Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Bound orbits near scalar field naked singularities

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Scalar-field naked singularities can hold a resting test particle on a stable static orbit and make nearby bound orbits precess backward.

desk verdict The static-orbit result is solid and new; the negative-precession claim is asserted beyond what the proof supports. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03700 v1 pith:3CKYFQBH submitted 2019-08-10 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

I. M. Potashov , Ju. V. Tchemarina , A. N. Tsirulev This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE PACS 04.20.-q04.70.-s
keywords scalarfielddarkmatternakedsingularityboundorbitsgeodesicmotionpericentreprecessionblackholeshadowstaticorbiteffectivepotential
topics Dark Matter
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

The paper studies bound orbits of massive test particles near the centers of static, spherically symmetric scalar-field configurations, using the scalar field as an idealized model of dark matter. It establishes that for a scalar-field naked singularity (SFNS) the lapse function \(A(r)\) has a global minimum, so the effective potential of a zero-angular-momentum particle has a global minimum at \(r=r_0\); a particle with minimal energy can then remain at rest at that radius. Such a static degenerate orbit would let cold matter collect into a spherical shell that a distant observer could mistake for a black-hole shadow. The paper further claims that noncircular bound orbits close to the SFNS center have negative precession angles, opposite to the familiar positive pericenter advance of a vacuum black hole, which would give an observational way to tell the two kinds of central object apart.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quadrature representation of a self-gravitating scalar field: choosing a monotonic field \(\varphi(r)\) fixes \(e^\Phi\), \(\xi\), the lapse \(A\), the radial metric function \(f\), and the self-interaction potential through integrals (6)-(8). The key relation is \(A'(r)=2A/r-2(\xi-3m)e^\Phi/$r^{2}$\), which shows that the sign of \(\xi(0)-3m\) decides whether the solution is a naked singularity or a black hole; the minimum of \(A\) creates the static orbit. Bound-orbit shapes and precession are then computed from the quadrature \(\phi_{\rm osc}=2J\int_{r_{\min}}^{r_{\max}} e^\Phi\,dr/($r^{2}$\sqrt{$E^{2}$-A(1+$J^{2}$/$r^{2}$)})\), with \(\$\Delta$\phi=\phi_{\rm osc}-2\pi\), and the paper shows numerically that this angle is negative for orbits reaching the central region of an SFNS.

What would settle it

Choose a monotonic \(\varphi\in $C^{2}$([0,\infty))\) with \(\varphi=O($r^{{-1/2-\alpha}}$)\) and \(0<3m<\xi(0)\) but make \(e^\Phi\) vary sharply enough to violate condition (25); compute \(A(r)\) from the quadrature and check numerically for two local minima. If two minima appear, the uniqueness claim and the unique static orbit fail. Alternatively, measure the pericentre precession of a star whose orbit dips into the inner region of a suspected SFNS: a positive (advancing) precession would contradict the paper's claimed \(\$\Delta$\phi<0\).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a clean division between two types of gravitating scalar-field objects. For an SFNS, defined by \(0<3m<\xi(0)\), the lapse function \(A(r)\) falls from its asymptotic value \(1-2m/r\) at infinity to a finite positive value at the center, so it must have a global minimum at some \(r_0\). Under the auxiliary condition (25), which the paper takes to hold for physically reasonable configurations, that minimum is unique. The effective potential \(V_{\rm eff}=A(1+$J^{2}$/$r^{2}$)\) then has a global minimum for \(J=0\), giving a static degenerate orbit on which a test particle with energy \($E^{2}$=A(r_0)\) remains at rest forever. Bound orbits near the center shift their pericentres backwards: \(\$\Delta$\phi<0\), in contrast with the positive precession of an equal-mass vacuum black hole. The results are derived from an inverse-problem representation of all static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat scalar-field geometries and are illustrated on a one-parameter analytic family.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that \(A(r)\) has exactly one global minimum—and therefore exactly one static degenerate orbit—relies on the unproved compactness condition (25), called physically reasonable by the paper; if that minimum were not unique, the unique resting orbit and the shadow-shell picture would not follow, and the blanket claim \(\$\Delta$\phi<0\) in the central region is also asserted rather than proven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A spherical shell of cold gas or dust can collect on the static degenerate orbit, so a distant view of an SFNS center can look like the shadow of a black hole even though no event horizon is present.
  • Bound star orbits whose pericentres lie in the central SFNS region should show negative pericentre precession, directly opposite to the vacuum-black-hole prediction; measuring such a retreat would be a signature of a naked-singularity-like center.
  • SFNS configurations have no innermost stable circular orbit but do have a stable static orbit with \(J=0\), and particles with small angular momentum stay close to that orbit, forming a gravitationally bound cluster.
  • In an SFNS spacetime the energy \(E=1\) cleanly separates bound from unbound orbits: particles with \(E<1\) stay bound, while those with \(E\ge 1\) escape to infinity.
  • For orbits with the same \(J\), pericentre, and apocentre as an equal-mass vacuum black-hole orbit, the oscillation period is shorter and the pericentre velocity is larger around an SFNS than around the black hole.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a future measurement of a stellar pericentre near a galactic center shows a negative precession, it would not by itself prove a scalar-field naked singularity, but it would rule out the vacuum-black-hole interpretation and would point toward exotic central compact objects; the paper's model is one concrete source of such a signal.
  • The shadow-mimicking shell suggests a degeneracy with true black-hole shadows: two objects with different horizon structure could look identical in a single shadow image. A distinguishing test, which the paper does not develop, would compare the shell's expected radiation or absorption signature with that of a photon-sphere black hole.
  • An immediate test is to search the same inverse-problem construction for self-interaction potentials that are nonnegative near the center and then check whether the uniqueness condition (25) and the sign of \(\Delta\phi\) survive; the paper's own analytic example has a negative potential, so this generalization is not automatically guaranteed.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies bound timelike geodesics in static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat spacetimes sourced by a minimally coupled nonlinear scalar field, using an inverse-problem parametrization of the metric by a monotonic scalar profile φ(r). For scalar-field naked singularities (SFNSs), defined by 0 < 3m < ξ(0), it proves that the lapse function A(r) has at least one global minimum and, under an additional unproved condition (25), a unique minimum; this yields a static J = 0 equilibrium orbit at r0 and a possibly shadow-like shell. The paper further claims, based on numerical examples in one analytic family, that noncircular bound orbits in the central region have negative pericentre precession, in contrast to Schwarzschild. A comparison with scalar-field black holes and Schwarzschild orbits is presented.

Significance. The existence part of the static-degenerate-orbit result is rigorous and gives a clean, potentially observable distinction between SFNSs and SFBHs. The use of the inverse-problem quadratures connects the result to a wide class of scalar-field models without fitting a parameter to the target effect. Proposition 1 and the existence part of Proposition 2 are proven from the stated assumptions, and the shadow-mimicking-shell idea is interesting and appropriately contextualized with prior work. If the negative-precession claim were established rigorously, it would be a striking observational signature for distinguishing SFNSs from black holes; the present manuscript, however, establishes only examples.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, after Eq. (28)] The sentence "We always have Δϕ < 0 for orbits located, even if only in part, in the central region" is the paper's headline observational prediction, but it is not derived. The 'central region' is never defined, and the supporting evidence is limited to the one-parameter family (29) in Figs. 2 and 3; moreover, that family is explicitly stated to have a self-interaction potential that is negative everywhere and 'not physically interesting.' This is a load-bearing gap: the abstract and the Conclusions repeat the universal claim ('show that their angles of precession are negative'), but the manuscript establishes it only for plotted examples. Please supply a proof or a precise characterization of the region and parameter domain in which Δϕ < 0, or replace the universal statement by an explicitly conditional or example-based claim.
  2. [§2, Proposition 2 and Eq. (25)] The uniqueness of the global minimum of A(r) is made conditional on condition (25), which is asserted to hold for 'physically reasonable configurations' but is neither proved nor translated into an explicit condition on the field function φ(r). The paper then states 'For simplicity, we will assume below that the metric function A(r) has exactly one minimum at r = r0,' and later refers to 'the unique degenerated static orbit' and to the shadow-shell picture. All statements that depend on uniqueness therefore go beyond what is proven. Please prove (25) for a stated admissible class, or give a counterexample-free characterization, or explicitly mark the uniqueness and shell claims as conditional on (25).
  3. [§4, family (29)] The only analytical and numerical demonstration of negative precession uses the family (29), whose self-interaction potential V(φ) is negative everywhere in (0,∞) and is described by the authors as not physically interesting. This does not invalidate the family as a mathematical illustration, but it cannot support the general assertion that negative precession holds for physically reasonable SFNSs. If the negative-precession statement is to be retained as a general result, provide admissible examples or a proof; otherwise, the conclusions should be restricted to the illustrated family.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states that SFNSs and SFBHs have masses in the intervals (0, ξ(0)) and (ξ(0), ∞), respectively, which is inconsistent with the conditions (13) and (14); the threshold should be at ξ(0)/3, as the quoted example m_BH = 2 with ξ(0) = 3.71 illustrates.
  2. [§2] The invariant is spelled 'Kretchmann' in the text; it should be 'Kretschmann'.
  3. [References] Reference [4] lists the arXiv identifier 1505.03545, which is the same as reference [2]; please supply the correct identifier for the Gillessen et al. paper.
  4. [§4, after Fig. 2] The statement that the dependences of the oscillation number on J and E 'appear to be true in general, not only for the family (29)' is a conjecture; please either prove it or label it as a numerical observation rather than a general conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivations are self-contained quadrature consequences, and the flagged gaps are unproven assumptions rather than circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a direct manipulation of the Einstein-Klein-Gordon equations through the inverse-problem quadratures (6)-(8), cited from the authors' prior work [33]. This is a general solution representation whose assumptions (static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat, monotonic scalar field) do not include the target conclusions, so the citation is independent support rather than a self-referential premise. The existence of a global minimum of A(r) for SFNSs follows from the asymptotics (17) and (18) together with continuity (A -> 1 as r -> infinity and A -> +infinity as r -> 0 when 0 < 3m < xi(0)); no fitted parameter or target result is used. Uniqueness is explicitly conditional: the paper states 'If the condition (25) holds, this minimum is unique' and then simply assumes exactly one minimum for the rest of the analysis. That is an acknowledged assumption, not a circular derivation. The static degenerate orbit then follows by definition of the effective potential (27) with J = 0 and the equation A'(r0) = 0; this is a mathematical consequence, not a prediction equivalent to an input. The universal negative-precession claim ('We always have Delta phi < 0 ...') is asserted without proof after Eq. (28) and supported only by examples in the one-parameter family (29); this is an unproven generalization, a correctness gap, not circularity. No parameter is fitted to a target orbit, and no known result is merely renamed. Self-citations are present but do not force the conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new fundamental entities are introduced. The scalar field and naked singularities are pre-existing concepts; the static orbit is a property of the spacetime rather than a new entity.

free parameters (2)
  • a = 2.5, 3, 10, 50 (with m = 1)
    Parameter of the analytic family (29) controlling scalar field intensity; determines SFNS branch (a > 3/(√5 - 1)). Not fitted to observations; scans the solution space for examples.
  • Specific energy E and angular momentum J of test orbits = Various values listed in figure captions
    Chosen by hand to produce illustrative bound orbits; the sign of precession is demonstrated for these choices, but no general analytic bound is derived.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The inverse-problem quadratures (6)-(8), quoted from ref. [33], generate all static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat scalar field solutions for any self-interaction potential.
    Foundation of the construction; accepted from prior published work, including the authors' own. If wrong, all subsequent results fail.
  • domain assumption The scalar field φ(r) is strictly monotonic, C^2 on [0,∞), with φ = O(r^{-1/2-α}), α>0, at infinity.
    Defines the solution class and ensures asymptotic flatness; standard regularity assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Condition (25), namely ((ξ-3m)/r e^Φ)' ≤ 0 on (0, r0), ensures uniqueness of the minimum of A; the condition is stated to hold for physically reasonable configurations but is not proven.
    Used to go from existence to uniqueness of the global minimum and hence of the static orbit; flagged in the text as an assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The analytic example family (29) has a self-interaction potential V(φ) that is negative everywhere; the authors state it is not physically interesting but use it for demonstrating orbit shapes.
    Limits the physical interpretation of the explicit examples; the authors assert other solutions with positive potential exist (ref. [36]) but do not compute orbits for them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bound orbits near scalar field naked singularities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3CKYFQBH

@misc{pith2026190803700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bound orbits near scalar field naked singularities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3CKYFQBH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03700}
}
read the original abstract

We study bound orbits near the centres of static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat configurations of a self-gravitating scalar field minimally coupled to gravity. In our approach, a nonlinear scalar field is considered as an idealized model of dark matter, and the main examples that we have in mind are the centres of galaxies. We consider both scalar field black holes (SFBHs) and scalar field naked singularities (SFNSs). It turns out that the shape and parameters of a bound orbit depend crucially on the type of configuration. The lapse metric function of a SFNS and, consequently, the effective potential of a massive test particle with zero angular momentum have a global minimum. A SFNS has a static degenerated orbit on which a test particle, having zero angular momentum and the minimum of its energy, remains at rest at all times. This implies that there exists a spherical shell consisting of cold gas or dust, which for a distant observer can look like the shadow of a black hole. We also study the shape of noncircular bound orbits close to the centres of SFNSs and show that their angles of precession are negative.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Meyer et al, The shortest known period star orbit- ing our galaxyŠs supermassive black hole

    L. Meyer et al, The shortest known period star orbit- ing our galaxyŠs supermassive black hole. Science 338, 6103, 84–87 (2012) arXiv:1210.1294

    arXiv 2012

  2. [3]

    Persistent Asymmetric Structure of Sagittarius A* on Event Horizon Scales

    V .L. Fish et al, Persistent Asymmetric Structure of Sagit- tarius A* on Event Horizon Scales. Astrophys. J.820, 90 (2016) arXiv:1602.05527

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  3. [4]

    Gillessen et al, An update on monitoring stellar or- bits in the galactic center

    S. Gillessen et al, An update on monitoring stellar or- bits in the galactic center. Astrophys. J. 837, 30 (2017) arXiv:1505.03545

    arXiv 2017

  4. [5]

    Goddi et al, BlackHoleCam: fundamental physics of the Galactic center

    C. Goddi et al, BlackHoleCam: fundamental physics of the Galactic center. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1730001 (2017) arXiv:1606.08879

    arXiv 2017

  5. [6]

    Hees et al, Testing General Relativity with stel- lar orbits around the supermassive black hole in our Galactic center

    A. Hees et al, Testing General Relativity with stel- lar orbits around the supermassive black hole in our Galactic center. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 211101 (2017) arXiv:1705.07902

    arXiv 2017

  6. [7]

    Joshi, D

    P.S. Joshi, D. Malafarina, R. Narayan, Distinguishing black holes from naked singularities through their ac- cretion disc properties. Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 015002 (2014) arXiv:1304.7331

    arXiv 2014

  7. [8]

    Macedo, P

    C.F.B. Macedo, P. Pani, V . Cardoso, L.C.B. Crispino, Astrophysical signatures of boson stars: Quasinormal modes and inspiral resonances. Phys. Rev. D 88, 064046 (2013) arXiv:1307.4812

    arXiv 2013

  8. [9]

    Z. Li, C. Bambi, Distinguishing black holes and worm- holes with orbiting hot spots. Phys. Rev. D 90, 024071 (2014) arXiv:1405.1883

    arXiv 2014

Show all 43 references
  1. [10]

    Grould, F.H

    M. Grould, F.H. Vincent, T. Paumard, G. Perrin, Gen- eral relativistic effects on the orbit of the S2 star with GRA VITY . Astron. Astrophys. 608, A22 (2017) arXiv:1709.04492

    2017 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Grould, Z

    M. Grould, Z. Meliani, F.H. Vincent, P. Grandclément, E. Gourgoulhon, Comparing timelike geodesics around a Kerr black hole and a boson star. Class. Quant. Grav. 34(21), 215007 (2017) arXiv:1709.05938

    2017 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Abuter et al, Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre mas- sive black hole

    R. Abuter et al, Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre mas- sive black hole. Astron. Astrophys. 615, L15 (2018) arXiv:1807.09409

    2018 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Akiyama et al (The EHT collaboration), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    K. Akiyama et al (The EHT collaboration), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole. Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7

    2019 doi

  5. [14]

    Shaikh, P

    R. Shaikh, P. Kocherlakota, R. Narayan, P.S. Joshi, Shadows of spherically symmetric black holes and naked singularities. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 482, 52–64 (2018) arXiv:1802.08060

    2018 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Lee and I

    J. Lee and I. Koh, Galactic halos as boson stars. Phys. Rev. D 53, 2236–2239 (1996) arXiv:hep-ph/9507385

    1996 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Matos, L.A

    T. Matos, L.A. Urena-Lopez, On the nature of dark matter. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13, 2287–2292 (2004) arXiv:astro-ph/0406194

    2004 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Robles, T

    V .H. Robles, T. Matos, Flat central density profile and constant dark matter surface density in galaxies from scalar field dark matter. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 422, 282–289 (2012) arXiv:1201.3032

    2012 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Benisty, E

    D. Benisty, E. I. Guendelman, Interacting diffusive uni- fied dark energy and dark matter from scalar fields. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 396 (2017) arXiv:1701.08667 9

    2017 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Bernal, C

    N. Bernal, C. Cosme, T. Tenkanen, Phenomenology of self-interacting dark matter in a matter-dominated uni- verse. Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 99 (2019) arXiv:1803.08064

    2019 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Babar, A.Z

    G.Z. Babar, A.Z. Babar, Y .K. Lim, Periodic orbits around a spherically symmetric naked singularity. Phys. Rev. D 96, 084052 (2017) arXiv:1710.09581

    2017 arXiv

  12. [21]

    De Laurentis, Z

    M. De Laurentis, Z. Younsi, O. Porth, Y . Mizuno, L. Rezzolla, Test-particle dynamics in general spheri- cally symmetric black hole spacetimes. Phys. Rev. D 97, 104024 (2018) arXiv:1712.00265

    2018 arXiv

  13. [22]

    S. Zhou, R. Zhang, J. Chen, Y . Wang, Geodesic structure of Janis-Newman-Winicour space-time. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 54, 2905 (2015) arXiv:1408.6041

    2015 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Kratovitch, I.M

    P.V . Kratovitch, I.M. Potashov, Ju.V . Tchemarina, A.N. Tsirulev, Topological geons with self-gravitating phan- tom scalar field. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 934, 012047 (2017) arXiv:1805.04447

    2017 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Mishra, S

    A. Mishra, S. Chakraborty, On the trajectories of null and timelike geodesics in different wormhole geometries. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 374 (2018) arXiv:1710.06791

    2018 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Willenborg, S

    F. Willenborg, S. Grunau, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, Geodesic motion around traversable wormholes sup- ported by a massless conformally-coupled scalar field. Phys. Rev. D 97, 124002 (2018) arXiv:1801.09769

    2018 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Stashko, V .I

    O.S. Stashko, V .I. Zhdanov, Spherically symmetric con- figurations of General Relativity in presence of scalar field: separation of test body circular orbits. Gen. Relat. Gravit. 50, 105–114 (2018) arXiv:1702.02800

    2018 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Bechmann, O

    O. Bechmann, O. Lechtenfeld, Exact black hole so- lution with selfinteracting scalar field. Class. Quantum Grav. 12, 1473–1482 (1995) arXiv:gr-qc/9502011

    1995 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Dennhardt, O

    H. Dennhardt, O. Lechtenfeld, Scalar deformations of Schwarzschild holes and their stability Int. J. Mod. Phys. A13, 741–764 (1998) arXiv:gr-qc/9612062

    1998 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Bronnikov, G.N

    K.A. Bronnikov, G.N. Shikin, Spherically symmetric scalar vacuum: no-go theorems, black holes and solitons. Grav. Cosmol. 8, 107–116 (2002) arXiv:gr-qc/0109027

    2002 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Tchemarina, A.N

    Ju.V . Tchemarina, A.N. Tsirulev, Spherically symmet- ric gravitating scalar fields. The inverse problem and exact solutions. Gravitation and Cosmology 15, 94–95 (2009)

    2009

  22. [31]

    Azreg-Aïnou, Selection criteria for two-parameter solutions to scalar-tensor gravity

    M. Azreg-Aïnou, Selection criteria for two-parameter solutions to scalar-tensor gravity. Gen. Rel. Grav. 42, 1427–1456 (2010) arXiv:0912.1722

    2010 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Cadoni, M

    M. Cadoni, M. Serra, S. Mignemi, Exact solutions with AdS asymptotics of Einstein and Einstein-Maxwell grav- ity minimally coupled to a scalar field. Phys. Rev. D 84, 084046 (2011) arXiv:1107.5979

    2011 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Solovyev, A.N

    D.A. Solovyev, A.N. Tsirulev, General properties and exact models of static selfgravitating scalar field config- urations. Class. Quantum Grav. 29, 055013 (2012)

    2012

  25. [34]

    Cadoni, E

    M. Cadoni, E. Franzin, F. Masella, M. Tuveri, A solution-generating method in Einstein-scalar gravity. Acta. Appl. Math. (2018) doi:10.1007/s10440-018-00232-2

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    Bronnikov, M.S

    K.A. Bronnikov, M.S. Chernakova, Charge black holes and unusual wormholes in scalar-tensor gravity. Grav. Cosmol. 13, 51–55 (2007) arXiv:gr-qc/0703107

    2007 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Tchemarina, A.N

    V .V Nikonov, Ju.V . Tchemarina, A.N. Tsirulev, A two- parameter family of exact asymptotically flat solutions to the Einstein-scalar field equations. Class. Quantum Grav. 25, 138001 (2008)

    2008

  28. [37]

    Franzin, M

    E. Franzin, M. Cadoni, M. Tuveri, Sine-Gordon soli- tonic scalar stars and black holes. Phys. Rev. D 97, 124018 (2018) arXiv:1805.08976

    2018 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Quevedo, Mass Quadrupole as a source of naked sin- gularities

    H. Quevedo, Mass Quadrupole as a source of naked sin- gularities. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20, 1779–1787 (2011) arXiv:1012.4030

    2011 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Pugliese, H

    D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, R. Ruffini, Circular motion of neutral test particles in Reissner-Nordström spacetime. Phys. Rev. D 83, 024021 (2010) arXiv:1012.5411

    2010 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Vieira, J

    R.S.S. Vieira, J. Schee, W. Klu´ zniak, Z. Stuchlík, M. Abramowicz, Circular geodesics of naked singularities in the Kehagias-Sfetsos metric of Ho˘rava’s gravity. Phys. Rev. D 90, 024035 (2014) arXiv:1311.5820

    2014 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Collodel, B

    L.G. Collodel, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, Static orbits in ro- tating spacetimes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 201103 (2018) arXiv:1711.05191

    2018 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Borka, P

    D. Borka, P. Jovanovi ´c, V . Borka Jovanovi´c, A.F. Za- kharov, Constraints on Rn gravity from precession of or- bits of S2-like stars. Phys. Rev. D 85, 124004 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.124004

    2012 doi

  34. [43]

    Dokuchaev, Yu.N

    V .I. Dokuchaev, Yu.N. Eroshenko, Weighing of the dark matter at the center of the Galaxy. JETP Letters 101, 777–782 (2015) doi:10.1134/S0021364015120048

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

    Zakharov, Constraints on tidal charge of the su- permassive black hole at the Galactic Center with tra- jectories of bright stars

    A.F. Zakharov, Constraints on tidal charge of the su- permassive black hole at the Galactic Center with tra- jectories of bright stars. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 689 (2018) arXiv:1804.10374

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.