Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Black hole interiors in the thermal view of scalar-tensor gravity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 In the thermal view of scalar-tensor gravity, the spacelike singularity inside a spherical, vacuum Brans-Dicke black hole is 'hot': the effective temperature of gravity diverges as $1/t$, and the presence of matter decides whether gravity…

desk verdict A clean, honest application of the thermal formalism to known ST Kasner solutions, with correct algebra but a load-bearing branch-selection assumption that the abstract overstates. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08322 v2 pith:T7OY4ZJZ submitted 2025-05-13 gr-qc

Valerio Faraoni This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords scalar-tensorgravityBrans-DicketheoryblackholeinteriorKasnersolutionthermalvieweffectivetemperaturespacelikesingularitygeneralrelativitylimit
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 extends the thermal view of scalar-tensor gravity—in which the scalar degree of freedom behaves as a dissipative fluid and general relativity is the zero-temperature equilibrium—to the interior of spherical, vacuum, uncharged black holes. It argues that near the spacelike singularity the geometry approaches the scalar-tensor Kasner solution, and when the scalar gradient is timelike and future-oriented the effective temperature $KT$ diverges as $1/t$ as $t\to 0^+$. The singularity is therefore 'hot', meaning gravity departs maximally from general relativity. Adding a perfect or imperfect fluid with equation of state $P=w\rho$, the paper shows that whether matter or gravitational heating dominates is decided by the sign of $w-(C+1)$, with the borderline case treated separately. A sympathetic reader would care because the result turns a generic feature of spacelike singularities—Kasner universality—into a concrete quantitative statement about how scalar-tensor gravity deviates from Einstein gravity; the paper is explicit that it treats only spherical, uncharged, vacuum interiors and leaves timelike, null, and Cauchy-horizon singularities aside.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the scalar-tensor Kasner solution, the homogeneous, anisotropic vacuum solution of Brans-Dicke gravity in which each scale factor and the scalar field follow power laws $a_i(t)=(t/t_0)^{p_i/(1+C)}$ and $\phi(t)=\phi_0(t/t_0)^{C/(1+C)}$, with modified Kasner constraints $p_1+p_2+p_3=1$ and $p_1^2+p_2^2+p_3^2=1-C(\omega C-2)$. It carries the argument because it is the explicit interior model near the singularity, and combined with the useful fact that the scalar stress-energy tensor takes dissipative-fluid form with a linear heat-flux constitutive relation, it yields Eq. (26) for $KT$ and its divergence. The companion machinery is the thermal view itself, which identifies $KT$ with the product of effective thermal conductivity and temperature and converts the field equations into a first-order equation for $KT$ whose right-hand side separates gravitational heating from matter sourcing.

What would settle it

Construct the exact interior of a spherical, vacuum, uncharged Brans-Dicke black hole matched to the Schwarzschild exterior and read off the Kasner exponent $C$. If the matched solution has $C=0$ or a spacelike $\nabla_a\phi$, the predicted $KT\propto 1/t$ divergence disappears; if it lies in $-1<C<0$, the hot-singularity claim is supported. A numerical collapse simulation in Brans-Dicke gravity could also decide the issue by tracking $C$ and the sign of $\dot\phi$ along the approach to the singularity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the thermal quantity $KT \equiv \sqrt{-\nabla^c\phi\nabla_c\phi}/(8\pi\phi)$, the closest scalar-tensor gravity comes to defining a temperature of gravity relative to general relativity, diverges as $KT = |C|/[8\pi(C+1)t]$ near the spacelike singularity of a spherical, vacuum, uncharged Brans-Dicke black hole, provided the interior is described by the scalar-tensor Kasner solution with $-1<C<0$. Because $KT\to\infty$ while the general-relativistic Kasner solution has $C=0$ and $KT=0$, the singularity is 'hot': gravity does not return to Einstein gravity but instead departs from it maximally. With a barotropic fluid $P=w\rho$, the matter contribution scales as $t^{-(w+C+1)/(C+1)}$, so matter dominates the gravitational heating terms when $w>C+1$, while gravity approaches general relativity when $w<C+1$; at the border $w=C+1$, the evolution of $KT$ is governed by a coefficient whose sign depends on the initial data and on $C$. The paper also discusses the degenerate $C=-1$ solution, for which $KT$ remains constant at $1/(8\pi t_0)$ on the fixed-point line $8\pi KT=\Theta$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that, very near the singularity, the interior of a spherical vacuum Brans-Dicke black hole is accurately described by the homogeneous vacuum scalar-tensor Kasner solution with the scalar field changing only in time and in the forward time direction (the parameter range $-1<C<0$); the paper calls this 'reasonable to expect' and does not prove it by matching the interior to the Schwarzschild exterior with constant scalar on the horizon, so if the interior were instead the general-relativistic Kasner solution ($C=0$) or had a spacelike scalar gradient, the thermal view would not apply and the hot-singularity conclusion would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Where the scalar-tensor Kasner behaviour holds with $-1<C<0$, the effective thermal temperature $KT=|C|/[8\pi(C+1)t]$ diverges to $+\infty$ as $t\to 0^+$, so gravity departs maximally from general relativity rather than returning to it.
  • For a barotropic fluid with $P=w\rho$, the matter term scales as $t^{-(w+C+1)/(C+1)}$; it dominates over the gravitational heating terms when $w>C+1$, while gravity approaches general relativity when $w<C+1$.
  • A radiation fluid or any conformal matter with $T^{(m)}=0$ leaves the thermal evolution of $KT$ unchanged, since its trace vanishes.
  • At the border $w=C+1$, the sign of $d(KT)/dt$ depends on the initial data through a coefficient that can be tuned, so whether gravity heats up or cools down near the singularity is decided by initial conditions rather than by the equation of state alone.
  • If quantization introduces a scalar degree of freedom, Kasner-transition studies in bouncing universes should use scalar-tensor field equations rather than the Einstein equations alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Kasner-universality premise is eventually confirmed by an explicit interior solution matched to the Schwarzschild exterior, the same calculation would give a quantitative, theory-dependent 'distance from GR' that could be compared across higher-order, Horndeski, and DHOST extensions, where Kasner eons are already documented.
  • The borderline case $w=C+1$ behaves like a critical point: depending on initial data, the matter and gravitational heating terms balance to either heat, cool, or freeze $KT$. A natural next calculation is the linear stability of this balance under small anisotropies or fluid shear.
  • Because the paper's classical formalism cannot cure the singularity, a semiclassical treatment of the scalar fluid near $t\to 0^+$ could test whether the divergent $KT$ is cut off by quantum-gravity effects, turning the hot singularity into a finite-temperature phase.
  • The paper leaves open whether the same thermal language applies to charged or rotating black holes, whose singularities are timelike or null; testing the hot-singularity idea there would be a direct extension, but the paper warns that no Kasner-type universality is known in those settings.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the author's 'thermal view' of scalar-tensor gravity to the interior of spherical, vacuum Brans-Dicke black holes. The effective temperature KT = |∇φ|/(8πφ) is evaluated on the scalar-tensor Kasner solution. Under the assumption that physical interiors approach the ST Kasner branch with -1<C<0, KT diverges as 1/t near the singularity, so the singularity is 'hot' (Eq. (26)). The paper then adds a barotropic fluid P=wρ and identifies conditions under which the matter term dominates, is subdominant, or balances the gravitational terms, including the borderline w=C+1 in Eq. (34). The central claim is the divergence of KT and the associated maximal departure from GR.

Significance. If the branch-selection premise is granted, the main computation is correct and the paper gives a compact, transparent illustration of the thermal formalism. The scaling exponents leading to Eq. (33) and the sign structure of Eq. (34) are easily checked, and the paper correctly emphasizes that the no-hair theorem fixes only the exterior, not the interior branch. The paper is also explicit about the conditional status of the Kasner assumption, which is a strength. The main result is nevertheless conditional, not a proof of a generic 'hot singularity' for all spherical ST black holes; the Einstein-frame symmetry concern about branch selection is a real correctness risk. I do not regard the definitional fact that GR has KT=0 as an internal inconsistency, since the quantitative divergence in Eq. (26) is a nontrivial statement.

major comments (2)
  1. [Black hole interiors via the ST Kasner solution, Eqs. (24)-(26)] The central claim that the singularity is 'hot' rests entirely on selecting the ST Kasner branch with -1<C<0, so that ∇aφ is timelike and future-oriented. The manuscript justifies this selection only by saying it is 'reasonable to expect' and by citing Refs. [43]-[47], which concern higher-order gravity, f(R), Horndeski/DHOST, and Lovelock theories rather than first-generation Brans-Dicke collapse. No interior solution matching the no-hair Schwarzschild exterior with φ=φ0 on the horizon is constructed, and the no-hair theorem constrains only the exterior. In the Einstein frame, the massless canonical scalar has a σ→-σ symmetry that generates equally generic solutions with the opposite scalar velocity, and these can map to branches with C≥0 or C≤-1, outside the range (25); for those branches the scalar gradient is not timelike future-oriented and KT is not positive. Consequently, the hot-singularity statement is not established for generic spherical, vacuum Brans-Dicke black holes. Please either supply a proof or a precise citation establishing the branch selection, or explicitly restrict the conclusions to the -1<C<0 family and adjust the title and abstract accordingly.
  2. [Including matter, V(φ) and ω(φ), Eq. (34)] Equation (34) drops the factor (2ω+3) that appears in Eq. (10); the coefficient should be C/[8π(C+1)] + (3C+2)ρ0 t0^2/[(2ω+3)φ0] before the 1/t^2 factor. This is minor in itself, since ω>-3/2 keeps the sign discussion unchanged. More substantively, the borderline case w=C+1 is precisely the case in which the matter term scales with the same power as the vacuum terms, so evaluating the right-hand side of Eq. (10) with the vacuum power-law KT∼1/t and then identifying a coefficient choice that makes d(KT)/dt=0 (and hence KT=const) is not self-consistent: if the exact solution has KT=const, the assumed t^{-2} scaling is not the actual solution. Please clarify whether Eq. (34) is exact or an estimate, and if it is an estimate, justify it at the borderline.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Near Eq. (29)] There is a typo in 'straightworward'; it should read 'straightforward'.
  2. [Reference [48]] The title contains 'Kazner' and 'Taub-kazner'; these should be 'Kasner' and 'Taub-Kasner'.
  3. [Reference [49]] The DOI '10.1103/22w4-v2xn' appears to be a placeholder and should be replaced with the correct DOI.
  4. [Eq. (23)] For completeness, state the range of C for which the right-hand side of Eq. (23) yields real Kasner exponents.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity in the derivation chain: Eq. (26) is an algebraic evaluation of the defined thermal variable on the known ST Kasner solution; the unsupported branch selection (-1<C<0) is a correctness gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's core calculation is a straightforward, self-contained evaluation of its own definition on an existing exact solution. The chain is: (i) the thermal analogy defines KT = sqrt(-∇φ^2)/(8πφ) (Eq. 7), with GR (constant φ) as KT = 0; (ii) the vacuum Brans-Dicke Kasner solution gives φ(t) = φ0 (t/t0)^{C/(C+1)} (Eq. 22); (iii) future-oriented ∇φ selects -1<C<0 (Eqs. 24-25); (iv) substitution gives KT = |C|/(8π(C+1)t) (Eq. 26), which diverges as t→0+. No parameter is fitted to KT, no prediction is imported from a self-citation, and the divergence is not assumed: the same definition yields a finite constant KT for the C=-1 degenerate solution (Eq. 29), so the computation has distinguishing content. The 'hot' label is a semantic consequence of defining temperature via KT, but the quantitative claim of a 1/t divergence is not equivalent to the input by construction. The main weakness is the unproven premise that a generic spherical Brans-Dicke interior approaches the ST Kasner branch with -1<C<0; the paper explicitly says this is 'reasonable to expect' and cites indications from higher-order, Horndeski, and Lovelock gravity rather than proving first-generation ST collapse selects this branch. That is an assumption and a correctness risk, not circularity. The self-citations [19-21,24,26,49] establish the thermal framework and the phase-plane interpretation, but the present derivation is algebraically self-contained once those definitions are given, and none of the cited results is used to forbid alternatives or to force Eq. (26). The matter-sector scaling analysis (Eqs. 33-34) is likewise a power-counting comparison from the same explicit solution, not a fitted-input renaming. Therefore the honest circularity finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

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

The central claim rests on the choice of the ST Kasner solution (parameter C), the definition of the effective temperature from the author's thermal framework, the assumed universality of Kasner behavior near spacelike singularities in ST gravity, and the standard scaling of fluid densities. None of these are fitted to data; they are modeling and interpretation choices. The paper introduces no new physical entities, only an effective temperature quantity that was defined in prior work.

free parameters (2)
  • C = C1/C2 (ratio of integration constants in the ST Kasner solution) = not fitted; assumed in range -1<C<0
    KT ~ |C|/(8π(C+1)t) and the matter dominance threshold w<C+1 both depend on C. The paper restricts C by hand to keep ∇φ timelike future-oriented, but does not determine C for physical black holes.
  • w (barotropic equation-of-state parameter) = constant, not specified
    The sign and magnitude of matter's effect on KT depend on w. It is an input of the fluid model, not fitted from data, but the central matter-scaling conclusion relies on its assumed constancy and value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Near a spacelike singularity, the geometry becomes ultralocal and is described by Kasner epochs; this universality extends to first-generation scalar-tensor gravity.
    The paper applies the homogeneous ST Kasner solution to black hole interiors based on 'strong indications' and 'reasonable to expect', but no proof is given for ST gravity (Section 'Black hole interiors via the ST Kasner solution', second paragraph).
  • domain assumption The effective temperature of gravity is defined by KT = sqrt(-∇φ·∇φ)/(8πφ), with GR corresponding to KT=0.
    This is the foundation of the thermal view, built in the author's earlier work [19-21,26]; the physical meaning of 'hot' depends on this analogy, not on a measured temperature (Eq. (7)).
  • ad hoc to paper In vacuum Brans-Dicke gravity with ω=const and V=0, the interior near the singularity is the ST Kasner solution with -1<C<0, so that ∇φ is timelike and future-oriented.
    The range -1<C<0 is imposed to make the thermal view applicable (Eqs. (24)-(25)). Whether real black hole interiors select this range is not established; C=0 would give the GR Kasner and KT=0.
  • domain assumption The fluid density and pressure scale as ρ ~ a^{-3(w+1)} and the vacuum Kasner exponents can be used to estimate term sizes.
    Standard Bianchi I scaling, used to compare matter and gravitational terms; the paper cites [42] for exact gravitating Bianchi I solutions (Section 'Including matter, V(φ) and ω(φ)').

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black hole interiors in the thermal view of scalar-tensor gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7OY4ZJZ

@misc{pith2026250508322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black hole interiors in the thermal view of scalar-tensor gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7OY4ZJZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08322}
}
read the original abstract

The thermal view of scalar-tensor gravity is an analogy with a dissipative fluid. The scalar degree of freedom excites gravity to a positive ``temperature'', while Einstein gravity is the ``zero-temperature'' equilibrium state. We extend this thermal analogy to the interior region near the singularity of spherical, vacuum, uncharged black holes by using the universality of the Kasner behaviour near spacelike singularities. The singularity is ``hot'', meaning that gravity diverges from general relativity. The discussion is then extended to black holes in the presence of perfect or imperfect fluids with constant equation of state -- the latter determines whether Einstein gravity is approached or not.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Gravitational Waves as Thermodynamic Shear Excitations in Scalar-Tensor Gravity

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    In scalar-tensor gravity, a transverse-traceless gravitational wave performs gauge-invariant shear work on the scalar-field fluid, with power = (KT/4) times the squared strain rate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [48]

    Kasner eons in Lovelock black holes,

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, R. A. Hennigar and M. D. Li, “Kasner eons in Lovelock black holes,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.12, 124015 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.124015 [arXiv:2409.00648 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [43]

    Belinski and M

    V. Belinski and M. Henneaux, The Cosmological Sin- gularity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017 doi:10.1017/9781107239333

    doi:10.1017/9781107239333 2017

  3. [47]

    On The Existence Of Anisotropic Cosmological Models In Higher-Order Theories Of Gravity

    J. Middleton, “On The Existence Of Anisotropic Cos- mological Models In Higher-Order Theories Of Gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav.27, 225013 (2010) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/27/22/225013 [arXiv:1007.4669 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  4. [1]

    distance

    GR solution, but at a finite constant “distance”KT from it, which seems bizarre. To understand this situa- tion, note that the expansion scalar Θ = 1 a3 d(a3) dt = 1 t0 = 8πKT (30) and, since we arein vacuo, d (KT ) dt =KT (8πKT −Θ) = 0, (31) allowingKT to remain constant. Indeed, Ref. [49] identi- fied the(Θ,KT ) plane as a convenient description of vac-...

    work page

  5. [2]

    Classical Gravity with Higher Derivatives,

    K. S. Stelle, “Classical Gravity with Higher Derivatives,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 9, 353-371 (1978) doi:10.1007/BF00760427

    doi:10.1007/bf00760427 1978

  6. [3]

    Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity,

    K. S. Stelle, “Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 16, 953-969 (1977) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.953

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.953 1977

  7. [4]

    Quantum String Theory Effective Action,

    E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Quantum String Theory Effective Action,” Nucl. Phys. B 261, 1-27 (1985) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 269, 745-745 (1986)] doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90559-0

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90559-0 1985

  8. [5]

    Strings in Background Fields,

    C. G. Callan, Jr., E. J. Martinec, M. J. Perry and D. Friedan, “Strings in Background Fields,” Nucl. Phys. B 262, 593-609 (1985) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90506-1

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90506-1 1985

Show all 55 references
  1. [6]

    The Expansion of the Universe is Faster than Expected,

    A. G. Riess, “The Expansion of the Universe is Faster than Expected,” Nature Rev. Phys.2, no.1, 10-12 (2019) doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0137-0 [arXiv:2001.03624 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [7]

    A New Type of Isotropic Cosmolog- ical Models Without Singularity,

    A. A. Starobinsky, “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmolog- ical Models Without Singularity,” Phys. Lett. B91, 99- 102 (1980), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

    1980 doi

  3. [8]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa,Dark Energy: Theory and Observations, Cambridge University Press, 2015, ISBN 978-1-107-45398-2

    2015

  4. [9]

    In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of so- lutions,

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess and J. Silk, “In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of so- lutions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38, no.15, 153001 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d [arXiv:2103.01183 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [10]

    f(R) theories,

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, “ f(R) theories,” Liv- ing Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010) doi:10.12942/lrr-2010- 3[arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]]

    2010 arXiv

  6. [11]

    f(R) Theories of Gravity,

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, “ f(R) Theories of Gravity,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451-497 (2010) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.451 [arXiv:0805.1726 [gr- qc]]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Mach’s principle and a rel- ativistic theory of gravitation

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, “Mach’s principle and a rel- ativistic theory of gravitation”, Phys. Rev.124, 925-935 (1961) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.124.925

    1961 doi

  8. [13]

    Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F (R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models,

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, “Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F (R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models,” Phys. Rept. 505, 59-144 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001[arXiv:1011.0544 [gr-qc]]

    2011 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Equivalence Principle for Massive Bod- ies. 2. Theory

    K. Nordtvedt, “Equivalence Principle for Massive Bod- ies. 2. Theory”, Phys. Rev. 169, 1017-1025 (1968) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.169.1017

    1968 doi

  10. [15]

    Comments on the scalar ten- sor theory

    P. G. Bergmann, “Comments on the scalar ten- sor theory”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 1, 25-36 (1968) doi:10.1007/BF00668828

    1968 doi

  11. [16]

    PostNewtonian metric for a gen- eral class of scalar tensor gravitational theories and ob- servational consequences

    K. Nordtvedt, Jr., “PostNewtonian metric for a gen- eral class of scalar tensor gravitational theories and ob- servational consequences”, Astrophys. J.161, 1059-1067 (1970) doi:10.1086/150607

    1970 doi

  12. [17]

    Scalar tensor theory and gravita- tional waves

    R. V. Wagoner, “Scalar tensor theory and gravita- tional waves”, Phys. Rev. D 1, 3209-3216 (1970) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.1.3209

    1970 doi

  13. [18]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativ- ity, Chicago University Press, 1984, doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226870373.001.0001

    1984

  14. [19]

    Second-order scalar-tensor field equa- tions in a four-dimensional space

    G. W. Horndeski, “Second-order scalar-tensor field equa- tions in a four-dimensional space”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974) doi:10.1007/BF01807638

    1974 doi

  15. [20]

    New ap- proach to the thermodynamics of scalar-tensor gravity,

    V. Faraoni, A. Giusti and A. Mentrelli, “New ap- proach to the thermodynamics of scalar-tensor gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.12, 124031 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.124031 [arXiv:2110.02368 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Thermodynamics of scalar- tensor gravity,

    V. Faraoni and A. Giusti, “Thermodynamics of scalar- tensor gravity,” Phys. Rev. D103, no.12, L121501 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L121501 [arXiv:2103.05389 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Faraoni, S

    V. Faraoni, S. Giardino, A. Giusti and R. Vander- wee, “Scalar field as a perfect fluid: thermodynam- ics of minimally coupled scalars and Einstein frame scalar-tensor Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.1, 24 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11186-7 [arXiv:2208.04051 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [23]

    First-order thermodynamics of Horndeski grav- ity,

    A. Giusti, S. Zentarra, L. Heisenberg and V. Faraoni, “First-order thermodynamics of Horndeski grav- ity,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.12, 124011 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.124011 [arXiv:2108.10706 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Alternative formulations of the thermodynam- ics of scalar-tensor theories,

    L. Gallerani, M. Miranda, A. Giusti and A. Men- trelli, “Alternative formulations of the thermodynam- ics of scalar-tensor theories,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.6, 064087 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.064087 [arXiv:2405.20865 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [25]

    First-order thermodynamics of scalar-tensor cosmology,

    S. Giardino, V. Faraoni and A. Giusti, “First-order thermodynamics of scalar-tensor cosmology,” JCAP04, no.04, 053 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/053 [arXiv:2202.07393 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [26]

    Imperfect fluid description of modified gravities,

    V. Faraoni and J. Côté, “Imperfect fluid description of modified gravities,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 8, 084019 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084019 [arXiv:1808.02427 [gr- qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Relativistic cosmology,

    G. F. R. Ellis, “Relativistic cosmology,” Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Fermi47, 104-182 (1971), republished inGen. Rel- ativ. Gravit. 41, 581-660 (2009) doi:10.1007/s10714-009- 0760-7

    1971 doi

  23. [28]

    The thermodynamics of irreversible pro- cesses. 3. Relativistic theory of the simple fluid,

    C. Eckart, “The thermodynamics of irreversible pro- cesses. 3. Relativistic theory of the simple fluid,” Phys. Rev. 58, 919-924 (1940), doi:10.1103/PhysRev.58.919

    1940 doi

  24. [29]

    Equivalence between Horn- deski and beyond Horndeski theories and imper- fect fluids,

    U. Nucamendi, R. De Arcia, T. Gonzalez, F. A. Horta- Rangel and I. Quiros, “Equivalence between Horn- deski and beyond Horndeski theories and imper- fect fluids,” Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.8, 084054, 6 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.084054 [arXiv:1910.13026 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Relativistic fluid dy- namics: Physics for many different scales,

    N. Andersson and G. L. Comer, “Relativistic fluid dy- namics: Physics for many different scales,” Living Rev. Rel. 10, 1 (2007), doi:10.12942/lrr-2007-1 [arXiv:gr- qc/0605010 [gr-qc]]

    2007

  26. [31]

    Causal thermodynamics in relativity,

    R. Maartens, “Causal thermodynamics in relativity,” [arXiv:astro-ph/9609119 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv

  27. [32]

    Black holes in general relativ- ity,

    S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in general relativ- ity,” Commun. Math. Phys. 25, 152-166 (1972) doi:10.1007/BF01877517

    1972 doi

  28. [33]

    Black holes in the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation,

    S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation,” Commun. Math. Phys. 25, 167-171 (1972) doi:10.1007/BF01877518

    1972 doi

  29. [34]

    No hair for spher- ical black holes: Charged and nonminimally coupled scalar field with self-interaction,

    A. E. Mayo and J. D. Bekenstein, “No hair for spher- ical black holes: Charged and nonminimally coupled scalar field with self-interaction,” Phys. Rev. D54, 5059- 5069 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.5059 [arXiv:gr- qc/9602057 [gr-qc]]

    1996

  30. [35]

    Black hole hair: 25 years after,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Black hole hair: 25 years after,” [arXiv:gr-qc/9605059 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  31. [36]

    Jordan frame no-hair for spherical scalar-tensor black holes,

    V. Faraoni, “Jordan frame no-hair for spherical scalar-tensor black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 95, no.12, 124013 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124013 [arXiv:1705.07134 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Brans-Dicke Theory with Λ > 0: Black Holes and Large Scale Struc- tures,

    S. Bhattacharya, K. F. Dialektopoulos, A. E. Ro- mano and T. N. Tomaras, “Brans-Dicke Theory with Λ > 0: Black Holes and Large Scale Struc- tures,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no.18, 181104 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.181104 [arXiv:1505.02375 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [38]

    No-hair theorems in General Relativity and scalar-tensor theories,

    S. Yazadjiev and D. Doneva, “No-hair theorems in General Relativity and scalar-tensor theories,” [arXiv:2505.01038 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  34. [39]

    Black holes in scalar- tensor gravity,

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, “Black holes in scalar- tensor gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 081103 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.081103 [arXiv:1109.6324 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [40]

    Oscillatory approach to a singular point in the rel- ativistic cosmology

    V. A. Belinsky, I. M. Khalatnikov and E. M. Lifshitz, “Oscillatory approach to a singular point in the rel- ativistic cosmology”, Adv. Phys. 19, 525-573 (1970) doi:10.1080/00018737000101171

    1970 doi

  36. [41]

    Poisson, A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics, Cambridge University Press 2009 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511606601

    E. Poisson, A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics, Cambridge University Press 2009 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511606601

    2009 doi

  37. [42]

    heats up

    by comparing terms in the field equations and using the vacuum Kasner solution to estimate the gravitational and matter terms (cf. Eq. (15) of [42]). Gravity and the matter term scale with the same power of 1/t as t→ 0+ if w = C + 1 > 0, in which case (not discussed in [42] or...

    2023

  38. [44]

    On the initial sin- gularity in the scalar-tensor anisotropic cosmology

    V. A. Ruban and A. M. Finkelstein, “On the initial sin- gularity in the scalar-tensor anisotropic cosmology”,Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 6, 601-638 (1975)

    1975

  39. [45]

    On the Approach to the Cosmological Singularity in Quadratic Theories of Gravity: The Kasner Regimes,

    N. Deruelle, “On the Approach to the Cosmological Singularity in Quadratic Theories of Gravity: The Kasner Regimes,” Nucl. Phys. B 327, 253-266 (1989) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90294-0

    1989 doi

  40. [46]

    Further exact cosmological solutions to higher-order gravity theories,

    T. Clifton and J. D. Barrow, “Further exact cosmological solutions to higher-order gravity theories,” Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 2951 (2006) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/9/011 [arXiv:gr-qc/0601118 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kasner epochs, eras and eons,

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano and R. A. Hennigar, “Kasner epochs, eras and eons,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.4, L041503 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L041503 [arXiv:2402.14912 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Generalization of the taub-kazner cosmological metric in the scalar- tensor gravitation theory,

    V. A. Ruban and A. M. Finkelstein, “Generalization of the taub-kazner cosmological metric in the scalar- tensor gravitation theory,” Lett. Nuovo Cim.5S2, 289- 293 (1972) doi:10.1007/BF02752628

    1972 doi

  43. [51]

    Thermal Origin of the Attractor-to-General-Relativity in Scalar-Tensor Grav- ity,

    V. Faraoni and A. Giusti, “Thermal Origin of the Attractor-to-General-Relativity in Scalar-Tensor Grav- ity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, no.21, 211406 (2025) doi:10.1103/22w4-v2xn [arXiv:2502.18272 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A generalized Kas- ner transition for bouncing Bianchi I models in modified gravity theories,

    M. de Cesare and E. Wilson-Ewing, “A generalized Kas- ner transition for bouncing Bianchi I models in modified gravity theories,” JCAP12, 039 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2019/12/039 [arXiv:1910.03616 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Thermodynamics of space-time: The Einstein equation of state,

    T. Jacobson, “Thermodynamics of space-time: The Einstein equation of state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1260, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1260 [arXiv:gr- qc/9504004 [gr-qc]]

    1995

  46. [54]

    Non-equilibrium thermodynamics of spacetime,

    C. Eling, R. Guedens, and T. Jacobson, “Non-equilibrium thermodynamics of spacetime,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 121301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.121301 [arXiv:gr-qc/0602001 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Naked and thunder- bolt singularities in black hole evaporation,

    S. W. Hawking and J. M. Stewart, “Naked and thunder- bolt singularities in black hole evaporation,” Nucl. Phys. B 400, 393-415 (1993) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90410- Q [arXiv:hep-th/9207105 [hep-th]]

    1993 arXiv

Pith tools

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