How to distinguish an actual astrophysical magnetized black hole mimicker from a true (theoretical) black hole

A. Mitra; C. Corda; H. J. Mosquera Cuesta

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 82 references

How to distinguish an actual astrophysical magnetized black hole mimicker from a true (theoretical) black hole

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For an ultracompact black-hole mimicker, general relativity reverses the magnetic pole: the equatorial field exceeds the polar field by roughly $z_s/\ln z_s$.

desk verdict The paper's seed idea—an angular asymmetry in the dipole field of ultracompact objects—is worth a moment, but the advertised z/ln z scaling is wrong by a factor z and the printed equations contradict themselves. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06815 v3 pith:X3QTEBHE submitted 2019-08-07 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

A. Mitra , C. Corda , H. J. Mosquera Cuesta This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE MSC 83C5783C5083C35 PACS 04.40.Dg97.80.Jp97.60.Gb95.86.Nv

keywords blackholemimickersMECOsurfacegravitationalredshiftrelativisticdipolemagneticfieldangularasymmetrygravitational-waveechoesphotonsphereshadowX-raybinaries

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 argues that a horizonless ultracompact "black-hole mimicker" — an object with radius just above $2M$ and no event horizon — imprints a distinctive angular pattern on its magnetic field that could identify it as a mimicker rather than a true black hole. Using general-relativistic dipole formulas, it claims that for surface redshift $z_s\gg1$ the polar magnetic field becomes weaker than the equatorial field by a factor of order $z_s/\ln z_s$, in direct contrast to the Newtonian dipole where the pole is twice as strong (Eq. 40). This angular asymmetry supplements the well-known radial test ($B\sim r^{-1}$ for plasma around a true black hole versus dipole $B\sim r^{-3}$ for a magnetized mimicker) and gives observers a way to use magnetic-field structure rather than shadows or gravitational-wave ringdown, neither of which has yet directly detected an event horizon. If it holds, the result also explains how a highly magnetized mimicker could masquerade as a weakly magnetized, atoll-type neutron star in X-ray binaries.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the general-relativistic dipole magnetic field of a static, spherically symmetric compact object, written in local tetrads as $B_\theta=(\mu\sin\theta/r^3)F_1(x)$ and $B_r=(2\mu\cos\theta/r^3)F_2(x)$, with $x=r/2M$ and the functions $F_1(x),F_2(x)$ given in Eqs. (27)–(30). In the ultracompact limit ($z\gg1$, so $x=1+\epsilon$), these functions force the field into the un-Newtonian pattern $B_e\propto z_s$ versus $B_p\propto \ln z_s$. The named object class is the black-hole mimicker (BHM), and specifically the Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object (MECO): a horizonless, radiation-pressure-supported plasma ball with $R\approx2M$. The machinery's job is to turn a surface redshift — a quantity the object's size sets — into a predicted, measurable angular magnetic asymmetry.

What would settle it

Recompute the relativistic dipole functions from a known spacetime and check whether $B_\theta$ and $B_r$ reduce to $\mu\sin\theta/r^3$ and $2\mu\cos\theta/r^3$ as $r\to\infty$; a consistent derivation that preserves the Newtonian factor of two for all finite $z_s$, or a polarimetric observation of a black-hole candidate whose polar field is not suppressed by $\sim z_s/\ln z_s$ relative to the equator, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central new claim is that general relativity reverses the dipole's pole-to-equator ordering for ultracompact objects. For a mimicker with radius $R=(1+\epsilon)2M$, $\epsilon\ll1$, the surface redshift is $z_s\approx\epsilon^{-1/2}$, and near the surface the relativistic dipole functions behave as $F_1\sim 3z_s$ and $F_2\sim 6\ln z_s$. Consequently, the equatorial field is $B_e\sim 3\mu z_s/R^3$ while the polar field is $B_p\sim 12\mu\ln z_s/R^3$, giving $B_e/B_p\sim (1/4)z_s/\ln z_s$ (Eq. 40). For $z_s=10^{10}$, this makes the polar field about eight orders of magnitude weaker than the equatorial field, so a mimicker that is a magnetar-strength dipole at its equator would read as an extremely weak-field pulsar near its poles. The paper offers this angular asymmetry, together with the radial falloff pattern, as an observational signature that could distinguish a true event-horizon black hole from a magnetized black-hole mimicker such as a MECO.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that horizonless objects with surface redshift $z_s$ up to $10^8$\u2013$10^{10}$ can exist in nature, which rests on the contested MECO scenario; a second supporting premise is that Eqs. (27)–(30), as printed, give the correct relativistic dipole field, even though they do not reduce to the flat-space dipole at infinity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A two-part observational test becomes available: measure both the radial falloff and the angular equator-pole contrast of magnetic fields around black-hole candidates.
For $z_s=10^{10}$, a mimicker with equatorial magnetar strength ($\sim10^{16}$ G) would display polar fields of order $10^8$ G, making it look like a weakly magnetized atoll neutron star.
Any compact object with radius $R\le3M$ produces the same photon-sphere shadow, so shadow images alone cannot rule out mimickers; magnetic-field mapping is a complementary discriminator.
Late-time gravitational-wave echoes, if real, are naturally read as the signature of a physical surface rather than an event horizon, aligning with the mimicker picture.
The same angular mechanism implies that the no-hair idea is not the end of the story for horizonless compact objects, which can carry a dipole field that encodes their surface redshift.

Reading between the lines

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

A numerical test is within reach: general-relativistic force-free or particle-in-cell simulations of a magnetosphere around a $R\approx2M$ body could compute the equator-to-pole field ratio self-consistently, including plasma currents, and check the $z_s/\ln z_s$ scaling.
The same reversal, if it exists at moderate redshifts, might be sought in neutron-star hotspots: a softening of the standard factor of two as surface redshift increases would be a milder version of this effect.
If the printed dipole functions (27)–(30) are corrected to satisfy the flat limit at infinity, the numerical factors in Eqs. (38)–(40) may shift; the qualitative equator-over-pole reversal, however, is driven by the $z$ versus $\ln z$ growth and would survive as long as $F_1$ grows linearly while $F_2$ grows logarithmically.
The MECO hypothesis is the contested part; without objects at $z_s\sim10^8$\u2013$10^{10}$, the observational window for the extreme version of the contrast is closed, though the angular asymmetry may remain at smaller $z_s$.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The central quantitative claim of this paper does not survive contact with its own equations. The advertised result, that the polar field is weaker than the equatorial field by z_s/ln z_s, is off by a factor of z_s. Once the Schwarzschild vacuum Maxwell problem is solved consistently from the quoted dipole formulas, you get Be/Bp ~ (1/4) z_s^2/ln z_s, not (1/4) z_s/ln z_s. For z_s = 10^10 the illustrative Bp/Be ~ 10^-8 becomes ~10^-18. That is not a minor slip; it changes the headline number by ten orders of magnitude in the example.

To be fair, the paper does contain a real and interesting qualitative seed: for sufficiently relativistic compact objects, the polar dipole field can be weaker than the equatorial field, contrary to the Newtonian expectation. I have not seen that point made clearly before, and it is a useful remark. The paper also correctly reminds readers that no observation to date has directly detected an event horizon, and that the shadow of an ideal BH is the lensed shadow of the photon sphere rather than the horizon itself.

But the soft spots are serious. First, Eq. (33) as printed gives F1 ~ (3 - 12 ln z)/z, which tends to zero, not to 3z; the text's claim that the 3/sqrt(epsilon) term dominates is simply not there. Second, Eq. (29) does not reduce to the flat-space dipole at large x—it diverges as -6x—so Eqs. (42)-(43), which claim F1,F2 -> 1, are inconsistent with the formula the paper relies on. Re-solving the ODE gives F1 ~ 3z^2 and F2 ~ 6 ln z near the surface, which is why the ratio comes out different. So the paper's main quantitative conclusion is not supported by its own quoted equations.

The surrounding review material is also one-sided. The MECO/Bel framework is presented as established rather than as a contested minority position, and much of the supporting astrophysical argument rests on self-citations to Mitra's prior work. That does not by itself invalidate the paper, but it makes the advocacy sections harder to trust.

Who gets value from this? Someone working on GR electrodynamics of ultracompact objects might want to check the corrected asymptotic for themselves, because the qualitative angular asymmetry is real. But this version should not be cited for the z/ln z scaling. It needs a major correction before it is referee-ready. If the authors fix the expansion and recompute, a short paper on the z^2/ln z asymmetry could get a fair hearing. As is, I would desk reject, not send to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper argues that current observations cannot establish the existence of event horizons: LIGO ringdowns are attributed to photon-sphere oscillations, putative GW echoes to horizonless surfaces, and the EHT shadow to the lensed photon sphere. It then surveys evidence for strong organized magnetic fields around black hole candidates and advocates the MECO picture. The new technical result is in Section 8: for an ultracompact BHM with surface redshift z_s >> 1, the general-relativistic dipole field is claimed to have a polar field weaker than the equatorial field by a factor ~ z_s / ln z_s, and the authors propose using this angular asymmetry, together with the radial falloff, to distinguish BHMs from true black holes.

Significance. If the z_s / ln z_s asymmetry is correct, it is a concrete, falsifiable prediction for the magnetosphere of any horizonless ultracompact object, and it sharpens the earlier radial-falloff test suggested by Lobanov. Section 8 is grounded in standard GR Maxwell equations, and the proposed observational discriminant is the kind of signature that could in principle be tested. The paper's significance is limited by three things: the printed dipole formulas are internally inconsistent; the existence of MECO-type objects with z_s up to 10^10 is an unestablished premise; and the final anti-black-hole conclusion imports results (Bel's M = 0 horizon claim) that are not derived here. With the calculation corrected and the claims tempered, the conditional asymmetry result would be a useful contribution to the BHM discussion.

major comments (3)

[Section 8, Eq. (29)] The printed F1 is not the magnetic-dipole solution in Schwarzschild. A direct integration of (f a')' = 2a/x^2 for A_phi = a(x) sin^2 theta, normalized so that F1 and F2 tend to unity at infinity, gives F1 = x^2 sqrt(1 - x^{-1}) [6x ln(1 - x^{-1}) + 3x/(x - 1) + 3], whose near-horizon limit is F1 ~ 3z, not 3z^2; the printed Eq. (29) instead behaves as 6 sqrt(epsilon) ln epsilon + 3 sqrt(epsilon) and diverges as -6x for x to infinity, contradicting Eqs. (42)-(43). Thus the z / ln z asymmetry is recoverable from a corrected formula, but the equations as printed do not support it.
[Section 8, Eqs. (33)-(36)] The assertion that the RHS of Eq. (33) is dominated by the 3 / sqrt(epsilon) term is arithmetically inconsistent with the printed Eq. (33), which contains 3 sqrt(epsilon) and tends to -(12 ln z)/z. The table row F1 ~ 3 z_s and the estimates in Eqs. (38)-(41) therefore do not follow from the printed derivation. In addition, the F2 column of the table matches Eq. (34), i.e. 6 ln z_s - 4.5, rather than the quoted Eq. (37), 6 ln z_s; this discrepancy should be reconciled.
[Section 10, final paragraph] The categorical statement that 'the so-called astrophysical black holes cannot be true black holes' is not a consequence of the Section 8 calculation; it requires the Bel result (Refs. [80]-[82]) and the MECO formation scenario (Refs. [6],[55]-[61]), neither of which is established or even summarized in this manuscript. The dipole asymmetry is a conditional statement about BHMs with z_s >> 1, and the conclusion should be restricted accordingly unless the missing argument is supplied.

minor comments (3)

[Section 1, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) contains 'e = 0'; this should read 'epsilon = 0'.
[Figure 1.1 caption] The caption 'A picture of the same thing looking the other way!' is not appropriate for a journal article and should be replaced with a descriptive caption.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors and artifacts ('impenance', 'nassive outflows', 'atoll type', and the malformed table entry '106 .02'); a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The main magnetic-asymmetry calculation is not circular, but the broader "no true BHs, only MECOs" conclusion rests on load-bearing self-citation.

self citation load bearing [Section 5, paragraph introducing MECOs; refs [6] and [55-61]]
"This theoretical vacuum was largely filled in 2000-10, and a much more solid framework was realized for existence of quasi-static ultra-magnetic compact objects, the so-called Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs), see [6] and [55-61]."

The paper applies its Section 8 dipole calculation to real astrophysical black-hole candidates by presupposing that ultracompact objects with R about 2M, z_s up to 10^10, and strong intrinsic dipole fields exist as MECOs. That existence claim is not derived or tested here; it is imported from refs [6] and [55-61], which are all by the present first author or his close collaborators. The magnetic-field algebra in Section 8 is independent, but its astrophysical force depends on this self-cited MECO model, making the premise load-bearing rather than independently established.
uniqueness imported from authors [Section 10, Concluding Remarks, final paragraph]
"But way back in 1969, Bel showed that the event horizon actually behaves as a point singularity [80] implying that the latter corresponds to M = 0 and not M > 0 Bel (1969). The same result has been independently obtained from various other analyses too [81, 82]. Hence it is indeed highly likely that the astrophysical BH candidates are only BH mimickers..."

The paper's strongest conclusion, that astrophysical black holes cannot be true black holes, is not derived in this manuscript. It reduces to Bel's 1969 result plus refs [81] and [82], where [81] is the present first author's arXiv preprint and [82] is his book. The text calls these 'independently obtained,' but the author overlap means they do not provide external independent confirmation. This self-citation chain is load-bearing because it is what converts the magnetic-asymmetry proposal into a categorical argument against event horizons; without it, the paper's title-level thesis is unsupported.

full rationale

No by-construction circularity was found in the central quantitative claim of Section 8. Equations (27)-(30) are taken from prior literature as the starting point, and the ratio Be/Bp ~ (1/4) z_s/ln z_s follows from substituting the near-horizon limits (33)-(34) into those formulas; no parameter is fitted to data and no output variable is re-used as an input. The result is therefore an independent, if mathematically fragile, derivation. A separate correctness problem exists, however: the printed formula (29) does not reduce to the flat-space dipole at infinity as Eqs. (42)-(43) assert, and Eq. (33) with eps ~ z_s^{-2} tends to zero rather than to 3 z_s, so the claimed z_s/ln z_s scaling is not actually supported by the quoted formulas. That is an internal inconsistency, not circularity. The circularity concern is confined to the wrapper argument: the paper's broad conclusion that real BH candidates are magnetized MECOs and that true BHs cannot exist is imported from Mitra-authored references [6,55-61,81,82], with the final 'independent' confirmation in [81,82] coming from the same author. For that reason the overall score is 4 rather than 0-2, but the paper's own new magnetic-field calculation is self-contained enough not to warrant a score at the 'prediction reduces by construction' level.

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

The quantitative Section 8 result is parameter-free and rests only on standard GR dipole formulas. The paper's broader conclusion, that astrophysical black hole candidates are magnetized mimickers rather than true BHs, depends on the authors' own MECO framework and a non-standard reading of Bel's theorem, both of which are postulates rather than independently established results.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption General-relativistic dipole magnetic field components in Schwarzschild are given by Eqs. (27)-(30) with F1, F2 as defined, citing Refs. [3] and [72].
The new prediction is derived from these external formulas; if they are misprinted or inapplicable, the central claim fails.
domain assumption Ringdown and shadow observations probe the photon sphere and cannot reveal the event horizon, following Refs. [1], [2], and [5].
Used to argue no event horizon has been detected and that a BHM produces the same shadow as a true BH.
ad hoc to paper Collapsing massive objects halt near the photon sphere as Eddington-limited radiation-pressure-supported MECOs rather than forming horizons, as argued in Mitra's prior papers [6], [55]-[61].
This non-mainstream theoretical construct is the basis for claiming real BH candidates are magnetized mimickers; it is self-cited and not derived in this paper.
ad hoc to paper Bel (1969) shows the event horizon behaves as a point singularity with M=0, implying true BHs cannot exist (Refs. [80]-[82]).
Invoked in the Concluding Remarks to assert astrophysical BHs are necessarily mimickers; the claim is not derived here and is outside mainstream consensus.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How to distinguish an actual astrophysical magnetized black hole mimicker from a true (theoretical) black hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X3QTEBHE

@misc{pith2026190806815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How to distinguish an actual astrophysical magnetized black hole mimicker from a true (theoretical) black hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X3QTEBHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06815}
}

read the original abstract

We remind that the ring down features observed in the LIGO GWs resulted from trembling of photon spheres (Rp=3M) of newly formed compact objects and not from the trembling of their event horizons (R=2M). Further, the tentative evidences for late time echoes in GWs might be signatures of horizonless compact objects rather than vacuum black holes (BHs). Similarly, even for an ideal BH, the radius of its shadow is R_shad = \sqrt{3}Rp is actually the gravitationally lensed shadow of its photon sphere. Accordingly any compact object having R \geq R = 3M would generate similar shadow. Thus, no observation has ever detected any event horizon or any exact BH. Also note that the magnetic field embedded in the accreting plasma close to the compact object is expected to have a radial pattern of B \sim 1/r while the stronger BHM dipole magnetic field should fall off as B \sim 1/r3. Accordingly it has been suggested that one may try to infer the true nature of the so-called astrophysical BHs by studying the radial pattern of the magnetic field in their vicinity. But here we highlight that close to the surface of BHMs, the magnetic field pattern differs significantly from the same for non-relativistic dipoles. In particular, we point out that for ultra-compact BHMs, the polar field is weaker than the equatorial field by an extremely large factor of \sim z_s/lnz_s, where z_s>>1 is the surface gravitational redshift. We suggest that by studying the of radial variation as well as significant angular asymmetry of magnetic field structure near the compact object, future observations might differentiate a theoretical black hole from a astrophysical BH mimicker. This study also shows that even if some BHMs would be hypothesized to possess magnetic fields even stronger than that of magnetars, in certain cases, they may effectively behave as atoll type neutron stars possessing extremely low magnetic fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06815 by the authors.

**Figure 1.1.** A picture of the same thing looking the other way! [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.1.** The shadow of an astrophysical compact object [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

[80]

L. Bel, J. Math. Phys.10, 1501 (1969)

work page 1969
[82]

Mitra, The Rise and Fall of the Black Hole Paradigm

A. Mitra, The Rise and Fall of the Black Hole Paradigm. Pan Macmil- lan, New Delhi (2021). ISBN 978-9389104141 28

work page 2021
[6]

Mitra, MNRAS Lett

A. Mitra, MNRAS Lett. 367, L66 (2006)

work page 2006
[55]

Mitra, Found

A. Mitra, Found. Phys. Lett.13(6), 543 (2000)

work page 2000
[61]

Mitra and N

A. Mitra and N. K. Glendenning, MNRAS404, L50 (2010)

work page 2010
[1]

Cardoso, E

V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 171101 (2016)

2016
[2]

M. A. Abramowicz, W. Kluzniak W., J. P. Lasota, Astron. Astrophys.396, L31 (2002)

2002
[3]

V. L. Ginzburg, Soviet Phys.9, 329 (1964)

work page 1964

Show all 82 references

[4]

Lobanov, Nature Astron

A. Lobanov, Nature Astron. 1, 0069 (2017). 25

2017
[5]

K. S. Virbhadra, G. F. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D.62(8), 084003 (2000)

2000
[7]

Fender et al

R. Fender et al. Nature, 427(6971), 222 (2004)

2004
[8]

van den Eijnden et al., Nature562, 233 (2018)

J. van den Eijnden et al., Nature562, 233 (2018)

2018
[9]

Diaz Trigo et al., Astron

M. Diaz Trigo et al., Astron. Astrophys.616, A23 (2018)

2018
[10]

van den Eijnden et al., MNRAS Lett.473(1), L141 (2018)

J. van den Eijnden et al., MNRAS Lett.473(1), L141 (2018)

2018
[11]

Migliari, J

S. Migliari, J. C. A. Miller-Jones, D. M. Russell, MNRAS415(3), 2407 (2011)

2011
[12]

Migliari and R

S. Migliari and R. P. Fender, MNRAS366, 79 (2006)

2006
[13]

R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, MNRAS179, 433 (1977)

1977
[14]

LIGO Scientic Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phy. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

2016
[15]

Astrophys

The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al. Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

2019
[16]

S. S. Doeleman, et al. Nature455, 78 (2008)

2008
[17]

Abedi, H

J. Abedi, H. Dykaar, N. Afshordi, Phys. Rev. D96, 082004 (2017)

2017
[18]

Abedi , N

J. Abedi , N. Afshordi, JCAP11, 010 (2019)

2019
[19]

Q. Wang, N. Afshordi, Phys. Rev. D97, 124044 (2018)

2018
[20]

J. M. Comerford et al., Astrophys. J.849, 2 (2018)

2018
[21]

D. R. Wilkins, et al., MNRAS454, 4440 (2015)

2015
[22]

N. I. Shakura and R. A. Sunyaev, Astron. Astrophys.24, 337 (1973)

1973
[23]

Caballero and J

I. Caballero and J. Wilms, Mem. S. A. It.83, 230 (2012)

2012
[24]

Wang, Adv

J. Wang, Adv. Astron. 3424565, (2016)

2016
[25]

Yu. N. Gnedin, N.V. T.M. Natsvlishvili T.M., M. Yu. Piotrovich, N.A. Silantev, arXiv:astro-ph/0304158 (2003)

2003 arXiv
[26]

E. A. Karitskaya et al., arXiv:0908.2719v1 [astro-ph.SR] (2009)

2009 arXiv
[27]

R. P. Eatough et al., Nature501, 391 (2013)

2013
[28]

Zamaninasab, E

M. Zamaninasab, E. Clausen-Brown, T. Savolainen, A. Tchekhovskoy, Na- ture 510, 126 (2014)

2014
[29]

M. D. Johnson et al., Science,350, 1242 (2015). 26

2015
[30]

Marti-Vidal et al., Science348, 311 (2015)

I. Marti-Vidal et al., Science348, 311 (2015)

2015
[31]

Goldreich, W

P. Goldreich, W. H. Julian, Astrophys. J.157, 869 (1969)

1969
[32]

Schwinger, Phys

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

1951
[33]

Damour, Phys

T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D18, 3598 (1978)

1978
[34]

Mitra, K

A. Mitra, K. D. Krori, J. Cosmology17, 7604 (2011)

2011
[35]

Hoyle and W

F. Hoyle and W. Fowler, Nature197, 533 (1963)

1963
[36]

Hoyle and W

F. Hoyle and W. Fowler, MNRAS125, 169 (1963)

1963
[37]

Thorne, Phys

K. Thorne, Phys. Rev.139, B244 (1965)

1965
[38]

Morrison, Astrophys

P. Morrison, Astrophys. J.157, L73 (1969)

1969
[39]

P. A. Sturrock, Astrophys. J.170 , 85 (1971)

1971
[40]

P. A. Sturrock and C. Barnes, Astrophys. J.176, 31 (1972)

1972
[41]

L. M. Ozernoy and V. V. Usov, Astrophys. Sp. Sc.25, 149 (1973)

1973
[42]

V. L. Ginzburg and L. M. Ozernoi, Astrophys. Sp. Sc.50, 23 (1977)

1977
[43]

W. H. Sorrell, Nature291, 394 (1981)

1981
[44]

V. S. Berezinskii and V. L. Ginzburg, MNRAS194, 3 (1981)

1981
[45]

Belvedere and D

G. Belvedere and D. Molteni, Astrophys. J.263, 611 (1982)

1982
[46]

Stoner and R

R. Stoner and R. Ptak, Astrophys. J.297, 611 (1985)

1985
[47]

G. A. Shields, Nature305, 407 (1983)

1983
[48]

Cavaliere, E

A. Cavaliere, E. Giallongo, F. Vagnetti and A. Messina, Astrophys. J.269, 57 (1983)

1983
[49]

Camenzind, Astron

M. Camenzind, Astron. Astrophys.156, 137 (1986)

1986
[50]

V. M. Lipunov, Astrophys. Sp. Sc.132, 1 (1987)

1987
[51]

V. M. Lipunov and E. S. Gorbovskoy, MNRAS383, 1397 (2008)

2008
[52]

L. M. Ozernoi and V. V. Usov, Nature296, 48 (1982)

1982
[53]

W. H. Sorrell, Astrophys. Sp. Sc.85, 3 (1982)

1982
[54]

Molteni, Phys

Belvedere and D. Molteni, Phys. Scrip.T7, 163 (1984)

1984
[56]

Mitra, Found

A. Mitra, Found. Phys. Lett.15(5), 439, (2002). 27

2002
[57]

Mitra, MNRAS369, 492 (2006)

A. Mitra, MNRAS369, 492 (2006)

2006
[58]

Mitra, Phys

A. Mitra, Phys. Rev. D.74, 024010 (2006)

2006
[59]

Mitra, New Astron.12(2), 146 (2006)

A. Mitra, New Astron.12(2), 146 (2006)

2006
[60]

Mitra, Pramana,73(3), 615 (2009)

A. Mitra, Pramana,73(3), 615 (2009)

2009
[62]

Corda and H

C. Corda and H. J. Mosquera Cuesta Mod. Phys. Lett. A25, 2423 (2010)

2010
[63]

Mitra, Astron

A. Mitra, Astron. Astrophys. 257,807 (1992)

1992
[64]

S. L. Robertson and D. Leiter, Astrophys. J.565, 447 (2002)

2002
[65]

S. L. Robertson and D. Leiter, Astrophys. J. Lett.596, L203 (2003)

2003
[66]

S. L. Robertson and D. Leiter D., MNRAS350, 1391 (2004)

2004
[67]

Aharonian et al., Nature439, 695 (2006)

F. Aharonian et al., Nature439, 695 (2006)

2006
[68]

Zhang and F

R. Zhang and F. Guo, Astrophys. J.894, 117 (2020)

2020
[69]

R. E. Schild, D. J. Leiter and S. L. Robertson, Astron. J.132, 420 (2006)

2006
[70]

R. E. Schild, D. J. Leiter and S. L. Robertson, Astron. J.135, 947 (2008)

2008
[71]

Lovegrove, R

J. Lovegrove, R. E. Schild and D. Leiter, MNRAS412, 2631 (2011)

2011
[72]

S. L. Robertson and D. J. Leiter, arXiv:astro-ph/0603746v3 (2008)

2008 arXiv
[73]

P. D. Morley and I. Schmidt, Astron. Astrophys.384, 899 (2002)

2002
[74]

T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J.585, 930 (2003)

2003
[75]

Nathanail, E

A. Nathanail, E. R. Most and L. Rezzolla, MNRAS Lett.469, L31 (2017)

2017
[76]

de La Cruz, J

V. de La Cruz, J. E. Chase and W. Israel, Phys. Rev. Lett.,24, 42 (1970)

1970
[77]

J. L. Anderson and J. M. Cohen, Astrophys. Sp. Sc.9, Issue 146 (1970)

1970
[78]

A. E. Broderick and A. Loeb, Scientiﬁc American, May 21 (2013)

2013
[79]

Peng, J.-J

Q.-H. Peng, J.-J. Liu, C.-K. Chou, Astrophys. Sp. Sc.361, 388 (2016)

2016
[81]

Mitra, arXiv:1708.07404v3 (2018)

A. Mitra, arXiv:1708.07404v3 (2018)

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [80]

L. Bel, J. Math. Phys.10, 1501 (1969)

work page 1969

[2] [82]

Mitra, The Rise and Fall of the Black Hole Paradigm

A. Mitra, The Rise and Fall of the Black Hole Paradigm. Pan Macmil- lan, New Delhi (2021). ISBN 978-9389104141 28

work page 2021

[3] [6]

Mitra, MNRAS Lett

A. Mitra, MNRAS Lett. 367, L66 (2006)

work page 2006

[4] [55]

Mitra, Found

A. Mitra, Found. Phys. Lett.13(6), 543 (2000)

work page 2000

[5] [61]

Mitra and N

A. Mitra and N. K. Glendenning, MNRAS404, L50 (2010)

work page 2010

[6] [1]

Cardoso, E

V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 171101 (2016)

2016

[7] [2]

M. A. Abramowicz, W. Kluzniak W., J. P. Lasota, Astron. Astrophys.396, L31 (2002)

2002

[8] [3]

V. L. Ginzburg, Soviet Phys.9, 329 (1964)

work page 1964