Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 81 references

Thermal Behavior of Generalized Black-Bounce Black Hole Model

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 Generalized black-bounce black holes get colder as the bounce parameter and deformation index grow, producing regular spacetimes with suppressed Hawking radiation.

desk verdict The stress-test is right: the paper's Hawking-temperature plots are internally inconsistent with its own metrics, so the central thermal claim does not stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20195 v1 pith:QT2KT3FX submitted 2025-07-27 gr-qc hep-th

Allan R. P. Moreira , Abdelmalek Bouzenada , Shi-Hai Dong , Guo-Hua Sun , Faizuddin Ahmed This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th PACS 04.70.-s04.50.Kd11.30.Cp04.60.-m
keywords Hawkingtemperatureblack-bouncespacetimesregularblackholesSimpson–Visserspacetimequasi-localmassHamilton–Jacobitunnelinghorizonstructureenergyconditions
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 establish that a family of generalized black-bounce spacetimes, built by replacing the Schwarzschild mass with parameter-dependent mass functions and the areal radius with $\sqrt{r^2+a^2}$, are regular, horizon-forming black holes with well-behaved thermodynamics. For four new mass profiles—power-law, cosine-powered, arctangent-product, and pure arctangent—the authors compute the Hernandez–Misner–Sharp quasi-local mass and the Hawking temperature by the Hamilton–Jacobi tunneling method. They claim every geometry is free of curvature singularities, has positive quasi-local mass, and can exhibit several horizons including extremal ones, while typically violating classical energy conditions near the bounce. The physical payoff would be a concrete family of nonsingular black holes in which the bounce parameter and deformation index directly regulate Hawking radiation, so larger deformations mean colder, longer-lived configurations and possible stable evaporation remnants.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized black-bounce line element $ds^2=f(r)dt^2-f(r)^{-1}dr^2-\Sigma^2(r)(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,d\phi^2)$ in Buchdahl form, with $\Sigma(r)=\sqrt{r^2+a^2}$ and $f(r)=1-2M(r)/\Sigma(r)$, where $M(r)$ is one of several mass functions designed to smooth the central region. The Hernandez–Misner–Sharp quasi-local mass, $M_{\rm HMS}(r)=\frac12\Sigma(r)[1-f(r)\Sigma'(r)^2]$, supplies the regularity and positivity checks, and the Hamilton–Jacobi tunneling derivation of the Hawking temperature, $T_{\rm BH}=A'(r_H)/(4\pi)$, converts the near-horizon slope of the metric function into a thermal statement. The argument works by combining these two tools: the mass function shapes $f(r)$ and its roots, and the slope at a horizon sets the temperature.

What would settle it

Pick the $n=1,k=2$ model, list all roots of $f(r)=0$, and compute $f'(r_H)$ at the outermost horizon; if the temperature no longer decreases monotonically with $a$ or vanishes at different parameter values, the central thermal claim fails. Separately, write down the total matter action whose field equations reproduce the stress-energy tensor from Section 2 for that model; if no causal energy-momentum source exists, the physical-admissibility claim is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the geometry $$f(r)=1-\frac{2M(r)}{\Sigma(r)},\quad \Sigma(r)=\sqrt{$r^{2}$+$a^{2}$},$$ with mass profiles $M(r)$ given in Eqs. (20), (28), (34), and (38), defines nonsingular black-bounce black holes whose Hawking temperature is $T_{\rm BH}=f'(r_H)/(4\pi)$ and falls when the bounce parameter $a$ or the deformation index $n$ increases. Each model tends to Schwarzschild as $a\to0$ and, for suitable parameters, to the Simpson–Visser spacetime as a base case. The paper further claims all models satisfy the regularity criteria of finite curvature invariants and smooth metric functions, and have positive quasi-local mass $M_{\rm HMS}(r)$ that runs from $a/2$ at the core to $m$ at infinity. On the thermal side, the temperature curves show characteristic peaks and zeros in the $(a,m)$ plane, so the models are taken to interpolate between radiative and effectively non-radiative, extremal-like states.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the proposed metrics are physically realizable regular black holes, yet it never constructs the matter Lagrangian or field configuration whose anisotropic stress-energy tensor would generate them; it also leaves unspecified which horizon root is used when evaluating $T_{\rm BH}=f'(r_H)/(4\pi)$ for solutions with multiple horizons.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Larger bounce parameter $a$ generally lowers the Hawking temperature, so these regular geometries radiate less intensely than Schwarzschild black holes of the same mass.
  • Zero-temperature points in parameter space act like extremal configurations where radiation switches off, offering candidate stable remnants at the end of evaporation.
  • Because $a\to0$ recovers Schwarzschild and $n\to0$ recovers Simpson–Visser in several models, the family provides a continuous interpolation between classical and regular thermodynamics.
  • The typically negative energy density outside the outer horizon means any realistic embedding needs exotic matter or a modified-gravity source, which the paper identifies but does not construct.
  • The temperature peaks in the $(a,m)$ and $(n,m)$ planes locate transitions between radiative and suppressed phases, giving concrete predictions that future numerical or observational studies could test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the tunneling formula is evaluated at a horizon root without specifying which root is chosen, the claimed monotonic suppression with $a$ could change if the outermost horizon is selected instead of an inner one; a systematic root-selection rule would settle this.
  • The same construction may extend to rotating or asymptotically de Sitter versions of these mass profiles, since the regularity checks are local; such extensions are not in the paper but follow naturally from its method.
  • If the zero-temperature states are real, they suggest an observable signature: a population of compact remnants with no Hawking flux, which might be distinguished from ordinary black holes by the absence of thermal emission.
  • A direct matter action reproducing the anisotropic stress–energy tensor would make the energy-condition violations concrete and is the most needed next step; the paper only works at the metric level.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a family of static, spherically symmetric 'generalized black-bounce' spacetimes with areal radius Σ(r)=√(r²+a²) and several choices of mass function M(r): a power-law family in Eq. (20), a cosine model in Eq. (28), an arctangent-product model in Eq. (34), and a pure arctangent model in Eq. (38). For each model the paper computes the Hernandez–Misner–Sharp quasi-local mass, discusses horizon structure and energy conditions, and derives the Hawking temperature through the Hamilton–Jacobi tunneling method, obtaining T=f'(r_H)/(4π). The central claims are that all geometries are regular, have positive and well-defined quasi-local masses, and that increasing the bounce parameter a or the deformation index n suppresses the Hawking temperature, implying reduced radiation and enhanced thermodynamic stability.

Significance. The construction is transparent and explicit: the metric functions are given in closed form, the HMS masses follow by direct substitution from Eq. (17), and the limiting behaviors such as M_HMS(0)=a/2 and M_HMS(∞)=m are easy to verify. The tunneling derivation, despite a sign typo in Eq. (46), leads to the standard surface-gravity temperature, and the regularity claim is supported by the smoothness of f and Σ with Σ>0. However, the quantitative thermal results as plotted are internally inconsistent with the stated metric functions: several reported temperatures occur for parameter values where no real horizon exists, and no horizon-selection rule is given for multi-horizon cases. These issues bear directly on the paper's central claim, so the present version cannot be accepted as is.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (53), Figs. 14, 20, 22] The reported temperature curves are not consistent with the stated metrics because T=f'(r_H)/(4π) is evaluated without restricting to parameter values for which f(r) has a real root. For Model 3.4, Eq. (35) with n=m=1 gives f(r)=1-(4/(π r)) arctan(r/a); since arctan(r/a)/r is strictly decreasing, f increases from 1-4/(π a) to 1, so a horizon exists only for a<4/π≈1.273, whereas Fig. 20(a) reports a second temperature maximum at a≈3.6 where f(r)>0 everywhere. Similarly, Model 3.5, Eq. (39), has horizons only for a≲0.714 when n=m=1, yet Fig. 22(a) shows a second maximum at a≈4.2; and Model 3.1, Eq. (22), has horizons only for a<4/(3√3)≈0.770 when m=1, yet Fig. 14 reports a temperature zero at a≈1.45 and a second peak at a≈2.3. These are internal contradictions, not interpretive choices, and they invalidate the temperature-versus-parameter plots as presented.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (22), (29), and Section 4] For parameter values where the spacetime genuinely has two horizons (for example, Eq. (22) with m=1 and a=0.6), the paper does not state whether T is evaluated at the outer horizon, the inner horizon, or the degenerate extremal configuration. The surface gravity, and hence the temperature, differs between these horizons, and the monotonicity of T(a) can depend on the choice. Because the central claim about suppression of temperature with increasing a is extracted from these curves, the missing selection rule makes the central quantitative claim ambiguous even on the horizon branch.
  3. [Section 4, Figs. 12-23] The temperature plots are not reproducible from the text: no horizon-finding algorithm, no branch-selection rule, and no numerical data or code are provided. Given that the figures contain features that cannot arise from real roots of the stated f(r), the authors should specify exactly which equation was solved to produce each curve, and should regenerate all thermal plots using only genuine horizons.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (46)] The leading-order WKB equation has the sign of the mass term wrong: from Eq. (44) one obtains (∂_tT)^2 - A^2(∂_rT)^2 + m^2A = 0, not with a minus sign before m^2A. The error propagates to Eq. (48), although it does not change the final temperature formula (53) because the mass term is subleading near the horizon.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (36) and Section 3.5, Eq. (40)] The statements that the HMS mass is positive 'for odd values of n' (after Eq. (36)) and 'for even values of n' (after Eq. (40)) are unnecessarily restrictive, since arctan^n(r/a)≥0 for every positive integer n and the displayed mass functions are non-negative for all n.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and grammatical issues, including 'Reserach' in the affiliation, 'Aslo' in Section 4.2, 'This figure (12)' and similar awkward captions, and inconsistent use of 'Section III' versus 'Section 4'. The authors should also clarify whether n is a positive integer or a continuous parameter, since Figs. 18(b), 20(b), and 22(b) plot continuous curves in n.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the metrics and temperature curves are explicit model computations, not fitted or self-citational projections.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a circular derivation chain in the sense defined here. The spacetimes are introduced as explicit ansätze with chosen free parameters a, n, k, m, r0 (Eqs. 20, 25, 29, 35, 39); no parameter is fitted to any data, and no quantity is 'predicted' from a subset of data to which it was fitted. The Hawking temperature is derived through the standard Hamilton–Jacobi tunneling calculation, leading to T_BH = A'(r_H)/(4π) (Eq. 53), and the reported T(a) and T(n) curves are direct evaluations of this formula on the stated metrics. The regularity and quasi-local mass statements are likewise computed from the definitions: MHMS(r) is evaluated from Eq. (17) for each model (Eqs. 23, 26, 32, 36, 40), and the positivity and finiteness properties follow from the explicit forms of Σ and M rather than being assumed as inputs to the construction. The authors do cite some of their own prior or co-authored papers in the introduction (e.g., refs. [44]–[47]), but these are background references on black-hole thermodynamics and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked, and no result is justified solely by self-citation. Possible internal inconsistencies between the reported temperature plots and the existence of real horizons for large a would be a correctness or consistency issue, not evidence of circularity; without direct textual evidence that the temperature values were inserted as inputs rather than computed from Eq. (53), no circular step can be substantiated.

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

The construction relies on a freely prescribed mass function M(r), the bounce scale a, and integer deformation parameters n and k. No explicit matter source is constructed, and the temperature formula is the standard surface-gravity result. The physical realizability of the matter stress tensor is the main unverified input.

free parameters (5)
  • a = varied in plots (e.g., 0.15, 0.2, 0.3, up to 10)
    Bounce parameter controlling the minimal areal radius Σ(0)=a; central to regularity and temperature behavior.
  • n = positive integers, n=1,2,3 in plots
    Mass deformation index in Eq. (20) and in cosine/arctangent mass profiles; controls horizon structure and temperature.
  • k = k=0 or 2 in the two power-law models
    Exponent in the generalized mass function Eq. (20); only two integer values are used.
  • r0 = not numerically fixed; appears in the cosine model M(r)=m cos^{2n}(r0/Σ(r))
    Scale parameter in the cosine mass profile; qualitative behavior is analyzed but no particular value is used.
  • m = m=1 in most plots; varied up to 6 in heat maps
    Asymptotic mass of the black hole; acts as an input parameter in the temperature analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The line element is assumed to be of the Buchdahl static spherically symmetric form with metric functions f(r) and Σ(r) as in Eq. (1).
    All subsequent calculations start from this ansatz; staticity and spherical symmetry are imposed.
  • ad hoc to paper The metric is assumed to satisfy Einstein equations with an anisotropic fluid stress-energy tensor, with no explicit matter Lagrangian supplied.
    The paper derives T_μν from the metric but never constructs a physical matter source; this is the key step for the 'physically admissible' claim.
  • domain assumption The Hamilton-Jacobi tunneling method with a WKB scalar field and the near-horizon pole integral is assumed to yield the Hawking temperature T=f'(r_H)/(4π).
    Standard semiclassical result; the derivation in Section 4 has a sign error in the mass term but the final pole integral is standard.
  • standard math The quasi-local mass M_HMS is defined via Eq. (17) and used as a measure of positivity and regularity.
    Hernandez-Misner-Sharp mass is taken from the literature as the relevant mass definition.
  • domain assumption Regularity is inferred from smoothness of f and Σ together with Σ(r)≠0 for all r; Kretschmann finiteness is only stated, not shown for every model.
    The paper asserts finiteness of curvature invariants but supplies the explicit Kretschmann scalar only for the pure arctangent model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal Behavior of Generalized Black-Bounce Black Hole Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QT2KT3FX

@misc{pith2026250720195,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal Behavior of Generalized Black-Bounce Black Hole Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QT2KT3FX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20195}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we tested the thermal behavior of a class of regular black hole solutions defined as generalized black-bounce spacetimes. We introduce several novel configurations governed by different mass functions and geometric deformations, illustrated by parameters controlling regularity and horizon structure. Using the Hamilton Jacobi tunneling method, we compute the Hawking temperature associated with each model and analyze its dependence on the underlying parameters. We find that all proposed geometries are free of curvature singularities and exhibit positive, well defined quasi-local masses in the Hernandez Misner Sharp formalism. Also, we demonstrate that these models may possess multiple horizons, including extremal and asymmetric cases, while typically violating classical energy conditions in the vicinity of the bounce. Our results show and illustrate the structure and thermodynamic stability of these regular solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20195 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Metric function f(r) with m = 1. Bardeen, Hayward, or Frolov. Nonetheless, the formulation allows for the construction of a wide range of novel black-bounce configurations, several of which we shall analyze in detail in the following sections. This figure (1) shows the metric function f(r) for the generalized black-bounce spacetime using the Simpson–Visser profile, with the fixed mass parameter m = 1 and varying bou… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Metric function f(r) with m = 1. This expression ensures that the mass is strictly non-negative across all r. Furthermore, the mass satisfies the limiting behavior: lim r→0 MHMS(r) = a 2 , limr→∞ MHMS(r) = m. (24) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 r MHMS(r) a=0.30 a=0.20 a=0.15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hernandez–Misner–Sharp quasi-local mass with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Metric function f(r) with m = 1. In this figure (4), the metric function f(r) is shown for the case n = 2, k = 0, and m = 1, with bounce parameter values a = 0.15, 0.20, 0.30. Also, the plots illustrate a distinct shape from the earlier model, showing how different cho…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hernandez–Misner–Sharp quasi-local mass with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Metric function f(r) with m = 1. (a) n = 1. (b) a = 0.15. These plots (a) and (b) in Figure (6) show the metric function f(r) for the cosine￾dependent mass model M(r) = m cos2n (r0/Σ), with fixed m = 1. In (a) : n = 1, and bounce parameters are a = 0.15, 0.20, 0.30. In…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hernandez–Misner–Sharp quasi-local mass with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Metric function f(r) with m = 1. (a) n = 1. (b) a = 0.15. Here (Figure (8)), the metric function f(r) is plotted for the model M(r) = m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hernandez–Misner–Sharp quasi-local mass with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Metric function f(r) with m = 1. (a) n = 1. (b) a = 0.15. This figure (10) presents f(r) for the simpler arctangent model M(r) = m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Hernandez–Misner–Sharp quasi-local mass with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Hawking Temperature with m = 1. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 a m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Hawking Temperature varying the mass m. radiation index of the model. When we increase the value of a, the radiation felt at the event horizon decreases. For a more complete analysis, we plot in Fig.(13) the behavior of the temperature when we vary the mass m and the …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Hawking Temperature with m = 1. with the highest delay. However, this radiation decays rapidly, leading to a zero temperature at a ≈ 1.45. After that, we have a second temperature peak at a ≈ 2.3, and we have low ra￾diation for higher values of a, i.e., there is a mor…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Hawking Temperature varying the mass m. In Fig.(15) we plot the behavior of the temperature TBH for variations in mass m and parameter a. The yellowish regions tending towards white are the regions of highest temper￾ature. Note that we reach the highest temperature pe…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Hawking Temperature with m = 1. configuration with no changes in radiation. However, after this interval the temperature tends to fall, this happens because of the low radiation. Aslo, the temperature declines with increasing a, again showing that a larger bounce lead…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Hawking Temperature varying the mass m. Again, we analyze the behavior of the temperature TBH for variations of m and a. For this, we plot in Fig.(17) the temperature when varying the mass m and the parameter a. The regions of highest temperature are the regions in ye…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Hawking Temperature with m = 1. (a) n = 1. (b) a = 0.15. same behavior is observed for a = 0. Meanwhile, the temperature value is maximum at a ≈ 1.86. This is exactly what is expected for a Schwarzschild black hole and occurs due to the fact that the Schwarzschild tem…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Hawking Temperature varying the mass m. (a) n = 1. (b) a = 0.15. In Fig.(19) we plot the behavior of the temperature TBH for variations in mass m and in the parameters a and n. The yellowish regions tending towards white are the regions of highest temperature. In Fig.…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Hawking Temperature with m = 1. (a) n = 1. (b) a = 0.15. For the arctangent–product model M(r) = m arctann (r/a)(Σ/r)(2/π) n , this figure (20) show: (a) TBH vs. a for fixed n = 1. (b) TBH vs. n for fixed a = 0.15. It illustarte a steeper decline in temperature with i…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Hawking Temperature varying the mass m. (a) n = 1. (b) a = 0.15. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 a TBH 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 n TBH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Hawking Temperature with m = 1. (a) n = 1. (b) a = 0.15. In Fig.(22).a we observe that there is a point of minimum temperature different from a → ∞, which is located at a ≈ 2.45. After this point of low radiation, the temperature increases and reaches its second maxim…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Hawking Temperature varying the mass m. (a) n = 1. (b) a = 0.15. 5 Conclusion In this work, we constructed and analyzed a broad family of regular black-bounce spacetimes, extending the original Simpson–Visser geometry by introducing generalized mass functions and area…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. A. Bronnikov, G. Clement, C. P. Constantinidis and J. C. Fabris, Phys. Lett. A 243, 121 (1998). 22

    1998

  2. [2]

    K. A. Bronnikov and J. C. Fabris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 251101 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    K. A. Bronnikov, V. N. Melnikov and H. Dehnen, Gen. Rel. Grav. 39, 973 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    S. V. Bolokhov, K. A. Bronnikov and M. V. Skvortsova, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 245006 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    K. A. Bronnikov, R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D 86 , 024028 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Visser, Phys

    M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 39 , 3182 (1989)

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    H. G. Ellis, J. Math. Phys. 14, 104 (1973)

    1973

  8. [8]

    K. A. Bronnikov, Acta Phys. Pol. B 4 , 251 (1973)

    work page 1973

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    S. V. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. D 71 , 043520 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Visser, S

    M. Visser, S. Kar and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 201102 (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    Hochberg and M

    D. Hochberg and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 58 , 044021 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    K. A. Bronnikov and S. W. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 67 , 064027 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    Kanti, B

    P. Kanti, B. Kleihaus, and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 271101 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Barcel´ o and M

    C. Barcel´ o and M. Visser, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 3843 (2000)

    2000

  7. [15]

    Simpson and M

    A. Simpson and M. Visser, JCAP 02, 042 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    H. C. D. Lima, C. L. Benone, and L. C. B. Crispino, Phys. Rev. D 101 , 124009 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    H. C. D. Lima Jr., C. L. Benone, and L. C. B. Crispino, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 638 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    F. S. N. Lobo, A. Simpson, and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 101 , 124035 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Tsukamoto, Phys

    N. Tsukamoto, Phys. Rev. D 103 , 024033 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Bambhaniya, et al., Phys

    P. Bambhaniya, et al., Phys. Rev. D 105 , 023021 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    A. M. Lima, et al., Symmetry 15, 150 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Furtado, and G

    J. Furtado, and G. Alencar, Universe 8, 625 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    E. L. B. Junior, and M. E. Rodrigues, Gen. Rel. Grav. 55, 8 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Guo, and Y

    Y. Guo, and Y. G. Miao, Nucl. Phys. B 983 , 115938 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Franzin, et al., JCAP 07, 036 (2021)

    E. Franzin, et al., JCAP 07, 036 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    F. S. N. Lobo, et al., Phys. Rev. D 103 , 084052 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Huang and J

    H. Huang and J. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 100 , 124063 (2019). 23

    2019

  20. [28]

    M. E. Rodrigues and M. V. d. Silva, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 225011 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Akil, et al., Phys

    A. Akil, et al., Phys. Rev. D 108 , 044051 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    M. E. Rodrigues, et al., Phys. Rev. D 106 , 084016 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Yang, et al., Eur

    Y. Yang, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 83 , 217 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Ca nate, Phys

    P. Ca nate, Phys. Rev. D 106 , 024031 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    K. A. Bronnikov, and R. K. Walia, Phys. Rev. D 105 , 044039 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    M. E. Rodrigues, et al., Phys. Rev. D 107 , 044064 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    K. A. Bronnikov, M. E. Rodrigues, and M. V. d. S. Silva, Phys. Rev. D 108 , 024065 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Lima, et al., Gen

    A. Lima, et al., Gen. Rel. Grav. 55, 108 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Alencar, et al., Eur

    G. Alencar, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (7), 745(2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Ashraf, et al., Phys

    A. Ashraf, et al., Phys. Dark Universe, 47, 101787 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Mustafa, et al., Phys

    G. Mustafa, et al., Phys. Dark Universe, 47, 101765 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Mustafa, et al., Phys

    G. Mustafa, et al., Phys. Dark Universe, 47, 101753 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Ashraf, et al., Physics of the Dark Universe, 47, 101725 (2025)

    A. Ashraf, et al., Physics of the Dark Universe, 47, 101725 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Ashraf, et al., Physics of the Dark Universe 48, 101836 (2025)

    A. Ashraf, et al., Physics of the Dark Universe 48, 101836 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Ashraf, et al., Phys

    A. Ashraf, et al., Phys. Dark Universe 47, 101823 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Ditta, A

    A. Ditta, A. Bouzenada, G. Mustafa, F. Javed, F. Afandi, and A. Mahmood, Phys. Dark Universe 47, 101818 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Ditta, et al., Phys

    A. Ditta, et al., Phys. Dark Universe, 46, 101573 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Bouzenada, et al., Nucl

    A. Bouzenada, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 1017 , 116928 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Saleem, et al., Nucl

    A. Saleem, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 1017 , 116926 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  41. [49]

    Miao, and X.-M

    Y.-G. Miao, and X.-M. Zhen, Phys. Lett. B 772 , 542-546 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 13 , 198 (1975)

    1975

  43. [51]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 14 , 3260 (1976)

    1976

  44. [52]

    M. K. Parikh, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5042 (2000)

    2000

  45. [53]

    Zhang, P.-C

    C.-Y. Zhang, P.-C. Li, and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 97 , 044013 (2018). 24

    2018

  46. [54]

    Chowdhury, and N

    A. Chowdhury, and N. Banerjee, Phys. Lett. B 805 , 135417 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Bardeen, B

    J. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 161 (1973)

    1973

  48. [56]

    M. R. R. Good, Phys. Rev. D 101 , 104050 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    M. R. R. Good, J. Foo, and E. V. Linder, Class. Quantum Gravity 38, 085011 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    A review of the relativistic static fluid sphere

    M. R. Finch and J. E. F. Skea, “A review of the relativistic static fluid sphere”, 1998, unpublished

    1998

  51. [59]

    Boonserm, and M

    P. Boonserm, and M. Visser, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 17 , 135-163 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    Boonserm, and M

    P. Boonserm, and M. Visser, Thai J. Math. 5, 209-223 (2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    Semiz, [arXiv:2001.06310 [gr-qc]]

    I. Semiz, [arXiv:2001.06310 [gr-qc]]

    2001 arXiv

  54. [62]

    A. J. M. Medved, D. Martin and M. Visser, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 3111-3126 (2004)

    2004

  55. [63]

    Visser, Phys

    M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 46 , 2445-2451 (1992)

    1992

  56. [64]

    W. C. Hernandez, and C. W. Misner, Astrophys. J. 143, 452 (1966)

    1966

  57. [65]

    C. W. Misner, and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. 136, B571-B576 (1964)

    1964

  58. [66]

    Maeda, and M

    H. Maeda, and M. Nozawa, Phys. Rev. D 77 , 064031 (2008)

    2008

  59. [67]

    A. B. Nielsen, and D. h. Yeom, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24 , 5261-5285 (2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    Abreu, and M

    G. Abreu, and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 82 , 044027 (2010)

    2010

  61. [69]

    Faraoni, and G

    V. Faraoni, and G. Vachon, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 no.8, 771 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    Z. Y. Fan, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 94 (12), 124027 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    Srinivasan, and T

    K. Srinivasan, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D 60 , 024007 (1999)

    1999

  64. [72]

    Angheben, M

    M. Angheben, M. Nadalini, L. Vanzo, and S. Zerbini, J. High Energ. Phys. 05, 014 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    Kerner, and R

    R. Kerner, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 73 , 104010 (2006)

    2006

  66. [74]

    Mitra, Phys

    P. Mitra, Phys. Lett. B 648 , 240-242 (2007)

    2007

  67. [75]

    E. T. Akhmedov, V. Akhmedova, and D. Singleton, Phys. Lett. B 642 , 124-128 (2006)

    2006

  68. [76]

    Jiang, S.-Q

    Q.-Q. Jiang, S.-Q. Wu, and X. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 73 , 064003 (2006) ; Q.-Q. Jiang, S.-Q. Wu, and X. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 73 , 069902 (2006) (Erratum)

    2006

  69. [77]

    Kerner, and R

    R. Kerner, and R. B. Mann, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 095014 (2008)

    2008

  70. [78]

    M. S. Ma, and R. Zhao, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 245014 (2014). 25

    2014

  71. [79]

    R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves, Phys. Rev. D 97 (10), 104015 (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    D. A. Gomes, F. C. E. Lima, and C. A. S. Almeida, Ann. Phys. 428, 168436 (2021)

    2021

  73. [81]

    J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics , Addison-Wesley (1993). 26

    1993

Pith tools

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