Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Study of Complexity Factor and Stability of Dynamical Systems in $f(G)$ Gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read $Y_{TF}$ is the complexity factor for non-static cylindrical fluids in $f(G)$ gravity; vanishing $Y_{TF}$ plus homologous evolution forces non-dissipative fluids to be isotropic, geodesic, homogeneous, and shear-free.

desk verdict The machinery is standard and the extension to f(G) is incremental, but the paper's own Eq. (77) contradicts the claimed vanishing-complexity theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03559 v1 pith:LVDYLGQV submitted 2025-06-04 gr-qc

M. Zeeshan Gul , W. Ahmad , M.M.M. Nasir , Faisal Javed , Orhan Donmez , Bander Almutairi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.40.-b04.40.Dg04.50.Kd
keywords complexityfactorf(G)gravityGauss-Bonnetcylindricalspacetimestructurescalarsanisotropicfluidhomologousevolutionshear-free
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

Complexity is a proxy for how much structure a self-gravitating fluid has beyond its simplest state. This paper defines that notion for non-static, cylindrically symmetric fluids in f(G) (Gauss-Bonnet-modified) gravity, where previous studies had mostly treated spherical symmetry or static configurations. Its central claim is that a single trace-free scalar, $Y_{TF}$, captures the complexity of these systems, and that setting it to zero while the fluid expands homologously forces the structure to become very simple: geodesic, isotropic, homogeneous, and shear-free without dissipation, and geodesic with shear in the dissipative case. If correct, this gives a concrete selection rule for constructing manageable dynamical models of cylindrical stars and a modified-gravity version of the standard vanishing-complexity condition.

What carries the argument

The central object is the trace-free scalar $Y_{TF}=\xi-4\pi(\Pi+T^{(GB)}_{11}/K^2-T^{(GB)}_{22}/L^2)$, obtained by orthogonally splitting the Riemann tensor into electric-Weyl and matter parts. Here $\xi$ is the electric part of the Weyl tensor and the $T^{(GB)}$ terms are the Gauss-Bonnet corrections; the scalar is singled out because it packages density inhomogeneity, anisotropic pressure, and modified curvature in one number. The argument is carried by the homologous-evolution assumption $U=a(t)L$, which the authors translate into separability $L=L_1(t)L_2(r)$; that separability is what turns the kinematic equation into $J'=0$ (geodesic flow) and, in the non-dissipative case, forces the shear to vanish. The machinery closes with the integral of the $Y_{TF}=0$ equation, giving $K$ in terms of $L_1(t)$, $L_2(r)$, and two integration functions.

What would settle it

Integrate the full f(G) field equations for a regular cylindrical interior with $Y_{TF}=0$ and $U=a(t)L$, but do not assume $L=L_1(t)L_2(r)$; if a solution with $J'\neq 0$ exists, the claim that homologous evolution forces geodesic flow fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper carries the standard complexity-factor program into non-static cylindrical symmetry under f(G) gravity. Starting from the modified field equations and the C-energy mass function, the authors split the Riemann tensor orthogonally and obtain the scalars $X_T$, $X_{TF}$, $Y_T$, and $Y_{TF}$. They identify $Y_{TF}$ as the complexity factor: it encodes the combined effect of non-uniform energy density, pressure anisotropy, and the Gauss-Bonnet correction terms. The main result is that a fluid satisfying $Y_{TF}=0$ and evolving homologously ($U=a(t)L$, with the consequent separation $L=L_1(t)L_2(r)$) is forced to be geodesic, isotropic, homogeneous, and shear-free when there is no dissipation; with dissipation it remains geodesic but acquires shear. The paper also establishes a stability statement: in the non-dissipative case the vanishing-complexity condition propagates in time, while dissipative terms can push the system away from it.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that homologous expansion really forces the metric function to split as $L(t,r)=L_1(t)L_2(r)$, and that the central radius vanishes so an integration function $b(t)$ drops out; if a homologous flow can be non-separable, the geodesic and shear-free conclusions collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A non-dissipative cylindrical fluid with $Y_{TF}=0$ and homologous evolution is unique in structure: it is geodesic, isotropic, homogeneous, and shear-free, and its metric satisfies $K=L'$.
  • In the dissipative case, vanishing complexity no longer removes shear; the fluid remains geodesic, and the heat-flux combination $q-T^{(GB)}_{01}/K$ obeys a closed integral equation that generates a family of radiating models.
  • The scalar $Y_{TF}$ ties the mass function to the dynamics: Eq. (71) directly relates $Y_{TF}$ to $\ddot{L}/L-\ddot{K}/K-1/(2L^2)$, so the structure scalars fix the acceleration of the system.
  • The stability analysis shows the zero-complexity condition propagates in time for non-dissipative systems as long as pressure remains isotropic, while dissipative terms can drive the system away from $Y_{TF}=0$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the separability condition is genuinely implied by homologous evolution, the geodesic conclusion would survive in other metric theories of gravity as long as the kinematic equation keeps the same form; testing the argument in a different modified theory would isolate what is geometry and what is specific to Gauss-Bonnet terms.
  • The dissipative branch stands or falls on whether the integral for $q-T^{(GB)}_{01}/K$ admits a solution regular at the center and matchable to a radiating exterior; constructing one explicit example would sharpen the claim considerably.
  • A numerical search for homologous, zero-complexity cylindrical interiors with non-separable $L(t,r)$ would probe the boundary of the paper's argument; if such solutions exist with $J'\neq 0$, the simple-flow picture would not be the whole story.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies non-static cylindrical anisotropic fluids in f(G) gravity using Herrera's complexity formalism. It derives the modified field equations, the C-energy and mass function, performs an orthogonal splitting of the Riemann tensor to obtain structure scalars, selects Y_TF as the complexity factor, imposes vanishing complexity together with homologous/homogeneous evolution, and claims that in the non-dissipative case the fluid becomes isotropic, geodesic, homogeneous, and shear-free, while in the dissipative case it remains geodesic but acquires shear. The paper also analyzes the stability of the vanishing-complexity condition.

Significance. If the characterization were correct, it would provide a complete set of structure scalars and a vanishing-complexity criterion for cylindrical fluids in Gauss-Bonnet modified gravity, extending a well-established GR program and offering falsifiable restrictions on stellar models. The paper contains substantial standard tensor algebra (field equations, Weyl tensor projection, C-energy), and the structure-scalar definitions follow the canonical Herrera decomposition. However, the central result is not supported by the manuscript's own equations, and no numerical or observational validation is supplied. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or reproducible code; its value depends entirely on the correctness of the analytic derivation, which fails at the key step.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Eqs. (71), (77), (78)] The non-dissipative branch is internally inconsistent. When σ=0, Eq. (14) gives dot{K}/K = dot{L}/L and hence ddot{L}/L - ddot{K}/K = 0; substituting this into the dynamical equation Eq. (71) yields Y_TF = -1/(2L^2), which is exactly Eq. (77). If the vanishing-complexity premise Y_TF=0 is imposed on the same branch, no finite-L solution exists. The subsequent shear-free reduction k1(r)=0 and K=L1(t)L'_2(r) ktilde2(r) (Eq. (78)) would require -1/(2L^2)=0, i.e., infinite L. Therefore the abstract's claim that a vanishing-complexity homologous non-dissipative fluid is shear-free is contradicted by the paper's own equations.
  2. [§5, Eq. (73)] The expression for K displayed as 'the integration of Eq. (71)' is neither derived nor a general solution of Eq. (71) with Y_TF=0. Eq. (71) is a variable-coefficient second-order equation for K; Eq. (73) is a particular ansatz with arbitrary functions k1(r), k2(r), and no verification is provided. A concrete check: for L1=t, L2=r, J=1, Eq. (71) becomes ddot{K} = -K/(2t^2 r^2), whereas Eq. (73) gives K = A t^{-1/r^2} + B t, which satisfies that ODE only for parameter values outside the allowable range. The closed-form K is used in Eqs. (78)-(80) and in the dissipative section, so this unverified step is load-bearing.
  3. [§4, Eqs. (52)-(54), (59), (63)] The homologous-evolution ansatz is imposed rather than derived. From Eqs. (48)-(51), the paper concludes U=a(t)L and then asserts 'Consequently, L is a separable function; therefore L=L1(t)L2(r)' (Eq. (53)). This implication does not follow: with U=dot{L}/J, the relation U=a(t)L only determines J=dot{L}/(aL) and says nothing about separability of L. Because Eq. (54) is obtained after inserting Eq. (53), the subsequent conclusions J'=0 (Eq. (59)), b(t)=0 (Eq. (63)), and σ=0 (Eq. (64)) inherit an unproved ansatz. The authors need either a proof that homologous evolution forces separability in this geometry or a consistency check of the ansatz.
  4. [§5.2, Eq. (82)] The dissipative equation (82) appears dimensionally inconsistent. In geometrized units (time and length of the same dimension), the left side L'/L [Y_TF + 1/(2L^2)] has dimension L^{-3}, while the right side 4πK(q - T01/K)(2dot{K}/K + dot{L}/L + ∂t(...)/...) has dimension L^{-2} (a factor K times a flux of dimension L^{-2} times a time-derivative bracket of dimension L^{-1}). Unless one of the quantities in Eq. (82) is defined with a different dimension, the dissipative analysis built on this equation requires re-derivation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, Eq. (54)] The text says Eq. (54) is obtained by employing Eqs. (51)-(53) in Eq. (19), but Eq. (19) is the definition of E; the equation being used appears to be Eq. (15) or (48). The citation should be corrected.
  2. [§2, Eqs. (22)-(23)] The passage from Eq. (22) to Eq. (23) is not shown; the displayed result changes the sign of the T00/GB term in the integrand, and a direct integration does not obviously produce the stated expression. A derivation should be supplied or the formula corrected.
  3. [References] References [41] and [57] are the same paper; several other references are duplicated or cited vaguely (e.g., 'compatible with [58]'), and the reference list should be cleaned.
  4. [Notation] There are numerous typographical inconsistencies in the GB superscripts: Eqs. (41), (69), (80), and (91) use T^{(G)} or T^{(GB)} interchangeably; the symbol S in Eq. (80) is used both for the new variable (75) and for the coefficients S_i in Appendix A, which is confusing.
  5. [§7, Discussion] The discussion states that in the non-dissipative case the vanishing-complexity condition propagates over time 'providing that the pressure remains isotropic,' but the body of the paper does not derive isotropy (Pr=P⊥) from Y_TF=0; this claim needs either a derivation or removal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Y_TF is adopted as a definitional complexity measure, and the kinematic results follow from the field equations and homologous condition, not from unpacking the definition alone.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. It adopts Herrera's Y_TF as the complexity factor by definition (Section 3: 'We choose Y_TF as the complexity factor since it encompasses all components that contribute to a system's complexity'), but the subsequent conclusions — geodesic flow, shear-free evolution, and isotropy — are obtained by combining the homologous condition U=a(t)L (Eq. 52), the shear and expansion definitions (Eqs. 12, 14), and the field equations (Eqs. 71, 77, 78), not merely by restating the definition of Y_TF. Setting Y_TF=0 is a constraint, not a fit, and the paper does not fit parameters and then relabel them as predictions. The self-citations to Nasir et al. [46,50] and to Sharif and Butt [49] are literature context and parallel-work references, not load-bearing premises; no conclusion is forced by a self-citation chain. The cited Herrera results [57-59] are external support and are used as compatibility checks. The main caveats in the manuscript are correctness issues rather than circularity: Eq. (77) gives Y_TF=-1/(2L^2) for the non-dissipative shear-free homologous branch, which is inconsistent with the Y_TF=0 premise used to integrate Eq. (73); and Section 5.2 explicitly disclaims exact dissipative solutions ('we can neither uphold the assumption regarding the disappearance of the relaxation time ... nor can we demonstrate the existence of such exact solutions'). These issues affect validity, not whether the derivation reduces to its own inputs. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on is inherited: the gravitational theory (f(G)), the complexity definition (Y_TF from Herrera), the cylindrical plus Vaidya geometry, and the separability ansatz for L(t,r). The only degrees of freedom added by the paper are the arbitrary integration functions in the formal solutions. No data are fitted, but the analysis is entirely symbolic and no specific f(G) model is tested.

free parameters (4)
  • f(G) (unspecified function)
    The action uses a generic f(G) without selecting a model; every result is a functional of f and its derivatives, so no concrete theory is validated.
  • Separable metric functions L1(t), L2(r)
    The homologous ansatz L=L1L2, Eq.(53), effectively treats L1 and L2 as free functions to be fixed by initial data; they propagate into the shear and K solutions.
  • Integration functions k1(r), k2(r), ktilde1(r), ktilde2(r)
    Arbitrary functions in the general solution for K, Eq.(73)-(75), never determined.
  • Integration functions b(t), a(t), f(r)
    b(t) in Eq.(63),(66), a(t) in Eq.(52), and f(r) in Eq.(83) are integration constants/functions that the paper leaves unspecified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The f(G) field equations, Eqs.(2)-(4), are the correct equations of motion derived from the action S = integral of (R+f(G))/k + Lm.
    The work operates entirely within f(G) gravity; the field equations are quoted, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The matter is an anisotropic fluid with heat flux, Eq.(5), with no viscosity, magnetic field, or rotation.
    The structure scalars and the complexity factor are constructed for this matter model.
  • domain assumption The magnetic part of the Weyl tensor vanishes, so only the electric part E_gammanu is needed, Eq.(24)-(27).
    The orthogonal splitting that produces X_T, X_TF, Y_T, Y_TF assumes a purely electric Weyl tensor.
  • domain assumption The spacetime is non-static cylindrical, Eq.(6), matched to a Vaidya exterior via Darmois conditions, Eq.(45)-(47).
    The C-energy, mass function, and the heat-flux boundary condition at Sigma depend on this geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper Homologous evolution is equivalent to U=a(t)L with L=L1(t)L2(r), Eqs.(52)-(53).
    The separability ansatz is introduced after Eq.(50) and is the key premise that yields J'=0 and the solution for K; no proof is given.
  • domain assumption The inhomogeneity equation for X_TF, Eq.(42), is adopted from Ref.[56] without re-derivation in the f(G) setting.
    The stability analysis in Section 6 relies on this differential relation as an input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of Complexity Factor and Stability of Dynamical Systems in $f(G)$ Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LVDYLGQV

@misc{pith2026250603559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of Complexity Factor and Stability of Dynamical Systems in $f(G)$ Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LVDYLGQV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03559}
}
abstract

In this paper, we evaluate the complexity of the non-static cylindrical geometry with anisotropic matter configuration in the framework of modified Gauss-Bonnet theory. In this perspective, we calculate modified field equations, the C energy formula, and the mass function that helps to understand the astrophysical structures in this modified gravity. Furthermore, we use the Weyl tensor and obtain different structure scalars by orthogonally splitting the Riemann tensor. One of these scalars, $YTF$ is referred to as the complexity factor. This parameter measures the system's complexity due to non-uniform energy density and non-isotropic pressure. We select the identical complexity factor for the structure as used in the non-static scenario while considering the analogous criterion for the most elementary pattern of development. This technique involves formulating structural scalars that illustrate the fundamental features of the system. A fluid distribution that satisfies the vanishing complexity requirement and evolves homologously is characterized as isotropic, geodesic, homogeneous, and shear-free. In the dissipative scenario, the fluid remains geodesic while exhibiting shear, resulting in an extensive array of solutions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Buchdahl, H. A.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.150(1970)1

    work page 1970

  2. [2]

    and Kawasaki, M.: Phys

    Dolgov, A.D. and Kawasaki, M.: Phys. Lett. B573(2003)1; Capozziello, S., Cardone, V.F. and Troisi, A.: Phys. Rev. D71(2005)043503

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Sharif, M and Gul, M.Z.: Chin. J. Phys.57(2019)329; Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28(2019)1950054; Eur. Phys. J. Plus133(2018)345

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Adeel, M.: et al.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A38(2023)2350152

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Sharif, M.: et al.: Chin. J. Phys.91(2024)66; Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39(2024)2450140

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Rani, S.: et al.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.21(2024)2450033

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    et.: Eur

    Gul, M.Z. et.: Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024)8; ibid 1232

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    et al.: Phys

    Maurya, S.K. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe46(2024)101619

    work page 2024

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Sharif, M.: et al.: Chin. J. Phys.91(2024)66; Chin. J. Phys. 89(2024)266

    2024

  2. [10]

    Rep.1066(2024)78

    Heisenberg, L.: Phys. Rep.1066(2024)78

    2024

  3. [11]

    Sharif, M.: et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024)1065; ibid., 1094

    2024

  4. [12]

    et al.: Phys

    Koussour, M. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe46(2024)101577

    2024

  5. [13]

    et al.: Phys

    Myrzakulov, Y. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe45(2024)101545; J. High Energy Astrophys.44(2024)164

    2024

  6. [14]

    and Gul, M.Z..: Ann

    Sharif, M. and Gul, M.Z..: Ann. Phys.465(2024)169674; Phys. Dark Universe46(2024)101606

    2024

  7. [15]

    et al.: Eur

    Gul, M.Z. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024)802; ibid 775

    2024

  8. [16]

    and Gul, M.Z.: Phys

    Sharif, M. and Gul, M.Z.: Phys. Scr.99(2024)065036

    2024

  9. [17]

    et al.: Phys

    Errehymy, A. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe46(2024)101555

    2024

  10. [18]

    et al.: Phys

    Nan, G. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe46(2024)101635. 25

    2024

  11. [19]

    et al.: Fortschr

    Gul, M.Z. et al.: Fortschr. Phys.72(2024)2300221

    2024

  12. [20]

    Dark Universe45(2024)101527

    Koussour, M.: Phys. Dark Universe45(2024)101527

    2024

  13. [21]

    et al.: Phys

    Sharif, M. et al.: Phys. Scr.99(2024)115003

    2024

  14. [22]

    et al.: Mod

    Sharif, M. et al.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A39(2024)2450140

    2024

  15. [23]

    Dark Universe47(2025)101754

    Rani, S.: et al.: Phys. Dark Universe47(2025)101754

    2025

  16. [24]

    et al.: Phys

    Sharif, M. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe47(2025)101760

    2025

  17. [25]

    Deruelle, N.: Nucl. Phys. B327(1989)253; Deruelle, N. and Farina- Busto, L.: Phys. Rev. D41(1990)3696

    1989

  18. [26]

    and Kar, S.: Phys

    Bhawal, B. and Kar, S.: Phys. Rev. D46(1992)2464; Deruelle, N. and Dolezel, T.: Phys. Rev. D62(2000)103502

    1992

  19. [28]

    and Trodden, M.: J

    De Felice, A., Hindmarsh, M. and Trodden, M.: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.08(2006)005

    2006

  20. [29]

    et al.: Phys

    Cognola, G. et al.: Phys. Rev. D73(2006)084007; Amendola, L., Char- mousis, C. and Davis, S.C.: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.10(2007)004; Amendola, L., Charmousis, C. and Davis, S.C.: Gravit.49(2017)112

    2006

  21. [30]

    Donmez, O.: Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021)113

    2021

  22. [31]

    and Sahin, T.: Universe8(2022)458

    Donmez, O., Dogan, F. and Sahin, T.: Universe8(2022)458

    2022

  23. [32]

    et al.: Int

    Babar, R. et al.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A38(2023) 2350035

    2023

  24. [33]

    Dark Universe1(2024)101763

    Donmez, O.: Phys. Dark Universe1(2024)101763

    2024

  25. [34]

    and Sharif, M.: Chin

    Gul, M.Z. and Sharif, M.: Chin. J. Phys.88(2024)388

    2024

  26. [35]

    Donmez, O.: Res. Astron. Astrophys.24(2024)085001

    2024

  27. [36]

    Donmez, O.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A39(2024)2450076

    2024

  28. [37]

    and Calbet, X.: Phys

    Lopez-Ruiz, R., Mancini, H.L. and Calbet, X.: Phys. Lett. A 209(1995)321. 26

    1995

  29. [38]

    and Lopez-Ruiz, R.: Phys

    Calbet, X. and Lopez-Ruiz, R.: Phys. Rev. E63(2001)066116; Catalan, R.G., Garay, J. and Lopez-Ruiz, R. Phys. Rev. E66(2002)011102

    2001

  30. [39]

    and Lopez-Ruiz, R.: Phys

    Sanudo, J. and Lopez-Ruiz, R.: Phys. Lett. A372(2008)5283; De Avel- lar, M.G.B. et al.: Phys. Lett. A378(2014)3481

    2008

  31. [40]

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

    2018

  32. [41]

    and Ospino, J.: Phys

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

    2018

  33. [42]

    and Ospino, J.: Phys

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

    2019

  34. [43]

    and Abellan, G.: Eur

    Contreras, E., Fuenmayor, E. and Abellan, G.: Eur. Phys. J. C 82(2022)187

    2022

  35. [44]

    and Stuchlik, Z.: Eur

    Contreras, E. and Stuchlik, Z.: Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022)706

    2022

  36. [45]

    and Nazar, H.: Eur

    Abbas, G. and Nazar, H.: Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018)957

    2018

  37. [46]

    et al.: Eur

    Nasir, M.M.M. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025)159

    2025

  38. [47]

    and Di Prisco, A.: J

    Herrera, L. and Di Prisco, A.: J. Ospino, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.44(2012) 2645

    2012

  39. [48]

    et al.: Can

    Houndjo, M.J.S. et al.: Can. J. Phys.92(2014)1528

    2014

  40. [49]

    and Butt, I.I.: Eur

    Sharif, M. and Butt, I.I.: Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018)850

    2018

  41. [50]

    and Yousaf, Z.: Int

    Nasir, M.M.M., Bhatti, M.Z. and Yousaf, Z.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 32(2023)2350009

    2023

  42. [51]

    and Odintsov, S.D.: Phys

    Nojiri, S. and Odintsov, S.D.: Phys. Lett. B631(2005)1

    2005

  43. [52]

    and Naseer, T.: Chin

    Sharif, M. and Naseer, T.: Chin. J. Phys.77(2022)2655

    2022

  44. [53]

    Rev.138(1965)B251; ibid.139(1965)B244

    Thorne, K.S.: Phys. Rev.138(1965)B251; ibid.139(1965)B244

    1965

  45. [54]

    and Sharp, D.H.: Phys

    Misner, C.W. and Sharp, D.H.: Phys. Rev.136(1964)B571

    1964

  46. [55]

    et al.: Phys

    Herrera, L. et al.: Phys. Rev. D79(2009)064025

    2009

  47. [56]

    et al.: Gen

    Herrera, L. et al.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit.46(2014)1827

    2014

  48. [57]

    and Ospino, J.: Phys

    Herrera, L., Di Prisco, A. and Ospino, J.: Phys. Rev. D98(2018)104059. 27

    2018

  49. [58]

    Di Prisco, A

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

    2019

  50. [59]

    Di Prisco

    Herrera, L,. Di Prisco. and Ospino.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit.42(2010)1585

    2010

  51. [60]

    et al.: Phys

    Herrera, L. et al.: Phys. Rev. D69(2004)084026

    2004

  52. [61]

    and Maharaj, S.D.: J

    Thirukkanesh, S. and Maharaj, S.D.: J. Math. Phys.51(2010)7

    2010

  53. [62]

    and Stewart, J.M.: Phys

    Israel, W. and Stewart, J.M.: Phys. Lett. A58(1976)215. 28

    1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.