Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

A sign rule on black-hole entropy corrections, drawn from gravitational-wave area-theorem tests, constrains F(R) gravity and excludes spin-2 gravitons or multiple axions.

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 02:12 UTC pith:NUXOH3NE

load-bearing objection A transparent review-and-update of the author's ACC program, but the GW data only constrain magnitudes, not signs; the load-bearing sign condition is stipulated and the F(R) expansion rests on an unproven identification. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25513 v1 pith:NUXOH3NE submitted 2026-07-28 gr-qc hep-th

Gravitational wave constraints on corrections to Bekenstein-Hawking Area Formula in classical F(R) gravity and quantum GR : implications for theory parameters

Parthasarathi Majumdar This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th PACS 04.70.-s04.30.-w04.50.Kd04.60.Pp
keywords black hole entropyBekenstein-Hawking area formulaHawking area theoremgravitational wavesF(R) gravityloop quantum gravityentanglement entropyabsolute consistency criterion
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.

Taking the five-sigma gravitational-wave confirmation of the Hawking area theorem as established, the paper introduces an 'absolute consistency criterion': the net change in the correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy between the merging black holes and the remnant must itself be positive. This sign rule—emphasizing sign over magnitude—converts the observed validation into constraints on the corrections. In classical F(R) gravity (where the Lagrangian is a function of the Ricci scalar), it forces the first derivative of F to be decreasing at small curvature, F'_R(A_S^{-1}) < F'_R(0), and F''_R(0) < 0. In quantum gravity, combining loop-quantum-gravity and entanglement-entropy logarithmic corrections, the rule requires the total log coefficient to be negative, which the Standard Model (s0 = -277/90) and the Standard Model plus one axion (-95/90) satisfy, but which two axions (+29/30) or an added spin-2 graviton (+329/90) violate. If the criterion holds, black-hole entropy corrections become a sieve for modified-gravity parameters and for particle-species content beyond the Standard Model.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the 'absolute consistency criterion' (ACC)—Δs_bh > 0, the requirement that the net change in the correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking area formula be positive—is the right way to marry the gravitational-wave-validated area theorem with the generalized second law. Under this criterion, the additive expansion of the correction s_bh = s0 log S_BH + s1/S_BH + ... is constrained in its sign. For F(R) gravity, the Wald entropy formula S_bh = F'_R(R_S) A_S, together with the inverse-area expansion and the identification R_S = a/A_S, leads to the parameter inequalities F'_R(A_S^{-1}) < F'_R(0) and F''_R(0) < 0, and to further inequalities if higher-order terms are k

What carries the argument

The 'absolute consistency criterion' (ACC) — the stipulation that the net change in the correction term Δs_bh be strictly positive — is the central device. It turns the 5-sigma validity of the Hawking area theorem into sign constraints on the expansion s_bh = s0 log S_BH + s1/S_BH + ... that the paper assumes to be additive. Alongside it, the Wald-Iyer-Jacobson-Kang-Myers entropy functional, specialized to F(R) gravity as S_bh = F'_R(R_S) A_S with R_S = a/A_S, carries the classical side, while the combination of loop-quantum-gravity conformal-block counting and one-loop entanglement entropy provides the quantum coefficient s0 = -3/2 + (1/45)(N0+ + 7/2 N1/2 - 13 N1 + 91 N0- - 233/4 N3/2 + 212

Load-bearing premise

The entire chain relies on the stipulated 'absolute consistency criterion' that the net change in entropy corrections be positive; the paper explicitly acknowledges that a calculation violating this sign rule is not inconsistent with observations, only with its own criterion.

What would settle it

Detection of a single spin-2 graviton, or of two distinct axion-like particles, in a future experiment would violate the predicted sign of the logarithmic coefficient (s0 > 0) and thereby falsify the paper's constraints. Alternatively, a quantum-gravity calculation that returns a positive total s0 while still passing the current gravitational-wave area-theorem bound would do the same.

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

If this is right

  • For F(R) gravity with large-horizon spherical black holes, the ACC forces F'_R(A_S^{-1}) < F'_R(0) and F''_R(0) < 0, and including the next order gives a further inequality between F''_R(0) and F'''_R(0).
  • The total logarithmic correction coefficient from quantum gravity must be negative; a positive s0 is ruled out by the criterion.
  • The Standard Model particle content alone has s0 = -277/90, consistent; adding one spinless axion gives -95/90, still consistent.
  • Adding a second axion (s0 = +29/30) or a spin-2 graviton (+329/90) violates the criterion, so the paper concludes that richer beyond-Standard-Model spectra are at odds with gravitational-wave area-theorem validation.
  • A future detection of a graviton or of two distinct axion species would contradict the predicted sign and falsify the constraints, as the paper states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the ACC is not an empirical constraint but a stipulated sign rule: the paper itself concedes that a negative Δs_bh of small magnitude is not excluded by observations. Consequently, the parameter bounds are conditional on an independent physical derivation of the sign rule, which the paper does not provide.
  • I infer that the identification R_S = a/A_S (relating the horizon Ricci scalar to the inverse cross-sectional area), used to map the F(R) series into inverse-area powers, is an assumption rather than a proven property of generic F(R) black-hole solutions; if it fails, the derivative inequalities would require re-derivation.
  • I infer that the simple addition of the loop-quantum-gravity and entanglement-entropy log coefficients is likely an over-simplification, since both derivations exploit conical singularities; a combined calculation might alter s0 and shift the species thresholds.
  • I infer a testable extension: if any alternative quantum-gravity calculation yields a positive s0 while still satisfying the area-theorem bound, that would undercut the universality of the ACC-derived constraints even without new particle detections.

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 claims that the 5-sigma confirmation of the Hawking area theorem in the binary-black-hole merger GW250114 can be turned, via a new 'Absolute Consistency Criterion' (ACC, Eq. (10): Δs_bh > 0), into constraints on corrections to the Bekenstein-Hawking area formula. For classical F(R) gravity, the Wald entropy is expanded in powers of R_S = a/A_S (Eq. (24)), and ACC is claimed to imply F'(1/A_S) < F'(0) and, at lowest order, F''(0) < 0. For quantum gravity, the LQG logarithmic coefficient -3/2 and the one-loop entanglement-entropy coefficient (Eq. (55)) are added (Eq. (56)); ACC then requires s0 < 0, which is satisfied by the SSET and by SSET + one axion but violated by SSET + two axions or SSET + axion + graviton. The paper presents the latter as falsifiable predictions.

Significance. If correct, the paper would establish a new observational window: GW area-theorem tests could bound parameters of F(R) gravity and of the BSSET/quantum-gravity sectors. The presentation is transparent about assumptions, includes worked derivations, and the LQG/It-from-Bit and entanglement calculations are explicit enough to be checked. The claimed exclusions (no graviton, no two axions) are concrete and falsifiable. However, the significance is presently conditional: the sign criterion is introduced as a stipulation, and the F(R) expansion hinges on an unproved identification of the horizon Ricci scalar with the Gaussian curvature. If those two points can be justified or reframed as explicit assumptions, the paper would be a useful contribution; in its current form the title overstates what the gravitational-wave data alone establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.1, Eq. (10)] The ACC Δs_bh > 0 is the load-bearing input for every subsequent constraint, but it is not a consequence of the GW data. Eq. (9) only requires -Δs_bh < (ΔS_BH)_OBS. For the observed merger (ΔS_BH ~ S_BH ~ 10^76 and |Δs_bh| ~ |s0| log S_BH ~ O(10^2)), both positive and negative Δs_bh satisfy the inequality by many orders of magnitude. The paper itself concedes immediately after Eq. (10) that a calculation violating ACC is not inconsistent with observations. Therefore the results in §4.2.2 and §5.4.4 are theorems conditional on ACC, not 'gravitational wave constraints'; the title, abstract, and §6 should be reframed, and the criterion needs independent physical motivation or a derivation from a more basic principle.
  2. [§4.2.1, Eq. (24)] The identification R_S = a/A_S is asserted without proof and is generally false. In standard Schwarzschild vacuum GR (F(R)=R), R_S=0 at the horizon while the Gaussian curvature of the horizon 2-sphere is 1/r_S^2 = 4π/A_S ≠ 0. For generic F(R) black holes the scalar curvature at the horizon is determined by the field equations and is not the intrinsic curvature of the horizon cross-section. Since Eqs. (25)-(27), and hence the derivative inequalities (29)-(32), rest on this identification, the F(R) constraints are not established. The author needs either to prove Eq. (24) for the intended class of solutions or to restrict to a class where the inverse-area expansion is valid and re-derive the inequalities.
  3. [§5.4.3, Eq. (56)] The exclusion of a graviton (and of a second axion) depends not only on ACC but on the assumption that the LQG and entanglement-entropy logarithmic coefficients add linearly, s0 = -3/2 + s0^ent. This additivity is not derived; the paper itself notes in §5.4.3 that the 'apparently blithe addition' is questionable, and LQG is background-independent while ENT is perturbative in a fixed background. A double-counting of graviton degrees of freedom or a different renormalization prescription would change the sign of s0 and therefore flip the claimed exclusion. The falsifiable claim in §6 (graviton observation would falsify ACC) is correspondingly fragile; the coefficient s0 should either be derived from a common framework or explicitly treated as a model assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.1 and Eq. (31)] The notation F'_R(R_S + 1/(A_F S_BHr))|_{R=0} is confusing; the intended argument appears to be 1/A_Sr. Please rewrite to avoid an apparent evaluation at R=0 of an expression already containing R_S.
  2. [Abstract and throughout] Please correct 'L VK' to 'LVK'; make the acronym usage consistent for 'BHAF' vs 'BHF'; fix typos such as 'resricted' (§5.3.1), 'sptm' (§5.2), and 'fropm' (§6).
  3. [References and quoted results] The central computations are imported from refs. [4]-[6] and [11]. Since the ACC and the additivity of log coefficients are sensitive to the precise definitions, a more self-contained summary of the derivation of s0_lqg and s0_ent would help the reader check the sign and normalization.
  4. [§5.4.2, Eq. (55)] Eq. (55) is stated with no derivation or pointer to the precise closed-form expression for each spin. Please provide the relevant formula from the Solodukhin/Callan-Wilczek literature, including the treatment of graviton fluctuations, to make the species counting reproducible.
  5. [Figures] Fig. 3 is described in the text but not referenced by number; please check the placement of figures and ensure each is discussed where it appears.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

ACC is a stipulated sign rule, not a GW-data outcome; the paper's F(R) and BSM constraints are restatements of that stipulation.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§3.2.1, eq. (10); §5.1, eqs. (38)–(39)]
    "We now propose the Absolute Consistency Criterion (ACC) [5]-[6]: Δs_bh > 0. (10) This is a stipulation ... If a calculation violates eqn. (10), observe that it is not inconsistent with observations. ... sig(s0)|s0| log(SBH1 SBH2 / SBHr) < 0 ⇒ sig(s0) = − (39) In other words, GW Data validating HAT chooses alg sign of s_bh (QG) !"

    The actual GW constraint, eq. (9), is only −Δs_bh < (ΔS_BH)_OBS. Since |s_bh| << S_BH and ΔS_BH is huge, both positive and negative Δs_bh pass the bound. The paper explicitly concedes this. Yet §5.1 derives sig(s0) = − by imposing ACC and then calls it 'GW Data validating HAT chooses alg sign.' The sign selection is therefore the stipulated input renamed as a data-driven prediction, not an empirical result.

  2. self definitional [§4.2.2, eqs. (28)–(32)]
    "Using eqn(27), and assuming that the coefficients s_n are identical for similar mass black holes, the absolute consistency criterion implies ... >0 ... If we restrict to the term n=1 ... we obtain the result that F_R^(2)(0)<0 ... In other words, we have the inequality relating the parameters of the theory : F_R^(1)(A_Sr^{-1})< F_R^(1)(0)."

    The F(R) derivative inequalities are direct transcriptions of ACC. Equations (29) and (32) follow from imposing the stipulated Δs_bh > 0 on the series (27); no independent observational quantity selects the sign. The claimed constraint on F(R) parameters is thus the absolute consistency criterion restated in terms of derivatives—by construction, not by GW250114.

  3. self citation load bearing [§3.2.1 (ACC), §4.2.1 (F(R) corrections); refs. [4]–[6], [11]]
    "We now propose the Absolute Consistency Criterion (ACC) [5]-[6]: Δs_bh > 0. (10) ... In the case of modified F(R) gravity ... corrections to the BHAF are computed [11] via the Wald-Jacobson-Kang-Myers entropy function formalism."

    The central premise that converts GW data into sign constraints—ACC—is introduced by citing the author's own prior papers [5]-[6], where it was also stipulated. The inverse-area F(R) corrections are likewise attributed to [11], co-authored by the present author. Since every later constraint runs through ACC, the load-bearing premise rests on self-citation of an unproven stipulation rather than on independent evidence.

full rationale

The derivation chain is transparent about its key move: the GW data yield only the inequality −Δs_bh < (ΔS_BH)_OBS, which is satisfied by arbitrarily small corrections of either sign. The paper then introduces ACC, Δs_bh > 0, explicitly calling it a stipulation and conceding that violating it 'is not inconsistent with observations.' All central results—F'_R(A_S^{-1}) < F'_R(0), F''_R(0) < 0, sig(s0) = −, and the BSSET exclusions—are obtained by feeding this stipulated sign rule into independently computed correction coefficients. The LQG and entanglement coefficients themselves have independent derivations (Kaul–Majumdar; Solodukhin), so those computations are not circular; the circularity is in presenting the imposed ACC as a GW-data-driven prediction of the sign. The paper's own admission after eq. (10) is the clearest evidence that the observational content is insufficient to force the conclusions. Eq. (24), R_S = a/A_S, is an unsupported assumption that underlies the inverse-area expansion, but it is more a correctness risk than a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 9 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical particles, forces, or dimensions are invented. The primary ad-hoc input is the Absolute Consistency Criterion, an unproven sign rule that is the engine of every constraint. The F(R) section additionally relies on an unjustified geometrical identification, and the QG section on a naive addition of two independent frameworks' coefficients.

axioms (9)
  • ad hoc to paper Absolute Consistency Criterion (ACC): Δs_bh > 0 for the net change in entropy corrections in a BBHC.
    Introduced as a stipulation in §3.2.1, eq. (10). The paper itself says violating it is not inconsistent with observations, so all derived constraints depend on this unproven postulate.
  • domain assumption Corrections to the BHAF are additive and expand as s_bh = s0 log S_BH + Σ s_n S_BH^{-n}.
    Eqs. (6), (8), §3.2; plausible for large-area black holes but not derived from the underlying frameworks.
  • domain assumption The entropy-correction coefficients s_n are identical for black holes of similar mass in a BBHC.
    Stated in §4.2.2 without proof; needed to translate ACC into differences of powers of S_BH.
  • domain assumption For F(R) gravity, the horizon Ricci scalar R_S is identified with the Gaussian curvature of the S^2 horizon cross-section, so R_S = a/A_S with a=O(1).
    Eq. (24), §4.2.1; no derivation is provided, and the identification is not generally true for arbitrary F(R) black hole solutions.
  • domain assumption F'_R(0) > 0, and F'_R(R_S) admits a Taylor expansion around R_S = 0 for large-area astrophysical black holes.
    §4.2.1, after eq. (25); restricts to a class of F(R) theories regular at vanishing scalar curvature and with positive inverse effective Newton constant.
  • domain assumption The LQG isolated-horizon state counting via SU(2) Chern-Simons/WZW conformal blocks yields the log correction coefficient -3/2.
    §5.3, eqs. (47)-(49); this is a standard but framework-dependent result imported from the LQG literature, partly authored by the present author.
  • domain assumption The one-loop entanglement entropy coefficients a_j for matter and graviton fluctuations are those quoted from Solodukhin and Christenson-Duff.
    §5.4.1, eqs. (54)-(55); the coefficients are imported without re-derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper The LQG and ENT logarithmic correction coefficients can be added simply: s0 = s0_lqg + s0_ent.
    Eq. (56), §5.4.3; the text admits this addition is 'somewhat naively added', yet it is used for the BSM species constraints.
  • domain assumption The generalized second law for a BBHC uses S_bh1 + S_bh2 < S_bh_rem, with gravitational-wave entropy discarded.
    Eq. (4), §3.1; justified by the cited estimate S_GW << S_BH, but the estimate is not reproduced here.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15705 in / 19962 out tokens · 194898 ms · 2026-08-01T02:12:58.527358+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This contribution considers constraints from analyses of gravitational wave data from binary black hole coalescence, on possible corrections to the Bekenstein-Hawking Area Formula for black hole entropy. Most recent analyses of gravitational wave data from the LVK Consortium appear to confirm the Hawking Area Theorem for black holes at a $5 \sigma$ accuracy, for the `loudest' signal (SNR of the order of $80$) of binary black hole merger inherent in the recent observation GW250114. Amalgamating this result with Bekenstein's ideas of black hole entropy and the generalized second law of thermodynamics, we constrain leading inverse area corrections for large horizon area spherical black hole solutions of classical $F(R)$ gravity, using the Wald entropy function formalism. The implementation of the observational constraints entails the notion of `absolute consistency' which we introduce and contrast with `relative consistency'. This absolute consistency criterion is shown to relate some of the parameters of $F(R)$ gravity. Next we consider leading quantum general relativistic corrections to the Area formula, arising both from the non-perturbative matter-free Loop Quantum Gravity and matter-dependent, perturbative Entanglement entropy approaches. Combining the leading logarithmic corrections in horizon area (for large areas) from both approaches, and imposing absolute consistency with the observational validation of the Area Theorem, is shown to lead to significant restrictions on the spin and number of species of Beyond Standard Model spectrum of elementary particles, some of which are often assumed to be Dark Matter candidates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25513 by Parthasarathi Majumdar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The left panel depicts a spherical black hole in ingoing null coordinate frame [9], with trapped surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.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

53 extracted references · 34 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. G. Abac et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 111403 (2025). e-Print: 2509.08054 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    M. Isi, W. M. Farr, M. Giesler, M. A. Scheel, S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 011103 (2021). e-Print: 2012.04486 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Kastha, C

    S. Kastha, C. D. Capano, J. Westerweck, M. Cabero, B. Krishnan, A. B. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064042 (2022). e-Print: 2111.13664 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Majumdar, Phys.Lett.B 849, 138467 (2024)

    P. Majumdar, Phys.Lett.B 849, 138467 (2024). e-Print: 2305.09391 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Majumdar, Phys.Rev.D 111, 064040 (2025)

    P. Majumdar, Phys.Rev.D 111, 064040 (2025). e-Print: 2408.13820 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Majumdar, Phys

    P. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. D 113, 024038 (2026). e-Print : 2506.04905 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Bekenstein, Phys

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

    1973

  8. [8]

    S. W. Hawking, Commu. Math. Phys. 46, 206 (1975)

    1975

  9. [9]

    Penrose, Phys.Rev.Lett

    R. Penrose, Phys.Rev.Lett. 14, 57 (1965)

    1965

  10. [10]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys.Rev.Lett. 26, 1344 (1971)

    1971

  11. [11]

    R. Das, P. Majumdar, D. Mukherjee,Inverse Area Corrections to Black Hole Entropy Area Formula inF(R)Gravity and Gravitational Wave Observations, e-Print 2601.13863v2 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  12. [12]

    R. M. Wald, Phys.Rev.D 48, 8, R3427 (1993). e-Print: gr-qc/9307038 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  13. [13]

    Iyer and R

    V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, Phys.Rev. D 50, 846 (1994)

    1994

  14. [14]

    Jacobson, G

    T. Jacobson, G. Kang and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6587 (1994). e-Print: gr-qc/9312023v2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  15. [15]

    Sen, Phys.Lett.B 119 (1982) 89

    A. Sen, Phys.Lett.B 119 (1982) 89

    1982

  16. [16]

    Rovelli and L

    C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, Nucl.Phys.B 331 (1990) 80. 20

    1990

  17. [17]

    Ashtekar and J

    A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Class.Quant.Grav. 21 (2004) R53•e-Print: gr-qc/0404018 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  18. [18]

    Rovelli,Quantum Gravity, Published as: Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (2004)

    C. Rovelli,Quantum Gravity, Published as: Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (2004)

    2004

  19. [19]

    Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Published as: Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics (2007)

    T. Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Published as: Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics (2007)

    2007

  20. [20]

    C. J. Callan and F. Wilczek, Phys.Lett.B 333, 55 (1994). e-Print: hep-th/9401072 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  21. [21]

    Solodukhin, Living Rev

    S. Solodukhin, Living Rev. Relativity, 14, 8 (2011). e-Print 1103.3712 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    Solodukhin, Phys

    S. Solodukhin, Phys. Lett. B 802, 135235 (2020). e-Print: 1907.07916 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    S. M. Christenson and M. J. Duff, Phys. Lett. 76B, 571 (1978)

    1978

  24. [24]

    R. K. Kaul and P. Majumdar, Phys. Lett. B439, 267 (1998). e-Print:gr-qc/9802111

    arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    Majumdar, Ind

    P. Majumdar, Ind. Jou. Phys. B43, 147 (1998). e-Print:gr-qc/9807045

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  26. [26]

    R. K. Kaul and P. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5255 (2000). e-Print:gr-qc/0002040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  27. [27]

    S. Das, R. K. Kaul and P. Majumdar, Phys.Rev.D 63, 044019 (2001). e-Print: hep-th/0006211 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  28. [28]

    Domagala and J

    M. Domagala and J. Lewandowski, Class.Quant.Grav. 21 (2004) 5233-5244. e-Print: gr- qc/0407051 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2004

  29. [29]

    K. A. Meissner, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 5245 (2004). eprint:gr-qc/0407052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  30. [30]

    Ghosh and P

    A. Ghosh and P. Mitra, Phys. Lett. B616, 114 (2005). eprint:gr-qc/0411035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  31. [31]

    Ghosh and P

    A. Ghosh and P. Mitra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 141302 (2009). eprint-arXiv:0809.4170 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  32. [32]

    Engle, K

    J. Engle, K. Noui and A. Perez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 031302 (2010). eprint:0905.3168

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    Engle, K

    J. Engle, K. Noui, A. Perez and D. Pranzetti, Phys. Rev. D82, 044050 (2010). eprint:1006.0634

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  34. [34]

    R. Basu, R. K. Kaul and P. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024007 (2010). eprint : 0907.0846

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [35]

    R. K. Kaul and P. Majumdar, Phys.Rev.D 83, 024038 (2011). e-Print: 1004.5487 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [36]

    R. K. Kaul, Sigma 8, 005 (2012). e-print:1201.6102 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    Majhi, Class

    A. Majhi, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 095002 (2014). eprint:1205.3487 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Majhi and P

    A. Majhi and P. Majumdar, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 195003 (2014). eprint:1301.4553 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [39]

    Majumdar and A

    P. Majumdar and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044036 (2021). e-Print: 2008.13425

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Brevik, S

    H. Brevik, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and L. Vanzo, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043520 (2004). e-Print : hep-th/0401073 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  41. [41]

    Cognola, E

    G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and S. Zerbini, JCAP 02, 010 (2005). e-Print : hep-th/0501096 [hep-th]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  42. [42]

    Sebastiani and S

    L. Sebastiani and S. Zerbini, Eur. Phys. Jou. C 71, 1591 (2011). e-Print : 1012.5230 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  43. [43]

    Briscese and E

    F. Briscese and E. Elizalde, Phys. Rev. D 77, 044009 (2008). e-Print: 0708.0432v2 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  44. [44]

    D. N. Vollick, Phys. Rev. D 76, 124001 (2007). e-Print: 0710.1859v2 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  45. [45]

    Dyer and K

    E. Dyer and K. Hinterbichler, Phys. Rev. D 79, 024028 (2009). e-Print: 0809.4033v2 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  46. [46]

    Brustein, D.Garbonos, M

    R. Brustein, D.Garbonos, M. Hadad, Phys. Rev. D 79, 044025 (2009)

    2009

  47. [47]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451 (2010). e-Print: 0805.1726 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  48. [48]

    Faraoni, Entropy 12, 1246 (2010)

    V. Faraoni, Entropy 12, 1246 (2010). e-Print: 1005.2327. [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept. 505, 59 (2011). e-Print : 1011.0544 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  50. [50]

    Caravelli and L

    F. Caravelli and L. Modesto, Phys. Lett. B 702, (2011)

    2011

  51. [51]

    J. A. Wheeler inSakharov Revisited : It from Bit, Contribution to: The First International A.D. Sakharov Conference on Physics, 751 (1991)

    1991

  52. [52]

    F. J. Dyson, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330041 (2013)

    2013

  53. [53]

    ’t Hooft, International School of Subnuclear Physics, 35th Course: Highlights: 50 Years Later, 1-17 (1997)

    G. ’t Hooft, International School of Subnuclear Physics, 35th Course: Highlights: 50 Years Later, 1-17 (1997). 22

    1997