Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 99 references

Fermion quasinormal modes on modified RN background

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spacetime noncommutativity gives fermion quasinormal modes a Zeeman-like splitting.

desk verdict First Dirac QNM computation on this NC-RN background, with a plausible but numerically under-verified Zeeman-like splitting; the Nollert tail approximation is the weakest link. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19343 v1 pith:5UEKVP4X submitted 2025-07-25 gr-qc

Nikola Herceg , Nikola Konjik , A. Naveena Kumara , Andjelo Samsarov This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords noncommutativegeometryDiracquasinormalmodesReissner-NordströmblackholeangulartwistdeformationZeeman-likesplittingcontinuedfractionmethodmodifiedRNmetric
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

This paper tries to establish that spacetime noncommutativity leaves a concrete, computable imprint on the ringdown spectrum of a Reissner-Nordström black hole: when the probing field is a massless charged Dirac fermion, the fundamental quasinormal-mode frequency shifts linearly with the deformation parameter $a$ and splits with the azimuthal quantum number $\nu$, producing a Zeeman-like multiplet in both the oscillation frequency and the damping rate. The calculation works in an effective model in which the noncommutative twist is equivalent to letting an ordinary charged fermion move on a modified metric with an extra $r$–$\varphi$ component. The authors obtain the frequencies with the continued-fraction method, reducing a six-term recurrence to a solvable three-term one by elimination. If the result holds, black-hole spectroscopy becomes a potential probe of the deformation scale of spacetime.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the angular twist operator $F = e^{-\frac{i a}{2}(\partial_t\otimes\partial_\varphi-\partial_\varphi\otimes\partial_t)}$ and its associated $\star$-product, which deform the algebra of fields but not the classical Reissner-Nordström metric. The key working object is the dual metric obtained in earlier work, $ds^2 = f\,dt^2 - f^{-1}dr^2 - a q Q\sin^2\theta\,dr\,d\varphi - r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,d\varphi^2)$, to which the Dirac equation is coupled minimally through a gauge potential $A_t=-qQ/r$. The argument then proceeds by a separation ansatz into two Weyl spinors, a tortoise coordinate $dy/dr = f^{-1}(1+i a \nu q Q/r)$ that puts the radial problem into Schrödinger form with an effective potential, and the continued-fraction method: a power-series solution around the horizon yields a six-term recurrence, which three rounds of elimination reduce to a three-term recurrence whose convergence condition gives the quasinormal frequencies. This combination carries the computation from the deformed field equations to the reported spectrum.

What would settle it

Evolve the massless charged Dirac equation directly in the modified metric with parameters $M=1$, $Q=0.5$, $qQ=1$, $a=0.1$ and extract the fundamental mode for $\nu=\pm 1/2$ by an independent time-domain or spectral method; if the real and imaginary parts of the frequencies do not match the continued-fraction values, the six-term recurrence reduction or the boundary-condition phase choices are suspect. Alternatively, repeat the whole calculation from the original $\star$-product Dirac equation on the classical Reissner-Nordström background without invoking the dual metric; equality to first order in $a$ would confirm the spin-1/2 duality, and any discrepancy would invalidate the central prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a massless charged Dirac field of charge $q$ moving in the modified Reissner-Nordström geometry, the quasinormal-mode spectrum is no longer degenerate in the azimuthal quantum number $\nu$: the fundamental frequencies separate into branches with real and imaginary parts that depend linearly on $a$ and on $\nu$, splitting like a Zeeman pattern. The sign of $\nu$ controls the strength of damping—modes with negative $\nu$ decay faster—which the paper describes as a spectral analogue of rotation-induced frame dragging, even though the underlying metric is static. The paper also reports that the noncommutative correction grows with the field charge $q$ and with the black hole charge $Q$, and that the phase-transition-like feature in the imaginary part near $Q/M\sim0.9$ is essentially unchanged by $a$, in contrast to the scalar-field case where it sits near $0.7$. These claims are presented as numerical results of the continued-fraction calculation, valid to first order in $a$.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the duality established for a charged noncommutative scalar field—equivalence to a commutative field on the modified Reissner-Nordström metric—also holds for a charged Dirac field, without deriving that spin-1/2 equivalence in this work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, the fermion ringdown of a charged black hole carries a fingerprint of spacetime noncommutativity: frequencies and damping times are shifted by an amount set by the deformation parameter $a$.
  • The degeneracy of modes with different $\nu$ that holds in the commutative Reissner-Nordström theory is broken, so a detected splitting among azimuthal partners would be a direct noncommutativity signature rather than a charge or mass effect.
  • The sign of $\nu$ controls the damping asymmetry, so a ringdown signal would in principle carry information about the orientation of the noncommutative twist relative to the perturbation.
  • The near-extremal charge threshold for the phase-transition-like feature, $Q/M\sim0.9$, is robust against $a$, so any observed shift of that threshold would point to physics beyond this effective model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to check the same splitting for massive fermions, which the paper postpones; if mass suppresses the $\nu$-asymmetry, the effect is tied to the chiral structure rather than to the metric alone.
  • The $\nu$-dependent damping asymmetry resembles frame dragging although the metric is static; an immediate test is whether a slowly rotating Kerr-like metric produces a quantitatively different relation between $\nu$ and the imaginary part, which could distinguish noncommutativity from rotation in future data.
  • Because the dual metric contains the product $a q Q$, the effect vanishes for uncharged fermions or neutral black holes; simulations with $qQ=0$ would therefore serve as a control that isolates the noncommutative contribution from numerical artifacts.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies quasinormal modes of a massless charged Dirac field in a modified Reissner-Nordström spacetime whose metric acquires an off-diagonal r-φ component as an effective description of a noncommutative deformation. After writing the Dirac equation in this background, separating variables, and reducing the radial problem to a single second-order ODE, the authors convert the Frobenius series into a six-term recurrence, which is reduced by Gaussian elimination to a three-term recurrence and then solved by Leaver's continued-fraction method with Nollert tail. The numerical results show that the fundamental mode frequency depends approximately linearly on the noncommutativity parameter a and on the azimuthal quantum number ν, producing a Zeeman-like splitting in both the real and imaginary parts of the spectrum.

Significance. The analytical separation and the commutative limit are well executed: equations (19)-(21) correctly reduce to the known Dirac equations in RN when a→0, matching [82]. If the numerical results are correct, the paper provides a concrete and falsifiable signature of spacetime noncommutativity in black-hole ringdown spectra—an angular-momentum-dependent splitting of fermion QNMs. However, the quantitative claims rest on a numerical pipeline whose convergence and approximation errors are not documented, and one boundary-condition step appears to hide an O(a) effect. The strengths of the paper are the transparent derivation of the effective potential, the explicit recurrence structure, and the clear comparison with the commutative limit.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.C, Eqs. (41)-(45), footnote 4] The reduced three-term recurrence coefficients \tilde α_n, \tilde β_n, \tilde γ_n depend on aνqQ through the original six-term coefficients (37), but the Nollert tail coefficients C_k used in (45) are taken from the commutative recurrence of [82]. This discards corrections that are of the same order in aνqQ as the splitting claimed in Figures 1-4. The text reports N~200 terms and says that increasing N improves accuracy, but no tables, error bars, or an NC-aware tail computation are provided, so the numerical results cannot be independently checked. Please supply convergence data for representative parameter values and either implement the NC corrections to the tail or quantify the resulting error.
  2. [§III.B, Eqs. (33) and (35)] The Frobenius exponents δ and ϵ in (35) are stated to be unaffected by the noncommutative parameter, yet the boundary conditions (33) contain the factor (1+iaνqQ/r+) multiplying y, and the tortoise coordinate (25) also depends on aνqQ. Since y ∼ [r+^2 − i a ν q Q r+]/(r+−r−) ln(r−r+) near the horizon, the product produces an O(aνqQ) contribution to the exponent of (r−r+). With the definitions used for χ_s and ξ_s, δ should therefore acquire an O(aνqQ) correction. Using the a-independent δ from (35) in the ansatz (34) may bias the continued-fraction roots at the same order as the effect being calculated. Please either demonstrate a cancellation or derive the corrected exponents.
  3. [§II, Eq. (3) and Introduction] The physical interpretation of all numerical results relies on the equivalence between the noncommutative Dirac field on the classical RN background and the commutative Dirac field on the modified metric (3). The text states this equivalence was shown in [79], but the passage immediately before (3) spells out the duality for a charged scalar field. If [79] contains the spin-1/2 derivation, cite the specific equations; if not, the transfer to the Dirac case needs a derivation or an explicit statement that it is an assumption. Without this, the model inputs are not self-contained.
  4. [§IV, Fig. 5 and §II, Eqs. (27)-(28)] The effective potential (28), the tortoise coordinate (24), and the boundary conditions are all derived to first order in a, yet Figure 5 and several calculations use a=1. For a=1 the truncation O(a^2) is not expected to be accurate, and no second-order or independent check is given. Please restrict quantitative claims to small a or provide evidence that a=1 results are robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II, p. 4] The word 'bacause' should be 'because'.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption reads 'QMM spectrum' and should read 'QNM spectrum'.
  3. [§III.C, p. 12] The notation oscillates between ωC, ωNC and ωI, ωR; please define all symbols in one place.
  4. [§IV, p. 12-13] The text mentions precision 'up to six decimal places or more' and N~200, but no representative numerical values are printed; consider adding a table of QNM frequencies with convergence checks.
  5. [§III.A, Eq. (27)] The potential V in (28) depends explicitly on ω, so the Schrödinger form (23) has an energy-dependent potential; this should be stated explicitly since it rules out a direct WKB interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QNM frequencies are computed, not fitted; the Zeeman-like splitting follows from the input aνqQ deformation terms. Caveats are self-cited model inputs and a commutative-tail approximation in the numerical method, but neither makes the prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: adopt the effective modified-RN metric (3) and angular twist (1) from prior work [79–81]; separate the Dirac equation; derive the radial ODE (21); expand around the horizon; reduce the 6-term recurrence (36) to the 3-term form (41)–(42) by Gaussian elimination; and solve the continued-fraction condition (43) for QNM roots. No parameter is fitted to the target QNM frequencies, and the Zeeman-like splitting arises from terms proportional to iaνqQ already present in the input equations, e.g. the potential (28). The commutative limit a→0 is checked against the independent external results of [82], so the computation is anchored outside the present fitted values. The reliance on [79]–[81] for the effective metric, the twist, and the Gaussian-elimination procedure is self-citation, but these are prior published derivations of the model and method, not a uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives, and no equation defining the prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The skeptical concern about using commutative Nollert C_k coefficients (footnote 4: 'Since the commutative tail approximation suffices for our analysis, we adopt this approach in our study') is a numerical truncation/accuracy risk, not circularity: it concerns the continued-fraction tail, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Under the hard rules, this is the common honest finding of no significant circularity, with a minor self-citation caveat.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical result introduces no fitted parameters: the QNM frequencies are computed from a derived recurrence rather than fitted to data. The model inputs, however, are inherited from prior self-cited work: the angular twist, the effective metric, and the equivalence to noncommutative gauge theory. The main unquantified assumptions are the transfer of the scalar duality to fermions, the use of commutative Nollert tail coefficients, and the validity of the first-order expansion at the plotted a values.

free parameters (2)
  • a (noncommutative deformation parameter)
    Model input setting the noncommutativity scale; varied from 0 to 1 in figures. All claimed splitting is linear in a, and no independent measurement fixes it.
  • q (charge of the Dirac test field)
    Field charge entering the equations through qQ; varied in the numerical study. The splitting is proportional to qQ, so the claim depends on this choice.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The twist-deformed noncommutative gauge theory is equivalent to a commutative field on the modified RN metric (3) with the r-φ term.
    Imported from [79]; not re-derived here. The whole calculation lives in this effective geometry.
  • domain assumption The modified RN metric (3) is the appropriate background for the charged Dirac field.
    The duality in [79] is stated for charged scalar fields; transferring it to a fermion is assumed without a dedicated derivation.
  • domain assumption The angular twist (1) with θ^{tφ}=a as the only nonzero deformation component is the correct noncommutative deformation.
    Model choice from [80,81]; other twists or noncommutativity structures would give different effective metrics.
  • standard math The standard curved-space Dirac equation with minimal coupling, Eq. (5), governs the fermion on this background.
    Standard framework of Dirac fields in curved spacetime; not a new postulate.
  • domain assumption Quasinormal boundary conditions: purely outgoing at infinity and purely ingoing at the horizon.
    Standard QNM definition used to select signs in Eq. (33); different boundary conditions would give different frequencies.
  • ad hoc to paper The Nollert tail coefficients computed for the commutative recurrence in [82] approximate the noncommutative recurrence tail.
    The paper states that analytic noncommutative tail coefficients are not feasible and uses the commutative C_k; the error from this approximation is not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper The first-order-in-a truncation remains accurate for the plotted values, including a=0.1 and a=1.
    Equations are derived to O(a), but several figures use a=0.1 or a=1, where O(a^2) terms are not controlled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fermion quasinormal modes on modified RN background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5UEKVP4X

@misc{pith2026250719343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fermion quasinormal modes on modified RN background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5UEKVP4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19343}
}
abstract

Noncommutative (NC) geometry may open an alternative route to quantum gravity. We study the influence of the spacetime noncommutativity on the Dirac quasinormal modes in the modified Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole spacetime. The framework for the latter study is provided by a certain effective model of gravity coupled to fermions which in itself encapsulates noncommutative deformation. This model describes a classical Dirac field coupled to a modified Reissner-Nordstr\"om geometry where the corresponding metric acquires an additional nonvanishing $r-\varphi $ component. As the earlier study shows, this model appears to be equivalent to a model of semiclassical NC gauge theory in which a NC gauge field is being coupled to a NC fermion field on the one side and the classical Reissner-Nordstr\"om background on the other. In comparison to the undeformed model where the Dirac field is coupled to the commutative Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole, the numerical results show that the oscillation frequencies and magnitude of damping of the Dirac quasinormal modes change to an extent that cannot be neglected. In fact, the influence of spacetime noncommutativity is shown to produce features reminiscent of a Zeeman-like splitting in the effective potential and quasinormal-mode spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Dependence of the fermionic QNM frequencies on the NC parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Dependence of fermionic QNMs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Dependence of fermionic QNMs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Variation of fermionic QNMs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Real and imaginary parts of fermionic QNMs for different magnetic quantum numbers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [79]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Lewandowski, Y. Ma, and J. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 111, L081504 (2025), 2407.10168

    arXiv 2025

  2. [82]

    Dimitrijevi´ c´Ciri´ c, N

    M. Dimitrijevi´ c´Ciri´ c, N. Konjik, and A. Samsarov, Phys. Rev. D101, 116009 (2020), 1904.04053

    arXiv 2020

  3. [1]

    Regge and J

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 108, 1063 (1957)

    1957

  4. [2]

    (ωr2−qQr) 2 −i(r−M)(ωr2−qQr) ∆ −iqQ + 2iωr +pλ2 + 1 # ξ+ 1 2 (18) −

    Which one of these two values 7 ∆∂2 rξ+ 1 2 + 2(α + 1)(r−M)−iνaqQf + mr2 pλ−mrf ! ∂rξ+ 1 2 + " (ωr2−qQr) 2 −i(r−M)(ωr2−qQr) ∆ −iqQ + 2iωr +pλ2 + 1 # ξ+ 1 2 (18) − " iνaqQ r3 αr2 + (1−α)Mr−Q2 − m pλ−mr (α + 1 2)(r−M) +iωr2−iqQr− iνaqQ 2 f ! +pm2r2 # ξ+ 1 2 = 0. We point out that in the limit m,a→ 0 the above equations both reduce to the equations studied i...

    2020

  5. [3]

    F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. D 2, 2141 (1970)

    1970

  6. [4]

    F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 737 (1970)

    1970

  7. [5]

    C. V. Vishveshwara, Nature 227, 936 (1970)

    1970

  8. [6]

    W. H. Press, Astrophys. J. Lett. 170, L105 (1971)

    1971

Show all 99 references
  1. [7]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Rel. 2, 2 (1999), gr-qc/9909058

    1999 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Nollert, Class

    H.-P. Nollert, Class. Quant. Grav. 16, R159 (1999)

    1999

  3. [9]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 793 (2011), 1102.4014

    2011 arXiv

  4. [10]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), 1602.03837

    2016 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Corda, Int

    C. Corda, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 21, 1242023 (2012), 1205.5251

    2012 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Corda, Eur

    C. Corda, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2665 (2013), 1210.7747

    2013 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Corda, S

    C. Corda, S. H. Hendi, R. Katebi, and N. O. Schmidt, JHEP 06, 008 (2013), 1305.3710

    2013 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Corda, S

    C. Corda, S. H. Hendi, R. Katebi, and N. O. Schmidt, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2014, 527874 (2014), 1401.2872

    2014 arXiv

  9. [15]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D 70, 047503 (2004), hep-th/0406100

    2004 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Kiefer, Class

    C. Kiefer, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, L123 (2004), gr-qc/0406097

    2004 arXiv

  11. [17]

    H. T. Cho, Phys. Rev. D 68, 024003 (2003), gr-qc/0303078

    2003 arXiv

  12. [18]

    E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  13. [19]

    Jing, Phys

    J.-l. Jing, Phys. Rev. D 71, 124006 (2005), gr-qc/0502023

    2005 arXiv

  14. [20]

    K. H. C. Castello-Branco, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D 71, 047502 (2005), hep-th/0411055

    2005 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Wu and Z

    Y.-J. Wu and Z. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 69, 084015 (2004)

    2004

  16. [22]

    Zhidenko, Class

    A. Zhidenko, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 273 (2004), gr-qc/0307012

    2004 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Jing, Phys

    J.-l. Jing, Phys. Rev. D 69, 084009 (2004), gr-qc/0312079

    2004 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Chang and Y.-G

    J.-F. Chang and Y.-G. Shen, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45, 2357 (2006)

    2006

  19. [25]

    Arag´ on, R

    A. Arag´ on, R. B´ ecar, P. A. Gonz´ alez, and Y. V´ asquez, Phys. Rev. D103, 064006 (2021), 2009.09436

    2021 arXiv

  20. [26]

    D.-P. Du, B. Wang, and R.-K. Su, Phys. Rev. D 70, 064024 (2004), hep-th/0404047

    2004 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Lopez-Ortega, Gen

    A. Lopez-Ortega, Gen. Rel. Grav. 38, 743 (2006), gr-qc/0605022

    2006 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Lopez-Ortega, Gen

    A. Lopez-Ortega, Gen. Rel. Grav. 39, 1011 (2007), 0704.2468

    2007 arXiv

  23. [29]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D 97, 084034 (2018), 1712.06667

    2018 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Lopez-Ortega, Int

    A. Lopez-Ortega, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 18, 1441 (2009), 0905.0073

    2009 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Becar, P

    R. Becar, P. A. Gonzalez, and Y. Vasquez, Phys. Rev. D 89, 023001 (2014), 1306.5974

    2014 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Lopez-Ortega, Rev

    A. Lopez-Ortega, Rev. Mex. Fis. 56, 44 (2010), 1006.4906

    2010 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Catalan, E

    M. Catalan, E. Cisternas, P. A. Gonzalez, and Y. Vasquez, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2813 (2014), 1312.6451

    2014 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Becar, P

    R. Becar, P. A. Gonzalez, and Y. Vasquez, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2940 (2014), 1405.1509

    2014 arXiv

  29. [35]

    M. M. Stetsko, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 416 (2017), 1612.09172

    2017 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Sakalli and G

    I. Sakalli and G. T. Hyusein, Turk. J. Phys. 45, 43 (2021), 2102.03595

    2021 arXiv

  31. [37]

    J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo and C. Knoll, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 105012 (2019), 1811.02014

    2019 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Al-Badawi, S

    A. Al-Badawi, S. Kanzi, and I. Sakallı, Annals Phys. 452, 169294 (2023), 2203.04140

    2023 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Cardoso, A

    V. Cardoso, A. S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek, and V. T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064016 (2009), 0812.1806

    2009 arXiv

  34. [40]

    R. A. Konoplya and Z. Stuchl´ ık, Phys. Lett. B771, 597 (2017), 1705.05928

    2017 arXiv

  35. [41]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137674 (2023), 2210.08373

    2023 arXiv

  36. [42]

    S. V. Bolokhov, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138879 (2024), 2310.12326. 18

    2024 arXiv

  37. [43]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3194 (1974)

    1974

  38. [44]

    Unruh, Phys

    W. Unruh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 1265 (1973)

    1973

  39. [45]

    Martellini and A

    M. Martellini and A. Treves, Phys. Rev. D 15, 3060 (1977)

    1977

  40. [46]

    B. R. Iyer and A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 18, 4799 (1978)

    1978

  41. [47]

    I. M. Ternov, A. B. Gaina, and G. A. Chizhov, Sov. Phys. J. 23, 695 (1980)

    1980

  42. [48]

    S. R. Dolan and D. Dempsey, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 184001 (2015), 1504.03190

    2015 arXiv

  43. [49]

    C. H. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 68, 152 (1977)

    1977

  44. [50]

    I. M. Ternov, V. R. Khalilov, G. A. Chizhov, and A. B. Gaina, Sov. Phys. J. 21, 1200 (1978)

    1978

  45. [51]

    S. L. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2323 (1980)

    1980

  46. [52]

    J. G. Rosa and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D 85, 044043 (2012), 1110.4494

    2012 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Witek, V

    H. Witek, V. Cardoso, A. Ishibashi, and U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. D 87, 043513 (2013), 1212.0551

    2013 arXiv

  48. [54]

    P. Pani, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, E. Berti, and A. Ishibashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 131102 (2012), 1209.0465

    2012 arXiv

  49. [55]

    P. Pani, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, E. Berti, and A. Ishibashi, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104017 (2012), 1209.0773

    2012 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, JHEP 09, 032 (1999), hep-th/9908142

    1999 arXiv

  51. [57]

    M. R. Douglas and N. A. Nekrasov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 977 (2001), hep-th/0106048

    2001 arXiv

  52. [58]

    R. J. Szabo, Phys. Rept. 378, 207 (2003), hep-th/0109162

    2003 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Connes, Noncommutative geometry (1994), ISBN 978-0-12-185860-5

    A. Connes, Noncommutative geometry (1994), ISBN 978-0-12-185860-5

    1994

  54. [60]

    D. V. Ahluwalia, Phys. Lett. B 339, 301 (1994), gr-qc/9308007

    1994 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Doplicher, K

    S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen, and J. E. Roberts, Phys. Lett. B 331, 39 (1994)

    1994

  56. [62]

    Doplicher, K

    S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen, and J. E. Roberts, Commun. Math. Phys. 172, 187 (1995), hep-th/0303037

    1995 arXiv

  57. [63]

    Nowicki, E

    A. Nowicki, E. Sorace, and M. Tarlini, Phys. Lett. B 302, 419 (1993), hep-th/9212065

    1993 arXiv

  58. [64]

    Bertolami and R

    O. Bertolami and R. Queiroz, Phys. Lett. A 375, 4116 (2011), 1105.2774

    2011 arXiv

  59. [65]

    V. G. Kupriyanov, Phys. Lett. B 732, 385 (2014), 1308.1350

    2014 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Horvat, A

    R. Horvat, A. Ilakovac, P. Schupp, J. Trampetic, and J.-Y. You, Phys. Lett. B 715, 340 (2012), 1109.3085

    2012 arXiv

  61. [67]

    T. C. Adorno, M. C. Baldiotti, M. Chaichian, D. M. Gitman, and A. Tureanu, Phys. Lett. B 682, 235 (2009), 0904.2836

    2009 arXiv

  62. [68]

    Harikumar and M

    E. Harikumar and M. Sivakumar, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 26, 1103 (2011), 0910.5778

    2011 arXiv

  63. [69]

    F. M. Andrade and E. O. Silva, Phys. Lett. B 719, 467 (2013), 1212.1944

    2013 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Horvat, D

    R. Horvat, D. Kekez, P. Schupp, J. Trampetic, and J. You, Phys. Rev. D 84, 045004 (2011), 1103.3383

    2011 arXiv

  65. [71]

    Buric, D

    M. Buric, D. Latas, V. Radovanovic, and J. Trampetic, Phys. Rev. D 83, 045023 (2011), 1009.4603

    2011 arXiv

  66. [72]

    C. L. Ching, C. X. Yeo, and W. K. Ng, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1750009 (2017), 1601.04420

    2017 arXiv

  67. [73]

    Arzano and J

    M. Arzano and J. Kowalski-Glikman, Symmetry 13, 946 (2021)

    2021

  68. [74]

    S. A. Franchino-Vi˜ nas and J. J. Relancio, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 054001 (2023), 2203.12286

    2023 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Franchino-Vinas, S

    S. Franchino-Vinas, S. Mignemi, and J. J. Relancio, PoS CORFU2022, 340 (2023), 2303.08220

    2023 arXiv

  70. [76]

    K. S. Gupta, T. Juri´ c, and A. Samsarov, JHEP06, 107 (2017), 1703.00514

    2017 arXiv

  71. [77]

    Luo and C

    C. Luo and C. Wu, Can. J. Phys. 97, 562 (2019)

    2019

  72. [78]

    Malik, Annals Phys

    Z. Malik, Annals Phys. 479, 170046 (2025), 2409.01561

    2025 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Dimitrijevi´ c´Ciri´ c, N

    M. Dimitrijevi´ c´Ciri´ c, N. Konjik, and A. Samsarov, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 387 (2023), 2208.06069

    2023 arXiv

  74. [81]

    M. D. ´Ciri´ c, N. Konjik, and A. Samsarov, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 175005 (2018), 1708.04066

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Richartz and D

    M. Richartz and D. Giugno, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124011 (2014), 1409.7440

    2014 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Chowdhury and N

    A. Chowdhury and N. Banerjee, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 594 (2018), 1807.09559

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Gautschi, SIAM review 9, 24 (1967)

    W. Gautschi, SIAM review 9, 24 (1967)

    1967

  78. [86]

    Nollert, Phys

    H.-P. Nollert, Phys. Rev. D 47, 5253 (1993)

    1993

  79. [87]

    Herceg, T

    N. Herceg, T. Juri´ c, A. Samsarov, and I. Smoli´ c, JHEP06, 130 (2024), 2310.06038

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Herceg, T

    N. Herceg, T. Juri´ c, A. Samsarov, I. Smoli´ c, and K. S. Gupta, Phys. Lett. B854, 138716 (2024), 2310.06018

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Herceg, T

    N. Herceg, T. Juri´ c, A. N. Kumara, A. Samsarov, and I. Smoli´ c, JHEP05, 083 (2025), 2409.01402

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    S. L. Detweiler, Astrophys. J. 239, 292 (1980)

    1980

  83. [91]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 163001 (2009), 0905.2975

    2009 arXiv

  84. [92]

    S. K. Chakrabarti, Eur. Phys. J. C 61, 477 (2009), 0809.1004

    2009 arXiv

  85. [93]

    A. B. Gaina and G. A. Chizhov, Moscow Univ. Phys. Bull. 38N2, 1 (1983)

    1983

  86. [94]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 16, 2402 (1977)

    1977

  87. [95]

    A. B. Gaina, Sov. Phys. J. 28, 682 (1985)

    1985

  88. [96]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept. 323, 183 (2000), hep-th/9905111

    2000 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Kanti, T

    P. Kanti, T. Pappas, and N. Pappas, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124077 (2014), 1409.8664

    2014 arXiv

  90. [98]

    J. J. Oh and W. Kim, JHEP 01, 067 (2009), 0811.2632

    2009 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Sakalli and S

    I. Sakalli and S. Kanzi, Turk. J. Phys. 46, 51 (2022), 2205.01771

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.