Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 58 references

Statistical Entropy Based on the Generalized-Uncertainty-Principle-Induced Effective Metric

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that statistical black hole entropy computed with three different generalized-uncertainty-principle effective metrics still recovers the Bekenstein–Hawking area law whenever the near-horizon cutoff is expressed as an…

desk verdict All-orders GUP metric and entropy expansion are new, but the claimed universal area law is enforced by cutoff/parameter tuning and one inequality is wrongly promoted to equality. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.01559 v1 pith:FHUI4L67 submitted 2025-08-03 gr-qc

Soon-Tae Hong , Yong-Wan Kim , Young-Jai Park This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C4581T20 PACS 04.70.Dy04.60.-m
keywords generalizeduncertaintyprincipleblackholeentropybrickwallmodeleffectivemetricBekenstein-Hawkingarealawnear-horizoncutoffLambertWfunctionultravioletregularization
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 tries to establish that quantum-gravitational corrections encoded in the generalized uncertainty principle (GUP) do not break the Bekenstein–Hawking area law for black hole entropy. It constructs three different GUP-induced effective metrics, derived from the leading-order GUP-corrected temperature, the leading-order GUP-corrected entropy, and the all-orders GUP-corrected temperature, and feeds them into 't Hooft's brick-wall counting of quantum states near the horizon. In every case the statistical entropy reproduces $S=A/4$ once the ultraviolet cutoff is written as the coordinate-independent invariant distance $l_{\mathrm{inv}}=1/\sqrt{90\pi}$. The paper also finds that the GUP-modified phase-space measure regularizes the ultraviolet divergence by itself, so no arbitrary cutoff is needed, and it fixes the GUP parameter to $\alpha\simeq 0.0133$ at leading order or $\alpha\simeq 0.0156$ at all orders. If correct, this would mean the area law is universal under a natural class of quantum-gravity modifications and yields a concrete numerical prediction for the GUP parameter.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three objects. First are the GUP-induced effective metrics $f_A(r)$, $f_B(r)$, and $f_C(r)$, all of the form $f(r)=f_S(r)g(r)$ with $f_S(r)=1-2M/r$; they are built by matching the metric's Hawking temperature to the GUP-corrected temperature or entropy. Second is the modified phase-space measure, $dn=d^3x\,d^3p/[(2\pi)^3(1+\alpha p^2)^3]$ for leading-order GUP and $dn=d^3x\,d^3p/[(2\pi)^3 e^{-\alpha p^2}]$ for the all-orders GUP, with $p^2=\omega^2/f-\mu^2$; this measure replaces the usual $(2\pi)^{-3}$ count and supplies the natural ultraviolet regularization. Third is the invariant near-horizon distance $l_{\mathrm{inv}}=\int_{r_H}^{r_H+h} dr/\sqrt{f(r)}$, the coordinate-independent variable that converts the different brick-wall cutoffs $h_A,h_B,h_C$ into the single physical length $1/\sqrt{90\pi}$. The all-orders metric is expressed through the Lambert $W$ function, the multi-branched solution of $W e^{W}=\xi$, as $f_C(r)=(1-2M/r)e^{-\frac12 W(-\alpha/2r^2)}$. The invariant distance is the pivot: although the coordinate cutoffs differ, the same $l_{\mathrm{inv}}$ restores the area law in every case.

What would settle it

Evaluate the entropy integral in Eq. (5.11) directly, without replacing $\sinh^2 x$ by $x^2$, at $\alpha=1/(24\pi)$, and check whether the result is exactly $A/4$; if the exact numerical value differs from $A/4$, the claimed equality is only an upper bound rather than an exact area law.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Bekenstein–Hawking area law survives GUP modifications in a universal way. Three different effective metrics, obtained by requiring the metric to reproduce a GUP-corrected Hawking temperature or GUP-corrected entropy, give different coordinate-space cutoffs $h_A,h_B,h_C$ near the horizon; yet when each cutoff is converted into the invariant distance $l_{\mathrm{inv}}=\int_{r_H}^{r_H+h} dr/\sqrt{f(r)}$, all three yield the same value $1/\sqrt{90\pi}$, the same value as the original Schwarzschild brick-wall result. This coincidence is what makes the area-law recovery independent of the metric choice. In addition, the GUP-modified density of states, with denominators $(1+\alpha p^2)^3$ in the leading-order case and an exponential factor $e^{-\alpha p^2}$ in the all-orders case, makes the near-horizon mode counting finite without any brick-wall cutoff; choosing $\alpha=1/(24\pi)$ at leading order, or $\alpha=\delta_1/(3\pi^3)\simeq 0.0156$ at all orders, yields $S=A/4$, with inverse-area corrections appearing in the all-orders case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the GUP modifies the phase-space density of states exactly as $dn=d^3x\,d^3p/[(2\pi)^3(1+\alpha p^2)^3]$ at leading order and $dn=d^3x\,d^3p/[(2\pi)^3 e^{-\alpha p^2}]$ at all orders; both formulas are imported from earlier literature. If this measure is inaccurate, the claimed natural regularization of the ultraviolet divergence and the recovered area law do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All three GUP-induced effective metrics collapse to the same invariant distance $l_{\mathrm{inv}}=1/\sqrt{90\pi}$, so the brick-wall cutoff becomes a physical, coordinate-independent length.
  • The area law fixes the GUP parameter to $\alpha\simeq 0.0133$ at leading order and $\alpha\simeq 0.0156$ at all orders, giving concrete numbers that other quantum-gravity phenomenology can test.
  • The GUP-modified phase-space measure regularizes the ultraviolet divergence by itself, so finite black hole entropy can be obtained without introducing an ad hoc cutoff.
  • In the all-orders case the entropy acquires subleading corrections $c_1 A^{-1}+c_2 A^{-2}$ with $c_1=3.3589\times 10^{-4}$ and $c_2=3.9223\times 10^{-5}$, the expected signature of quantum-gravity-corrected entropy.
  • The area law is robust across three different metric constructions, supporting its universality under GUP modifications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equality of invariant distances is not a numerical accident, the same $1/\sqrt{90\pi}$ value should reappear for rotating or charged black holes in this effective-metric scheme; the paper lists those cases as future work, so this is a testable extension rather than a proven claim.
  • The two derived values of $\alpha$ are effectively predictions: they could be compared with constraints on the GUP parameter from black hole shadows, gravitational-wave ringdown, or Hawking radiation spectra, and consistency across channels would discriminate this scheme from alternatives.
  • The modified phase-space measure is the least-derived input; a first-principles derivation of that measure in curved spacetime would turn the regularization claim from an ansatz into a theorem.
  • If the same invariant-distance construction works for the extended uncertainty principle frameworks named in the discussion, the method could become a general tool for cosmological horizons as well.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs three GUP-induced effective metrics for Schwarzschild black holes: from the leading-order GUP-corrected temperature, from the leading-order GUP-corrected entropy, and from the all-order GUP-corrected temperature. It then uses 't Hooft's brick-wall method to compute statistical entropy for each metric, reporting that the Bekenstein-Hawking area law is recovered in all cases, that the invariant near-horizon distance takes the same value 1/sqrt(90*pi) in all three cases, and that GUP-modified phase-space densities provide a natural ultraviolet regularization. The paper further claims that choosing the GUP parameter alpha appropriately yields the exact area law for both the leading-order and all-order GUP calculations.

Significance. If the derivations were valid, the paper would establish a universal area law under GUP modifications and would constrain the GUP parameter to approximately 0.013-0.016. The manuscript is clearly organized, and the metric constructions in Section III and the all-orders Lambert-W manipulations in Section V.B are carried out in detail. However, the central claims are not supported: the area law in Section IV is imposed by choosing free cutoffs, the Section V.A result is only an upper bound and cannot be promoted to equality, and the Section V.B area law is again a parameter choice. Because the load-bearing steps are circular or invalid, the claimed universality and the derived constraints on alpha are not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (4.16)-(4.26) and Table I] The brick-wall cutoffs h_A, h_B, and h_C are free parameters, and they are chosen in Eqs. (4.17), (4.21), and (4.25) precisely so that the coefficient multiplying A/4 becomes unity. The recovery of the area law is therefore an identity imposed by construction, not a prediction. The equality of the invariant distances in Eqs. (4.18), (4.22), and (4.26) follows from the same tuning: for each metric the chosen cutoff is h = kappa_H/(180*pi), so l_inv = sqrt(2*h/kappa_H) = 1/sqrt(90*pi) by algebra. No independent condition fixes h or alpha, so the alleged universality of l_inv is a normalization artifact rather than a derived result.
  2. [Section V.A, Eqs. (5.13)-(5.17)] The derivation yields only the strict upper bound S < 1/(24*pi*alpha) * (A/4) in Eq. (5.15). Setting alpha = 1/(24*pi) gives S < A/4, not S = A/4, so Eq. (5.17) does not follow. The inequality in Eq. (5.12) is used to bound the integrand; an inequality cannot be converted into an equality by a later parameter choice. Thus the claimed exact area-law recovery in the leading-order GUP case is not established.
  3. [Section V.B, Eqs. (5.37)-(5.41)] The leading coefficient in Eq. (5.37) is delta_1/(3*pi^3*alpha) times A/4, and alpha is then chosen in Eq. (5.40) as delta_1/(3*pi^3) to make this coefficient unity. The area-law part of Eq. (5.41) is therefore enforced by parameter tuning, mirroring the problem in Section IV. In addition, the claim in the abstract that GUP eliminates the need for artificial cutoffs is overstated: the intermediate integrals in Eqs. (5.20)-(5.24) still contain the near-horizon cutoff epsilon, and epsilon is subsequently fixed by invoking the minimum length; the calculation does not remove the cutoff in the way claimed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section V.A, text after Eq. (5.17)] The statement that the present value alpha = 1/(24*pi) is 'much better' than values in Refs. [23] and [31] is not justified: without an independent observational constraint on alpha, comparing numerical values has no physical content.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (2.9)] The presentation of the Lambert-W solution would be clearer if the admissible branch of W were specified in Eq. (2.9), since the argument lies in the interval [-1/e, 0] where two real branches exist.
  3. [Section VI, discussion of future work] The final paragraph lists possible extensions but does not identify which of the present results would survive if the brick-wall cutoff were fixed by an independent principle; adding such a discussion would help the reader assess the robustness of the claims.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The universal area law and invariant-distance equality are enforced by tuning the brick-wall cutoff (Section IV) and the GUP parameter (Section V), so the central claims reduce to normalization choices.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eqs. (4.16)-(4.18), (4.20)-(4.22), (4.24)-(4.26); Table I]
    "Therefore, if we choose the cutoff h_A as h_A = 1/(360πM)(1 + sqrt(1 - α/(4M^2))), the statistical entropy recovers the area law in black hole thermodynamics. Moreover, the coordinate artifact, the brick wall cutoff h_A can be replaced by the invariant distance l_{A,inv} = 1/sqrt(90π), by following the same procedure as before."

    Before the cutoff choice the entropy is S_A = [1/(360π M h_A (1 + sqrt(1 - α/4M^2)))] (A/4) (Eq. 4.16). The quoted formula for h_A is exactly the condition that makes the bracket equal to 1, i.e. it forces S_A = A/4. The invariant distance is then defined by integrating the same near-horizon metric: l_{A,inv}^2 = 2 h_A/κ_A with κ_A = 1/[2M(1+sqrt(1-α/4M^2))]. Substituting the chosen h_A gives l_{A,inv}^2 = 4/(360π) = 1/(90π). Thus the 'same invariant distance' is not an independent prediction: it is the algebraic image of the cutoff value chosen to impose the area law. The same construction is repeated for h_B and h_C, so Table I's identical l_inv entries are normalization artifacts.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V.A, Eqs. (5.13)-(5.17)]
    "S < 1/(24πα) (A/4). (5.15) ... When we choose the GUP parameter α as α = 1/(24π), (5.16) we can finally obtain the entropy as S = A/4. (5.17)"

    The derivation preceding Eq. (5.15) establishes only an upper bound, S < [1/(24πα)](A/4). Choosing α = 1/(24π) makes that upper bound equal to A/4, but an inequality cannot be promoted to the equality S = A/4 without an additional saturation argument, which the paper does not supply. Moreover α is a free GUP parameter, so imposing this value is fitting the coefficient of the target area law, not deriving it. The claimed exact recovery of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is therefore an input selected to reproduce the desired result.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V.B, Eqs. (5.37)-(5.41)]
    "When we choose the GUP parameter α as α = δ1/(3π^3) ≈ 0.0156, (5.40) we arrive at the final entropy expression: S ≃ A/4 + c1 A^{-1} + c2 A^{-2} + O(A^{-3}), (5.41)"

    The entropy derived before this choice has the leading term S = [δ1/(3π^3 α)](A/4) plus inverse-area corrections (Eqs. 5.37-5.39). Setting α = δ1/(3π^3) is precisely the condition that the coefficient δ1/(3π^3 α) becomes 1. The area law is therefore recovered by normalizing the free GUP parameter to force the leading coefficient to unity, not by a computation that independently determines the coefficient. The subleading terms c1 A^{-1} and c2 A^{-2} are then evaluated at this fitted value of α. This is parameter tuning presented as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that all three GUP effective metrics yield the same invariant distance and consistently reproduce the Bekenstein-Hawking area law. In the brick-wall framework, however, the entropy before any cutoff choice has the universal near-horizon form S = (A/4)/(90π l_inv^2), where l_inv is defined through the same metric that enters the entropy integral. Consequently, choosing the coordinate cutoff h_A, h_B, or h_C to make S equal to A/4 automatically fixes l_inv to 1/sqrt(90π). Section IV's 'remarkable' equality of invariant distances is thus a restatement of the normalization imposed by Eqs. (4.17), (4.21), and (4.25), not a derived universality. Section V repeats the same pattern with the GUP parameter as the tuning knob: in the leading-order case the calculation yields only an upper bound and α = 1/(24π) is selected so that the bound saturates to A/4; in the all-order case α = δ1/(3π^3) is selected to make the leading entropy coefficient exactly 1. In both cases the area-law coefficient is an input constraint, not an output prediction. I do not count the modified phase-space measures (5.1)-(5.2) as circular by themselves: they are imported assumptions supported partly by non-self references, and they do not contain the area-law target. The high score reflects that the paper's headline results reduce, by the paper's own equations, to tuning free regulators and free GUP parameters to match the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several imported inputs: the GUP itself, the effective metric ansatz, the modified density of states (from self-cited work), and the identification of the cutoff with the GUP minimum length. The results are then tuned by choosing alpha and h to reproduce the area law. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • GUP parameter alpha (leading-order case) = 1/(24 pi) ~ 0.0133
    Chosen in Eq. (5.16) so that the upper bound on the statistical entropy equals A/4. This is a fit to the Bekenstein-Hawking area law, not a derived value.
  • GUP parameter alpha (all-order case) = delta1/(3 pi^3) ~ 0.0156
    Chosen in Eq. (5.40) so that the leading entropy coefficient equals A/4. The value depends on the numerical integral delta1 computed with the assumed minimum-length cutoff.
  • Brick-wall cutoff h_S = 1/(720 pi M)
    Chosen in Eq. (4.10) to make the Schwarzschild statistical entropy equal A/4.
  • Brick-wall cutoff h_A = 1/(360 pi M (1 + sqrt(1 - alpha/(4 M^2))))
    Chosen in Eq. (4.17) to make the entropy for metric f_A equal A/4.
  • Brick-wall cutoff h_B = 1/(720 pi M (1 - alpha/(16 M^2)))
    Chosen in Eq. (4.21) to make the entropy for metric f_B equal A/4.
  • Brick-wall cutoff h_C = e^{-1/2 W(-alpha/(8 M^2))}/(720 pi M)
    Chosen in Eq. (4.25) to make the entropy for metric f_C equal A/4.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Generalized uncertainty principle (Eq. 2.1) with a single dimensionless parameter alpha
    The GUP is a phenomenological modification of quantum mechanics motivated by string theory and loop quantum gravity; its exact form is not universally agreed upon.
  • domain assumption Effective metric ansatz f(r) = f_S(r) g(r) with unchanged areal radius (Eq. 3.3)
    Assumed following Ong [50]. This restricts the metric deformation to a conformal-like factor in the (t,r) sector.
  • domain assumption Identification of momentum uncertainty with Hawking temperature and position uncertainty with horizon radius (Section III.A)
    Adler-Chen-Santiago heuristic used to translate GUP into a temperature shift.
  • domain assumption Modified density of states dn = d^3x d^3p / [(2 pi)^3 (1 + alpha p^2)^3] and dn = d^3x d^3p / [(2 pi)^3 e^{-alpha p^2}] (Eqs. 5.1-5.2)
    Taken from Refs. [23,26-28], several by the present authors. These are inputs, not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Near-horizon cutoff is set by the GUP minimum length, l_inv = (Delta x)_min (Section V)
    Used to eliminate the brick-wall cutoff epsilon. The leading-order case uses sqrt(alpha), the all-order case uses sqrt(e/2) sqrt(alpha). This identification is not derived from the GUP alone.
  • ad hoc to paper The GUP parameter alpha is tuned to reproduce the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (Eqs. 5.16 and 5.40)
    The area law is the target, not an output. This is parameter fitting to the known entropy.
  • ad hoc to paper Brick-wall cutoff h is chosen proportional to the inverse surface gravity, h = kappa/(180 pi) (Section IV)
    This choice guarantees l_inv = 1/sqrt(90 pi) identically for every metric, making the universal invariant distance a convention rather than a prediction.
  • domain assumption 't Hooft brick wall model and the free energy expression (Eqs. 4.2-4.6)
    Standard method in the literature for computing statistical entropy of black holes.
  • domain assumption Small-mass approximation in the free energy (Eq. 4.6)
    Assumed to simplify the free energy integral; the paper does not quantify the error for massive fields.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Statistical Entropy Based on the Generalized-Uncertainty-Principle-Induced Effective Metric." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FHUI4L67

@misc{pith2026250801559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Statistical Entropy Based on the Generalized-Uncertainty-Principle-Induced Effective Metric},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FHUI4L67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.01559}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the statistical entropy of black holes within the framework of the generalized uncertainty principle (GUP) by employing effective metrics that incorporate leading-order and all-orders quantum gravitational corrections. We construct three distinct effective metrics induced by the GUP, which are derived from GUP-corrected temperature, entropy, and all-orders GUP corrections, and analyze their impact on black hole entropy using 't Hooft's brick wall method. Our results show that, despite the differences in the effective metrics and the corresponding ultraviolet cutoffs, the statistical entropy consistently satisfies the Bekenstein-Hawking area law when expressed in terms of an invariant (coordinate-independent) distance near the horizon. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the GUP naturally regularizes the ultraviolet divergence in the density of states, eliminating the need for artificial cutoffs and yielding finite entropy even when counting quantum states only in the vicinity of the event horizon. These findings highlight the universality and robustness of the area law under GUP modifications and provide new insights into the interplay between quantum gravity effects and black hole thermodynamics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amati, M

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 197, 81 (1987)

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    D. J. Gross and P. F. Mende, Phys. Lett. B 197, 129 (1987)

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    It is appropriate to comment that the GUP parameter α is α≈ 0.0133

    (5.17) As a result, we have obtained the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy satisfying the area law exactly. It is appropriate to comment that the GUP parameter α is α≈ 0.0133. On the other hand, in Ref. [23], the GUP parameterλ, which is the same as our α, wasλ = 3 4π≈ 0.2387. Therefore, the correction in this paper is much better than the ones in [23] and stric...

    work page

  4. [4]

    To address this, we introduce the invariant distance given by linv = ∫ rH +hS rH dr√ f(r) ≃ 2 √ 2MhS

    (4.11) It is important to note that the brick wall cutoffh is coordinate-dependent, which is considered a coordinate artifact. To address this, we introduce the invariant distance given by linv = ∫ rH +hS rH dr√ f(r) ≃ 2 √ 2MhS. (4.12) Then, the entropy can be rewritten in terms of this invariant distance, allowing for a mass-independent, constant cutoff wh...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Ashtekar, J

    A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, A. Corichi and K. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 904 (1998) [arXiv:gr-qc/9710007 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Amati, M

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 216, 41 (1989)

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    Konishi, G

    K. Konishi, G. Paffuti and P. Provero, Phys. Lett. B 234, 276 (1990)

    work page 1990

  8. [8]

    Bojowald, Universe 6, 125 (2020) [arXiv:2009.13565 [gr-qc]]

    M. Bojowald, Universe 6, 125 (2020) [arXiv:2009.13565 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Smolin, Lect

    L. Smolin, Lect. Notes Phys. 669, 363 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Bojowald and A

    M. Bojowald and A. Kempf, Phys. Rev. D 86, 085017 (2012) [arXiv:1112.0994 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kempf, G

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1108 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9412167 [hep-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Maggiore, Phys

    M. Maggiore, Phys. Lett. B 304, 65 (1993) [arXiv:hep-th/9301067 [hep-th]]

    1993 arXiv

  5. [13]

    L. J. Garay, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 145 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9403008 [gr-qc]]

    1995 arXiv

  6. [14]

    R. J. Adler and D. I. Santiago, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14, 1371 (1999) [arXiv:gr-qc/9904026 [gr-qc]]

    1999 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kempf and G

    A. Kempf and G. Mangano, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7909 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9612084 [hep-th]]

    1997 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Scardigli, Phys

    F. Scardigli, Phys. Lett. B 452, 39 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9904025 [hep-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  9. [17]

    R. J. Adler, P. Chen and D. I. Santiago, Gen. Rel. Grav. 33, 2101 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0106080 [gr-qc]]

    2001 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Nicolini, Int

    P. Nicolini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 1229 (2009) [arXiv:0807.1939 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Das and E

    S. Das and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 221301 (2008) [arXiv:0810.5333 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dutta and S

    A. Dutta and S. Gangopadhyay, Gen. Rel. Grav. 46, 1747 (2014) [arXiv:1402.2133 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Nozari and S

    K. Nozari and S. H. Mehdipour, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20, 2937 (2005) [arXiv:0809.3144 [gr-qc]]. 14

    2005 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Banerjee and S

    R. Banerjee and S. Ghosh, Phys. Lett. B 688, 224 (2010) [arXiv:1002.2302 [gr-qc]]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Li, Phys

    X. Li, Phys. Lett. B 540, 9 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0204029 [gr-qc]]

    2002 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975) [erratum: Commun. Math. Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  17. [25]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 256, 727 (1985)

    1985

  18. [26]

    R. Zhao, Y. Q. Wu and L. C. Zhang, Class. Quant. Grav. 20, 4885 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    W. B. Liu and Z. Zhao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16, 3793 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    W. B. Liu, Chin. Phys. Lett. 20, 440 (2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    This all-order GUP correction in the Planck length is expressed as ∆x∆p≥ ¯h 2eαL2 p ∆p2 ¯h2

    generalized the GUP in Equation (2.1) to include all orders in Planck length. This all-order GUP correction in the Planck length is expressed as ∆x∆p≥ ¯h 2eαL2 p ∆p2 ¯h2 . (2.4) 3 This expression can be reduced to the original GUP in Equation (2.1) if we only consider the lead...

  22. [30]

    C. Z. Liu, X. Li and Z. Zhao, Gen. Rel. Grav. 36, 1135 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    W. Kim, Y. W. Kim and Y. J. Park, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104001 (2006) [arXiv:gr-qc/0605084 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Nouicer, Phys

    K. Nouicer, Phys. Lett. B 646, 63 (2007) [arXiv:0704.1261 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  25. [33]

    W. Kim, Y. W. Kim and Y. J. Park, Phys. Rev. D 75, 127501 (2007) [arXiv:gr-qc/0702018 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Y. W. Kim and Y. J. Park, Phys. Lett. B 655, 172 (2007) [arXiv:0707.2128 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Eune and W

    M. Eune and W. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 82, 124048 (2010) [arXiv:1007.1824 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. A. Anacleto, F. A. Brito, E. Passos and W. P. Santos, Phys. Lett. B 737, 6 (2014) [arXiv:1405.2046 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    H. Tang, C. Y. Sun and R. H. Yue, Commun. Theor. Phys. 68, 64 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    E. C. Vagenas, A. F. Ali, M. Hemeda and H. Alshal, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 398 (2019) [arXiv:1903.08494 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    G. Q. Li, EPL 135, 30002 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    S. T. Hong, Y. W. Kim and Y. J. Park, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 37, 2250186 (2022) [arXiv:2103.05755 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Li, Universe 9, 253 (2023)

    G. Li, Universe 9, 253 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Nouicer, Class

    K. Nouicer, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 5917 (2007) [erratum: Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 6435 (2007)] [arXiv:0706.2749 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Pedram, Phys

    P. Pedram, Phys. Lett. B 714, 317 (2012) [arXiv:1110.2999 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. N. Tawfik and A. M. Diab, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 23, 1430025 (2014) [arXiv:1410.0206 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    W. S. Chung and H. Hassanabadi, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 213 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Petruzziello, Class

    L. Petruzziello, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 135005 (2021) [arXiv:2010.05896 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    X. D. Du and C. Y. Long, JHEP 10, 063 (2022) [arXiv:2208.12918 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Hemeda, H

    M. Hemeda, H. Alshal, A. F. Ali and E. C. Vagenas, Nucl. Phys. B 1000, 116456 (2024) [arXiv:2208.04686 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Sonnino, Universe 10, 390 (2024)

    G. Sonnino, Universe 10, 390 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Scardigli and R

    F. Scardigli and R. Casadio, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 425 (2015) [arXiv:1407.0113 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Contreras, F

    E. Contreras, F. Villalba and P. Bargue˜ no, EPL114, 50009 (2016) [arXiv:1606.07281 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. A. Anacleto, F. A. Brito, J. A. V. Campos and E. Passos, Phys. Lett. B 810, 135830 (2020) [arXiv:2003.13464 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Y. C. Ong, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 209 (2023) [arXiv:2303.10719 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    S. T. Hong, Y. W. Kim and Y. J. Park, Commun. Theor. Phys. 76, 095402 (2024) [arXiv:2403.13608 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Y. C. Ong, arXiv:2505.07972 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    R. M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, D. J. Jeffrey and D. E. Knuth, Adv. Comput. Math. 5, 329 (1996)

    1996

  49. [57]

    A. J. M. Medved and E. C. Vagenas, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20, 1723 (2005) [arXiv:gr-qc/0505015 [gr-qc]]

    2005 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Arzano, A

    M. Arzano, A. J. M. Medved and E. C. Vagenas, JHEP 09, 037 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0505266 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

Pith tools

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