Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 83 references

Traversable Wormholes with Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A scalar field whose symmetry breaks at the throat can support a traversable wormhole in general relativity.

desk verdict The paper's central exact solution fails the printed field equations for generic C1; the SSB interpretation is reverse-engineered, but the underlying idea is worth a corrected second look. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09236 v4 pith:HT5QE2AH submitted 2024-11-14 gr-qc hep-thmath-phmath.MP

Soumya Chakrabarti , Chiranjeeb Singha This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords traversablewormholespontaneoussymmetrybreakingself-interactingscalarfieldEinsteinequationsregularblackholeradialnullgeodesicsphotonsphereshadowradius
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 argues that a spherically symmetric traversable wormhole can be sourced by a minimally coupled self-interacting scalar field whose potential has the form $V = V_0 + M(\varphi)\varphi^2 + \lambda\varphi^4$, with the quadratic coefficient $M(\varphi)$ changing sign near the throat. That sign change is read as spontaneous breaking of the field's $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry, and the paper proposes that the symmetry breaking acts as a threshold for throat formation. Two explicit regularized geometries are exhibited: a phantom wormhole and a generalized quintessence black-hole metric, both written in coordinates where the two-sphere radius is $\sqrt{r^2+a^2}$. Depending on parameter values the same metrics describe two-way traversable wormholes, one-way wormholes, or regular black holes, and the paper computes their photon-sphere, shadow, Lyapunov, and ISCO quantities. A sympathetic reader would care because the construction ties a familiar particle-physics mechanism to the question of what can hold a wormhole open in general relativity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the regularized wormhole ansatz $S^2=e^{-2\sigma}=r^2+a^2$, where $a$ is a non-zero parameter, combined with the self-interaction potential $V=V_0+M(\varphi)\varphi^2+\lambda\varphi^4$. The paper treats $M(\varphi)$ not as a fixed coupling but as a function determined by the field equations, and its sign switch near $r=0$ is the marker of spontaneous symmetry breaking. The coordinate change $r^2+a^2=l^2$ turns the radial metric component into the throat form $\left(1-a^2/l^2\right)^{-1}G_1(l)^{-1}$, and the embedding conditions $d\rho/dz\to 0$ with $d^2\rho/dz^2>0$ at $l\to a$ identify $a$ as the throat radius. The same ansatz is then recast as a generalized quintessence metric by promoting a constant coefficient to a function $f(r)$, and the photon-sphere, shadow, Lyapunov, and ISCO formulas all follow from the effective potential $V_\epsilon(r)=G(r)(-\epsilon + L^2/(r^2+a^2))$.

What would settle it

Substitute $G(r)$ from Eq. (15) and $\sigma(r)$ from Eq. (14) directly into Eq. (13) and evaluate the residual; if it is nonzero for any $C_1\neq 0$, the exact-solution claim is false and the photon-sphere, shadow, Lyapunov, and ISCO formulas need to be re-derived from the correct field equations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the metric $ds^2 = -G(r)dt^2 + dr^2/G(r) + (r^2+a^2)d\Omega^2$, with $G(r)=1+C_1+\frac{C_2}{2a^3}(ar+(a^2+r^2)\tan^{-1}(r/a))$ and $\varphi(r)=C_3\pm 2\tan^{-1}(r/a)$, is an exact solution of the Einstein-scalar system with $V=V_0+M(\varphi)\varphi^2+\lambda\varphi^4$. The paper solves $M(\varphi)$ from the field equations and finds that it switches from negative to positive values in a neighbourhood of $r=0$; this switch is presented as spontaneous breaking of the scalar's $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry in precisely the region where the wormhole throat forms. For the generalized quintessence metric, a parameter regime with no symmetry breaking also exists. The radial null geodesics show that the same family of solutions can behave as a two-way traversable wormhole for most parameter choices, with one-way wormhole or regular-black-hole behaviour in selected ranges, and the paper derives explicit formulas for the photon sphere, shadow radius, Lyapunov exponent, and innermost stable circular orbit for both geometries.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the displayed metric with $C_1$ a free parameter really solves all three field equations; substituting the printed $G(r)$ into the third equation leaves a residual equal to $-2C_1$, so that equation as written holds only when $C_1=0$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the exact solutions stand, the scalar no-hair obstruction is bypassed: the paper shows $\varphi\,dV/d\varphi$ can be negative, so a non-trivial scalar deformation of the vacuum Schwarzschild metric can exist without a horizon.
  • The quadratic approximation to the radial null-geodesic equation gives the horizon condition $C_2^2 \geq 4a^4 C_1(1+C_1a^2)$; when it fails, the metric represents a two-way traversable wormhole.
  • For the phantom wormhole the unstable photon orbit sits at $r_{\rm ph}=C_2/2$, and for the generalized quintessence wormhole at $r_{\rm ph}=-a^3 C_2 p$, which requires $C_2$ or $p$ to be negative for a physical orbit.
  • All curvature scalars remain finite for every $r$ when $a\neq 0$, so the throat configuration is regular and can represent a one-way wormhole or a regular black hole rather than a singular spacetime.
  • The sign switch of $M(\varphi)$ occurs only in the throat region, which is the basis for the paper's proposal that spontaneous symmetry breaking is the threshold condition for wormhole throat formation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same regularity-and-solve-for-$M(\varphi)$ recipe could be applied to other static spherically symmetric metrics, turning the construction into a general method for attaching spontaneous symmetry breaking to spacetime geometry.
  • Beyond the paper: the shadow-radius formulas give a concrete observational discriminator, since a wormhole shadow with a given $a$, $C_1$, $C_2$ differs from the Schwarzschild value; horizon-scale imaging could in principle distinguish these solutions from black holes if the mass scale is known.
  • Beyond the paper: because $M(\varphi)$ is solved backwards from the metric, one could invert the question and search systematically over $V_0$, $\lambda$, and the integration constants to test whether the sign-switch behaviour is generic or an artifact of the chosen ansatz.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two static, spherically symmetric wormhole metrics, the "phantom" solution (14)-(16) and a generalized Kiselev metric (33), and claims that they are exact solutions of Einstein gravity minimally coupled to a self-interacting scalar field with Higgs-type potential V = V0 + M(phi) phi^2 + lambda phi^4. The authors examine curvature regularity, the null energy condition, radial null geodesics, and traversability, then reconstruct M(phi) from the field equations and interpret its sign change as spontaneous symmetry breaking near the throat. The paper also computes the photon-sphere radius, Lyapunov exponent, shadow radius, and innermost stable circular orbits for both geometries.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide explicit scalar-field-supported traversable wormholes with a symmetry-breaking mechanism and a set of observational signatures such as shadow radii and Lyapunov exponents. The manuscript is clearly organized and contains useful explicit checks, including the regularity of curvature scalars and the behavior of the null energy condition. However, the central exactness claim is not supported as written: the displayed solution does not satisfy the printed field equation (13) for generic C1, and several derived quantities, including the photon-sphere radius and the horizon condition near r = 0, are based on incorrect algebra. The significance of the paper is therefore limited until these load-bearing issues are resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (13)-(15)] Substituting sigma(r) = -(1/2) ln(r^2 + a^2) into Eq. (13) reduces the equation to (r^2 + a^2) G'' - 2G + 2 = 0. Direct differentiation of the G(r) in Eq. (15) gives (r^2 + a^2) G'' - 2G + 2 = -2 C1, so the stated field equation is satisfied only for C1 = 0. The paper treats C1 as a free parameter throughout, for example in Fig. 2, Fig. 6, and the photon-sphere analysis of Section 4, so the claimed exact solution (14)-(16) is not a solution of the printed field equations as written.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (40)] The photon-sphere condition for the phantom metric is 2rG = (r^2 + a^2) G'. Using Eq. (15), this condition evaluates to 2r(1 + C1) - C2 = 0, so the correct radius is r_ph = C2 / [2(1 + C1)], not C2/2. The omission of the factor (1 + C1) propagates into the shadow radius in Eq. (46), the Lyapunov exponent in Eq. (45), and the ISCO expression in Eq. (49); even if C1 is fixed to zero on the basis of the previous comment, all parameter scans and conclusions involving these quantities must be redone.
  3. [Section 2, Eqs. (23)-(24)] The claimed small-r approximation of Eq. (22) is not correct. Expanding the G(r) from Eq. (15) gives G = 1 + C1 + (C2/a^2) r + O(r^3), so the horizon condition dr/dt = 0 is linear in r, not the quadratic equation displayed in Eq. (23). The displayed equation C1 r_h^2 + (C2/a^2) r_h + (1 + C1 a^2) = 0 also mixes terms of different dimension, since C1 is dimensionless in Eq. (15). Consequently the horizon discriminant and the one-way/two-way traversability thresholds derived from Eq. (24) are not supported by the metric.
  4. [Section 2, Eq. (19) and Section 5] The scalar potential is not specified independently: M(phi) is solved from the metric after the ansatz is imposed, as Eq. (19) makes explicit. The sign change in M(r) is therefore a property of the chosen geometry, and the abstract's and Section 5's claim that spontaneous symmetry breaking may act as a threshold for wormhole throat formation is a post-hoc interpretation rather than a derived prediction. To support the causal claim, one would need to fix V(phi) and show that throat formation is tied to the symmetry-breaking transition as parameters are varied; the reconstruction performed here does not establish that.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1 and Section 2] The potential is written as V = V0 + M phi^2 + lambda phi^4 in Eq. (4), but the text following Eq. (8) writes V = V0 + (1/2) M phi^2 + (lambda/4) phi^4, and Eq. (19) uses the latter convention; please harmonize these definitions.
  2. [Section 1, Eq. (10)] The azimuthal coordinate is denoted by phi in Eq. (10) while the scalar field is also denoted by phi (or varphi) throughout the paper; this is confusing and should be changed, for example by using psi for the scalar field or a different symbol for the azimuth.
  3. [Section 4] There are several typographical errors, including "Phanton" instead of "Phantom" before Eq. (41) and "diferent" instead of "different" in the captions of Figs. 11 and 13.
  4. [Section 3, Eqs. (31)-(33)] The generalized Kiselev metric is presented with an extremely complicated f(r) and p(r), but no derivation or verification is shown that Eq. (33) satisfies the field equations (11)-(13), and the claimed reduction to the phantom metric is not demonstrated; please provide the algebra or a clear reference to a supplementary calculation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The central SSB claim is a reconstruction: M(φ) is solved from the metric ansatz via Eq. (19), so the sign change near r=0 and the 'SSB as throat threshold' statement are properties of the defining equation, not independent predictions.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, Eq. (19), Figs. 4-5; Abstract and Conclusion]
    "Finally, the solution for M (ϕ) is written straightaway from the field equations as M = 2 { G′′ + 2G′r/(r2 + a2) − V0 − λ/4 ϕ4 } ... There is always a switch from negative into positive values of M (ϕ) within a small neighbourhood of r = 0 ... spontaneous symmetry breaking may act as a threshold for wormhole throat formation."

    M is not an independently specified potential coefficient; it is solved from the field equations after the metric functions σ(r), G(r), and the scalar profile ϕ(r) = C3 ± 2 tan−1(r/a) are fixed by ansatz. The claimed 'switch from negative into positive' in M near r=0 is therefore a read-off of the defining equation, not a consequence derived from a first-principles potential. Moreover, a is an input parameter of the ansatz, so the causal statement that SSB 'may act as a threshold for wormhole throat formation' reverses the actual construction order: a and G are fixed first, and M is then engineered to satisfy Eq. (12). The headline SSB-threshold claim is thus equivalent by construction to the chosen ansatz rather than a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central novelty is the association between spontaneous symmetry breaking and wormhole throat formation. That association is reverse-engineered: with σ and ϕ chosen as (14) and (16), and G chosen as (15), Eq. (19) defines M so that Eq. (12) is satisfied. The paper itself repeatedly notes that 'the solution we have found is consistent if and only if M(ϕ) is a function,' which is another way of saying M is a constructed quantity rather than an independently motivated potential. The sign change of M and the Z2-breaking interpretation are therefore consequences of the ansatz, not independent evidence for a threshold phenomenon. The geodesic, photon-sphere, shadow, and ISCO calculations are self-contained consequences of the chosen metric and are not circular. The self-citations in the paper (e.g., [22], [38], [58]) are contextual and not load-bearing. Separately, though not a circularity, the printed field equations are not satisfied as claimed: substituting (14)–(15) into (13) gives −2C1 = 0, while the paper scans C1 as a free nonzero parameter; this is a consistency flaw that further undermines the exact-solution claim. Weighing the definitional character of the SSB-threshold claim against the independent geodesic content gives a score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or fields beyond the scalar field. The key input parameters are integration constants and the potential ansatz. The throat scale a is a free parameter, and the claim that SSB acts as a threshold is an interpretation imposed on the reverse-engineered M(r).

free parameters (9)
  • a = varied in plots, e.g., 0.5
    Non-zero parameter that sets the throat scale via S² = r²+a². Chosen by hand to generate plots; the existence of the throat depends on a ≠ 0.
  • C1 = varied in plots, e.g., 1
    Integration constant in G(r). The solution does not satisfy Eq. (13) unless C₁ = 0, yet is treated as free.
  • C2 = varied in plots, e.g., 1
    Integration constant in G(r); directly sets the photon-sphere radius in the paper's (incorrect) formula r_ph = C₂/2.
  • C3 = varied, e.g., 1
    Constant shift in the scalar field profile φ = C₃ ± 2 arctan(r/a); chosen by hand.
  • V0
    Constant term in the potential V = V₀ + M(φ)φ² + λφ⁴; not fixed by the solution, appears in Eq. (19).
  • λ
    Quartic coupling in the potential; not fixed by the solution, appears in Eq. (19).
  • p = used in Kiselev section, varied in plots
    A parameter in the generalized Kiselev metric; enters the photon-sphere radius r_ph = -a³C₂p.
  • w
    Equation-of-state parameter in the generalized Kiselev metric, taken as constant 3w+1 in the exponent.
  • m = used in Kiselev section, varied in plots
    Mass-like parameter in the generalized Kiselev metric.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Einstein field equations hold for a minimally coupled scalar field with action S = ∫√-g (R + ½(∂φ)² + V(φ)).
    The foundational framework of the paper; the field equations (11)-(13) are derived from this action, though the sign of the kinetic term is phantom-like.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar self-interaction potential has the Higgs-like form V = V₀ + M(φ)φ² + λφ⁴.
    This form is assumed from the start (Eq. (4)) to motivate SSB; no derivation is given for why a wormhole-supporting field must have this form.
  • domain assumption The metric is static, spherically symmetric, and takes the regularized form with S² = r² + a² (Simpson-Visser style).
    The regularized radial coordinate replaces r by √(r²+a²), which is an ansatz that removes the central singularity. This assumption is load-bearing for the wormhole throat interpretation.
  • domain assumption The scalar field tends to a constant at spatial infinity and the potential has a local extremum at the asymptotic value.
    Used to set up the no-hair discussion and to allow ϕ to be constant at infinity; the actual solution has ϕ → C₃ ± π, which is constant.
  • ad hoc to paper A sign change in M(r) is interpreted as evidence of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the effective potential.
    This interpretation is not derived from a separate dynamical model; it is an analogy to symmetron models and is used to make the SSB claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Traversable Wormholes with Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HT5QE2AH

@misc{pith2026241109236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Traversable Wormholes with Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HT5QE2AH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09236}
}
read the original abstract

We argue that a spherically symmetric traversable wormhole solution of the Einstein field equations can be supported by minimally coupled self-interacting scalar field which allows a spontaneous symmetry breaking of the field around the wormhole throat. We study two cases : (i) the phantom wormhole solution of Bronnikov and (ii) a generalized Kiselev wormhole. We study the property of radial null geodesics and show that the metric can describe either a two-way or a one-way traversable wormhole depending on certain parameter ranges. The scalar field exhibits spontaneous symmetry breaking within the coordinate range where a wormhole throat forms and helps one suggest that spontaneous symmetry breaking may act as a threshold for wormhole throat formation. We also compute the radius of the photon sphere, the Lyapunov exponent, the shadow radius, and the innermost stable circular orbits for the geometries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09236 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ricci scalar R(r) and Kretschmann scalar K(r) as a function of r for different values of a. The parameter choices made in this graph are C1 = 1 and C2 = 0.01, while the parameter a is varied. G ′′ − 2G ′σ ′ − V (ϕ) = 0, (12) G ′′ − 2G [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Null Energy Condition as a function of r for different values of a, C1 and C2. Top left : C1 = C2 = 1 while a is being varied. Top right : a = 0.5 and C2 = 1, C1 is being varied from 0.01 to 1. Below : a = 0.5 and C1 = 1 while C2 is being varied from 0.1 to 10. -20 -10 0 10 20 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 r ϕ(r) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ϕ(r) as a function of r. The blue curve shows the profile for a minus sign in C3 ± 2 tan−1 (r/a), while the orange curve is for the plus sign. C3 = 1. interaction potential is taken as V (ϕ) = − 1 2 µ 2ϕ 2 + 1 4 λϕ4 , A(ϕ) = 1 + 1 2M2 ϕ 2 , (20) where A(ϕ) defines a universal coupling of the scalar field to the space-time metric in an Einstein frame 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of M(ϕ) as a function of r for ϕ(r) = C3 + 2 tan−1 (r/a). Top left : different values of a is considered while C1, C2 and C3 are fixed. Top right : different values of C3 is considered while a, C1 and C2 are fixed. Bottom left : different values of C1 is considere…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of M(ϕ) as a function of r for ϕ(r) = C3 − 2 tan−1 (r/a). Top left : different values of a is considered while C1, C2 and C3 are fixed. Top right : different values of C3 is considered while a, C1 and C2 are fixed. Bottom left : different values of C1 is considere…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: dr dt as a function of r for different set of initial conditions. Top left : C1 = 1, C2 = 1 and the value of a is varied. Top right : C1 = 1, C2 = 3 and the value of a is varied. Bottom left : a = C2 = 1, while the parameter C1 is varied. Bottom right : a = C1 = 1, whi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ricci scalar R(r) and Kretschmann scalar K(r) as a function of r for different values of a for a generalized Kiselev metric -2 -1 0 1 2 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 r NEC -2 -1 0 1 2 -20 -10 0 10 20 r NEC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Null Energy Condition as a function of r for different values of C2. C1 = C2 = 1, a = 0.5. Evolution for positive and negative values of C2 are shown on left and right. − 16 a 3p(2C1 − πC2) + 6 + 16  a 3p(2C1 − πC2) + 62 − 54 a 3p(2C1 − πC2) + 8 + 81  a 3p(2C1 − πC2…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plot of M(ϕ) as a function of r for ϕ(r) = C3 + 2 tan−1 (r/a). Top left: different values of m are considered while the other parameters are fixed. Top right: different values of p are considered while the other parameters are fixed. Bottom left: different values of C3…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: dr dt as a function of r for different set of initial conditions. Top left: The value of a is varied while the other parameters are fixed. Top right: The value of C2 is varied while the other parameters are fixed. Bottom left: The parameter m is varied while the other…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: Change of effective potential at the photon sphere with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Second derivative of the effective potential at the photon sphere for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left: Change of effective potential at the photon sphere with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Second derivative of the effective potential at the photon sphere for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Left: Plot of the Lyapunov exponent for a Phantom wormhole as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Left: Plot of the Lyapunov exponent for a Kiselev wormhole as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Shadow radius of a Phantom wormhole for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Shadow radius of a Kiselev wormhole for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: ϕ dV dϕ as a function of r for two different profiles of scalar field ϕ(r) = C3 ± 2 tan−1 (r/a). [39], which is supported by a phantom scalar field (negative kinetic energy). We connect the metric with a second class of solution popular as the Kiselev black hole [40].…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Schwarzschild, Sitzungsber

    K. Schwarzschild, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys. Math. Kl., , physics/9905030 (1916), arXiv:physics/9905030 [physics.hist-ph]

    arXiv 1916

  2. [2]

    Hilbert, Nachr

    D. Hilbert, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Math. Phys. Kl. (G ¨ottingen) , 53 (1917)

    1917

  3. [3]

    Weyl, Ann

    H. Weyl, Ann. d. Phys. 54, 117 (1917). 22

    1917

  4. [4]

    J. T. Jebsen, Ark. Mat. Ast. Fys. (Stockholm) 15, 18 (1921)

    1921

  5. [5]

    G. D. Birkhoff, Relativity and Modern Physics, Harvard University Press 253, 18 (1923)

    work page 1923

  6. [6]

    Sato, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy Supplement 16, 37 (1995)

    K. Sato, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy Supplement 16, 37 (1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Bechmann and O

    O. Bechmann and O. Lechtenfeld, Class. Quant. Grav. 12, 1473 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9502011

    arXiv 1995

  8. [8]

    J. D. Bekenstein, in 2nd International Sakharov Conference on Physics (1996) pp. 216–219, arXiv:gr- qc/9605059

    arXiv 1996

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, International Journal of Modern Physics D 24, 1542014 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Barcel´ o, R

    C. Barcel´ o, R. Carballo-Rubio, and S. Liberati, Classical and Quantum Gravity 36, 13LT01 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 29, 1351 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9812473

    1997 arXiv

  4. [12]

    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. T...

    1998

  5. [13]

    Melchiorri, P

    A. Melchiorri, P. A. R. Ade, P. de Bernardis, J. J. Bock, J. Borrill, A. Boscaleri, B. P. Crill, G. D. Troia, P. Farese, P. G. Ferreira, K. Ganga, G. de Gasperis, M. Giacometti, V. V. Hristov, A. H. Jaffe, A. E. Lange, S. Masi, P. D. Mauskopf, L. Miglio, C. B. Netterfield, E. ...

    2000

  6. [14]

    A. E. Lange, P. A. R. Ade, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, A. Boscaleri, K. Coble, B. P. Crill, P. de Bernardis, P. Farese, P. Ferreira, K. Ganga, M. Giacometti, E. Hivon, V. V. Hristov, A. Iacoan- geli, A. H. Jaffe, L. Martinis, S. Masi, P. D. Mauskopf, A. Melchiorri, T. ...

    2001

  7. [15]

    Padmanabhan and T

    T. Padmanabhan and T. R. Choudhury, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 344, 823 (2003), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/344/3/823/3304941/344-3-823.pdf

    2003

  8. [16]

    Zlatev, L

    I. Zlatev, L. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 896 (1999)

    1999

  9. [17]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, International Journal of Modern Physics D 09, 373 (2000)

    2000

  10. [18]

    E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, and A. E. Nelson, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 53, 77 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0307284

    2003

  11. [19]

    J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, A. Stebbins, and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2077 (1995)

    1995

  12. [20]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Hinterbichler and J

    K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 231301 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Chakrabarti, K

    S. Chakrabarti, K. Dutta, and J. L. Said, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 514, 427 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/514/1/427/43946981/stac1321.pdf . 23

    2022

  15. [23]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Nature 139, 323 (1937)

    1937

  16. [24]

    Jordan, Naturwissenschaften 25, 513 (1937)

    P. Jordan, Naturwissenschaften 25, 513 (1937)

    1937

  17. [25]

    Fierz, Helvetica Physica Acta 29, 128 (1956)

    M. Fierz, Helvetica Physica Acta 29, 128 (1956)

    1956

  18. [26]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961)

    1961

  19. [27]

    Gamow, Phys

    G. Gamow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 759 (1967)

    1967

  20. [28]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 25, 1527 (1982)

    1982

  21. [29]

    Uzan, Rev

    J.-P. Uzan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 403 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Chiba, Progress of Theoretical Physics 126, 993 (2011), arXiv:1111.0092 [gr-qc]

    T. Chiba, Progress of Theoretical Physics 126, 993 (2011), arXiv:1111.0092 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Physics Reports 87, 77 (1982)

    1982

  24. [32]

    Ji, Phys

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1071 (1995)

    1995

  25. [33]

    Calmet and H

    X. Calmet and H. Fritzsch, Phys. Lett. B 540, 173 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204258

    2002 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Fritzsch, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 186, 221 (2009), proceedings of the QCD 08, 14th High-Energy Physics International Conference On Quantum ChromoDynamics

    H. Fritzsch, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 186, 221 (2009), proceedings of the QCD 08, 14th High-Energy Physics International Conference On Quantum ChromoDynamics

    2009

  27. [35]

    Bagdonaite, E

    J. Bagdonaite, E. J. Salumbides, S. P. Preval, M. A. Barstow, J. D. Barrow, M. T. Murphy, and W. Ubachs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 123002 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Huntemann, B

    N. Huntemann, B. Lipphardt, C. Tamm, V. Gerginov, S. Weyers, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 210802 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    J. Sola, E. Karimkhani, and A. Khodam-Mohammadi, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 025006 (2017), arXiv:1609.00350 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chakrabarti, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 506, 2518 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/506/2/2518/39136152/stab1910.pdf

    S. Chakrabarti, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 506, 2518 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/506/2/2518/39136152/stab1910.pdf

    2021

  31. [39]

    K. A. Bronnikov and J. C. Fabris, Physical Review Letters 96 (2006), 10.1103/physrevlett.96.251101

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    V. V. Kiselev, Classical and Quantum Gravity 20, 1187–1197 (2003)

    2003

  33. [41]

    Visser, Classical and Quantum Gravity 37, 045001 (2020)

    M. Visser, Classical and Quantum Gravity 37, 045001 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Battista, S

    E. Battista, S. Capozziello, and A. Errehymy, (2024), arXiv:2409.09750 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Di Grezia, E

    E. Di Grezia, E. Battista, M. Manfredonia, and G. Miele, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132, 537 (2017), arXiv:1707.01508 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    De Falco, E

    V. De Falco, E. Battista, S. Capozziello, and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104037 (2020), arXiv:2004.14849 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    De Falco, E

    V. De Falco, E. Battista, S. Capozziello, and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044007 (2021), arXiv:2101.04960 [gr-qc] . 24

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    De Falco, E

    V. De Falco, E. Battista, S. Capozziello, and M. De Laurentis, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 157 (2021), arXiv:2102.01123 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    X. Y. Chew and D.-h. Yeom, Phys. Rev. D 110, 044036 (2024), arXiv:2401.09039 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    X. Y. Chew, D.-h. Yeom, and J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, Phys. Rev. D 108, 044020 (2023), arXiv:2210.01313 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    X. Y. Chew and K.-G. Lim, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064039 (2024), arXiv:2307.13972 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    X. Y. Chew and K.-G. Lim, Universe 10, 212 (2024), arXiv:2405.06407 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    X. Y. Chew and Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D 110, 044011 (2024), arXiv:2405.04921 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Dzhunushaliev, V

    V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, R. Myrzakulov, and D. Singleton, JHEP 07, 094 (2008), arXiv:0805.3211 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  45. [53]

    C. F. S. Pereira, D. C. Rodrigues, J. C. Fabris, and M. E. Rodrigues, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044011 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    C. F. S. Pereira, E. L. Martins, D. C. Rodrigues, J. C. Fabris, and M. E. Rodrigues, (2024), arXiv:2405.07455 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    C. F. S. Pereira, D. C. Rodrigues, M. V. d. S. Silva, J. C. Fabris, M. E. Rodrigues, and H. Belich, (2024), arXiv:2409.09182 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    K. A. Bronnikov, R. A. Konoplya, and T. D. Pappas, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124062 (2021), arXiv:2102.10679 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Simpson and M

    A. Simpson and M. Visser, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 042 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Chakrabarti and S

    S. Chakrabarti and S. Kar, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024071 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Visser, Lorentzian wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking (1995)

    M. Visser, Lorentzian wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking (1995)

    1995

  52. [60]

    Einstein and N

    A. Einstein and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 48, 73 (1935)

    1935

  53. [61]

    C. W. Misner and J. A. Wheeler, Annals of Physics 2, 525 (1957)

    1957

  54. [62]

    C. A. Kolassis, N. O. Santos, and D. Tsoubelis, Classical and Quantum Gravity 5, 1329 (1988)

    1988

  55. [63]

    H. G. Ellis, Journal of Mathematical Physics 14, 104 (1973), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/14/1/104/19133700/104 1 online.pdf

    1973

  56. [64]

    P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, D. F. Mota, N. J. Nunes, and H. A. Winther, Phys. Rev. D 82, 083503 (2010)

    2010

  57. [65]

    Hinterbichler, J

    K. Hinterbichler, J. Khoury, A. Levy, and A. Matas, Phys. Rev. D 84, 103521 (2011)

    2011

  58. [66]

    K. S. Virbhadra and G. F. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084003 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904193

    2000 arXiv

  59. [67]

    K. S. Virbhadra and G. F. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 65, 103004 (2002). 25

    2002

  60. [68]

    K. S. Virbhadra and C. R. Keeton, Phys. Rev. D 77, 124014 (2008)

    2008

  61. [69]

    Claudel, K

    C.-M. Claudel, K. S. Virbhadra, and G. F. R. Ellis, Journal of Mathematical Physics 42, 818 (2001), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article-pdf/42/2/818/19220437/818 1 online.pdf

    2001

  62. [70]

    K. S. Virbhadra, Phys. Rev. D 79, 083004 (2009)

    2009

  63. [71]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity (Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984)

    1984

  64. [72]

    Chakraborty, Galaxies 9, 96 (2021), arXiv:2111.04912 [gr-qc]

    S. Chakraborty, Galaxies 9, 96 (2021), arXiv:2111.04912 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A. K. Mishra, S. Chakraborty, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104080 (2019), arXiv:1903.06376 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Berry, A

    T. Berry, A. Simpson, and M. Visser, Universe 7, 2 (2020), arXiv:2008.13308 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Z.-Y. Tang, Y. C. Ong, and B. Wang, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 245006 (2017), arXiv:1705.09633 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    A. K. Mishra and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D 101, 064041 (2020), arXiv:1911.09855 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Rahman, S

    M. Rahman, S. Chakraborty, S. SenGupta, and A. A. Sen, JHEP 03, 178 (2019), arXiv:1811.08538 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Cardoso, J

    V. Cardoso, J. a. L. Costa, K. Destounis, P. Hintz, and A. Jansen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 031103 (2018), arXiv:1711.10502 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Cardoso, A

    V. Cardoso, A. S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek, and V. T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064016 (2009), arXiv:0812.1806 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes , The International Series of Monographs on Physics (Oxford University Press, 1983)

    S. Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes , The International Series of Monographs on Physics (Oxford University Press, 1983)

    1983

  73. [81]

    Visser, Phys

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

    1992

  74. [82]

    Visser, Phys

    M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 48, 583 (1993)

    1993

  75. [83]

    Boonserm, T

    P. Boonserm, T. Ngampitipan, and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 88, 041502 (2013). 26

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.