Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

In five-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet gravity, the Big Bang/Crunch can be replaced by a weaker 'sudden' singularity that geodesics can cross, while black-hole cores are only softened for zero-angular-momentum paths.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 21:44 UTC pith:T5VFGOBT

load-bearing objection The paper's central cosmological claim—that Gauss-Bonnet corrections with α>0 replace the Big Bang with a sudden singularity—rests on a sign error: the branch it analyzes is the α<0 branch, and Eq. (11) does not solve its own Eq. (6) for positive α. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.19150 v2 pith:T5VFGOBT submitted 2026-02-22 gr-qc hep-th

Gauss-Bonnet Gravity and Spacetime Singularities

Tariq Allaithy , Adel Awad , Mohamed Hany Radwan , Mohsen Zahran This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th
keywords Gauss-Bonnet gravityspacetime singularitiessudden singularityFLRW cosmologyBoulware-Deser black holeTipler-Krolak criteriageodesic completenessfive-dimensional gravity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that higher-curvature Gauss-Bonnet corrections change the nature of spacetime singularities in five dimensions. In FLRW cosmology, it argues, the quartic Hubble term H^4 makes the initial singularity a 'sudden' one, at which the scale factor and expansion rate are finite but higher derivatives blow up; the authors construct a C^2 extension of geodesics across this point and use junction conditions to glue the contracting and expanding branches into a bouncing, geodesically complete spacetime. For the Boulware-Deser black hole, they argue the central singularity is weak for purely radial geodesics by the Tipler-Krolak criteria, though the 3-sphere's divergent extrinsic curvature still prevents extension. If true, this means curvature corrections can erase some singularities and blunt others, offering a mechanism for a non-singular bounce in higher-dimensional cosmology.

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the Gauss-Bonnet invariant, which contributes a quartic term H^4 to the five-dimensional Friedmann equation, changes the character of the initial singularity. Instead of the scale factor vanishing with H ~ t^{-1}, the universe reaches a finite minimum scale factor with a finite Hubble rate, and the Ricci scalar diverges only as t^{-1/2}; this is a 'sudden singularity' at which geodesics remain extendable. For the static Boulware-Deser black hole, the authors show that the central singularity is weak according to the Tipler-Krolak criteria for purely radial timelike and null geodesics, with near-center motion behaving like a harmonic oscillator, but they

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified Friedmann equation H^2 + 2α H^4 = (κ/6)ρ (Eq. 6), which yields a bounded-H branch and a maximum density in the cosmology; the mechanical-analogue potential V∓(η) and the junction conditions for Gauss-Bonnet gravity are used to extend the branches. For the black hole, the central object is the Boulware-Deser metric function f(r) = (r^2 + 4α − sqrt(r^4 + 16α m))/(4α), which is finite and differentiable at r=0, and the effective radial potential V(r)=f(r)δ for L=0 geodesics, which turns near-center motion into harmonic oscillation. The Tipler-Krolak integrals serve as the diagnostic tool that classifies the singularities as weak.

Load-bearing premise

The cosmological sudden-singularity result depends on the branch of the square root in Eq. (11) — the bounded-H branch with a maximum density — being the correct solution of the field equations (6) for the positive Gauss-Bonnet coupling; if that branch algebraically reduces to a negative-coupling Friedmann equation, the sudden singularity does not exist.

What would settle it

Compute H(ρ) directly from Eq. (6) with α>0 and look for a turning point; if H grows monotonically with ρ, then the bounded branch with finite maximum density is spurious and the sudden singularity does not form. Alternatively, integrate a radial null geodesic through r=0 in the Boulware-Deser metric with the full 3-sphere topology and check whether a smooth C^2 extension exists; if the affine parameter cannot be continued, the weak-singularity claim for radial geodesics is overridden by the divergent extrinsic curvature.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, the 5D EGB cosmology provides a geodesically complete bounce: a contracting phase passes through a sudden singularity and expands, with a delta-function pressure jump at the junction and a well-defined surface stress-energy tensor.
  • In the Boulware-Deser geometry, all non-radial geodesics remain strongly singular, so the black-hole singularity is not fully resolved by Gauss-Bonnet terms.
  • The expansion parameter θ for null congruences stays finite in the cosmological case (no geodesic focusing), consistent with extendability, whereas it diverges in the black-hole case, consistent with Penrose-Hawking incompleteness.
  • The Ricci-scalar behavior R ~ t^{-1/2} at the cosmological singularity is weaker than the GR R ~ t^{-2}, and the Tipler-Krolak integrals vanish at the singularity, implying a physical object would not be destroyed there.
  • Junction-condition analysis shows the black-hole singularity is nontraversable despite the weak classification, because the extrinsic curvature of the 3-sphere diverges.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same quartic H^4 structure emerges from independent higher-curvature frameworks (as the paper notes for Weyl anomaly corrections and teleparallel gravity), the sudden-singularity mechanism may be generic to gravity theories whose effective Friedmann equation is polynomial in H^2 with a maximum-energy branch; that could be tested by deriving the Friedmann equation in those frameworks and che
  • The discontinuous dependence on angular momentum — weak singularity for L=0, strong for any L>0 — suggests that any physical (generic) geodesic in the black hole remains singular; a testable extension is to check whether generic small perturbations of the metric (e.g., rotation or charge) break the radial special case entirely.
  • The delta-function pressure jump at the cosmological junction could be interpreted as a thin-shell/brane source; a natural extension is to construct a full 5D brane-world cosmology where the bounce is realized as a brane collision, with the surface stress-energy dictating observable signatures.
  • One could numerically integrate the full EGB field equations for a bouncing universe with matter satisfying the energy conditions to see if the sudden-singularity branch is an attractor or only a fine-tuned solution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the effect of Gauss-Bonnet (GB) corrections on spacetime singularities in five dimensions. For FLRW cosmology, it claims that the big-bang/crunch singularity is replaced by a weaker 'sudden' singularity when the GB coupling α is positive, and that non-spacelike geodesics can be extended through the singular point via junction conditions. For the Boulware–Deser black hole, it argues that purely radial geodesics encounter a weak singularity according to Tipler and Królak criteria, while non-radial geodesics remain strongly singular, but that junction-condition analysis ultimately prevents geodesic extendability. The paper also compares these results with the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the paper would report a notable result: higher-curvature GB terms could make cosmological singularities traversable while leaving black-hole singularities incomplete, consistent with the focusing conditions of singularity theorems. The paper includes explicit attempts at constructing geodesic extensions and using GB junction conditions, which are worthwhile tools. However, the main cosmological derivation is invalid because the branch used in Eq. (11) corresponds to a negative GB coupling, not the positive α stated and motivated in the introduction. This undermines the paper's central claim and the associated geodesic-extension and junction-condition analysis. The black-hole section also contains an unresolved contradiction between the claim of geodesic extendability and the later statement of inextendibility. The paper cannot be accepted in its current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eqs. (6), (10), (11)] The branch used throughout the cosmological analysis is not a solution of the field equations for the stated positive α. Eq. (6) is κρ = 6H²(1+2αH²). For α>0, solving for H² gives H² = [−1+√(1+4καρ/3)]/(4α), which is monotonic in ρ and unbounded. Eq. (11), however, is H± = ±(1/(2√|α|))√(1∓√(1−4|α|κρ/3)), which solves κρ = 6H² − 12|α|H⁴, the negative-coupling equation, with maximum density ρ_max = 3/(4|α|κ) and finite maximum Hubble rate H_max = 1/(2√|α|). All subsequent cosmological results—Eqs. (13)–(18), the expansion in Eqs. (25)–(27), and the junction-condition calculation—are based on this negative-coupling branch. Thus the claimed sudden singularity and geodesic extension are properties of α<0, contradicting the paper's statement that α>0 is the string-motivated physical case. This is a load-bearing error in the central claim.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (14)] The evolution equation h′(τ) = −(1+ω) h² (2−h²)/(1−h²) is the negative-coupling version of Eq. (9). For α>0, the corresponding equation has denominator (1+4αH²), which does not vanish at any finite H and does not produce a sudden singularity where h′ diverges at finite h. Therefore the phase-space analysis and the singularity at h=1 in Fig. 1 are artifacts of the sign error. The manuscript should either restrict the entire analysis to α<0 with an explicit justification, or redo the derivation for α>0; the present text mixes the two.
  3. [Sec. IV, geodesic extension and junction conditions] The paper contains an internal contradiction about the extendability of radial geodesics in the Boulware–Deser spacetime. Near the end of Sec. IV, it states that purely radial geodesics 'can be extended beyond the singular point' (Eq. (81) and surrounding text). In the following subsection, however, the junction-condition analysis shows that the extrinsic curvature of the 3-sphere diverges as w→0, and the text concludes that 'geodesics are still inextendible as a result of divergent extrinsic curvature.' The abstract repeats both claims. The paper does not reconcile these statements or explain how a weak Tipler–Królak singularity can be geodesically inextendible; the divergence of the extrinsic curvature would seem to preclude the C¹ extension that the earlier harmonic-oscillator solution assumes. This needs to be clarified; as written, the black-hole section is not internally consistent
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (28)] The error term in the expansion for t(λ) is written as O(t³); it should be O(λ³).
  2. [Sec. III.A, after Eq. (9)] 'Knowing that P=ωρ' should be more precisely 'Using P=ωρ in Eq. (8) to obtain Eq. (9).'
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (61)] The notation for the Boulware–Deser solution should specify that the 'minus' branch is the one that reduces to Schwarzschild–Tangherlini as α→0, and the sign of α used in the black-hole section should be stated explicitly (it is, but a reminder would help).
  4. [References] Reference [44] has an invalid DOI ('10.1103/wk7j-yg1t'). Please provide the correct DOI or arXiv identifier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation is direct; the branch-sign inconsistency is a soundness error, not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central cosmological and black-hole results are derived directly from the field equations rather than from fitted parameters or from conclusions that have been assumed as inputs. The modified Friedmann equation (6), the root expression (10)/(11), the evolution equation (14), the geodesic integrals (31)-(38), and the Boulware-Deser geodesic analysis (68)-(81) are all presented as explicit computations from the stated action and metric. No quantity is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction. The closest concern is that Eq. (11) is not actually the α>0 solution of Eq. (6); the absolute values in Eq. (11) correspond instead to the negative-coupling equation κρ=6H²−12|α|H⁴, which has the bounded H and divergent h′ that produce the claimed 'sudden' singularity. That is an algebraic sign/assumption error that undermines the consistency of the derivation, but it is not circular reasoning: the sudden-singularity result follows from a different (implicitly negative) coupling than the one declared, not from an input that already contained the output. Similarly, the black-hole section first suggests radial geodesics can be extended through r=0 and then, via the junction-condition analysis, explicitly concludes that geodesics are 'still inextendible as a result of divergent extrinsic curvature'; this is an internal contradiction, but again not a circular reduction. The only self-citations by coauthor Awad (refs. [34,38]) are used as comparisons or analogies—'when w=0, the solution becomes identical to the solution found in [34]' and 'similar analysis done in [38]'—and are not load-bearing premises. The Tipler/Królak criteria, Raychaudhuri equation, and junction-condition results from ref. [42] are external benchmarks applied rather than assumed. Therefore, under the circularity definition, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions. The delta-function surface stress-energy tensor is a standard distributional source, not an invented entity. The main unstated assumption is the sign of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling, which changes the branch of the Friedmann equation entirely.

free parameters (1)
  • Gauss-Bonnet coupling sign/branch choice (alpha) = positive in text; negative in the branch equations
    The sudden-singularity branch in Eq. (11) is the negative-coupling solution of the modified Friedmann equation (6). The paper uses |alpha| and never reconciles the sign. This choice is load-bearing and ad hoc.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption EGB field equations (3) with alpha > 0 are the relevant effective gravity
    Adopted in Sec. II from string-theory motivation; central to both the cosmology and black-hole sections.
  • ad hoc to paper Eq. (11) is a valid physical branch of Eq. (6) for alpha > 0
    This is false as written: Eq. (11) is the negative-coupling branch. The paper never justifies this additional choice.
  • domain assumption Sudden singularities can be glued across a junction with a delta-function pressure if the Gauss-Bonnet junction conditions hold
    Uses the junction conditions from ref. [42]; their validity and applicability are assumed.
  • standard math Tipler/Krolak integral finiteness is the correct criterion for geodesic extendibility
    Criteria from refs. [40,41]; standard in the singularity-strength literature.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14319 in / 25166 out tokens · 233342 ms · 2026-08-02T21:44:19.085496+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the effect of higher-order curvature terms, specifically Gauss-Bonnet terms, on spacetime singularities in five dimensions. For FLRW cosmologies, we demonstrate that Gauss-Bonnet terms can replace the Big Bang/Crunch with a "sudden" singularity, characterized by a finite scale factor and Hubble rate but diverging higher-order derivatives. Investigating various branches of solutions shows the possibility of explicit extension of non-spacelike geodesics beyond the singular point. Furthermore, we employ the Gauss-Bonnet junction conditions to verify the consistency of the extension with the field equations. The whole solution describes a contracting phase prior to the expansion phase with a well-defined surface stress-energy tensor. Regarding the Boulware-Deser black hole, we find that Gauss-Bonnet terms soften the central singularity for radial geodesics--rendering them "weak" according to the Tipler and Krolak criteria--whereas non-radial geodesics remain strongly singular. Junction condition analysis of this solution shows that although higher-curvature corrections alter the nature of the singularity, geodesics are still inextendible as a result of divergent extrinsic curvature. Our results are consistent with the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems since in Gauss-Bonnet black holes, geodesics suffer from focusing (expansion parameter diverges), while in cosmology, there is no focusing since the expansion parameter remains finite at the singularity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.19150 by Adel Awad, Mohamed Hany Radwan, Mohsen Zahran, Tariq Allaithy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Phase-Space Diagram for the Hubble rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The negative sign f(r) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Timelike geodesic with small perturbation in L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gao, Physical Review D86, 10.1103/physrevd.86.103512 (2012)

    C. Gao, Physical Review D86, 10.1103/physrevd.86.103512 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.103512 2012

  2. [2]

    T.-j. Chen, M. Fasiello, E. A. Lim, and A. J. Tolley, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2013(02), 042–042

  3. [3]

    Zwiebach, Physics Letters B156, 315 (1985)

    B. Zwiebach, Physics Letters B156, 315 (1985)

    1985

  4. [4]

    Zumino, Physics Reports137, 109 (1986)

    B. Zumino, Physics Reports137, 109 (1986)

    1986

  5. [5]

    Lovelock, J

    D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys.12, 498 (1971). 26

    1971

  6. [6]

    Lovelock, Aequat

    D. Lovelock, Aequat. Math.4, 127 (1970)

    1970

  7. [7]

    KUIROUKIDIS, International Journal of Modern Physics A21, 595–611 (2006)

    A. KUIROUKIDIS, International Journal of Modern Physics A21, 595–611 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Dey and B

    S. Dey and B. C. Paul, Anisotropic strange stars in einstein gauss-bonnet gravity with finch- skea metric (2022), arXiv:2201.08391 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Fairoos, International Journal of Modern Physics A39, 10.1142/s0217751x24500301 (2024)

    C. Fairoos, International Journal of Modern Physics A39, 10.1142/s0217751x24500301 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x24500301 2024

  10. [10]

    B. P. Brassel, S. D. Maharaj, and R. Goswami, Phys. Rev. D100, 024001 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    Tsujikawa, M

    S. Tsujikawa, M. Sami, and R. Maartens, Physical Review D70, 10.1103/physrevd.70.063525 (2004)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.063525 2004

  12. [12]

    J. D. Barrow, D. Kimberly, and J. Magueijo, Classical and Quantum Gravity21, 4289–4296 (2004)

    2004

  13. [13]

    J. D. Barrow, Classical and Quantum Gravity21, 5619–5622 (2004)

    2004

  14. [14]

    J. D. BARROW, S. COTSAKIS, and A. TSOKAROS, inThe Twelfth Marcel Grossmann Meeting(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2012) p. 1793–1795

    2012

  15. [15]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M. M. Phillips, D. Reiss, B. P. Schmidt, R. A. Schommer, R. C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, C. Stubbs, N. B. Suntzeff, and J. Tonry, The Astronomical Journal116, 1009–1038 (1998)

    1998

  16. [16]

    A. G. Riess, L. Strolger, J. Tonry, S. Casertano, H. C. Ferguson, B. Mobasher, P. Challis, A. V. Filippenko, S. Jha, W. Li, R. Chornock, R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M. Dickinson, M. Livio, M. Giavalisco, C. C. Steidel, T. Benitez, and Z. Tsvetanov, The Astrophysical Journal607, 665–687 (2004)

    2004

  17. [17]

    R. A. Knop, G. Aldering, R. Amanullah, P. Astier, G. Blanc, M. S. Burns, A. Conley, S. E. Deustua, M. Doi, R. Ellis, S. Fabbro, G. Folatelli, A. S. Fruchter, G. Garavini, S. Garmond, K. Garton, R. Gibbons, G. Goldhaber, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, D. Hardin, I. Hook, D. A. Howell, A. G. Kim, B. C. Lee, C. Lidman, J. Mendez, S. Nobili, P. E. Nugent, R. Pain, N...

    2003

  18. [18]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, I. M. Hook, A. G. Kim, M. Y. Kim, J. C. Lee, N. J. Nunes, 27 R. Pain, C. R. Pennypacker, R. Quimby, C. Lidman, R. S. Ellis, M. Irwin, R. G. McMahon, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, N. Walton, B. Schaefer, B. J. Boyle, A. V. Filippenko, T. Mathes...

    1999

  19. [19]

    C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, G. S. Tucker, E. Wollack, E. L. Wright, C. Barnes, M. R. Greason, R. S. Hill, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, N. Odegard, H. V. Peiris, L. Verde, and J. L. Weiland, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series148, 1–27 (2003)

    2003

  20. [20]

    D. N. Spergel, L. Verde, H. V. Peiris, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, L. Page, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series148, 175–194 (2003)

    2003

  21. [21]

    Maeda, Phys

    H. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D85, 124012 (2012)

    2012

  22. [22]

    Shtanov and V

    Y. Shtanov and V. Sahni, Classical and Quantum Gravity19, L101–L107 (2002)

    2002

  23. [23]

    Tretyakov, A

    P. Tretyakov, A. Toporensky, Y. Shtanov, and V. Sahni, Classical and Quantum Gravity23, 3259 (2006)

    2006

  24. [24]

    Keresztes, L

    Z. Keresztes, L. A. Gergely, and A. Y. Kamenshchik, Phys. Rev. D86, 063522 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    Kamenshchik, U

    A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, Physics Letters B511, 265–268 (2001)

    2001

  26. [26]

    Bili´ c, G

    N. Bili´ c, G. Tupper, and R. Viollier, Physics Letters B535, 17–21 (2002)

    2002

  27. [27]

    M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, and A. A. Sen, Physical Review D66, 10.1103/physrevd.66.043507 (2002)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.043507 2002

  28. [28]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Physical Review D70, 10.1103/physrevd.70.103522 (2004)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.103522 2004

  29. [29]

    G´ omez, S

    F. G´ omez, S. Lepe, V. C. Orozco, and P. Salgado, The European Physical Journal C82, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10877-x (2022)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10877-x 2022

  30. [30]

    Madhunlall, C

    A. Madhunlall, C. Hansraj, R. Goswami, and S. D. Maharaj, General Relativity and Gravi- tation57, 10.1007/s10714-025-03473-3 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-025-03473-3 2025

  31. [31]

    Fernandez-Jambrina and R

    L. Fernandez-Jambrina and R. Lazkoz, AIP Conf. Proc.841, 420 (2006), arXiv:0903.5529 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  32. [32]

    Fern´ andez-Jambrina and R

    L. Fern´ andez-Jambrina and R. Lazkoz, Phys. Rev. D74, 064030 (2006)

    2006

  33. [33]

    J. D. Barrow and S. Cotsakis, Physical Review D88, 10.1103/physrevd.88.067301 (2013)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.067301 2013

  34. [34]

    Awad, Physical Review D93, 10.1103/physrevd.93.084006 (2016)

    A. Awad, Physical Review D93, 10.1103/physrevd.93.084006 (2016). 28

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.084006 2016

  35. [35]

    Awad and G

    A. Awad and G. Nashed, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017(02), 046–046

  36. [36]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 2656 (1985)

    1985

  37. [37]

    GARRAFFO and G

    C. GARRAFFO and G. GIRIBET, Modern Physics Letters A23, 1801–1818 (2008)

    2008

  38. [38]

    Awad, Physical Review D87, 10.1103/physrevd.87.103001 (2013)

    A. Awad, Physical Review D87, 10.1103/physrevd.87.103001 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.103001 2013

  39. [39]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and S. Tsujikawa, Physical Review D71, 10.1103/phys- revd.71.063004 (2005)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2005

  40. [40]

    F. J. Tipler, Physics Letters A64, 8 (1977)

    1977

  41. [41]

    Clarke and A

    C. Clarke and A. Kr´ olak, Journal of Geometry and Physics2, 127 (1985)

    1985

  42. [42]

    Dolezel, On junction conditions in gravity theories with higher curvature terms (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0012160 [hep-th]

    T. Dolezel, On junction conditions in gravity theories with higher curvature terms (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0012160 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  43. [43]

    B. C. Nolan, Physical Review D62, 10.1103/physrevd.62.044015 (2000)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.62.044015 2000

  44. [44]

    Arrechea, S

    J. Arrechea, S. Liberati, H. Neshat, and V. Vellucci, Physical Review D112, 10.1103/wk7j- yg1t (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/wk7j- 2025

  45. [45]

    Penrose, Phys

    R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett.14, 57 (1965)

    1965

  46. [46]

    S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A314, 529 (1970)

    1970

  47. [47]

    Raychaudhuri, Phys

    A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev.98, 1123 (1955)

    1955

  48. [48]

    D. J. Burger, N. Moynihan, S. Das, S. S. Haque, and B. Underwood, Phys. Rev. D98, 024006 (2018)

    2018