Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 66 references

Wind-Finslerian structure of black holes

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Wind-Finslerian geometry describes the causal structure of black holes from the exterior through the horizon into the interior, with a single displaced indicatrix encoding all allowed null directions.

desk verdict The wind-Finslerian picture is appealing and the examples are solid, but the central claim that a single Lorentz-Finsler metric describes all interior null geodesics is false for the outgoing-dragged branch. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09536 v2 pith:UQD53DUA submitted 2025-01-16 gr-qc

Hengameh R. Dehkordi , Mauricio Richartz , Alberto Saa This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 53C6083C57
keywords FinslergeometryRandersmetricKropinaLorentz-FinslerZermelonavigationnullgeodesicsblackholehorizonsergosurfaces
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 the Finslerian description of null geodesics, previously limited to the exterior of stationary black holes, extends across the event horizon and into the interior. In the exterior, where the drift satisfies $||W||< 1$, the relevant metric is the Randers metric; exactly at the critical surfaces where $||W||=1$ — the event horizon in static cases and the ergosurface in stationary cases — it becomes the Kropina metric; and inside, where $||W||>1$, it becomes a Lorentz-Finsler metric. The load-bearing picture is the Finsler indicatrix, the set of allowed tangent directions for null geodesics, which is always the unit sphere or ellipsoid of the spatial metric with center displaced by the drift $W$. If this picture is right, every future-directed null geodesic in the Painlevé-Gullstrand form of these spacetimes is a geodesic of a single Finsler action, and the location of horizons, ergosurfaces, frame-dragging, and the one-way behavior of horizons all become geometric properties of one displaced ellipsoid.

What carries the argument

The central object is the wind-Finslerian structure attached to the Zermelo navigation problem: a Riemannian spatial metric $h_{ij}$ together with a drift vector field $W^i$, with $\lambda = 1 - ||W||^2$ controlling the regime. The paper's key visualization is the Finsler indicatrix (8), $h_{ij}(dx^i - W^i)(dx^j - W^j) = 1$, which is the unit ball of $h_{ij}$ with center displaced by $W$. This single object carries the argument: for $\lambda>0$ it is the indicatrix of the Randers metric, for $\lambda=0$ of the Kropina metric $F = h_{ij}dx^i dx^j/(2W_j dx^j)$, and for $\lambda<0$ of the first Lorentz-Finsler metric (6); the smooth matching of these three regimes across the critical surface is what lets null geodesics cross the horizon.

What would settle it

Integrate the Euler-Lagrange equations of the squared Lagrangian $L = F^2$ with $F$ given by (10) through $r = 2M$ for Schwarzschild and compare with the future-directed null geodesics of the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric: if any allowed null direction near the critical surface is not reproduced by the Finsler flow, or if the Finsler flow produces a curve the spacetime null congruence does not contain, the claimed equivalence is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper claims that wind-Finslerian mathematics gives a complete description of the causal structure of static and stationary black holes whose metric can be cast in Painlevé-Gullstrand form. For a static spherically symmetric spacetime with line element (14), the coordinate change (15) produces the Finsler metric (18) wherever the coordinates are defined; the sign of $\lambda = 1 - ||W||^2$ selects Randers ($\lambda>0$), Kropina ($\lambda=0$), or Lorentz-Finsler ($\lambda<0$) behavior, and geodesics pass smoothly through the horizon. For Kerr in Natario coordinates, the same structure holds: the ergosurfaces are the critical surfaces $||W||=1$, the horizons are $\Delta = 0$, and the indicatrix (35) is an ellipsoid displaced radially and azimuthally, with outgoing radial null geodesics blocked at the horizons. The central mathematical assertion is that the indicatrix (8), the unit ball of the spatial metric with center shifted by the drift, encodes all allowed null directions for every value of $\lambda$, and that the equation $F(x,dx/dt)=1$ is equivalent to the Euler-Lagrange equations of the action $S=\int F^2(x,\dot{x})\,dt$ even where the coordinate $t$ is not timelike.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the coordinate $t$ of the Painlevé-Gullstrand form can serve as a parameter for null geodesics and that the equation $F(x,dx/dt)=1$ is equivalent to the Euler-Lagrange equations of $S=\int F^2(x,\dot{x})dt$ even in the strong-drift interior where $t$ is not timelike; the paper attributes this equivalence to reference [7] but does not prove it here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any static spherically symmetric black hole in Painlevé-Gullstrand form, forward-in-time null geodesics are geodesics of the single Finsler metric (18) wherever the coordinates are valid, including across the horizon.
  • For Kerr in Natario coordinates, the indicatrix (35) is an ellipsoid displaced radially and azimuthally; the condition $||W||=1$ identifies the ergosurfaces and $\Delta=0$ the horizons, where outgoing radial null geodesics are blocked.
  • The strong-drift cone of allowed null directions has opening angle (46), equal to the Vavilov-Cherenkov cone angle, linking the interior causal structure to the kinematics of negative-frequency modes and superradiance.
  • In analog vortex flows, the same displaced-indicatrix construction places the trapping horizon at $r_h = A$ and the analog ergosurface at $r_e = \sqrt{A^2 + B^2}$, and in hydraulic jumps it describes the white-hole horizon.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical diagnostic the paper leaves implicit: for any Painlevé-Gullstrand metric, plotting the displaced unit ball (8) at each point immediately shows whether the point lies outside, on, or inside the critical surface, which could locate horizons and ergosurfaces without integrating geodesics.
  • The Martel-Poisson family (24) suggests that even regions where standard Painlevé-Gullstrand coordinates break down, such as Reissner-Nordström with negative Misner-Sharp-Hernandez mass, could be covered by a wind-Finsler structure; the paper notes this possibility but does not construct the full extension.
  • Because the cone angle (46) coincides with the Vavilov-Cherenkov angle, the strong-drift Finsler cone offers a quantitative threshold for superradiant amplification in analog systems; the onset of amplification should coincide with the cone opening, which draining-bathtub experiments could test.
  • If the equivalence behind (9) is accepted, ray-tracing codes could evolve null geodesics through the horizon with a single Finsler geodesic integrator rather than patching exterior and interior solutions, a computational consequence the paper does not mention.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper applies the recent mathematical theory of wind-Finslerian structures (weak, critical, and strong Zermelo navigation) to the causal structure of black holes. It shows that for stationary spacetimes in Painlevé-Gullstrand or Natario form, null geodesics are described by Randers, Kropina, and Lorentz-Finsler metrics depending on the value of λ = 1 - ||W||^2, and that the displaced Finsler indicatrix encodes frame-dragging, horizons, ergosurfaces, and the river-model picture. Explicit examples are given for Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordström, Kerr, and several analog-gravity systems, and the final remarks propose Fermat-type arguments and connections to superradiance.

Significance. The paper is a useful and mostly explicit bridge between recent pure-mathematical results on wind-Finsler structures and concrete black-hole physics. Its strengths are the transparent, parameter-free constructions of the Randers, Kropina, and Lorentz-Finsler metrics from the null condition in Eqs. (2), (4), (6), the systematic use of displaced indicatrices as diagnostic tools, and the physically interesting applications to horizons, ergosurfaces, the Misner-Sharp-Hernandez mass, and analog systems. If the branch-selection issue identified below is addressed, the paper would provide a valuable geometric visualization of the river model and a clean dictionary with the Zermelo navigation problem. The central ideas are worth publishing, but the claim that a single Lorentz-Finsler metric describes all future-directed null geodesics in the interior needs correction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (10), (18)] The claim that a single Finsler metric of the first Lorentz-Finsler type governs all null geodesics in the strong-drift interior is not supported. For the Schwarzschild Painlevé-Gullstrand metric, take a radial null geodesic with dr/dt = 1 - c, where c = sqrt(2M/r) > 1 for r < 2M. This satisfies ds^2 = 0 and lies in the domain A of Eq. (7), since W·dx = c(c-1) dt > 0. Substituting into Eq. (10) gives F(x,dr/dt) = (c-1)/(c+1) < 1, whereas F(x,dr/dt) = 1 holds only for the fast branch dr/dt = -c-1. The indicatrix equation (11) does contain both branches, but this is because Eq. (8) is the union of the indicatrices of the first and second Lorentz-Finsler metrics, not the indicatrix of the first metric alone. Consequently, the statements that "all information regarding geodesics ... is encoded in the Finsler metric (10)" and that the Lorentz-Finsler metric "describes the causal structure of the interior" need to be qualified: both Lorentz-Finsler metrics are required, one for each null branch. This also affects the smooth-matching claim, since the exterior outgoing branch continues to the interior slow branch, which is not a geodesic of the unified F given by (10)/(18).
  2. [Sec. V, final remarks] The argument that F(x,dx/dt) = 1 is equivalent to the Euler-Lagrange equations of S = ∫F^2 dt is incomplete and, for the first Lorentz-Finsler metric, false in the strong-drift regime. As shown above, F(x,v) = 1 selects only one of the two radial null branches, so the null condition and the Finsler geodesic equation are not equivalent for the other branch. The appeal to Ref. [7] does not resolve this as written, because the paper does not state that the strong-drift description requires a pair of Lorentz-Finsler metrics. The authors should either prove the equivalence for the full wind-Finsler structure, explicitly including the second Lorentz-Finsler metric, or restrict their claims to the branch represented by each individual F.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (7)] In Eq. (7), the set A is written as A = {x ∈ TxM : ...}; the first variable should be dx (the tangent vector), not a point x of the manifold.
  2. [Sec. III A, around Eqs. (39)-(40)] The term "blocked direction" should be defined explicitly as a tangent vector dxi = 0 that lies on the indicatrix; as written, "the origin of TxM" may be confusing, especially because the origin belongs to the indicatrix only in the critical case.
  3. [Sec. V, final remarks] In the final remarks, the statement that the Hamiltonian H equals L for L = F^2 is correct by homogeneity, but the sentence "F(x,dx/dt) = 1" should be qualified as holding only on the relevant null branch; otherwise the heuristic proof appears to claim more than is true.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the wind-Finslerian structure is imported from independent mathematical work, and the black-hole examples are explicit recomputations, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a dictionary: it takes known stationary/static metrics in Painlevé-Gullstrand or Natario form, reads off the spatial metric h_ij and drift W^i, and then applies the wind-Finslerian results of Ref. [7] (an external mathematical reference, not by the present authors) to identify the Randers, Kropina, and Lorentz-Finsler metrics. Equations (18), (25), and (35) are obtained by direct substitution into the Zermelo navigation formulas, not by fitting any parameter to data or by defining the target result into existence. The claimed equivalence F(x, dx/dt)=1 with the Euler-Lagrange equations of ∫F^2 dt is explicitly attributed to independent results in [7], and no part of the paper's own physical derivation reduces to an assertion of its own conclusion. The self-citations that appear (Refs. [22], [46], [51], [54]) are background remarks on Finsler applications and superradiance, and they are not load-bearing for the central causal-structure claims. Even if the interior strong-drift matching or the F(x,dx/dt)=1 equivalence were physically or mathematically contestable, that would be a correctness risk, not circularity. Hence the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no physical constants. The only hand-chosen number is the Martel-Poisson coordinate parameter p, which is shown not to affect the causal conclusions. The central claim leans on external mathematical theorems from [7] and on the existence of PG and Natario coordinate systems for the metrics studied.

free parameters (1)
  • p (Martel-Poisson coordinate parameter) = 0 < p <= 1
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (24) to define a family of time coordinates extending the Finsler description of Reissner-Nordstrom interiors. It is not fitted to data, and the paper shows the causal structure is independent of p.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Zermelo navigation with weak, critical and strong drifts is solved by Randers, Kropina and Lorentz-Finsler metrics respectively.
    Used from Section II, Eqs. (2), (4) and (6), with proofs in [5,7,23,24].
  • standard math Geodesics can be smoothly matched across the ||W||=1 surface when half-space and conic constraints hold.
    Invoked in Section II A to extend the description across horizons; established in [7].
  • domain assumption Null geodesics of a stationary spacetime in Painleve-Gullstrand form are Fermat geodesics of dt=F(x,dx) even when t is spacelike in the interior.
    The paper relies on this for all values of lambda; discussed heuristically in the final remarks and attributed to [7].
  • domain assumption The relevant metrics admit coordinate systems (Painleve-Gullstrand, Martel-Poisson, Natario) that are smooth across the regions studied.
    Used for Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr; for RN the PG coordinates are limited to r >= r0, and the Martel-Poisson p-family extends to r > r0*, as acknowledged in Section III A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wind-Finslerian structure of black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQD53DUA

@misc{pith2026250109536,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wind-Finslerian structure of black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQD53DUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09536}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, there has been an increasing interest in the Finslerian interpretation of null geodesics in the exterior regions of stationary black holes, particularly through the Zermelo navigation problem and the Randers metric. In this work, we show that recent mathematical advancements in wind-Finslerian structures, which involve the critical and strong Zermelo navigation problems and their connections to Kropina and Lorentz-Finsler metrics, enable the extension of the Finslerian framework to encompass horizons and their interior regions of black holes. The Finslerian indicatrix, a key element of this framework, serves as an effective tool for identifying frame-dragging effects and the location of horizons and ergosurfaces. We illustrate our results with explicit physical examples, focusing on spherically symmetric black holes, Kerr black holes, and analog models of gravity. Our findings provide new insights into the ``river model'' of black holes, offering enhanced visual representations of null geodesics on the ergosurfaces, horizons, and within their interior regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09536 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Depiction of the Finslerian indicatrices for the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Depiction of the Finslerian indicatrices for the er [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    [12] about the extension of the Finsler structure to the inte- rior of black holes

    for the main results and a comprehensive review) regarding the Zermelo navigation problem and its un- derlying wind-Finslerian structure can provide a com- plete description of the causal structure of black holes, answering affirmatively the question posed in Ref. [12] about the extension of the Finsler structure to the inte- rior of black holes. Such res...

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Finsler, ¨Uber Kurven und Fl¨ achen in allgemeinen R¨ aumen, G¨ ottingen University Dissertation (1918)

    P. Finsler, ¨Uber Kurven und Fl¨ achen in allgemeinen R¨ aumen, G¨ ottingen University Dissertation (1918). Reprinted by Birkh¨ auser (1951)

    work page 1918

  3. [2]

    Shen, Lectures on Finsler geometry , World Scientific (2001)

    Z. Shen, Lectures on Finsler geometry , World Scientific (2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [3]

    S. S. Chern, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 43, 959 (1996)

    work page 1996

  5. [4]

    Randers, Phys

    G. Randers, Phys. Rev. 59, 195 (1941)

    1941

  6. [5]

    Finsler Metrics with K=0 and S=0

    Z. Shen, Can. J. Math. 55, 112 (2003). [arXiv:math/0109060]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  7. [6]

    Zermelo, Z

    E. Zermelo, Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 11, 114 (1931)

    work page 1931

  8. [8]

    Wind Finslerian structures: from Zermelo's navigation to the causality of spacetimes

    E. Caponio, M. A. Javaloyes, and M. S´ anchez, Wind Finslerian structures: from Zermelo’s navigation to the causality of spacetimes, Memoirs AMS 300, 1501 (2024). [arXiv:1407.5494]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Bekenstein, Phys

    J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3641 (1993). [arXiv:gr- qc/9211017]

    1993

  2. [10]

    Caponio, M

    E. Caponio, M. A. Javaloyes, and A. Masiello, Math. Ann. 351, 365 (2011). [arXiv:math/0702323]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    G. W. Gibbons, C. A. R. Herdeiro, C. M. Warnick, and M. C. Werner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 044022 (2009). [arXiv:0811.2877]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Skakala and M

    J. Skakala and M. Visser, Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 065007 (2011). [arXiv:1012.4467]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Li and J

    Z. Li and J. Jia, Phys.Rev. D 109, 084035 (2024). [arXiv:2401.01532]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Caponio, M

    E. Caponio, M. A. Javaloyes, and M. S´ anchez, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 27, 919 (2011). [arXiv:0903.3501]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Perlick, Gen

    V. Perlick, Gen. Rel. Grav. 38, 365 (2006). [arXiv:gr- qc/0508029]

    2006

  8. [16]

    Mignemi, Phys

    S. Mignemi, Phys. Rev. D 76, 047702 (2007). [arXiv:0704.1728]

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gibbons, J

    G.W. Gibbons, J. Gomis, and C.N. Pope, Phys. Rev. D 76, 081701 (2007) [arXiv:0707.2174]

    2007 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Skakala and M

    J. Skakala and M. Visser, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 19, 1119 (2010). [arXiv:0806.0950]

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kouretsis, M

    A.P. Kouretsis, M. Stathakopoulos, and P.C. Stavrinos, Phys. Rev. D 79, 104011 (2009). [arXiv:0810.3267]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Skakala and M

    J. Skakala and M. Visser, J. Geom. Phys.61, 1396 (2011). [arXiv:1008.0689]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hohmann, Phys

    M. Hohmann, Phys. Rev. D 87, 124034 (2013). [arXiv:1304.5430]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Amelino-Camelia, L

    G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Barcaroli, G. Gubitosi, S. Liberati, N. Loret, Phys. Rev. D 90, 125030 (2014). [1407.8143]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dehkordi and A

    H.R. Dehkordi and A. Saa, Class. Quantum Grav. 36, 085008 (2019). [arXiv:1901.01176]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Yoshikawa and S

    R. Yoshikawa and S. V Sabau, Geometriae Dedicata171, 119 (2014). [arXiv:1209.0340]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sabau, K

    S.V. Sabau, K. Shibuya, and R. Yoshikawa, Eur. J. Math. 3, 1172 (2017). [arXiv:1808.02972]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    M. A. Javaloyes, E. Pendas-Recondo, and M. Sanchez, An account on links between Finsler and Lorentz ge- ometries for riemannian geometers , in: A. Alarc´ on, V. Palmer and C. Rosales (Eds.), New Trends in Geometric Analysis, RSME Springer Series, Vol. 10, pp. 259-303. Springer...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Thorne, R.H

    K.S. Thorne, R.H. Price, and D.A. MacDonald, Black holes: The membrane paradigm , Yale University Press (1986)

    1986

  20. [28]

    A. J. S. Hamilton and J. P. Lisle, Am. J. Phys. 76, 519 (2008). [arXiv:gr-qc/0411060]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Pfeifer and M.N.R

    C. Pfeifer and M.N.R. Wohlfarth, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044039 (2011). [arXiv:1104.1079]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Pfeifer and M.N.R

    C. Pfeifer and M.N.R. Wohlfarth, Phys. Rev. D 85, 064009 (2013). [arXiv:1112.5641]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Minguzzi, Monatsh

    E. Minguzzi, Monatsh. Math. 177, 569 (2015). [arXiv:1308.6675]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Minguzzi, Rev

    E. Minguzzi, Rev. Math. Phys. 31, 1930001 (2019). [arXiv:1709.06494]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Martel and E

    K. Martel and E. Poisson, Am. J. Phys. 69, 476 (2001). [arXiv:gr-qc/0001069]

    2001 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Visser and S

    M. Visser and S. Liberati, Gen. Rel. Grav.54, 145 (2022). [arXiv:2210.11057]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Garfinkle, G.T

    D. Garfinkle, G.T. Horowitz, and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3140 (1991); (Erratum) 45, 3888 (1992)

    1991

  28. [36]

    G. W. Gibbons, Commun. Math. Phys. 44, 245 (1975)

    1975

  29. [37]

    Y. Gong, Z. Cao, H. Gao, B. Zhang, Month. N. R. Astr. Soc. 488, 2722 (2019). [arXiv:1907.05239]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hiscock, Phys

    W.A. Hiscock, Phys. Rev. D 21, 2057 (1980)

    1980

  31. [39]

    Poisson and W

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

    1989

  32. [40]

    Hollands, R.M

    S. Hollands, R.M. Wald, and J. Zahn, Class. Quantum Grav. 37, 115009 (2020). [arXiv:1912.06047]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Faraoni and G

    V. Faraoni and G. Vachon, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 771 (2020). [arXiv:2006.10827] 12

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Misner and D.H

    C.W. Misner and D.H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. 136, B571 (1964)

    1964

  35. [43]

    Hernandez and C.W

    W.C. Hernandez and C.W. Misner, Astrophys. J. 143, 452 (1966)

    1966

  36. [44]

    Doran, Phys

    C. Doran, Phys. Rev. D 61, 067503 (2000). [arXiv:gr- qc/9910099]

    2000

  37. [45]

    Natario, Gen

    J. Natario, Gen. Rel. Grav. 41, 2579 (2009). [arXiv:0805.0206]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Superradiance – 2nd Ed., Lect. Notes Phys. 971 (2020). [arXiv:1501.06570]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Richartz and A

    M. Richartz and A. Saa, Phys. Rev. D 88, 044008 (2013). [arXiv:1306.3137]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Heaviside, Philos

    O. Heaviside, Philos. Mag. 27(167), 324. (1889)

  41. [49]

    I. M. Frank, Sov. Phys. Usp. 27, 385 (1984)

    1984

  42. [50]

    Ginzburg, Acoustical Physics 51, 1 (2005)

    V. Ginzburg, Acoustical Physics 51, 1 (2005)

    2005

  43. [51]

    Bekenstein and M

    J.D. Bekenstein and M. Schiffer, Phys. Rev. D58, 064014 (1998). [arXiv:gr-qc/9803033]

    1998 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Saa and M

    A. Saa and M. Schiffer, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 13, 1557 (1998). [arXiv:gr-qc/9805080]

    1998 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Svidzinsky, A

    A. Svidzinsky, A. Azizi, J. S. Ben-Benjamin, M. O. Scully, and W. Unruh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 063603 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Barcelo, S

    C. Barcelo, S. Liberati and M. Visser, Living Rev. Rel. 8, 12 (2005). [arXiv:gr-qc/0505065]

    2005 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Richartz, S

    M. Richartz, S. Weinfurtner, A. J. Penner and W. G. Un- ruh, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124016 (2009). [arXiv:0909.2317]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [56]

    M. J. Jacquet, S. Weinfurtner and F. K¨ onig, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A378, no.2177, 20190239 (2020). [arXiv:2005.04027]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    C. R. Almeida and M. J. Jacquet, Eur. Phys. J. H 48, 15 (2023). [arXiv:2212.08838]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Visser, Class

    M. Visser, Class. Quantum Grav. 15, 1767 (1998). [arXiv:gr-qc/9712010]

    1998 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Torres, S

    T. Torres, S. Patrick, A. Coutant, M. Richartz, E.W. Tedford, and S. Weinfurtner, Nature Physics 13, 833 (2017). [arXiv:1612.06180]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Porporato, L

    A. Porporato, L. Ridolfi, L. Rondoni, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023119 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Rousseaux, P

    G. Rousseaux, P. Maissa, C. Mathis, P. Coullet, T.G. Philbin, and U. Leonhardt, New J. Phys. 12, 095018 (2010). [arXiv:1004.5546]

    2010 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Schutzhold and W

    R. Schutzhold and W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 66, 044019 (2002). [arXiv:gr-qc/0205099]

    2002 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Barcelo, S

    C. Barcelo, S. Liberati and M. Visser, Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 2961 (2002). [arXiv:gr-qc/0111059]

    2002 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Visser and S

    M. Visser and S. Weinfurtner, PoS QG-PH, 042 (2007). [arXiv:0712.0427]

    2007 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Weinfurtner, S

    S. Weinfurtner, S. Liberati and M. Visser, Lect. Notes Phys. 718, 115 (2007). [arXiv:gr-qc/0605121]

    2007 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Skakala and M

    J. Skakala and M. Visser, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 189, 012037 (2009). [arXiv:0810.4376]

    2009 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.