Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 61 references

Fractional Holographic Dark Energy Wormholes: A Comprehensive Geometrical, Physical, and Thermodynamic Investigation

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Fractional holographic dark energy can source traversable Morris–Thorne wormholes that need less exotic matter as the fractional order rises.

desk verdict Solid checklist construction once you accept their working density, but eq. (2) does not match what they integrate, and asymptotic flatness only holds for γ>2—not the full range they advertise and plot. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23403 v1 pith:4WCBQRC3 submitted 2026-07-26 gr-qc

M. Rizwan , Z. Yousaf This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.20.Gz04.20.Jb04.50.Kd95.36.+x98.80.-k
keywords traversablewormholesfractionalholographicdarkenergyMorris–ThornegeometryconditionswormholethermodynamicsshapefunctionKretschmannscalarcomplexityfactor
topics Dark Energy
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 builds a new family of traversable wormholes in ordinary Einstein gravity by taking fractional holographic dark energy as the matter source and a simple non-constant redshift function. From the Einstein equations it obtains an explicit shape function controlled by the fractional parameter γ, then checks that the throat, flare-out and asymptotic-flatness conditions all hold. The same solutions violate the radial null energy condition only near the throat (so a finite amount of exotic matter is still required), stay curvature-regular, and remain hydrostatically balanced. Raising γ weakens the energy-condition violation, reduces the volume of exotic matter, softens the phantom equation of state, and leaves the thermodynamic quantities (Hawking and local temperatures, internal energy, specific heat) smooth and largely stable. A sympathetic reader cares because the construction links a quantum-inspired cosmological density to concrete wormhole geometry and shows that one extra fractional degree of freedom can systematically dial down the exotic-matter burden while preserving traversability.

What carries the argument

The fractional holographic density ρ_FHDE=3d² L^{2−3γ}/γ (recovered as ordinary holographic dark energy when γ=2), identified with the wormhole energy density μ(r) and integrated once to give the explicit shape function Ψ(r)=r₀+12π d² γ (r^{2/γ}−r₀^{2/γ}). That shape function carries every subsequent geometric, physical and thermodynamic claim.

What would settle it

Compute or measure whether the radial null-energy-condition violation and the volume-integral quantifier of exotic matter actually decrease with rising γ for the derived shape function; if they do not, or if the Kretschmann scalar diverges at the throat, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A new class of Morris–Thorne wormholes sourced by fractional holographic dark energy, with redshift φ(r)=−0.1/r, satisfies the throat, flare-out and asymptotic-flatness conditions, remains free of curvature singularities, and becomes progressively less exotic and more thermodynamically regular as the fractional parameter γ is increased.

Load-bearing premise

The cosmological infrared cutoff that defines holographic dark energy is simply replaced by the static radial coordinate of the wormhole, with no derivation that justifies using a horizon-scale bound as a local radial density.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Larger fractional order γ yields traversable wormholes that require a smaller finite amount of exotic matter while still flaring out.
  • The same solutions remain curvature-nonsingular and hydrostatically balanced for the explored range of γ.
  • Thermodynamic quantities (temperatures, internal energy, specific heat) stay positive and smooth, indicating local thermal stability near the throat.
  • The fractional parameter acts as a continuous regulator that softens phantom behaviour without destroying traversability.
  • The construction supplies an explicit analytic bridge between fractional cosmology and static wormhole geometry inside Einstein gravity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the radial-cutoff identification can be derived from a proper holographic screen in static spherical symmetry, the same fractional density could be ported to other modified-gravity wormhole models with less ad-hoc input.
  • Observational signatures proposed in the outlook (shadows, photon rings, gravitational-wave echoes) would scale with γ, offering a concrete target for future imaging or ringdown searches.
  • The reduction of exoticity with γ suggests a broader pattern: non-integer calculus corrections may systematically lower the energy-condition price of other exotic spacetimes.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. The authors construct Morris–Thorne wormhole solutions in GR by inserting a fractional holographic dark energy (FHDE) density into the (t,t) Einstein equation with redshift function ϕ(r) = −0.1/r, obtaining the closed-form shape function Ψ(r) = r0 + 12πd²γ(r^{2/γ} − r0^{2/γ}) (Eq. 22). They then survey throat/flare-out conditions, embeddings, energy conditions, EoS parameters, active mass, compactness, exoticity, volume-integral quantifier, TOV equilibrium, Kretschmann scalar, complexity factor, and a thermodynamic analysis (Hawking/wormhole temperature, first law with S = 4πr², specific heat), concluding that increasing the fractional parameter γ yields less exotic, more regular, thermodynamically stable wormholes over the plotted range γ = 1.25–3 with d = 0.05, r0 = 1.

Significance. If the solution were internally sound, the work would be a competent example of the "DE-sourced wormhole" genre: the integration yielding Eq. (22) is elementary and given in closed form, the throat and flare-out checks are explicit, and the survey of diagnostics is unusually complete, so the parameter dependence of NEC violation is cleanly falsifiable within the model. However, as detailed below, the derivation contains an internal algebraic break at its starting point (Eq. 2 vs. Eq. 17), and the asymptotic-flatness and finite-exotic-matter claims fail in closed form for most of the advertised parameter range. As written, the central conclusions of the abstract, Summary, and §VII do not hold for three of the five γ values plotted. The results as stated are therefore not currently reliable; a corrected version restricted to the genuinely asymptotically flat regime (γ > 2) might still be of modest interest to the wormhole-phenomenology community.

major comments (5)
  1. [§II, Eqs. (2), (16)–(18)] The derivation is internally inconsistent at its starting point. Eq. (2) defines ρ_FHDE = 3d²L^{2−3γ}/γ, so under the paper's own identification L → r (Eq. 16) the source density should scale as r^{2−3γ}. But Eq. (17) instead inserts μ = 3d²r^{−3+2/γ}. The exponents agree only where 2−3γ = −3+2/γ, i.e. γ = 1 or γ = 2/3 — none of the plotted values (γ = 1.25…3). Everything downstream (Ψ in Eq. 22, all figures, NEC/SEC, thermodynamics, complexity) is sourced by Eq. 17, not by the advertised Eq. 2. Furthermore Eq. (2) fails its own stated consistency check: at γ = 2 it gives (3d²/2)L^{−4}, not the standard HDE density 3d²M_p²L^{−2} of Eq. (1) which the text claims is recovered; note that Eq. 17's density r^{2/γ−3} does reduce to r^{−2} at γ = 2, suggesting Eq. (2) may be a transcription error for the actual model of Ref. [33] (Trivedi et al.). The authors must (i) state the FHDE density exa
  2. [§III.A–C, Fig. 1, Eq. (6) vs. Eq. (22)] The asymptotic-flatness claim fails in closed form for three of the five plotted γ values. From Eq. (22), Ψ/r = r0/r + 12πd²γ(r^{2/γ−1} − r0^{2/γ}/r). The limit as r→∞ is 0 only for γ > 2; at γ = 2 it tends to 24πd² ≈ 0.19 (d = 0.05), and for γ < 2 it diverges. Consequently, for γ = 1.25 and 1.5 the function 1 − Ψ/r acquires a second zero at finite r (for γ = 1.25, d = 0.05, r0 = 1, near r ≈ 34), beyond which g_rr changes sign and the spacetime is not Lorentzian in the advertised way — there is no second asymptotic region at all. The figures only extend to r ≈ 3 (Fig. 1) and r ≈ 7 (Fig. 3), so the failure is invisible in the plots, but the claims in §III.A ('monotonically grows up to unity… spacetime becomes asymptotically flat'), §III.C ('two asymptotically flat universes'), and the Summary are false for γ ≤ 2. Related quantities inherit the failure: the active mass M(r) ~ r^{2/γ} and c
  3. [§V.D, Eq. (51), Fig. 9(b)] The volume-integral quantifier claim ('finite amount of exotic matter', §V.D, Fig. 9b) is contradicted by the asymptotics of the solution itself. Using Eqs. (9)–(10) with Eq. (22), μ + p_rd ~ r^{2/γ−3} at large r (the ϕ′ term is subleading), so the integrand of Eq. (51) behaves as r^{2/γ−1} and the integral to ∞ diverges for every γ ≥ 1 — i.e., for the entire plotted range. The finite-looking curves in Fig. 9(b) are artifacts of truncating the integral at r = 3. Either the VIQ must be computed and reported as divergent (removing the 'finite exotic matter' selling point), or the model must be changed. Note this point is logically tied to Major Comment 2: for γ > 2 the VIQ still diverges (2/γ − 1 > −1 requires γ < 1 for convergence), so no value of γ in the advertised family yields a convergent VIQ.
  4. [§II, Eq. (16)] The replacement of the cosmological IR cutoff L by the static radial coordinate r (Eq. 16) is load-bearing and unjustified. In HDE, L is a horizon scale (e.g., the future event horizon) of a cosmological spacetime; in a static MT geometry there is no such horizon, and no argument is given for why a local radial coordinate should play that role. At minimum the authors should (i) acknowledge this is an ad hoc identification following (and citing) prior literature that does the same, and (ii) discuss sensitivity: e.g., whether L = r vs. L = proper radial distance ∫dr/√(1−Ψ/r) changes the conclusions. As it stands the identification is presented as definition rather than assumption.
  5. [§IV.A–D, Eqs. (31), (36)–(37), (42)] The thermodynamic section imports black-hole identities into a horizonless spacetime without justification, and one result is internally inconsistent. Eq. (31) defines a 'Hawking temperature' T_HK = √(1−Ψ/r)ϕ′/(2π); for a wormhole with no horizon there is no Hawking radiation, and the cited source (Ref. [37], an undergraduate research journal) does not establish the formula. Moreover, since 1−Ψ/r = 0 at the throat, Eq. (31) gives T_HK(r0) = 0, contradicting the text's claim that the temperature 'attains its maximal value close to the WH throat' (Fig. 4a shows the maximum at r ≈ 1.2, off the throat). Similarly, S = 4πr² (Eq. 37) is an area law imported without argument, and C_v via Eq. (42) inherits both issues. The authors should either provide a derivation of these identifications for horizonless geometries (there is literature on wormhole thermodynamics that could be engaged, e.g., Ref
minor comments (8)
  1. [§II, Eq. (11)] Eq. (11) mixes notation: it contains both Ψ (used elsewhere) and b ('b′r−b' terms) for the shape function; also the last term −b′r−b/2r²(r−b) appears dimensionally/structurally inconsistent with the standard MT tangential-pressure equation. Please rewrite in uniform Ψ notation.
  2. [§III.C] §III.C, first sentence after Eq. (30): 'The integration of Eq. (1)' should read Eq. (30).
  3. [§IV.A–B, Fig. 4] Eq. (34) and the Fig. 4 caption write the holographic parameter as 'c' (12πc²γ…, 'c = 0.05') whereas everywhere else it is d = 0.05.
  4. [§I, §III, §IV.C, Fig. 7] Typos: 'fractonal' (§I roadmap and §IV.C), 'density of HFR' (opening of §III) presumably meaning FHDE, 'paramtric' (Fig. 7 caption), 'SEC is quite happy with the given domain' (§V.A) is informal for a journal article.
  5. [§II, Eq. (2)] Eq. (2) omits the factors of M_p present in Eq. (1); even after the exponent issue in Major Comment 1 is fixed, units and the γ = 2 limit should be made explicit.
  6. [Figs. 1–11] All figures are confined to r ≤ 3 (or r ≤ 7 for embeddings); given the closed-form solution, extending the radial range (e.g., to r ~ 50) would immediately reveal the γ ≤ 2 pathology of Major Comment 2 and should be standard practice.
  7. [§V.E, Fig. 10] Fig. 10(d) plots the force balance for a single (unspecified) γ while panels (a)–(c) show all γ; please state which curve is shown, or show the sum for each γ.
  8. [Data Availability] The data-availability statement says no data exist, yet the paper's results are entirely numerical plots from a 'reliable Python library' (§III.C); depositing the plotting scripts would materially improve reproducibility at negligible cost.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: standard assume-density-then-integrate model building; free parameters are chosen, not fitted-then-predicted.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: adopt fractional HDE density (eq. 2, citing Trivedi/Bidlan), identify μ(r)=ρ_FHDE with L→r (eq. 16), insert into G_tt to get Ψ'(r) (eqs. 17–18), integrate with throat condition to obtain Ψ(r) (eq. 22), then evaluate flare-out, embedding, NEC/SEC, thermodynamics, Kretschmann, and complexity on that solution. That is ordinary GR model construction, not a prediction forced by its inputs. Parameters (d, γ, r0, φ amplitude −0.1/r) are fixed by hand and plotted; nothing is fitted to external data and re-reported as confirmation. Self-citations to the authors’ prior wormhole papers supply motivation and context only; the shape-function algebra and subsequent diagnostics do not rest on a self-cited uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled in as external fact. Algebraic inconsistency between the written ρ_FHDE (eq. 2) and the exponent actually integrated (eq. 17), and failures of asymptotic flatness/finite IV for parts of the γ range, are correctness defects, not circular reductions. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

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

The claim rests on GR plus Morris–Thorne kinematics, on importing a cosmological FHDE density into a static WH by setting L→r, on an entirely free redshift profile, and on hand-set (d,r0,γ). No new particle or field is postulated beyond FHDE already in the literature; the ledger is dominated by domain modeling choices and free parameters rather than invented entities.

free parameters (4)
  • fractional parameter γ = 1.25–3.0 (scan)
    Scanned by hand over {1.25,1.5,2,2.5,3}; controls every geometric and exoticity plot. Not fixed by observation or a variational principle in the paper.
  • holographic parameter d = 0.05
    Fixed to 0.05 for all figures so that Ψ'(r0)<1; no observational anchor in the WH setting.
  • throat radius r0 = 1
    Set to 1 in geometrized units without loss of generality for plots, but absolute scale is free.
  • redshift amplitude in φ(r)=−0.1/r = 0.1
    Coefficient 0.1 chosen for ‘analytical simplicity’ (§II); changes tidal forces, temperatures, and TOV force balance.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Einstein equations G_βζ=8πT_βζ in geometrized units with anisotropic fluid source on the MT metric
    Standard GR wormhole setup; §II eqs. (8)–(11).
  • ad hoc to paper Fractional HDE density ρ_FHDE∝L^{(2−3γ)/γ} (recovering ordinary HDE at γ=2) is a valid local energy density for a static wormhole when L is replaced by r
    Eqs. (2), (16)–(18). The cosmological IR cutoff is not derived to equal the MT radial coordinate.
  • ad hoc to paper Redshift φ(r)=−0.1/r is finite, horizon-free, and adequate to capture tidal gravity
    Imposed in §II eq. (13) without matching to exterior or observational constraint.
  • domain assumption Morris–Thorne throat, flare-out Ψ'(r0)<1, and asymptotic flatness are the criteria for traversability
    Classic MT conditions, eqs. (4)–(6); paper claims all hold for the full γ scan.
  • ad hoc to paper Black-hole-style thermodynamic identities (Hawking temperature from surface gravity-like formula, first law dE=T dS+W dV with S=4πr²) apply to these horizonless wormholes
    §IV eqs. (31)–(42); standard in parts of the WH literature but not derived from a WH Euclidean section here.
  • standard math Integration and differentiation under standard real analysis on r≥r0
    Used to obtain Ψ from Ψ' and to define mass, VIQ, complexity integrals.
invented entities (1)
  • Fractional-holographic-dark-energy Morris–Thorne wormhole family with φ=−0.1/r
    purpose: Provide explicit traversable geometries sourced by FHDE and study γ as a regulator of exoticity and thermodynamics
    The solution class is the paper’s constructive output; FHDE itself is cited from Trivedi et al., not invented here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractional Holographic Dark Energy Wormholes: A Comprehensive Geometrical, Physical, and Thermodynamic Investigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4WCBQRC3

@misc{pith2026260723403,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractional Holographic Dark Energy Wormholes: A Comprehensive Geometrical, Physical, and Thermodynamic Investigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4WCBQRC3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23403}
}
read the original abstract

The discovery of the accelerated expansion of the cosmos has sparked great interest in studying the nature of the mysterious force behind this effect, often called dark energy. Several theories were proposed to study the nature of dark energy, and holographic dark energy stands out among them due to the relation between dark energy density and the principles of quantum gravity and holography. Recent progress made in fractional cosmology has led to the addition of fractional correction terms to the definition of holographic dark energy. Based on such progress, in this study, we investigate the behavior of fractional holographic dark energy in forming exotic spacetimes, especially traversable wormholes, which represent intriguing solutions of Einstein's field equations connecting distinct regions of spacetime. In the present article, a new class of Morris--Thorne wormhole solutions is obtained under the consideration of fractional holographic dark energy as the source of the gravitational field with a varying redshift function in the context of Einstein gravity. To study the nature of wormholes, their geometry, viability, and thermodynamic behavior, a shape function is obtained, and the wormholes are analyzed in detail via embedding diagrams, throat geometry, active gravitational mass, compactness, exoticity factor, energy conditions, conservation law, volume integral quantifier, Kretschmann invariant, and complexity factor. Moreover, thermodynamic properties of the wormholes are studied via the examination of several parameters, including Hawking temperature, wormhole temperature, entropy, energy, work density, and heat flux, aiming to understand the influence of fractional holographic corrections on the stability and evolution of traversable wormhole structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23403 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Geometrical behavior of the fractional HDE WH for different values of the fractional parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Graphical depiction of satisfaction of flaring out condition for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Embeddings of the fractional HDE WHs for varying fractional parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The variation of the Hawking temperature, wormhole temperature, and effective pressure with the fractional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Profile of internal energy evaluated by the application of the first law of thermodynamics, work density, energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Profiles of the energy density, energy conditions, and anisotropy for the fractional HDE WH corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Graphical visualization of the EoS parameters for the paramtric values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Dynamics of the active gravitational mass and compactness of the fractional HDE WHs, corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Behavior of the exoticity parameter and volume integral quantifier for the fractional HDE WHs corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The plots for profiles of anisotropic, hydrostatic, and gravitational forces, as well as the equilibrium state of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Graphical representation of the Kretschmann scalar and the complexity factor of the fractional holographic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [33]

    De Falco, E

    V. De Falco, E. Battista, S. Capozziello, and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rev. D101, 104037 (2020)

    2020

  2. [37]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, and Y. Wang, Communications in theoretical physics56, 525 (2011)

    2011

  3. [1]

    The description of fractional HDE and WH field equations are provided in Section II

  4. [2]

    To understand the geometric structure of the models, the nature of the shape function, throat geometry, and embedded surfaces are analyzed in Section III

  5. [3]

    The thermodynamics is developed by investigating Hawking, WH temperatures, entropy, energy, work density, and heat flux of the solution in Section IV. 3

  6. [4]

    In Section V, the physical nature of the models is explored by examining energy conditions, the equation-of- state (EoS) parameters, compactness, active gravitational mass, and the exoticity parameter, the conservation equations, and the volume integral quantifiers

  7. [5]

    Finally, in Section VI, the nature of regularity and structural stability has been investigated via Kretschmann and complexity factors, and Section VII provides the concluding arguments. The results obtained in this research provide new insight into the nature of the role of fractional HDE in forming traversable WH geometry and developing a link between q...

  8. [6]

    R. M. Wald,General relativity(University of Chicago press, 2010)

    2010

Show all 61 references
  1. [7]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner,et al., Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998)

    1998

  2. [8]

    S. P. e. a. Supernova Cosmology Project collaboration, Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999)

    1999

  3. [9]

    Aghanimet al., Astron

    N. Aghanimet al., Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  4. [10]

    D. N. Spergel, L. Verde, H. V. Peiris, E. Komatsu, M. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.148, 175 (2003)

    2003

  5. [11]

    Yousaf, Phys

    Z. Yousaf, Phys. Dark Universe48, 101884 (2025)

    2025

  6. [12]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4971 (1999)

    1999

  7. [13]

    Li, Phys

    M. Li, Phys. Lett. B603, 1 (2004)

    2004

  8. [14]

    Pavon and W

    D. Pavon and W. Zimdahl, Phys. Lett. B628, 206 (2005)

    2005

  9. [15]

    C. Gao, F. Wu, X. Chen, and Y.-G. Shen, Phys. Rev. D79, 043511 (2009)

    2009

  10. [16]

    Granda and A

    L. Granda and A. Oliveros, Phys. Lett. B671, 199 (2009)

    2009

  11. [17]

    M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, Am. J. Phys.56, 395 (1988)

    1988

  12. [18]

    De Falco, E

    V. De Falco, E. Battista, S. Capozziello, and M. De Laurentis, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 157 (2021)

    2021

  13. [19]

    Di Grezia, E

    E. Di Grezia, E. Battista, M. Manfredonia, and G. Miele, Eur. Phys. J. Plus132, 537 (2017)

    2017

  14. [20]

    G. G. L. Nashed, arXiv preprint gr-qc/0508079 (2005)

    2005 arXiv

  15. [21]

    G. G. L. Nashed, Grav. Cosmol.15, 256 (2009)

    2009

  16. [22]

    Battista, S

    E. Battista, S. Capozziello, and A. Errehymy, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1314 (2024)

    2024

  17. [23]

    H. Asad, M. Yousaf, U. Zafar, J. Rayimbaev, and A. Dauletov, Fortschr. Phys.73, e70034 (2025)

    2025

  18. [24]

    O. A. Almatroud, M. Rizwan, M. Alshammari, M. Bhatti, S. Alshammari, and Z. Yousaf, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1285 (2025)

    2025

  19. [25]

    Alshammari, M

    M. Alshammari, M. Rizwan, O. A. Almatroud, M. Bhatti, S. Alshammari, and Z. Yousaf, Phys. Dark Universe52, 102219 (2026)

    2026

  20. [26]

    A. H. Alblowy, M. Rizwan, N. Iqbal, W. W. Mohammed, and H. Asad, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 45 (2026)

    2026

  21. [27]

    G. G. L. Nashed and W. E. Hanafy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20331 (2025)

    2025

  22. [28]

    Yousaf, M

    Z. Yousaf, M. Bhatti, M. Rizwan, J. Rayimbaev, I. Ibragimov, and I. Davletov, Nucl. Phys. B1019, 117128 (2025)

    2025

  23. [29]

    A. M. Albalahi, Z. Yousaf, M. Rizwan, A. E. Hamza, and A. Ali, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 142 (2026)

    2026

  24. [30]

    Yousaf, M

    Z. Yousaf, M. Rizwan, M. Alshammari, O. A. Almatroud, S. Alshammari, and M. M. Al-sawalha, Phys. Dark Universe 50, 102082 (2025)

    2025

  25. [31]

    Yousaf, G

    M. Yousaf, G. Mustafa, A. Ditta, A. Alimova, and F. Atamurotov, Eur Phys. J. C86, 186 (2026)

    2026

  26. [32]

    S. Khan, J. Rayimbaev, J. Kurbanov, M. Matyoqubov, and Z. Yousaf, Phys. Dark Universe52, 102354 (2026)

    2026

  27. [34]

    Hooft, arXiv preprint gr-qc/9310026 (1993)

    G. Hooft, arXiv preprint gr-qc/9310026 (1993)

    1993 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Susskind, J

    L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys.36, 6377 (1995)

    1995

  29. [36]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pavon, Rep. Prog. Phys.79, 096901 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Trivedi, A

    O. Trivedi, A. Bidlan, and P. Moniz, Phys. Lett. B858, 139074 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Bidlan, P

    A. Bidlan, P. Moniz, and O. Trivedi, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 520 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

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

    1988

  33. [41]

    H. G. Ellis, J. Math. Phys.14, 104 (1973)

    1973

  34. [42]

    J. W. Keathley, PANDION: Osprey J. Res. Ideas3, 4 (2022). 21

    2022

  35. [43]

    P. F. Gonzalez-Diaz, Phys. Rev. D85, 105026 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Hong and S.-W

    S.-T. Hong and S.-W. Kim, Mod. Phys. Lett. A21, 789 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    Ma and R

    M.-S. Ma and R. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B751, 278 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Saiedi, Mod

    H. Saiedi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A27, 1250220 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Martın-Moruno and P

    P. Martın-Moruno and P. F. Gonz´ alez-Dıaz, Thermodynamics , 133 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Martin-Moruno and P

    P. Martin-Moruno and P. F. Gonzalez-Diaz, Phys. Rev. D80, 024007 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Thermostatistics,

    H. B. Callen, “Thermostatistics,” (1985)

    1985

  42. [50]

    Ditta, G

    A. Ditta, G. Mustafa, and A. Mahmood, J. High Energy Astrophys.45, 350 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Visser, Woodbury (1995)

    M. Visser, Woodbury (1995)

    1995

  44. [52]

    Hochberg and M

    D. Hochberg and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 746 (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    Herrera and N

    L. Herrera and N. O. Santos, Phys. Rep.286, 53 (1997)

    1997

  46. [54]

    R. L. Bowers and E. Liang, Astrophys. J.188, 657 (1974)

    1974

  47. [55]

    Visser, S

    M. Visser, S. Kar, and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 201102 (2003)

    2003

  48. [56]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev.55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  49. [57]

    Kretschmann, Ann

    E. Kretschmann, Ann. Phys.358, 575 (1918)

    1918

  50. [58]

    Herrera, Phys

    L. Herrera, Phys. Rev. D97, 044010 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, and J. Ospino, Phys. Rev. D98, 104059 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, and J. Carot, Phys. Rev. D99, 124028 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, and J. Ospino, Phys. Rev. D99, 044049 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.