate is provided; the observational signatures are conditional.
  • Shapiro-free lens (anti-Ellis-Bronnikov ultrastatic spacetime)
    purpose: Massless lens that deflects light with essentially zero or negative Shapiro delay, a potential smoking-gun signal for ÆST.
    Exact solution of ÆST, but it ends in a naked scalar singularity and requires unspecified matter sources; formation and abundance are unaddressed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How black hole mimickers and Shapiro-free lenses signal effective dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4TRRXB3

@misc{pith2026250420144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How black hole mimickers and Shapiro-free lenses signal effective dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4TRRXB3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20144}
}
read the original abstract

We report the existence of two exotic compact objects in the leading relativistic model of modified Newtonian dynamics, namely aether-scalar-tensor theory. This model is consistent with precision cosmology and gravitational wave constraints on tensor speed. Black hole mimickers could subtly change observations: gravitational waves from their mergers might show unusual echoes or altered ringdown patterns, and images of their horizon-scale shadows might be slightly different from those of a true black hole. Shapiro-free lenses are massless objects that deflect light without any gravitational time delay, producing distinctive lensing events. These predictions connect to ongoing and future gravitational-wave searches, horizon-scale imaging, and time-domain lensing surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20144 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Embedding visualisation of spatial geometry. Black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Embedding visualisation of spatial geometry. Lenses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. S. McGaugh, J. M. Schombert, G. D. Bothun, and W. J. G. de Blok, Astrophys. J. Lett.533, L99 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003001 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2000

  2. [2]

    Mistele, S

    T. Mistele, S. McGaugh, F. Lelli, J. Schombert, and P. Li, Astrophys. J. Lett.969, L3 (2024), arXiv:2406.09685 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Mistele, Phys

    T. Mistele, Phys. Rev. D110, 024062 (2024), arXiv:2305.07742 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    M. M. Brouwer, K. A. Oman, E. A. Valentijn, M. Bilicki, C. Heymans, H. Hoekstra, N. R. Napolitano, N. Roy, C. Tortora, A. H. Wright, M. Asgari, J. L. van den Busch, A. Dvornik, T. Erben, B. Giblin, A. W. Graham, H. Hildebrandt, A. M. Hopkins, A. Kannawadi, K. Kui- jken , J. Liske, H. Shan, T. Tr¨ oster , E. Verlinde, and M. Visser, Astronomy & Astrophysic...

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Lelli, S

    F. Lelli, S. S. McGaugh, J. M. Schombert, and M. S. Pawlowski, Astrophys. J.836, 152 (2017), arXiv:1610.08981 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Milgrom, Astrophys

    M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J.270, 365 (1983)

    1983

  7. [7]

    Milgrom, Astrophys

    M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J.270, 371 (1983)

    1983

  8. [8]

    Milgrom, Astrophys

    M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J.270, 384 (1983)

    1983

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Famaey and S

    B. Famaey and S. McGaugh, Living Rev. Rel.15, 10 (2012), arXiv:1112.3960 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Skordis and T

    C. Skordis and T. Zlosnik, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 161302 (2021), arXiv:2007.00082 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Mistele, S

    T. Mistele, S. McGaugh, and S. Hossenfelder, Astron- omy & Astrophysics676, A100 (2023), arXiv:2301.03499 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Reyes and J

    C. Reyes and J. Sakstein, Phys. Rev. D110, 084019 (2024), arXiv:2406.18225 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Reyes and J

    C. Reyes and J. Sakstein, arXiv preprints (2025), arXiv:2505.03527 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    R. C. Bernardo and C.-Y. Chen, General Relativity and Gravitation55, 10.1007/s10714-023-03075-x (2023)

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Skordis and D

    C. Skordis and D. M. J. Vokrouhlicky, JCAP03, 035, arXiv:2412.15395 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    C. T. Bolton, Nature235, 271 (1972)

    1972

  9. [17]

    R. A. Remillard and J. E. McClintock, Annu. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys.44, 49 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Sch¨ odel, T

    R. Sch¨ odel, T. Ott, R. Genzel, A. Eckart, N. Mouawad, and T. Alexander, Nature419, 694 (2002)

    2002

  11. [19]

    A. M. Ghez, S. Salim, N. N. Weinberg, and et al., Astro- phys. J.689, 1044 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    Lynden-Bell and M

    D. Lynden-Bell and M. J. Rees, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.152, 461 (1971)

    1971

  13. [21]

    Kormendy and L

    J. Kormendy and L. C. Ho, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys.51, 511 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Narayan and J

    R. Narayan and J. S. Heyl, Astrophys. J.574, L139 (2002)

    2002

  15. [23]

    Narayan and J

    R. Narayan and J. E. McClintock, New Astron. Rev.51, 733 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, e. L. S. Collabora- tion, and V. Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Cardoso, E

    V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 171101 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Falcke, F

    H. Falcke, F. Melia, and E. Agol, Astrophys. J. Lett.528, L13 (2000)

    2000

  19. [27]

    K. e. Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration; Akiyama, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    K. e. Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration; Akiyama, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Tanaka, K

    Y. Tanaka, K. Nandra, A. C. Fabian, and et al., Nature 375, 659 (1995)

    1995

  22. [30]

    A. C. Fabian, K. Iwasawa, C. S. Reynolds, and A. J. Young, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.112, 1145 (2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    R. e. GRAVITY Collaboration (Abuter, Astron. Astro- phys.615, L15 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    R. e. GRAVITY Collaboration (Abuter, Astron. Astro- phys.636, L5 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    I. Gott, J. Richard, Astrophysical Journal288, 422 (1985)

    1985

  26. [34]

    Huterer and T

    D. Huterer and T. Vachaspati, Physical Review D68, 041301 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Tisserand, L

    P. Tisserand, L. Le Guillou, C. Afonso, and et al., As- tronomy & Astrophysics469, 387 (2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    Mr´ oz, A

    P. Mr´ oz, A. Udalski, M. K. Szyma´ nski, L. Wyrzykowski, and et al., Astrophysical Journal Supplement273, 4 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    K. T. Inoue, New Astronomy58, 47 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Niikura, M

    H. Niikura, M. Takada, N. Yasuda, R. H. Lupton, T. Sumi, S. More, T. Kurita, S. Sugiyama, A. More, M. Oguri, and M. Chiba, Nature Astronomy3, 524 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    J. H. Taylor and J. M. Weisberg, Astrophysical Journal 345, 434 (1989)

    1989

  32. [40]

    Kramer, I

    M. Kramer, I. H. Stairs, R. N. Manchester, N. Wex, and et al., Physical Review X11, 041050 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Lazaridis, N

    K. Lazaridis, N. Wex, A. Jessner, M. Kramer, B. W. Stappers, J. P. W. Verbiest, T. M. Tauris, and et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society400, 805 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, G. Esposito-Far` ese, J. P. W. Verbiest, M. Bailes, M. Kramer, I. H. Stairs, J. Anto- niadis, and G. H. Janssen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society423, 3328 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Agazie, Z

    G. Agazie, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, and et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters951, L8 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Antoniadis, M

    J. Antoniadis, M. Bailes, P. Brem, and et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics678, A50 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    H. G. Ellis, Journal of Mathematical Physics14, 104 (1973)

    1973

  38. [46]

    K. A. Bronnikov, Acta Physica Polonica B4, 251 (1973)

    1973

  39. [47]

    Visser, Nuclear Physics B328, 203 (1989)

    M. Visser, Nuclear Physics B328, 203 (1989)

    1989

  40. [48]

    Visser,Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking(AIP Press, New York, 1995)

    M. Visser,Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking(AIP Press, New York, 1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, American Journal of Physics56, 395 (1988). 15

    1988

  42. [50]

    M. S. Morris, K. S. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Physical Review Letters61, 1446 (1988)

    1988

  43. [51]

    Sonego, Journal of Mathematical Physics51, 092502 (2010)

    S. Sonego, Journal of Mathematical Physics51, 092502 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    I. I. Shapiro, Physical Review Letters13, 789 (1964)

    1964

  45. [53]

    I. I. Shapiro, G. H. Pettengill, M. E. Ash, M. L. Stone, W. B. Smith, R. P. Ingalls, and R. A. Brockelman, Phys- ical Review Letters20, 1265 (1968)

    1968

  46. [54]

    Skordis and T

    C. Skordis and T. Zlosnik, Phys. Rev. D106, 104041 (2022), arXiv:2109.13287 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Jacobson and D

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Physical Review D64, 10.1103/physrevd.64.024028 (2001)

    2001 doi

  48. [56]

    Eling, T

    C. Eling, T. Jacobson, and D. Mattingly, Einstein-aether theory (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0410001 [gr-qc]

    2005 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Skordis and T

    C. Skordis and T. Zlosnik, Phys. Rev. D106, 104041 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Durakovic and C

    A. Durakovic and C. Skordis, JCAP04, 040, arXiv:2312.00889 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Huang, H

    H. Huang, H. L¨ u, and J. Yang, Classical and Quantum Gravity39, 185009 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Yazadjiev, Phys

    S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D96, 044045 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    H. G. Ellis, Gen. Rel. Grav.10, 105 (1979)

    1979

  54. [62]

    Geng and H

    W.-J. Geng and H. L¨ u, Phys. Rev. D93, 044035 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Huang, J

    H. Huang, J. Kunz, J. Yang, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D107, 104060 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    I. Z. Fisher, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.18, 636 (1948)

    1948

  57. [65]

    A. I. Janis, E. T. Newman, and J. Winicour, Physical Review Letters20, 878 (1968)

    1968

  58. [66]

    Eling and T

    C. Eling and T. Jacobson, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity23, 5643 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    R. Xu, D. Liang, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D107, 024011 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Y.-H. Hsu, A. Lasenby, W. Barker, A. Durakovic, and M. Hobson, arXiv e-Prints (2024), arXiv:2411.02550 [gr- qc]

    2024

  61. [69]

    Palais, Communications in Mathematical Physics69, 19 (1979)

    R. Palais, Communications in Mathematical Physics69, 19 (1979)

    1979

  62. [70]

    M. E. Fels and C. G. Torre, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity19, 641–675 (2002)

    2002

  63. [71]

    J. Oost, S. Mukohyama, and A. Wang, Universe7, 272 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Gao and Y.-G

    C. Gao and Y.-G. Shen, Physical Review D88, 10.1103/physrevd.88.103508 (2013)

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    S.-s. Bao, S. Hou, and H. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 127 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Jaffe, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety202, 995 (1983)

    W. Jaffe, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety202, 995 (1983)

    1983

  67. [75]

    Hernquist, The Astrophysical Journal356, 359 (1990)

    L. Hernquist, The Astrophysical Journal356, 359 (1990)

    1990

  68. [76]

    Dehnen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society265, 250 (1993)

    W. Dehnen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society265, 250 (1993)

    1993

  69. [77]

    Kassiola and I

    A. Kassiola and I. Kovner, The Astrophysical Journal 417, 450 (1993)

    1993

  70. [78]

    Eling, T

    C. Eling, T. Jacobson, and M. C. Miller, Physical Review D76, 042003 (2007). A DETAILS OF COVARIANT EQUATIONS Definitions. —In this appendix, we present the covariant field equations extracted from the action Eq. (9), which we here write as SÆST≡ Z d4x √−g 2κ " R− KB 2 FµνFµν ...

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.