Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Analytic models for gravitational collapse

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two exact, time-dependent mass functions describe the final stage of collapse to a Schwarzschild black hole: one forms an inverse-sixth-power singularity immediately, the other delays it to infinite time.

desk verdict Model I is a clean exact collapse model; Model II is undefined as printed due to a sign error and a missing factor of 1/2 in its defining function. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15868 v1 pith:IXSIT7ZG submitted 2024-11-24 gr-qc hep-th

Sinya Aoki , Jorge Ovalle This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C5783C75 PACS 04.20.Jb04.70.-s
keywords gravitationalcollapseSchwarzschildblackholeanalyticalmodelenergyconditionscurvaturesingularityintegrableEddington-Finkelsteincoordinatesdistributionalsolution
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 constructs two exact, time-dependent mass functions that describe the last stage of gravitational collapse inside a Schwarzschild black hole, starting from a static interior profile and ending at the vacuum solution. In the first model, the central curvature singularity appears as soon as collapse begins; in the second, the singularity is postponed and only sharpens to the Schwarzschild form in the infinite-time limit. Both models obey the null and weak energy conditions at all times as long as the collapse rate stays below a stated bound, and total energy is conserved exactly. If the construction is right, it gives analytic control over singularity formation in general relativity for this late-stage regime, without numerical simulation or exotic matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-dependent mass function $m(r,t)$ in Eddington-Finkelstein-type coordinates where a constant-$t$ hypersurface is spacelike everywhere. Model I sets $m(r,t)=M+[m(r)-M]e^{-\omega t}$, exponentially approaching the constant Schwarzschild mass. Model II replaces $r$ by $r e^{-\omega t}$ inside the static profile, giving $m(r,t)=2M g(r e^{-\omega t}/h)$ for $r e^{-\omega t}\le h$ and $M$ outside, so the interior profile is pulled toward $r=0$ as $t$ grows. The Einstein-tensor components in these coordinates are linear in $m$ and its first and second radial and time derivatives, which lets the energy density, pressures, and radiation flux be written in closed form; the energy conditions are then checked through a general criterion for non-diagonal energy-momentum tensors expressed in terms of combinations $A,B,C$.

What would settle it

Substitute $x=r/h$ into the mass function of Eq. (20) and compare $m(hx)/h$ with the printed $g(x)$ in Eq. (62); a direct calculation gives $m(hx)/h=x-x^3+x^4/2$ while the printed expression is $1/2+x-x^3+x^4/2$, so checking whether Model II still satisfies $m(h,t)=M$ and $m(0,t)=0$ determines whether the central claim stands as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the final, already-horizon-crossed stage of spherically symmetric collapse to Schwarzschild can be modeled exactly by promoting a static interior mass function $m(r)$ to a time-dependent $m(r,t)$. Model I takes $m(r,t)=M+[m(r)-M]e^{-\omega t}$; its Kretschmann scalar goes as $12h^2 r^{-6}(1-e^{-\omega t})^2$, so the inverse-sixth-power curvature singularity of Schwarzschild is present at any positive time. Model II takes $m(r,t)=2M g(r e^{-\omega t}/h)$ inside the shrinking region and $M$ outside, so the central mass $m(0,t)$ stays zero for all finite time, the curvature singularity is weaker than $r^{-6}$ during collapse, and the infinite-time limit is the Schwarzschild black hole in a distributional sense. Both models are shown to respect the stated energy conditions for bounded collapse rates, and the total energy is conserved exactly.

Load-bearing premise

Model II's conclusions rest on the identification of $g(x)$ in Eq. (62) with the ratio $m(r)/h$ of the static interior mass function in Eq. (20), with $x=r/h$; if that identification fails, the horizon matching and singularity behavior of Model II do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In Model I, $R_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}R^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\sim r^{-6}$ for any $t>0$, so the final Schwarzschild singularity is present from the start of this late-stage collapse.
  • In Model II the central mass is zero at all finite times and the singularity is weaker than $r^{-6}$, so the model describes a collapse whose singularity is reached only in the infinite-time limit.
  • The energy conditions translate into bounds on $\alpha=h\omega$: $\alpha\le 2$ for Model I and $\alpha\le 1$ (WEC) or $\alpha\le 3.13422$ (NEC/SEC) for Model II, making supermassive black holes collapse more slowly than stellar ones.
  • In both models the dominant energy condition is always violated, and the total energy remains exactly constant as black-hole mass plus matter energy.
  • The $t\to\infty$ limit of Model II is the distributional Schwarzschild spacetime whose stress-energy is concentrated at $r=0$, giving an analytic bridge from the collapsing interior to the standard singular solution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the shrinking-coordinate trick of Model II generalizes, the same scheme could produce collapse models with different singularity timings from other static interiors of the revisited Schwarzschild family.
  • The linearity of the field equations in $m(r,t)$ suggests that superposing time-dependent profiles could describe ongoing accretion onto an already formed horizon, not just the final settling into vacuum.
  • One testable extension would be to compute the outgoing radiation flux of Model II and ask whether the postponed central singularity leaves an imprint in gravitational-wave or lensing observables.
  • The bounds on $\alpha$ amount to a maximum collapse speed in units of the horizon radius; checking whether generic collapsing initial data respect these bounds would show how restrictive the analytic models are.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs two analytic, time-dependent mass functions intended to model the last stage of gravitational collapse toward the Schwarzschild black hole, starting from the static interior mass function m(r)=r-r^3/h^2+r^4/(2h^3) of the authors' earlier 'revisited Schwarzschild' solution. Model I, defined in Eq. (46), interpolates exponentially between the static interior and the Schwarzschild vacuum M, and is claimed to develop an r^{-6} Kretschmann singularity immediately for t>0 while satisfying NEC and WEC for collapse rates α=hω≤2. Model II, defined in Eqs. (61)-(64), is intended to keep m(0,t)=0, approach Mθ(r) as t→∞, and produce only a weaker r^{-4} curvature singularity at finite times, with WEC for α≤1 and NEC/SEC for α≤α0≈3.134. The paper also presents a general analysis of energy conditions for the non-diagonal, type-II energy-momentum tensor that arises in these dynamical models.

Significance. If the definitions are corrected, the paper provides exact analytic control of the late stage of spherically symmetric collapse, with explicit energy-condition bounds and a concrete illustration of how the strength of the central singularity depends on the choice of dynamical mass function. The Appendix A formalism for testing energy conditions with a non-diagonal energy-momentum tensor is a useful methodological contribution. A particular strength is that the energy-condition bounds are derived consequences of the assumed mass functions rather than fitted parameters, and all calculations are self-contained once the static interior is accepted. However, as printed, Model II is internally inconsistent, and this blocks the paper's central two-model comparison.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A.2, Eqs. (A24)-(A30)] The definition of Model II is internally inconsistent. Substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. (61) gives g(x)=x-x^3+x^4/2, whereas Eq. (62) expands to 1/2+x-x^3+x^4/2; the two differ by an additive constant 1/2. Consequently, with Eq. (62) in Eq. (63), m(0,t)=M, contradicting the text's statement that m(0,t)=0 and the limit in Eq. (65). Moreover, even if Eq. (62) is corrected to g(x)=[1-(1-x)^3(1+x)]/2, the time dependence x(t)=r e^{-ωt}/h in Eq. (64) makes m(r,t)→0 for every fixed r>0 as t→∞, again contradicting Eq. (65). The claims for Model II in Eqs. (66)-(67) and Table I are coherent only if x(t)=r e^{+ωt}/h and g(x)=[1-(1-x)^3(1+x)]/2, which is in fact the definition used implicitly in Appendix A.2. The authors must correct Eqs. (62) and (64) and re-derive all Model II results under the corrected mass function.
  2. [Appendix A.2, Eqs. (A24)-(A30)] The energy-condition bounds for Model II are obtained by evaluating α_-(x,0), i.e., by setting t=0 in the coefficients of Eq. (A25). Since those coefficients contain explicit factors e^{±ωt}, it is not immediately obvious that the minimum over x of the allowed α occurs at t=0 for all times. The authors should justify that the bounds in Table I hold for all t≥0, or state under what additional assumption they do. This is necessary because the energy-condition claims for Model II are part of the paper's central results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (51)] Equation (51) for the radiation flux ϵ in Model I is missing a factor 1/x. Substituting m(r) from Eq. (20) into Eq. (48) gives ϵ = α e^{-ωt}(1-x)^3(1+x)/(2κ r x), not α e^{-ωt}(1-x)^3(1+x)/(2κ r). This typo does not affect the energy-condition analysis but should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (59)] In the energy conservation check, the expression for E_matter in Eq. (59) does not obviously follow from Eq. (42) when ˙m≠0. From Eq. (42), -∫ r^2 T^0_0 dr contains a term proportional to ∫ ˙m dr, which does not vanish for the mass function of Eq. (20); the authors should clarify the sign conventions and the steps leading to Eq. (59).
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (65) and Fig. 4] Figure 4 and the surrounding discussion are inconsistent with the printed Eq. (64): with x(t)=r e^{-ωt}/h, the curves would not approach Mθ(r) as drawn. After correcting Eq. (64) to x(t)=r e^{+ωt}/h, the figure and the discussion should be checked for consistency.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] There are minor grammatical issues, such as 'such a singularity never appear' in the abstract; the verb should agree with 'singularity'. These do not affect the scientific content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the collapse models are explicit ansätze whose consequences are derived, not fits disguised as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is transparent. It takes an explicit static interior mass function (Eq. 20), promotes it to a time-dependent mass via explicit ansätze (Eq. 46 for Model I, Eqs. 61–64 for Model II), and then computes curvature scalars, energy conditions, and total energy directly from those definitions. No parameter is fitted to a target output; the energy-condition bounds (α ≤ 2, α ≤ α0) are derived inequalities from the stated mass functions. The singularity behavior is a property of the chosen mass functions, not a hidden reuse of an input. Reliance on Ref. [2] is a dependency on prior published work that is restated in this paper, not circular reasoning. There is an internal algebraic inconsistency in Model II—Eq. (62) does not equal m(r)/h from Eq. (20), and Eq. (64) with e^{-ωt} makes the limit in Eq. (65) fail—but this is a correctness issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameter is the collapse rate omega, constrained only by energy conditions. The main input is the prior static interior solution and two ad hoc time-dependent ansaetze.

free parameters (1)
  • omega (collapse rate) = not fitted; constrained by alpha = h*omega <= 2 for Model I WEC/NEC
    Introduced in Eqs. (46) and (63) as the rate controlling the time dependence. No data are used to fix it; energy conditions only place upper bounds.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Einstein gravity with ordinary matter only, as in action (7), and no electric charge or scalar field in the interior.
    The paper restricts to pure GR with LM representing ordinary matter, which excludes exotic sources but is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The static interior mass profile m(r) from Ref. [2], Eq. (20), satisfies the matching conditions m(h)=M, m'(h)=0 and can be promoted to a dynamical mass function.
    Relies on the prior paper by one author for the existence and physical acceptability of the revisited Schwarzschild interior.
  • domain assumption Constant-t hypersurfaces inside the horizon are spacelike, so t can be regarded as a time coordinate for the collapse.
    Stated after Eq. (25); used when interpreting energy conditions 'at all times'.
  • ad hoc to paper The ansatz m(r,t)=M+[m(r)-M]e^{-omega t} and the rescaling x -> r e^{-omega t}/h are valid dynamical generalizations, rather than being derived from a matter Lagrangian.
    These forms are chosen as simplest possible, not derived from equations of motion or microphysics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytic models for gravitational collapse." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IXSIT7ZG

@misc{pith2026241115868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytic models for gravitational collapse},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IXSIT7ZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15868}
}
abstract

We present two analytical models of gravitational collapse toward the Schwarzschild black hole, starting from the interior of the revisited Schwarzschild solution recently reported in [Phys. Rev. D 109, 104032 (2024)]. Both models satisfy some energy conditions at all times as long as the collapse is slower than some limit. While a singularity of the Schwarzschild black hole at the origin ($R_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}R^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\sim r^{-6}$) forms immediately after the start of the collapse in one model, such a singularity never appear at finite time during the collapse (except $t\to\infty$) in the other model. The scheme used shows great potential for studying in detail the appearance of singularities in general relativity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15868 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We would like to conclude by highlighting that the inner region can extend even beyond what is described in Ref. [2], thus offering many possibilities. This will be particularly important for gravitational collapse models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Gravitational collapse and formation of singulari [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Mass function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    − C 2X i=1 eµ i eν i , (33) where eµ 1 = ℓµ + sµ √ 2 = 3 − u 2 √ 2 δµ 0 − 1 − u 2 √ 2 δµ 1 , eµ 0 = −ℓµ + sµ √ 2 = 3 + u 2 √ 2 δµ 1 − 1 + u 2 √ 2 δµ 0 . (34) The components of the energy momentum tensor in the the orthonormal basis can be found by Tij = eµ i eν jTµν , (35) which explicitly reads T01 = T01 = B 2 = ˙m κr2 , (36) T11 = A − B 2 = 2m′ − ˙m κr2...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The mass function Eq

    Since the region of r satisfying x(t) ≤ 1 shrink to r = 0 as t → ∞, R = 0 ( r ̸= 0) and Rµνσρ Rµνσρ = 12 h2r−6 (r ̸= 0) in this limit. The mass function Eq. (65) generates non-zero energy momentum tensor only at r = 0 in terms of the delta function [36], which agrees with the result by the distri- butional method [37, 38]. The total energy is evaluated si...

    work page

  3. [3]

    − C 2X i=1 eµ i eν i , (A1) where eµ i satisfies gµνeµ i eν j = ηij = diag( −1, 1, 1, 1) for i, j = 0 , 1, 2, 3. Using a future-directed vector vµ :=P3 i=0 aieµ i , whose norm is given by vµvµ = −c2 0 with c0 = 1 for a normalized time-like vector or c0 = 0 for a null vector, we have Tµνvµvν = A − B 2 − C R2 + BR2f (s) + Cc 2 0, (A2) where f (s) = s2 + s √...

    work page

  4. [4]

    NEC: The null energy condition is given for c0 = 0 as (A − B − C) R2 ≥ 0 ⇒ A − B − C ≥ 0

    (A4) Let us consider various energy conditions in terms of A, B, C. NEC: The null energy condition is given for c0 = 0 as (A − B − C) R2 ≥ 0 ⇒ A − B − C ≥ 0. (A5) 3 Conditions obtained in this appendix agree with those from a general method in Refs. [33, 39]. 8 WEC: The weak energy condition is obtained for c0 = 1 as (A − B − C) R2 + C ≥ 0 (A6) with c0 ≤ ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Energy conditions for the model I The model I with m(r) = r−r3/h2 +r4/2h3 in Eq. (20) leads to A − B = e−ωt(1 − x)2 κr2 [−b0(x)α + c0(x)] , (A15) C = − e−ωtx(1 − x) κr2 a1(x)α2 − b1(x)α + c1(x) , (A16) A − B − C = e−ωt(1 − x) 2κr2 a2(x)α2 − b2(x)α + c2(x) , (A17) where 0 ≤ x := r/h ≤ 1, 0 ≤ α = hω, and b0(x) = (1 − x)(1 + x), c0(x) = 2(1 + 2x), a1(x) = (1...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Energy conditions for the model II In the model II with Eq. (20), we have A − B = 2(1 − x)2(2x + 1) κr2 [−b0(x)α + c0(x, t)] , C = − x(1 − x) κr2 a1(x, t)α2 − b1(x)α + c1(x, t) , A − B − C = (1 − x) 2κr2 a2(x, t)α2 − b2(x)α + c2(x, t) , (A24) where b0 = x, c0 = eωt, a1 = e−ωtx b1 2 , b1 = 2(8 x2 − x − 1), c1 = 6eωtx, a2 = xa1, b2 = 12x3, c2 = 2eωt(x2 + x ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Summary We summarize the requirement by various energy con- ditions for α = hω, which controls a speed of gravita- tional collapse in Table I. TABLE I. The allowed range of α = hω ≥ 0 for various energy conditions. The symbol − means no allowed range exists, and α0 = 3.13422. Type of model NEC WEC SEC DEC Type I α ≤ 2 α ≤ 2 α = 0 − Type II α ≤ α0 α ≤ 1 α ≤ α0 −

    work page

  8. [8]

    Penrose, Phys

    R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 57 (1965)

    1965

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Ovalle, Phys

    J. Ovalle, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104032 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Penrose, Riv

    R. Penrose, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 1, 252 (1969)

    1969

  3. [11]

    Casadio, A

    R. Casadio, A. Kamenshchik, and J. Ovalle, Phys. Rev. D 110, 044001 (2024), arXiv:2407.14130 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Schwarzschild, Sitzungsber

    K. Schwarzschild, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) 1916, 189 (1916)

    1916

  5. [13]

    A. S. Eddington, Nature 113, 192 (1924)

    1924

  6. [14]

    Lemaitre, Annales Soc

    G. Lemaitre, Annales Soc. Sci. Bruxelles A 53, 51 (1933)

    1933

  7. [15]

    Finkelstein, Phys

    D. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. 110, 965 (1958)

    1958

  8. [16]

    M. D. Kruskal, Phys. Rev. 119, 1743 (1960)

    1960

  9. [17]

    Szekeres, Publ

    G. Szekeres, Publ. Math. Debrecen 7, 285 (1960)

    1960

  10. [18]

    Maeda, Class

    H. Maeda, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 085014 (2023), arXiv:2210.10795 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ovalle, Phys

    J. Ovalle, Phys. Rev. D95, 104019 (2017), arXiv:1704.05899 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ovalle, Phys

    J. Ovalle, Phys. Lett. B788, 213 (2019), arXiv:1812.03000 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 031103 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0506126

    2006 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bardeen, Tbilisi : Pub

    J. Bardeen, Tbilisi : Pub. House of Tbilisi University, 87B (1968),

    1968

  15. [23]

    Simpson and M

    A. Simpson and M. Visser, JCAP 03, 011 (2022), arXiv:2111.12329 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Poisson and W

    E. Poisson and W. Israel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1663 (1989)

    1989

  17. [25]

    Poisson and W

    E. Poisson and W. Israel, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1796 (1990)

    1990

  18. [26]

    Ori, Phys

    A. Ori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 789 (1991)

    1991

  19. [27]

    Bonanno, A.-P

    A. Bonanno, A.-P. Khosravi, and F. Saueressig, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124027 (2021), arXiv:2010.04226 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Carballo-Rubio, F

    R. Carballo-Rubio, F. Di Filippo, S. Liberati, C. Pacilio, and M. Visser, JHEP 05, 132 (2021), arXiv:2101.05006 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Carballo-Rubio, F

    R. Carballo-Rubio, F. Di Filippo, S. Liberati, C. Pacilio, and M. Visser, JHEP 09, 118 (2022), arXiv:2205.13556 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Franzin, S

    E. Franzin, S. Liberati, J. Mazza, and V. Vellucci, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104060 (2022), arXiv:2207.08864 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Casadio, A

    R. Casadio, A. Giusti, and J. Ovalle, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124026 (2022), arXiv:2203.03252 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bonanno, A.-P

    A. Bonanno, A.-P. Khosravi, and F. Saueressig, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024005 (2023), arXiv:2209.10612 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Casadio, A

    R. Casadio, A. Giusti, and J. Ovalle, JHEP 05, 118 (2023), arXiv:2303.02713 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    McMaken, Phys

    T. McMaken, Phys. Rev. D 107, 125023 (2023), arXiv:2303.03562 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    V. N. Lukash and V. N. Strokov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1350007 (2013), arXiv:1301.5544 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. Aoki, T. Onogi, and S. Yokoyama, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, 2150201 (2021), arXiv:2010.07660 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Aoki and T

    S. Aoki and T. Onogi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37, 2250129 (2022), arXiv:2201.09557 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    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, 2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    Martin-Moruno and M

    P. Martin-Moruno and M. Visser, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 125003 (2018), arXiv:1802.00865 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Maeda and T

    H. Maeda and T. Harada, Class. Quant. Grav.39, 195002 (2022), arXiv:2205.12993 [gr-qc]. 10

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    R. J. Adler, J. D. Bjorken, P. Chen, and J. S. Liu, Am. J. Phys. 73, 1148 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0502040

    2005 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Kawai and Y

    H. Kawai and Y. Yokokura, Phys. Rev. D 105, 045017 (2022), arXiv:2108.02242 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    S. Aoki, T. Onogi, and S. Yokoyama, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, 2150098 (2021), arXiv:2005.13233 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Balasin and H

    H. Balasin and H. Nachbagauer, Class. Quant. Grav. 10, 2271 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9305009

    1993 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Balasin and H

    H. Balasin and H. Nachbagauer, Class. Quant. Grav. 11, 1453 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9312028

    1994 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Maeda and C

    H. Maeda and C. Martinez, PTEP 2020, 043E02 (2020), arXiv:1810.02487 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.