Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Vacuum Homogeneous and Nonhomogeneous Metrics with Conventional and Quantized Metric Tensor: Singular or Nonsingular Solution

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that quantizing the metric tensor flips the sign of Raychaudhuri expansion evolution in Schwarzschild and FLRW spacetimes, and restores both radial and temporal dependence to the Einstein–Gilbert–Straus (EGS) metric…

desk verdict An honest but parameter-controlled computation: the singular/nonsingular flip is written in by hand, not derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08254 v1 pith:Z5CNHTWX submitted 2025-06-09 gr-qc

A. Tawfik (Egyptian Ctr. Theor. Phys. , Cairo , Future U. in Egypt) , S. G. Elgendi (Islamic U. in Madinah) , M. Hanafy (Benha U.) This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C0583C7583F0583C5781Q99 PACS 04.20.-q04.60.-m98.80.Qc
keywords SchwarzschildmetricFLRWEGSRaychaudhuriequationsgeometricquantizationsingularitiesSwiss-cheesemodelrelativisticgeneralizeduncertaintyprinciple
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

The paper investigates whether the Universe's initial singularity is avoidable by comparing how the Raychaudhuri equations evolve in three vacuum solutions of general relativity: Schwarzschild, FLRW, and the nonhomogeneous Einstein–Gilbert–Straus (EGS) metric. It computes the expansion, shear, rotation, and Ricci terms using both the conventional metric tensor and a geometrically quantized metric tensor built from a relativistic generalized uncertainty principle. The central claim is that quantization reverses the sign of the expansion's proper-time derivative in the Schwarzschild and FLRW cases, and that for the EGS metric the quantized tensor uncovers a genuine dependence on both radial distance and cosmic time, which the conventional treatment hides. If correct, this would mean the Swiss-cheese (EGS) description of a lumpy, expanding Universe is a viable nonsingular framework, and that quantum corrections to spacetime geometry decide whether a big bang or a bounce occurs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Raychaudhuri evolution equation for a timelike geodesic congruence, with the expansion scalar Θ, shear σ, rotation ω, and Ricci term R_{μν}u^μu^ν built from each spacetime's metric. The paper's quantized metric tensor is a conformal transformation g̃_{μν} = C(x,p)g_{μν}, with C(x,p) obtained by truncating a Finsler–Hamilton phase-space construction that implements the relativistic generalized uncertainty principle; numerically, C(x,p) is assigned the values 0.75 and 1.25, and the Klein-metric derivative K²_{,γ}, Λ, μ, and M are set to 0.95. This conformal coefficient carries the entire quantum modification: it alters the affine connections, velocities, and all kinematic quantities, and its chosen value determines whether the expansion evolution is positive or negative.

What would settle it

Evaluate dΘ/dτ for the EGS metric at C(x,p)=1.0 and at C(x,p)=1.5 while keeping the other parameters fixed; if the sign of the quantized evolution flips across these values, the claimed quantization-induced nonsingularity is a consequence of the chosen input rather than a robust result. A further check: recompute the expansion using the full, non-truncated quantized metric tensor of Eq. (A1) and see whether the r and t dependence the paper reports survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Analyzing the Raychaudhuri equation dΘ/dτ = −Θ²/3 − σ² + ω² − R_{μν}u^μu^ν for each metric, the paper finds that with the conventional metric tensor, Schwarzschild evolution is predominantly positive (nonsingular), FLRW evolution is negative (singular), and EGS evolution is positive but depends almost exclusively on cosmic time, not on radius. Replacing the metric with the quantized tensor g̃_{μν} = C(x,p)g_{μν}, where C(x,p) is a conformal coefficient derived from the relativistic generalized uncertainty principle, reverses the Schwarzschild and FLRW signs and, in the EGS case, makes the evolution strongly dependent on both r and t. The authors conclude that geometric quantization is a crucial extension to the EGS solution, confirming that the EGS metric facilitates both the temporal and spatial development of the Universe and that the evolution equations can model a nonsingular cosmos.

Load-bearing premise

The singular/nonsingular verdicts rest on arbitrarily chosen numerical values for the conformal coefficient C(x,p) (0.75 and 1.25) and for the Klein-metric derivative, cosmological constant, mass parameter, and mass (all set to 0.95), with no physical principle fixing these numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the quantization scheme is correct, the sign of dΘ/dτ is not fixed by the classical metric but can be flipped by quantum corrections, meaning singularity predictions depend on the quantum state of the geometry.
  • The Schwarzschild solution would harbor a predominantly spatial singularity, while the FLRW solution would contain an initial temporal singularity, with quantization reversing each.
  • The EGS (Swiss-cheese) metric, when quantized, depends on both radial distance and cosmic time, supporting the idea that a lumpy, nonhomogeneous Universe can be nonsingular without invoking a specific matter model.
  • The Raychaudhuri equation itself can model both singular and nonsingular universes, so singularity theorems based on it may be evaded when quantum conformal corrections are included.
  • Further exploration of the EGS solution is warranted, since the authors state that the singularity-free behavior appears to be independent of specific model assumptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The hand-assigned values C(x,p)=0.75 and 1.25, and K²_{,γ}=Λ=μ=M=0.95, are not derived from any physical constraint; varying them may flip the sign of dΘ/dτ and hence change the singular/nonsingular classification, so the central contrast may be an artifact of these inputs rather than a robust consequence of quantization.
  • The conformal-coefficient approximation truncates away the full Finsler–Hamilton structure; a complete treatment of Eq. (A1) could reveal whether the qualitative reversal of signs persists or is washed out.
  • A natural testable extension is to scan C(x,p) continuously across unity and check for a threshold where dΘ/dτ changes sign; such a scan would connect these results to bouncing-cosmology models.
  • The paper's claim that quantization restores r and t dependence to the EGS metric could be checked by comparing the quantized expansion at fixed r while varying t, and vice versa, to see if the apparent double dependence is robust against averaging of the conformal coefficient.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the evolution of the Raychaudhuri equation for Schwarzschild, FLRW, and EGS metrics, using both the conventional metric tensor g and a 'quantized' metric tensor \tilde{g}=C(x,p)g. For each metric, it derives analytic expressions for the expansion, shear, rotation, and Ricci term, and presents three-dimensional plots of d\Theta/d\tau over radial distance and cosmic time for C(x,p)=0.75 and 1.25. The central claims are that quantization reverses the sign of d\Theta/d\tau for the Schwarzschild and FLRW cases, and that for the EGS metric it restores the simultaneous dependence on both r and t, thereby validating the Swiss-cheese model as a nonsingular description of the Universe. The paper is clearly written in structure, but the quantitative and qualitative conclusions rest on a small set of parameters that are assigned by hand rather than derived.

Significance. The question addressed—whether quantum modifications of the metric tensor can remove classical singularities—is of genuine interest, and the paper is, to my knowledge, the first to write down Raychaudhuri-equation evolution for the EGS metric. The explicit display of expansion, shear, rotation, and Ricci contributions for three different metrics is useful if the underlying framework is accepted. However, the headline result is not currently established. The sign of d\Theta/d\tau, which is the sole indicator of singularity versus nonsingularity in the paper, is controlled by the hand-assigned values C(x,p)=0.75/1.25 and K^2,\gamma=\Lambda=\mu=M=0.95. The quantization framework itself relies on an admitted uncontrolled truncation of the metric tensor to conformal form, and the EGS line element appears to use the FLRW scale factor inconsistently. The paper does not provide a derivation of these parameters or a robustness analysis, so the claimed sign reversal is not a demonstrated consequence of the quantization scheme.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III (parameter assignment before III.A)] The singular/nonsingular classification is determined by the sign of d\Theta/d\tau in Eqs. (12), (15), and the EGS combination, yet the sign is controlled by the hand-assigned values C(x,p)=0.75/1.25 and K^2,\gamma=\Lambda=\mu=M=0.95 introduced in Section III. The text states that these are assumed values with no constraint except the mass dimension of \mu. Because C and K^2,\gamma enter exponentially and in denominators (e.g., exp(4rK^2,\gamma/C) in Eq. (12)), a parameter sweep can change the sign of d\Theta/d\tau, so the claimed reversal of focusing into defocusing is not a demonstrated property of the quantization scheme. A derivation of C(x,p) and K^2,\gamma from the quantization framework or a sensitivity analysis over admissible parameter ranges is needed before the singular/nonsingular conclusions can be drawn.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A2)-(A3)] Appendix A admits that the second line d_{\mu\nu}(x,p) of the quantized fundamental tensor cannot be neglected, because \phi(p_0) is finite and independent of x_0; the truncation to \tilde{g}=C(x,p)g is described as 'unavoidable' rather than justified. Since every subsequent equation in Sections II and III uses this truncated conformal form, the quantization predictions are not supported by a controlled approximation. A finite omitted term with no estimate of its magnitude can alter the sign of the Raychaudhuri evolution, which is the central diagnostic of the paper.
  3. [Section III, text before III.A] The paper labels C(x,p)=0.75 as 'the nonexistence of quantization' and C(x,p)=1.25 as quantization, but Eq. (B2) defines C(x,p) through quantum parameters (\phi(p_0), \beta, \kappa, F). The classical limit of the conformal coefficient should be C=1, with quantum corrections around that value; assigning 0.75 as 'no quantization' has no basis in Eqs. (B1)-(B2). The classical-versus-quantum comparison in Figs. 1-3 is therefore not a comparison of the stated alternatives.
  4. [Eqs. (3) and (6)] The EGS line elements use the scale factor a(t) linearly in the spatial part, whereas the FLRW metric in Eq. (2) correctly uses a^2(t). With a(t) the standard scale factor, Eq. (3) with M=0 does not reduce to FLRW, and Eq. (6) is not the standard Einstein-Straus metric. Since all EGS results, including Eqs. (18)-(21), are derived from this metric, the EGS section requires recalculation or a clear definition of a nonstandard a(t).
  5. [Section III, parameter values] The assignment K^2,\gamma=\Lambda=\mu=M=0.95 sets quantities of different physical dimensions equal to the same numerical value. In Eqs. (12), (17), and (18) these quantities appear in arguments of exponentials and in products with r and t, so the numerical plots depend on an unspecified unit convention. Without a dimensionally consistent parameter set, the plotted signs and magnitudes cannot be interpreted physically.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] Both panels in Fig. 2 are captioned C(x,p)=1.25; the upper panel should presumably be C(x,p)=0.75 based on the same color scheme used in the other figures.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The exponent in the third and fourth lines mixes notation `(1+C)` and `C(x,p)`, and the expression contains `sinh(x)` and `C(x.p)` typographical inconsistencies; the formula cannot be checked as printed.
  3. [Eq. (21)] Equation (21) uses the symbols U and y without definition, and `tanh(y)` is likely intended to be `tanh(t)`; please define all variables and correct the typographical errors.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract and conclusions use 'hybrid metric tensor' while Section III consistently refers to 'conventional and quantized metric tensor'; the terminology should be unified.
  5. [Section IV, first paragraph] The word 'volution' in 'The volution of Raychaudhuri equations' is a typo for 'evolution'.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Singular/nonsingular reversal is forced by hand-assigned C=0.75/1.25 and K=0.95 values; the quantization framework itself is an unverified, self-cited truncated ansatz.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III, introductory paragraph before Sec. III A (pages 11-12)]
    "It is essential to clarify that the calculations involved are based on assumed values for the derivative of the Klein metric K 2 ,γ, Λ, the arbitrary parameter µ, and the mass M , which are all assigned a value of 0 .95. With respect to C(x, p), we evaluate the results at C(x, p) = 0 .75 and C(x, p) = 1 .25. The first value denotes the nonexistence of quantization, in contrast to the latter value, which is linked to geometric quantization."

    The central conclusion—that geometric quantization reverses the sign of the Raychaudhuri evolution—is the difference between outputs computed at C=1.25 and C=0.75. These values are assigned by hand; no equation in the paper fixes them, and the true classical limit of the conformal metric g~=C g (Eq. A3) is C=1, not C=0.75. Since C and K^2,γ enter nonlinearly (exponentials and denominators in Eqs. 12, 15, 18-21), varying those assumed values can change the sign of dTheta~/dtau. The singular/nonsingular classification is therefore an artifact of the chosen parameter point, not a robust consequence of the quantization scheme.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Appendix B, Eq. (B2); see also Section II B and Appendix A Eq. (A3)]
    "The determination of the exact expression for the conformal coefficient C(x, p) continues to pose a significant mathematical challenge. As an alternative, an approximate formulation has been put forward in the references [20, 21, 24, 25]."

    The conformal structure g~=C g and the approximate form of C are not derived in this paper; they are imported from Refs. [20,21,24,25], all authored or co-authored by the first author (AT). These papers are the same quantization framework whose consequences the manuscript claims to test. Because every quantized Raychaudhuri quantity depends on C, the predicted reversal is inherited from the self-cited ansatz. The citation is load-bearing and unverified externally (no machine-checked proof, no independent parameter-free derivation), so it does not provide independent support.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Appendix A, after Eq. (A2) and before Eq. (A3)]
    "Until the resolution of this mathematical challenge, it is necessary to make a rough truncation that the second line disappears. However, it is important to note that the function φ(p0) is independent on x0 indicating that φ(p0) possesses a finite value. This finite value of φ(p0) imposes certain limitations on the proposed truncation. In other words, finite function φ(p0) opposes vanishing dμν(x,p) or dμν(x,p)=0 requires vanishing φ(p0)."

    This is an explicit limitation: the quantized metric actually used in all calculations, Eq. (A3), drops the dμν term, yet the paper admits that this term does not vanish for finite φ(p0). Hence the entire numerical analysis is based on an incomplete metric tensor. The sign and singularity conclusions are conditional on an acknowledged truncation, so they cannot be presented as consequences of the full quantization framework. This breaks the derivation chain between the claimed quantum theory and the predicted reversal.

full rationale

Most of the paper's algebra is self-contained: the Raychaudhuri equation, the three metrics, and the substitutions of quantized velocities are standard manipulations. The circularity is concentrated in the step where the numerical classification is made. Section III assigns the scalar values C=0.75/1.25 and K^2,γ=Λ=μ=M=0.95 by hand, then interprets C=0.75 as 'no quantization' and C=1.25 as 'geometric quantization'. Since C and K^2,γ enter exponentially and in denominators of all quantized kinematic quantities, the sign of dTheta~/dtau and the claimed reversal of focusing/defocusing are outputs of these chosen numbers; varying them can flip the conclusion. The classical limit should be C=1, at which Eq. (A3) gives g~=g, not C=0.75. The conformal form itself is imported from the first author's earlier approximate framework (Refs. [20,21,24,25]), with Appendix A conceding that the metric has been truncated by dropping a term that does not vanish for finite φ(p0). These limitations are acknowledged in the manuscript but nonetheless make the central singular/nonsingular claim conditional on unverified inputs, so the derivation does not independently establish the predicted reversal. I therefore score 8 rather than 0-2: the central claim reduces to the hand-assigned parameter values and the self-cited ansatz, although the Raychaudhuri formalism itself is standard and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper adds five hand-assigned free parameters, relies on an admitted truncation of the quantized metric as an ad hoc axiom, assumes the Raychaudhuri equation survives the modified connection, and introduces a conformal quantized metric with no independent falsifiable evidence. The count of free parameters and ad hoc axioms is the most honest measure of what the paper contributes: the singular/nonsingular verdict is essentially free.

free parameters (5)
  • Conformal coefficient C(x,p) = 0.75 (no quantization) and 1.25 (quantization)
    Assigned in Section III to produce numerical results; the sign of the Raychaudhuri evolution reverses between these two values.
  • Klein metric derivative K^2,γ = 0.95
    Set to 0.95 in Section III; it enters every quantized geodesic and affine-connection term and controls the magnitude of quantum corrections.
  • Cosmological constant Λ = 0.95
    Set to 0.95 with the other parameters; no physical scale or observational constraint is given.
  • Mass M = 0.95
    Set to 0.95 in Section III; the Schwarzschild and EGS results depend directly on M.
  • Arbitrary parameter μ in f(t) = 0.95
    Introduced in Eq. (5) with no specific constraint other than mass dimension, then assigned 0.95 in Section III; it is not carried consistently in later equations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Raychaudhuri equation remains valid for the quantized metric tensor and modified affine connection.
    Section II B states 'It is assumed that this is valid for both conventional and quantized metric tensor' without proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The quantized metric tensor can be truncated to the conformal form C(x,p)g_ab.
    Appendix A says the second line of Eq. (A1) 'needs to be redefined' and that 'it becomes inevitable to truncate it' due to the absence of a theoretical framework.
  • ad hoc to paper The mean-field approximation replaces the operator C(x,p) by scalar numbers.
    Section III states scalar values must be assigned to C(x,p) for numerical analysis, calling this a variant of mean-field approximation.
  • domain assumption A matter-dominated scale factor a(t) proportional to t^(2/3) applies despite the vacuum framing.
    Section II A2 adopts a(t) proportional to t^(2/3) for a matter-dominated background, while the title and abstract emphasize vacuum solutions.
  • ad hoc to paper The sign of dΘ/dτ is a sufficient indicator of the presence or absence of a singularity.
    The paper converts positive or negative values of dΘ/dτ into statements about singular or nonsingular evolution without invoking the global conditions of the singularity theorems.
invented entities (1)
  • Quantized fundamental metric tensor \tilde{g}_ab = C(x,p) g_ab
    purpose: Represents quantum corrections to the classical metric via the relativistic generalized uncertainty principle and Finsler geometry.
    The conformal coefficient is assigned values by hand and is not connected to any observable prediction or independent experimental constraint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vacuum Homogeneous and Nonhomogeneous Metrics with Conventional and Quantized Metric Tensor: Singular or Nonsingular Solution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5CNHTWX

@misc{pith2026250608254,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vacuum Homogeneous and Nonhomogeneous Metrics with Conventional and Quantized Metric Tensor: Singular or Nonsingular Solution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5CNHTWX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08254}
}
read the original abstract

To investigate whether the Universe underwent a singularity or maintained a nonsingular state, we carry out analytical and numerical analyses of the evolution of the Raychaudhuri equations in vacuum, alongside homogeneous and nonhomogeneous cosmic backgrounds. The results obtained from the Schwarzschild, Friedmann--Lemaitre--Robertson--Walker (FLRW), and Einstein--Gilbert--Straus (EGS) metrics are systematically compared. Analyzing the results from both, conventional and quantized metric tensor, it revealed insights into the nature of initial and spatial singularities. Results associated with the Schwarzschild metric demonstrate a positive evolution that corresponds with a reduction in radial distance (nonsingularity). In contrast, the proposed quantization reverses this trend, leading to a negative evolution (singularity). The situation is similar for the FLRW metric, where the suggested quantization results in a positive evolution as cosmic time decreases, in contrast to the classical and conventional metrics, which are associated with negative evolution. The analysis of the EGS metric reveals that classical evolution remains positively oriented, particularly with a reduction in radial distance. Moreover, the introduction of quantized and conventional metric tensors fully retrains the cosmic time dependence. The results obtained are a rightful recognition of the substantial efforts dedicated to the establishment of the Swiss-cheese model, demonstrating that the EGS metric indeed facilitates the temporal and spatial development of our Universe.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Schwarzschild Metric The Schwarzchild metric is the most general spherically sym metric vacuum exact solution of EFE in a curved spacetime. It characterizes the gravitation al field outside a spherical mass M accounting for a complete lack of electric charge and angula r momentum and vanishing 5 universal cosmological constant [7]. In polar spherical co or...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This metric characterizes a Universe that is both homogeneous and isotropic, undergoin g evolution through expansion or contraction [31]

    FLR W Metric Also, the FLR W metric gives an exact solution to the EFE. This metric characterizes a Universe that is both homogeneous and isotropic, undergoin g evolution through expansion or contraction [31]. The basic principles of homogeneity and i sotropy establish the foundational structure upon which the Standard Model of contemporary cos mology is ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    EGS Metric It is evident that the combination of the Schwarzschild vacu um metric within an evolving Universe seems to present a model that accurately represent s our Universe. Einstein and Straus suggested the Swiss-cheese cosmological model duri ng the 1940s which is sought to provide a conceptual framework for understanding the Unive rse as a collectio...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Schwarzschild Metric The radial geodesic assumes ˜uθ = ˜uφ = 0. Then, ˜ut and ˜ur can be deduced as ˜ut = 1 F (r) · exp ( −2rK 2 ,γ C(x, p) ) (8) ˜ur = ± [ − F (r) C(x, p) + exp ( 4K 2 ,γr C(x, p) )] 1/2 , (9) where C(x, p) represent the conformal coefficient, Eq. (B2). In the deriva tion of the second velocity, the normalization condition ˜gαβ ˜uα ˜uβ = −1...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Then, ˜ut = ±v, where v can be identified with the speed of light in vacuum

    FLR W Metric The FLR W metric satisfies the cosmological principles of ani sotropy and homogeneity so that ˜ur = ˜uθ = ˜uφ = 0 and d˜ut/dτ = 0. Then, ˜ut = ±v, where v can be identified with the speed of light in vacuum. Then, the expansion is given as ˜Θ = 3 v [ ˙a(t) a(t) + K 2 ,γ C(x, p) ] . (13) The stress tensor and rotation components diminish. The Ri...

    work page

  6. [6]

    (17) The corresponding affine connections is outlined in Eq

    EGS Metric From the quantized geodesic equations of EGS nonhomogeneou s metric, we find that d˜ut(r, t) dτ = − [ 3∂M (r,t) ∂t −3r + Λr3 + 6M (r, t) + F 2 ,γ 2C(x, p) + 1 2 K 2 ,γ ] ( ˜ut(r, t) )2 , (16) which can be solved as ˜ut(r, t) = [ −3 + 8πr2t tanh(t) + Λr2] −1/2 exp ( − [1 + C(x, p)]tK 2 ,γ 2C(x, p) ) . (17) The corresponding affine connections is ou...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The scalar quantity that quantifies the fractional rate of change in the volume of a small cluster of cosmic material over time, as observed by a centra l co-moving observer, represents the evolution equation governing the expansion of the timel ike geodesic congruence

    work page

  8. [8]

    Vorticity that quantifies the inclination of adjacent wor ld lines to spiral around each other, results in the rotation of the volume of cosmic matter

    work page

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Shearing that refers to the phenomenon that quantifies the inclination of a spherical volume of cosmic material to undergo deformation into an ellipsoid al configuration

  2. [10]

    Before we proceed to the numerical results, it is important t o highlight several considerations regarding the numerical estimation of C(x, p) as indicated in Eq

    The Ricci identity that accounts for the influences of the l ocal gravitational field. Before we proceed to the numerical results, it is important t o highlight several considerations regarding the numerical estimation of C(x, p) as indicated in Eq. (B2). Notably, the current re...

    2000

  3. [11]

    Hawking and George F

    Stephen W. Hawking and George F. R. Ellis. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press , 2 2023. ISBN 978-1-00-925316-1, 978-1-00-925315-4, 978-0-521-20016-5, 978-0-521-09906 -6, 978-0-511-82630-6, 978-0-52...

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Misner, K

    Charles W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler. Gravitation. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco,

  5. [13]

    Stephani and J

    H. Stephani and J. Stewart. Allgemeine Relativit¨ atstheorie. Cambridge University Press , 1990. 32

    1990

  6. [14]

    R. Penrose. Singularity and the Time Asymmeetry , pages 581–638. 1980

    1980

  7. [15]

    T urning big bang into big bounce

    Piotr Dzierzak, Przemyslaw Malkiewicz, and Wlodzimierz Piechocki. T urning big bang into big bounce

  8. [16]

    Classical dynamics. Phys. Rev. D , 80:104001, 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.104001

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    Turning big bang int o big bounce: II

    Przemyslaw Malkiewicz and Wlodzimierz Piechocki. Turning big bang int o big bounce: II. Quantum dynamics. Class. Quant. Grav. , 27:225018, 2010. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/22/225018

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Novello and S.E

    M. Novello and S.E. Perez Bergliaffa. Bouncing cosmologies. Physics Reports , 463(4): 127–213, 2008. ISSN 0370-1573. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.p hysrep.2008.04.006. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157308001373

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    Relativity and Modern Physics

    George David Birkhoff and Rudolph Ernest Langer. Relativity and Modern Physics . Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA, 1923

    1923

  12. [20]

    G. C. McVittie. The mass-particle in an expanding universe. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 93:325–339,

  13. [21]

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik and Tahia F. Dabash. Born reciprocity and relativistic generalized uncertainty principle in Finsler structure: Fundamental tensor in discretized cu rved spacetime. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 32(09):2350060, 2023. doi:10.1142/S0218271823500608

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Richard C. Tolman. Effect of inhomogeneity on cosmological models . Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , 20: 169–176, 1934. doi:10.1073/pnas.20.3.169

    1934 doi

  15. [23]

    Albert Einstein and Ernst G. Straus. The influence of the expan sion of space on the gravitation fields surrounding the individual stars. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 17:120–124, Apr 1945. doi:https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.1 7.120. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.17.120

    1945 doi

  16. [24]

    H. Bondi. Spherically symmetrical models in general relativity. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 107: 410–425, 1947. doi:10.1093/mnras/107.5-6.410

    1947 doi

  17. [25]

    C. Gilbert. The Gravitational Field of a Star in the Expanding Unive rse. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 116(6):678–683, 12 1956. ISSN 0035-8711. doi:10.1093/mnras/ 116.6.678. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/116.6.678

    1956 doi

  18. [26]

    On Possible Minimal Length Deformation of Metric Tensor, Levi-Civita Connectio n, and the Riemann Curvature Tensor

    Fady Tarek Farouk, Abdel Nasser Tawfik, Fawzy Salah Tarabia , and Muhammad Maher. On Possible Minimal Length Deformation of Metric Tensor, Levi-Civita Connectio n, and the Riemann Curvature Tensor. MDPI Physics , 5(4):983–1002, 2023. doi:10.3390/physics5040064. 33

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Stuchlik

    Z. Stuchlik. An einstein-strauss-de sitter model of the univer se. Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslo- vakia, Bulletin , 35:205–215, 1984

    1984

  20. [28]

    Alshehri, and Antonio Pasqua

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik, Azzah A. Alshehri, and Antonio Pasqua. E xpansion evolution of nonhomogeneous metric with quantum-mechanically revisited fundamental metric ten sor. Nucl. Phys. B , 1015:116893,

  21. [29]

    V. I. Kolomytsev. On the problem of a family of nonparallel regge trajectories. Teor. Mat. Fiz. , 12: 40–47, 1972. doi:10.1007/BF01030039

    1972 doi

  22. [30]

    Dabash, Tarek S

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik, Tahia F. Dabash, Tarek S. Amer, and Moh amed O. Shaker. Einstein- Gilbert-Straus solution of Einstein field equations: Timelike geodesic c ongruence with conven- tional and quantized fundamental metric tensor. Nucl. Phys. B , 1014:116866, 2025. doi: 10.1016/...

    2025

  23. [31]

    Farouk, F

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik, Fady T. Farouk, F. Salah Tarabia, and Mu hammad Maher. Quantum-induced revisiting space–time curvature in relativistic regime. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 39(35):2443016, 2024. doi:10.1142/S0217751X24430164

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Alshehri, and Prabir Kr Haldar

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik, Antonio Pasqua, Muhammad Waqas, Azza h A. Alshehri, and Prabir Kr Haldar. Quantum geometric perspective on the origin of quantum-condition ed curvatures. Class. Quant. Grav. , 41(19):195018, 2024. doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad7451

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Tawfik and T

    A. Tawfik and T. F. Dabash. Timelike geodesic congruence in the s implest solutions of general relativity with quantum-improved metric tensor. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D , 32(15):2350097, 2023. doi: 10.1142/S0218271823500979

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik and Tahia F. Dabash. Born reciprocity and discretized Finsler structure: An approach to quantize GR curvature tensors on three-sphere. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D , 32(10):2350068,

  27. [35]

    Singular state in relativistic cosmology

    Amalkumar Raychaudhuri. Singular state in relativistic cosmology . Phys. Rev., 106:172–173, Apr 1957. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.106.172.2. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.106.172.2

    1957 doi

  28. [36]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifschits. The Classical Theory of Fields , volume Volume 2 of Course of Theoretical Physics. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1975. ISBN 978-0-08-018176-9

    1975

  29. [37]

    Dabash, and Azzah Elshehri

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik, Tahia F. Dabash, and Azzah Elshehri. Sing ularity attenuation with quantum-mechanically revisited metric tensor. Astron. Nachr. , 345(2-3):e240003, 2024. doi: 10.1002/asna.20240003

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Discretized Finsler Structure: An Appro ach to Quantizing the First Fundamental Form

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik. Discretized Finsler Structure: An Appro ach to Quantizing the First Fundamental Form. Phys. Sci. Forum , 7(1):36, 2023. doi:10.3390/ECU2023-14066

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    On possible quantization of the fundamen tal tensor in the relativistic regime

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik. On possible quantization of the fundamen tal tensor in the relativistic regime. Astron. Nachr., 344(1-2):e220072, 2023. doi:10.1002/asna.20220072

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    On quantum-induced revisiting Einstein te nsor in the relativistic regime

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik. On quantum-induced revisiting Einstein te nsor in the relativistic regime. Astron. Nachr., 344(1-2):e220071, 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asna.202 20071

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    E. R. Caianiello. Is There a Maximal Acceleration? Lett. Nuovo Cim. , 32:65, 1981. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02745135. 34

    1981 doi

  34. [42]

    Farouk, F

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik, Fady T. Farouk, F. Salah Tarabia, and Mu hammad Maher. Minimal length discretization and properties of modified metric tensor and geodes ics. In 16th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experime ntal General Relativity, Astroph...

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Relativistic generalized uncertainty principle for a test particle in four-dimensional spacetime

    Abdel Nasser Tawfik and Azzah Alshehri. Relativistic generalized uncertainty principle for a test particle in four-dimensional spacetime. Mod. Phys. Lett. A , 39(25n26):2450079, 2024. doi: 10.1142/S0217732324500792

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Quantum geometry

    Nathan Rosen. Quantum geometry. Annals Phys. , 19(1):165–172, 1962. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(62)90235-X

    1962 doi

  37. [45]

    Tsamparlis and Th

    M. Tsamparlis and Th. Grammenos. The Deviation equation for a g eneral congruence in a general spacetime. Tensor (Japan), 56:27–30, 1995

    1995

  38. [46]

    Lema ˆ ıtre

    G. Lema ˆ ıtre. l’Univers en expansion. Annales de la Soci´ et´ e Scientifique de Bruxelles, A53: 51–8 5, 1933

    1933

  39. [47]

    Misner and David H

    Charles W. Misner and David H. Sharp. Relativistic equations for a diabatic, spherically symmetric gravitational collapse. Phys. Rev. , 136:B571–B576, Oct 1964. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.136.B571. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.136.B571

    1964 doi

  40. [48]

    Some new solutions of the einstein equations of astr ophysical interest

    M Demianski. Some new solutions of the einstein equations of astr ophysical interest. Acta Astron., 23 (3):197–232, 1973. URL https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4325043

    1973

  41. [49]

    A Relativistic Toolket, The Mathematics of Black-Ho le Mechanics

    Eric Poisson. A Relativistic Toolket, The Mathematics of Black-Ho le Mechanics. Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  42. [52]

    Our Understanding on Landau-Raychaudhuri Cosmology

    Abdel Magied Diab and Abdel Nasser Tawfik. Our Understanding on Landau-Raychaudhuri Cosmology. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. , 668(1):012113, 2016. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/668/1/012113

    2016 doi

  43. [53]

    Gravitational collapse and space-time singular ities

    Roger Penrose. Gravitational collapse and space-time singular ities. Phys. Rev. Lett., 14:57–59, Jan 1965. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57

    1965 doi

  44. [54]

    Hawking and G.F.R

    S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time . Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 197 3. ISBN 9780521099066. URL https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=QagG_KI7Ll8C

  45. [55]

    Chokyi, Surajit Chattopadhyay, and Abdel Nasse r Tawfik

    Khandro K. Chokyi, Surajit Chattopadhyay, and Abdel Nasse r Tawfik. Barrow holographic dark energy: reconstruction within Saez-Ballester theory in Kantowsk i-Sachs universe. Phys. Scripta , 99 (11):111501, 2024. doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ad7b87

    2024 doi

  46. [57]

    E. R. Caianiello. Maximal acceleration as a consequence of heisen berg’s uncertainty relations. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento (1971-1985) , 41(11):370–372, 1984

    1971

  47. [58]

    Maximal proper acceleration and the struct ure of spacetime

    Howard E Brandt. Maximal proper acceleration and the struct ure of spacetime. Foundations of Physics Letters, 2(1):39–58, 1989

    1989

  48. [60]

    E. R. Caianiello, A. Feoli, M. Gasperini, and G. Scarpetta. Quantu m Corrections to the Space- time Metric From Geometric Phase Space Quantization. Int. J. Theor. Phys. , 29:131, 1990. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00671323

    1990 doi

  49. [61]

    E. R. Caianiello, M. Gasperini, and G. Scarpetta. Phenomenologic al Consequences of a Ge- ometric Model With Limited Proper Acceleration. Nuovo Cim. B , 105:259, 1990. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726101

    1990 doi

  50. [62]

    Randers Metrics with Special Riemann Curvature Properties , pages 77–89

    Xinyue Cheng and Zhongmin Shen. Randers Metrics with Special Riemann Curvature Properties , pages 77–89. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012. doi:http s://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642- 24888-7˙6

    2012 doi

  51. [63]

    ¨Uber die geometrischen grundlagen der lorentzgruppe

    Felix Klein. ¨Uber die geometrischen grundlagen der lorentzgruppe. Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 19:533–552, 1910. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-519 60-4˙31

    1910 doi

  52. [64]

    Gupta Choudhury, A

    S. Gupta Choudhury, A. Dasgupta, and N. Banerjee. The ray chaudhuri equation for a quantized timelike geodesic congruence. Eur. Phys. J. C , 81:906, 2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052- 021-09714-4

    2021 doi

  53. [1933]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/93.5.325

    doi

  54. [1973]

    ISBN 978-0-7167-0344-0, 978-0-691-17779-3

  55. [2023]

    doi:10.1142/S0218271823500682

    doi

  56. [2025]

    doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116893

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.