Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multi-Spin Perturbations, Thermodynamics, and Observational Signatures of Reissner-Nordstrom Black Holes in Bumblebee Gravity

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single Teukolsky master equation is shown to yield the full spin ladder of quasinormal spectra—scalar through gravitational—for the charged bumblebee black hole, alongside a thermodynamic phase transition governed by charge.

desk verdict Internal inconsistencies in the effective potentials invalidate the central spin-ladder claim, though the thermodynamic and numerical work are salvageable. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20839 v1 pith:UINEM3RU submitted 2026-07-23 gr-qc hep-ph

Jayasri Choudhury , Yenshembam Priyobarta Singh , Dhruba Jyoti Gogoi , Telem Ibungochouba Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-ph PACS 04.70.-s04.30.-w04.50.Kd04.70.Dy
keywords quasinormalmodesbumblebeegravityLorentzsymmetrybreakingTeukolskymasterequationReissner-NordströmblackholegreybodyfactorsHawkingtemperaturephasetransition
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

This paper tries to establish that the charged Reissner-Nordström black hole in bumblebee gravity—where Lorentz symmetry is spontaneously broken—can be described by one unified perturbation formalism. Applying the Teukolsky master equation within the Newman-Penrose formalism, the authors derive effective potentials for massless fields of spin 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, and 2, then compute quasinormal frequencies with two independent numerical methods that agree to six decimal places. The central physical claims are that the Lorentz-violating parameter L weakens the effective potential barrier for all spins while the electric charge Q raises it, and that these shifts translate into measurable changes in ringdown frequencies and in the black-hole mass ranges accessible to current and future gravitational-wave detectors. On the thermodynamic side, the paper finds that charge Q controls a second-order phase transition at a critical horizon radius, while L and Q both suppress the maximum Hawking temperature and L enhances horizon entropy. If correct, the work provides a single consistent scheme for interpreting future gravitational-wave ringdown measurements as probes of Lorentz violation.

What carries the argument

The carrying device is the Teukolsky master equation in the Newman-Penrose null-tetrad formalism: it packages the five perturbation sectors (spin 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2) into one radial equation. A variable transformation and a spin-dependent function h(s) recast this equation into a one-dimensional wave equation with an effective potential V_s(r); the function κ2—constant in Schwarzschild but r-dependent here—is what generates two potential branches for the gravitational (s = 2) sector. The thermodynamic machinery is the first law plus surface gravity at the horizon: it yields Hawking temperature, heat capacity, entropy with logarithmic corrections, and Gibbs free energy, whose derivatives locat

What would settle it

Compute the spin-2 quasinormal frequencies of the RN-bumblebee metric using a fully coupled treatment of gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations rather than the assumed decoupled Teukolsky equation, and compare with Table 1(e): disagreement in either real or imaginary part beyond numerical error would falsify the independent s = 2 spectrum. A simpler check is a direct time-domain evolution of Eq. (35) with the quoted potentials—the extracted frequencies must reproduce the WKB/AIM values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the unified Teukolsky master equation, originally constructed for vacuum type-D spacetimes, applies to the electrovac Reissner-Nordström bumblebee background and separates into a one-dimensional Schrödinger-like wave equation for every massless spin. From this the paper derives explicit effective potentials (Eqs. 36–46) for s = 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, and 2 perturbations. In the s = 2 gravitational sector the parameter κ2, which is a constant 6M in Schwarzschild, becomes explicitly r-dependent through a charge correction term; this produces two distinct potential branches. The resulting quasinormal frequencies from Padé-improved sixth-order WKB and the asymptotic iteration

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Teukolsky master equations originally derived for decoupled perturbations in vacuum type-D spacetimes remain valid for this electrovac RN-bumblebee background with the same separation constants; in Reissner-Nordström the gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations are coupled, so the independent s = 2 application needs a decoupling argument the paper does not give.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the derived potentials are correct, gravitational-wave ringdown observations by ground-based and space-based detectors can map L and Q into mass-range shifts: the s = 2 mode corresponds to roughly 26–27 solar-mass black holes for ground detectors and up to ~3×10^8 solar masses for space detectors across the parameter range studied.
  • The charge-shifted critical radius for the heat-capacity divergence implies that stable charged bumblebee black holes must exceed a horizon size set by Q, a prediction that can be checked against astrophysical mass-charge estimates.
  • The L-dependent lowering of the potential barrier and suppression of maximum Hawking temperature mean that high-precision ringdown amplitudes and temperatures could place independent bounds on Lorentz violation.
  • Because two independent numerical methods agree to six decimal places, the quoted frequencies are reproducible benchmark numbers for any future code solving the same effective potentials.
  • If the entropy-area relation holds with S = π√(1+L) r_h², then measuring horizon entropy through temperature and mass would directly measure the Lorentz-violating parameter L.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The r-dependent κ2 in the s = 2 sector hints that gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations may be coupled in the charged bumblebee background; if so, a fully coupled computation could shift the quoted s = 2 frequencies. This is an editorial inference, not a claim in the paper.
  • The greybody-factor onset shifting with L implies the Hawking radiation spectrum observed at infinity deviates from pure blackbody in a spin-independent way; this offers an emission-spectrum channel for constraining L complementary to ringdown.
  • Extending the phase-transition analysis to the full (L, Q) parameter plane could reveal a critical charge-to-mass ratio beyond which no thermodynamically stable horizon exists; the paper does not map that boundary.
  • The mass-range conversions assume fixed L and Q; combining these tables with measured ringdown signals from actual events would turn the predictions into a parameter-estimation pipeline for Lorentz violation.
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 studies the charged Reissner-Nordström black hole in bumblebee gravity, metric (1)-(2), and claims to extend the unified Teukolsky/newman-Penrose master equations so as to derive effective potentials for massless fields of spin s=0,1/2,1,3/2,2. It then computes quasinormal frequencies with Padé-improved 6th-order WKB and the asymptotic iteration method, estimates detector-relevant mass ranges in Tables 3-7, computes greybody factors, and analyzes black-hole thermodynamics with logarithmic entropy corrections. The central claim is that Eqs. (36)-(46) give the spin-dependent effective potentials, and that Tables 1 and 3-7 are correct functions of the Lorentz-violating parameter L and charge Q. The paper also claims a thermodynamic sector with a charge-controlled second-order phase transition.

Significance. The topic is timely and the manuscript has several strengths: it uses two independent numerical techniques and explicitly reports their mutual relative errors; it provides systematic scans in L and Q; and the thermodynamic discussion is clearly structured. If correct, the paper would supply a unified spin ladder of bumblebee-RN quasinormal spectra and concrete observational mass ranges, which would be of interest to the Lorentz-violation and black-hole spectroscopy communities. I also agree with the stress-test note that the computation is not circular: L, Q, and M are inputs, and the WKB/AIM machinery is standard. The problem is that the central derivation does not actually produce the potentials the paper claims. The internal inconsistency in Eq. (42), the mismatch between Eq. (36) and Eq. (38), and the missing decoupling argument for the charged gravitational sector invalidate the central QNM claims. The WKB-AIM agreement is only an internal consistency check and cannot compensate for incorrect or unjustified effective potentials.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (16), (31)-(36), (42)] The electromagnetic potential does not follow from the paper's own master-equation reduction. For s=1, Eq. (31) gives β2=-λ, Eq. (24) gives h(1)=1, Eq. (33) gives κ2=0, and Eq. (16) gives F=r^4 I/Δ=(1+L)λ. Substituting into Eq. (36) yields V1=(1+L)λΔ/r^4, not the claimed 2Δ/[r^4(1+L)]. The claimed Eq. (42) is independent of the multipole number ℓ, so all electromagnetic multipoles would be degenerate; this is unphysical and is inconsistent with the ℓ=2 labeling used in Table 1(c) and Tables 3-5. This is a definite internal derivation error, independent of any question about applying vacuum Teukolsky equations to an electrovacuum background.
  2. [§2, Eqs. (36) and (38)] The scalar potential is also not the s=0 limit of the unified formula. For s=0, h(0)=0, β2=-2λ and κ2=0, so the s=0 limit of Eq. (36) is V0=F=(1+L)Δ/r^4[λ-(2Δ/r^2-Δ'/r)], whereas Eq. (38) states V0=Δ/[(1+L)r^4][λ-(2Δ/r^2-Δ'/r)]. The two expressions differ by a factor (1+L)^2. Thus the claim that Eqs. (36)-(46) are derived from one unified master equation is not borne out by the written formulas, and the scalar sector itself is internally inconsistent.
  3. [§2, Eqs. (3)-(4) and (45)-(46)] The gravitational s=2 sector rests on an unjustified decoupling assumption. Equations (3)-(4) are the vacuum Teukolsky equations of the Chandrasekhar type, whereas the background is electrovacuum with charge Q. In Reissner-Nordström geometry, gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations do not decouple in general; one must prove that the pure s=2 Teukolsky variable satisfies a source-free equation with the same separation constant λ. No such argument is given. Consequently, the s=2 effective potential Eq. (46), and the ringdown frequencies in Table 1(e) and detection ranges in Table 7, are not established as the physical gravitational spectrum of the charged bumblebee black hole.
  4. [§3, Table 1(e)] No baseline comparison to known Schwarzschild or Reissner-Nordström quasinormal frequencies is provided. At the nearest tabulated point to Schwarzschild, L=0, Q=0.1, the gravitational mode is reported as ω≈0.97727-0.09375i. The well-known Schwarzschild l=2 gravitational QNM is Mω≈0.7473-0.1779i, and small Q=0.1 corrections to RN are expected to be modest. The reported value is far from this baseline, so the claimed reduction to standard general relativity is not numerically demonstrated. The WKB-AIM agreement merely shows that both methods solve the same potential; it does not establish that the potential is the correct one.
  5. [§2, s=3/2 sector and Appendix A] A massless Rarita-Schwinger (s=3/2) test field is included without specifying its action, its coupling to the bumblebee and electromagnetic backgrounds, or the consistency conditions under which the NP master equations apply to it. The paper gives no Lagrangian or field equations for this sector. Since Tables 1(d) and 6 and the greybody plots depend on the s=3/2 potential, the formulas for this sector are also unsupported as physical predictions. This is secondary to the s=1 and s=2 problems but contributes to the overall invalidity of the spin ladder.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (35)] Equation (35) mixes the functions Z and W: it reads d²Z/dr_*²+ω²W=VW, while the surrounding text and Eq. (51) use different symbols for the radial function. The derivation would be much easier to follow if one consistent notation were used throughout, e.g., Ψ for the function satisfying the one-dimensional wave equation.
  2. [§2, λ definitions] The separation-constant definitions around Eq. (8) appear to contain typos: λ=(l+|s|)(l−|s|+l) should presumably be (l+|s|)(l−|s|+1), and similarly for the j expression. Please correct the indices.
  3. [§5.4, Eq. (83)] The logarithmic entropy correction introduces a coefficient α, but no value or prescription for α is given, and Fig. 7 does not state which α is used. Specify α or explicitly state that the plot is qualitative.
  4. [§5.2, Eqs. (73)-(75)] The WKB reflection and greybody-factor formulas are written with factors e^{-2iπK} and e^{2πiK_s}; as written these are complex for real K. Check the sign and imaginary-unit conventions against the standard WKB transmission formulas (e.g., Konoplya's 6th-order WKB). The text states a sigmoidal greybody factor, but the printed formula is not manifestly real.
  5. [General] The tables are numbered Table 1 and then Tables 3-7, with no Table 2 in the text. Please renumber consistently. Also, several references are self-citations in large blocks; while not a technical flaw, the authors should verify that the novelty claims are clear relative to their own prior work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the spin-ladder and thermodynamic results are computed from an input metric with L and Q free, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The bumblebee RN metric (1)-(2) is taken as input, with L and Q free parameters; the Teukolsky master equation (3)-(4) is imported from Chandrasekhar's external monograph (ref. 51), and the effective potentials (36)-(46) are algebraic outputs of that formalism, not fits. The QNM frequencies in Tables 1-7 are computed from those potentials by the Pade-improved WKB and AIM methods; the detector mass ranges in Tables 3-7 are unit conversions via Eqs. (65)-(67), not fitted parameters. Thermodynamic quantities (70), (79), (82)-(85) are explicit functions of rh, L, and Q, with no parameter tuned to the dynamical results; the logarithmic entropy term (83) contains an unspecified constant alpha but does not feed back into the QNM sector. The many self-citations (refs. 14-23, 27, 28, 48, 49) are background references and are not used to force the central result; the metric and master equation rest on external refs. [24], [25], [51]. An internal algebraic inconsistency is evident: substituting s=1, lambda=l(l+1), h=1, beta2=-lambda, F=(1+L)lambda into the paper's own Eq. (36) gives V1=(1+L)lambda*Delta/r^4, not Eq. (42)'s 2Delta/(r^4(1+L)), and the s=2 sector assumes an unproved decoupling of electromagnetic and gravitational perturbations; however, these are correctness/validity concerns, not circularity, because no output is redefined as an input or forced by a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's results rest on a known modified metric plus standard perturbation and thermodynamic machinery. The main extra assumptions are the applicability of the vacuum Teukolsky decoupling to an electrovac background, which is not justified, and an ad hoc logarithmic entropy correction with an unspecified coefficient α. No fundamentally new entity is introduced except the gravitino test field, which is not motivated by the bumblebee model.

free parameters (4)
  • L (LSB parameter) = varied: -0.1, 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.6
    Dimensionless Lorentz-violating parameter in the metric (Eqs. 1-2); chosen by hand in QNM and thermodynamic plots rather than fitted.
  • Q (electric charge) = varied: 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6
    Electric charge of the RN-bumblebee BH; chosen by hand in the calculations.
  • M (mass scale) = set to 1
    Dimensionless computations fix M=1; physical masses are later rescaled by η M_sun. This is a scaling choice, not a fitted parameter.
  • α (log-correction coefficient) = not specified
    Introduced in entropy S_corrected = S + α log(S) (Eq. 83) and Gibbs free energy (Eq. 85) without a value or derivation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption RN-bumblebee metric (1)-(2) from Ref. [25] is the correct static charged solution of bumblebee gravity.
    All perturbation and thermodynamic results inherit this metric; no re-derivation is given.
  • domain assumption Teukolsky master equations (3)-(4) apply unchanged to the electrovac RN-bumblebee background with the same spin-s separation constants.
    For RN, gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations are coupled; the paper does not prove decoupling, and this is load-bearing for the s=1 and s=2 results.
  • standard math Spin-weighted spheroidal eigenvalue λ = l(l+1)-|s|(|s|-1) and the half-integer λ values used in Section 2.
    Used in the effective potentials; the displayed formula (l+|s|)(l-|s|+l) appears to be a typo.
  • ad hoc to paper The function h(s)=1/6 s(2s-1)(6s²-23s+23) chosen in Eq. (24).
    Chosen so that the Chandrasekhar transformation closes; no derivation is provided.
  • domain assumption First law dS=dM/T_h with L and Q fixed yields entropy S=π√(1+L)r_h².
    The resulting entropy differs from area/4; the paper does not derive it from a Lagrangian or Wald formula.
  • ad hoc to paper Logarithmic entropy correction S+α log(S) in Eq. (83).
    A standard quantum-correction form is assumed, but the coefficient α is unspecified.
invented entities (1)
  • Massless Rarita-Schwinger (s=3/2) test field
    purpose: Populates the s=3/2 slot in the unified spin perturbation spectrum.
    Bumblebee gravity has no supersymmetry or supergravity; a massless gravitino is not part of the model and is introduced solely to complete the spin ladder. Its QNMs and greybody factors therefore have no clear physical interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Spin Perturbations, Thermodynamics, and Observational Signatures of Reissner-Nordstrom Black Holes in Bumblebee Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UINEM3RU

@misc{pith2026260720839,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Spin Perturbations, Thermodynamics, and Observational Signatures of Reissner-Nordstrom Black Holes in Bumblebee Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UINEM3RU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20839}
}
abstract

In this paper, we present a comprehensive investigation into the dynamical and thermodynamic properties of the charged Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m (RN) black hole (BH) in the bumblebee gravity framework, where spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking (LSB) occurs. To analyze the dynamical behavior, we apply the unified Teukolsky master equation within the Newman-Penrose formalism to evaluate massless field perturbations of arbitrary spins ($s=0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2$). By deriving the corresponding effective potentials, we compute the quasinormal modes (QNMs) frequencies using the Pad\'{e}-improved 6th-order WKB approximation and the Asymptotic Iteration Method (AIM) and evaluate the greybody factors for all perturbing fields, demonstrating how the LSB parameter $L$ and the BH charge $Q$ modify the spacetime's damped oscillations and wave propagation. We further assess the observational prospects of these QNMs by determining the black-hole mass ranges accessible to current and future gravitational-wave detectors, including LISA, Virgo, and LIGO. Moreover, we investigate the modified thermodynamic structure, calculating the Hawking temperature, entropy with logarithmic thermal corrections and heat capacity. Our thermodynamic analysis reveals a second-order phase transition whose critical radius is heavily governed by the background charge. These combined findings provide valuable theoretical insights into how Lorentz violation affects the physical stability, thermal evolution, and phase structure of charged BHs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20839 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot of the effective potential for different values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of the effective potential for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of the effective potential for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of Hawking Temperature for different values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of the GF for different values of L with (a) s = 0, (b) s = 1 2 , (c) s = 1, (d) s = 3 2 , and (e) s = 2. where S denotes the entropy of the BH S = π √ 1 + Lr2 h . (82) The corrected entropy of the black hole is given by Scorrected = π √ 1 + Lr2 h + α log(π √ 1 + …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plot of the standard entropy S and corrected entropy Sc with horizon radius rh for different values of L. tained from [43–46] G = M − ThScorrected − ϕQ. (84) Substituting the corrected entropy Scorrected obtained in Eq. (83), along with the Hawking temperature Th and t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of heat capacity CQ for different values of (a) L and (b) Q crease in rh, the curves separate for higher values of L resulting larger entropy, showing the L enhancing microscopic degrees of freedom of the BH. For all val￾ues of L, the corrected entropy Sc (dashed …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plot of Gibbs free energy G with horizon radius rh for different values of the LSB parameter L (a) G vs rh, (b) ∆G vs rh. 6 Discussion and Conclusion In this work, we have presented an integrated investiga￾tion into both the dynamical and thermodynamic be￾haviors of th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Geodesic structure, eikonal quasinormal modes and thermodynamic properties of a Schwarzschild-de Sitter-like black hole with global monopole in Bumblebee gravity

    gr-qc 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Geodesics, eikonal quasinormal modes, and heat-engine thermodynamics are analyzed for a Bumblebee-gravity black hole with a global monopole, yielding a proposed Carnot bound on the Lorentz-violating parameter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abbott et al., Phys

    B.P. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    Akiyama et al., Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. Astro phys. J. Lett.875, L2 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Colladay, V.A

    D. Colladay, V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D55, 6760 (1997)

    1997

  5. [5]

    Colladay, V.A

    D. Colladay, V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D58, 116002 (1998)

    1998

  6. [6]

    Liberati, Class

    S. Liberati, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 133001 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Mattingly, Living Rev

    D. Mattingly, Living Rev. Rel.8, 5 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    Alan Kosteleck´ y, M

    V. Alan Kosteleck´ y, M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 251304 (2001)

    2001

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Ashtekar, E

    A. Ashtekar, E. Bianchi, Rep. Prog. Phys.84, 042001 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Alan Kosteleck´ y, S

    V. Alan Kosteleck´ y, S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D39, 683 (1989)

    1989

  3. [11]

    Colladay, V

    D. Colladay, V. Alan Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D58, 116002 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    Kosteleck´ y, R

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y, R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D63, 065008 (2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    Kostelecky, Phys

    V.A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D69, 105009 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    Y. S. Priyobarta, T. S. Ibungochouba, Int. J. Geo. Meth. Mod. Phy.23, 2550163 (2026)

    2026

  7. [15]

    Y. S. Priyobarta, N. Media, T. S Ibungochouba, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1223 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Y. S. Priyobarta, J. Choudhury, T. S. Ibungochouba, D. J. Gogoi, Eur. Phys. J. P.140, 11, (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Media, Y

    N. Media, Y. S. Priyobarta, Y. L. Onika, T. S. Ibungo- chouba, Gen. Rel. Grav.57, 80 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Y. S. Priyobarta, S. Niranjan Singh T. S. Ibungochouba, Chin. Phy. C.48, 115111 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Christina, I

    S. Christina, I. Ablu Meitei, T. S. Ibungochouba, Int. J. of Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.20, 2350050 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Y. L. Onika, T. S. Ibungochouba, Mod. Phys. Lett. A38, 2350089 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Y. L. Onika, N. Media, T. S. Ibungochouba, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A38, 2350180 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Y. L. Onika, T. S. Ibungochouba, I. Ablu, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.54, 77 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Priyobarta, T

    Y.S. Priyobarta, T. S. Ibungochouba, I. Ablu Meitei, Int. J. Modern. Phys. D31, 2250106 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Casana, A

    R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis, E. B. Snatos, Phys. Rev. D97, 104001 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Liu, W.-D

    J.-Z. Liu, W.-D. Guo, S.-W. Wei, and Y.-X. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 145 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Kokkotas, B.G

    K.D. Kokkotas, B.G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Relativ.2, 2 (1999)

    1999

  19. [27]

    Priyobarta Singh, I

    Y. Priyobarta Singh, I. R. Devi, T. Ibungochouba Singh, Nucl. Phys. B1018, 117006 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Y. S. Priyobarta, T. S. Ibungochouba, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1245 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Konoplya, A

    R.A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 793 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Visser, Phys

    M. Visser, Phys. Rev. A59, 427 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    Kanzi, I

    S. Kanzi, I. Sakalli, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 501 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D13, 198, (1976)

    1976

  25. [33]

    Iyer, Phys

    S. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D35, 3632 (1987)

    1987

  26. [34]

    B. F. Schutz, C.M. Will, Astrophys. J.291, L33 (1985)

    1985

  27. [35]

    E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  28. [36]

    Ferrari, B

    V. Ferrari, B. Mashhoon, Phys. Rev. D30, 295 (1984)

    1984

  29. [37]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 793 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.29, 1114 (1972)

    1972

  31. [39]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 635 (1973)

    1973

  32. [40]

    S. A. Teukolsky, W.H. Press, Astrophys. J.193, 443 (1974)

    1974

  33. [41]

    Press, S.A

    W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 649 (1973)

    1973

  34. [42]

    Fu-Wen Shua, You-Gen Shena, Physics Letters B619, 340–346, (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    C. Ding, C. Liu, A. Wang and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. D94, 124034 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Kastor, S

    D. Kastor, S. Ray and J. Traschen, Class. Quantum Grav. 26, 195011 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    C. Ding, Y. Shi, J. Chen, Y. Zhou, C. Liu, Chin. Phys. C47, 045102 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Jawad, M.U

    A. Jawad, M.U. Shahzad, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 349 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Kumar, D.V

    A. Kumar, D.V. Singh and S.G. Ghosh, Annals Phys. 419, 168214 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Priyobarta, T

    Y. Priyobarta, T. Ibungochouba, J. High Energy Phys. 06, 054 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Gogoi, N.J.Gogoi, Y.S

    D.J. Gogoi, N.J.Gogoi, Y.S. Priyobarta, J. Bora, T.S. Ibungochouba, Phys. Dark Universe.,52, 102345 (2026)

    2026

  42. [50]

    Kanzi, I

    S. Kanzi, I. Sakalli, Nucl. Phys. B946, 114703 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Chandrasekhar, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1983)

    S. Chandrasekhar, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1983)

    1983

  44. [52]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D68, 024018 (2003)

    2003

  45. [53]

    Matyjasek, M

    J. Matyjasek, M. Opala, Phys. Rev. D96, 024011 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Ferrari, L

    V. Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, Quasi-normal modes and gravita- tional wave astronomy. Gen. Relativ. Gravit.40, 945 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    D. A. Gomes, R. V. Maluf, C. A. S. Almeida, Ann. Phys. 418, 168198 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Sakalli, E

    I. Sakalli, E. Y¨ or¨ uk, Phys. Scr.98, 125307 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    W. Liu, D. Wu, J Wang, JCAP,09, 017 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    G. W. Gibbons, S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D15, 2752 (1977)

    1977

  51. [59]

    Ibungochouba, Chin

    T.S. Ibungochouba, Chin. Phys. B24, 070401 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Cardoso, Jose

    V. Cardoso, Jose. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D64, 084017 (2001)

    2001

  53. [61]

    I. M. Ablu, T. S. Ibungochouba, K. S. Yugindro, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D23, 145007 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    I. M. Ablu, K. S. Yugindro, T. S. Ibungochouba, Astro- phys. Space. Sci.327, 67-69 (2010)

    2010

  55. [63]

    Konoplya, A.F

    R.A. Konoplya, A.F. Zinhailo, Z. Stuchl ´ ık, Phys. Rev. D 99, 124042 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Konoplya, A.F

    R.A. Konoplya, A.F. Zinhailo, Phys. Rev. D99, 104060 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Konoplya, A.F

    R.A. Konoplya, A.F. Zinhailo, Z. Stuchlik, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044023 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.