Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Four black-hole phenomena share one radius fixed by A''(r)=0, collapsing thermodynamics and tidal geometry to two equations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 21:10 UTC pith:OXZPXHYR

load-bearing objection Solid CNED+Barrow calculation whose advertised 'quadruple coincidence' is definitional for any static spherical metric; the real content is the zeta tables, negative compressibility, and mild EHT window. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04173 v1 pith:OXZPXHYR submitted 2026-07-05 gr-qc hep-th

Where Thermodynamics Meets Geometry: Critical-Radius Coincidences in Confining-NED Black Holes with Barrow Entropy

Erdem Sucu , \.Izzet Sakall{\i} This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th
keywords black holenonlinear electrodynamicsquark-antiquark confinementBarrow entropyquantum tunnelingtidal forcescritical radiiHawking temperature
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper studies a charged black hole whose metric is Reissner–Nordström plus a logarithmic confinement term controlled by a parameter ζ. After computing the Hawking temperature by fermion tunneling and folding in Barrow’s fractal entropy, the authors show that four distinct critical events—the temperature peak, the heat-capacity divergence, the Joule–Thomson inversion, and the vanishing of the radial tidal force—all occur at the single radius where the second derivative of the metric function vanishes. Independently, the extremal horizon and the vanishing of the angular tidal force sit where the first derivative vanishes. These identities reduce an eight-condition critical-point analysis to two scalar equations on the metric function alone. Event-horizon-telescope shadow data further bound ζ ≲ 0.7, leaving a finite observational window. The result matters because it ties thermodynamic phase structure directly to local geodesic deviation, so a single geometric feature organizes both radiation and tidal response.

Core claim

In the confining nonlinear-electrodynamics black hole with Barrow entropy, the peak of the Hawking temperature, the divergence of heat capacity, the Joule–Thomson inversion, and the zero of the radial tidal force all coincide at the unique radius r⋆ defined by A''(r⋆)=0; the extremal horizon and the angular tidal-force zero coincide at A'(rh)=0. The full critical structure therefore collapses to two algebraic conditions on the metric function A(r).

What carries the argument

The surface-gravity identity TH = A'(rh)/4π together with the orthonormal-frame tidal accelerations −A''/2 (radial) and −A'/(2r) (angular). Their derivatives force the four thermodynamic and geometric critical loci onto the two scalar equations A''=0 and A'=0.

Load-bearing premise

The first law is assumed to keep the form dE = T dS even after the horizon entropy is replaced by the non-extensive Barrow expression built from the surface-gravity temperature.

What would settle it

Compute A''(r) for the explicit confining metric and check whether the numerical locations of the temperature maximum, heat-capacity pole, Joule–Thomson zero, and radial-tidal zero remain identical for several values of ζ; any split among those four radii falsifies the claimed quadruple coincidence.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a static spherically symmetric black hole from Einstein gravity coupled to a confinement-type nonlinear electrodynamics (CNED) Lagrangian, yielding a Reissner–Nordström metric corrected by a logarithmic term controlled by ζ. Hawking temperature is obtained via Hamilton–Jacobi tunneling of Dirac fermions; Barrow entropy with index Δ is then used to compute extended-phase-space thermodynamic potentials (internal energy, free energy, pressure, heat capacity, isothermal compressibility, Joule–Thomson coefficient). The advertised central result is a quadruple coincidence: peak TH, heat-capacity divergence, JT inversion, and radial tidal-force zero all sit at the single radius r⋆ defined by A''(r⋆)=0, while the extremal horizon and angular tidal zero coincide at A'(rh)=0. Tables I–II and tidal-force plots support the algebraic factorizations; an EHT Sgr A* shadow bound ζ≲0.7 at Q/M=0.5 is given, together with remnant-mass and geodesic-deviation phenomenology.

Significance. If the calculations hold, the paper supplies a concrete, fully explicit CNED+Barrow thermodynamic catalogue (including lengthy but closed-form EB, FB, PB, CB, κ, μJ) and maps those loci against orthonormal-frame tidal accelerations for the same metric. The ζ-dependent shifts of r⋆, rext, Tmax and Mrem (Table I), the remnant mass excess relative to RN, the always-negative compressibility, and the rough EHT window are useful, falsifiable model content. The algebraic reduction of critical conditions to A'=0 and A''=0 is a clean organizing device for this and related static spherical geometries, even though the coincidence structure itself is largely universal once surface-gravity temperature and standard tetrad tides are adopted. The work is therefore of moderate but genuine interest for the NED/regular-BH and non-extensive-entropy communities once novelty is framed around the ζ-phenomenology rather than the coincidence per se.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract and Sec. V, Eqs. (39)–(42): The quadruple coincidence is presented as “the central new result,” yet it follows immediately for any static spherical metric once TH=A'(rh)/4π (Eq. 21) and the radial tidal acceleration is −A''(r)/2 (Eq. 59). Differentiating TH gives ∂TH/∂rh=A''/4π; the heat-capacity denominator is shown to factor as D=−(3/2)rh^4 A'' (Eq. 40); the JT numerator is proportional to D; and the radial tide vanishes by the same A''. The paper itself states that “these identities are not coincidences in any physical sense.” The model-specific physics is only that the CNED log term moves the common root r⋆ (Table I) and that Δ multiplies overall factors without shifting it. The abstract, introduction, and Sec. V should be rewritten so that the universal algebraic structure is acknowledged as an organizing device and the claimed novelty is the ζ-dependent location, remnant e
  2. Sec. IV, Eqs. (22)–(23): The first law is imposed as dEB=TH dSB with the surface-gravity temperature of the CNED metric and the non-extensive Barrow entropy SB=(π rh^2)^{1+Δ/2}. For fractal/non-extensive horizons this identification is non-trivial and is not automatic from the Euclidean or tunneling derivations of TH. If dE=T dS fails or requires a modified temperature conjugate to SB, then CB and μJ are no longer controlled solely by A'' and the claimed Δ-independence of the critical radii is compromised. A short justification (or explicit caveat with references to when the first law is retained for Barrow/Tsallis–Cirto) is needed before the thermodynamic loci are identified with A''=0.
  3. Table I and remnant discussion (Sec. V): Mrem is defined as the “terminal evaporation endpoint” with TH=0 and A=0 simultaneously. For ζ>0 the simultaneous solution of A(r)=0 and A'(r)=0 is a joint condition on (M,Q,ζ,r); the table lists Mrem>Q for every ζ>0, but the text does not show the algebraic or numerical procedure used to extract Mrem(ζ) at fixed Q. Because the remnant mass excess (up to ∼22% at ζ=1) is used as a physical signature of the confinement sector, the defining equations and the fixed-parameter convention (fixed Q vs fixed M, etc.) should be stated explicitly and cross-checked against the rext column.
minor comments (5)
  1. Eq. (24) for EB is extremely long and hard to audit in-line; move the full expansion to an appendix and keep only the integral definition plus leading terms in the main text.
  2. Several figures and captions render ζ as “³” (e.g. Fig. 1 legend, Fig. 8 axis); fix the glyph so the confinement parameter is unambiguous.
  3. Sec. VIII: the EHT bound ζ≲0.7 at Q/M=0.5 is a useful order-of-magnitude window, but the text should note that it is not a full MCMC/shadow-likelihood analysis and that the allowed range depends strongly on the assumed Q/M.
  4. The Rényi/Sharma–Mittal paragraph in Sec. V asserts entropy-framework independence of the critical radii; a one-line explicit check that the heat-capacity denominator retains the factor D(rh;ζ) for those entropies would make the claim self-contained.
  5. Notation: the metric uses both Q and q for charge in places (e.g. Sec. VI–VII); standardize on one symbol.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

The advertised quadruple coincidence is definitional for any static spherical metric once TH=A'/4π and radial tide=−A''/2; model-specific physics is only the ζ-location of the common root.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. V, Eqs. (39)–(41); also Abstract and Sec. IX]
    "Differentiating Eq. (21) gives ∂TH/∂rh = A''(rh)/4π, so the temperature peak sits at A''(r⋆)=0. A short algebraic step shows that the heat-capacity denominator (30) satisfies D(rh;ζ)=−(3/2)r_h^4 A''(rh), so CB→±∞ at A''(rh)=0 as well. Because A∝D, the Joule–Thomson numerator also vanishes there, μJ(r⋆)=0. Finally, the radial tidal force on a freely falling observer is −A''(r)/2 in the orthonormal frame, so its zero-crossing coincides with A''(rh)=0 as well. Four distinct physical phenomena therefore collapse onto a single characteristic radius."

    Once TH is identified with A'/4π and the radial tidal acceleration with −A''/2, the statement that the TH peak, CB pole, μJ zero and radial-tide zero coincide is true by differentiation and algebraic factorization for any static spherical A(r). The four loci are not independent physical conditions that happen to agree; three of them are rewritten forms of A''=0 by the paper’s own definitions. Presenting this as a ‘quadruple coincidence’ and ‘central new result’ that reduces critical-point analysis is therefore self-definitional.

  2. self definitional [Sec. V, Eq. (42); Sec. III Eq. (21); Sec. VII Eqs. (56),(60)]
    "A parallel identity holds at one step lower in derivatives. The Hawking temperature itself vanishes at A'(rh)=0, and the angular tidal force −A'(r)/(2r) also vanishes there. So the extremal horizon coincides with the angular tidal force zero-crossing, rext: TH=0 ⇔ A'(rext)=0 ⇔ d²η_⊥/dτ²|rext=0. These identities are not coincidences in any physical sense; they follow from the surface-gravity definition of TH and the orthonormal-frame expression for tidal forces."

    The pair coincidence is likewise definitional: TH=0 is A'=0 by surface gravity, and the angular tidal component is defined as −A'/(2r). The paper explicitly concedes they are ‘not coincidences in any physical sense,’ yet still lists the pair as part of the central algebraic result. The only non-definitional content is that the CNED log term moves the common root; the coincidence structure itself is imported from the definitions.

  3. self definitional [Sec. IV–V, heat capacity and JT (Eqs. 29–35, 40)]
    "CB=−(2+Δ)π^{1+Δ/2} r_h^{2+Δ}/D(rh;ζ)×[…]. The denominator of Eq. (31), namely D(rh;ζ) controls the divergences… Comparing the numerator A with the denominator D in Eq. (30) reveals that A∝D up to a Δ-dependent prefactor that vanishes nowhere on the physical interval. Hence μJ=0 precisely at the heat-capacity divergence."

    For any S=S(rh) monotone and T=T(rh), heat capacity C=T(∂S/∂T) diverges where dT/drh=0. With TH=A'/4π that is exactly A''=0. The JT numerator is then constructed proportional to the same D∝A''. Thus ‘μJ=0 at the CB divergence’ is forced by the chain-rule definitions of C and μJ from a single function TH(rh), not by confining-NED or Barrow physics. Δ multiplies overall factors and does not shift the root—again by construction.

full rationale

The paper’s central claim (abstract, Sec. V, Eqs. 39–42) is that peak TH, CB divergence, μJ=0 and radial tidal zero all sit at A''(r⋆)=0, with a parallel pair coincidence at A'(rh)=0. These identities follow immediately from the surface-gravity definition TH=A'(rh)/4π (Eq. 21) and the orthonormal tidal expressions −A''/2 and −A'/(2r) (Eqs. 55–60). Differentiating TH yields ∂TH/∂rh=A''/4π; the heat-capacity denominator is shown to factor as D=−(3/2)rh^4 A''; the JT numerator is proportional to D; the radial tide vanishes by the same A''. The paper itself states the identities ‘are not coincidences in any physical sense; they follow from the surface-gravity definition of TH and the orthonormal-frame expression for tidal forces,’ yet still markets the quadruple coincidence as ‘the central new result’ that ‘reduce[s] the full critical-point analysis to two scalar equations on A(r).’ That reduction is true for every static spherical metric using those standard definitions; it does not require the confining-NED Lagrangian, the log term, or Barrow entropy. The genuine model content—ζ-dependent location of r⋆ (Table I), remnant mass shift, negative compressibility, EHT bound ζ≲0.7—is independent and non-circular. Circularity is therefore concentrated in the framing of the coincidence itself as a nontrivial derived result rather than a definitional identity. Score 7 reflects that the load-bearing advertised claim reduces by construction while substantial surrounding phenomenology does not.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing structure rests on three external inputs (the confining-NED Lagrangian and its static solution, the Barrow entropy formula, and the surface-gravity/tunneling identification of temperature) plus two free deformation parameters. No new dynamical entity is postulated; the ‘coincidence’ itself is an algebraic consequence of those inputs.

free parameters (2)
  • zeta (confinement strength) = scanned; upper bound ~0.7 at Q/M=0.5
    Controls the logarithmic correction in A(r); scanned over [0,1] and bounded a posteriori by EHT data, but not derived from a more fundamental principle.
  • Delta (Barrow deformation index) = scanned over [0,1]
    Free parameter in [0,1] that multiplies the entropy; locations of critical radii are independent of Delta, but thermodynamic potentials and stability windows depend on it.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The first law holds as dE_B = T_H dS_B with S_B the Barrow entropy and T_H the surface-gravity temperature of the CNED metric.
    Invoked without derivation in Sec. IV to obtain all thermodynamic potentials; standard for Barrow studies but not proven for fractal horizons.
  • domain assumption Hawking temperature equals A'(r_h)/4pi, obtained from the Hamilton–Jacobi tunneling of Dirac fermions (or equivalently from surface gravity).
    Sec. III; the near-horizon linearization and residue calculation are standard but assume the WKB approximation remains valid for the CNED geometry.
  • domain assumption The static spherically symmetric solution of Einstein gravity coupled to the given confining NED Lagrangian is the metric function A(r) of Eq. (7).
    Taken from prior work [38] and used as the sole geometric input throughout.
  • standard math Radial and angular tidal accelerations in the orthonormal freefall frame are –A''/2 and –A'/(2r) respectively.
    Standard geodesic-deviation result for static spherical metrics (Sec. VII).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22779 in / 3117 out tokens · 32923 ms · 2026-07-11T21:10:36.885820+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study a static, spherically symmetric black hole obtained from Einstein gravity coupled to a nonlinear electrodynamics model with a quark--antiquark confinement interaction. The metric extends Reissner--Nordstr\"om by a logarithmic correction controlled by $\zeta$, modifying both horizon structure and the near-singularity regime. The Hamilton--Jacobi tunneling method for Dirac fermions yields the Hawking temperature; the $\zeta$-dependent terms suppress the small-horizon divergence and signal a remnant. Quantum-gravitational fluctuations are incorporated through Barrow entropy with deformation index $\Delta$. Within the extended phase space we compute the internal energy, free energy, pressure, heat capacity, isothermal compressibility, and Joule--Thomson coefficient. The heat capacity locates $\Delta$-dependent stability regions; the compressibility stays negative across the domain analysed here, marking a mechanically rigid phase with no van der Waals criticality in this branch. The central result is a quadruple coincidence: the peak Hawking temperature, the heat-capacity divergence, the Joule--Thomson inversion, and the zero of the radial tidal force all sit at one radius $r_\star$ defined by $A''(r_\star)=0$, while the extremal horizon and the angular tidal-force zero coincide via $A'(r_h)=0$. These reduce the full critical-point analysis to two scalar equations on $A(r)$. Geometric tidal accelerations are mapped against the thermodynamic critical curves. Event Horizon Telescope observations of Sgr~A* translate into a constraint $\zeta\lesssim 0.7$ at $Q/M=0.5$, leaving a finite window open. The confinement term induces observable corrections to geodesic deviation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04173 by Erdem Sucu, \.Izzet Sakall{\i}.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows TH as a function of rh for several values of ζ. The structure is straightforward to read off. From Eq. (21), the Schwarzschild contribution M/(2πr2 h ) and the repulsive RN piece −Q2/(2πr3 h ) are supplemented by two ζ-dependent logarithmic terms with opposite signs. As rh → 0 the negative logarithmic piece overcomes the others and forces TH to descend rather than diverge, signaling the possible pres… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the variation of EB with rh for several val￾ues of ∆. The behavior is clean. Equation (23) differs from the semiclassical expression through multiplicative factors of (r 2 h ) ∆/2 , the ln rh contributions, and the nonlinear Q3/2 ζ combinations of the CNED sector. Larger ∆ produces a faster rise of EB with rh, indicating that stronger fractal deformation increases the effective energy storage capac￾i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Behaviour of the Helmholtz free energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows PB as a function of rh for several ∆. The plot is layered. From Eq. (27) the competing pieces are the Q3/2 ζ confinement terms, the ln(rh) corrections, and the Barrow factor (r 2 h ) ∆/2 . The small-rh pressure is highly sensitive to ∆: enhancement or suppression occurs depending on the strength of the quantum fluctuations. At larger radii the ∆-dependence weakens and the classical behavior is recove… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Joule–Thomson coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The three characteristic radii of Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Radial tidal acceleration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    S. B. Giddings, arXiv preprint hep-th/9508151 (1995)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  2. [2]

    Gregory and S

    R. Gregory and S. Nissanke, General Relativity and Gravita- tion57, 100 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Melchor, R

    B. Melchor, R. Perca, and W. Yupanqui, Nuclear Physics B 1004, 116584 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Harada, C.-M

    T. Harada, C.-M. Chen, and R. Mandal, Physical Review D 111, 126017 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    K. A. Bronnikov, inRegular Black Holes: Towards a New Paradigm of Gravitational Collapse(Springer, 2023), pp. 37–67

    2023

  6. [6]

    Gaete and J

    P. Gaete and J. A. Helay¨ el-Neto, Europhysics Letters119, 51001 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    S. H. Mazharimousavi, Physics Letters B841, 137948 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Azreg-A ¨ ınou, The European Physical Journal C85, 1 (2025)

    M. Azreg-A ¨ ınou, The European Physical Journal C85, 1 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Yang, Annals of Physics443, 168996 (2022)

    Y. Yang, Annals of Physics443, 168996 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    Bakopoulos, T

    A. Bakopoulos, T. Karakasis, N. E. Mavromatos, T. Nakas, and E. Papantonopoulos, Physical Review D110, 024014 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    Sucu and ˙I

    E. Sucu and ˙I. Sakallı, The European Physical Journal C85, 989 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Sucu and A

    E. Sucu and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Physics of the Dark Universe44, 101446 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Gecim and Y

    G. Gecim and Y. Sucu, Astrophysics and Space Science357, 105 (2015)

    2015

  14. [14]

    Gecim and Y

    G. Gecim and Y. Sucu, Modern Physics Letters A33, 1850164 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    M. K. Parikh and F. Wilczek, Physical Review Letters85, 5042 (2000)

    2000

  16. [16]

    Eslamzadeh and S

    S. Eslamzadeh and S. Soroushfar, Journal of Holography Applications in Physics5, 44 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Nozari and S

    K. Nozari and S. H. Mehdipour, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 061 (2009)

    2009

  18. [18]

    H. Tan, R. Guo, and J. Zhang, Chinese Physics C49, 055106 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Sucu and ˙I

    E. Sucu and ˙I. Sakallı, Chinese Physics C (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Al-Badawi, F

    A. Al-Badawi, F. Ahmed, and ˙I. Sakallı, The European Physical Journal C85, 660 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and I. Sakallı, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 554 (2025), 2505.13833

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and ˙I. Sakallı, Physics of the Dark Universe (2025), arXiv:2508.03226

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. Shokri, The European Physical Journal C85, 200 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    J. D. Barrow, S. Basilakos, and E. N. Saridakis, Physics Letters B815, 136134 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    J. D. Barrow, Physics Letters B808, 135643 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    S. Rani, A. Jawad, and M. Hussain, The European Physical Journal C83, 710 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    L. C. Crispino, A. Higuchi, L. A. Oliveira, and E. S. de Oliveira, The European Physical Journal C76, 168 (2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    Arora, N

    D. Arora, N. U. Molla, H. Chaudhary, U. Debnath, F. Ata- murotov, and G. Mustafa, The European Physical Journal C83, 995 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    D. S. Cordeiro, E. L. Junior, J. T. S. Junior, F. S. Lobo, M. E. Rodrigues, D. Rubiera-Garcia, L. F. D. da Silva, and H. A. Vieira, Physical Review D112, 104018 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    H. C. Lima and L. C. Crispino, International Journal of Modern Physics D29, 2041014 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    H. C. Lima Junior, M. M. Corrˆ ea, C. F. Macedo, and L. C. Crispino, The European Physical Journal C82, 479 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Toshmatov and B

    B. Toshmatov and B. Ahmedov, Physical Review D108, 084035 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Konoplya, D

    R. Konoplya, D. Ovchinnikov, and J. Schee, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05947 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    M. S. Ali, A. Negi, and S. Pant, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.03507 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    R. K. Walia, Physical Review D110, 064058 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Pedrotti and S

    D. Pedrotti and S. Vagnozzi, Physical Review D110, 084075 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Sarkar, N

    S. Sarkar, N. Sarkar, H. H. Shah, P. Balo, and F. Rahaman, Physics Letters B p. 139905 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Sucu and I

    E. Sucu and I. Sakallı, Physics of the Dark Universe47, 101771 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    A. F. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D90, 062007 (2014), 1407.7457

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  40. [40]

    A. F. Zakharov, F. De Paolis, G. Ingrosso, and A. A. Nucita, Astron. Astrophys.442, 795 (2005), astro-ph/0505286

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  41. [41]

    Sahan, E

    N. Sahan, E. Sucu, and Y. Sucu, Physics of the Dark Universe p. 102005 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    Gecim and Y

    G. Gecim and Y. Sucu, Advances in High Energy Physics 2017, 2056131 (2017)

    2017

  43. [43]

    Gecim and Y

    G. Gecim and Y. Sucu, Advances in High Energy Physics 2018, 7031767 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    Gecim and Y

    G. Gecim and Y. Sucu, Physics Letters B773, 391 (2017)

    2017

  45. [45]

    Gecim and Y

    G. Gecim and Y. Sucu, Advances in High Energy Physics 2020, 7516789 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    Tekincay, G

    C. Tekincay, G. Gecim, and Y. Sucu, Europhysics Letters 135, 31003 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Sucu and I

    E. Sucu and I. Sakallı, Nuclear Physics B116894(2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    E. Sucu, I. Sakallı, ¨O. Sert, and Y. Sucu, Physics of the Dark Universe p. 102063 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    Sakallı, Y

    ˙I. Sakallı, Y. Sucu, and E. Sucu, Nuclear Physics B p. 117216 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    Sucu and I

    E. Sucu and I. Sakallı, Physics of the Dark Universe p. 102051 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    Tekincay, M

    C. Tekincay, M. Dernek, and Y. Sucu, The European Physical Journal Plus136, 222 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    Aydiner, E

    E. Aydiner, E. Sucu, and ˙I. Sakallı, Physics of the Dark Universe p. 102164 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    Li, Z.-W

    H.-L. Li, Z.-W. Feng, and X.-T. Zu, The European Physical Journal C78, 49 (2018)

    2018

  54. [54]

    Sekhmani, S

    Y. Sekhmani, S. Maurya, M. Jasim, I. Sakallı, J. Rayimbaev, and I. Ibragimov, The European Physical Journal C85, 1 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    Mangut, H

    M. Mangut, H. G¨ ursel, and˙I. Sakallı, Chinese Physics C49, 065106 (2025)

    2025

  56. [56]

    Sucu, ˙I

    E. Sucu, ˙I. Sakallı, and E. N. Saridakis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20004 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Lan, Y.-G

    C. Lan, Y.-G. Miao, and H. Yang, Nuclear Physics B971, 115539 (2021)

    2021

  58. [58]

    Hu, C.-Y

    Y. Hu, C.-Y. Shao, Y.-J. Tan, C.-G. Shao, K. Lin, and W.-L. Qian, Europhysics Letters128, 50006 (2020)

    2020