Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Horava-Lifshitz gravity can flatten rotation curves with a 1/A^2 halo

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

2026-08-03 08:25 UTC pith:JKZMH6J5

load-bearing objection GR-side obstruction is clean; HL-side flat-rotation claim is real but conditional on an imposed background, and the paper says so. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.16958 v2 pith:JKZMH6J5 submitted 2026-01-23 gr-qc astro-ph.GA

Galactic dark matter halos: From anisotropic fluids in general relativity to Horava-Lifshitz gravity

Paolo M Bassani This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.GA
keywords dark matter halosrotation curvesHorava-Lifshitz gravityanisotropic fluidsLTB spacetimeshypersurface deformation algebraenergy nonconservationeffective dust
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.

This paper asks whether flat galaxy rotation curves can be produced by controlled modifications of gravity, without invoking particle dark matter. In a spherically symmetric Lemaître–Tolman–Bondi minisuperspace, it first shows that adding a weight-+1 term to the GR Hamiltonian potential leaves the constraint algebra unchanged, so the modification is reinterpreted as an anisotropic fluid whose active gravitational mass vanishes and which therefore cannot flatten rotation curves. In Horava-Lifshitz gravity, however, the deformed algebra produces a controlled violation of energy conservation, which acts as a pressureless dust source. For power-law backgrounds A=C|s|^p with 01, this source yields a positive 1/A^2 dark matter density and asymptotically flat circular velocities. The result is conditional on the prescribed background, and matching observed rotation speeds forces a tight degeneracy between lambda and p.

Core claim

Within the LTB minisuperspace, the paper proves that a weight-+1 potential term added to the GR Hamiltonian leaves the Dirac algebra unchanged, so it acts as an anisotropic fluid with rho_h=alpha/(4 pi G A^2) and p_r=-rho_h; its active mass rho_h+p_r+2p_t vanishes, so it cannot flatten rotation curves. In Horava-Lifshitz gravity, the lambda-deformed algebra breaks dust conservation, and for power-law backgrounds A=C|s|^p with 0<p<1/3 and lambda>1 the source yields rho_DM~1/A^2 and flat curves with v_flat^2/c_g^2=(1/2)(lambda-1)(1-3p)/p^2. The background is imposed, not derived.

What carries the argument

The hypersurface-deformation algebra (HDA) of canonical gravity, specifically the Hamiltonian-Hamiltonian bracket, is the central object. In GR, a weight-+1 scalar density added to the potential leaves the HDA closed, forcing the modification to be an anisotropic fluid. In Horava-Lifshitz theory, the lambda-dependent kinetic term adds an extra term to the bracket, generating a nonconservation law for an emergent dust component. The power-law ansatz A(r,t)=C|s|^p with s=t0-t makes the source function Psi(h(s)) constant, which is required for the 1/A^2 scaling and the flat rotation curve formula.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the areal radius takes the imposed power-law form A(r,t)=C|t0-t|^p; this is assumed to make the HL source constant, not derived from the field equations, so any backreaction that changes this form invalidates the 1/A^2 dark matter scaling and the flat rotation curve conclusion.

What would settle it

Solve the full Horava-Lifshitz field equations in LTB symmetry with the generated dust and baryons included: if the areal radius does not approach A=C|t0-t|^p (or if no such branch exists), the predicted 1/A^2 scaling and flat rotation curve formula are not realized. Alternatively, a high-precision sample of galaxy rotation curves that cannot be fit by v_flat^2/c_g^2=(1/2)(lambda-1)(1-3p)/p^2 for any allowed (lambda>1, 0<p<1/3) would rule out the claim.

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

If this is right

  • Potential-only deformations of the GR Hamiltonian cannot remove the dark matter problem in this LTB setting: they produce an anisotropic fluid whose active mass is zero, so flat rotation curves remain impossible.
  • In Horava-Lifshitz gravity, the nonconservation of the dust source can generate a positive 1/A^2 dark matter density, providing a mechanism for flat rotation curves without particle dark matter.
  • Matching observed galactic rotation speeds (v~200 km/s) forces either lambda-1 ~ 1e-9 to 1e-6 (near-GR) or p extremely close to 1/3, which suppresses the source; this degeneracy makes it hard for HL-driven dust to dominate real galaxies.
  • The analysis is conditional on a prescribed power-law background; a fully backreacted areal-radius solution has not been found, so these results are existence statements for a 'test-tube' configuration rather than a complete model.
  • The GR-side anisotropic fluid has the same stress-energy structure as global monopole or string-cloud sources, but is restricted to the reduced model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If a fully backreacted solution deviates from the power-law form, the 1/A^2 scaling and flat rotation curves may not survive; testing this numerically or analytically is the obvious next step.
  • The degeneracy between lambda and p suggests that, within this mechanism, HL gravity is either indistinguishable from GR in galactic rotation curves or contributes negligibly, so other observables (e.g. lensing, time-dependence) are needed to discriminate.
  • The anisotropic GR fluid, despite failing to flatten rotation curves, might produce other observable effects such as modified lensing or a specific radial acceleration relation that could be compared with data.
  • The same mechanism might be extended to non-LTB or non-spherically symmetric settings, potentially yielding different scalings; the paper's approach suggests a template for such generalizations.

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 studies spherically symmetric LTB minisuperspace models as a testing ground for 'dark-matter-like' effective sources. In the GR branch, adding a weight-+1 potential term αX to the Hamiltonian is shown to leave the reduced Dirac algebra unchanged; the modification is reinterpreted as an anisotropic fluid with ρ_h=α/(4πG A^2), p_r=-ρ_h, p_t=0. The paper shows that although this fluid gives the isothermal mass scaling M∝R, its active gravitational mass ρ_h+p_r+2p_t vanishes, so flat rotation curves do not follow. In the Horava-Lifshitz branch, the non-conservation law for an emergent dust component is reduced to LTB variables. By imposing Ψ(h)=const and choosing the power-law ansatz A=C|s|^p, the paper derives ρ_DM∝1/A^2, restricts parameters to λ>1, 0<p<1/3, and obtains the asymptotic circular velocity v_flat^2/c_g^2 = (1/2)(λ-1)(1-3p)/p^2. The paper explicitly states that the analysis is conditional on a prescribed background and that a fully backreacted areal-radius solution is left to future work.

Significance. If the HL branch could be upgraded to a self-consistent solution of the full HL field equations, the mechanism would be of interest: a controlled non-conservation law producing a positive, isothermal-like halo without particle dark matter, with sharp parameter constraints (λ close to 1 or p close to 1/3). The GR negative result is a useful clarification: potential deformations that preserve the Dirac algebra cannot reproduce flat rotation curves because the effective anisotropic fluid has vanishing active mass. The paper is honest about its limitations, and the displayed equations are mostly self-consistent, including the Ψ(h) formula for h=|s|^p. However, the central HL claim is currently a heuristic scaling result on a prescribed background; the missing constraint check and unproved classification of Ψ=const solutions prevent the paper from establishing an existence statement within HL gravity. The paper's credit lies in identifying a concrete positive-scaling example and its parameter tension, not in a complete predictive framework.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eqs. (43)-(46)] The statement that Ψ(h(s))=const forces h to belong to one of two families (power laws or exponentials) is asserted without proof. Eq. (44) is a fourth-order nonlinear ODE in h; the claimed dichotomy is not obvious and is load-bearing because it is the sole justification for the ansatz h=|s|^p. If other h(s) also give constant Ψ, the allowed parameter region (47) and the flat-velocity prediction (52) are incomplete. Please provide a proof, cite a reference, or explicitly demote this to an ansatz and discuss what may be missed.
  2. [Section V, Eq. (46)] The derivation solves only the continuity equation with a source on the prescribed background A=C|s|^p; it never verifies the HL Hamiltonian and momentum constraints, i.e. that H + H_DM = 0 (Eq. 36) and H_r=0 hold simultaneously with ρ_DM given by Eq. (46). Without this check, the configuration is not a solution of the HL field equations, and the claim that HL gravity predicts ρ_DM ∝ 1/A^2 and flat rotation curves is not established. The paper's own disclaimer (abstract, Sec. V, Conclusion) acknowledges this. Please either supply the consistency check or explicitly re-frame the result as a heuristic scaling law on a test-tube background and adjust the title/abstract accordingly.
  3. [Section V, Eqs. (48)-(52)] The transition from the time-dependent LTB background A∝(t0-t)^p to the static Poisson equation ∇²Φ=4πG_N ρ on a single slice t=t* is not justified. The background has ˙A/A = -p/(t0-t), not zero, and no scale separation is provided to show that time-derivative terms are negligible on galactic timescales. The identification of the effective Newton constant with the locally measured G_N in the IR is also assumed rather than derived. Since Eq. (52) is the paper's main quantitative result, this step needs to be made controlled (e.g., estimate corrections of order (˙A/A)/ω or restrict to a defined quasi-static regime).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] Typo 'rotation cruves' should be 'rotation curves'.
  2. [Section IV] In the line before Eq. (33), 'giving positive a positive dynamics' should read 'giving positive dynamics'.
  3. [Eq. (44)] The notation Ψ(h(s)) suggests a function of h, but Eq. (44) is a differential operator on h and its derivatives. Use Ψ[h] to avoid confusion.
  4. [Eq. (50)] C1 is introduced without interpretation; it should be identified (e.g., as an integration constant related to baryonic mass) and its sign discussed.
  5. [Section V, Eq. (42)] The symbol D²K is not defined explicitly; please specify the covariant derivative with respect to the 3-metric h_ij and the signature convention used.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

HL flat-rotation 'prediction' is built into the imposed power-law background; GR-side analysis is self-contained.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section V, Eqs. (43)-(46), (48), (52); abstract and conclusion]
    "If we require ρ DM to scale as 1/A 2 for flat rotation curves, then the source term has to be proportional to ˙A′/A′A2. Therefore, we can expand D 2K in terms of areal radius and then use the general ansatz A(r, t) = Ch(s) ... To summarize, the allowed values for p and λ that satisfy all our constraints are: λ > 1,0< p < 1 3 . ... ρ driven DM = c 2 gM 2 P l(λ−1) 1−3p p2 1 R2 ... v 2 f lat c2g = 1 2 (λ−1) 1−3p p2 ."

    The desired output—ρ_DM ∝ 1/A² and hence asymptotically flat rotation—is used as the selection criterion for the background: Ψ(h(s)) must be constant, which restricts h(s) to power laws or exponentials, and the power law h(s)=|s|^p is then chosen. The driven term in Eq. (46) and the flat velocity in Eq. (52) evaluate that imposed ansatz together with the coefficient (1−3p)/p²; no independent solution of the full HL field equations is obtained. The paper itself concedes that the power-law ansatz is 'imposed to extract the scaling implied by the HL source term on a prescribed LTB background, not derived as a solution of the full HL field equations,' so the central HL prediction is conditional by construction.

full rationale

The GR-side Hamiltonian deformation is algebraically explicit and self-contained: adding the weight-+1 term αX leaves the Dirac algebra closed, maps to the anisotropic fluid ρ_h=α/(4πG A²), p_r=−ρ_h, and the conclusion that flat rotation curves fail follows from the vanishing active mass combination ρ_h+p_r+2p_t=0. That part is not circular. The HL branch, by contrast, builds the desired scaling into the background: the paper requires ρ_DM∝1/A² for flat curves, then imposes the ansatz A=C|s|^p to make Ψ(h(s)) constant, integrates the continuity equation with the [20] source, and reads off the flat velocity. The positive 1/A² scaling and v_flat formula therefore reduce to the ansatz plus the chosen coefficient; the constraints λ>1, 0<p<1/3 and the positivity/ghost-freedom analysis are real derived conditions, but the central existence claim is not a free prediction. The paper honestly labels it 'conditional on a prescribed background' and says a fully backreacted areal-radius solution is future work; that candor lowers the severity but does not remove the by-construction status. The quasi-static Newtonian step (49)-(52) is an additional unquantified approximation, not itself circular. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or hidden redefinition was found; [20] is a self-citation for Eq. (41), but that source term is an independent published result and is not the circular element here. Overall score 7 reflects a central HL prediction that is equivalent to its imposed input, with the GR side independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a small set of hand-chosen parameters: the GR deformation coupling alpha, the power-law exponent p in the HL background ansatz, the HL kinetic coupling lambda restricted to lambda>1, and the integration function C(r) that must be suppressed. No new fundamental entities are postulated; the 'halo fluid' and 'emergent dust' are effective descriptions. The HL nonconservation law is inherited from prior work by the same author, which adds to the circularity burden.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha = not fitted; alpha>0, parabolic solution 0<alpha<1/2
    Dimensionless coupling added by hand to the GR Hamiltonian potential; controls the anisotropic fluid density rho_h=alpha/(4pi G A^2) and the mass profile M=alpha R/G.
  • p = 0<p<1/3 (e.g., 0.05-0.3 for Milky Way matching)
    Exponent in the imposed LTB power-law ansatz A=C|s|^p; chosen to make Psi constant and the source positive, not derived from the field equations.
  • lambda = lambda>1; lambda-1 ~ 1e-9..1e-6 for Milky Way if p in [0.05,0.3]
    Horava-Lifshitz kinetic coupling; input from the theory, but its restricted range is selected to satisfy ghost freedom, IR limit, and observed v_flat.
  • C(r) = set to 0 or negligible for the driven solution to dominate
    Integration function in the rho_DM solution (46); initial conditions must suppress it for the driven 1/A^2 component to dominate (or the contracting branch attractor p<1 must apply).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The LTB minisuperspace is a valid symmetry reduction of the full GR and HL dynamics for spherical dust-like configurations.
    The paper works throughout with the reduced LTB metric (4) and momenta (5)-(7); the full theory may have additional modes or constraints not captured by this reduction.
  • domain assumption A weight-+1 potential deformation preserves the full Dirac algebra; closure is checked only in the LTB minisuperspace.
    The paper computes the brackets in the reduced model and concludes the full first-class structure is unchanged, but the full 3D proof is not given.
  • domain assumption The HL nonconservation law -n_mu grad_nu T^mu_nu_DM = c_g^2 M_Pl^2 (lambda-1) D^2 K from [20] is correct.
    Equation (41) is imported from earlier work without rederivation; the present paper builds the dust-density solution on it.
  • domain assumption In the IR of HL, the quasi-static weak-field limit reproduces the GR Poisson equation with effective Newton constant equal to the locally measured G_N.
    Used to convert the 1/R^2 density into circular velocity, Eqs. (49)-(52); not derived in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Psi(h)=const implies h is either a power law or an exponential.
    Asserted without proof in Section V; the paper needs this to select the power-law background that yields flat rotation curves.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10975 in / 18680 out tokens · 183325 ms · 2026-08-03T08:25:42.053415+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We deform the GR Hamiltonian by adding an extra weight $+1$ density to the potential. We show that potential deformations of this type leave the (reduced) Dirac algebra unchanged and the modification is naturally reinterpreted as an effective anisotropic stress-energy contribution. While the fluid reproduces an isothermal-like mass scaling, its pressure anisotropy prevents it from giving flat rotation curves in this reduced phenomenological toy model. We then turn to HL gravity, where the absence of a local Hamiltonian constraint leaves a non-vanishing local Hamiltonian density, giving a controlled nonconservation law for the emergent dust component. Generalizing earlier results, we identify a restricted class of LTB backgrounds for which the HL source term yields a positive scaling dark matter density, consistent with ghost freedom and with the continuous $\lambda \to 1$ limit, in which the effective dust amplitude vanishes together with the deviation from GR. The analysis is conditional on a prescribed background: obtaining a fully backreacted areal-radius solution consistent with the HL field equations is left as a natural direction for future work.

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

40 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On the one hand, for earlier times we have thatF 0/A >> E, such that equation (33) reduces to the standard parabolic solution as above

    The general parametric solution to equation (32) is: A(η) = F0 2(2α−k) (coshη−1),(33) from which we can distinguish two regimes: the baryon dominated regime and the halo dominated one. On the one hand, for earlier times we have thatF 0/A >> E, such that equation (33) reduces to the standard parabolic solution as above. This option is not of interest as it...

  2. [2]

    Bosma, Astron

    A. Bosma, Astron. J.86(1981), 1825-1846 doi:10.1086/113063

    doi:10.1086/113063 1981

  3. [3]

    V. C. Rubin, W. K. Ford Jr. and N. Thonnard, Astro- phys. J.238(1980), 471-487 doi:10.1086/158003

    doi:10.1086/158003 1980

  4. [4]

    Salucci, Astron

    P. Salucci, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.27(2019), 2 doi:10.1007/s00159-018-0113-1 [arXiv:1811.08843 [astro- ph.GA]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Sofue and V

    Y. Sofue and V. Rubin, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 39(2001), 137-174 doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.137 [arXiv:astro-ph/0010594 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.55(2017), 343-387 doi:10.1146/annurev- astro-091916-055313 [arXiv:1707.04256 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    R. H. Wechsler and J. L. Tinker, Ann. Rev. Astron. As- trophys.56(2018), 435-487 doi:10.1146/annurev-astro- 081817-051756 [arXiv:1804.03097 [astro-ph.GA]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Schumann, J

    M. Schumann, J. Phys. G46(2019), 103003 doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab2ea5 [arXiv:1903.03026 [astro- ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110 (2024), 030001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  10. [10]

    P. G. Ferreira and G. D. Starkman, Science326(2009), 812-815 doi:10.1126/science.1172245 [arXiv:0911.1212 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    R. H. Sanders and S. S. McGaugh, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.40(2002), 263- 317 doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093923 [arXiv:astro-ph/0204521 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 2002

  12. [12]

    Milgrom, Astrophys

    M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J.270(1983), 365-370 doi:10.1086/161130

    doi:10.1086/161130 1983

  13. [13]

    J. D. Bekenstein, inParticle Dark Matter: Observa- tions, Models and Searches, ed. G. Bertone (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010) Chap. 6, pp. 95–114 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511770739.007 [arXiv:1001.3876 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    Magueijo,Phys

    J. Magueijo,Phys. Lett. B858, 139001 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139001 [arXiv:2312.07597 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Horava, Phys

    P. Horava, Phys. Rev. D79, 084008 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084008 [arXiv:0901.3775 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [16]

    Magueijo,Phys

    J. Magueijo,Phys. Rev. D110, 084050 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.084050 [arXiv:2406.17428 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Magueijo,Phys

    J. Magueijo,Phys. Rev. D109, 124026 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.124026 [arXiv:2404.15809 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    S. M. Carroll, Living Rev. Rel.4(2001), 1 doi:10.12942/lrr-2001-1 [arXiv:astro-ph/0004075 [astro- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  19. [19]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D108, no. 10, 103514 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103514 [arXiv:2306.08390 [hep-th]]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    test-tube

    and the anisotropic fluid found in the previous sec- tion, we reduce the expression in terms of LTB variables, obtaining: ˙ρDM +ρ DM ˙A′ A′ + 2 ˙A A =c 2 gM 2 P l(λ−1)D 2K,(42) wherec 2 g is the speed of light. If we requireρ DM to scale as 1/A 2 for flat rotation curves, then the source term has to be proportional to ˙A′/A′A2. Therefore, we can expandD 2...

  21. [21]

    Mukohyama, Class

    S. Mukohyama, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 223101 (2010) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/22/223101 [arXiv:1007.5199 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    P. M. Bassani, J. Magueijo, and S. Mukohyama,J. Cos- mol. Astropart. Phys.07(2025) 032 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2025/07/032 [arXiv:2408.03793 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, Phys. Rev.116, 1322–1330 (1959) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.116.1322

    doi:10.1103/physrev.116.1322 1959

  24. [24]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, inGravita- tion: An Introduction to Current Research, ed. L. Witten (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1962) Chap. 7, pp. 227– 265

    1962

  25. [25]

    Jha, SciPost Phys

    R. Jha, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes73 (2023) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.73 [arXiv:2204.03537 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Stephani et al, Exact Solutions to Einstein’ Field Equations (Second Edition), CUP 2003, Cambridge

    H. Stephani et al, Exact Solutions to Einstein’ Field Equations (Second Edition), CUP 2003, Cambridge

    2003

  27. [27]

    Enqvist, Gen

    K. Enqvist, Gen. Rel. Grav.40, 451-466 (2008) doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0553-9 [arXiv:0709.2044 [astro- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    S. M. C. V. Goncalves, Phys. Rev. D63, 124017 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.124017 [arXiv:gr-qc/0107087 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  29. [29]

    Vaz and L

    C. Vaz and L. Witten, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 43, 3429–3449 (2011) doi:10.1007/s10714-011-1240-4 [arXiv:1111.6821 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  30. [30]

    Barriola and A

    M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin,Phys. Rev. Lett.63(1989) 341 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.341

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.63.341 1989

  31. [31]

    P. S. Letelier,Phys. Rev. D20(1979) 1294 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.1294

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.20.1294 1979

  32. [32]

    Curiel, inTowards a Theory of Spacetime Theo- ries, ed

    E. Curiel, inTowards a Theory of Spacetime Theo- ries, ed. D. Lehmkuhl, G. Schiemann and E. Scholz (Birkh¨ auser, Cham, 2017) pp. 43–104 doi:10.1007/978- 1-4939-3210-8 3 [arXiv:1405.0403 [physics.hist-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Lectures on Quantum Mechanics

    P. Dirac, “Lectures on Quantum Mechanics”, Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University Press, New York, 1964

    1964

  34. [34]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Can. J. Math.2, 129-148 (1950)

    1950

  35. [35]

    Modern canonical quantum general relativity

    T. Thiemann, “Modern canonical quantum general relativity”, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, CUP, Cambridge, 2008

    2008

  36. [36]

    Bojowald,Canonical Gravity and Applications: Cosmology, Black Holes, and Quantum Grav- ity(Cambridge Univ

    M. Bojowald,Canonical Gravity and Applications: Cosmology, Black Holes, and Quantum Grav- ity(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011) doi:10.1017/CBO9780511921759

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511921759 2011

  37. [37]

    Treu, Annu

    T. Treu, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48, 87–125 (2010) doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130924

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130924 2010

  38. [38]

    Komar, Phys

    A. Komar, Phys. Rev.129, 1873–1876 (1963) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.129.1873

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.129.1873 1963

  39. [39]

    Sofue, Publ

    Y. Sofue, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn.69(2017) no.1, R1 doi:10.1093/pasj/psw103 [arXiv:1608.08350 [astro- ph.GA]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Persic, P

    M. Persic, P. Salucci and F. Stel, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.281(1996), 27-47 doi:10.1093/mnras/281.1.27 [arXiv:astro-ph/9506004 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996