Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Quantum-Corrected Thermodynamics and Phase Structure of AdS Euler-Heisenberg Black Hole

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The paper argues that thermal fluctuations, encoded as logarithmic and inverse-area entropy corrections, qualitatively restructure the AdS Euler–Heisenberg black hole's thermodynamics, producing a quantum-stabilized microscopic phase and…

desk verdict Routine application of the standard log-plus-inverse-area entropy correction to a known AdS Euler-Heisenberg black hole; the algebra is fine, but the headline claim of universal macroscopic instability directly contradicts the paper's own Eq. (47), which is positive at large radius. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13378 v1 pith:A7AIIZXW submitted 2026-08-13 gr-qc hep-th

Siddhartha Sankar Borah , Dhruba Jyoti Gogoi , Kalyan Bhuyan This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C5783C22 PACS 04.70.Dy04.40.Nr
keywords AdSblackholesEuler-Heisenbergelectrodynamicsthermalfluctuationslogarithmicentropycorrectionsphasetransitionsspecificheatextendedspaceholestability
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

What this paper tries to establish is that thermal fluctuations do not merely perturb the thermodynamics of the AdS Euler–Heisenberg black hole — they reorganize its phase space. Starting from the Einstein–Euler–Heisenberg metric with a negative cosmological constant, the authors add logarithmic and inverse-area terms to the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy and propagate those corrections through every thermodynamic potential. The corrected specific heat develops multiple divergences and sign changes, which they interpret as genuine second-order phase transitions. The result is a two-stage structure: a quantum-stabilized microscopic phase at small horizon radii, followed by universal thermodynamic instability for large black holes. If this is right, quantum corrections change not just numerical values but the qualitative stability structure of charged AdS black holes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the entropy corrected for thermal fluctuations, $S_c = \pi r_+^2 - \lambda_1 \ln(S_0 T_H^2) + \lambda_2/S_0$, specialized to the Euler–Heisenberg AdS solution. It carries the argument because every corrected potential — enthalpy, internal energy, Helmholtz and Gibbs free energies, volume — follows by substituting $S_c$ into the extended-phase-space first law; the corrected specific heat $C_c = T(\partial S/\partial T)$ is then computed from it, and its poles and sign flips are the entire evidence for the claimed phase structure.

What would settle it

Recompute the corrected specific heat with $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ fixed by an independent microscopic derivation, or by a constraint such as positivity of $S_c$ for all $r_+$; if for any such admissible pair the multiple divergences disappear or the large-radius branch becomes $C_c > 0$, the claimed phase structure is an artifact of parameter choice, not a prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that in the AdS Euler–Heisenberg black hole, thermal fluctuations alter the entropy away from the area law to $S_c = \pi r_+^2 - \lambda_1 \ln(f_{c1}^2/r_+^{12}) + \lambda_2/(\pi r_+^2) + \lambda_1 \ln(256\pi)$, and that all derived potentials inherit this correction. Its central claim is that the corrected specific heat $C_c$ (Eq. 47) develops multiple divergences and sign changes, which the authors read as genuine second-order phase transitions. The resulting phase structure has a quantum-stabilized microscopic phase — narrow windows of $C_c > 0$ at small horizon radii — followed by a universally unstable macroscopic phase with $C_c < 0$, inverting the classical expectation that large AdS black holes are the stable ones. Electric charge amplifies the critical points, the nonlinear electrodynamics parameter $\mu$ suppresses stability, the logarithmic parameter $\lambda_1$ controls the stable quantum windows, and $\lambda_2$ is subleading.

Load-bearing premise

The phase structure is driven entirely by two free constants, $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, whose values the paper never derives or constrains; if they are not fixed by a microscopic theory, the claimed quantum-stabilized phase and universal instability could be artifacts of that choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Bekenstein–Hawking area law is insufficient for the Euler–Heisenberg AdS black hole: the corrected entropy must appear in every thermodynamic potential.
  • Large black holes of this type are thermodynamically unstable once thermal fluctuations are included, opposite to the standard Reissner–Nordström–AdS expectation.
  • The corrected specific heat has multiple divergences, each a candidate second-order phase transition at a critical horizon radius.
  • Charge $Q$ deepens and multiplies the critical points, while the nonlinear parameter $\mu$ suppresses them; $\lambda_1$ controls the stable small-radius windows and $\lambda_2$ is subleading.
  • A consistent quantum-classical transition emerges: small black holes are quantum-dominated and can be stabilized, while macroscopic black holes are classically unstable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A derivation fixing $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ from a UV-complete quantum-gravity model would turn the proposed phase structure into a testable prediction; until then it is a scenario, not a result.
  • If the universal macroscopic instability survives such fixing, it would clash with the standard AdS/CFT expectation that large AdS black holes correspond to stable thermal states, making this black hole a counterexample worth probing.
  • The same corrected-entropy machinery can be applied to other nonlinear-electrodynamics AdS solutions (Born–Infeld, Bardeen, Hayward) to test whether a quantum-stabilized small phase plus large-radius instability is generic.
  • Negative corrected entropy at very small $r_+$ suggests the canonical ensemble breaks down near the Planck scale; the stable windows in $C_c$ may actually signal a minimum horizon size or a remnant rather than a true equilibrium phase.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the thermodynamics of a static, spherically symmetric AdS black hole obtained from Einstein–Euler–Heisenberg nonlinear electrodynamics, treating the cosmological constant as a thermodynamic pressure. Starting from the classical mass, Hawking temperature, and Bekenstein–Hawking entropy, the authors introduce logarithmic and inverse-area entropy corrections controlled by two free parameters λ1 and λ2, then derive corrected enthalpy, thermodynamic volume, internal energy, Helmholtz and Gibbs free energies, and specific heat. The central claim is that the corrected specific heat exhibits multiple divergences and sign changes, producing a quantum-stabilized microscopic black-hole phase followed by a universal macroscopic instability, so that thermal fluctuations qualitatively restructure the phase space.

Significance. If the advertised phase structure were correct, the paper would be significant: it would identify a quantum-gravity signature in black-hole thermodynamics and overturn the usual expectation that large AdS black holes are canonically stable. A genuine strength is that the paper presents closed-form algebraic expressions, which makes the main claims directly checkable by asymptotic analysis. Unfortunately, the check fails: the claimed universal large-black-hole instability is contradicted by the paper's own Eq. (47), and the phase structure is governed by unconstrained free parameters. The central qualitative conclusion is therefore not established; the paper is more naturally read as a parameter-dependent exploration of corrected thermodynamics than as a robust prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V, Eq. (47), Fig. 6] The claim that the corrected specific heat exhibits 'universal macroscopic instability' is contradicted by the paper's own Eq. (47). For fixed μ, Q, Λ<0, λ1 and λ2, the large-r+ asymptotics of Eq. (47) are N ≈ 8π²Λr+¹² and D ≈ 4πΛr+¹⁰, hence Cc ≈ 2πr+² > 0. The negative-Cc window visible in Fig. 6 (r+ ≲ 1.4 for Λ=-0.002) is an intermediate-scale effect: the denominator D = 7πμQ⁴r+² + 4πr+⁶(-3Q²+Λr+⁴+r+²) has another zero at large r+ (for the plotted parameters, near r+≈22), after which Cc is again positive. The same positive large-r+ limit holds for the classical C0 in Eq. (46), so the large-black-hole behaviour is not a quantum-induced instability. This contradicts the abstract, the §V bullet defining large black holes as 'universally negative', and the conclusion. It also contradicts the paper's own discussion of Fig. 5, where Gc rises and becomes positive for large r+.
  2. [§IV A, Eqs. (29)-(30); §V] The parameters λ1 and λ2 are introduced as free constants controlling the logarithmic and inverse-area corrections, and no derivation, microscopic constraint, or matching to an independent quantum-gravity calculation is provided. The corrected entropy in Eq. (30), and with it every corrected potential and the divergence structure of Cc in Eq. (47), depends directly on these choices; Fig. 6 shows that changing λ1 alters the number and location of the divergences and sign changes. The 'quantum-stabilized microscopic phase' is therefore an artifact of the chosen parameter values rather than a robust prediction of thermal fluctuations. To support the central claim, the authors would need to fix λ1 and λ2 from a concrete model, or to show that the qualitative phase structure is insensitive to them over a physically allowed range; neither is done.
  3. [§IV B, Eqs. (31)-(33)] The construction of the corrected thermodynamic potentials is not consistent with the extended-phase-space first law. Eq. (12) is dM = TH dS + Φ dQ + V dP, so defining Hc by Hc = ∫ TH dSc in Eq. (31) integrates only the first term and is valid only along a path with P and Q fixed; the integration constant is not specified. The subsequent definition Vc = (∂Hc/∂P)_{Sc} in Eq. (33) requires differentiating at fixed corrected entropy, but Eq. (32) is written as a function of r+ and the derivative leading to Eq. (34) is taken at fixed r+, not at fixed Sc, even though Sc depends on P through fc1. The sentence following Eq. (31) stating that the P-dependent term can be 'neglected' is also incompatible with the later use of the ∫ P dVc term in Eq. (37). The paper therefore does not demonstrate that {Hc, Vc, Uc, Fc, Gc} satisfies a consistent first law, and the corrected thermodynamics is not a well-defined rewriting of the extended-phase-space formalism.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (36) vs. Eq. (38)] The classical Helmholtz free energy in Eq. (36) has a term Λr+³/12, whereas direct evaluation of U - TH S using Eqs. (22) and (16) gives Λr+³/4, which is also the λ1,λ2→0 limit of Eq. (38). The coefficient in Eq. (36) appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [§III, §IV B] The text refers to the 'Hayward–AdS black hole' in several places (e.g., after Eq. (24) and in the opening of §IV B), although the solution analyzed is the Euler–Heisenberg AdS black hole of Eq. (9). This mislabeling should be fixed throughout.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The top-right panel of Fig. 5 is captioned with μ=0.2, 0.3, 0.4, while the corresponding text in §IV B describes μ=0.1, 0.3, 0.5; the figure and text should be reconciled.
  4. [Introduction] The sentence 'the authors in this paper have constructed a black hole solution...' appears to describe Ref. [30] rather than the present work; this should be rephrased to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Eq. (31) and surrounding text] The sentence introducing Vc immediately after Eq. (31) is misplaced, since no volume appears in that integral; it belongs with Eq. (33).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: corrected phase structure is an algebraic consequence of the stated free correction parameters, not a fitted prediction; the alleged universal instability is contradicted by the paper's own Eq. (47), which is a correctness problem, not a circular one.

full rationale

The derivation chain is transparent: Eq. (9) imports the known AdS Euler-Heisenberg metric; Eq. (16) is the surface-gravity temperature; Eqs. (28)-(30) adopt a standard fluctuation-corrected entropy parametrization with lambda_1 and lambda_2 as free inputs; Eqs. (32)-(47) are obtained by the stated thermodynamic identities. No quantity is fitted to a subset of outcomes and then renamed a prediction. The self-citation [19] appears only as one of three references ([19,47,52]) for the standard log-correction formula and is corroborated by the external references, so it is not load-bearing. The major caveats are non-circularity concerns: lambda_1 and lambda_2 are unconstrained, so the phase structure is conditional rather than a robust first-principles prediction, and the claim of universal macroscopic instability is contradicted by the asymptotic limit of Eq. (47), which gives Cc -> 2 pi r_+^2 > 0. Those are underdetermination/correctness issues, not self-referential reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; it works within an existing effective field theory. The main extra baggage is the pair of free parameters λ1 and λ2 that control the quantum corrections, plus the freedom in choosing Q, μ, and Λ for the plots. No independent evidence fixes any of these values, and the central qualitative conclusions are driven by the chosen values of λ1 and λ2.

free parameters (5)
  • λ1 = varied in figures (0.1, 0.3, 0.5)
    Strength of logarithmic entropy correction; free parameter, no derivation or independent constraint.
  • λ2 = varied in figures (0.05, 0.1, 0.2)
    Strength of inverse-area entropy correction; free parameter, no derivation or independent constraint.
  • μ = varied in figures (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5)
    Euler-Heisenberg nonlinear electrodynamics parameter; arbitrary in the paper, taken from the metric ansatz but not fixed by any physical input.
  • Q = varied in figures (0.1 to 1.0)
    Electric charge; used as a free parameter in the analysis, not fixed by a specific physical scenario.
  • Λ = -0.002
    Cosmological constant; treated as thermodynamic pressure and set to a specific value in figures without justification.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The metric (9) is a valid solution of the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg field equations in AdS.
    The paper cites Refs. [48, 49] for this metric but does not rederive it; the solution's validity is assumed.
  • domain assumption The canonical ensemble with partition function (25) is appropriate for AdS black holes.
    Standard Hawking-Page framework, but the application to this specific solution assumes the ensemble is well-defined for the whole parameter range.
  • ad hoc to paper The entropy expansion S = S0 - λ1 ln(S0 TH^2) + λ2/S0 (Eq. 29) is valid for this black hole.
    The form is borrowed from Refs. [19, 21, 47] but λ1 and λ2 are not derived for this specific solution, and the expansion is introduced ad hoc.
  • domain assumption The correction parameters λ1 and λ2 are constant and do not vary with horizon radius.
    Used to justify neglecting certain terms in the integration of Hc (Eq. 31).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-Corrected Thermodynamics and Phase Structure of AdS Euler-Heisenberg Black Hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7AIIZXW

@misc{pith2026260813378,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-Corrected Thermodynamics and Phase Structure of AdS Euler-Heisenberg Black Hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7AIIZXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13378}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the thermodynamic behaviour of an AdS black hole arising from nonlinear electrodynamics-corrected gravity, incorporating quantum effects through thermal fluctuations. From the Einstein--Euler--Heisenberg framework, we consider the modified black hole solution and analyse its thermodynamic properties in the extended phase space. Logarithmic and inverse-area corrections to the entropy are obtained, leading to modified expressions for enthalpy, internal energy, Helmholtz free energy and Gibbs free energy. The corrected specific heat exhibits multiple divergences and sign changes, signalling genuine second-order phase transitions and revealing a quantum-stabilized microscopic phase followed by universal macroscopic instability. Our results demonstrate that thermal fluctuations qualitatively restructure the thermodynamic phase space and highlight the dominant role of quantum corrections in governing the black hole stability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13378 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Variation of the Hawking temperature with the black hole horizon radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Variation of the black hole entropy with the horizon radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Variation of the black hole’s corrected enthalpy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Variation of the black hole’s Helmholtz free energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: displays the variation of the corrected Gibbs free energy Gc as a function of the horizon radius r+ for different values of the charge Q, nonlinear electrodynamics parameter µ, and correction parameters λ1 and λ2, with the cosmological constant fixed at Λ = −0.002. In …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Variation of the black hole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    G ¨ursel, M

    H. G ¨ursel, M. Mangut, and E. Sucu (2025), 2503.12306

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.2333 1973

  3. [2]

    Belgiorno, S

    F. Belgiorno, S. L. Cacciatori, M. Clerici, V . Gorini, G. Ortenzi, L. Rizzi, E. Rubino, V . G. Sala, and D. Faccio, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 203901 (2010), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.203901

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.105.203901 2010

  4. [3]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Lett. Nuovo Cim.4, 737 (1972)

    1972

  5. [4]

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

    1973

  6. [5]

    Mandal, S

    S. Mandal, S. Das, D. J. Gogoi, and A. Pramanik, Physics of the Dark Universe42, 101349 (2023), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1016/j.dark.2023.101349

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Birmingham and S

    D. Birmingham and S. Sen, Physical Review D63, 47501 (2001)

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    Pourhassan, S

    B. Pourhassan, S. H. Hendi, S. Upadhyay, I. Sakallı, and E. N. Saridakis, International Journal of Modern Physics D32, 2350110 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    Upadhyay, Gen

    S. Upadhyay, Gen. Rel. Grav.50, 128 (2018), 1810.01283

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Upadhyay and B

    S. Upadhyay and B. Pourhassan, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2019, 013B03 (2019)

    2019

  3. [10]

    R. M. Wald, Living Rev. Rel.4, 6 (2001), gr-qc/9912119

    2001 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Upadhyay, S

    S. Upadhyay, S. H. Hendi, S. Panahiyan, and B. Eslam Panah, PTEP2018, 093E01 (2018), 1809.01078

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Upadhyay, Physics Letters B775, 130 (2017), ISSN 0370-2693, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269317308717

    S. Upadhyay, Physics Letters B775, 130 (2017), ISSN 0370-2693, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269317308717

    2017

  6. [13]

    Upadhyay, S

    S. Upadhyay, S. Soroushfar, and R. Saffari, Modern Physics Letters A36, 2150212 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    S. Bora, D. J. Gogoi, and P. K. Karmakar (2025), 2510.04208

    2025

  8. [15]

    D. J. Gogoi, P. Hazarika, J. Bora, and R. Changmai, Fortsch. Phys.73, e70004 (2025), 2501.15629

    2025 arXiv

  9. [16]

    S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page, Communications in Mathematical Physics87, 577 (1982)

    1982

  10. [17]

    Pourhassan, H

    B. Pourhassan, H. Farahani, and S. Upadhyay, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A34, 1950158 (2019), 1701.08650

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Ndongmo, S

    R. Ndongmo, S. Mahamat, C. Tabi, T. Bouetou, and T. Kofane, Physics of the Dark Universe42(2023), ISSN 2212-6864, publisher Copyright: © 2023 Elsevier B.V

    2023

  12. [19]

    D. J. Gogoi, Y . Sekhmani, S. Bora, J. Rayimbaev, J. Bora, and R. Myrzakulov, JCAP11, 019 (2024), 2407.10946

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Pourhassan and M

    B. Pourhassan and M. Faizal, Phys. Lett. B755, 444 (2016), 1605.00924

    2016 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Pourhassan and M

    B. Pourhassan and M. Faizal, Nucl. Phys. B913, 834 (2016), 1611.00131

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Chamblin, R

    A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V . Johnson, and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D60, 104026 (1999), hep-th/9904197

    1999 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Pourhassan, M

    B. Pourhassan, M. Faizal, and S. Capozziello, Annals Phys.377, 108 (2017), 1612.01359

    2017 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Pourhassan, M

    B. Pourhassan, M. Faizal, and U. Debnath, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 145 (2016), 1603.01457

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    C. H. Nam, Gen. Rel. Grav.50, 57 (2018)

    2018

  19. [26]

    Singh and S

    A. Singh and S. Mahish (2025), 2504.20486

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Kubiznak and R

    D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, JHEP07, 033 (2012), 1205.0559

    2012 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Shen, R.-G

    J.-y. Shen, R.-G. Cai, B. Wang, and R.-K. Su, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22, 11 (2007), gr-qc/0512035

    2007 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Sahay, T

    A. Sahay, T. Sarkar, and G. Sengupta, JHEP07, 082 (2010), 1004.1625

    2010 arXiv

  23. [30]

    V . G. Czinner and H. Iguchi, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 443 (2025), 2504.16705

    2025 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Tsallis,Introduction to Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics: Approaching a Complex World(Springer, New York, 2009), ISBN 978- 0-387-85358-1, 978-0-387-85359-8

    C. Tsallis,Introduction to Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics: Approaching a Complex World(Springer, New York, 2009), ISBN 978- 0-387-85358-1, 978-0-387-85359-8

    2009

  25. [32]

    R ´enyi, Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica10, 193 (1959), ISSN 1588-2632, URLhttps://doi.org/10

    A. R ´enyi, Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica10, 193 (1959), ISSN 1588-2632, URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1007/BF02063299

    1959

  26. [33]

    R ˜A©v ˜A©sz and I

    P. R ˜A©v ˜A©sz and I. Vincze, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics43, i (1972), ISSN 00034851, 21688990, URLhttp://www. jstor.org/stable/2240189

    1972

  27. [34]

    Joy and R

    F. Joy and R. Tharanath,Thermodynamics of reissner-nordstorm black bounce black hole(2025)

    2025

  28. [35]

    F. C. Joy and R. Tharanath (2025), 2504.07730

    2025

  29. [36]

    Zhao and Z

    L. Zhao and Z. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 938 (2023), 2308.12150

    2023 arXiv

  30. [37]

    D. V . Ahluwalia, International Journal of Modern Physics D26, 1743001 (2017), ISSN 1793-6594, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1142/S0218271817430015

    2017

  31. [38]

    Fernando, Phys

    S. Fernando, Phys. Rev. D74, 104032 (2006), hep-th/0608040

    2006 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Banerjee, B

    R. Banerjee, B. R. Majhi, and S. Samanta, Phys. Rev. D77, 124035 (2008), 0801.3583

    2008 arXiv

  33. [40]

    S. N. Solodukhin, Living Rev. Rel.14, 8 (2011), 1104.3712

    2011 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Y . Abe, T. Noumi, and K. Yoshimura, Journal of High Energy Physics2023(2023)

    2023

  35. [42]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Z. Phys.98, 714 (1936), physics/0605038

    1936 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Weisskopf, Kong

    V . Weisskopf, Kong. Dan. Vid. Sel. Mat. Fys. Med.14N6, 1 (1936)

    1936

  37. [44]

    J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  38. [45]

    G. W. Gibbons and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Class. Quant. Grav.18, 1677 (2001), hep-th/0101229

    2001 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Born and L

    M. Born and L. Infeld, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A144, 425 (1934)

    1934

  40. [48]

    Ruffini, Y .-B

    R. Ruffini, Y .-B. Wu, and S.-S. Xue, Phys. Rev. D88, 085004 (2013), 1307.4951. 17

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Magos and N

    D. Magos and N. Bret ´on, Phys. Rev. D102, 084011 (2020), 2009.05904

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Luo and J

    Z. Luo and J. Li, Chin. Phys. C46, 085107 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page, Commun. Math. Phys.87, 577 (1983)

    1983

  44. [52]

    S. S. More, Class. Quant. Grav.22, 4129 (2005), gr-qc/0410071

    2005 arXiv

Pith tools

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