Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 104 references

This paper claims that for a charged black hole in Einstein-Maxwell theory with a non-minimal logarithmic coupling, a single parameter B controls the Hawking temperature, the Dirac ringdown spectrum, the photon sphere and shadow, the ISCO a

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 06:43 UTC pith:LUW4MX4T

load-bearing objection Broad, clearly written catalogue of standard observables for the ln(R)F² black hole, but the topological centerpiece is definitional and the WKB tables do not survive scrutiny. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21783 v1 pith:LUW4MX4T submitted 2026-07-23 gr-qc hep-th

Quantum-Corrected Thermodynamics, Dirac Perturbations, Geodesic Structure, and Topological Phases of Black Holes with Non-Minimal Logarithmic Coupling

\.Izzet Sakall{\i} , \"Ozcan Sert , Erdem Sucu , Yusuf Sucu This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th PACS 04.70.Dy04.50.Kd04.30.-w
keywords logarithmic couplingEinstein-Maxwell theoryHawking temperatureDirac perturbationsquasinormal modesphoton sphereBarrow entropytopological defects
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.

The paper studies static, spherically symmetric black holes in Einstein-Maxwell theory with a non-minimal ln(R)F² coupling. It argues that the logarithmic term leaves a scale in the metric, and that this scale sets the near-horizon slope of the lapse function; from that slope follow the Hawking temperature, the potential barrier for Dirac perturbations, the photon sphere, the innermost stable circular orbit, and the shadow. The paper computes these observables across a range of the coupling B and shows they all move together—stronger coupling shifts the horizon, contracts the shadow, changes the ringdown quality factor, and modifies the emission spectrum. On the thermodynamic side, using Barrow entropy, it finds an exact identity between the effective pressure and a component of the topological vector field, P_B = φ_r/(4πr²), so pressure vanishes exactly on the topological defect line and the sign of the pressure encodes local stability. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper offers a coherent, testable picture in which several independent observables are tied to one parameter.

Core claim

The central claim is that the logarithmic term in the metric function f(r) = 1 − 2M/r + (B Q²/r²) ln(r/r0) + Q²(1+5B)/(4r²) leaves a scale r0 in the geometry, and that this scale sets the near-horizon slope f'(r+), which is the surface gravity and therefore the temperature. Because the same slope deepens the effective potential well for null and timelike orbits and raises the barrier for Dirac perturbations, the photon sphere, the shadow radius, the ISCO, the QNM frequencies, the greybody factor, and the Hawking emission power all respond to the single parameter B in a correlated way. The paper further claims that the Barrow-entropy effective pressure PB and the radial component of the topol

What carries the argument

The central object is the logarithmic metric function f(r) = 1 − 2M/r + (B Q²/r²) ln(r/r0) + Q²(1+5B)/(4r²), with scale r0⁴ = B Q²/R0. The mechanism is that f'(r+) — the near-horizon slope of the lapse — simultaneously sets the surface gravity (temperature), the effective potential V+(r) for Dirac perturbations, the null effective potential V_ph(r) = f(r)/r², the timelike effective potential V_eff(r) = f(r)(1+L²/r²), and the topological vector field component φr = ∂F/∂r. The identity PB = φr/(4πr²) connects the thermodynamic pressure to the topological defect line.

Load-bearing premise

The entire suite of predictions rests on the imported claim that metric (12), taken from earlier work, is the stable, physically admissible static spherically symmetric solution of the ln(R)F² Einstein-Maxwell theory and that constraint (8) truly removes the higher-order derivative instabilities; if the background is not the physical spacetime of the model, all temperature, QNM, shadow, and phase results are computed on the wrong geometry.

What would settle it

Perform a full linear stability analysis of metric (12) within the ln(R)F² theory for B in [0.1, 1.0] and Q = 0.5. If any ghost or tachyon mode persists in this parameter range, the background is not a physical solution of the theory and the paper's observables do not apply. Alternatively, a time-domain solution of the Dirac equation at low multipoles that disagrees with the third-order WKB frequencies beyond a few percent would invalidate the spectral predictions, and a shadow measurement matching Schwarzschild to better than ~5% would disfavour B > 0.5.

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

If this is right

  • A measurement of the shadow size at the few-percent level would constrain the upper range of the coupling B, since the shadow radius contracts by about eleven percent across B = 0.1 to 1.0.
  • The 3:2 twin-peak QPO resonance radius moves inward as B grows, so a measured QPO pair combined with an independent mass estimate translates into a coupling band.
  • The ringdown frequency and the shadow size both derive from the same photon sphere, so a joint fit of the two observables must yield a consistent B.
  • The identity PB = φr/(4πr²) makes the sign of the effective pressure, local thermodynamic stability, and the winding number a single condition; the Barrow deformation shifts the defect location only mildly.
  • The exponential extension of Barrow entropy preserves the equatorial defect count but can move the defect radius, so the qualitative stability picture survives the extension.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's 'same slope' logic suggests that existing multi-messenger data—shadow size plus a ringdown frequency—could already be used to produce a joint probability distribution for B, rather than treating each observable separately.
  • The identity PB = φr/(4πr²) may hold for a broader class of Barrow-deformed charged holes, and the paper's own request for a first-principles derivation hints that this is an open structural question, not a coincidence of this specific background.
  • The rotating generalization is the natural next test: because the exact correlation relies on spherical symmetry, a Kerr-like extension might break the clean relation, and the shadow shape and QNM splitting would then separately constrain B.
  • The non-monotonic quality factors across B and κ mean a single ringdown mode may be degenerate in B, but a multi-mode observation (e.g., two overtones) could break this degeneracy.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a static, spherically symmetric charged black hole in Einstein–Maxwell theory with a non-minimal ln(R)F² coupling, using the metric (12) imported from Ref. [4]. It derives a Hawking temperature from fermionic tunnelling, computes Dirac quasinormal-mode frequencies with third-order WKB, bounds the greybody factor and uses it in emission integrals, solves null and timelike geodesics to obtain shadow, ISCO, QPO, and deflection observables, and finally builds Barrow-entropy thermodynamics with a topological phase analysis. The advertised central claim, stated in Sec. XIV, is that the logarithmic coupling B coherently controls the thermal, radiative, orbital, and topological sectors, and that the effective pressure and the topological defect line are joined by the identity P_B = φ_r/(4πr²). All closed forms are said to be symbolically verified and the numerical pipelines are checked against Schwarzschild limits.

Significance. If the results were sound, the paper would provide a broad catalogue of correlated observables for a modified-gravity black hole and would add a novel pressure–topology relation. The geodesic, shadow, and deflection sections are internally plausible and include useful Schwarzschild-limit checks. However, the QNM tables are unphysical, the greybody lower bound is used as an exact transmission coefficient, and the topological identity is constructed rather than derived. Because these issues affect the paper's central claims, the current version cannot be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V, Tables II–VI] The third-order WKB frequencies are not credible. For fixed B and n, Re(ω) should increase with κ (in the eikonal limit Re ω ∼ κΩ_c, Eq. (55)). Instead, for B=0.1, n=0, Re(ω)=0.526, 0.470, 0.370 for κ=2,3,4, and for B=0.3, n=0 it jumps 1.088→0.266→1.204. The damping also varies erratically, e.g. −Im(ω)=0.169, 0.888, 0.244 at B=0.3, n=0. This contradicts the text's own statement that increasing κ raises the real part of the frequency. These tables cannot support the quality-factor analysis of Table VII or any conclusion about B-dependent ringdown; the WKB implementation must be redone and validated.
  2. [§VI and §XI B, Eqs. (47), (59)–(60)] Equation (47) is a strict lower bound, T_b(ω) ≤ T(ω). Equations (59)–(60) insert this lower bound as though it were the transmission coefficient in the Fermi–Dirac integrals, and Table XVIII and Fig. 10 report the result as the Hawking power and particle rate. Convolving a lower bound with the thermal factor gives, at best, a lower bound on the luminosity; the claimed ~16% decrease of P with B is therefore not established. The authors concede in Sec. XIII that the greybody results are 'strict lower bounds rather than exact transmission coefficients'; this caveat must be attached to Eqs. (59)–(60) and Table XVIII, not only to the discussion.
  3. [§XII B, Eqs. (71)–(73)] The radial component φ_r in Eq. (73) is not ∂F/∂r. With F=M−S_B/τ and S_B=(πr²)^{1+Δ/2}, the derivative contains −(2+Δ)π^{1+Δ/2} r^{1+Δ}/τ, a term absent from Eq. (73), which contains no τ and no π-dependent factor. Consequently the defect condition (74) is not the on-shell condition of the off-shell free energy of Eq. (71), and the winding numbers in Fig. 14 are not derived from the standard topological construction. The identity P_B=φ_r/(4πr²), Eq. (67), is then an algebraic coincidence: Eq. (73) was assembled to share the numerator of Eq. (66). Since this identity is the paper's 'tightest link', the central claim is circular rather than derived.
  4. [§II, Eq. (12)] Every subsequent calculation is performed on the metric Eq. (12), imported from Ref. [4], with the admissibility of the solution attributed to the constraint (8). The manuscript does not verify that the k=−2 solution with Y(R)=1/(1−B ln(R/R0)) satisfies the full field equations and constraint, nor does it address the stability of the background. If this metric is not the physical, stable solution of the theory, then the temperature, QNM, greybody, geodesic, and thermodynamic results are all computed on an inadmissible geometry. This premise should be checked explicitly, or stated clearly as an assumption, before the results can be accepted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V, Eq. (45)] The WKB quantization condition is written with Λ2 and Λ3 subtracted and with the prefactor i(ω²−V0)/√(−2V0''). Please check the sign conventions against Iyer–Will and Konoplya, since the tables suggest a possible misimplementation.
  2. [Fig. 3 inset and Fig. 10] The inset in Fig. 3 and the peak/tail insets in Fig. 10 lack readable axes and units. The caption mentions units of 10⁻³, but the plot bounds are not labeled; this makes the claimed B-ordering hard to verify.
  3. [Reference [27]] Reference [27] is incomplete: 'Class. Quantum Grav. 34, 063001 (2017)' has no authors. Please supply the full citation.
  4. [Sec. XIII] The caveat that the background is static and spherically symmetric and that the greybody factor is only bounded is placed at the end of the paper. These limitations should be stated in the introduction and repeated where the quantities are first used.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The headline identity P_B = φ_r/(4πr²) is constructed: Eq. (66) defines P_B with the same numerator as the defect condition (74), and the 'φ_r' of Eq. (73) is not ∂F/∂r of the off-shell free energy (71).

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. XI C, Eqs. (66)-(67); Sec. XII B, Eqs. (73)-(74)]
    "A symbolic comparison brings out a relation that we use below: the numerator of P_B is identical to the numerator of the topological vector-field component ϕ_r of Sec. XII, so that P_B = ϕ_r/(4πr²). The pressure therefore vanishes exactly on the defect line where ϕ_r = 0."

    Eq. (66) defines P_B with numerator −4BQ²(Δ+3)ln(r/r0)+[(−B−1)Δ+B−3]Q²+4r²(Δ+1), and Eq. (74) defines the defect line by exactly that expression set to zero. Eq. (73) is arranged to have the same zero set. Therefore P_B=φ_r/(4πr²) and 'the pressure vanishes on the defect line' are true by construction, not derived from the off-shell free energy. The paper's own Sec. XIII calls this 'the relation we most want to understand from first principles,' conceding that no derivation is supplied.

  2. other [Sec. XII B, Eqs. (71)-(73)]
    "The off-shell free energy is F=M−S_B/τ ... Following the standard construction, we define the vector field Φ=(ϕ_r,ϕ_Θ), ϕ_r=∂F/∂r ... We verified Eqs. (73) and (74) symbolically, and we confirmed that Eq. (74) is the numerator identity behind P_B=ϕ_r/4πr² of Sec. XI C."

    Differentiating F=M−S_B/τ with S_B=(πr²)^{1+Δ/2} gives ∂F/∂r = ∂M/∂r − (1/τ)(2+Δ)π^{1+Δ/2}r^{1+Δ}, which contains τ and a π factor absent from Eq. (73). Eq. (73) has no τ at all. Thus φ_r is not the derivative of the off-shell free energy; the standard topological construction is not being followed. The defect condition (74) is instead chosen to match the numerator of P_B, so the winding numbers and the advertised thermodynamic-topological identity are algebraic artifacts of matching numerators.

full rationale

The QNM, greybody, geodesic, shadow, ISCO, and emission sectors are genuine calculations from the metric (12): they are evaluated numerically and checked against Schwarzschild/RN limits, so they are not circular. The imported metric (12) from Ref. [4] (with Refs. [5,6] by coauthor Sert for the constraint) is a citation of prior work, not a circular reduction within this paper; without evidence that the cited result merely restates the target claim, it does not raise the score. The circularity is confined to the thermodynamic-topological bridge. Eq. (66) defines the effective pressure P_B with a numerator that is exactly the defect condition (74), and Eq. (73) is then written so that φ_r has the same zero set; Eq. (67) presents the resulting identity as a discovery. Worse, Eq. (73) is not ∂F/∂r of the off-shell free energy (71), so the topological vector field is not the standard one and the defect line is an algebraic artifact. Because the identity P_B=φ_r/(4πr²) is advertised as the tightest link between exterior thermodynamics and phase topology, a central claim reduces by construction; the rest of the paper is independent. Score 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central analysis rests on the prior ln(R)F² solution, the standard black-hole-observables toolbox, and a Barrow-entropy modeling choice. The paper verifies algebra symbolically, but supplies no independent derivation of the background's stability, no justification of Barrow entropy for this horizon, and no definition of its exponential extension.

free parameters (4)
  • logarithmic coupling B = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0 (varied by hand)
    Dimensionless coupling in Y(R)=1/(1−B ln(R/R0)); it controls all reported trends and is not determined by data.
  • electric charge Q = 0.5 (fixed in all numerics)
    Charge parameter of the solution; set by hand for every table and figure.
  • curvature scale R0 = 1 (fixed in all numerics)
    Characteristic scale entering r0^4 = BQ²/R0; set to unity, so r0 is not an independent parameter but R0 is a free theory scale.
  • Barrow fractal parameter Δ = 0, 0.5, 1 (varied)
    Fractal deformation exponent in S_B=(πr²)^{1+Δ/2}; chosen in [0,1], not derived from the theory.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Metric (12) is a stable, physically admissible solution of the ln(R)F² Einstein-Maxwell theory.
    Imported from Refs. [4–6] by coauthor Sert; not re-derived or stability-tested in this paper. Entered at Sec. II, Eq. (12).
  • domain assumption Constraint (8) removes the higher-order derivative instabilities of the theory.
    Taken from Refs. [4–6]; this is load-bearing for the admissibility of the background.
  • ad hoc to paper Barrow entropy S_B=(πr²)^{1+Δ/2} governs the horizon microstates of this black hole.
    Assumed input for the thermodynamic and topological phase analysis in Secs. XI–XII; no independent microstate derivation for this background is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The exponential Barrow entropy extension is a valid deformation.
    Introduced in Sec. XII C without an explicit entropy functional or prior derivation; Eqs. (77)–(78) are uncheckable as presented.
  • standard math Third-order WKB condition (45) gives accurate QNM frequencies for the listed Dirac modes.
    Standard Iyer–Will method, but its validity for the quoted modes is asserted, not demonstrated; no baseline QNM comparison is given.
  • standard math Eikonal correspondence (55)–(56) applies to Dirac QNMs with ℓ=κ.
    Standard Cardoso et al. relation; the paper acknowledges it is a large-κ estimate.
  • ad hoc to paper The Boonserm–Visser lower bound (47) can stand in for the transmission coefficient in luminosity integrals.
    The bound is strict, but Eqs. (59)–(60) treat T_b as the true transmission; this is the greybody overclaim.
invented entities (2)
  • Effective pressure P_B no independent evidence
    purpose: A thermodynamic pressure 'read off from the logarithmic background'; its sign is claimed to track local stability and its zeros to coincide with topological defects.
    Eq. (66) defines P_B and Eq. (67) sets it equal to φ_r/(4πr²). It is a constructed variable, not an observable pressure from a cosmological constant or matter source.
  • Exponential Barrow entropy correction no independent evidence
    purpose: Extends the Barrow entropy to shift defect locations and produce the vector-field components of Eq. (77).
    No explicit entropy functional is given; the correction is introduced ad hoc in Sec. XII C and has no falsifiable handle outside this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30804 in / 22327 out tokens · 223366 ms · 2026-08-01T06:43:22.580363+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the thermodynamic and dynamical properties of static, spherically symmetric BHs in Einstein-Maxwell theory modified by a non-minimal $\ln(R)F^{2}$ coupling. The Hawking temperature follows from the Hamilton-Jacobi form of the fermionic tunnelling method for spin-$\tfrac12$ particles, and it carries scale-dependent logarithmic corrections. We then analyze the propagation of massless Dirac fields, compute the quasinormal-mode (QNM) spectrum with the third-order WKB approximation, and read off a quality factor whose balance between oscillation and damping depends on the logarithmic coupling in a mode-dependent way. Moving outward from the horizon, we work out the transmission of the fermionic field and its Hawking emission, and we solve the null and timelike geodesic problems to obtain the photon sphere, the shadow radius, the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO), the associated zoom-whirl bound orbits, and the orbital and epicyclic frequencies that set the twin-peak quasiperiodic-oscillation (QPO) ratio. A photon-sphere reading of the eikonal QNM frequencies ties the geodesic sector back to the field perturbations. On the thermodynamic side, we build the phase space with quantum-geometric corrections through the Barrow entropy, and we characterize the global phase structure with the topological method, where the winding numbers of the off-shell free energy are governed by the interplay of the fractal Barrow deformation, the electric charge, and the logarithmic coupling. We find that the effective pressure vanishes exactly on the topological defect line, which links the pressure sign to the local stability of each branch.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21783 by Erdem Sucu, \.Izzet Sakall{\i}, \"Ozcan Sert, Yusuf Sucu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Metric function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Hawking temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Dirac effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Lower bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Null effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Equatorial null rays for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Bound timelike orbits for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Characteristic radii [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the bending angle rising steeply to￾ward small impact parameter and flattening at large b. At fixed b the angle decreases as B grows, which may look surprising given that the strong coupling deepens the well, but it follows from the critical impact parame￾ter contracting with B: a ray at a fixed b then sits rel￾atively farther from the (now smaller) photon sphere, so it bends less. The curves fan out… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Power spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Barrow temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Barrow free energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Effective pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Normalized vector field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Normalized vector field for the exponential Barrow correction, Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.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

104 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. W. Hawking, Communications in mathematical physics43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  2. [2]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  3. [3]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Physics Today33, 24 (1980)

    1980

  4. [4]

    Dereli and ¨O

    T. Dereli and ¨O. Sert, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1589 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    Sert, Eur

    ¨O. Sert, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 97 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Adak, ¨O

    M. Adak, ¨O. Akarsu, T. Dereli, and ¨O. Sert, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2017(11), 026

    2017

  7. [7]

    Bonanno and M

    A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D62, 043008 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0002196

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    Ishibashi, N

    A. Ishibashi, N. Ohta, and D. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D104, 066016 (2021), arXiv:2106.05015 [hep-th]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    J. M. Ladino, C. A. Benavides-Gallego, E. Larra˜ naga, J. Rayimbaev, and F. Abdulxamidov, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 989 (2023), arXiv:2305.15350 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    A. Jana, S. Sen, and S. Gangopadhyay, Phys. Rev. D 110, 026029 (2024), arXiv:2405.13087 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Sert, Mod

    ¨O. Sert, Mod. Phys. Lett. A28, 1350049 (2013)

    2013

  12. [12]

    Sert, The European Physical Journal Plus127, 152 (2012)

    ¨O. Sert, The European Physical Journal Plus127, 152 (2012)

    2012

  13. [13]

    Sucu, zzet Sakall, zcan Sert, and Y

    E. Sucu, zzet Sakall, zcan Sert, and Y. Sucu, Physics of the Dark Universe50, 102063 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Sucu, Phys

    E. Sucu, Phys. Scripta101, 155001 (2026)

    2026

  15. [15]

    Sucu, Gen

    E. Sucu, Gen. Rel. Grav.58, 51 (2026)

    2026

  16. [16]

    E. Sucu, . Sakall, and Y. Sucu, Annalen der Physik538, e00588 (2026)

    2026

  17. [17]

    Gecim and Y

    G. Gecim and Y. Sucu, Astrophys. Space Sci.357, 105 (2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    Gecim and Y

    G. Gecim and Y. Sucu, Adv. High Energy Phys.2017, 2056131 (2017), arXiv:1603.00352 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B808, 135643 (2020), arXiv:2004.09444 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Sucu and zzet Sakall, Physics of the Dark Universe 52, 102295 (2026)

    E. Sucu and zzet Sakall, Physics of the Dark Universe 52, 102295 (2026)

    2026

  21. [21]

    Sucu, Physics Letters A590, 131851 (2026)

    E. Sucu, Physics Letters A590, 131851 (2026)

    2026

  22. [22]

    Sucu, Nucl

    E. Sucu, Nucl. Phys. B1026, 117421 (2026)

    2026

  23. [23]

    Sucu, ˙I

    E. Sucu, ˙I. Sakallı, and Y. Sucu, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 10.1142/s0219887826501161 (2026)

    doi:10.1142/s0219887826501161 2026

  24. [24]

    Al-Badawi, F

    A. Al-Badawi, F. Ahmed, and ˙I. Sakallı, Nucl. Phys. B 1029, 117531 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Kastor, S

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

    2009

  26. [26]

    B. P. Dolan, Class. Quantum Grav.28, 235017 (2011)

    2011

  27. [27]

    Quantum Grav.34, 063001 (2017)

    Class. Quantum Grav.34, 063001 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    Srinivasan and T

    K. Srinivasan and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D60, 024007 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9812028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  29. [29]

    M. K. Parikh and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 5042 (2000)

    2000

  30. [30]

    Angheben, M

    M. Angheben, M. Nadalini, L. Vanzo, and S. Zerbini, JHEP05, 014, arXiv:hep-th/0503081

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Kerner and R

    R. Kerner and R. B. Mann, Phys. Lett. B665, 277 (2008), arXiv:0803.2246 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  32. [32]

    R. A. Konoplya and O. S. Stashko, Phys. Rev. D111, 104055 (2025), arXiv:2408.02578 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    K. H. C. Castello-Branco, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhi- denko, Phys. Rev. D71, 047502 (2005), arXiv:hep- th/0411055

    arXiv 2005

  34. [34]

    Herceg, N

    N. Herceg, N. Konjik, A. N. Kumara, and A. Samsarov, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 180 (2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    Sucu, Phys

    E. Sucu, Phys. Lett. A585, 131627 (2026)

    2026

  36. [36]

    B. F. Schutz and C. M. Will, Astrophysical Journal Let- ters291, L33 (1985)

    1985

  37. [38]

    Iyer, Phys

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

    1987

  38. [40]

    Sucu and C

    Y. Sucu and C. Tekincay, Astrophysics and Space Sci- ence364, 56 (2019)

    2019

  39. [41]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D14, 3251 (1976)

    1976

  40. [42]

    S. R. Das, G. W. Gibbons, and S. D. Mathur, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 417 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9609052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  41. [43]

    Boonserm, C

    P. Boonserm, C. H. Chen, T. Ngampitipan, and P. Wongjun, Phys. Rev. D104, 084054 (2021), arXiv:2105.07589 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [44]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  43. [45]

    Vagnozziet al., Class

    S. Vagnozziet al., Class. Quantum Grav.40, 165007 (2023), arXiv:2205.07787 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [46]

    Perlick, O

    V. Perlick, O. Y. Tsupko, and G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, Phys. Rev. D92, 104031 (2015)

    2015

  45. [47]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and ˙I. Sakallı, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 668 (2025)

    2025

  46. [48]

    K. S. Virbhadra and G. F. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D62, 084003 (2000)

    2000

  47. [49]

    Bozza, Phys

    V. Bozza, Phys. Rev. D66, 103001 (2002), arXiv:gr- qc/0208075

    arXiv 2002

  48. [50]

    G. W. Gibbons and M. C. Werner, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 235009 (2008), arXiv:0807.0854 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [51]

    Tsukamoto, Phys

    N. Tsukamoto, Phys. Rev. D113, 104016 (2026), arXiv:2512.01688 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [52]

    Sucu and I

    E. Sucu and I. Sakalli, NUCLEAR PHYSICS B1018, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116982 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  51. [53]

    Sucu and I

    E. Sucu and I. Sakalli, HIGH ENERGY DENSITY PHYSICS56, 10.1016/j.hedp.2025.101220 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  52. [54]

    Stella and M

    L. Stella and M. Vietri, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 17 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812124 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  53. [55]

    Rogers, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society451, 17 (2015)

    A. Rogers, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society451, 17 (2015)

    2015

  54. [57]

    Manton and S

    T. Manton and S. Alexander, Phys. Rev. D110, 044067 (2024)

    2024

  55. [58]

    Shahzad, W

    M. Shahzad, W. Habib, H. Nazar, A. Ashraf, A. H. Hakami, and A. M. Mubaraki, The European Physical Journal Plus140, 469 (2025)

    2025

  56. [59]

    Duan, J.-Y

    Z.-Q. Duan, J.-Y. Zhao, and K. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 798 (2024)

    2024

  57. [60]

    Doyran, ¨O

    B. Doyran, ¨O. Sert, and M. Adak, Physica Scripta99, 085041 (2024)

    2024

  58. [61]

    Soroushfar, B

    S. Soroushfar, B. Pourhassan, and ˙I. Sakallı, Phys. Dark Univ.44, 101457 (2024)

    2024

  59. [62]

    Lessa, J

    L. Lessa, J. Silva, R. Maluf, and C. Almeida, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1 (2020)

    2020

  60. [63]

    Lessa, R

    L. Lessa, R. Oliveira, J. E. G. d. Silva, and C. Almeida, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)433, 168604 (2021)

    2021

  61. [64]

    E. Sucu, S. Dengiz, and ˙I. Sakallı, Annals of Physics 490, 170494 (2026)

    2026

  62. [65]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and ˙I. Sakallı, Mod. Phys. Lett. A41, 2650061 (2026)

    2026

  63. [66]

    Wei, Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei, Y.-X. Liu, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 191101 (2022), arXiv:2208.01932 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [67]

    Wei and Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D105, 104003 (2022), arXiv:2112.01706 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  65. [68]

    T. S. Bir´ o, V. G. Czinner, H. Iguchi, and P. V´ an, Phys. Lett. B782, 228 (2018)

    2018

  66. [69]

    Sahan, E

    N. Sahan, E. Sucu, and Y. Sucu, Physics of the Dark Universe49, 102005 (2025)

    2025

  67. [70]

    Sucu and N

    Y. Sucu and N. Unal, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATI- CAL PHYSICS48, 10.1063/1.2735442 (2007)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2735442 2007

  68. [71]

    Chandrasekhar, Proc

    S. Chandrasekhar, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A349, 571 (1976)

    1976

  69. [72]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D14, 1509 (1976)

    1976

  70. [73]

    H. T. Cho, Phys. Rev. D68, 024003 (2003), arXiv:gr- qc/0303078

    arXiv 2003

  71. [74]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Class. Quan- tum Grav.26, 163001 (2009), arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  72. [75]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 793 (2011), arXiv:1102.4014 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  73. [76]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Relativ. 2, 2 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9909058 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  74. [77]

    Gecim and Y

    G. Gecim and Y. Sucu, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 1 (2019)

    2019

  75. [78]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and ˙I. Sakallı, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.23, 2650020 (2026)

    2026

  76. [79]

    Iyer and C

    S. Iyer and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D35, 3621 (1987)

    1987

  77. [80]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D68, 024018 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0303052 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  78. [81]

    Jing, Phys

    J.-l. Jing, Phys. Rev. D71, 124006 (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0502023

    arXiv 2005

  79. [82]

    Javed, Physics of the Dark Universe44, 101450 (2024)

    F. Javed, Physics of the Dark Universe44, 101450 (2024)

    2024

  80. [83]

    Visser, Phys

    M. Visser, Phys. Rev. A59, 427 (1999), arXiv:quant- ph/9901030 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 1999

Showing first 80 references.