Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 71 references

Are Petrov type-N and D spacetimes admitting CTCs valid in $f(R,\mathcal{L}_m,\Phi,X)$ gravity?

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Ori and Ahmed time-machine metrics remain exact solutions in f(R,L_m,Φ,X) gravity with their closed-timelike-curve regions intact.

desk verdict The paper verifies that the Ori and Ahmed CTC metrics solve the equations for one linear choice of f(R,L_m,Φ,X) but does not establish the result for the general class. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.26696 v1 pith:6BZW3RR6 submitted 2026-05-26 gr-qc hep-th

Faizuddin Ahmed , Ahmad Al-Badawi , İzzet Sakall{i} This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-th
keywords modifiedgravityclosedtimelikecurvesexactsolutionsf(RL_mPhiX)chronologyviolationPetrovtype-Ntype-Dtimemachines
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 tests whether two known spacetimes that permit closed timelike curves in Einstein gravity continue to solve the field equations after gravity is modified to couple curvature, matter Lagrangian, a scalar field, and its kinetic term. It works with the explicit model f = R + L_m + (λ/2)X, a vanishing scalar potential, and the harmonic scalar profile Φ(x,y) = a(x² - y²)/2. Both the Ori compact-vacuum-core metric and the Ahmed four-dimensional Misner-space generalization satisfy the modified equations when anisotropic matter sources are included. The regions where the metric components g_zz and g_ψψ become negative survive unchanged, and energy densities seen by closed-timelike-curve observers match those seen by static observers. This shows the extra scalar degree of freedom does not enforce chronology protection in either background.

What carries the argument

The modified field equations obtained by varying the action that includes the scalar kinetic invariant X, evaluated on the given metrics together with the chosen harmonic scalar profile.

What would settle it

Substituting the two metrics into the modified field equations and finding that the resulting effective stress-energy tensor fails to match the anisotropic source required by the chosen f would show they are not solutions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Both metrics solve the field equations of the modified theory with anisotropic matter sources, and the chronology-violating regions g_zz<0 (Ori) and g_ψψ<0 (Ahmed) survive the modification. Energy-density profiles measured by a closed-timelike-curve observer match those measured by a static observer outside the chronology horizon, so the additional scalar degree of freedom in f(R,L_m,Φ,X) gravity does not enforce a chronology-protection mechanism in either background.

Load-bearing premise

The specific model f = R + L_m + (λ/2)X with vanishing potential and harmonic scalar profile is taken to represent the broader f(R,L_m,Φ,X) class.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The scalar field does not introduce a chronology-protection mechanism in these spacetimes.
  • Energy densities remain consistent between closed-timelike-curve and static observers.
  • The theory continues to admit non-globally-hyperbolic solutions with the same causal pathologies as in general relativity.
  • The result supplies a consistency test for scalar-extended modified gravity in settings that violate global hyperbolicity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Chronology protection may need mechanisms outside this scalar coupling if these spacetimes are to be ruled out.
  • Robustness of the metrics across gravity theories could guide searches for other exact solutions that allow time travel.
  • Stability analysis of the anisotropic sources under the modified equations would be a natural next check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether the Ori (Petrov type-N) and Ahmed (Petrov type-D) metrics, which admit closed timelike curves, remain exact solutions in the f(R, ℒ_m, Φ, X) class of modified gravity. Working exclusively with the linear model f = R + ℒ_m + (λ/2)X (V=0) and the harmonic scalar Φ(x,y) = a(x² - y²)/2, the authors compute the curvature invariants (R=0 for Ori; R = e^f (f_xx + f_yy) for Ahmed), the kinetic term X, the modified field equations, and the effective stress-energy tensor. They report that both metrics satisfy the equations with anisotropic matter sources, that the regions g_zz < 0 and g_ψψ < 0 survive, and that energy densities measured by CTC and static observers coincide, implying the scalar degree of freedom does not enforce chronology protection.

Significance. If the explicit calculations hold, the work supplies a concrete consistency test showing that a scalar-extended f(R, ℒ_m) theory permits known time-machine geometries without introducing an automatic chronology-protection mechanism. The provision of explicit expressions for R and X in both backgrounds, together with the verification that the metrics solve the field equations for this model, constitutes a reproducible check that can be compared with the parallel Li time-machine result.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central question is framed for the general f(R, ℒ_m, Φ, X) class ('when the gravitational sector is enlarged to the recently proposed f(R, ℒ_m, Φ, X) class'), yet every explicit computation and conclusion is performed only for the linear model f = R + ℒ_m + (λ/2)X. For arbitrary f the modified field equations contain additional functional dependence through f_R, f_ℒ_m, f_Φ, f_X and their derivatives; nothing in the supplied text demonstrates that the same metrics remain solutions or that the g_zz<0 and g_ψψ<0 regions survive once those terms are retained. The representativeness assumption is therefore load-bearing for any claim phrased in terms of the full class.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for highlighting the mismatch between the abstract's general framing and the explicit scope of the calculations. We agree that precision requires revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central question is framed for the general f(R, ℒ_m, Φ, X) class ('when the gravitational sector is enlarged to the recently proposed f(R, ℒ_m, Φ, X) class'), yet every explicit computation and conclusion is performed only for the linear model f = R + ℒ_m + (λ/2)X. For arbitrary f the modified field equations contain additional functional dependence through f_R, f_ℒ_m, f_Φ, f_X and their derivatives; nothing in the supplied text demonstrates that the same metrics remain solutions or that the g_zz<0 and g_ψψ<0 regions survive once those terms are retained. The representativeness assumption is therefore load-bearing for any claim phrased in terms of the full class.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract and title refer to the broader f(R, ℒ_m, Φ, X) class, while all explicit computations (curvature invariants, field equations, and verification that the metrics solve them) are performed only for the linear model f = R + ℒ_m + (λ/2)X with V=0. The paper does not demonstrate that the metrics remain solutions for arbitrary f, where extra functional derivatives would appear. We will revise the abstract, title phrasing where appropriate, and introduction to state explicitly that the analysis is restricted to this linear model as a representative case, and that generalization to arbitrary f lies beyond the present scope. The concrete result for the chosen model—that the CTC regions survive and no chronology protection is enforced—remains unchanged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; direct substitution verifies solutions for explicit model choice

full rationale

The paper selects the explicit linear model f = R + L_m + (λ/2)X with V=0 together with the harmonic profile Φ(x,y)=a(x²-y²)/2, substitutes the Ori and Ahmed metrics into the resulting field equations, and reports that the equations are satisfied with the given anisotropic sources. This constitutes an ordinary consistency check for the chosen ansatz rather than any reduction of a derived quantity to its own inputs by construction. No self-citation chains, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-definitional steps appear in the derivation. The central verification is therefore self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the explicit choice of the function f and the scalar profile; these are introduced to make the calculation tractable rather than derived from more fundamental principles.

free parameters (2)
  • λ
    Coupling constant multiplying the kinetic term X in the chosen model f = R + L_m + (λ/2)X
  • a
    Amplitude parameter in the harmonic scalar profile Φ(x,y) = a(x² - y²)/2
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The scalar potential vanishes
    Explicitly stated as part of the model choice in the abstract

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Are Petrov type-N and D spacetimes admitting CTCs valid in $f(R,\mathcal{L}_m,\Phi,X)$ gravity?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6BZW3RR6

@misc{pith2026260526696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Are Petrov type-N and D spacetimes admitting CTCs valid in $f(R,\mathcalL_m,\Phi,X)$ gravity?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6BZW3RR6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.26696}
}
abstract

We ask whether two classical time-machine geometries, the Ori (2005) compact-vacuum-core metric and the Ahmed (2018) four-dimensional generalisation of Misner space, remain admissible exact solutions when the gravitational sector is enlarged to the recently proposed $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},\Phi,X)$ class, an extension of $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m})$ that couples curvature, the matter Lagrangian density, a scalar field $\Phi$, and its kinetic invariant $X = g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\Phi\nabla_{\nu}\Phi$. Working with the explicit model $f = R + \mathcal{L}_{m} + (\lambda/2)\,X$ and a vanishing scalar potential, we compute the curvature invariants, the modified field equations, and the effective stress-energy components produced by the harmonic scalar profile $\Phi(x,y) = a(x^{2}-y^{2})/2$ in both backgrounds. The Ricci scalar vanishes for the Ori metric and obeys $R = e^{f}(f_{,xx}+f_{,yy})$ for the Ahmed metric; the kinetic invariant takes the explicit forms $X = a^{2}(x^{2}+y^{2})$ and $X = a^{2}e^{f}(x^{2}+y^{2})$, respectively. Both metrics solve the field equations of the modified theory with anisotropic matter sources, and the chronology-violating regions $g_{zz}<0$ (Ori) and $g_{\psi\psi}<0$ (Ahmed) survive the modification. Energy-density profiles measured by a closed-timelike-curve observer match those measured by a static observer outside the chronology horizon, so the additional scalar degree of freedom in $f(R,\mathcal{L}_{m},\Phi,X)$ gravity does not enforce a chronology-protection mechanism in either background. The conclusion mirrors the parallel result for the Li time-machine and supplies a consistency test for scalar-extended modified gravity in non-globally-hyperbolic settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26696 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Causal structure of the Ori spacetime for the harmonic profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Kinetic invariant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Stress-energy components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Behavior of the energy-density ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Behavior of the energy-density ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Energy-condition tracker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Causal structure of the Ahmed spacetime. (a) The component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Conformal factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Ricci scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Energy-condition tracker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A landmark in this story was G¨ odel’s rotating cosmological solution [1], which admits CTCs through every event

    INTRODUCTION The relationship between general relativity (GR) and the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs) is one of the older threads in classical gravity, with implica- tions that reach from local causality to the global struc- ture of spacetime. A landmark in this story was G¨ odel’s rotating cosmological solution [1], which admits CTCs through...

    2005

  2. [2]

    introduced traversable wormholes as a controlled toy model and showed that exotic matter violating the av- eraged null energy condition is the price one pays for traversability. The Ori (1993) result [14] narrowed this down further, demonstrating that the weak energy con- dition need not be globally violated in compact-core con- structions, although local...

    work page Pith review arXiv 1993

  3. [3]

    The cosmological constant Λ has been retained as an additive constant of the gravitational sector [21–23]

    FIELD EQUATIONS OF f(R,L m,Φ, X) GRAVITY The starting point is the gravitational action S= Z d4x √−g f(R,L m,Φ, X) + 2Λ ,(2.1) wheregis the determinant of the metric tensorg µν,R is the Ricci scalar,L m denotes the matter Lagrangian density, Φ is a scalar field, andX≡g µν∇µΦ∇νΦ is its kinetic invariant. The cosmological constant Λ has been retained as an ...

  4. [4]

    The coordinates (T, x, y) are unrestricted, whilezis a cyclic coordinate identified throughz∼z+Lfor someL >0

    ORI SPACE-TIME The Ori metric, introduced as a vacuum-core time ma- chine in [8], is written in the chart (T, x, y, z) as ds2 = dx2 + dy2 −2 dTdz+ [F(x, y, z)−T] dz 2,(3.1) withF(x, y, z) an arbitrary function. The coordinates (T, x, y) are unrestricted, whilezis a cyclic coordinate identified throughz∼z+Lfor someL >0. The metric and its inverse take the ...

  5. [5]

    The remaining coordinates (t, x, y) are unrestricted and the signature is (−,+,+,+)

    AHMED SPACE-TIME The 4D generalisation of Misner space presented by Ahmed [9] can be written in the chart (t, x, y, ψ) as ds2 =e −f(x,y) dx2 + dy2 −2 dtdψ−tdψ 2,(4.1) withf(x, y) an arbitrary smooth function andψidenti- fied periodically throughψ∼ψ+ψ 0 for someψ 0 >0. The remaining coordinates (t, x, y) are unrestricted and the signature is (−,+,+,+). The...

    2018

  6. [6]

    The chronology-violating re- gionsT > F(x, y) andt >0 survive the modification without any change in their geometric location

    CAUSALITY AND THE CHRONOLOGY-PROTECTION QUESTION The analysis of the two preceding sections leads to a transparent statement: the Ori and Ahmed metrics are both exact solutions of thef(R,L m,Φ, X) theory specified by (2.4), with anisotropic stress-energy sources whose explicit components are given by equations (3.13)– (3.18) and (4.14)–(4.19). The chronol...

  7. [7]

    Fun- damental challenges in theoretical physics

    CONCLUSIONS We have asked whether the Ori (2005) time-machine spacetime [8] and the Ahmed (2018) four-dimensional generalisation of Misner space [9] remain admissible exact solutions off(R,L m,Φ, X) gravity [47], when the modi- fied action is specialised to the formf=R+L m+(λ/2)X with a vanishing scalar potential. The answer is affirmative in both cases. ...

    2005

  8. [8]

    G¨ odel, Rev

    K. G¨ odel, Rev. Mod. Phys.21, 447 (1949)

    1949

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    F. J. Tipler, Phys. Rev. D9, 2203 (1974)

    1974

  2. [10]

    M. S. Morris, K. S. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 1446 (1988)

    1988

  3. [11]

    J. R. Gott, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 1126 (1991)

    1991

  4. [12]

    Alcubierre, Class

    M. Alcubierre, Class. Quantum Grav.11, L73 (1994)

    1994

  5. [13]

    F. S. N. Lobo and M. Visser, Class. Quantum Grav.21, 5871 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D46, 603 (1992)

    1992

  7. [15]

    Ori, Phys

    A. Ori, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 021101 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Ahmed, J

    F. Ahmed, J. Phys. Commun.2, 035036 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Kim and K

    S.-W. Kim and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D43, 3929 (1991)

    1991

  10. [18]

    Visser, inThe Future of Theoretical Physics and Cos- mology, edited by G

    M. Visser, inThe Future of Theoretical Physics and Cos- mology, edited by G. W. Gibbons, E. P. S. Shellard, and S. J. Rankin (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

  11. [19]

    161–175, arXiv:gr-qc/0204022 [gr-qc]

    pp. 161–175, arXiv:gr-qc/0204022 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    M. J. Cassidy and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D57, 2372 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    V. P. Frolov and I. D. Novikov, Phys. Rev. D42, 1057 (1990)

    1990

  14. [22]

    Ori, Phys

    A. Ori, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 2517 (1993)

    1993

  15. [23]

    Curiel, Einstein Stud.13, 43 (2017)

    E. Curiel, Einstein Stud.13, 43 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Visser and C

    M. Visser and C. Barcelo, inProceedings, Cosmo-99 (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000) pp. 98–112, arXiv:gr- qc/0001099 [gr-qc]

    2000

  17. [25]

    F. S. N. Lobo and P. Crawford, inThe Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception, edited by R. Buc- cheri, M. Saniga, and W. M. Stuckey (Kluwer, Dordrecht,

  18. [26]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.150, 1 (1970)

    1970

  19. [27]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel.13, 3 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998)

    1998

  22. [30]

    Perlmutteret al., Astrophys

    S. Perlmutteret al., Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  24. [32]

    S. M. Carroll, V. Duvvuri, M. Trodden, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D70, 043528 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept.505, 59 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept.509, 167 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept.513, 1 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Santos, M

    J. Santos, M. J. Rebou¸ cas, and T. B. R. F. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D81, 123017 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D84, 024020 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Haghani, T

    Z. Haghani, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, H. R. Sepangi, and S. Shahidi, Phys. Rev. D88, 044023 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    A. J. C. Canuto and A. F. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 404 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.124, 925 (1961)

    1961

  33. [41]

    J. A. Agudelo, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov, P. J. Porf´ ırio, and A. F. Santos, Phys. Lett. B762, 96 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    W. D. R. Jesus and A. F. Santos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2050050 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    A. F. Santos and F. C. Khanna, Mod. Phys. Lett. A28, 1350141 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    F. S. Gama, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov, P. J. Porf´ ırio, and A. F. Santos, Phys. Rev. D96, 064020 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    J. S. Gon¸ calves and A. F. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 979 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    A. F. Santos and S. C. Ulhoa, Mod. Phys. Lett. A30, 1550039 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Furtado, T

    C. Furtado, T. Mariz, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov, and A. F. Santos, Phys. Rev. D79, 124039 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    P. J. Porf´ ırio, J. B. Fonseca-Neto, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov, J. Ricardo, and A. F. Santos, Phys. Rev. D94, 044044 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    M. J. Rebou¸ cas and J. Tiomno, Phys. Rev. D28, 1251 (1983)

    1983

  42. [50]

    M. J. Rebou¸ cas and J. Tiomno, Nuovo Cim. B90, 204 (1985)

    1985

  43. [51]

    A. F. F. Teixeira, M. J. Rebou¸ cas, and J. E.˚Aman, Phys. Rev. D32, 3309 (1985)

    1985

  44. [52]

    M. J. Rebou¸ cas, J. E. ˚Aman, and A. F. F. Teixeira, J. Math. Phys.27, 1370 (1986)

    1986

  45. [53]

    G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys.10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  46. [54]

    Deffayet, G

    C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese, and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D79, 084003 (2009)

    2009

  47. [55]

    Harko, P

    T. Harko, P. Pinto, and P. M. M. Pinto, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1183 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Harko and F

    T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, Eur. Phys. J. C70, 373 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    Bertolami, C

    O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D75, 104016 (2007)

    2007

  50. [58]

    J. S. Gon¸ calves and A. F. Santos, Phys. Dark Univ.47, 101790 (2025). 20

    2025

  51. [59]

    Ahmed and A

    F. Ahmed and A. F. Santos, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2605.21040 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ahmed, ˙I

    F. Ahmed, ˙I. Sakallı, A. Al-Badawi, and A. Bouzenada, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A40, 2550171 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    C. W. Misner, inRelativity Theory and Astrophysics, Vol. 1: Relativity and Cosmology, edited by J. Ehlers (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1967) pp. 160–169

    1967

  54. [62]

    W. A. Hiscock and D. A. Konkowski, Phys. Rev. D26, 1225 (1982)

    1982

  55. [63]

    Li, Phys

    L.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. D59, 084016 (1999)

    1999

  56. [64]

    Harko, T

    T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, F. S. N. Lobo, and G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. D85, 084016 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    Ahmed, ˙I

    F. Ahmed, ˙I. Sakallı, and A. Al-Badawi, Phys. Lett. B 864, 139448 (2025)

    2025

  58. [66]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and ˙I. Sakallı, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102315 (2026)

    2026

  59. [67]

    Sucu and ˙I

    E. Sucu and ˙I. Sakallı, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 989 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and ˙I. Sakallı, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101925 (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and ˙I. Sakallı, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D34, 2550054 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Stephani, D

    H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. A. H. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers, and E. Herlt,Exact Solutions of Ein- stein ’s Field Equations(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)

    2003

  63. [71]

    S. V. Krasnikov, Phys. Rev. D67, 104013 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.