Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 28 references

The sign of the Hubble parameter unifies two pictures of entropy flow in gravitational collapse: shrinking interiors always raise total entropy.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 17:27 UTC pith:3OM4LRQZ

load-bearing objection Useful negative result dressed as unification: Minkowski breaking is not a classical H-flip, but the shared “thermodynamic arrow” is only half-derived. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24349 v1 pith:3OM4LRQZ submitted 2026-07-27 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Entropy dynamics in gravitational collapse: From Minkowski breaking to de Sitter thermodynamics

Francisco S. N. Lobo , Manuel E. Rodrigues This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th PACS 04.70.Dy04.20.Dw98.80.Es
keywords black hole entropyregular black holesde Sitter thermodynamicsHubble parameter signMinkowski breakinggravastarsgeneralized second lawentropy quantization
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.

Black hole entropy still lacks a clear microscopic origin. This paper links two recent approaches: regular Schwarzschild black holes with a de Sitter core that release positive inner-horizon entropy as they shrink, and local de Sitter thermodynamics in which expanding regions carry positive entropy and contracting ones carry negative entropy. The shared rule is simple: the sign of the Hubble parameter sets the sign of the core’s entropy, and in both pictures the shrinking of the interior drives the total entropy up. Classically the two pictures do not form successive stages of one collapse; a Minkowski-structure break blocks the regular solution before a contracting phase can appear, so any bridge would have to be quantum and is left as a conjecture. Even so, both satisfy the generalized second law, and the discrete parameter of the regular family suggests a quantized entropy spectrum that could count black-hole microstates.

Core claim

The sign of the Hubble parameter is the unifying element between entropy release from regular black holes with expanding de Sitter cores and entropy cancellation in black-hole gravastars with contracting cores. Both embody the same principle: shrinking of the interior increases total entropy, with total de Sitter entropy given by S_dS = sgn(H) A/4. The Minkowski breaking at n=0 is only a classical kinematic obstruction, not a dynamical flip to a contracting phase.

What carries the argument

Sign-dependent de Sitter entropy S_dS = sgn(H) π/H² = sgn(H) A/4, together with the OCK inner-horizon entropy S_inner = π h_c². The sign of H assigns the thermodynamic role of the core (positive extra entropy released versus negative bulk entropy cancelled) while the generalized second law is preserved in both cases.

Load-bearing premise

That a static regular interior, which only fixes H squared, can be identified with the expanding (positive-H) branch so that the sign of H genuinely unifies the two entropy pictures rather than being a convenient convention.

What would settle it

Construct or rule out an explicit quantum transition (for example an instanton or dynamical solution in Painlevé–Gullstrand coordinates) that flips the effective cosmological constant at the Minkowski breaking and connects an expanding regular core to a contracting gravastar core while tracking total entropy including the environment.

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

If this is right

  • Interior shrinkage during collapse always increases total entropy, whether by releasing positive inner-horizon entropy or by removing negative core entropy.
  • The integer OCK parameter yields a discrete entropy spectrum S_reg(n) = A/4 + π h_c²(n), supporting area quantization and a microstate count S_BH = ln Ω(M).
  • Any classical path from regular expanding cores to contracting gravastars is blocked; unification requires a quantum mechanism near n ~ 1/ln(h/ℓ_P).
  • The generalized second law holds in both frameworks, and in a conjectured quantum bridge only if environmental radiation entropy is included.
  • Schwarzschild geometry acts as the thermodynamic attractor of collapse, favored by exponentially enhanced transition rates Γ ∝ exp(ΔS).

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the discrete n-spectrum is physical, collapse could emit a train of entropy-carrying radiation pulses whose amplitudes track successive integer jumps, offering a potential observational signature.
  • Extending the sign(H) rule to rotating or higher-dimensional regular interiors would test whether oriented horizon entropy remains the order parameter outside spherical symmetry.
  • A Euclidean or stochastic path-integral treatment of the Minkowski breaking could turn the infinite barrier in the entropic potential V(H) = −S(H) into a concrete tunneling rate between expanding and contracting phases.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares two recent frameworks for gravitational entropy: the OCK family of regular Schwarzschild black holes, in which an inner horizon carries positive Wald entropy S_inner = πh_c² that is released as the collapse parameter n decreases toward the Minkowski breaking at n=0, and Volovik's local de Sitter thermodynamics, in which S_dS = sgn(H)π/H² assigns negative entropy to a contracting core, yielding zero-entropy black-hole gravastars. The authors argue that the sign of the Hubble parameter organizes a complementarity between the two pictures: both embody the principle that shrinking of the interior increases total entropy. They are careful to state that the Minkowski breaking is a classical kinematic obstruction rather than a dynamical transition to a contracting phase, and that any quantum connection (sign-flip instanton) is conjectural. Additional material includes a numerical entropy-release profile (Table III), a phenomenological entropic potential V(H) = −sgn(H)π/H², and a speculative microstate counting proposal S_BH = ln Ω(M) over integer OCK tuples.

Significance. If the framing is tightened, the paper makes a useful, honest contribution: it correctly identifies the limits of classical unification (the n<2 core is AdS, so Volovik's thermodynamics does not apply), refuses to overclaim a dynamical connection, and provides a correct quantitative entropy-release table. The algebra within each imported framework checks out (e.g., the factor ~2.36 at n=3 in Sec. VI.A is consistent with h_c/h = 0.7676 and H² = 4/h²). The candid correction of the dimensionally inconsistent earlier formula S(H) ∝ −1/(4H) in Sec. III.D is also in the manuscript's favor. However, the central "unification by sign(H)" claim is weaker than the abstract suggests, for two load-bearing reasons detailed below: the H>0 assignment to the static OCK core is a convention the geometry does not fix, and the common thermodynamic arrow on the OCK side rests on an unverified radiative compensation assumption. The significance is therefore that of a clearly-delimited comparative study rather than a unified theory.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.C and Sec. IV.B (Eq. 41)] The common thermodynamic arrow is asserted, not demonstrated, on the OCK side. The paper states that when the inner horizon is destroyed its entropy 'assuming the validity of the generalized second law, must be released to the environment,' and then concludes ΔS_total = −πh_c² + ΔS_rad ≥ 0 'preserving the generalized second law,' with ΔS_rad ≥ πh_c² simply posited. This is structurally circular: the GSL is an input used to demand the release and then claimed as an output. No radiation channel, flux, or rate is identified, and Ref. [10] (the exact Aoki–Ovalle collapse model) is cited for the horizon dynamics but never used to close the entropy budget. In Volovik's framework, by contrast, ΔS_total = A/4 > 0 follows intrinsically from the shrinking negative-entropy core. The abstract's claim that 'both frameworks embody the same thermodynamic principle' therefore needs to be restated condit
  2. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (8)] The 'unifying element' claim rests on a conventional branch choice. The authors state that the static OCK geometry fixes only H² and that 'the choice H > 0 is a convenient convention that selects the expanding de Sitter branch.' If the assignment is conventional, then sign(H) does not follow from the OCK geometry and cannot, by itself, serve as the geometric unifier the title and abstract announce. The paper's own Sec. IV.A concedes that the OCK inner-horizon Wald entropy and Volovik's bulk vacuum entropy 'are not identical entropy functionals.' The authors should either (a) provide a physical criterion fixing the branch — e.g., an argument from Painlevé–Gullstrand shift-vector continuity across the horizon (which they invoke in Sec. III.E for the gravastar side and mention as a future tool in Sec. VII) applied to the OCK interior — or (b) reframe the central claim as a complementarity o
  3. [Sec. VI.C, Eqs. (45)-(46)] The microstate proposal is presented as 'a concrete statistical-mechanics proposal,' but no estimate of Ω(M) is given, the cutoff n_max is ad hoc, and it is not shown (or argued) that ln Ω(M) scales like A/4 ∝ M². Counting integer tuples 2 < n_1 < ... < n_N ≤ n_max gives at most combinatorial growth in n_max, and there is no evident mechanism tying n_max to h/ℓ_P such that the Bekenstein–Hawking scaling emerges. Since the paper elsewhere derives n ~ 1/ln(h/ℓ_P) as the semiclassical breakdown scale, the authors could attempt a quantitative estimate; otherwise this subsection should be explicitly relabeled as schematic and removed from the abstract-level conclusions, where 'a statistical interpretation of black hole entropy' is currently stated without qualification.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'the generalized second law is satisfied in both frameworks, and in the speculated quantum connection provided the environmental entropy is properly accounted for' is grammatically broken; please rewrite.
  2. [Sec. III.D] The remark that 'earlier versions of this work contained an erroneous expression S(H) ∝ −1/(4H)' is appropriate for an arXiv revision history but reads oddly in a journal submission; the correction is welcome, but the meta-comment should be removed (also repeated in Sec. VII).
  3. [Sec. II.D vs. Sec. IV, Eq. (31)] The symbol v is used both for advanced time in n(v) and for the Painlevé–Gullstrand shift velocity v(r) in Eq. (31); please disambiguate.
  4. [Sec. VI.C, Eq. (46)] S_BH is used for the statistical entropy ln Ω(M) while S_Sch = A/4 is used elsewhere; since Eq. (46) claims these coincide, a single notation (or an explicit statement of the identification) would avoid confusion.
  5. [Sec. V.B, Eqs. (36)-(37)] The free energy F(H) = −1/(2|H|) is computed and then set aside as non-minimizing; a sentence clarifying why this detour is needed before introducing V(H) = −S(H) would improve readability. Also, calling V(H) a 'Landau-type potential' is loose since it lacks a Landau functional's polynomial order-parameter structure; 'entropic potential' alone suffices.
  6. [Sec. II.C, Eq. (11)] The additive rule S_reg = S_outer + S_inner is flagged as a working hypothesis only in the conclusions (Sec. VII); given that it enters Eq. (11) and the subsequent entropy budget, this caveat should appear where the rule is introduced.
  7. [Fig. 2] Fig. 2 is described as schematic; please state the axis units explicitly and note that H=0 is not the same point as n=0 (the text does say this, but the figure caption invites the identification).

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged

Mild interpretive circularity: GSL is assumed to force OCK entropy release then cited as satisfied output; H>0 for OCK is a convention used to underwrite sign(H) unification.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. II.C and Sec. IV.B (entropy release / GSL)]
    "when the black hole undergoes a transition that destroys the inner horizon, this entropy, assuming the validity of the generalized second law, must be released to the environment. ... The black hole entropy alone decreases by ∆S_BH = −πh²_c <0, but the collapse is non-adiabatic: the released entropy is carried away by radiation, ∆S_rad ≥ πh²_c. The total entropy change therefore satisfies ∆S_total = −πh²_c + ∆S_rad ≥ 0, preserving the generalized second law."

    GSL is an input assumption used to require that S_inner be released; ∆S_rad ≥ πh_c² is then asserted with no computed flux, rate, or channel (Aoki–Ovalle collapse is cited only for horizon dynamics). The same GSL is listed as an output that both frameworks satisfy. On the OCK branch the common thermodynamic arrow is assumed, not derived—unlike Volovik where ∆S_total = A/4 follows directly from core shrinkage.

  2. self definitional [Sec. II.B and Sec. IV.A (H sign / unification)]
    "The static OCK geometry determines only H², not the sign of H; the choice H>0 is a convenient convention that selects the expanding de Sitter branch. ... We show that the sign of the Hubble parameter is the unifying element linking the two pictures. ... In the OCK geometry, the n>2 core is locally de Sitter and may be associated with the expanding branch, H>0, whereas Volovik’s black-hole gravastar employs the contracting branch, H<0."

    Unification by sign(H) requires assigning OCK the expanding branch. The geometry only determines H²; H>0 is chosen by convention. That convention is then presented as the element that links OCK positive extra entropy to Volovik’s sign-dependent S_dS. The paper further concedes (Sec. VI.A) the two entropy functionals differ by a factor ~2.36 at n=3, so the identification is not forced by the metric alone.

  3. self citation load bearing [Abstract / Sec. II; Ref. [8]]
    "Remarkably, these regular black holes possess an inner Killing horizon that carries a formal Bekenstein–Hawking entropy S_inner = π h_c² [8]. During gravitational collapse, this inner horizon shrinks and its entropy is released, culminating in a “Minkowski breaking” at n=0 ... [8] F. S. N. Lobo and M. E. Rodrigues, “Entropy release from Minkowski breaking in regular Schwarzschild black holes,” [arXiv:2607.14079 [gr-qc]]."

    The OCK entropy-release narrative that the present synthesis rests on is load-bearingly cited to the same authors’ immediately prior note rather than re-derived or externally checked here. OCK geometry itself is external (Ovalle et al.), so this is partial—not a full closed self-citation chain—but the entropy-release-and-Minkowski-breaking framing is author-overlapping and not independently established in this text.

  4. renaming known result [Sec. VI.C (entropy quantization / statistical interpretation)]
    "the integer nature of the OCK parameter n implies a quantized entropy spectrum for the regular black holes, S_reg(n) = A/4 + π h_c²(n), with h_c(n) taking discrete values. This supports Bekenstein’s conjecture that the horizon area is quantized [28]. ... The number of distinct regular states for a fixed macroscopic mass is given by the number of allowed integer tuples, Ω(M) = #{(n1,...,nN): 2<n1<···<nN≤n_max}, ... In the semiclassical limit, one therefore expects S_BH = ln Ω(M)."

    Ω(M) is defined as the count of allowed integer n-tuples, then S_BH is expected to equal ln Ω(M). This renames Bekenstein’s area-quantization conjecture in OCK coordinates without a derived microstate measure, degeneracy proof, or matching calculation—presentation of a definitional counting proposal as a statistical interpretation of black hole entropy.

full rationale

This is primarily a synthesis paper comparing external OCK geometry and Volovik de Sitter thermodynamics. It does not fit parameters to data or smuggle a uniqueness theorem. Two load-bearing interpretive steps are circular or near-circular. (1) On the OCK side the paper assumes the generalized second law to demand that destroyed inner-horizon entropy be released to the environment, asserts ∆S_rad ≥ π h_c² without computing a radiation channel or flux, then concludes that the GSL is preserved—so the common thermodynamic arrow is an input on that branch, not a derived output. Volovik’s ∆S = A/4 is intrinsic; the claimed shared principle is therefore only half-derived. (2) The static OCK metric fixes only H²; H>0 is explicitly a convenient convention, yet that choice is what lets sign(H) serve as the unifying order parameter with Volovik’s contracting core. The paper itself notes that Wald inner-horizon entropy and homogeneous bulk entropy differ by ~2.36 at n=3 and agree only as n→∞, so the unification is asymptotic and conventional rather than forced by geometry. Self-citation to the authors’ own entropy-release note [8] supplies the OCK entropy story but is not a closed uniqueness chain. No fitted-input-as-prediction pattern. Score 4: real but partial circularity on the synthesis claims; central geometric formulas remain external.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 3 invented entities

The load-bearing structure imports OCK regular interiors and Volovik local dS thermodynamics almost whole, then adds interpretive axioms (H>0 convention for OCK, additive horizon entropies, integer-n microstate counting) and one phenomenological potential. No experimental free parameters; the main extras are modeling choices and a speculative quantum instanton not constructed in the text.

free parameters (2)
  • OCK family parameter n (and integer restriction) = continuous n>2 classically; integers n=3,4,... used illustratively
    Controls core structure, h_c(n), and the claimed discrete entropy spectrum; dynamics assume monotonic n(v) from the null convergence condition. Integer n is used for quantization/Ω(M) without a derivation that n must be integer.
  • N=1 OCK truncation = N=1
    Entropy-release profile and Table III are computed for the N=1 mass function only; multi-parameter interiors are mentioned via Ω(M) but not analyzed.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Wald/Bekenstein–Hawking entropy applies to the inner Cauchy horizon: S_inner = A_inner/4 = π h_c²
    Invoked in Sec. II.C as the stored entropy that must be released under GSL when the inner horizon disappears.
  • domain assumption Volovik local temperature T=H/π and entropy density s_vac=3H/4, hence S_dS=sgn(H)A/4
    Entire sign-based unification rests on this imported local thermodynamics (Sec. III).
  • ad hoc to paper Static OCK core is assigned H>0 (expanding branch) although geometry fixes only H²
    Sec. II.B explicitly calls H>0 a convenient convention; this choice supplies the sign that links to Volovik.
  • ad hoc to paper Additive entropy S_reg = S_outer + S_inner
    Used throughout entropy-release bookkeeping; Sec. VII lists it as a working hypothesis, alternatives unexplored.
  • domain assumption Null convergence condition implies ṅ(v)<0 during collapse
    Sec. II.D imports this from OCK to turn a static family into an entropy-release process.
  • domain assumption Generalized second law with environmental/radiation entropy
    Needed so OCK’s decrease of black-hole entropy and the speculative S→0→A/4 sequence do not violate the second law (Secs. IV, VI).
  • standard math Standard GR matching and Misner–Sharp mass for regular Schwarzschild interior
    Metric (1)–(4) and horizon structure assume classical Einstein equations with the given m(r).
invented entities (3)
  • Phenomenological entropic potential V(H)=−sgn(H) π/H² no independent evidence
    purpose: Portray H as an order parameter and an infinite barrier at H=0 between expanding and contracting phases
    Sec. V.B; free energy F(H) fails to bound, so V is introduced by hand. Paper admits it is not a true Landau free energy and divergence is not a literal tunneling barrier.
  • Speculative quantum instanton flipping sign of effective cosmological constant at Minkowski breaking no independent evidence
    purpose: Optional dynamical bridge from OCK expanding core to Volovik contracting gravastar
    Secs. IV.D, VI.B; explicitly unconstructed; sequence S=A/4+πh_c²→0→A/4 is conditional on environmental entropy.
  • Microstate count Ω(M) over integer OCK tuples with S_BH=ln Ω(M) no independent evidence
    purpose: Statistical interpretation of black-hole entropy from discrete interior parameters
    Sec. VI.C; no explicit state space, dynamics, or proof that ln Ω equals A/4; n_max cutoff left to quantum gravity.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 22841 in / 4082 out tokens · 86781 ms · 2026-07-31T17:27:32.614616+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The origin of black hole entropy remains one of the deepest mysteries in modern physics. Two recent developments offer complementary perspectives on this puzzle: the entropy release from regular Schwarzschild black holes with a de Sitter core (the OCK construction), and the local thermodynamics of the de Sitter vacuum (Volovik). In the OCK framework, the inner horizon carries positive Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $S_{\rm inner}=\pi h_c^2$ that is gradually released as the core shrinks, until a classical Minkowski breaking obstructs the evolution at $n=0$. In Volovik's framework, the total entropy of a homogeneous de Sitter region is $S_{\rm dS}= \operatorname{sgn}(H)\,\pi/H^{2} = \operatorname{sgn}(H)\,A/4$: expanding de Sitter ($H>0$) carries positive entropy, while contracting de Sitter ($H<0$) carries negative entropy. We show that the sign of the Hubble parameter is the unifying element linking the two pictures. The OCK core is de~Sitter only for $n>2$; the Minkowski breaking is a classical kinematic obstruction, not a dynamical transition to a contracting de Sitter phase. Any connection between the expanding and contracting regimes would require a quantum mechanism that remains speculative. Nevertheless, both frameworks embody the same thermodynamic principle, the shrinking of the interior drives the system toward increased total entropy, and together they provide a consistent picture of entropy flow during gravitational collapse. The integer nature of the OCK parameter suggests a quantized entropy spectrum and a statistical interpretation of black hole entropy, while the generalized second law is satisfied in both frameworks, and in the speculated quantum connection provided the environmental entropy is properly accounted for.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24349 by Francisco S. N. Lobo, Manuel E. Rodrigues.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Entropic potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.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

28 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Black holes and entropy,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Black holes and entropy,” Phys. Rev. D7(1973), 2333-2346

    1973

  2. [2]

    Particle Creation by Black Holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes,” Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975), 199-220 [erratum: Commun. Math. Phys.46(1976), 206]

    1975

  3. [3]

    The thermodynamics of black holes,

    R. M. Wald, “The thermodynamics of black holes,” Liv- ing Rev. Rel.4(2001), 6 [arXiv:gr-qc/9912119 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Schwarzschild black hole revisited: Before the complete collapse,

    J. Ovalle, “Schwarzschild black hole revisited: Before the complete collapse,” Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.10, 104032 [arXiv:2405.06731 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Schwarzschild black hole singularity formation,

    J. Ovalle, R. Casadio and A. Kamenshchik, “Schwarzschild black hole singularity formation,” Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.6, 064042 [arXiv:2603.06451 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Gravitational collapse and space-time sin- gularities,

    R. Penrose, “Gravitational collapse and space-time sin- gularities,” Phys. Rev. Lett.14(1965), 57-59

    1965

  7. [7]

    The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time,

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time,” Cambridge University Press, 2023, ISBN 978-1-009-25316-1, 978-1-009-25315-4, 978-0- 521-20016-5, 978-0-521-09906-6, 978-0-511-82630-6, 978- 14 0-521-09906-6

    2023

  8. [8]

    Entropy release from Minkowski breaking in regular Schwarzschild black holes,

    F. S. N. Lobo and M. E. Rodrigues, “Entropy release from Minkowski breaking in regular Schwarzschild black holes,” [arXiv:2607.14079 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    On gravitational collapse and integrable singularities,

    R. Casadio, A. Giusti, A. Kamenshchik and J. Ovalle, “On gravitational collapse and integrable singularities,” [arXiv:2605.01808 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    An analytic model for a total pro- cess of gravitational collapse: from star to Schwarzschild black hole,

    S. Aoki and J. Ovalle, “An analytic model for a total pro- cess of gravitational collapse: from star to Schwarzschild black hole,” Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026) no.7, 741 [arXiv:2607.08088 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Kerr black holes without primary hairs,

    J. Ovalle, “Kerr black holes without primary hairs,” [arXiv:2607.14910 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Analog of the Sommerfeld Law in Quan- tum Vacuum,

    G. E. Volovik, “Analog of the Sommerfeld Law in Quan- tum Vacuum,” JETP Lett.118(2023) no.4, 282-287 [arXiv:2307.00860 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Cosmological Event Horizons, Thermodynamics, and Particle Cre- ation,

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “Cosmological Event Horizons, Thermodynamics, and Particle Cre- ation,” Phys. Rev. D15(1977), 2738-2751

    1977

  14. [14]

    From gravastar to central singularity,

    G. E. Volovik, “From gravastar to central singularity,” [arXiv:2607.18764 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,

    R. M. Wald, “Black hole entropy is the Noether charge,” Phys. Rev. D48(1993) no.8, R3427-R3431 [arXiv:gr- qc/9307038 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 1993

  16. [16]

    Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy,

    V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, “Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy,” Phys. Rev. D50(1994), 846-864 [arXiv:gr-qc/9403028 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  17. [17]

    f(R) cosmol- ogy from q-theory,

    F. R. Klinkhamer and G. E. Volovik, “f(R) cosmol- ogy from q-theory,” JETP Lett.88(2008), 289-294 [arXiv:0807.3896 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  18. [18]

    Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling: From Quantum Vortices to Black Holes and Universe,

    G. E. Volovik, “Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling: From Quantum Vortices to Black Holes and Universe,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys.135(2022) no.4, 388-408 [arXiv:2108.00419 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Varying Newton constant and black hole to white hole quantum tunneling,

    G. E. Volovik, “Varying Newton constant and black hole to white hole quantum tunneling,” Universe6(2020) no.9, 133 [arXiv:2003.10331 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Unified first law of black hole dynamics and relativistic thermodynamics,

    S. A. Hayward, “Unified first law of black hole dynamics and relativistic thermodynamics,” Class. Quant. Grav. 15(1998), 3147-3162 [arXiv:gr-qc/9710089 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  21. [21]

    Dynamic black hole entropy,

    S. A. Hayward, S. Mukohyama and M. C. Ashworth, “Dynamic black hole entropy,” Phys. Lett. A256(1999), 347-350 [arXiv:gr-qc/9810006 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  22. [22]

    Thermodynamics of space-time: The Ein- stein equation of state,

    T. Jacobson, “Thermodynamics of space-time: The Ein- stein equation of state,” Phys. Rev. Lett.75(1995), 1260-1263 [arXiv:gr-qc/9504004 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  23. [23]

    Horizon entropy consistent with the FLR W equations for general modified theories of gravity and for all equa- tions of state of the matter field,

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, T. Paul and S. SenGupta, “Horizon entropy consistent with the FLR W equations for general modified theories of gravity and for all equa- tions of state of the matter field,” Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.4, 043532 [arXiv:2307.05011 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    The Equation of State at Ultrahigh Densities and Its Relativistic Limitations,

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, “The Equation of State at Ultrahigh Densities and Its Relativistic Limitations,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.41(1961), 1609-1615

    1961

  25. [25]

    Quantum phase transitions and the breakdown of classical general relativity,

    G. Chapline, E. Hohlfeld, R. B. Laughlin and D. I. San- tiago, “Quantum phase transitions and the breakdown of classical general relativity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18 (2003), 3587-3590 [arXiv:gr-qc/0012094 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  26. [26]

    Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes,

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, “Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes,” Universe9(2023) no.2, 88 [arXiv:gr-qc/0109035 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Gravitational Vacuum Condensate Stars,

    E. Mottola, “Gravitational Vacuum Condensate Stars,” [arXiv:2302.09690 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    The quantum mass spectrum of the Kerr black hole,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “The quantum mass spectrum of the Kerr black hole,” Lett. Nuovo Cim.11(1974), 467

    1974