Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

A modified electron energy-momentum relation can push white-dwarf maximum masses to about 1.61 solar masses without touching gravity, once two stability filters are imposed.

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 10:44 UTC pith:2DPAHCNZ

load-bearing objection The electron/ion split is a nice step, but the 1.61 Msun endpoint rests on an unchanged inverse-beta threshold that the deformed dispersion itself should shift. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22735 v1 pith:2DPAHCNZ submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Modified electron dispersion relations in degenerate white dwarfs

Edson Otoniel , Iarley P. Lobo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords white dwarfmodified dispersion relationChandrasekhar masssuper-Chandrasekhar white dwarfsdegenerate electron gasTolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoffequation of stategroup velocity
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.

White dwarfs are uniquely clean probes of modified electron kinematics: degenerate electrons generate the pressure, while ions dominate the mass density through charge neutrality. The paper takes two modified electron dispersion relations—a rational and a logarithmic one—and feeds the resulting Fermi-gas pressure into the standard Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equations, leaving gravity untouched. The undeformed case reproduces the Chandrasekhar mass (1.416 solar masses for a carbon-oxygen composition), validating the setup. The central result is that the logarithmic deformation with a negative parameter stiffens the equation of state enough to allow maximum masses from about 1.45 up to 1.61 solar masses while still passing a Gamma >= 4/3 adiabatic-stability filter and staying below the inverse-beta decay density. If this is right, white dwarfs can discriminate the sign and strength of quantum-gravity-inspired electron kinematics without invoking modified gravity.

Core claim

Central claim: a modified electron energy-momentum relation, applied only to the degenerate-electron equation of state, can raise the white-dwarf maximum mass above the Chandrasekhar scale within standard gravity and ordinary charge-neutral matter. In the logarithmic model, negative deformation increases electron pressure at fixed density; after requiring the adiabatic index to stay at or above 4/3 and the central density below the inverse-beta threshold of 3.94e10 g cm^-3, the maximum mass reaches 1.608 solar masses at lambda0=-0.0055 (1.535 at lambda0=-0.0036). Positive deformation softens the sequence and drives the adiabatic index below 4/3, so that branch is disfavored. The rational mod

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the electron dispersion relation E^2 f(x)^2 - k^2 c^2 g(x)^2 = m_e^2 c^4, with x = lambda E/E_p, and the associated Fermi-gas pressure integral P = (1/(3 pi^2 hbar^3)) integral_0^{k_F} (dE/dk) k^3 dk. Because the pressure is controlled by the group velocity dE/dk, a deformation that changes the energy branch also changes the stiffness. The paper applies two forms: a rational model (f=g=1/(1-x)) that leaves the group velocity nearly unchanged, and a logarithmic model (f=(e^x - 1)/x, g=1) that alters it at first order in the deformation parameter. Charge neutrality, rho ~ mu_e m_u n_e with mu_e=2, maps the electron Fermi momentum to the ionic mass density, isolating

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the density at which electrons start being captured into nuclei stays exactly the same as in the standard theory, even though the modified electron energies should move that density; if it moves down, the largest mass disappears.

What would settle it

Recompute the inverse-beta decay threshold self-consistently using the deformed electron dispersion at lambda0=-0.0055 and compare the central density of the maximum-mass configuration (3.937e10 g cm^-3). If the deformed threshold lies below that central density, the 1.608 solar-mass configuration is not a valid cold white dwarf and the headline claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • If the negative logarithmic branch is real, super-Chandrasekhar white dwarfs can be explained by electron kinematics alone, without modified gravity, magnetic fields, or rotation.
  • The positive-logarithmic branch is rejected by the stability filter, demonstrating that the formalism can discriminate between deformation signs and, potentially, between quantum-gravity proposals.
  • The baseline calculation recovers 1.416 M_sun for mu_e=2, so any observed deviation from that sequence in well-observed white dwarfs would be attributable to the deformation or to physics beyond the model.
  • The maximum-mass configurations on the negative branch have radii of roughly 850-880 km, giving a concrete mass-radius signature for future observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Since the inverse-beta decay threshold itself depends on the electron Fermi energy, the paper's fixed standard threshold is likely not self-consistent: recomputing rho_beta with the deformed dispersion could move the cutoff and reclassify the lambda0=-0.0055 endpoint.
  • The Gamma >= 4/3 filter is necessary but not sufficient for dynamical stability; radial oscillation modes or turning-point criteria would sharpen the allowed mass range and probably lower the upper value.
  • The same electron-sector construction could be extended to other Fermi gases, suggesting a generic signature: theories with logarithmic dispersion have a robust sign asymmetry (stiffening vs softening), while rational deformations are nearly invisible in degenerate stars.
  • Independent bounds on the electron group velocity from terrestrial experiments would directly constrain the allowed lambda0 range and test the Planck-scale normalization assumed here.

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 paper constructs white-dwarf equations of state in which the electron dispersion relation is modified by two phenomenological deformations—a rational (Magueijo–Smolin type) model and a logarithmic model—while the mass density is still dominated by ions through charge neutrality. The deformed electron pressure is coupled to the standard TOV equations. In the undeformed limit the calculation reproduces Mmax = 1.416 M⊙ for μe = 2. The rational model gives only small changes, while the logarithmic model with negative λ0 stiffens the EoS and, after filtering by Γ ≥ 4/3 and by the adopted inverse-beta threshold ρβ = 3.94×10^10 g cm^-3, yields maximum masses from about 1.45 M⊙ up to 1.61 M⊙. The paper argues that white dwarfs can serve as a clean probe of electron-sector modified dispersion relations because the pressure is electronic while the inertia is ionic.

Significance. If the result holds, it provides a compact-object probe of modified electron kinematics that is cleaner than neutron-star studies, because the dense-nuclear EoS uncertainties are avoided. The paper's clean separation of electron pressure and ionic inertia is conceptually valuable, and the recovery of the Chandrasekhar mass in the undeformed limit is a useful calibration. The analytic appendix provides consistency checks, and the sign-dependent behavior of the logarithmic model is a concrete, in principle falsifiable trend. However, the headline mass range is not yet supported: two of the filters used to define the allowed sequence—the inverse-beta threshold and the group-velocity bound—are not applied self-consistently within the deformed model. The quoted upper endpoint is directly controlled by these issues.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. III–IV, Eq. (11), Table I] The inverse-beta filter is applied using the undeformed threshold ρβ = 3.94×10^10 g cm^-3. This is inconsistent with the model. Electron-capture equilibrium is set by μe = E(k_F), and for the logarithmic dispersion with λ0 < 0, Eq. (11) gives E_MDR(k_F) > E_undef(k_F) at fixed k_F, so the same Fermi energy is reached at lower density. Near the standard threshold (E_F/m_e c^2 ≈ 26), ΔE ≈ -(λ0/2) m_e c^2 y^2 ≈ +1.9 m_e c^2 for λ0 = -0.0055, implying a roughly 20% downward shift in ρβ. The reported endpoint λ0 = -0.0055 has ρ_c = 3.937×10^10 g cm^-3, essentially at the adopted cut; a self-consistent threshold would place it above the cut. The quoted upper mass range therefore depends on an unsupported assumption. Please recompute ρβ in the deformed model and re-filter all sequences.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (11) and (14)] The group-velocity constraint is listed as a needed future restriction, but the headline results are quoted before imposing it. For the logarithmic branch with negative λ0, the group velocity is v_g = (dE_undef/dk)/(1 + λ0 E_undef/(m_e c^2)); at λ0 = -0.0055 and E_undef/(m_e c^2) ≈ 26, v_g ≈ 1.17c. If models with v_g > c are excluded, the negative-log branch that gives M_max > 1.45 M⊙ is either disallowed or confined to |λ0| values smaller than those in Table I. The paper should either impose the group-velocity bound in the filtering step or explicitly state that superluminal group velocities are accepted in this phenomenological model.
  3. [Table I] Table I omits the central density of the maximum-mass configuration for all but the text-reported extreme negative-log rows. Since the ρβ cut is one of the two filters that define the allowed sequence in Sec. IV, the reader cannot verify that the intermediate maxima 1.446, 1.479, and 1.535 M⊙ satisfy ρ_c < ρβ. Add a ρ_c column for every row in Table I.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV] The 'possible maximum masses' range is a one-parameter scan over the free λ0; please phrase it as a conditional upper envelope rather than a model prediction unless an independent constraint on λ0 is supplied.
  2. [Sec. II] The statement that the rational branch is real for |λ0| < 1 is not sufficient; for λ0 > 0 and E/(m_e c^2) > 1/λ0, x exceeds 1 and f(x) changes sign. Please check the rational-model sequences for λ0 = 0.100 and discuss the domain of validity.
  3. [Eqs. (17), (22)–(23)] Clarify the distinction between baryon rest-mass density ρ and the total energy density ε_tot/c^2 in the TOV mass and pressure equations; the notation ρ is used for both.
  4. [General] No code or tabulated EoS is released, so the numerical integrals and TOV integration are not directly reproducible. Consider depositing the EoS tables and/or the integration code.
  5. [Minor typos] Minor typographical issues include 'Instítuto' in the affiliation and missing accents in the Bédard citation. Eq. (4) should explicitly state that λ0 is dimensionless.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: outputs are conditional on an explicit free-parameter scan and external stability filters; no prediction is equivalent to its input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The paper defines two MDR branches (Eqs. 6 and 11), inserts them into the standard Fermi-gas integrals (19) and (20), and integrates the standard TOV equations (22)-(23). The undeformed lambda0=0 branch is an independent benchmark: it reproduces Mmax=1.416 M_sun and R=1036.6 km, the Chandrasekhar scale for mu_e=2, before any deformation is considered; this is validation, not an input that defines the deformed results. The quoted 1.45-1.61 M_sun interval is presented as a conditional possibility over a scanned lambda0 range (Table I), not as a fitted prediction: the paper never fits lambda0 to those masses, and it explicitly cautions that additional physics and constraints are required. The inverse-beta filter rho_beta=3.94e10 g cm^-3 is adopted from the literature ([22,28]) rather than derived from the deformed dispersion; using the undeformed threshold with a deformed EOS is a physical self-consistency limitation that could shift the endpoint, but it does not make the mass output equal to the input by construction. The self-citations ([5,17,22,29-31,40]) are methodological or contextual: [17] supplies a workflow that is independently re-derived in Appendix A, and the WD-stability citations support external filters also backed by [28] and others. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter is imported via self-citation. Therefore no circular step meeting the required standard is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

Two of the free parameters (μ_e, ρβ) are standard inputs from WD nuclear physics, not fitted to the MDR target; λ0 is the genuinely free deformation parameter. No new particles, forces, or symmetry structures are introduced; only phenomenological deformation functions from previous literature.

free parameters (4)
  • λ0 (rational model) = 0, 0.02, 0.05, 0.10 (Table I)
    Phenomenological deformation strength; no independent constraint; selected to scan the EoS response.
  • λ0 (logarithmic model) = -0.001, -0.002, -0.0036, -0.0055, 0.001, 0.010 (Table I)
    Sign and magnitude chosen by hand; negative values retained until central density nears the beta-decay threshold; positive values shown to fail the adiabatic filter.
  • μ_e (mean molecular weight per electron) = 2
    Assumed carbon-oxygen baseline; standard composition input, not fitted to WD data, but sets the mass scale of all sequences.
  • ρβ (inverse beta decay threshold) = 3.94×10^10 g cm^-3
    Adopted from standard WD nuclear stability literature; not fitted, but directly truncates the allowed negative branch and controls the 1.61 M⊙ endpoint.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Density of states in momentum space is unchanged by the modified dispersion relation
    Sec. II.B: 'We keep the density of states in momentum space unchanged'. The pressure and energy integrals use the undeformed measure; if MDR also changes the measure, the EoS would differ.
  • domain assumption Mass density is tied to electron density by charge neutrality, ρ≃μ_e m_u n_e with μ_e=2
    Eqs. (15)-(16); standard WD approximation, but crucial for interpreting modified pressure against fixed ionic inertia.
  • domain assumption Group velocity dE/dk gives the pressure via the free-fermion integral
    Eq. (14); standard kinetic theory applied to a deformed single-particle spectrum.
  • standard math TOV equations with unmodified Einstein gravity are the correct stellar-structure equations
    Sec. II.D; the paper deliberately does not modify the gravitational sector, so the MDR affects only the EoS.
  • ad hoc to paper The standard inverse-beta decay threshold remains valid with modified electron kinematics
    Sec. IV applies this threshold as a filter; the MDR changes E_e(k), so the capture threshold should be re-derived. This is the flagged weakest assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9733 in / 17478 out tokens · 171953 ms · 2026-08-01T10:44:44.380249+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate how modified electron dispersion relations affect the structure of cold white dwarfs (WDs). The deformation is introduced only in the degenerate electron equation of state, through the energy of a single particle and the group velocity, while the stellar mass density remains dominated by ions through the relation $\rho\simeq \mu_e m_u n_e$ imposed by charge neutrality. The resulting equations of state are coupled to the standard TOV equations, with no modification of the gravitational field equations. For a baseline composed of carbon and oxygen with $\mu_e=2$, the undeformed limit recovers a maximum mass in the Chandrasekhar scale, validating the normalization of the calculation before the modified cases are considered. The first model of modified dispersion produces only a modest stiffening over the parameter range studied, whereas the logarithmic model depends strongly on the sign of the deformation parameter: negative values increase the pressure and the maximum mass, while positive values soften the sequence. These results show that WDs can isolate the impact of modified electron kinematics on compact star structure, but the logarithmic branch in particular requires further restrictions from its physical domain, stability conditions, and observational constraints on mass and radius.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22735 by Edson Otoniel, Iarley P. Lobo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Fractional pressure difference relative to the undeformed EoS. This plot isolates the effect of the modified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stellar sequences obtained by coupling the modified electron EoS to the standard TOV equations. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Adiabatic index computed from the modified EoS. The reference line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.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

41 extracted references · 20 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    N. K. Glendenning,Compact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics and General Relativity(Springer, New York, 2000)

    2000

  2. [2]

    Chandrasekhar, Astrophys

    S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J.74, 81 (1931)

    1931

  3. [3]

    Rotondo, J

    M. Rotondo, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and S.-S. Xue, Phys. Rev. D84, 084007 (2011), arXiv:1108.0858

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Boshkayev, J

    K. Boshkayev, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and I. Siutsou, Astrophys. J.762, 117 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Otoniel, J

    E. Otoniel, J. M. Z. Pretel, C. E. Mota, C. O. V. Flores, V. B. T. Alves, and F. M. Da Silva, Phys. Lett. B875, 140323 (2026)

    2026

  6. [6]

    Amelino-Camelia, Int

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11, 35 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0012051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    kF q k2 F +m 2ec2 2k2 F +m 2 ec2 −m 4 ec4 ln kF + p k2 F +m 2ec2 mec !# ,(A1) P (0) e (kF ) = c 24π2ℏ3

    in one of the first scenarios that allows a deforma- tion instead of a violation of Lorentz symmetry with an invariant energy scale. It presents the quantum gravity energy scale as an upper limit attainable by elementary particles. We are referring to this proposal as rational model. Solving Eq. (1) for the branch with positive energy gives E(1) MDR(k) =A...

    2088

  8. [8]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 190403 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0112090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  9. [9]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D58, 116002 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9809521

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  10. [10]

    Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev. Rel.16, 5 (2013), arXiv:0806.0339 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  11. [11]

    Addaziet al., Prog

    A. Addaziet al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.125, 103948 (2022), arXiv:2111.05659 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Alves Batistaet al., Class

    R. Alves Batistaet al., Class. Quant. Grav.42, 032001 (2025), arXiv:2312.00409 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Amelino-Camelia, J

    G. Amelino-Camelia, J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D.V.Nanopoulos,andS.Sarkar,Nature393,763(1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9712103

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  14. [14]

    Jacobson, S

    T. Jacobson, S. Liberati, and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D67, 124011 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0209264

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  15. [15]

    A. F. Ali, Phys. Rev. D89, 104040 (2014), arXiv:1402.5320 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Santos, G

    G. Santos, G. Gubitosi, and G. Amelino-Camelia, JCAP (08), 005, arXiv:1502.02833 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Amelino-Camelia, N

    G. Amelino-Camelia, N. Loret, G. Mandanici, and F. Mercati, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D21, 1250052 (2012), arXiv:0906.2016 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    L. C. N. Santos, C. E. Mota, F. M. da Silva, G. Grams, and I. P. Lobo, Phys. Lett. B822, 136684 (2021), arXiv:2110.00371 [physics.gen-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Gregg and S

    M. Gregg and S. A. Major, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D18, 971 (2009), arXiv:0806.3496 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    Otoniel, M

    E. Otoniel, M. Malheiro, and J. G. Coelho, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.630, 012039 (2015)

    2015

  21. [21]

    Otoniel, R

    E. Otoniel, R. V. Lobato, M. Malheiro, B. Franzon, S. Schramm, and F. Weber, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser.45, 1760024 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    G. A. Carvalho, R. V. Lobato, P. H. R. S. Moraes, J. D. V. Arbanil, E. Otoniel, R. M. Marinho, and M. Mal- heiro, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 871 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Otoniel, B

    E. Otoniel, B. Franzon, G. A. Carvalho, M. Malheiro, S. Schramm, and F. Weber, Astrophys. J.879, 46 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Chamel, A

    N. Chamel, A. F. Fantina, and P. J. Davis, Phys. Rev. D 88, 081301 (2013)

    2013

  25. [25]

    Chatterjee, A

    D. Chatterjee, A. F. Fantina, N. Chamel, J. Novak, and M. Oertel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.469, 95 (2017), arXiv:1610.03987

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Chabrier and A

    G. Chabrier and A. Y. Potekhin, Phys. Rev. E58, 4941 (1998)

    1998

  27. [27]

    A. Y. Potekhin and G. Chabrier, Phys. Rev. E62, 8554 (2000)

    2000

  28. [28]

    Y.Potekhinand G.Chabrier,Astron

    A. Y.Potekhinand G.Chabrier,Astron. Astrophys.550, A43 (2013)

    2013

  29. [29]

    Chamel and A

    N. Chamel and A. F. Fantina, Phys. Rev. D92, 023008 9 (2015)

    2015

  30. [30]

    Otoniel, M

    E. Otoniel, M. Malheiro, and F. Weber, inThe Four- teenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting(2017) pp. 4350–4355

    2017

  31. [31]

    Otoniel, J

    E. Otoniel, J. G. Coelho, S. P. Nunes, M. Malheiro, and F. Weber, Astron. Astrophys.656, A77 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    M. F. Sousa, E. Otoniel, J. G. Coelho, and J. C. N. deAraujo,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.531,1496(2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Amelino-Camelia, J

    G. Amelino-Camelia, J. Lukierski, and A. Nowicki, Phys. Atom. Nucl.61, 1811 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9706031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  34. [34]

    Amelino-Camelia, J

    G. Amelino-Camelia, J. Lukierski, and A. Nowicki, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14, 4575 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9903066

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  35. [35]

    R. C. Tolman, Physical Review55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  36. [36]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev.55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  37. [37]

    B ’edard, P

    A. B ’edard, P. Bergeron, and G. Fontaine, Astrophys. J.848, 11 (2017), arXiv:1709.02324

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Boshkayev, J

    K. Boshkayev, J. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E20, 136 (2011), arXiv:1210.7088

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  39. [39]

    Boshkayev, J

    K. Boshkayev, J. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser.23, 193 (2013)

    2013

  40. [40]

    Tang and L.-M

    Y.-T. Tang and L.-M. Lin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 521, 926 (2023), arXiv:2212.11044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Malheiro, S

    M. Malheiro, S. V. Borges, J. G. Coelho, K. Kianfar, R. V. Lobato, E. Otoniel, J. A. Rueda, M. F. Sousa, and F. Weber, J. High Energy Astrophys.53, 100593 (2026)

    2026