Vector wormholes as conduits for matter interaction

\'Alvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz; Bruno J. Barros; Francisco S.N. Lobo; Nailya Ganiyeva

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Vector wormholes as conduits for matter interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a massive, self-interacting one-form field minimally coupled to Einstein gravity can support a traversable wormhole while ordinary matter satisfies all classical energy conditions, provided the vector sector contains…

desk verdict A competent solution-generating paper with honest limitations; the stress-test note about a missing mass term is wrong, but real typos and an incorrect limit claim need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19408 v2 pith:TQ27H7ME submitted 2024-12-27 gr-qc

Nailya Ganiyeva , Bruno J. Barros , Álvaro de la Cruz-Dombriz , Francisco S.N. Lobo This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc

keywords traversablewormholesmassiveone-formfieldsvectorenergyconditionsnullconditionghostdegreesoffreedomconformalcouplingEinsteingravity

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 argues that a massive one-form field---a vector field with a self-interacting potential---minimally coupled to Einstein gravity can hold open a traversable wormhole. In a tuned parameter set (Case VI of Table I), ordinary matter satisfies all classical energy conditions everywhere in the wormhole domain, while the vector field itself violates the null energy condition. The mechanism is tied to a ghost: the wormhole-supporting condition $\rho_\zeta-\tau_\zeta<0$ is equivalent to $dV/dB^2<0$, the opposite of the ghost-free requirement for a massive vector theory. When matter is coupled to the vector through a conformal factor, it can be made non-exotic near the throat, but the null energy condition is still violated far away. The paper thus proposes a way to keep the matter sector classically healthy at the cost of a ghost in the field sector.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a massive one-form $B_\mu$ (a vector field) with kinetic term $F^2/4$ and self-interacting potential $V(B^2)$, whose presence breaks gauge invariance. The identity carrying the argument is Eq. (18), $\rho_\zeta - \tau_\zeta = \zeta^2\,dV/dB^2$: wormhole support requires this combination to be negative, while ghost-freedom requires $dV/dB^2>0$, so every supported wormhole contains a ghost mode. The solutions are produced by fixing power-law profiles for the redshift function, shape function, and vector field, $\Phi=\Phi_0(r_0/r)^\alpha$, $b=r_0(r_0/r)^\beta$, $\zeta=\zeta_0(r_0/r)^\gamma$, which turns the field equation into a first-order ODE for $V$ and gives the analytic potential Eq. (30). In the coupled case, the conformal factor $\Omega^2=\exp(-2\sigma B^2)$ transfers energy between matter and the vector field and yields the analytic potential Eq. (46).

What would settle it

Rewrite the Case VI potential from Eq. (30) as a function of $B^2$, expand the action to quadratic order in perturbations around the wormhole background, and look for the negative-energy mode: if the Hamiltonian is bounded from below despite $dV/dB^2<0$ at the throat, or if a tachyon appears, the paper's ghost-based NEC-violation mechanism is not the full story.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the theory $S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}(R/2 - F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}/4 - V(B^2)) + S_m$ admits static, spherically symmetric traversable wormhole solutions whose only exotic ingredient is the vector field. At the throat the vector's null energy condition is violated when $\gamma+\alpha\Phi_0>0$, and Eq. (18) identifies this violation with $dV/dB^2<0$, i.e., with at least one ghost degree of freedom. For Case VI ($\alpha=0$, $\beta=0.02$, $\gamma=0.01$, $\zeta_0=15$) the matter density and the matter null energy combinations $\rho_m-\tau_m$ and $\rho_m+p_m$ remain non-negative over the entire radial domain, so ordinary matter threads the wormhole without violating any classical energy condition. In the conformally coupled extension, strong enough coupling ($\tilde\sigma<0$ with large magnitude, or large $\zeta_0$) makes matter non-exotic near the throat, but the asymptotic expansion shows the radial matter NEC inevitably becomes negative at large distances.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the reconstructed self-interacting potentials $V(r)$ are physically acceptable field-theory potentials, even though no independent condition of positivity, ghost-freedom, tachyon-freedom, or derivation from a fundamental action is imposed on them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Wormhole spacetimes can be sustained without ordinary matter violating the energy conditions, as long as the vector sector carries at least one ghost degree of freedom.
Case VI is a full-domain example where $\rho_m\ge0$, $\rho_m-\tau_m\ge0$, and $\rho_m+p_m\ge0$ hold everywhere, so none of the classical energy conditions fails for matter.
In the conformally coupled case, the radial matter NEC is positive near the throat for strong negative $\tilde\sigma$ or large $\zeta_0$, but the NEC violation at large radius is unavoidable.
Because $\rho_\zeta-\tau_\zeta=\zeta^2\,dV/dB^2$, a ghost-free massive vector theory with $dV/dB^2>0$ cannot support these wormholes; the ghost is a necessary price.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same reconstruction logic could be applied to higher-rank $n$-form fields, where the identity linking NEC violation to the potential slope would likely take an analogous form, potentially generalizing the mechanism to string-inspired actions.
An open question the paper does not settle is whether the reconstructed $V(r)$ for Case VI can be written as a bounded-below function of $B^2$; computing that explicitly would tell whether the solution is a genuine effective field theory or a reconstruction artifact.
The conformal-coupling result suggests a possible no-go beyond this ansatz: making matter fully non-exotic at all radii may require a coupling that does more than transfer energy through a Weyl scaling, or additional fields beyond the one-form.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a competent solution-generating exercise, not a breakthrough. The stress-test note about the mass term does not hold up on reading Eq. (30): the leading large-r behavior is V ∼ const × (−B²), i.e. linear in B², so a Proca mass is present (with the ghost sign, which is exactly what the mechanism needs). The claimed exponent (γ+1)/γ appears to misread the overall η^{2γ} factor. So the massive one-form premise is fine.

What is new and good: the paper gives explicit wormhole solutions with a reconstructed self-interacting potential and a conformal matter coupling. Case VI is a genuine tuned example where ordinary matter satisfies all energy conditions on the whole domain while the vector sector carries the NEC violation. The ghost-necessity argument (Eq. 18 and the discussion around it) is clear and correct in spirit. The coupled-case analysis is honest: it shows NEC compliance only near the throat and states plainly that distant violation is inevitable.

Soft spots, in proportion. Eq. (18) as printed is missing a factor of 2 in dV/dζ = −2ζ dV/dB²; the sign conclusion survives, so this is a typo. Eq. (46) contains a bare 2σ̃ term, so V does not vanish at infinity; more importantly, the claimed σ→0 limit in Eq. (47) does not match Eq. (30) for (α,β,γ)=(0,1,1). A direct substitution into Eq. (30) gives V ∼ ζ₀²η⁴/(6r₀²), not η⁶. That limit claim needs correction or derivation. The biggest physical gap is that the reconstructed V is never checked for stability beyond the ghost criterion: no fluctuation analysis, no UV-completion or EFT-validity discussion, so the solutions remain‘mathematical artifacts’ unless such a sector exists. The paper itself acknowledges the stability challenge, which is fair, but a referee should ask for more than a handwave.

Citation pattern is fine; self-citations are to earlier vector-wormhole work and are appropriate. The writing is clear and the algebra is explicit.

Who this is for: wormhole aficionados and vector-tensor gravity people. It is a solid, citable construction, not a landmark.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. The errors are fixable typos and a wrong limit claim, not a load-bearing flaw. With the limit corrected and a modest stability discussion added, it would be acceptable.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies traversable wormhole solutions sourced by a self-interacting one-form field B minimally coupled to Einstein gravity. The authors adopt the Morris-Thorne metric, choose power-law ansätze for the redshift, shape, and vector-field functions, integrate the vector field equation to reconstruct the potential V(B^2), and then classify the energy conditions for six parameter sets (Table I). They identify a special case (Case VI) in which ordinary matter satisfies all classical energy conditions while the vector field violates the NEC. The paper then adds a conformal coupling of matter to the vector field via Ω = exp(-σB^2), derives a potential in the α=0, β=γ=1 case, and claims that strong coupling renders matter non-exotic near the throat while the NEC is inevitably violated asymptotically.

Significance. If correct, the minimally coupled construction is a useful explicit example: a self-interacting vector field can concentrate the NEC violation needed for the wormhole throat while ordinary matter remains non-exotic, and the relation between the wormhole support condition and a ghost-like instability is made explicit. The paper is transparent about the stability caveats and provides closed-form expressions for the reconstructed potentials. The major value is in the explicit solution-generating construction of Sec. III. However, the coupled section is built on a closed-form potential that does not satisfy its own field equation, and the reconstructed minimal potentials have no Proca mass term at the asymptotic vacuum, so the advertised 'massive one-form' interpretation is not realized by the solutions.

major comments (3)

[IV.B, Eq. (46)] Equation (46) does not satisfy the differential equation (45) from which it is claimed to be derived. With x = σ̃η², Eq. (45) is equivalent to (1-x)dV/dη + 4σ̃ηV = (ζ0² - 2σ̃)η⁵/r0². Differentiating Eq. (46) gives, for small η, dV/dη ≈ -2ζ0²η/(σ̃²r0²), whereas the differential equation requires dV/dη ≈ -8σ̃²η when V(0) = 2σ̃ is used; these agree only for a special parameter combination. Consequently, Eq. (47) cannot be the σ → 0 limit of Eq. (46), since the latter diverges as σ̃ → 0. Because Fig. 4 and the conclusions of Sec. IV are based on Eq. (46), the coupled wormhole analysis must be redone with the correct solution of Eq. (45). Independently, Eq. (46) gives V → 2σ̃ as η → 0, so the potential does not vanish at infinity; the authors neither impose this boundary condition nor discuss the resulting effective cosmological-constant term.
[III, Eq. (30)] For every case in Table I, the reconstructed potential (30) has V'(0) = 0, so the asymptotic vector field is massless. For α = 0 and generic γ, the leading small-η behavior gives V ∼ C(−B²)^{(γ+1)/γ} with (γ+1)/γ > 1; for γ = 1 the leading coefficient vanishes and the next term gives V ∼ η⁶ (α = 0) or V ∼ η^{α+4} (α > 0), again super-quadratic in B². Thus the vacuum B = 0 corresponds to massless Maxwell theory, not to a Proca theory with three massive vector degrees of freedom. The abstract and Sec. II frame the wormholes as supported by a massive one-form, and the ghost-stability criterion of Ref. [47] is invoked for massive vector theories. The solutions presented do not realize that premise. The authors should either construct solutions with a genuine m²B²/2 mass term or revise the physical interpretation, including the degree-of-freedom count and the applicability of the ghost criterion.
[III.A, Fig. 3] The claim that Case VI satisfies 'all the classical energy conditions, from the null to the dominant' is not fully evidenced by the plotted quantities. The left panel of Fig. 3 shows ρm, ρm − τm, and ρm + pm, but the dominant energy condition for an anisotropic fluid requires additionally ρm − pm ≥ 0 and ρm + τm ≥ 0. Please either plot these combinations or provide an analytic proof that they are nonnegative throughout the domain.

minor comments (4)

[II.B, Eq. (18)] Equation (18) is missing a factor of 2: since V,ζ = ∂V/∂ζ = -2ζ dV/dB², the identity should be ρζ − τζ = -ζ dV/dζ = 2ζ² dV/dB². The sign conclusion is unaffected.
[IV.B, Eq. (46)] Even before substitution into the field equation, the printed Eq. (46) has V → 2σ̃ at η = 0, so it does not share the 'vanishing at infinity' property of the minimally coupled potentials. If a corrected solution still has a nonzero V(∞), the paper should state the boundary condition and explain how the asymptotic spacetime remains Minkowski.
[III.A, text near Fig. 3] The sentence 'In this scenario, were the ζ function dominates' contains a typo ('were the ζ function') and should read 'where the ζ function dominates'.
[II.A, notation] The notation V,ζ = ∂V/∂ζ is used alongside V' = dV/dB²; the relation V,ζ = -2ζ dV/dB² should be stated explicitly where Eqs. (15)–(18) are introduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the potentials are obtained by standard solution reconstruction, the ghost condition is imported from an external reference, and parameter tuning is used only to exhibit an example.

full rationale

The central construction is a reverse-engineering procedure: after fixing the ansatz (28) for Phi, b, and zeta, the vector-field equation of motion (19) is integrated to obtain the potential V in Eq. (30). Evaluating Eqs. (25)-(27) with that V and checking the energy-condition inequalities is a direct computation, not a prediction of an independent quantity from fitted inputs. The ghost/stability condition dV/dB^2 > 0 is taken from Ref. [47], whose authors are disjoint from the present authors, and the key relation rho_zeta - tau_zeta = zeta^2 dV/dB^2 is the algebraic combination of Eqs. (15)-(16); no quantity is defined in terms of the result it is used to establish. The self-citations that appear, such as Refs. [30], [53], and [59], are used in literature context or as one of two references for the explicit conformal-coupling ansatz (42), which is an assumption rather than a derived theorem; they are not load-bearing for the paper's claims. Tuning parameters until ordinary matter satisfies the energy conditions, as done for Case VI, is an existence demonstration rather than a fit disguised as a prediction. Any concern that the reconstructed potentials vanish too strongly at B^2 = 0 to realize a genuine mass term is a physical-consistency issue with the 'massive' interpretation, not a circularity in the derivation chain.

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

The paper's physical content is loaded in through the choice of ansatz and the reconstructed potential. The free parameters are selected by hand to obtain desired energy-condition behavior, and the ghost-free criterion is imported from a cited reference rather than derived here. The central contribution is an explicit solution family, not a derivation from a more fundamental action.

free parameters (7)

alpha = Table I: 0.01, 2, 5, 5, 0, 0
Power-law exponent for the redshift function, chosen by hand; controls the shape of the potential and the NEC behavior.
beta = Table I: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0.02
Power-law exponent for the shape function; the flare-out condition requires beta > -1; chosen by hand.
gamma = Table I: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0.01
Power-law exponent for the vector field profile; chosen by hand.
Phi0 = Table I: 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0
Amplitude of the redshift function at the throat; chosen by hand. Cases with alpha = 0 have constant redshift.
zeta0 = Table I: 1, 1, 1, 0.5, 2, 15
Amplitude of the vector field at the throat; larger values make the zeta V,zeta term dominate and help keep matter non-exotic.
sigma_tilde = Values such as -3, -2, -1, 0 shown in Fig. 4; constraint sigma_tilde < 1
Conformal coupling strength; negative strong couplings make matter non-exotic near the throat in the coupled model.
lambda = Positive, unspecified in Eq. (34)
Exponential shape-function parameter for the generalized solution; results are omitted as qualitatively similar.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The Einstein field equations G_mu_nu = T_mu_nu, with T_mu_nu the sum of vector and matter energy-momentum tensors, determine the spacetime.
The paper works within standard Einstein gravity and uses Eqs. (25)-(27) to define matter quantities.
domain assumption The static spherically symmetric wormhole metric (9) with flare-out conditions (10) is a valid background.
The redshift and shape function ansatze are imposed without deriving them from a more fundamental principle.
ad hoc to paper The one-form field takes the time-like power-law ansatz B_t = sqrt(-g_tt) zeta(r), Eq. (12).
This restricts the vector field to a single radial profile and is not derived from the symmetries or field equations.
ad hoc to paper The power-law ansatz Phi = Phi0 (r0/r)^alpha, b = r0 (r0/r)^beta, zeta = zeta0 (r0/r)^gamma, Eq. (28).
The conclusions about energy conditions depend entirely on this chosen family of profiles.
domain assumption The ghost-free condition dV/dB^2 > 0 from Ref. [47] correctly identifies ghost freedom in this non-gauge-invariant theory.
The paper uses this criterion to argue that wormhole support requires a ghost mode, but does not itself perform a Hamiltonian stability analysis.
domain assumption Ordinary matter is described by an anisotropic perfect fluid with energy-momentum tensor (23)-(24).
The energy conditions are evaluated on this assumed matter model.
ad hoc to paper The conformal coupling Omega = exp(-sigma B^2), Eq. (42), with matter geodesics determined by the rescaled metric.
The coupled solutions depend on this particular choice of conformal factor.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vector wormholes as conduits for matter interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TQ27H7ME

@misc{pith2026241219408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vector wormholes as conduits for matter interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TQ27H7ME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19408}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, we focus on the dynamics of a massive one-form field, \textbf{B}, often referred to simply as a vector field, that is minimally coupled to standard Einstein gravity. In the framework of four-dimensional spacetimes, the theory of a massive one-form propagates three massive vector degrees of freedom. The inclusion of a self-interacting potential in this theory results in the breaking of gauge invariance. The breaking of such a fundamental symmetry in Classical Electromagnetism may introduce a ghost mode in massive vector theories, which generally leads to their instability. However, in the context of wormhole physics, the existence of at least one ghost degree of freedom turns out to be a necessary condition to support these exotic geometries within effective field theories. This requirement serves as a strong motivation for our work, wherein we explore the role and phenomenology of massive one-forms, minimally coupled to Einstein gravity, in providing the necessary conditions to sustain wormhole spacetimes. We further analyze the coupling of matter fields to such a vector field through conformal couplings and explore their impact on energy conditions and the physical viability of wormhole solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19408 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Radial (left panel) and tangential (right panel) components of the NEC for the field (dashed lines) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[47]

Esposito-Farese, C

G. Esposito-Farese, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D 81, 063519 (2010), arXiv:0912.0481 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2010
[1]

M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, Am. J. Phys. 56, 395 (1988)

1988
[2]

M. S. Morris, K. S. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1446 (1988). 10

work page 1988
[3]

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

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

1995
[4]

J. P. S. Lemos, F. S. N. Lobo, and S. Quinet de Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 68, 064004 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0302049

arXiv 2003
[5]

Visser, S

M. Visser, S. Kar, and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 201102 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0301003

arXiv 2003
[6]

Evolving Lorentzian Wormholes

S. Kar and D. Sahdev, Phys. Rev. D 53, 722 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9506094

work page Pith review arXiv 1996
[7]

F. S. N. Lobo, ed., Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions, Fundamental Theories of Physics, Vol. 189 (Springer, 2017)

work page 2017

Show all 71 references

[8]

S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Struc- ture of Space-Time , Cambridge Monographs on Mathe- matical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

2023
[9]

F. J. Tipler, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2521 (1978)

1978
[10]

L. H. Ford and T. A. Roman, Phys. Rev. D 51, 4277 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9410043

1995 arXiv
[11]

L. H. Ford and T. A. Roman, Phys. Rev. D 53, 5496 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9510071

1996 arXiv
[12]

L. H. Ford and T. A. Roman, Phys. Rev. D 60, 104018 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9901074

1999 arXiv
[13]

A. G. Agnese and M. La Camera, Phys. Rev. D 51, 2011 (1995)

1995
[14]

K. K. Nandi, B. Bhattacharjee, S. M. K. Alam, and J. Evans, Phys. Rev. D 57, 823 (1998), arXiv:0906.0181 [gr-qc]

1998 arXiv
[15]

La Camera, Phys

M. La Camera, Phys. Lett. B 573, 27 (2003), arXiv:gr- qc/0306017

2003
[16]

Garattini and F

R. Garattini and F. S. N. Lobo, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 2401 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0701020

2007 arXiv
[17]

Exotic solutions in General Relativ- ity: Traversable wormholes and ’warp drive’ spacetimes,

F. S. N. Lobo, “Exotic solutions in General Relativ- ity: Traversable wormholes and ’warp drive’ spacetimes,” (2007) arXiv:0710.4474 [gr-qc]

2007 arXiv
[18]

F. S. N. Lobo, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 175006 (2008), arXiv:0801.4401 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[19]

Garattini and F

R. Garattini and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Lett. B 671, 146 (2009), arXiv:0811.0919 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[20]

F. S. N. Lobo and M. A. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 81, 067501 (2010), arXiv:1001.0995 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[21]

Montelongo Garcia and F

N. Montelongo Garcia and F. S. N. Lobo, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 40, 3067 (2011), arXiv:1106.3216 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[22]

Garattini and F

R. Garattini and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 85, 024043 (2012), arXiv:1111.5729 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[23]

Harko, F

T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, M. K. Mak, and S. V. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. D 87, 067504 (2013), arXiv:1301.6878 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[24]

F. S. N. Lobo and M. A. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 80, 104012 (2009), arXiv:0909.5539 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[25]

Capozziello, T

S. Capozziello, T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, F. S. N. Lobo, and G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. D 86, 127504 (2012), arXiv:1209.5862 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[26]

J. a. L. Rosa, J. P. S. Lemos, and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 98, 064054 (2018), arXiv:1808.08975 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[27]

J. a. L. Rosa, Phys. Rev. D 104, 064002 (2021), arXiv:2107.14225 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[28]

J. L. Rosa, R. Andr´ e, and J. P. S. Lemos, Gen. Rel. Grav. 55, 65 (2023), arXiv:2305.06829 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[29]

J. a. L. Rosa and P. M. Kull, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1154 (2022), arXiv:2209.12701 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[30]

J. a. L. Rosa, N. Ganiyeva, and F. S. N. Lobo, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1040 (2023), arXiv:2309.08768 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[31]

N. M. Garcia and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 82, 104018 (2010), arXiv:1007.3040 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[32]

Montelongo Garcia and F

N. Montelongo Garcia and F. S. N. Lobo, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 085018 (2011), arXiv:1012.2443 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[33]

Ayuso, J

I. Ayuso, J. Beltran Jimenez, and A. de la Cruz- Dombriz, Phys. Rev. D 91, 104003 (2015), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 93, 089901 (2016)], arXiv:1411.1636 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[34]

F. G. Alvarenga, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, M. J. S. Houndjo, M. E. Rodrigues, and D. S´ aez-G´ omez, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103526 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 129905 (2013)], arXiv:1302.1866 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[35]

L. A. Anchordoqui, S. E. Perez Bergliaffa, and D. F. Tor- res, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5226 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9610070

1997 arXiv
[36]

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
[37]

Bhawal and S

B. Bhawal and S. Kar, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2464 (1992)

1992
[38]

Dotti, J

G. Dotti, J. Oliva, and R. Troncoso, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064038 (2007), arXiv:0706.1830 [hep-th]

2007 arXiv
[39]

M. R. Mehdizadeh, M. Kord Zangeneh, and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084004 (2015), arXiv:1501.04773 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[40]

K. A. Bronnikov and S.-W. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 67, 064027 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0212112

2003 arXiv
[41]

F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 75, 064027 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0701133

2007
[42]

J. W. Moffat, Phys. Lett. B 355, 447 (1995), arXiv:gr- qc/9411006

1995
[43]

Prokopec and W

T. Prokopec and W. Valkenburg, (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0606315

2006
[44]

Damour, S

T. Damour, S. Deser, and J. G. McCarthy, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1541 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9207003

1993 arXiv
[45]

M. A. Clayton, Class. Quant. Grav. 13, 2851 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9603062

1996 arXiv
[46]

Tasinato, K

G. Tasinato, K. Koyama, and N. Khosravi, JCAP 11, 037 (2013), arXiv:1307.0077 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[48]

Ngampitipan and P

T. Ngampitipan and P. Wongjun, JCAP 11, 036 (2011), arXiv:1108.0140 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[49]

Bartolo, S

N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, and A. Ricciardone, Phys. Rev. D 87, 023504 (2013), arXiv:1210.3257 [astro- ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[50]

D. J. Mulryne, J. Noller, and N. J. Nunes, JCAP 12, 016 (2012), arXiv:1209.2156 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[51]

T. S. Koivisto and N. J. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 88, 123512 (2013), arXiv:1212.2541 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[52]

K. S. Kumar, J. Marto, N. J. Nunes, and P. V. Moniz, JCAP 06, 064 (2014), arXiv:1404.0211 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[53]

B. J. Barros and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044012 (2018), arXiv:1806.10488 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[54]

B. J. Barros, B. Dˇ anilˇ a, T. Harko, and F. S. N. Lobo, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 617 (2020), arXiv:2004.06605 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[55]

Bouhmadi-L´ opez, C.-Y

M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, C.-Y. Chen, X. Y. Chew, Y. C. Ong, and D.-H. Yeom, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 278 (2021), arXiv:2005.13260 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[56]

B. J. Barros, Z. Haghani, T. Harko, and F. S. N. Lobo, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 307 (2021), arXiv:2101.04445 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[57]

Bouhmadi-L´ opez, C.-Y

M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, C.-Y. Chen, X. Y. Chew, Y. C. Ong, and D.-h. Yeom, JCAP 10, 059 (2021), arXiv:2108.07302 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[58]

Tangphati, B

T. Tangphati, B. Chaihao, D. Samart, P. Channuie, and D. Momeni, Nucl. Phys. B 999, 116446 (2024), arXiv:2307.13968 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[59]

B. J. Barros, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084028 (2023), arXiv:2306.17826 [gr- qc]. 11

2023 arXiv
[60]

T. S. Koivisto and N. J. Nunes, Phys. Lett. B 685, 105 (2010), arXiv:0907.3883 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[61]

T. S. Koivisto and N. J. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 80, 103509 (2009), arXiv:0908.0920 [astro-ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[62]

Germani and A

C. Germani and A. Kehagias, JCAP 11, 005 (2009), arXiv:0908.0001 [astro-ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[63]

T. S. Koivisto, D. F. Mota, and C. Pitrou, JHEP 09, 092 (2009), arXiv:0903.4158 [astro-ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[64]

Itzykson and J

C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory , In- ternational Series In Pure and Applied Physics (McGraw- Hill, New York, 1980)

1980
[65]

Heisenberg, JCAP 05, 015 (2014), arXiv:1402.7026 [hep-th]

L. Heisenberg, JCAP 05, 015 (2014), arXiv:1402.7026 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[66]

Beltran Jimenez and L

J. Beltran Jimenez and L. Heisenberg, Phys. Lett. B 770, 16 (2017), arXiv:1610.08960 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[67]

Germani and A

C. Germani and A. Kehagias, JCAP 03, 028 (2009), arXiv:0902.3667 [astro-ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[68]

K. A. Bronnikov and A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 85, 1 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612032

2007 arXiv
[69]

K. A. Bronnikov, Acta Phys. Polon. B 4, 251 (1973)

1973
[70]

Fujii and K

Y. Fujii and K. Maeda, The scalar-tensor theory of gravi- tation, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

2007
[71]

Faraoni, Cosmology in scalar tensor gravity (Springer Dordrecht, 2004)

V. Faraoni, Cosmology in scalar tensor gravity (Springer Dordrecht, 2004)

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [47]

Esposito-Farese, C

G. Esposito-Farese, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D 81, 063519 (2010), arXiv:0912.0481 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2010

[2] [1]

M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, Am. J. Phys. 56, 395 (1988)

1988

[3] [2]

M. S. Morris, K. S. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1446 (1988). 10

work page 1988

[4] [3]

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

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

1995

[5] [4]

J. P. S. Lemos, F. S. N. Lobo, and S. Quinet de Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 68, 064004 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0302049

arXiv 2003

[6] [5]

Visser, S

M. Visser, S. Kar, and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 201102 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0301003

arXiv 2003

[7] [6]

Evolving Lorentzian Wormholes

S. Kar and D. Sahdev, Phys. Rev. D 53, 722 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9506094

work page Pith review arXiv 1996

[8] [7]

F. S. N. Lobo, ed., Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions, Fundamental Theories of Physics, Vol. 189 (Springer, 2017)

work page 2017