Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 108 references

Probing Weak-Force Corrections to Black Hole Geometry via Long Range Potentials: Feinberg-Sucher and Ferrer-Nowakowski Potentials

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Long-range force potentials alter black hole shadow sizes in opposite directions

desk verdict Algebraically clean but physically underdetermined: the claimed QFT-to-metric link is an assumption, not a derivation, and the numerics overstate observability. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06382 v2 pith:JXBJZB2U submitted 2025-05-09 gr-qc

Ali Övgün This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C1081T28 PACS 95.30.Sf04.70.-s97.60.Lf04.50.+h
keywords blackholeshadowphotonsphereFeinberg-SucherpotentialFerrer-Nowakowskineutrino-mediatedforceboson-mediatedSchwarzschildmetriccorrectionquasinormalmodes
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 tries to show that two quantum-field-theory long-range forces leave small, calculable imprints on the Schwarzschild black hole geometry, and that those imprints would show up as opposite shifts in the photon sphere and shadow radius. For the Feinberg-Sucher potential from massless neutrino exchange, which the paper treats as repulsive, the metric correction shrinks the photon sphere and shadow. For the Ferrer-Nowakowski potential from boson-mediated interactions at finite temperature, treated as attractive, the correction enlarges them. A sympathetic reader should care because black hole shadow observations could in principle act as a testbed for otherwise tiny particle-physics forces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the mapping of a two-body long-range potential $V(r)$ into a gravitational source via $\rho(r) = \Delta V(r)/(4\pi)$, inserted into the Einstein equation $[r f'(r) + f(r) - 1]/r^2 = -8\pi \rho(r)$. Once the metric takes the form $f(r) = 1 - 2M/r + \sum c_i/r^i$, two analytic tools carry the shadow analysis: the Vertogradov-Ovgun theorem, which reads off growth or shrinkage of photon sphere and shadow from $g(3M)$ and $g'(3M)$ after writing $f = (1 - 2M/r)e^{\gamma g(r)}$, and the expansion formulas $r_{ph} = 3M - \tfrac12\sum (i+2)c_i/(3M)^{i-1}$ and $R_{sh}^2 = 27M^2 - 81M^2\sum c_i/(3M)^i$.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop stress-energy tensor of the exchanged neutrino or boson fields in the static Schwarzschild background; if its trace or energy density does not match $\rho = \Delta V/(4\pi)$ at leading order in the couplings, the metric corrections (16) and (21) are not the physical backreaction, and the predicted shadow shifts would not occur.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that weak-force corrections to the Schwarzschild metric can be derived by converting two known long-range potentials into energy densities through the Poisson-type relation $\rho = \Delta V/(4\pi)$, then solving the $tt$-component of the Einstein equations. For the Feinberg-Sucher neutrino potential $V_{FS}(r) = G_F^2 g_v g_v'/(4\pi^3 r^5)$, this gives $f(r) = 1 - 2M/r + 5G_F^2 g_v g_v'/(2\pi^3 r^5)$, reported to shrink the photon sphere and shadow. For the finite-temperature boson-mediated Ferrer-Nowakowski potential $V_{tot}(r) \simeq -3GG'/(16\pi^3 r^3)$, it gives $f(r) = 1 - 2M/r - 9GG'/(8\pi^3 r^3)$, reported to enlarge them. The paper cross-validates these directions with three independent methods: the Vertogradov-Ovgun deformation theorems, analytic expansions around the Schwarzschild photon sphere, and numerical null-geodesic integration, and it also computes the corresponding eikonal quasinormal-mode frequency shifts.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's collapse point is the step where a two-body interaction potential is turned into a local gravitational energy density through $\rho = \Delta V/(4\pi)$: if that identification is not physically valid, the derived metrics and all shadow and QNM shifts do not follow, because the stress-energy of the mediating quantum fields is never computed directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Model 1 is right, the photon sphere radius shifts to $r_{ph} \simeq 3M - 35G_F^2\alpha/(324\pi^3 M^4)$ and the shadow shrinks by $5G_F^2\alpha/(6\pi^3 M^3)$ for positive neutrino couplings.
  • If Model 2 is right, the photon sphere moves outward to $r_{ph} \simeq 3M + 5\beta/(16\pi^3 M^2)$ and the shadow grows by $27\beta/(8\pi^3 M)$ for positive boson couplings.
  • The same metrics imply shifted Hawking temperatures and eikonal quasinormal frequencies: higher-frequency, longer-lived ringdown for the repulsive neutrino case and lower-frequency, longer-lived ringdown for the attractive boson case.
  • All three shadow methods agree on the sign of the shift, which the paper offers as a benchmark for future black hole imaging and gravitational-wave observations.
  • In the limit where both coupling products vanish, both metrics reduce exactly to Schwarzschild, so any observational detection of the shift would be a direct signal of the exotic long-range force.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same potential-to-density recipe should apply to other known potentials, such as the finite-mass Dirac/Majorana neutrino forms, predicting $r$-dependent corrections that interpolate between the massless limits and new finite-mass threshold effects.
  • The two metrics could be tested against detection thresholds: for a solar-mass black hole, the $r^{-5}$ term is so steeply suppressed that only near-horizon observables matter, whereas the $r^{-3}$ term decays more slowly and is more likely to be constrained by shadow measurements.
  • The sign-reversal contrast between fermionic and bosonic thermal corrections suggests a more general principle: the sign of the thermal density contribution tracks the statistics of the exchanged quanta, which could be probed by comparing shadow deviations across different mass scales.
  • The setup appears extendable to rotating black holes, where the potential-induced deformation would couple to spin and produce axis-dependent shadow asymmetries rather than a uniform radius shift.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two modified Schwarzschild metrics by taking two-particle quantum field theory potentials—the Feinberg-Sucher neutrino-exchange potential and the Ferrer-Nowakowski finite-temperature boson-exchange potential—and converting each into a local energy density through the relation ρ = ∇²V/(4π). Solving the tt-component of Einstein's equations then yields metrics with f(r) = 1 − 2M/r + 5G_F²α/(2π³r⁵) (Model 1) and f(r) = 1 − 2M/r − 9β/(8π³r³) (Model 2). The paper computes photon sphere radii, shadow sizes (by three methods: a theorem-based deformation method, an analytic expansion around the Schwarzschild photon sphere, and numerical null geodesics), and eikonal quasinormal mode frequencies. The central qualitative claim is that the attractive boson-mediated correction enlarges the photon sphere and shadow, while the repulsive neutrino-mediated correction shrinks them.

Significance. If the construction were physically justified, the paper would offer a concrete algorithm for translating known QFT potentials into black-hole observables, and the sign-dependent shifts in shadow radius would be clear falsifiable predictions. The algebra after the input assumption is internally consistent, and the agreement among the three shadow methods is a genuine strength. However, the foundational step—identifying a two-body interaction potential with a gravitational energy density—is asserted rather than derived, and no stress-energy tensor for the mediating fields is computed. The resulting metrics are therefore not consequences of the cited quantum forces, so the paper's central claim is not established. The manuscript also leaves the dimensions of the effective couplings unspecified, further weakening the promised observational benchmarks.

major comments (2)
  1. [III, Eq. (12)] Equation (12) identifies the energy density of the gravitational source with the flat-space Laplacian of a two-particle interaction potential, ρ = ∇²V/(4π), but no derivation of this identification is given. The Feinberg-Sucher and Ferrer-Nowakowski potentials are interaction energies between two particles, not gravitational potentials of a local mass distribution, and the stress-energy tensor of the mediating neutrino or scalar fields is never computed. Consequently, Eqs. (16) and (21) are not consequences of the cited QFT potentials; they are ad hoc metric deformations, and all subsequent shadow and QNM results in Sections IV.A-IV.D inherit this problem. Since this identification is the foundation of the paper, the central claim is not established.
  2. [III, Eqs. (16) and (21)] The metric corrections in Eqs. (16) and (21) are not dimensionless as written. With α = g_v g'_v and β = G G' defined as products of dimensionless couplings, the terms 5G_F²α/(2π³r⁵) and 9β/(8π³r³) carry dimensions of inverse length and length³, respectively, so the metric function f(r) is not dimensionless. The paper neither specifies the dimensions of α and β nor introduces the required mass scale, which also prevents the numerical values in Tables I-II and Figure 4 from being interpreted as physical predictions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III.A] The sentence 'Substituting the obtained density (19) into the gravitational equation (11)' should refer to Eq. (14), not Eq. (19).
  2. [IV.C, Table II] The table header reads 'with various α' for Model 2, but the control parameter for Model 2 is β.
  3. [IV.D, after Eq. (63)] The interpretation of the imaginary part for Model 2 is incorrect: the formula gives Im ω = −(n+1/2)/(3√3M)(1 + β/(24π³M³)), so for β>0 the magnitude of the imaginary part is larger than in Schwarzschild, implying stronger damping and a shorter lifetime, contrary to the text's claim of 'smaller absolute values' and an increased lifetime.
  4. [IV.D] The introductory sentence 'we calculate the quasinormal modes for two modified Schwarzschild metrics arising from long-range forces mediated by pseudoscalar bosons' misattributes Model 1, which is neutrino-mediated, to pseudoscalar bosons.
  5. [IV.A] The paper does not state the value or sign of the geometric deformation parameter γ used in Eqs. (33)–(37) and in the plots; since g(r) and g′(r) are divided by γ, a negative γ would reverse the inequalities used for Theorems 1 and 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shadow and QNM results follow from the assumed metrics and are independently confirmed; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs from the QFT potentials (Eqs. 13 and 17), through the Poisson-type source identification (Eq. 12), to the densities (Eqs. 14 and 19), then through the tt Einstein equation (Eq. 11) to the metrics (Eqs. 16 and 21), and finally to the photon-sphere, shadow, and QNM expressions. At no point is a shadow or QNM quantity used as an input to construct the metric; the potentials are external QFT results (Feinberg-Sucher, Ferrer-Nowakowski), not fitted to the black-hole observables. The shadow formulas (43), (44), (47), and (48) are linear-order consequences of the assumed metrics, and the numerical null-geodesic integration in Section IV C independently reproduces the same trend. Likewise, the eikonal QNM result (Eq. 57) is taken from Churilova [103] and is applied to the already obtained metrics, not used to infer those metrics. The paper does invoke the author's earlier theorems [36,37] for the sign of the photon-sphere and shadow shifts, but those theorems are not the only support: the analytic expansions and the numerical geodesic calculation reach the same conclusions, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The most questionable physical step is Eq. (12), which identifies rho = Delta V/(4 pi) without deriving the mediating-field stress-energy tensor; this is an assumption about how the two-body potential sources gravity, and if invalid the metrics would not follow. That is a physics-correctness concern rather than circular reasoning, because the shadow predictions are not definitions of the inputs and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to its own input, and no uniqueness claim or ansatz is imported solely through a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the ad hoc identification of a two-particle QFT potential with a continuous energy density sourcing Einstein's equations, plus several external results (the Vertogradov-Ovgun theorems and the eikonal QNM formula) taken without proof. The two coupling parameters alpha and beta are free and scanned, while gamma is an undefined parameter whose sign controls the first shadow method's conclusions.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (g_v g_v')
    Product of weak vector couplings for the Feinberg-Sucher potential; controls the r^-5 metric correction in Eq. (16). Not fitted, scanned from 0 to 10 in Fig. 4 and Tables I. The Fermi constant G_F is set to 1 in numerical work, so alpha absorbs that scale.
  • beta (G G')
    Product of global couplings for the Ferrer-Nowakowski potential; controls the r^-3 metric correction in Eq. (21). Scanned from 0 to 10 in Fig. 4 and Tables II.
  • gamma (geometric deformation parameter)
    Introduced in Eq. (31) as the minimal geometric deformation. It appears in g(r) and g'(r) in Eqs. (33)-(37) and the sign of g(3), g'(3) via Theorems 1 and 2 depends on the sign of gamma. The paper never specifies gamma, effectively assuming it is positive.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper A two-body interaction potential V(r) determines the gravitational energy density via rho = Delta V / (4 pi).
    Eq. (12). This converts the QFT potential into a source for Einstein's equations without deriving the stress-energy tensor of the mediating field.
  • domain assumption The tt-component of the Einstein equations with a static, spherically symmetric line element fully determines the solution.
    Section III uses Eq. (11) alone to solve for f(r), assuming no pressure or anisotropic stress contributions.
  • domain assumption The theorems of Vertogradov-Ovgun (Ref [36]) apply to these metrics.
    Section IV.A invokes Theorems 1 and 2 without proof, relying on the cited paper.
  • standard math The eikonal QNM formula of Churilova (Ref [103]) is valid for the modified metrics.
    Section IV.E and IV.F substitute the metric coefficients into Eq. (57), trusting the cited expansion.
  • domain assumption The Feinberg-Sucher and Ferrer-Nowakowski potentials from Refs [47,54] are correct and apply at the scales considered.
    Equations (13) and (17) are taken from the literature without re-derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Weak-Force Corrections to Black Hole Geometry via Long Range Potentials: Feinberg-Sucher and Ferrer-Nowakowski Potentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JXBJZB2U

@misc{pith2026250506382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Weak-Force Corrections to Black Hole Geometry via Long Range Potentials: Feinberg-Sucher and Ferrer-Nowakowski Potentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JXBJZB2U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06382}
}
abstract

We consider corrections to the Schwarzschild black hole metric arising from exotic long-range forces within quantum field theory frameworks. Specifically, we analyze two models: the Feinberg-Sucher potential for massless neutrinos and Ferrer-Nowakowski potentials for boson-mediated interactions at finite temperatures, yielding metric corrections with $r^{-5}$ and $r^{-3}$ dependencies. Using analytic expansions around the Schwarzschild photon sphere, we find that attractive potential corrections enhance gravitational lensing, enlarging the photon sphere and shadow radius, while repulsive potential corrections induce gravitational screening, reducing these observables. Our results clearly illustrate how different quantum-derived corrections can produce measurable deviations from standard Schwarzschild predictions, providing robust theoretical benchmarks for future astrophysical observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06382 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Figures shows the lapse function f(r) as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Figures shows the lapse function f(r) as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Figures shows the behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Figure shows shadow radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (42) The photon sphere radius and shadow radius squared for this model thus become rph = 3M− 35G2 Fα 324π3M 4, (43) R2 sh = 27M 2− 5G2 Fα 6π3M 3

    Model 1 The first model considered has the metric function f(r) = 1− 2M r + 5G2 Fα 2π3r5, (41) which corresponds to a single additional term withn = 5, identifying the coupling parameter as c5 = 5G2 Fα 2π3 , c i = 0 fori̸= 5. (42) The photon sphere radius and shadow radius squared for this model thus become rph = 3M− 35G2 Fα 324π3M 4, (43) R2 sh = 27M 2− ...

  2. [2]

    (46) The corresponding photon sphere radius and shadow radius squared yield rph = 3M + 5β 16π3M 2, (47) R2 sh = 27M 2 + 27β 8π3M

    Model 2 The second model studied is given by f(r) = 1− 2M r − 9β 8π3r3, (45) identifying a single coupling parameter withn = 3: c3 =− 9β 8π3, c i = 0 fori̸= 3. (46) The corresponding photon sphere radius and shadow radius squared yield rph = 3M + 5β 16π3M 2, (47) R2 sh = 27M 2 + 27β 8π3M. (48) These results reveal distinctly different behaviors in- duced ...

  3. [3]

    Vagnozzi et al., Class

    S. Vagnozzi et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 165007 (2023), arXiv:2205.07787 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    The photon sphere corresponds to unstable circular orbits of photons, which satisfy the conditions [96] V (rp) = 0, V ′(rp) = 0, V ′′(rp)< 0. (51) By introducing the impact parameter b = L/E = rp/ p f(rp), the radius of the photon sphere rp can be determined by solving the characteristic photon-sphere equation [96]: f′(rp) f(rp) = 2 rp . (52) Due to the c...

  5. [5]

    R2 s = r2 p A(rp)

    andβ =GG′ (for Model 2). R2 s = r2 p A(rp). (55) TABLE I. For Model 1: Photon radius and Shadow radius with variousα α rph Rsh 0.1 2.99965 5.19589 0.6 2.9979 5.1946 1.1 2.99615 5.1933 1.6 2.99438 5.19199 2.1 2.99261 5.19068 TABLE II. For Model 2: Photon radius and Shadow radius with variousα β rph Rsh 0.1 3.00101 5.1972 0.6 3.00602 5.20242 1.1 3.01101 5.2...

    1946

  6. [6]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L17 (2022), arXiv:2311.09484 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Bambi, K

    C. Bambi, K. Freese, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044057 (2019), arXiv:1904.12983 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Falcke, F

    H. Falcke, F. Melia, and E. Agol, Astrophys. J. Lett. 528, L13 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9912263

    2000 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Y. Chen, R. Roy, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043021 (2022), arXiv:2205.06238 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. F. Zakharov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27, 1841009 (2018), arXiv:1801.09920 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. F. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D 90, 062007 (2014), arXiv:1407.7457 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    P . V . P . Cunha and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Gen. Rel. Grav.50, 42 (2018), arXiv:1801.00860 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    S. E. Gralla, D. E. Holz, and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D100, 024018 (2019), arXiv:1906.00873 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Johannsen and D

    T. Johannsen and D. Psaltis, Astrophys. J. 718, 446 (2010), arXiv:1005.1931 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Cardoso and L

    V . Cardoso and L. Gualtieri, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 174001 (2016), arXiv:1607.03133 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kuang, Z.-Y

    X.-M. Kuang, Z.-Y. Tang, B. Wang, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 064012 (2022), arXiv:2206.05878 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    P . V . P . Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024039 (2017), arXiv:1705.05461 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P . V . P . Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, and E. Radu, Phys. Lett. B 768, 373 (2017), arXiv:1701.00079 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Perlick and O

    V . Perlick and O. Y. Tsupko, Phys. Rept. 947, 1 (2022), arXiv:2105.07101 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Wei, Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei, Y.-X. Liu, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 99, 041303 (2019), arXiv:1811.00047 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. F. Zinhailo, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1049 (2020), arXiv:2003.01188 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Shaikh, P

    R. Shaikh, P . Kocherlakota, R. Narayan, and P . S. Joshi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 482, 52 (2019), arXiv:1802.08060 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Okyay and A

    M. Okyay and A. ¨Ovg ¨un, JCAP 01, 009 (2022), arXiv:2108.07766 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Jafarzade, M

    K. Jafarzade, M. Kord Zangeneh, and F. S. N. Lobo, JCAP 04, 008 (2021), arXiv:2010.05755 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Amarilla and E

    L. Amarilla and E. F. Eiroa, Phys. Rev. D85, 064019 (2012), arXiv:1112.6349 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    R. A. Hennigar, M. B. J. Poshteh, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064041 (2018), arXiv:1801.03223 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Vagnozzi and L

    S. Vagnozzi and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024020 (2019), arXiv:1905.12421 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B 795, 1 (2019), arXiv:1905.00064 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Khodadi, A

    M. Khodadi, A. Allahyari, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, JCAP 09, 026 (2020), arXiv:2005.05992 [gr-qc]. 12

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Afrin, R

    M. Afrin, R. Kumar, and S. G. Ghosh, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 5927 (2021), arXiv:2103.11417 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zeng, H.-Q

    X.-X. Zeng, H.-Q. Zhang, and H. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 872 (2020), arXiv:2004.12074 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Vertogradov and A.¨Ovg ¨un, (2024), arXiv:2412.10930 [gr-qc]

    V . Vertogradov and A.¨Ovg ¨un, (2024), arXiv:2412.10930 [gr-qc]

    2024

  26. [34]

    Allahyari, M

    A. Allahyari, M. Khodadi, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, JCAP 02, 003 (2020), arXiv:1912.08231 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Wei and Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei and Y.-X. Liu, JCAP 11, 063 (2013), arXiv:1311.4251 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Belhaj, H

    A. Belhaj, H. Belmahi, M. Benali, W. El Hadri, H. El Moumni, and E. Torrente-Lujan, Phys. Lett. B 812, 136025 (2021), arXiv:2008.13478 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Vertogradov, A

    V . Vertogradov, A. ¨Ovg ¨un, and D. Shatov, (2025), arXiv:2502.00521 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Vertogradov, M

    V . Vertogradov, M. Misyura, and P . Bambhaniya, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 140, 23 (2025), arXiv:2403.16743 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Vertogradov and A

    V . Vertogradov and A. ¨Ovg ¨un, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 025024 (2025), arXiv:2408.02699 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Vertogradov, A.¨Ovg ¨un, and R

    V . Vertogradov, A.¨Ovg ¨un, and R. C. Pantig, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 2, 2540001 (2025), arXiv:2405.05077 [gr- qc]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Vertogradov and A

    V . Vertogradov and A. ¨Ovg ¨un, Phys. Dark Univ. 45, 101541 (2024), arXiv:2404.04046 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Vertogradov and A.¨Ovg ¨un, Phys

    V . Vertogradov and A.¨Ovg ¨un, Phys. Lett. B 854, 138758 (2024), arXiv:2404.18536 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gonz´alez, K

    E. Gonz´alez, K. Jusufi, G. Leon, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101304 (2023), arXiv:2305.14305 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Heydarzade and V

    Y. Heydarzade and V . Vertogradov, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 582 (2024), arXiv:2311.08930 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Nicolini, A

    P . Nicolini, A. Smailagic, and E. Spallucci, Phys. Lett. B 632, 547 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0510112

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. A. A. Filho, K. Jusufi, B. Cuadros-Melgar, G. Leon, A. Jawad, and C. E. Pellicer, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101711 (2024), arXiv:2401.15211 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Sekhmani, A

    Y. Sekhmani, A. A. A. Filho, R. Myrzakulov, A. Z. Kaczmarek, J. Rayimbaev, and D. Szcz e ¸´sniak, (2024), 10.2139/ssrn.4892309, arXiv:2402.05344 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Antoniadis, S

    I. Antoniadis, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, Nucl. Phys. B 516, 70 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9710204

    1998 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Jusufi, G

    K. Jusufi, G. Leon, and A. D. Millano, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101318 (2023), arXiv:2304.11492 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Nicolini, E

    P . Nicolini, E. Spallucci, and M. F. Wondrak, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134888 (2019), arXiv:1902.11242 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    H. B. G. Casimir and D. Polder, Phys. Rev.73, 360 (1948)

    1948

  44. [52]

    Feinberg and J

    G. Feinberg and J. Sucher, Phys. Rev. 166, 1638 (1968)

    1968

  45. [53]

    R. Y. Chiao, N. A. Inan, M. Scheibner, J. Sharping, D. A. Singleton, and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064073 (2024), arXiv:2311.07764 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Antoniadis and K

    I. Antoniadis and K. Benakli, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15, 4237 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0007226

    2000 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Antoniadis, C

    I. Antoniadis, C. P . Bachas, and C. Kounnas, Nucl. Phys. B 289, 87 (1987)

    1987

  48. [56]

    Dimopoulos, M

    S. Dimopoulos, M. Dine, S. Raby, and S. D. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3494 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9601367

    1996 arXiv

  49. [57]

    R. Y. Chiao, N. A. Inan, D. A. Singleton, and M. E. Tobar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 33, 2441021 (2024), arXiv:2409.13780 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Tan et al., Phys

    W.-H. Tan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 051301 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Ferrer and M

    F. Ferrer and M. Nowakowski, Phys. Rev. D 59, 075009 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9810550

    1999 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Dimopoulos and G

    S. Dimopoulos and G. F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. B 379, 105 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9602350

    1996 arXiv

  53. [61]

    G. L. Klimchitskaya and V . M. Mostepanenko, Lect. Notes Phys. 1017, 403 (2023), arXiv:2312.01422 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    G. L. Klimchitskaya, P . Kuusk, and V . M. Mostepanenko, Phys. Rev. D 101, 056013 (2020), arXiv:2003.00948 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    In parallel, theoretical investigations have explored how neutrino backgrounds and finite temperature effects can induce long-range forces [ 64, 65]

    provided an early experimental measurement of the Casimir-Polder force, which has since been a reference point in precision tests of quantum electrodynamics. In parallel, theoretical investigations have explored how neutrino backgrounds and finite temperature effects can induc...

  56. [64]

    J. Ke, J. Luo, C.-G. Shao, Y.-J. Tan, W.-H. Tan, and S.-Q. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 211101 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Chiles et al

    J. Chiles et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 231802 (2022), arXiv:2110.01582 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Battelier et al

    B. Battelier et al. , Exper. Astron. 51, 1695 (2021), arXiv:1908.11785 [physics.space-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Hirao and T

    K. Hirao and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D 104, 035038 (2021), arXiv:2102.04070 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    C. I. Sukenik, M. G. Boshier, D. Cho, V . Sandoghdar, and E. A. Hinds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 560 (1993)

    1993

  61. [69]

    Ferrer, J

    F. Ferrer, J. A. Grifols, and M. Nowakowski, Phys. Lett. B 446, 111 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9806438

    1999 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Ferrer, J

    F. Ferrer, J. A. Grifols, and M. Nowakowski, Phys. Rev. D 61, 057304 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9906463

    2000 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Ghosh, Y

    M. Ghosh, Y. Grossman, W. Tangarife, X.-J. Xu, and B. Yu, JHEP 07, 107 (2024), arXiv:2405.16801 [hep-ph]

    2024

  64. [72]

    Barbosa and S

    S. Barbosa and S. Fichet, JHEP 01, 021 (2025), arXiv:2403.13894 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    D. Blas, I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J. Salvado, JHEP 04, 039 (2023), arXiv:2212.03889 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Ghosh, Y

    M. Ghosh, Y. Grossman, and W. Tangarife, Phys. Rev. D 101, 116006 (2020), arXiv:1912.09444 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Ferrer and J

    F. Ferrer and J. A. Grifols, JCAP12, 012 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0407532

    2004

  68. [76]

    Nowakowski, PoS silafae-III, 025 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0009157

    M. Nowakowski, PoS silafae-III, 025 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0009157

    2000

  69. [77]

    Ferrer and J

    F. Ferrer and J. A. Grifols, Phys. Lett. B 460, 371 (1999), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 511, 319–320 (2001)], arXiv:hep- ph/9904394

    1999

  70. [78]

    J. A. Grifols, E. Masso, and R. Toldra, Phys. Rev. D 57, 614 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9707536

    1998 arXiv

  71. [79]

    C. J. Horowitz and J. T. Pantaleone, Phys. Lett. B 319, 186 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9306222

    1993 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1549 (1982)

    1982

  73. [81]

    MacDonald, P

    M. MacDonald, P . Mart´ınez-Mirav´e, and I. Tamborra, JCAP 01, 062 (2025), arXiv:2409.16367 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Calatayud-Cadenillas, A

    A. Calatayud-Cadenillas, A. P´erez-G, and A. M. Gago, Phys. Lett. B 863, 139377 (2025), arXiv:2408.04234 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Mart´ınez-Mirav´e, I

    P . Mart´ınez-Mirav´e, I. Tamborra, and M. T ´ortola, JCAP 05, 002 (2024), arXiv:2402.00116 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Gerbino et al

    M. Gerbino et al. , Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101333 (2023), arXiv:2203.07377 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Lambiase, T

    G. Lambiase, T. K. Poddar, and L. Visinelli, (2025), arXiv:2503.02940 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  78. [86]

    S. R. Aliberti, G. Lambiase, and T. K. Poddar, JCAP 03, 049 (2025), arXiv:2412.09575 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  79. [87]

    A. K. Alok, T. J. Chall, N. R. S. Chundawat, S. Gan- gal, and G. Lambiase, Phys. Rev. D 111, 036015 (2025), arXiv:2407.16742 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Lambiase, L

    G. Lambiase, L. Mastrototaro, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123028 (2023), arXiv:2306.16977 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Lambiase, L

    G. Lambiase, L. Mastrototaro, and L. Visinelli, JCAP 01, 011 (2023), arXiv:2207.08067 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Mastrototaro and G

    L. Mastrototaro and G. Lambiase, in 16th Marcel Gross- mann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and 13 Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics and Relativistic Field Theories (2021) arXiv:2110.02996 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  83. [91]

    J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 2996 (1994), arXiv:gr- qc/9310024

    1994

  84. [92]

    J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3874 (1994), arXiv:gr- qc/9405057

    1994

  85. [93]

    C. P . Burgess, Living Rev. Rel. 7, 5 (2004), arXiv:gr- qc/0311082

    2004

  86. [94]

    Feinberg, J

    G. Feinberg, J. Sucher, and C. K. Au, Phys. Rept. 180, 83 (1989)

    1989

  87. [95]

    E. T. Akhmedov, V . Akhmedova, and D. Singleton, Phys. Lett. B 642, 124 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0608098

    2006 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Kobialko and D

    K. Kobialko and D. Gal’tsov, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044071 (2025), arXiv:2410.16127 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Atamurotov, A

    F. Atamurotov, A. Abdujabbarov, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D 88, 064004 (2013)

    2013

  90. [98]

    Tsukamoto, Z

    N. Tsukamoto, Z. Li, and C. Bambi, JCAP 06, 043 (2014), arXiv:1403.0371 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Perlick, O

    V . Perlick, O. Y. Tsupko, and G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, Phys. Rev. D 92, 104031 (2015), arXiv:1507.04217 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  92. [100]

    G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and O. Y. Tsupko, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.404, 1790 (2010), arXiv:1006.2321 [astro- ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Claudel, K

    C.-M. Claudel, K. S. Virbhadra, and G. F. R. Ellis, J. Math. Phys. 42, 818 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0005050

    2001 arXiv

  94. [102]

    W. H. Press, Astrophys. J. Lett. 170, L105 (1971)

    1971

  95. [103]

    C. J. Goebel, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 172, L95 (1972)

    1972

  96. [104]

    Andersson, Phys

    N. Andersson, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1808 (1995)

    1995

  97. [105]

    Cardoso, A

    V . Cardoso, A. S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek, and V . T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064016 (2009), arXiv:0812.1806 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Cardoso, L

    V . Cardoso, L. C. B. Crispino, C. F. B. Macedo, H. Okawa, and P . Pani, Phys. Rev. D 90, 044069 (2014), arXiv:1406.5510 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Cvetic, G

    M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev. D 94, 106005 (2016), arXiv:1608.02202 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  100. [108]

    M. S. Churilova, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 629 (2019), arXiv:1905.04536 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.