Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 85 references

Singularity Avoidance in Gravitational Collapse of an Inhomogeneous Fluid in Rastall Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tuning a coupling in Rastall gravity turns inhomogeneous collapse into a regular bounce.

desk verdict The exact construction is real but the central claim is not: the spacetime is singular at r=0 initially, so singularity avoidance is not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02026 v1 pith:UAZXAHL7 submitted 2025-07-02 gr-qc

Akbar Jahan , Halime Miraghaei , Shayesteh Ghaffari , Amir Hadi Ziaie This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.20.-q04.20.Dw
keywords Rastallgravitygravitationalcollapsesingularityavoidanceinhomogeneousfluidbounceweakenergyconditionshell-focusingexactsolutions
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 works in Rastall gravity, a modification of general relativity in which energy and momentum are not separately conserved but can be exchanged with the geometry through a coupling constant. The authors ask whether an inhomogeneous, radially and tangentially pressured fluid can collapse without forming the shell-focusing singularity that standard collapse models produce. They answer yes: after choosing linear equations of state and fixing the Rastall parameter so that the effective radial pressure vanishes, they find exact solutions in which every mass shell shrinks to a minimum positive radius at the same finite time and then rebounds into expansion. The paper reports that these solutions respect the weak energy condition, create no trapped surfaces, and settle into a static final configuration. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a classical, exactly solvable example in which a modified theory of gravity removes the endpoint that the classical singularity theorems regard as unavoidable in general relativity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the area radius $R(t,r)$ and the master equation that governs it. Choosing $\gamma=w_r/(3w_r-2w_\theta+1)$ makes the effective radial pressure vanish, and the relation $w_r=\frac{4}{3}w_\theta+\frac{1}{3}$ reduces the field equations to $$F(r)+f_2(r)-R(t,r)\left[1+f_1(t)\dot R(t,r)^2\right]=0,$$ which integrates to closed-form area-radius functions. The free functions $f_1(t)=4\alpha\cosh(\omega t)/[2-\omega t\tanh(\omega t)]^2$ and $f_2(r)=\delta+\xi/(r^\beta+\zeta)$ are chosen so that the integral $\int_0^t dx/\sqrt{f_1(x)}=t/\sqrt{\alpha\cosh(\omega t)}$ stays finite and the velocity $\dot R$ has a zero at the bounce time $t_b$ satisfying $2=\omega t_b\tanh(\omega t_b)$. This mechanism turns collapse into a four-phase motion: accelerated contraction, decelerated contraction, accelerated expansion, and decelerated expansion, ending in a static state.

What would settle it

Along a fixed shell $r=r_0>0$, evaluate the curvature invariant $R_{abcd}R^{abcd}$ of the metric (4) with the solutions (27), (30), and (34) as $t\to t_b$; if it diverges while the area radius $R(t,r_0)$ stays positive, the bounce is a genuine curvature singularity rather than a regular turning point. A complementary check is whether every causal geodesic can be extended through $t=t_b$ with finite affine parameter and finite curvature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in Rastall gravity the collapse of a spherically symmetric inhomogeneous fluid with linear equations of state $p_r=w_r\rho$ and $p_\theta=w_\theta\rho$ can end in a regular bounce rather than a shell-focusing singularity. This is achieved by tuning the Rastall parameter to $\gamma=w_r/(3w_r-2w_\theta+1)$, which makes the effective radial pressure vanish, and imposing the equation-of-state relation $w_r=\frac{4}{3}w_\theta+\frac{1}{3}$; the field equations then reduce to a master equation for the area radius $R(t,r)$ that integrates in closed form. With the free time function $f_1(t)=4\alpha\cosh(\omega t)/[2-\omega t\tanh(\omega t)]^2$ and the plus-sign branch of the solution, each shell's area radius decreases, reaches its minimum at a common bounce time $t_b$ defined by $2=\omega t_b\tanh(\omega t_b)$, and then increases in an expanding phase. The authors show that $\dot R$ vanishes at $t_b$, that $R'\neq0$ so no shell crossing occurs, that $F(t,r)<R(t,r)$ so no trapped surface forms, and that the effective energy density and the weak-energy-condition combinations remain nonnegative. The endpoint of the post-bounce expansion is a static configuration with $\dot R=\ddot R=0$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire result rests on assuming that the turnaround moment, where the chosen time coordinate's metric component vanishes because $f_1(t)$ diverges, is a harmless coordinate artifact rather than a real singularity; the paper gives no regular coordinate chart or curvature check through that surface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, Rastall gravity provides exact regular endpoints for inhomogeneous collapse with linear equations of state, without invoking quantum gravity or exotic matter.
  • Because the bounce happens simultaneously for all shells and $R'\neq0$, the cloud avoids both shell-focusing and shell-crossing singularities during its evolution.
  • Since $F(t,r)/R(t,r)<1$ throughout, the collapsing cloud never forms trapped surfaces, so the final static object is horizonless rather than a black hole.
  • The minus-sign branch of the same solutions describes expanding inhomogeneous cosmologies, indicating a possible classical route to a bouncing universe without an initial singularity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the decisive unresolved point is geometric rather than algebraic: because $f_1(t_b)$ diverges, the comoving chart degenerates at the bounce, so the 'nonsingular' label needs confirmation by curvature invariants and geodesic completeness through $t=t_b$.
  • Editorial inference: the simultaneous bounce for all shells is tied to the specific choice of $f_1$; a generic time function would likely produce shell-dependent bounce times, and whether the regular character survives that change is untested.
  • Editorial inference: energy-condition and no-trapped-surface checks are shown for representative parameter values; a numerical scan of the allowed parameters would reveal whether these properties are robust or confined to the plotted region.
  • Editorial inference: if the static endpoint is stable under perturbations, the object would be an exotic horizonless compact remnant whose observational signatures could differ from black holes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs exact spherically symmetric collapse solutions in Rastall gravity for an inhomogeneous anisotropic fluid with linear equations of state. The authors choose the Rastall parameter so that the effective radial pressure vanishes, derive a master equation for the area radius, and then select the free functions f1(t), f2(r) and an EoS relation, obtaining a Cardano-type solution in which each matter shell reaches a minimum radius at a common time and then re-expands. They argue that the weak energy condition holds and that neither shell-focusing nor shell-crossing singularities form, concluding that Rastall gravity can provide nonsingular inhomogeneous collapse outcomes.

Significance. If the regularity claim were established, the paper would offer a notable example of singularity avoidance in a modified gravity theory while preserving the weak energy condition, which is rare in bouncing collapse models. The algebraic construction of the master equation and the Cardano solution appears coherent, and the paper explicitly addresses energy conditions and trapped surfaces. However, the central claim of nonsingularity is not supported by the analysis: the metric appears singular at the center already at the initial time, and the chosen f1(t) diverges at the bounce, with no curvature invariants, regular coordinate chart, or geodesic-completeness argument supplied. The construction therefore establishes, at most, a formal family of solutions whose regularity remains unproven; the stress-test concern about the r=0 center lands.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (20), (21), (24), (25), (34)] The center r=0 is singular at the initial time, contradicting the claimed regular collapse. With the EoS relation wr=(4/3)wθ+1/3, Eq. (20) reduces to ν(t,r)=-(1/2)ln R(t,r)+F1(t), and the rescaling R(0,r)=r then gives -g_tt=e^{2ν(0,r)}=e^{2F1(0)}/r, which diverges as r→0. Since g_tt is invariant under any reparametrization r→r~ that leaves t fixed, and the paper supplies no other regular chart or invariant calculation, this divergence cannot be dismissed as a mere coordinate artifact. Moreover, Eq. (21) with f2(r)=δ+ξr^β+ζ and β=-1 as used in Fig. (1) gives e^{2ψ}≈r^2/ξ near r=0, so the spatial metric behaves as r^2(dr^2+dΩ^2); the proper distance from the center to radius r scales as r^2 while the circumference scales as r, so the circumference-to-radius ratio diverges. The paper offers no curvature-invariant computation showing regularity at the center, and the problem is present from the initial data onward, independent of the bounce.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (34) and Figs. 1-4] The bounce hypersurface is not shown to be regular. The chosen f1(x)=4α cosh(ωx)/[2-ωx tanh(ωx)]^2 diverges at the value tb for which 2=ωtb tanh(ωtb), and through F1(t)=-(1/2)ln f1(t) and Eq. (20) this gives -g_tt→0 at t=tb while R(tb,r) remains finite. The comoving metric therefore degenerates at the bounce, and the term f1(t)R(t,r)\dot{R}(t,r)^2 in the master equation (26) is an indeterminate 0·∞ limit there. The paper assumes a smooth transition from contraction to expansion, but it supplies no regular coordinate chart covering t=tb, no junction conditions, and no analysis of curvature invariants or geodesic completeness. Without such an analysis, the claim that the spacetime is nonsingular at the bounce is not established.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (27)-(30), (34)] The bounce is effectively chosen rather than derived from the dynamics. Equation (34) gives ∫_0^t dx/√f1(x) = t/√(α cosh(ωt)), which has a maximum precisely at the zero of 2-ωt tanh(ωt), and the area radius R(t,r) in Eqs. (27)-(30) depends on time only through this integral. Hence the occurrence and location of the minimum of R at tb are fixed by the choice of f1, not predicted by Rastall gravity. The abstract and Section III state that the collapsing cloud 'reaches a minimum physical radius' and 'rebounds,' which overstates the predictive content; the result is an existence-by-construction statement within a chosen family of free functions, and the physical justification for that particular f1 should be stated explicitly if the word 'prediction' is to be used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, before Eq. (34) and after Fig. 2] There are numerous grammatical errors: 'A suitable choose of the free functions' should be 'A suitable choice of the free functions,' and 'We therefor conclude' should be 'We therefore conclude.' The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The phrase 'curves from up down' should read 'from top to bottom'; additionally, the caption would be clearer if it stated which parameter values are held fixed and defined the vertical dotted line as the bounce time before referring to it in the text.
  3. [Eqs. (33) and (36)] The ranges of wθ used for positivity of the mass function (wθ>1/5) and for positivity of the effective initial density should be stated together in one place; as written, the reader must combine Eq. (33), Eq. (36), and the WEC conditions in Eq. (37) to infer the full allowed range.
  4. [Footnote 2] The claim that the minus-sign solution 'represents expanding solutions which can be utilized in inhomogeneous cosmological models' is not developed or referenced; either expand this remark with a concrete example or omit it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bounce is put in by the explicit f1 ansatz, but the paper is transparent about constructing it; the derivation chain is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a transparent exact-solution construction rather than a disguised prediction. The field equations (2)-(15) are solved under stated assumptions: linear equations of state (16)-(18), the Rastall parameter tuned to make the effective radial pressure vanish (19), and the EoS relation (25) that simplifies the master equation (23) to (26). The general solution (27)-(31) contains free functions f1(t) and f2(r), which the paper explicitly chooses 'in order to obtain such solutions' (Eq. 34). The bounce time tb=1.1286 is indeed tied to the chosen f1: with f1(x)=4α cosh(ωx)/(2-ωx tanh(ωx))^2, the integral W(t)=∫0^t dx/√f1 has a stationary point at 2=ωt tanh(ωt), forcing dR/dt=0 there through the master equation. This means the bounce is an input to the construction, but the paper does not present it as an independent prediction; it says the free functions are proposed to obtain nonsingular bounces. Similarly, the WEC result (36)-(37) is a verification of a property of the constructed solution given the chosen parameter ranges, not a fit to data. The self-citations [34] and [37] appear only as context and motivation, not as load-bearing justifications for the central derivation, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The possible divergence of -g_tt at r=0 and the coordinate degeneration at tb are mathematical correctness or singularity-theorem concerns, not circular reductions; under the specified hard rules they are not counted as circularity. The derivation is self-contained and the conclusion follows from the stated ansatz rather than from a circular equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction is carried by tunable input: the Rastall parameter is fixed to kill the effective radial pressure, the equation-of-state parameters satisfy an ad hoc relation, and the free functions f1 and f2 are chosen to force a bounce. The WEC is then checked as a condition on these parameters. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Rastall parameter γ = γ = (4wθ+1)/(6(wθ+1)) after Eqs. (19) and (25)
    Tuned so the effective radial pressure vanishes, peff_r=0; this is what turns the matter into an effective dust and simplifies the field equations.
  • EoS parameter wθ = 0.45 in the figures; constrained to wθ > 1/5
    Free tangential pressure EoS parameter; positivity of the mass function requires wθ > 1/5.
  • EoS relation wr = (4/3)wθ + 1/3 = n/a
    Chosen by hand so that the exponent δ in the master equation vanishes, making Eq. (26) tractable; it is not derived from physics.
  • Initial density amplitude ρ0 = 1 in figures
    Overall scale of the initial density profile; sets the mass function scale.
  • Initial density exponent n = 2 in figures
    Shapes the initial inhomogeneous density profile ε(r)=ρ0(1−(r/rb)^n).
  • Cloud boundary rb = 1 in figures
    Coordinate radius of the outermost shell.
  • f2 parameters δ, ξ, β, ζ = δ=10^-4, ξ=1, β=−1, ζ=10^-3
    Free radial function f2(r)=δ+ξ/(r^β+ζ) chosen to satisfy the initial conditions and produce regular solutions; β=−1 makes f2 contribute ∼ξr near the center.
  • f1 parameters α, ω = α=10, ω=1.83
    Free time function f1(t)=4α cosh(ωt)/(2−ωt tanh(ωt))^2; α sets the scale and ω fixes the bounce time tb where 2=ωt tanh(ωt).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rastall modified conservation law ∇aT_ab = λ∇bR
    The entire calculation is done in Rastall gravity; the paper acknowledges Visser's argument that Rastall theory is equivalent to GR with a redefined energy-momentum tensor (Section I), so the physical interpretation of the result depends on accepting this modification.
  • domain assumption The matter is type I with diagonal EMT and linear EoS pr=wrρ, pθ=wθρ
    Section II; this restricts the scope to anisotropic fluids and excludes null fluids and more general EoS.
  • ad hoc to paper The free functions f1(t) and f2(r) can be chosen arbitrarily to suit the model
    Section III, Eq. (34); the bounce is generated by the specific choice of f1(t), not by the field equations alone.
  • domain assumption The energy-momentum tensor satisfies the WEC, and validity is judged by effective density pressures
    Section II and III; used to argue physical reasonableness of the constructed solution.
  • standard math Spherical symmetry and comoving coordinates are sufficient to describe the collapse
    Standard for collapse models; the metric (4) is the general spherically symmetric line element.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Singularity Avoidance in Gravitational Collapse of an Inhomogeneous Fluid in Rastall Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UAZXAHL7

@misc{pith2026250702026,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Singularity Avoidance in Gravitational Collapse of an Inhomogeneous Fluid in Rastall Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UAZXAHL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02026}
}
abstract

Various types of inhomogeneous collapse models in general relativity (GR) lead to the formation of spacetime singularities either visible or hidden by a spacetime horizon. Our aim in the present work is to search for nonsingular models in Rastall gravity that arise as the final outcomes of spherically symmetric gravitational collapse of an inhomogeneous matter cloud. We firstly assume linear equations of state (EoS) for radial and tangential pressure profiles, i.e., $p_r=w_r\rho$ and $p_\theta=w_\theta\rho$, then we set the Rastall parameter in such a way that the effective pressure in radial direction vanishes and examine the conditions under which the spacetime singularity can be avoided. We find exact nonsingular collapse solutions for which the collapsing cloud reaches a minimum physical radius at a finite amount of time and then rebounds to an expanding phase where the matter shells start moving away from each other. The solutions we obtain respect the weak energy condition (WEC), which is important for the physical validity of the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02026 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Evolution of area radius (left panel) and the speed of collapse (right panel) for each matter shell. In the left panel, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Evolution of collapse acceleration (left panel) and spatial derivative of the physical radius (right panel) for the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Behavior of the ratio of mass function over area radius (left panel) and ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Behavior of the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. W. Hawking G. F. R and Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time,Cambridge University Press (1973)

    1973

  2. [2]

    P. S. Joshi, Global Aspects in Gravitation and Cosmology,Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993)

    1993

  3. [3]

    P. S. Joshi, Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2007)

    2007

  4. [4]

    Penrose, Nuovo Cimento 1 252 (1969); Gen

    R. Penrose, Nuovo Cimento 1 252 (1969); Gen. Rel. Grav. 34 1141 (2002); Y. C. Ong, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2030007 (2020)

    1969

  5. [5]

    P. S. Joshi and D. Malafarina, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20 2641 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    Geroch, Annals of Phys

    R. Geroch, Annals of Phys. 48, 526 (1968); S. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2460 (1976); G. F. R. Ellis and B. G. Schmidt, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 8 915 (1977); J. M. M. Senovilla and D. Garfinkle Class. Quantum Grav. 32 124008 (2015)

    work page 1968

  7. [7]

    C. J. S. Clarke, The Analysis of Space-Time Singularities,United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press (1993)

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    Earman, Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes,United Kingdom: Oxford University Press (1995)

    J. Earman, Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes,United Kingdom: Oxford University Press (1995)

    work page 1995

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rep. 505 59 (2011); T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, C. Skordis, Phys. Rep., 513 1 (2012); K. Bamba, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 698, 451 (2011); G. Brando, F. T. Falciano, L. F. Guimaraes, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044027 (2018);...

    2011

  2. [10]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rep. 509, 167 (2011); S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rep., 505, 59 (2011); D. Malafarina and P. S. Joshi, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 596 (2015); H. O. Silva, A. Maselli, M. Minamitsuji, E. Berti, Int. J Mod. Phys. D 25, 1641006 (2016); A...

    2011

  3. [11]

    Faraoni, Cosmology in Scalar-Tensor Gravity,Springer (2004)

    V. Faraoni, Cosmology in Scalar-Tensor Gravity,Springer (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    A. H. Ziaie, H. Shabani, H. Moradpour, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, 148 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Maartens and K

    R. Maartens and K. Koyama, Liv. Rev. Relativ. 13, 5 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Bojowald, Phys

    M. Bojowald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5227 (2001); A. Ashtekar and P. Singh, Class. Quantum Grav. 28 213001 (2011)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Bojowald, R

    M. Bojowald, R. Goswami, R. Maartens, P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 091302 (2005); R. Goswami, P. S. Joshi, P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 031302 (2006); J. Ziprick and G. Kunstatter, Phys. Rev. D 82, 044031 (2010); B.-F. Li and P. Singh, Loop Quantum Cosmology: Physics of Si...

    2005

  8. [16]

    Rovelli and F

    C. Rovelli and F. Vidotto, Int. J Mod. Phys. D 23, 1442026 (2014); C. Rovelli and F. Vidotto, arXiv:2407.09584 [gr-qc]; K. Jusufi, Universe, 9, 41 (2023)

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Y. Liu, D. Malafarina, L. Modesto, C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D 90, 044040 (2014). A. Parvizi, T. Pawlowski, Y. Tavakoli, J. Lewandowski, Phys. Rev. D 105, 086002 (2022); J. Marto, Y. Tavakoli, P. V. Moniz, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1550025 (2015); Y. Tavakoli, J. Marto, A. Dapor, In...

    2014

  10. [18]

    Bambi, D

    C. Bambi, D. Malafarina and L. Modesto, Phys. Rev. D 88, 044009 (2013); C. Bambi, D. Malafarina, L. Modesto, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2767 (2014); P. S. Joshi, D. Malafarina, (eds.) New Frontiers in Gravitational Collapse and Spacetime Singularities,Germany: Springer Nature Singapo...

    2013

  11. [19]

    Shabani and A

    H. Shabani and A. H. Ziaie, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 397 (2018); J. K. Singh, H. Balhara, K., Bamba, J. Jena J. High Energ. Phys. 2023, 191 (2023); O. Trivedi, Symmetry 16, 298 (2024); M. Zubair, M. Farooq, E. Gudekli, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 19, 2250135 (2022); M. Caruana, ...

    2018

  12. [20]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 599, 137 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Allemandi, A

    G. Allemandi, A. Borowiec, M. Francaviglia, S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 72, 063505 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    Koivisto, Class

    T. Koivisto, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 4289 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Bertolami, C

    O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 75, 104016 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Galaxies, 2, 410 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Rastall, Phys

    P. Rastall, Phys. Rev. D 6, 3357 (1972); Can. J. Phys. 54, 66 (1976)

    1972

  18. [26]

    Parker, Phys

    L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D 3, 346 (1971); 3, 2546 (1971); L. H. Ford, Phys. Rev. D 35, 2955 (1987); G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2738 (1977); N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)

    1971

  19. [27]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 599, 137 (2004); G. Allemandi, A. Borowiec, M. Francaviglia, S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 72, 063505 (2005); T. Koivisto, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 4289 (2006); O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 75, 104016...

    2004

  20. [28]

    Moradpour, Y

    H. Moradpour, Y. Heydarzade, F. Darabi, I. G. Salako, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 259 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Darabi, H

    F. Darabi, H. Moradpour, I. Licata, Y. Heydarzade, C. Corda, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 25 (2018)

    2018

  22. [31]

    A. S. AI-Rawaf and M. O. Taha, Gen. Relative. Gravit., 28 935 (1996); H. Moradpour, N. Sadeghnezhad, S. H. Hendi, Can. J. Phys, 95, 1257 (2017)

    1996

  23. [32]

    A. S. Al-Rawaf and M. O. Taha, Phys. Lett. B 366 69 (1996)

    1996

  24. [33]

    K. A. Bronnikov, J. C. Fabris, O. F. Piattella and E. C. Santos, Gen. Rel. Grav. 48, 162 (2016). 12

    2016

  25. [34]

    A. H. Ziaie, H. Moradpour, S. Ghaffari, Phys. Lett. B 793, 276 (2019)

    2019

  26. [35]

    A. H. Ziaie and Y. Tavakoli, 532, 2000064 (2020)

    2020

  27. [36]

    Datt, Zs

    S. Datt, Zs. f. Phys. 108, 314 (1938); J. R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder, Phys. Rev. 56, 455 (1939)

    1938

  28. [37]

    A. H. Ziaie, H. Moradpour, M. Mohammadi Sabet, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 136, 1085 (2021)

    2021

  29. [38]

    Visser, Phys

    M. Visser, Phys. Lett. B 782, 83 (2018); A. Golovnev, Ann. Phys. 461, 169580 (2024)

    2018

  30. [39]

    R. Li , J. Wang , Z. Xu , X. Guo, MNRAS, 486, 2407 (2019); O. Akarsu, N. Katirci, S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, B. Ozturk, S. Sharma, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1050 (2020); J. M. Z. Pretel and C. E. Mota, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 56, 43 (2024); Q. Sun, Y. Zhang, C.-H. Xie, Q.-Q. Li, Phys. Dar...

    2019

  31. [40]

    A. M. M. Abdel-Rahman, Astrophys. Space Sci. 278, 385 (2001); A. M. M. Abdel-Rahman and M. H. A. Hashim, Astrophys. Space Sci. 298, 519 (2005)

    2001

  32. [41]

    Chagoya, J

    J. Chagoya, J. C. L.-Dominguez, C. Ortiz, Class. Quantum Grav. 40, 075005 (2023)

    2023

  33. [42]

    A. M. Oliveira, H. E. S. Velten, J. C. Fabris, L. Casarini,Phys. Rev. D 92, 044020 (2015); W. E. Hanafy, ApJ 940,51 (2022); G. G. L. Nashed, W. E. Hanafy, Eur. Phys. J. C 82,679 (2022); J. M. Z. Pretel, C. E Mota, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 56, 43 (2024)

    2015

  34. [43]

    T. P. Singh, P. S. Joshi, Class. Quant. Grav. 13, 559 (1996); S. Jhingan, P. S. Joshi, T. P. Singh, Class. Quant. Grav. 13, 3057 (1996); I. H. Dwivedi and P. S. Joshi, Class. Quant. Grav. 14, 1223 (1997)

    1996

  35. [44]

    P. S. Joshi, I. H. Dwivedi, Phys. Rev. D 47, 5357 (1993)

    1993

  36. [45]

    I. H. Dwivedi and P. S. Joshi, Class. Quantum Grav. 6, 1599 (1989)

    1989

  37. [46]

    P. S. Joshi, N. Dadhich, R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D 65, 101501 (2002); R. V. Saraykar and S. H. Ghate, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 281 (1999); T. Harada, H. Iguchi, K.-ichi Nakao, Prog. Theor. Phys. 107, 449 (2002)

    2002

  38. [47]

    P. S. Joshi, A. Krolak, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 3069 (1996)

    1996

  39. [48]

    Husain, Adv

    V. Husain, Adv. Sci. Lett. 2, 214 (2009); D. Malafarina, Universe 3, 48 (2017); S. G. Choudhury and S. Chakrabarti, JCAP 01 (2024) 007

    2009

  40. [49]

    P. Luz, F. C. Mena, A. H. Ziaie, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 015003 (2019)

    2019

  41. [50]

    Moradpour, I

    H. Moradpour, I. G. Salako, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2016, 2016, 3492796; M. Capone, V. F. Cardone, M. L. Ruggiero, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 222, 012012 (2010)

    2010

  42. [51]

    Stephani, D

    H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers, E. Herlt, Exact Solutions of Einstein ’s Field Equations,Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press (2003)

    2003

  43. [52]

    Wang and Y

    A. Wang and Y. Wu, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 31 107 (1999); S. D. Maharaj, G. Govender and M. Govender, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 44 1089 (2012)

    1999

  44. [53]

    Lake, Phys

    K. Lake, Phys. Rev. D 43, 1416 (1991); I. H. Dwivedi and P. S. Joshi, Class. Quantum Grav. 8, 1339 (1991); S. M. Wagh, S. D. Maharaj, Gen. Rel. Grav. 31, 975 (1999); S. G. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D 62, 127505 (2000); S. G. Ghosh, N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev. D 64, 047501 (2001); S. Jhinga...

    1991

  45. [54]

    C. W. Misner and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. 136 B571 (1964); D. Bak and S. J. Rey, Class. Quantum Grav. 17 L83 (2000); T. Koike, H. Onozawa and M. Siino, arXiv:gr-qc/9312012

    1964 arXiv

  46. [55]

    U. S. Nilsson and C. Uggla, Ann. Phys. 286, 292 (2001)

    2001

  47. [56]

    Rezzolla and O

    L. Rezzolla and O. Zanotti, Relativistic Hydrodynamics,United Kingdom, Oxford (2013)

    2013

  48. [57]

    Feroze, A

    T. Feroze, A. A. Siddiqui, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 43, 1025 (2011); S. D. Maharaj and P. M. Takisa, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 44, 1419 (2012); J. M. Sunzu and A. V. Mathias, Indian J. Phys. 96, 4059 (2022)

    2011

  49. [58]

    A. K. Prasad, J. Kumar, A. Sarkar, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 53, 108 (2021); J. M. Sunzu, A. V. Mathias, Indian J. Phys. 97, 687 (2023); D. Bhattacharjee, P. K. Chattopadhyay, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 77 (2024)

    2021

  50. [59]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. De Martino, M. Falanga, Phys. Lett. A 299, 494 (2002); F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 75, 024023 (2007); R. C. S. Jantsch, M. H. B. Christmann, G. M. Kremer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25, 1650031 (2016)

    2002

  51. [60]

    P. -H. Chavanis, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 130, 130 (2015); H. Benaoum, P.-H. Chavanis, H. Quevedo, Universe 2022, 8, 468

    2015

  52. [61]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa, Dark Energy: Theory and ObservationsCambridge University Press (2010)

    2010

  53. [62]

    L. A. Escamilla, W. Giare, E. D. Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, JCAP 05 (2024) 091. 13

    2024

  54. [63]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 09, 373 (2000)

    2000

  55. [64]

    Y.-P. Teng, W. Lee, K.-W. Ng, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083519 (2021)

    2021

  56. [65]

    I. P. Lobo, H. Moradpour, J. P. Morais Graca, I. G. Salako, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27, 1850069 (2018)

    2018

  57. [66]

    J. C. Fabris, O. F. Piattella, D. C. Rodrigues, C. E. M. Batista, M. H. Dauda, Int. J. M. Phys. Conf. Series, 18, 67 (2012); M. Capone, V. F. Cardone, M. L. Ruggiero, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 222, 012012 (2010); H. Shabani, H. Moradpour, A. H. Ziaie, Phys. Dark Univ. 36 101047 (2022)

    2012

  58. [67]

    Tang , Z

    M. Tang , Z. Xu, J. Wang, Chinese Phys. C 44, 085104 (2020); C. E. M. Batista, J. C. Fabris, O. F. Piattella, A. M. V.-Toribio, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2425 (2013)

    2020

  59. [68]

    Krasinski, Inhomogeneous Cosmological Models,United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press (2006)

    A. Krasinski, Inhomogeneous Cosmological Models,United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press (2006)

    2006

  60. [69]

    P. S. Joshi, R. V. Saraykar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, 1350027 (2013)

    2013

  61. [70]

    S. M. C. V. Goncalves, Phys. Rev. D 63, 124017 (2001); K. Bolejko and P. Lasky, Mon. Not. R. Astro. Soc.: Letters, 391, L59 (2008)

    2001

  62. [71]

    G. F. R. Ellis, B. G. Schmidt, Gen. Relat. Gravit. 8, 915 (1977); C. B. Collins and G. F. R. Ellis, Phys. Rep. 56, 67 (1979)

    1977

  63. [72]

    B. C. Nolan, Class. Quantum Grav. 20, 575 (2003); K. N. Solanki, K. Mosani, O. Deshpande, P. S Joshi, Class. Quantum Grav. 41, 165012 (2024)

    2003

  64. [73]

    P. S. Joshi, D. Malafarina, R. V. Saraykar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 21, 1250066 (2012)

    2012

  65. [74]

    S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. D 49 831 (1994); Phys. Rev. D 49 6467 (1994); Phys. Rev. D 53 1938 (1994)

    1994

  66. [75]

    P. S. Joshi and R. Goswami, Class. Quantum Grav. 24, 2917 (2007)

    2007

  67. [76]

    P. S. Joshi, T. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 51, 6778 (1995)

    1995

  68. [77]

    P. S. Joshi, I. H. Dwivedi, Class. Quantum Gravity 16, 41 (1999)

    1999

  69. [78]

    P. S. Joshi, D. Malafarina, R. Narayan, Class. Quantum Grav. 28 235018 (2011); D. Malafarina, P. S. Joshi, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 596 (2015)

    2011

  70. [79]

    B. K. Tippett and V. Husain, Phys. Rev. D 84, 104031 (2011); C. Barcelo, R. C.-Rubio, L. J. Garay, Universe 2016, 2(2), 7; X. Calmet, R. Casadio, F. Kuipers, Phys. Lett. B 807, 135605 (2020); E. Bittencourt, A. G. Cesar, J. P. Pereira, JCAP 12, 037 (2023)

    2011

  71. [80]

    Mosani, D

    K. Mosani, D. Dey, P. S. Joshi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044052 (2020)

    2020

  72. [81]

    Satin, D

    S. Satin, D. Malafarina, P. S. Joshi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25, 1650023 (2016)

    2016

  73. [82]

    P. S. Joshi, I. H. Dwivedi, Lett. Math. Phys. 27, 235 (1993)

    1993

  74. [83]

    P. S. Joshi, Pramana J. Phys. 69, 119 (2007)

    2007

  75. [84]

    Harada, H

    T. Harada, H. Iguchi, M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 68, 024002 (2003); C. L. Fryer, K. C. B. New, Living Rev. Relativ. 14, 1 (2011)

    2003

  76. [85]

    Harada, Pramana J

    T. Harada, Pramana J. Phys. 63, 741 (2004); J. M. Z. Pretel, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 726 (2020)

    2004

  77. [86]

    Ijjas and P

    A. Ijjas and P. J. Steinhardt, Class. Quantum Grav. 35, 135004 (2018); I. Banerjee, T., Paul, S. SenGupta, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 54, 119 (2022); L. Fabbri, Universe 8, 51 (2022); M. Z. Gul, M. Sharif, S. Shabbir, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 802 (2024)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.