Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper builds a thin-shell wormhole in a cosmic void from two copies of a black-hole-in-void spacetime, finding stability only with a modified cosmic Chaplygin gas whose linear term is large; the generalized Chaplygin gas is generically

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 06:46 UTC pith:V2NJK2IB

load-bearing objection The MCCG stability claim is not trustworthy as printed: Eq. (88) double-counts terms from the sound-speed derivative, and the stable regions in Fig. 6 may be artifact. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11995 v2 pith:V2NJK2IB submitted 2026-07-13 gr-qc

Thin-shell wormholes in cosmic voids

Jonathan A. Rebou\c{c}as , Edson Otoniel , Francisco S. N. Lobo This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords thin-shell wormholecosmic voidsblack-hole-in-void metricDarmois-Israel junction conditionsChaplygin gaslinear stabilityeffective potentialenergy conditions
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 asks whether a traversable wormhole can be embedded in a cosmic void, taking as seed a recently constructed black-hole spacetime surrounded by the universal void density profile. By gluing two copies of the positive-lapse region between the black-hole horizon and the void's cosmological-like horizon, it builds a thin-shell wormhole whose throat is supported by negative surface energy density. The central claim is a stability dichotomy: with the generalized cosmic Chaplygin gas equation of state the static throat is linearly unstable across the explored parameter range, whereas the modified cosmic Chaplygin gas can be stable when its linear pressure term is large enough. The paper also derives a first law linking the shell's Unruh temperature and entropy to the two horizon entropies, and reduces the throat dynamics to a one-dimensional effective potential. A reader should care because it turns the large-scale underdense environment into a controlled laboratory for wormhole physics, giving concrete conditions under which such a wormhole might persist.

Core claim

The central claim is that a symmetric thin-shell wormhole can be constructed inside the static patch of a black hole embedded in a cosmic void, with the throat placed in the positive-lapse region between the inner black-hole horizon and the outer cosmological-like horizon. Using the Darmois-Israel junction formalism, the paper obtains a surface energy density that is necessarily negative and a tangential pressure whose combinations with the surface density change sign as the throat moves outward. The radial dynamics is reduced to the effective potential Upsilon_eff(chi) = G_v(chi) - 4 pi^2 chi^2 sigma^2(chi), and the linear stability of a static throat is decided by the sign of Upsilon''_eff

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective potential for radial motion of the throat, Upsilon_eff(chi) = G_v(chi) - 4 pi^2 chi^2 sigma^2(chi), where G_v is the void lapse function and sigma the surface energy density; static configurations sit at its equilibrium points, and the sign of Upsilon''_eff(chi_0) distinguishes linear stability from instability. The construction uses the cut-and-paste method with Z2 symmetry, so the two copies of the seed give an extrinsic-curvature jump that, through the Darmois-Israel-Lanczos junction conditions, yields the surface density and pressure. The conservation equation on the shell closes the system once an equation of state is chosen; the stability test then r

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction rests on the already-published black-hole-in-void metric being a correct physical description of the void interior; if that seed geometry is wrong, the surface stresses, energy conditions, and stability verdicts no longer follow.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the full radial equation of motion for the void parameters delta_c = -0.95, M = 5, r_s = 80, r_v = 100 and an MCCG shell with A = 3, gamma = 0.99, omega = -0.5, starting with a small radial velocity about the static throat; if the throat does not oscillate around equilibrium but instead collapses to the inner horizon or escapes to the outer horizon, the linear-stability conclusion is insufficient for viability.

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

If this is right

  • A symmetric thin-shell wormhole in the void spacetime always has negative surface energy density, so the weak and dominant energy conditions are violated on the throat irrespective of the matter model.
  • The null and strong energy-condition combinations are satisfied only in the inner part of the static patch and become violated as the throat approaches the cosmological-like horizon, where the shell becomes tension-dominated.
  • With the generalized cosmic Chaplygin gas, the static throat is linearly unstable across the numerically explored parameter range, so stabilizing a void-embedded wormhole requires a different surface fluid.
  • With the modified cosmic Chaplygin gas, a sufficiently large linear pressure term flips the sign of the second derivative of the effective potential, producing linearly stable wormhole configurations for certain throat radii.
  • In the Schwarzschild limit, the formulas reduce to the known Schwarzschild thin-shell wormhole results, showing that the void environment is what introduces the outer horizon and the new thermodynamic structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the seed black-hole-in-void metric is correct, the stability verdict likely depends on how faithfully the barotropic assumption captures the sound speed of the surface fluid; a more realistic speed of sound could widen or shrink the stable window for the modified Chaplygin gas.
  • The paper's near-Nariai comment suggests that as the two horizons merge, the classical thin-shell construction loses its domain, so quantum-gravitational effects would be needed to say anything about that limit.
  • The first law relating shell entropy to horizon entropies invites an explicit Smarr-type integration for the equilibrium sequences selected by the modified Chaplygin gas; performing that integration would give a sharp thermodynamic prediction to test.
  • If linearly stable void-embedded wormholes exist for realistic void parameters, they would produce gravitational-lensing or shadow signatures distinct from both isolated wormholes and ordinary black holes in voids; the paper does not compute these signatures.

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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a symmetric thin-shell wormhole by cutting and pasting two copies of the static patch of the recently proposed black-hole-in-void metric. The throat is placed between the inner black-hole horizon and the outer cosmological-like horizon, and the Darmois–Israel junction formalism is used to obtain the surface energy density and tangential pressure. The authors express the energy-condition combinations in terms of the void mass function and density profile, develop a thermodynamic description of the static shell, and study linear radial stability for two Chaplygin-type equations of state. The central claim is that GCCG-supported configurations are generically linearly unstable, whereas MCCG-supported configurations can be stable when the linear term A in the equation of state is sufficiently large. Throughout, the Chaplygin parameter B is fixed by the static junction condition, leaving the stability test to the remaining equation-of-state parameters and the void geometry. The analysis is conditional on the physical validity of the seed black-hole-in-void spacetime of Ref. [13].

Significance. If the stability claim survives correction, the paper is a useful extension of the thin-shell wormhole formalism to a non-asymptotically-flat environment with two horizon-like boundaries. The explicit formulas for the surface stresses and energy-condition combinations in terms of the void profile, as well as the thermodynamic first law connecting the shell entropy to the horizon entropies, are concrete and potentially reusable. The use of Chaplygin-type equations of state with B fixed by the junction condition is a sensible way to reduce free parameters. However, the headline result—the GCCG/MCCG stability asymmetry—rests on a specific algebraic expression, Eq. (88), that does not follow from the general formula and the stated MCCG equation of state. Because the numerical stability plots are generated from that expression, the central claim is currently unsupported. The paper does not provide code or machine-checked proofs; its strengths are analytic derivations and explicit numerical scans.

major comments (1)
  1. [VI.C, Eq. (88), Fig. 6] Equation (88) does not follow from the general stability criterion (68) and the MCCG pressure derivative (87). Substituting Eq. (87) into the bracket 1 + 2 ζ^(M)(χ0) of Eq. (68) gives 1 + 2A(1+γ) − 2γ p0/σ0 + 2ω(1+γ)(σ0^{1+γ} − E0^(M))^{−1−ω}. The printed Eq. (88), however, contains the additional terms −2γ p0/σ0 and +2ω(1+γ)(...) outside ζ^(M)(χ0), so these terms are counted twice. Since σ0 < 0 and p0 can be negative over the scanned interval, this double counting changes not only the magnitude but potentially the sign of Υ″_eff. The stable regions for large A displayed in Fig. 6 may therefore be inflated or entirely caused by this algebraic error. The GCCG expression (78) is consistent with (68) and (77), so the claimed GCCG/MCCG asymmetry may be an artifact. This is load-bearing because the paper's central conclusion is the MCCG stability window. The authors should correct Eq. (88), r
minor comments (4)
  1. [V.A, Eqs. (49)–(50)] From E = −2χ√G_v and ∂G_v/∂M = −2/χ one obtains (∂E/∂M)_χ = 2/√G_v, not 2√G_v as printed in Eq. (49). Equation (50) inherits this factor. Equation (51) uses the correct factor, so the first-law result is unaffected, but Eqs. (49)–(50) should be corrected for consistency.
  2. [VI.B–VI.C, Eqs. (75) and (85)] The real-branch selection for E0^(G) and E0^(M) is not specified. For non-integer γ and negative σ0, the quantity σ0^{1+γ} can be complex, and the equations may have zero or multiple real solutions. The numerical scans should state explicitly how the real branch is chosen and whether any scan points were discarded for lack of a real solution.
  3. [Figs. 5–6] The captions of Figs. 5 and 6 do not list the void parameters (rs, rv, ρ0, α, β). The text presumably uses the values from Fig. 2, but this should be stated explicitly so the stability plots are reproducible.
  4. [V.A and V.B] The statement that Eq. (51) 'can be integrated to yield a finite shell entropy' for the Chaplygin models is not demonstrated. Since no explicit equilibrium relation χ(M) is provided for GCCG or MCCG, the integrated S_shell(M) is not actually computed. This is a presentation issue, not a mathematical error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the construction and stability analysis are self-contained given the external seed metric and standard thin-shell formalism.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) take the black-hole-in-void metric of Ref. [13] as an external seed; (ii) apply the Darmois-Israel junction conditions to obtain sigma0 and p0; (iii) impose the conservation equation and an equation of state; (iv) fix the Chaplygin amplitude B by the static junction condition p_EoS(sigma0)=p0; and (v) evaluate the second derivative of the effective potential. Step (iv) is an equilibrium condition, not a fit to the stability answer: once B is fixed, the sign of Upsilon''_eff is computed from the geometric functions G_v, G'_v, G''_v and the remaining EoS parameters. The GCCG and MCCG stability functions (78) and (88) therefore test independent content and do not reduce to their inputs. The thermodynamic relations in Sec. V are obtained by direct algebra from the static solution; citations [69] and [70] are contextual rather than load-bearing. The paper's own scope statements ('left for future investigation' for the Smarr formula, 'requires a separate treatment' for near-Nariai) are limitations, not circularity. A reviewer-noted algebraic slip in Eq. (88) would be a correctness concern, but it does not make the derivation circular. No fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing result is imported solely from the authors' previous work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the seed spacetime of Ref. [13], the phenomenological void profile with its calibration parameters, and the standard thin-shell junction formalism. The free parameters are the EoS parameters and the void profile parameters; the latter are empirical inputs, not derived. The invented entities are the wormhole geometry itself and the exotic Chaplygin surface fluid, both purely theoretical. The paper is transparent about the fact that B is fixed by the static junction condition, leaving only (γ, ω, A) and void parameters in the stability test.

free parameters (5)
  • γ (Chaplygin index) = 0.1, 0.8, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999 in the figures
    Controls the inverse-density dependence of the exotic surface fluid. Varies over a wide range in the numeric stability scans, directly changing the sign of Υeff''.
  • ω (cosmic Chaplygin deformation) = -0.1, -0.5, -1.5 for GCCG and -0.5 for MCCG
    Controls the cosmic Chaplygin deformation of the equation of state. Varies in the stability figures.
  • B (Chaplygin parameter) = Not displayed; fixed at each static throat by Eqs. (75) and (85)
    The paper states it is fixed by the static junction condition so that the remaining stability test is governed by the other EoS parameters. The choice of the real branch of the algebraic equation is a numerical modeling decision that affects the stability sign.
  • A (linear term in MCCG) = 1, 2, 3 in the figures
    The linear coefficient of the MCCG equation of state; the stability plots show that stabilization occurs only for sufficiently large A.
  • Void profile parameters (ρ0, δc, rs, rv, α, β) = ρ0 = 3e-5, δc = -0.90/-0.95/-0.99, rs = 80, rv = 100, α = 2.4, β = 7.5 in the figures
    Taken from the calibration of Ref. [13] and the Hamaus–Sutter–Wandelt universal void profile; these are empirical/phenomenological inputs, not derived in the paper. The stability verdicts depend on this particular parameter point, so these are effectively untested free inputs.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption General relativity with G = c = ℏ = kB = 1 and standard Einstein equations for the bulk geometry
    The whole framework assumes the Darmois–Israel thin-shell formalism is a valid description of the gravitational junction in classical GR.
  • domain assumption The black-hole-in-void metric of Ref. [13] is a valid solution with the void density profile (2) as its source
    The paper uses the seed spacetime of Ref. [13] without re-deriving or testing it; any defect in that solution propagates into the surface stresses.
  • domain assumption The void density profile (2) and its calibration (3)–(4) correctly describe cosmic voids
    The profile is phenomenological and empirical; the quantitative results depend on the values of δc, rs/rv, α and β.
  • standard math Linearized stability around static solutions is equivalent to the sign of Υeff''(χ0)
    Standard Lyapunov linear stability argument for a 1D effective potential; assumed without proof.
  • domain assumption The radial conservation equation (61) is imposed on the shell fluid
    Assumes no bulk flux into the shell (F = 0) and a barotropic/Chaplygin-type surface fluid.
  • domain assumption For the thermodynamic analysis, the shell is a two-dimensional fluid with first law dE = T dS - p dA and local Unruh temperature (44)
    This is a physical assumption about the statistical-mechanical content of the shell's exotic matter.
invented entities (2)
  • Thin-shell wormhole in a cosmic void (geometry, not a new fundamental entity) no independent evidence
    purpose: Geometric construction by cut-and-paste; the 'matter' is the surface stress tensor on the shell
    The wormhole itself is a theoretical construction with no observational handle provided in the paper.
  • Exotic surface fluid with GCCG or MCCG equation of state no independent evidence
    purpose: Closes the dynamical system for the shell and determines stability
    Phenomenological model fluids; no independent evidence is given that such fluids exist or describe any physical dark-sector component.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19830 in / 12897 out tokens · 85045 ms · 2026-08-02T06:46:06.614986+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cosmic voids are underdense regions that can provide an effective large-scale environment with a de Sitter-like gravitational behavior. Motivated by recent black-hole solutions embedded in void density profiles, we construct a symmetric thin-shell wormhole by gluing two copies of the positive-lapse region of a black hole inside a cosmic void. The surface stresses are obtained from the Darmois--Israel junction conditions, and the corresponding null, weak, dominant, and strong energy-condition combinations are written directly in terms of the void mass function and density profile. We further develop the thermodynamics of the static shell, deriving a first law that relates the shell entropy to the black-hole and cosmological-like horizon entropies. We then formulate the radial dynamics of the throat through an effective potential and study the local stability of static configurations when the exotic matter on the shell obeys either a generalized cosmic Chaplygin gas or a modified cosmic Chaplygin gas equation of state. In both models the Chaplygin parameter $B$ is fixed by the static junction condition, so that the remaining stability test is governed by the void geometry and by the equation-of-state parameters. Numerical results reveal that GCCG-supported configurations are generically unstable, whereas MCCG-supported wormholes can be stable for a sufficiently large linear term in the equation of state. The resulting framework connects the de Sitter-like structure of cosmic voids with the standard thin-shell wormhole formalism and provides a starting point for identifying stable or unstable wormhole configurations located between the black-hole and cosmological-like horizons of the void spacetime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11995 by Edson Otoniel, Francisco S. N. Lobo, Jonathan A. Rebou\c{c}as.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the normalized density contrast (ρ(r)−ρ0)/ρ0 associated with the universal cosmic-void profile. Near the center, this quantity approaches δc, so that larger values of |δc| correspond to deeper underdense cores. All curves cross zero at r = rs, marked by the dashed vertical line, indicating the radius at which the local density becomes equal to the background density ρ0. For rs < r ≲ rv, the normalize… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Void lapse function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Static surface energy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Static energy-condition combinations as functions of the dimensionless throat radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. GCCG stability function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. MCCG stability function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Junction Conditions, Radial Stability, Thermodynamics, Optical Geometry and Appearance of Polymer-Quintessence Thin-Shell Wormholes

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Keeping the nonareal polymer angular sector in a polymer-quintessence thin-shell wormhole adds a momentum-flux term that reshapes stability, thermodynamics, and cross-throat image branches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Y. B. Zeldovich, J. Einasto, and S. F. Shandarin, Nature300, 407 (1982)

    1982

  2. [2]

    El-Ad and T

    H. El-Ad and T. Piran, The Astrophysical Journal491, 421 (1997)

    1997

  3. [3]

    Gottlöber, E

    S. Gottlöber, E. L. Łokas, A. Klypin, and Y. Hoffman, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society344, 715 (2003)

    2003

  4. [4]

    J. M. Colberg, R. K. Sheth, A. Diaferio, L. Gao, and N. Yoshida, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society360, 216 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    de Weygaert and E

    R. de Weygaert and E. Platen, inInternational Journal of Modern Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1 (2011) pp. 41–66

    2011

  6. [6]

    Pisani, E

    A. Pisani, E. Massara, D. N. Spergel, D. Alonso, T. Baker, Y.-C. Cai, M. Cautun, C. Davies, V. Demchenko, O. Doré, A. Goulding, M. Habouzit, N. Hamaus, A. Hawken, C. M. Hirata, S. Ho, B. Jain, C. D. Kreisch, F. Marulli, N. Padilla, G. Pollina, M. Sahlén, R. K. Sheth, R. Somerville, I. Szapudi, R. van de Weygaert, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, B. D. Wandelt, and...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.05161 1903

  7. [7]

    Schuster, N

    N. Schuster, N. Hamaus, K. Dolag, and J. Weller, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(05), 031

  8. [8]

    E. G. P. Bos, R. van de Weygaert, K. Dolag, and V. Pettorino, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society426, 440 (2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    K. C. Chan, N. Hamaus, and V. Desjacques, Physical Review D90, 103521 (2014)

    2014

  10. [10]

    Moretti, N

    T. Moretti, N. Frusciante, G. Verza, and F. Pace, Physical Review D113, 103510 (2026)

    2026

  11. [11]

    Tavasoli, The Astrophysical Journal1004, 111 (2026)

    S. Tavasoli, The Astrophysical Journal1004, 111 (2026)

    2026

  12. [12]

    Hamaus, P

    N. Hamaus, P. M. Sutter, and B. D. Wandelt, Physical Review Letters112, 251302 (2014)

    2014

  13. [13]

    F. B. Lustosa, M. Estrada, M. S. Cunha, and C. R. Muniz, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(05), 052, arXiv:2503.13391 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  14. [14]

    F. S. N. Lobo and P. Crawford, Classical and Quantum Gravity21, 391 (2004)

    2004

  15. [15]

    Sharif and S

    M. Sharif and S. Mumtaz, Advances in High Energy Physics2014, 639759 (2014)

    2014

  16. [16]

    Einstein and N

    A. Einstein and N. Rosen, Physical Review48, 73 (1935)

    1935

  17. [17]

    M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, American Journal of Physics56, 395 (1988)

    1988

  18. [18]

    Hochberg and M

    D. Hochberg and M. Visser, Physical Review Letters81, 746 (1998)

    1998

  19. [19]

    Visser, S

    M. Visser, S. Kar, and N. Dadhich, Physical Review Letters90, 201102 (2003)

    2003

  20. [20]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Physical Review Letters128, 091104 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    S. V. Sushkov, Physical Review D71, 043520 (2005)

    2005

  22. [22]

    F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D71, 084011 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0502099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  23. [23]

    F. S. N. Lobo and M. A. Oliveira, Physical Review D80, 104012 (2009)

    2009

  24. [24]

    F. S. N. Lobo, inAIP Conf. Proc., Vol. 1458 (2012) pp. 447–450

    2012

  25. [25]

    C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, and F. S. N. Lobo, Physical Review D85, 044033 (2012)

    2012

  26. [26]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, M. K. Mak, and S. V. Sushkov, Physical Review D87, 067504 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Kanti, B

    P. Kanti, B. Kleihaus, and J. Kunz, Physical Review Letters107, 271101 (2012)

    2012

  28. [28]

    Garattini, The European Physical Journal C79, 951 (2019)

    R. Garattini, The European Physical Journal C79, 951 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    Rahaman, G

    F. Rahaman, G. C. Shit, B. Sen, and S. Ray, Astrophysics and Space Science361, 37 (2016)

    2016

  30. [30]

    M. Cruz, R. Neves, and C. R. Muniz, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(05), 016

  31. [31]

    A. C. L. Santos, R. V. Maluf, and C. R. Muniz, Annals of Physics469, 169775 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Radhakrishnan, P

    R. Radhakrishnan, P. Brown, J. Matulevich, E. Davis, D. Mirfendereski, and G. Cleaver, Symmetry16, 1007 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Visser, Physical Review D39, 3182 (1989)

    M. Visser, Physical Review D39, 3182 (1989)

    1989

  34. [34]

    Visser,Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking(AIP Press, New York, 1995)

    M. Visser,Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking(AIP Press, New York, 1995)

    1995

  35. [35]

    F. S. N. Lobo, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 4811 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0409018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    F. S. N. Lobo, Gen. Rel. Grav.37, 2023 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0410087

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    F. S. N. Lobo and P. Crawford, Class. Quant. Grav.22, 4869 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0507063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  38. [38]

    Darmois,Les équations de la gravitation einsteinienne, Mémorial des Sciences Mathématiques No

    G. Darmois,Les équations de la gravitation einsteinienne, Mémorial des Sciences Mathématiques No. 25 (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1927)

    1927

  39. [39]

    Lanczos, Annalen der Physik379, 518 (1924)

    K. Lanczos, Annalen der Physik379, 518 (1924)

    1924

  40. [40]

    Israel, Nuovo Cimento B44, 1 (1966)

    W. Israel, Nuovo Cimento B44, 1 (1966)

    1966

  41. [41]

    Poisson and M

    E. Poisson and M. Visser, Physical Review D52, 7318 (1995). 21

    1995

  42. [42]

    E. F. Eiroa and G. E. Romero, General Relativity and Gravitation36, 651 (2004)

    2004

  43. [43]

    E. F. Eiroa, Physical Review D78, 024018 (2008)

    2008

  44. [44]

    E. F. Eiroa, Physical Review D80, 044033 (2009)

    2009

  45. [45]

    E. F. Eiroa and G. F. Aguirre, The European Physical Journal C72, 2240 (2012)

    2012

  46. [46]

    Varela, Physical Review D92, 044002 (2015)

    V. Varela, Physical Review D92, 044002 (2015)

    2015

  47. [47]

    Tangphati, A

    T. Tangphati, A. Chatrabhuti, D. Samart, and P. Channuie, The European Physical Journal C80, 722 (2020)

    2020

  48. [48]

    Tsukamoto, Physical Review D103, 064031 (2021)

    N. Tsukamoto, Physical Review D103, 064031 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    Javed, A

    F. Javed, A. Waseem, and B. Almutairi, The European Physical Journal C83, 811 (2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    E. F. Eiroa, G. Figueroa-Aguirre, M. L. Peñafiel, and S. E. P. Bergliaffa, The European Physical Journal C84, 1160 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    E. F. Eiroa, G. Figueroa-Aguirre, and V. Karanasou, The European Physical Journal Plus141, 134 (2026)

    2026

  52. [52]

    Javed, A

    F. Javed, A. Waseem, G. Fatima, and B. Almutairi, Physics of the Dark Universe46, 101605 (2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    Thibeault, C

    M. Thibeault, C. Simeone, and E. F. Eiroa, General Relativity and Gravitation38, 1593 (2006)

    2006

  54. [54]

    M. G. Richarte and C. Simeone, Physical Review D76, 087502 (2007)

    2007

  55. [55]

    G. A. S. Dias and J. P. S. Lemos, Physical Review D82, 084023 (2010)

    2010

  56. [56]

    S. H. Mazharimousavi, M. Halilsoy, and Z. Amirabi, Physical Review D81, 104002 (2010)

    2010

  57. [57]

    N. M. Garcia, F. S. N. Lobo, and M. Visser, Physical Review D86, 044026 (2012)

    2012

  58. [58]

    Halilsoy, A

    M. Halilsoy, A. Ovgun, and S. H. Mazharimousavi, The European Physical Journal C74, 2796 (2014)

    2014

  59. [59]

    S. H. Mazharimousavi and M. Halilsoy, Physical Review D90, 087501 (2014)

    2014

  60. [60]

    E. F. Eiroa and G. F. Aguirre, The European Physical Journal C76, 132 (2016)

    2016

  61. [61]

    Tsukamoto and T

    N. Tsukamoto and T. Kokubu, Physical Review D98, 044026 (2018)

    2018

  62. [62]

    S. D. Forghani, S. H. Mazharimousavi, and M. Halilsoy, International Journal of Modern Physics D28, 1950142 (2019)

    2019

  63. [63]

    Kokubu and T

    T. Kokubu and T. Harada, Universe6, 197 (2020)

    2020

  64. [64]

    F. S. N. Lobo, A. Simpson, and M. Visser, Physical Review D101, 124035 (2020)

    2020

  65. [65]

    Bejarano, E

    C. Bejarano, E. F. Eiroa, and G. Figueroa-Aguirre, The European Physical Journal C81, 668 (2021)

    2021

  66. [66]

    F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D73, 064028 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  67. [67]

    P. F. González-Díaz, Physical Review D68, 021303 (2003)

    2003

  68. [68]

    Sadeghi and H

    J. Sadeghi and H. Farahani, Astrophysics and Space Science347, 209 (2013)

    2013

  69. [69]

    F. S. N. Lobo and M. E. Rodrigues, Thermodynamics of thin-shell wormholes (2026), arXiv:2606.26370 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    F. S. N. Lobo and M. E. Rodrigues, Generalized unruh temperature for dynamical thin-shell wormholes (2026), arXiv:2607.03577 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Errehymy and S

    A. Errehymy and S. Hansraj, Annals of Physics482, 170200 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    Errehymy, M

    A. Errehymy, M. Govender, O. Donmez, B. Myrzakulova, J. Rayimbaev, and M. Matyoqubov, Physics Letters B876, 140388 (2026)

    2026